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

K The essential Texts


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 68 in total
Fri, 21 Dec 2012 #1
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 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, 30 Sep 2013 #2
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

REVISITING THE 'ENDING OF TIME' series of K-Bohm DIALOGUES ( reader friendly re-edited) :
( Note: the full text versions are freely available on line at :
http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/expanded-list-...

1ST K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM

Tracing back mankind's wrong ('psychological') turning

JK: I would like to ask if ( the collective consciousness of ?) humanity has taken a 'wrong turn' in trying to become something ( quite different from what it actually is ?) inwardly. And the resulting inner conflict has been the root of all this ('going astray' inwardly) )

DB: If we could put ourselves in the place of these ancient people living a long time ago, how would you see that conflict?

K: Isn't it ( produced by ignoring or?) not being able to face the 'facts' and change them , but rather moving (outwardly) to something more and more and more.

DB: Well then, what would you say was the 'fact' that people couldn't stay with?

K: The Christians said, the 'original sin', but long before them, the Hindus had this idea of Karma...

DB: Well, whatever it was they tried to imagine something better. And technologically it worked (only too ) well ! They found new techniques to make things better and then they have extended this (inwardly) by saying said 'I too must become (inwardly) better, all of us must'.

K: Yes, inside 'becoming better'.

DB: Well I should thing it is natural for human thought to project this goal of becoming better ; it is intrinsic in the structure of thought : if it is good to become better outwardly then why shouldn't I become better inwardly ?

K: Is ( our self-centred thinking in terms of?) 'time' the factor?

DB: We still don't see how 'time' in itself will cause trouble.

K: It is the idea that inwardly we am trying to become something ( better than what I am now ?) in time.

DB: Most people would say that is only natural. What is 'wrong' about becoming better in time ?

K: In that there is ( the seed of an inner) conflict. When I am trying to become something (better inwardly) it brings about an ( inner ?) 'contradiction' .

DB: And the contradiction is...?

K: Between 'what one is' and the 'what one should be'. And (in time?) this is creating a (dualistic ?) 'centre'.

DB: So, then we are inwardly forcing ourselves to become something that we are not ?

K: That is a 'fact'. And has one's brain become so accustomed to ( this mentality of ?) conflict that one rejects any other form of living?

DB: Well that must have come later. After (constantly fighting for their own survival) these ancient people probably came to the conclusion that conflict is inevitable and necessary (at all the levels of their existence)

K: But we are going into the (inward) origin of all our misery, confusion, conflict, struggle - what is the beginning of it? That's why I asked at the beginning: has mankind taken a wrong turn? Is the origin our dualistic thinking in terms of 'I' and 'not I'?

DB: Well, that might be getting closer - the separation between 'I' and 'not I' .

K: Yes, and why has mankind created this 'I' ( self-centred consciousness?) , which must inevitably cause conflict? 'I' and 'you', and me doing better (than you), and so on ?

DB: I think this was an (innocent ?) mistake made a long time ago, or as you call it a 'wrong turn', that again having introduced separation between various things outwardly we then, not knowing better, kept on doing the same thing inwardly . Not by 'ill will' but simply not seeing what they were doing.

K: Is that the origin of all this?
DB: Well it seems close. What do you feel?

K: I am inclined to observe that the origin is this (self-interest based mentality that created ) the ego, the 'me', the 'I'. If there is no 'ego' there is no problem, there is no conflict, there is no (psychological) 'time' - in terms of becoming or not becoming, being or not being.

DB: But it might be that we would still slip into whatever it was that ( hidden cause that ?) made us make the 'ego' in the first place.

K: Is it (also because our original 'mind ?) energy' being so vast, limitless, has been narrowed down to an ( ego-centric ) mind, and the brain itself has become narrowed down because it couldn't contain all this enormous energy ?

DB: Here I don't quite see all the (logical) steps. You're saying that this ( Mind) energy was very broad, very big, and the human brain couldn't handle it, or it decided it couldn't handle it?

K: It couldn't handle it. (But going back?) why has the brain, with all its thought and so on, created this sense of 'me' ?

DB: Well, ( the primitive) man did certainly need a certain sense of identity in order to function properly , to know where he belongs.

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

DB: Yes, but I think that this ( 'Mind' ?) 'energy' that you were talking about also entered into it.

K: Yes, but I want to lead up to it slowly...

DB: Certainly what you say is right that in some way this ( identification with outer things ?) gradually strengthened, but yjis wouldn't explain the tremendous strength that the 'ego' has. It would only be a habit then. The 'ego' becoming completely dominant required that it become the focus of the 'highest' energy, of all our energy?

K: Is that it? That the human brain cannot hold this vast (Mind ) energy? I'd like to question ( the inward validity of ? ) evolution. I understand our ( outward ) evolution. say, from the bullock cart to the jet (plane) …

DB: Yes. And there is some evidence of man developing through a series of stages (erectus, sapiens...???) - you can't question that, can you?

K: No, of course not...

DB: I mean, it is clear that (our biological) evolution has occurred in some way, and the human brain has got larger, more complex. But probably you are questioning whether thinking of (our inward) evolution has any meaning ?

K: You see sir, I want to avoid ( the common thinking in terms of ) time 'psychologically', you understand?

DB: Yes, I understand.

K: To me this ( inner mentality of time?) is the (psychological ?) 'enemy'.

DB: Yes, this use of time certainly. Man had to use time for a certain purpose and (psychologically ) he has misused it.

K: Inwardly, that is what I am talking about. Is that this cause of man's ( existential?) confusion - introducing time as a means of ( self-improving ?) of becoming more and more perfect, more and more evolved, more and more (knowledgeable or even more) 'loving'? You follow what I mean?

DB: Well, I understand. Certainly if we didn't do that the whole ( self-centred mental ) structure would collapse.

K: Collapse, that's it. I want to go into that a little bit 'personally'. To me the idea of 'tomorrow' doesn't exist psychologically.

DB: Right...

K: That is, ( thinking in terms of?) 'time' is (intrinsically related to?) 'movement' - either inwardly or outwardly. The 'psychological' time and the (physical) time 'outwardly'.

DB: Yes. And there is a (very intimate?) relation between those two.

K: Now if my 'psychological' ( sense of continuity in?) time doesn't exist then there is no ( personal) conflict, there is no 'I' which is the origin of conflict. Do you understand what I am trying to get at? Outwardly we have certainly evolved - ( eg : all the modern advances of technology involved in ?) this ( tiny) microphone and so on. And 'psychologically' we have also moved 'outwardly' ( 'What you see...is what you get!') .

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

K: Yes. We have extended our ( mental?) capacities outwardly.

DB: Yes we have developed outwardly...

K: And our life inwardly is ( less or more?) the same movement as our life outwardly.

DB: Yes, whatever we do outwardly we also do inwardly. We have developed outwardly in a certain way through time and we have adopted the same ( mental ) mechanism for developing our inward structure.

K: Yes, now if there is no inward movement as 'time', (as constantly scheming ) to become more and more, then what takes place?

DB: When all this (self-projected ) movement of time ceases …

K: ... time 'ends'. You see (as of now ?) the outward movement is ( pretty much ?) the same as the inward movement.

DB: Yes. Whatever you do outwardly you must do inwardly. That seems correct.

K: And it is ( actually) the same movement.

DB: Yes. It is going around and around (in a loop)

K: Yes, yes, involving time. Now, if that inward movement ( of time-thought) ceases then what takes place? Could we put it this way: we have never touched any other movement ( inner dimension of being) than the outer movement.

DB: Yes, well generally we put most of our energy into the outward movements.

K: Outward, and psychologically is also outward ('me' interacting with the 'outer world'?) .

DB: Well it is the ( mirror) reflection of the outward movement.

K: We like to think it is 'inward' but it is actually outward – right?

DB: Yes...
K: Now if that movement ( of 'psychological' time?) ends, is there a really inward movement - movement not in terms of time?

DB: You want to say: is there another kind of movement?

K: Yes.

DB: Which still 'moves' but not in terms of time ?

K: That's right.

DB: Well, we have to go into that.

K: You see, (metaphorically speaking?) the human brain has been accustomed for centuries to go 'North' ( on the Highway of Self Interest ?) . And it suddenly realizes that this 'going North' is ( accumulating lots of psychological debris and/or ?) everlasting conflicts. As it realizes ( the hopelessness of its whole situation ?) it now ( turns around & ) 'moves East'. In that ( radical change of attitude ?) the brain itself is changing. Right?

DB: Well, something changes, yes.

K: The (inner) quality of the brain changes.

DB: All right. It will wake up to a different 'movement'.

K: Yes, different. I have been 'going North' all my life, and if there is a stoppage from going North then ( the old mentality based on self-interest & ?) conflict ceases. It is not moving in any (temporal) direction.

DB: All right. So the key point is the 'direction' of movement. When the movement is fixed in direction, inwardly it will come to conflict. But if it has no fixed direction then what is it doing? Is it moving in all directions?

K: Could one say when (in one's meditation?) one really comes to that state (of mental non-movement) , it is ( joining ) the source of all energy?

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

K: This is the real inwardness: when there is no outer and no inner (mental) movement.

DB: Yes, that would seem to stop all movement...

K: Would that be (joining ) the (innermost?) Source of all (our psychical?) Energy?

DB: Well, we could say that...

K: May I talk about myself a little bit? First of all, (a self-) conscious meditation is no meditation. Is there a ( meditator-free?) meditation which is not the ego trying to become something 'negatively' or 'positively' ?

DB: Now, before we go ahead could we suggest somewhat what this 'meditation' should be ?

K: A 'meditation' in which there is not a particle of ( personal ?) endeavour, of consciously trying to reach a (superior) level (of consciousness) and so on.

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

K: That is what I want to get at.

DB: Not looking for anything.
K: You see, what (often?) happens with me is that I wake up meditating...

DB: In that state.

K: And one morning, I woke up in the middle of the night, (and I hesitate to say this because it sounds extravagant ?) and the 'Source of all Energy' had been reached. And that had an extraordinary effect on the brain even physically. Sorry to talk about myself but I don't mind now (since ?) I am 'in it'. Literally there was no sense of division as "the world" and "me" and "That" - only this sense of tremendous Source of Energy.

DB: So the ( meditating) brain was in contact with this Source of Energy?

K: Yes. Now, as I have been talking for sixty years, I'd like other (people ?) to 'reach' this (Original Source ) - because then all our human problems are resolved, political, religious, because It is pure energy from the very beginning of time. This ( East-bound?) way leads to a complete sense of peace, love and all that...
Suppose you have come to That and your brain itself is 'throbbing' with It, how would you help me to come to That?

DB: Yes... ?

K: ( To recap:) The human brain has certainly evolved (biologically) . But...(as any material ) evolution implies (a long process of ?) time, it can only think and live in (terms of a 'horizontal continuity' in ?) time. Now for this brain to deny ( the validity of inwardly thinking in terms of ?) time is leading to a tremendously (inwardly creative) activity (based on ) having no (personal) problems'. ( More specifically?) any ( human) 'problem' that arises is immediately solved. It has no duration of a problem.

DB: Well is this ( New) situation self-sustained or is it (available only) for a limited period ?

K: It is sustained, obviously, otherwise there is no point in it. It is not sporadic, intermittent and all that.

Now ( in the context of holistic education?) how are you to 'open the door', how are you to help me to see that we have been going in the wrong ( psychological?) direction, there is only a ( free inner dimension of ?) 'non-movement', and if that takes place, you follow, everything will be correct ( will find its right place?) .

DB: Well ( reaching ?) that ( inwardly Creative ?) 'movement' would certainly make a big difference...

K: Sir, let's go back to what we began with. Can this 'wrong turning ' be completely reversed? Can my (temporal) brain which is so accustomed to this evolutionary idea, can it realize suddenly (that inwardly ?) there is no such thing as 'time'?

DB: Yes. I think it would be untrue to say the human mind (or consciousness?) has really evolved in time. But this seems to imply that the 'mind' is not originating in the brain and that perhaps the brain is an instrument of this Mind?

K:... (of ) the mind. And the Mind is not time.

DB: You mean that it does not evolve with the brain ?

K: Sounds odd ?

DB: It would sound odd to (the average materialistic ) person not used to it, but in the past people used to accept this idea ( of a Holy Spirit?) quite easily.

K: The mind not being of time, and the brain being of time - is that the (metaphysical ) origin of (all our inner/outer) conflicts?

DB: Well, we have to see why their (dual nature) produces conflict.
First of all, It is not so clear to say that 'the brain is of time', but rather 'it has developed in such a way that time is in it'.

K: Yes, that is what I meant...

DB: It has evolved in time so it has ( a linear order of ) 'time' within it.

K: Yes, 'time' is part of it.

DB: It has become part of its structure. And now, since the 'mind' operates without time, the brain is not able to do it (or to keep pace with it?).

K: Would that mean that 'God' is (unknowingly present ) in man and 'God' can only operate if the brain is quiet, if the brain is not caught in time ?

DB: Well, I was just saying that the brain having a (mental infra-) structure of time is not able to respond properly to the 'Mind'. That's really what seems to be involved there.

K: But can the human brain itself 'see' that it is caught in time and as long as it is moving in that (time-bound) direction its (existential) conflict is endless? You follow what I am saying?

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

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

DB: Couldn't we rather say the human brain is not totally caught in time, and therefore it can awaken and 'see' ?

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

DB: Not (completely) caught in time. Some (subliminal ?) function.

K: Can one say that the human brain, not being conditioned by time completely, there is a part of it... ?

DB: Well not (necessarily ) a 'part', but rather that the general tendency now is for time to dominate the brain, but this doesn't necessarily mean that it couldn't shift.

K: Yes. That is, can the brain dominated by time not be subservient to it?

DB: That's right. In that moment it comes out of (its old internal logic baseds on ?) 'time'. It is dominated (by time) only when you 'give it time' - the usual self-centred thinking is dominated by time, but anything (really) fast is not dominated.

K: Yes, that's right. So, what is the (triggering ?) factor that will make the brain see the way it has gone is not ( 'psychologically ?) correct' ?

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

K: Of course, of course. Because it is used to that (way of functioning) , for many centuries. How will you make the brain realize (the truth of ?) this fact?

DB: Well, I think one has to deny the very notion of 'time' in the sense of looking forward to the 'future', and (relying on our personal experience of the ) past.

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

DB: Or deny its 'independent' existence. You see we have the impression that Time exists independently of us and we are ( part of) this Stream and therefore it would seem absurd for us to deny it because that is all what we are, you see ?

K: Yes, quite. So it means really 'moving away' from everything that man has put together as a means of (reaching ) Timelessness.

DB: Well we can say that none of the methods that man uses outwardly are going to work in this regard, since (following ) any 'method' implies time.

K: Yes, quite. How will you or 'X' talk to a man who is caught in time and will resist it, fight it, he says, there is no other way, and so on, how will you convey this to him?

DB: I think that unless that person has ( seriously contemplated this issue?) and gone deeply into it, you are not likely to convey it at all...

K: So, as that cannot be conveyed through words, then what is a ( holistically responsible?) man to do? Would you (for starters ?) suggest to 'resolve' any (personal) problem immediately as it arises - because if you can't resolve it immediately, later on you may do the most foolish things.
Suppose I have a 'psychological' ( aka : a 'personal'?) problem: can the mind resolve it immediately- face it and end it ?

DB: Well, with a psychological problem, that is the only way. Otherwise we would be caught in the very source of the problem.

K: So, would that (earnest inward?) activity end the 'psychological' time we are talking about ?

DB : Only if we could bring this immediate action to deal with the (central) problem, which is the 'self'.

K: Sir, one is greedy, or envious, to ('see' and?) end immediately that ( particular?) greed or attachment, and so on, there are a dozen things. Will that not give a clue to the ending of time?

DB: Yes, because the ending of (any psychological continuity in ) 'time' is immediate – right?

K: Immediate, of course. Would this point out to (undoing?) the wrong turn that mankind has taken?

DB: Yes, because usully if one feels something is 'out of order' (inwardly ) then he then brings in the notion of time and the thought of becoming, and that creates endless problems.

K: Would that 'open the door' to this ( holistic?) sense that 'time' has no place inwardly? Wouldn't you say (that our everyday ) thought is a process of time? Because it is based on (our past) experience, knowledge, memory and (their active ) response, which is the whole (inner process of ?) of time.

DB: We have often (in other dialogues) discussed a different kind of thinking that would be a (natural) response to intelligence. But thought as we have generally known it is ( functioning ) in time.

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

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

K: Yes, but to me (personally ) thought 'is' time.

DB: Thought itself creates (its own continuity in ?) time, right.

K: Does it mean when there is no (more) time there is no thought?

DB: There may be another kind of thinking which is not dominated by time, you know, because we could still use thought to do a lot of (practical & theoretical) things. So, we have to be careful not to say that thought is always dominated by time.

K: I have to go from here to my ( next door ) house, that needs time, thinking, all the rest of it. I am not talking of that kind of ( material ) 'time'.

DB: So let's make it clear that we are talking of the ( inner activity of) thought whose content is of the order of the mind. And this kind of thought clearly 'is' time.

K: Yes. Would you say that knowledge is (the result of ?) time?

DB: Well in so far as it has been previously known and that it may project itself into the future and so on.

K: Of course, knowledge is (both gathered and used in ?) time. Through ( all his evolution in ?) time, man has acquired knowledge - science, mathematics, philosophy. So the whole movement of knowledge is involved in time. See what that means ?

DB: I think you say that man has taken a wrong turn and got caught in this kind of knowledge, which is dominated by time because it ( became his personal ?) knowledge.

K: Yes. So he lives in ( the field of?) time.

DB: He lives in time because he has attempted to produce a knowledge of the nature of the mind. Now you're saying that there is no real knowledge of the 'mind'. Would you put it that way?

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

DB: Yes, and you are saying the 'mind' is not of time.

K: No. So, when you end (the psychological) 'time' we were talking about, there is no (accumulation of personal ) knowledge as (my?) 'experience'.

DB: Well people say, 'I learn by experience, I go through something.'

K: Which is becoming.

DB: Well let's get it clear. You see, there is a kind of experience you get in your job, which becomes skill and perception.

K: Of course, that is quite different sir.

DB: So we are saying there is no point in having some 'experience' of the mind, of (of gathering) 'psychological' experience.

K: Yes, let's put it that way. That is, (all our) 'psychological' experience is in time. So, where this is leading to? Suppose I realize knowledge is time, the brain realizes it, and sees the importance of time in a certain direction, and no value of (thinking in terms of ?) time at all in another direction. It is not a contradiction, right?

DB: I would say that the value of time is limited to a certain direction or area and beyond that it has no value.

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

DB: Without 'psychological' knowledge to organize itself ?

K: Yes. Is then the brain (living in) disorder? Certainly not.

DB: No. But... many people being faced with this (very realistic possibility) , might feel that there would be (some chaotic inner ) disorder.

K: Of course.

DB: I think that what you were saying is the notion of controlling yourself 'psychologically' has no ( inwardly creative?) meaning.

K: So the knowledge of the 'me' is ( belonging to the field of ?) time.

DB: Yes, I understand that the whole totality of that knowledge, is 'me', is time.

K: Yes. So then what is our (inner) existence without this (psychological knowledge ) ? There is no time, there is no knowledge in the psychological sense, no sense of 'me', then what is there?

DB: Well, it seems there would be nothing.

K: Nothing.

DB: It seems rather dull! It is either frightening or it is all right.

K: Wouldn't you say because there is 'nothing' it is everything?

DB: Yes, it has all. So far as a 'thing' is limited, in this 'no-thingness' there are no limits. I mean at least it has everything in potential.

K: If it is nothing and so it is everything, that 'everything' is energy.

DB: Yes. The ( scientific) ground of everything is energy.

K: Of course. But what is the source of this thing?

DB: Energy just 'is'. There is no need for a source.

K: But what started this energy?

DB: Well the Christians have the idea of a 'Godhead', which is the very source of God too.

K: And also the Hindus have this. Are we going against all that?

DB: It sounds similar in some ways. Many things like this have been said over the ages. It is a familiar notion, yes.

K: Then is one just living in emptiness?

DB: Well, you must make that clearer.

K: Does it then mean there is only the physical organism living, which is a part of ( an Universal) energy? Has mankind journeyed through many millennia to come to this: that I am nothing and therefore I am everything and everything is energy?

DB: Well, that it might be a new beginning.

K: That is what I wanted you to begin with. The ending of all this, in the ending of 'time', there is a new beginning. What is this (new beginning ?)

DB: There could be a 'movement' that has not the order of time...

K: Yes. So we will use the word '(New) beginning' and deprive it of (the connotations of ?) time. What is then happening? That is not the end (of our spiritual journey ) . Then what is going on? Is that Creation?

DB: Well (it might be helpful ) if we discuss what we mean by Creation.

K: We will do it... tomorrow

2ND K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly edited)

Placing the Ground of Being on the Orbit (of Human Consciousness)

K: As we said yesterday, when you come to that (critical ?) point ( of meditation ?) when ( inwardly) there is 'nothing' (not-a-thing) and (therefore?) there is 'everything' - that is, ( Universal Mind?) energy, and when (the inner process of 'thought-) time' ends, there is a beginning of something totally new. So... what is there when all (the mental movement of thought & ) 'time' ends?

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

K: That is, is something 'New' taking place ? We are trying to find out (experientially) what happens when the 'I' ( the self- centred consciousness ?) , which 'is' ( the creator of 'psychological' ?) time, has completely come to an end. I believe the Buddha is supposed to have said, 'Nirvana' and the Hindus call it 'Moksha'. I don't know if the Christians called it 'Heaven' …

DB: The Christian mystics have had some similar (experiences)

K: So, in cleansing of the mind of the (psychological) accumulations of time, which is the essence of the 'me', what takes place?
As we said in another discussion, then there is only the 'Mind'.

DB: Yes, but we left the question somewhat unsettled because we had to ask what is meant by nature, if there is only Mind, because nature seems somewhat independent.

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

DB: Has an 'universal' Mind ?

K: If the 'particular mind' has come to an end, then there is only the 'Mind', the Universal Mind. And is there something beyond the cosmic order, mind?

DB: Are you saying that the Mind (or the Intelligent Consciousness ?) of the Universe, has created nature and It has an order that is not merely just going around mechanically? It has some deeper meaning ?

K: That is what we are trying to find out.

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

K: To put it very simply: ( within one's consciousness the sense of?) division has come to an end. The ( self-centred) division created by time, created by thought, created by this education and so on and so on, all that, because it has ended, the 'Other' (the 'universal dimension' of Consciousness?) is obvious.

DB: You mean without the ( ego-centric) division ( brought by thought & time ?) the 'Other' is there to be perceived ?

K: Not to be 'perceived' - It 'is' there.

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

K: Would you say it is not (a matter of) I perceive it, or that it is perceived. It 'is' (making itself present?) .

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

K: Yes. I didn't want to (say) it – but I am glad you put it like that!
So, where are we now?

DB: Well we say that the Universe is alive, as it were, it is (the creation of an Intelligent ) Mind and... we are part of it.

K: We can only say 'we are part of it' when there is no 'I' .

DB: No (inner) division ?

K: No division. I would like to push it a little further, which is: is there something beyond all this ?

DB: Beyond this ( Universal Mind?) energy, you mean?

K: Yes. We said that 'no-thingness' is (containing in it ) everything and so it is the 'total' energy. It is an undiluted, pure, uncorrupted (Intelligent ?) energy - right ? Is there 'something' beyond that?

DB: Could we say this 'something beyond' is the Ground of the whole (Creation ?) . You are saying that all this (Mind and matter ?) emerges from an inward 'ground'?

K: We can 'stop' there for the time being . ..

DB: Yes, because we haven't yet seen the necessity for going beyond this ( Universal Mind) energy...

K: I think it is necessary.

DB: Why is it necessary?

K: Why is it necessary? Tentatively: there is something in us that is operating, there is something in us much 'greater'. But how can we talk about It?

DB: Are you trying to suggest that beyond that (inner) 'emptiness', there is the (Creative ?) Ground of the emptiness?

K: Yes. ( Hopefully?) we have not been caught in any illusions so far. And can we keep ( drilling inwardly with ? ) that same kind of 'watchfulness' in which there is no illusion, for 'That' which is beyond emptiness to 'come down to earth' - in the sense to be 'communicated' ?

DB: Well, then...why hasn't It come down until now ?

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

DB: Well, generally speaking, no.

K: No. And It demands that the 'I' ( the self-consciousness created by time & thought?) 'ends'.

DB: We could look at it this way: that the 'ego' becomes an illusion of that (timeless) substance.

K: Yes, the ego 'is' ( or ' has' a material?) substance, quite right.

DB: And therefore That (infinitely finer ?) Substance seems to be...

K:... untouchable.

DB: But the 'ego' is an illusion of a true (spiritual?) Substance.

K: That is a (very strong?) illusion, but , why do you relate it to the Other?

DB: In the sense that if the mind thinks it already has ( within itself) this (spiritual ) substance then it will not be open to ( the true nature of?) It.

K: Of course, of course. So, can 'That' ( Origin of All Creation?) ever be put into words?

DB: Well, if it can be properly perceived, the (right) words can come to communicate It.

K: Yes, but can That be 'perceived' and therefore communicable?

DB: But is that 'Something' beyond emptiness, something 'living' ?

K: Living, oh yes...

DB: And intelligent?

K: I don't want to use those words - living, intelligence, love, compassion - it is all too limited. So, we have come up to a certain point and we are saying there is something still more - but is it palpable, is it something that our ( knowledgeable ?) mind can capture?

DB: Are you saying that it can't?

K: I don't think it is possible for the mind to 'capture' it, grasp it, understand, for the mind to 'look at' it even. Sir, after having examined 'scientifically' the ( internal structure of the?) atom - don't you feel there is something much more beyond all that?

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

K: No, but you 'know' there is something much more.

DB: It is clear that whatever we 'know' ( already) it is limited and there must be something more ( left to be discovered) beyond.

K: How can That communicate with you so that you can ( experientially?) 'enter' It ? Sir, what is beyond ( inner) emptiness? Is it silence? Or is that silence part of emptiness?

DB: Yes, I should say that.

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

DB: Something totally independent, that is what the word 'absolute' really means - it doesn't depend on anything, something entirely self moving, self active.

K: Yes. Would you say that every ( material or mental ?) thing has a cause and 'That' has no cause at all?

DB: You see this notion has been developed by Aristotle, that this 'absolute' is the cause of itself.

K: You see probably it can never be put into words...

DB: You are saying this 'absolute' must be put into words, yet any attempt to put it into words makes it 'relative'.

K: Sir, emptiness and silence and (Mind ) energy are something immense, really immeasurable. But there is 'something greater' than that.

DB: There is always room, logically, for something beyond that.

K: No, no, no. There is nothing beyond It. I feel 'that' (innermost Ground of Creation) is the beginning and the ending of everything. Sir, just in ordinary parlance, the 'ending' and the 'beginning' are the same. Right?

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

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

K:... energy, emptiness, silence, all that is ( behinning and ending?) on that 'Ground'. There is nothing beyond It.

DB: You mean to say that this Ground has no cause.

K: That is the beginning and the ending (of All That Is?) . Does that convey anything to you?

DB: Yes, well I think that that conveys something...

K: Would you say further that (life has?) no beginning and no ending ? The implications are enormous. Is 'death' the complete ending of everything?

DB: We began with ( the state of inner) emptiness as the ending of 'things', isn't it?

K: Yes, yes. That ( inward space of?) emptiness is the 'death' of everything the human mind has cultivated (in its ages old evolution ) .

DB: Right...

K: That 'emptiness' is not the product of the particular mind.

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

K: That ''emptiness'' can only exist when there is the death of the 'particular'.

DB: Yes, the particular dies, but then you are saying that in this Ground death goes further?

K: Oh yes, oh yes...

DB: So you are saying that the 'death' of the particular is (opening up into an?) 'emptiness', which is ( part of the?) universal (Mind) . Now are you going to say that the universal (Mind) also 'dies'?

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

DB: Into the Ground ?

K: After all, I am not an astronomer, but everything in the universe is exploding (expanding and?) dying.

DB: I think we are moving: first the particular (mind) dies (disolves ?) into the emptiness and then comes the Universal (Mind).

K: And that 'dies' too.

DB: Into the Ground (of Creation). So we could say this ( original) Ground is neither born not dies.

K: That's right. Every 'thing' is ( being created and is eventually ?) dying, except That. Does this convey anything?

DB: Yes : out of That that everything 'arises' and 'dies'.

K: So, That has no beginning and no ending.

DB: Yes. But what would it mean to talk of the ending of the Universal (Mind) ?

K: Why should it have a 'meaning' if it is happening? But what has that to do with (the mind of ) man, who is going through a terrible time ?

DB: Well let's say that man feels he must have some contact with the ultimate Ground (or ...with 'God'?) in his life otherwise there is no meaning.

K: But it hasn't. That Ground hasn't any relationship with man.

DB: Apparently not...

K: No....he is doing everything contrary to the Ground.

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

K: So as an ordinary man (who is listening to you) I say, all right you two have talked marvellously, it sounds excellent, but what has that got to do with me? How will your talk help me to get over my (inner fragmentation or ? ) 'ugliness'?

DB: Well, we went into this ( series of K-Bohm dialogues) logically starting from the suffering of mankind, showing it originates in a 'wrong turning' and that leads inevitably...

K: Yes but...howcan you help me get on the right path ?
And to that you (magistrally ?) say, '' (For starters) don't (struggle to) become anything (other than what you are, inwardly ?)'' .

DB: Right. So...what is the problem then?

K: That he won't even 'listen' to you.

DB: Yes, well now it seems to me that it is necessary for the one who sees this to find out what is the barrier to listening.

K: Obviously you can see what is the barrier. The ( self-protecting mental shield of the?) 'I'.

DB: Yes but I meant, more deeply...

K: More deeply, all your (self-centred) thoughts, deep attachments and all that is in your way. If you can't leave all this (behind) then you will have no relationship with That. But man doesn't (really ?) want to leave all that.

DB: What he wants is the result of the ( ego-centric) way he is thinking.

K: What he wants is some comfortable, 'easy' way of living without any trouble, and ( quite often...) he can't have even that.
So, there must be some (interactive) relationship of the Ground with this ordinary man otherwise what is the meaning of living?

DB: Yes, well that is what I was trying to say before, that without this (interactive contact) there is no (deeper) meaning and then people just invent (their own) meanings.

K: Of course. ( Tele-evangelists like?) Billy Graham are doing it everyday (for free ?) …

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

K: Ah no, this isn't ( the same?) 'God'.

DB: Yes, it is not 'God' but it is playing the same role - you could say that (the glorified image of?) 'God' is an attempt to put this notion a bit too personally perhaps ?

K: Yes. To give them hope, give them faith, and to make their (inner) life a little more comfortable ...

DB: Well are you asking at this point: how is this to be conveyed to the ordinary man?

K: Yes more or less. But also it is important that he should 'listen' to this.

DB: Exactly.

K: You are a ( semi-retired?) scientist. You are good enough to listen because we are friends. But who will listen among your ( 'brainy' ?) friends? I feel, sir, if one pursues this ( experientially) we will have a marvellously ordered world.

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

K: Live ( in freedom?) .

DB: Yes but I mean we said something about 'creativity'.

K: Yes. When you have no (inner ) conflicts, no 'I' (no 'egotism' ?) , there is 'something else' operating.

DB: Yes, because the Christian idea of 'perfection' may seem rather boring because there is nothing to do (besides chanting & praying?) .

K: Sir we must continue this (insightful dialogue?) because it is something that has got to be 'put into orbit' (of human Consciousness?) .

DB: It seems impossible.

K: We already have gone pretty far.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 07 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Oct 2013 #3
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

3RD K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly edited )

HOLISTIC RATIONALITY & INSIGHT

B: The question that we might discuss is whether this ( Sacred?) Ground (of Creation ) which we were talking about the other day, is it as indifferent to mankind, as the physical universe appears to be? In the past people were more religious and felt that the ground of our existence is in something beyond matter - 'God', or whatever they wished to call it. And that gave them a sense of deep meaning to the whole of their existence, which meanwhile has gone away. That is one of the difficulties of modern life, the sense that it doesn't have any ( deeper) meaning .

K: So, how does one find out if life has a meaning beyond this (survivalistic existence?) ? How would one set about it?

B: Perhaps we could start by clearing this up: if this Ground is indifferent to ( the fate of?) human beings then it would be the same as scientists' 'ground' - the material universe appears to be totally indifferent to mankind. It goes in immense vastness, it pays no attention, it may produce earthquakes and catastrophes, it might wipe us out, it essentially is not interested in mankind. It does not care whether man survives or does not survive . Now I think that in the past people felt that 'God' was a ( sacred) ground who was not indifferent to mankind. You see they may have invented it but that is what they believed. And that is what gave them …

K:... a tremendous energy, quite.

B: Now I think the point ( that needs clarification) would be: would this Ground be indifferent to mankind?

K: What is the relationship of this Ground (of All Creation?) to man? What is Its relationship with man and man's relationship to It?

B: Yes, that is the ( 2-way) question. Does man have some significance to It? And does It have significance to man?

K: Suppose you say this Ground ( does really) Exist , then the next question is: what relationship has It to man and what is man's relationship to it? How would one discover, or find out if this Ground exists at all? In 'scientific' terms as well as the feeling of it, the non verbal communication of it?

B: Yes, well you say 'scientific' you mean 'rational'?

K: Rational.

B: Something that we can actually touch ?

K: Sense. "Scientifically", we mean by that, rational, logical, sane, many can come to it - that it isn't just one man's assertion. Because we said from the very beginning that if 'half a dozen' of us actually freed ourselves it can be shown , not just verbally talk about it. Now, (reaching) this ( innermost?) Ground (of Creation?) has certain demands: absolute (inner) Silence, absolute 'emptiness', which means no sense of egotism in any form. So, ( in the context of an authentic meditation ?) am I willing to let go all my 'egotism' because I want to find out if what you are saying is actually true ?

B: Perhaps in some sense one is willing but this 'willingness' is not subject to our conscious effort or determination.

K: So we go ( quickly?) through all that: it is not ( an action based on ) will, it is not desire, it is not effort. And what are the facets or the nature of the self? You point them out to me : attachments, fears, beliefs and I say, 'Right' - Can ten of us do it by being absolute rational (in our self) observation. I think if ten people do it, any ( New Age?) scientist will accept it. But ( as of now?) there are no ten such people (and no 'holistic scientists' either ?)

B: I see. So, ( for starters?) we'll have to do it together publicly...

K:... that's it.

B:... so that it becomes a real fact.

K: Now, who will do this sir? The 'scientific community' will readily say that this is all nonsense, but 'X' says 'It is not nonsense, there is such a ( Sacred) Ground and you do these things ( hopefully?) It will be there.

B: Yes, but as of now, some of the things you're saying may not (in the beginning) make (total) sense to the person you talk with.

K: Yes, quite, because he isn't even willing to 'listen'.

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

K: Ah, that's much more difficult.

B: Yes but that is fairly crucial.

K: I would begin at the 'schoolboy level'. and say, look, do these elementary things (for homework?)

B: Well what are they? Let's go over them.

K: Observe that you have 'beliefs' ( root assumptions ?) , and that you cling to them (unconsciously?) since they give you a sense of inner security and so on and so on. And that 'belief' is an illusion, it has no reality.

B: You see scientists actually have (their own) beliefs. One will believe that this theory is right, and the other believes in that one.

K: I start at the 'schoolboy level' by saying : Look, don't accept ( ready made?) theories, conclusions, don't cling to your prejudices and so on.' That is the starting point.

Q: You see Krishnaji if I am a scientist I would also say I don't have theories. I don't see that the 'world' (model) which I construct for my scientific theories is also theoretical. I would call it 'fact'.

K: So we have to discuss what are facts? I would say a 'fact' is that which is happening. Actually happening. Would you agree to that?

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

K: Now, wait : what is happening 'out there', or what is happening 'in here'.

B: All right, first what is happening 'out there'. The instruments and theories are needed to even ( prove the actuality of those facts)

K: So, what are the (psychological?) facts 'out there'? There are (lots of human ) conflicts, why should I make a theory about it? And inwardly the only ( central) fact is that ( the consciousness of?) mankind suffers, is miserable, confused, (entangled in a state of inner) conflict. That is a fact. Why should I make a theory about it?

B: You must go slowly. You see , the ('psy' specialists & ) scientists might say yes, psychology is the science with which we try to look inwardly, to investigate the mind. And ( some obviously) biased people have ( created their own models or ) theories such as did Freud, and Jung and others. Now we have to make it clear why it has no point to make these theories.

K: Because theory prevents the direct observation of what is actually taking place.

B: So, outside it seems that theories are both necessary and useful in organizing facts about matter, outwardly and yet inwardly, psychologically they are in the way, they are no use at all ?

K: Yes. What is the root meaning of the word, 'theory' ?

B: Theory means a 'way of looking', a way of observing.

K: A way of observing. So, can't you just 'observe' inwardly whatever is going on ?

B: Yes, but when we look at matter outwardly, to a certain extent we fix the observing. This appears to be necessary to study matter. Matter does not change so fast and it can be separated to some extent, and we can then make it a fairly constant way of looking at changes but not immediately, it can be held constant for a while. And we call that a 'theory'.

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

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

K: Now, where do we start? With the ordinary way of looking, the way of looking depending on each person - the housewife, the husband, the money-maker - what do you mean the 'way of looking'?

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

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

B: Yes, it is arbitrary. It depends on our ( cultural) background.

K: Yes, all that. So can I be free of my background, my prejudice?

B: When it comes to 'looking inwardly', the question is whether a 'theory of psychology' would be of any help in doing this. ( It may, but?) the (hidden) danger is that the theory itself might become the new prejudice.

K: That is what I am saying. That would become a prejudice.

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

K: So (we can take the ) common factor (of human consciousness?) that man 'suffers' (or feels frustrated inwardly...?)

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

K: All right. ( Living in a state of inner?) Conflict?

B: Well, they have argued about it.

K: Take attachment, pleasure, fear...

B: I think some ( psy 'science?) people' might object saying we should find something more positive.

K: Which is what?

B: For example some people might have said that rationality is a common factor.

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

B: We have to make this point clear. In the past somebody like Aristotle might have said 'rationality' (thinking rationally ) is the common factor of man. Now your argument against it is that men are not generally 'rational'.

K: No, they are not.

B: Though they can be scientifically rational , they are not ( when it concerns their personal self-interest?) .

K: That's it.

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

K: That's right.

B: I brought up 'rationality' (as a common factor?) because the very existence of science depends on people feeling that their common goal is finding the 'truth' which is beyond personal satisfaction - if your theory is proven to be wrong you must accept that it is wrong, though it is not gratifying. It becomes very disappointing for these people but they accept it, and say, 'Well, that is wrong'. They may agree that they are not very rational in private life, but they say that at least they are capable of being ( totally objective & ) rational when they do scientific work.

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

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

K: But they may become 'irrational' ('territorial'?) in their relationship with other human beings.

B: Yes. They cannot maintain it.

K: So this ( incapacity of being totally rational inwardly ?) is the common factor.

B: O.K. Their 'rationality' is limited and you say the fundamental fact is more generally they cannot be ( totally) rational (when it comes to their own self-interest?) .

K: That's right. Now, that is a common factor. That is a fact: I, as a common human being, my ( intimate ?) life has been totally contradictory and so on, which is 'irrational'. Now can I as a human being change that (inner irrationality?)

B: Yes. Let's see how we could proceed with a scientific (rigorous) approach. Why is everybody 'irrational' (inwardly?) ?

K: Because we have been ( culturally) conditioned that way.

B: Well that won't get us anywhere because it leads to more questions: how did we get conditioned and so on...

K: We can go into all that.

B: Yes, but I meant that following that ( horizontal 'time-) line' is not going to answer our question (experientially) . However, you were saying the other day that perhaps man took a 'wrong' turning ...

K: You are going back to 'taking the wrong turn'. I think the wrong turn was taken when ( the self-interest based ) thinking ( aka : 'thought'?) became all important.

B: Yes, and what made it all important? And also it would have to be made clear why (our self-centred) thought causes all the difficulties. These are the two ( scientifically friendly ) questions.

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

B: I think he has 'slipped' into it. You see, in the beginning he did not see (its potential ) danger.

K: The (experientially observable answer) is fairly easy. ( For elementary survival reasons?) the things that I 'know' are more important (& safer?) than the things I 'don't know' - ( so we kept gathering) the 'things' thought has created, the images, all the rest of it.

B: Yes. So, it ( surreptitiously) slipped into irrationality by saying ' What I know is all that matters .' But why should man have made that (elementary ) mistake?

K: Would you say that that mistake is made because he (instinctively) clings to the known and objects to anything unknown?

B: Well, I was asking why he was not intelligent enough to see that this...

K: Because (inwardly) we are basically ( driven by a stream of collective self-interest which is inherently ?) 'irrational'. The ( holistically inclined?) man, Mr 'X', starts ( experientially by acknowledging that) 'I am irrational, I contradict myself' and so on. (And action-wise?) I will have to clear up that first, either (a) step by step, or (b) Do the whole thing at one ( totally insightful?) 'blow'. Right? ( But in both cases?) I'll have to accept ( as a starting inner fact) that I am irrational.

B: Well there is a (major thinking block or ? ) difficulty: if you accept you are (inwardly) irrational, you get stuck, because you say : how are you going to begin. Right?

K: If I accept completely (or... see the actual truth?) that I am (inwardly) irrational - I am ( becoming experientially ?) rational !

B: We'll have to make this point more clear. We could say that man has been deluding himself into believing that he is already rational.

K: The (starting inner) fact is I am ( holistically-wise ?) 'irrational' (fragmented inwardly?) . And to find the ( Sacred) Ground (of Creation?) I must become terribly 'rational' (orderly?) in my life. That's all I start with. And irrationality has been brought about by ( my self-interest based?) thought creating this idea of 'me' as separate from everybody else, etc., etc. So can I, find the (root) cause of my irrationality and wipe it out? If I can't do that I cannot reach the ground which is the most rational. So, become rational in your (inner) life, . Begin in here rather than out there. Now, this must be done without effort, without any sense of (outside) persuasion, otherwise you are back in the old ( self-centred mind-?) game.

B: So then you might as well look at the (inner) source of this whole irrationality (inner fragmentation?) .

K: That's it. That is what I am saying.

B: But now you'll have to make it clear how it really can be done.

K: I say first become aware that (inwardly?) you are totally irrational.

B: Well the word 'totally' will cause trouble because if you were totally irrational you wouldn't even begin to talk about it, you see...

K: No, that is my ( 'no escape' ) question. I say you are (inwardly) 'totally' irrational. First recognize (the inward truth of?) it. The moment you admit there is some part of you which wants to wipe away the irrationality...

B: But there must be sufficient rationality to understand what you are talking about. So, I would rather put it that you are dominated (inwardly) by your (self-interest based) irrationality, that irrationality dominates even though there is enough rationality to discuss the question.

K: A few of us begin to talk because we are willing to listen to each other, we are willing to set aside any conclusions we have, and that gives us the (basic) 'rationality' to listen to each other.

B: Yes. Listening is essential for rationality.

K: So can we, who are listening, be rational somewhat and begin? 'X', 'Y', 'Z', because they listen to each other, because they have become somewhat rational, therefore they are listening to each other, we can see that ( our self-centred?) thought is the main source of this current.

B: Yes, well we have to say what exactly do you mean by 'thought' ?

K: Thought is the 'movement' of the memory (experience, knowledge) stored up in the brain.

Q: You see Krishnaji at this very moment we are also 'thinking' and it seems that this kind of thinking is not just ( the mechanical response of?) memory.

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

K: Wait a minute. If we are ( inwardly) completely rational there is total insight. That insight uses thought and then our thinking is rational.

B: Then it is rational.

K: My god, yes.

B: Then thought is not only memory?

K: No, no.

B: Well, since it is being used by insight.

K: Insight uses thought.

B: Ordinarily thought runs on its own, it runs like a machine on its own, it is not rational. But when thought is the instrument of insight then you see it would be a qualitative difference between...

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

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

K: That's right. Then what? 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who are fairly rational, who have seen this point that thought being limited, divisive, incomplete, can never be rational...

B: ...without insight. K: That's right. Now how is ( the holistically friendly?) 'X', 'Y', 'Z', to have insight? Which is total rationality. Not the ( ego-centric) 'rationality' of thought.

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

K: Yes, the rationality of perception.

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

K: Now how am I to have that ( comprehending?) insight? That is the next question : What am I to do - or not do- to have this immediate insight, which is not of time, which has no cause, which is not based on – (expecting a) reward or punishment, it is free of all that. Now in discussing with 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who want to come upon the ground, how how does the mind have this insight? It is possible to have that ( global) insight if your mind is free from time.

B: Right. Let's go slowly, because implicitly 'time' is taken as the (objective) ground of everything in any scientific work. And also in the common sense, even in the ancient Greek mythology, Chronos the God of Time produces his children and then ...swallows them. That is exactly what we said about the Ground (of Creation) , everything comes from the Ground and dies to the Ground. So in a way mankind began to take time already as 'the' ground.

K: Yes, that is right. And you ( K) come along and say time is not the ground.

B: That's right. So up until now even scientists have been looking for the ground somewhere in time, and everybody else too. And you say time is not the ground. This of course somebody might say is nonsense but we say OK, we will stay open to that. Right?

K: We, ( the holistically friendly?) 'X', 'Y', 'Z', are open to it.

B: We are going to be open to it but some people might easily dismiss it right away. Now if you say time is not the ground, we don't know where we are.

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

Q: Is 'time' the same movement as this thought which we described first?

K: Yes, ( inwardly) time is ( created by) thought.

B: Yes, well, let's go slowly again on that because there is an objective chronological time, but in addition we are thinking (in terms of time) . You see thinking takes time even chronologically but in addition it projects a kind of 'imaginary time'...

K:... which is the future ...

B:... which is the future, the present and the past as we experience it. This (continuity of ) 'time' which is imagined is (the result of a) real process of thinking.

K: Which is a fact.

B: It is a fact. It is taking time physically, to think, but we also have the time we can imagine the whole past and future.

K: Yes, which are facts.

B: So let's say that this 'time' is not the ground, perhaps not even physically. But we also feel that we exist in time. Without ( a physical continuity of) time there could be no (psychological continuity of?) me.

K: That's it.

B: So, 'I' must exist in time, constently trying to be or to become something.

K: Becoming and being are in the field of time. Now can the human mind ( or consciousness ?) which has evolved through time...

Q: What do you mean here by mind ?

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

B: The 'particular' mind, you mean?

K: Particular mind, of course, I am not talking of the Mind which is (…) - I am talking of 'X', 'Y', 'Z', s' mind. The human mind has evolved through time. And now we are asking: can this mind free ( or disengage itself momentarily?) of time and have an insight which is totally rational, which then can operate on thought, which will be ( holistically friendly & ) rational? Now 'X' says : how am I to be free of ( inwardly thinking in terms of?) time - as 'my' becoming (something ) .

B: Or as being ( someone or something?) ?

K: Of course, becoming is being. I start from being to become.

B: And being something in myself - being happier.

K: Yes, the whole thing - the 'more'. Now can my brain ( meditatively?) investigating to find out if the Ground exists, can my whole mind be free of ( thinking inwardly in terms of?) time? That is, can my brain not function as it has always in 'time' as thought? Which means can ( the time-binding process of ?) thought come to an end?

B: Well, could you make that more clear ? We could see that the first question is: can the brain not be dominated by the function of thought?

K: Yes, which is ( creating its own continuity in?) time.

B: And then, if you say this 'thought' comes to an end...

K: No, can time as (the continuity of this ?) thought come to a stop?

B: The 'psychological' ( mechanism of?) 'time' comes to a stop ?

K: Yes, I am talking of that.

B: But we will still have the (capacity of using our objective or ?) rational thinking ?

K: Of course. That is understood.

B: Are we discussing the conscious ( temporal) experience ?

K: And the retention of the memory of the past, as (psychological ) knowledge. Oh, yes, that (stoppage) can be done.

B: You really mean( ending) the memory of (our personal) experiences?

K: The memory of (the past) experiences, hurts, attachments, the whole of it. Now can that (self-sustained movement ?) come to an end? Of course it can (in the wider context of meditation?) . It can come to an end when the (inward ) perception asks, what is it hurt or damaged psychologically, the very perception of it is also the ending of it. Not carrying it over, which is the ( psychological ?) time. The ending of it is the ending of time. Is that clear?

( To Recap:) Suppose that 'X' is hurt, ( or psychologically) wounded from childhood, for various reasons, and by listening, talking, discussing with you, realizes that the continuation of these hurts is (generating its own compensatory process of ) time. And ( in order to find out experientially?) the Ground, this ( psychological continuity of?) 'time' must end. So can ( the memory of all my past hurts) end immediately ?

B: Yes, but I think there are some (missing) steps in that. You say he finds that hurt is (generating the psychological continuity of ) 'time', but my immediate perceptive experience is that (the hurt) it exists on its own.

K: Of course, Which is, I have created a (self-protective) image about myself and the 'image' is hurt but not me.

B: What do you mean by that?

K: All right. In the (process of being & ) becoming, which is ( my psychological) time, ( for safety reasons?) I have created a ( self-protective interface or ?) 'image' about myself. Right?

B: Well ( my self-centred) thought has (instinctively) created that image.

K: Thought has created (my personal or public self-?) 'image' through its own experience, through education, through conditioning, (and pretending ) that this 'image' is distinct from ( the real?) 'me'. But this image is actually ( a versatile facet of?) 'me'

B: Yes....

K: But we have separated this ( psychologically protective ) 'image' and the 'me', which is (holistically speaking?) irrational. So in realizing that the 'image' (or the whole image making mechanism) 'is' me, I have become somewhat...more 'rational' .

B: Well, this is not very clear because if a person is hurt, he also feels that what was hurt was not only his image, but himself .

K: All right. But the moment you try to operate on (that hurt) you do separate yourself.

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

K: Which is ( holistically speaking an act of ?) 'irrationality'.

B: Because it is not correct, eh? And that brings in time because I say it will take time to do that ( healing ) .

K: Quite right. So by seeing this, I become ( holistically) rational and the action is to be free of (both the image and the hurt) immediately (ASAP?)

B: Yes, well let's go into that. You see, the first observable thing is that there has been a ( personal) hurt. Right? That is, the 'image' I feel identified with.

K: I 'am' that.

B: But then I draw back (from the complete identification with the image that was hurt ) and say there must be a (better facet of ?) 'me' who can do something.

K: Yes, who can operate on it.

B: Right. Now that ( image fixing?) takes time.

K: That 'is' time.

B: That 'is' time, but the way I'm thinking is that 'it takes time'. Now if I don't do that, hou're saying that the hurt cannot (continue to ?) exist ?

K: That's right.

B: But in terms of our everyday experience, this is not at all obvious...

K: First, let's go slowly into it. 'I' am ( my self - protective image is ?) hurt. That is a fact. Then there is a separation saying 'I will do something about it'.

B: The 'me' who will try to do something (thinks that he) is different. And he thinks about what he should do (to improve the self-protecting 'image' ?) .

K: The 'me' ( feels it) is different because it is (engaged in a constant ) 'becoming'

B: Well, yes, it projects itself into the future, in achieving a different state.

K: Yes. I am getting hurt. There is a separation: the (all controlling ) 'me' , which is always (updating its temporal ) becoming , says, I must control it . I must wipe out that hurt. I must act upon it - and all the rest of it. So all this movement of separation is ( part of 'my' continuity in ?) time.

B: Yes, we can see that better now. But there is still something that is not obvious. A person is commonly thinking that the hurt exists independently of me and I must do something about it'. I project into the future the better state and what I will do about it . So, let's try to make it clear.

K: My ( holistic) 'rationality' discovers there is no separation.

B: There is no separation, but the illusion that there is a separation helps to maintain the hurt.

K: That's right. Because the ( central) illusion is 'I' am becoming .

B: Yes. So I am hurt and I will become 'non hurt'. So, that very thought maintains (both the 'me' and ?) the hurt.

K: That's right.

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

K: That is irrationality. The (sense of my ) separation exists already when I say 'I am hurt'.

B: Well it does, but I think that before that happens you get a kind of (a personal) shock or pain which you identify and then you verbalise it by saying 'I am hurt' and that immediately implies the separation ( of the 'observer' in order?) to do something.

K: Of course. But if I am not hurt I don't know anything about separation or not separation.

Q: Well, but something might still happen to me.

K: Yes, any kind of shock. ( To recap:) ) I am ( holistically speaking ? ) 'irrational' as long as I maintain the ('image' making mechanism that inevitably will get ) hurt and try to do something about it , which is to become (or be better protected?) . Then 'irrationality' comes in.

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

K: Ah, that means I am no longer observing (myself) using ( the past experience accumulated in?) 'time' as a (guideline for my ) observation.

B: You could say that is not anymore 'your' way of looking. It is not 'your theory' anymore.

K: That's right.

B: Because you could say (that the idea of self-improvement in ) time is a 'theory' which everybody adopts for psychological purposes.

K: That's right. That is a common factor, (the self-protective process of psychological ?) time is the common factor of man. And we are pointing out this 'time' is an illusion.

B: 'Psychological' time ?

K: Of course, that is understood.

B: Are you saying that when we no longer approach it through ( this mentality based on ?) time then the hurt does not continue?

K: Does not continue, it ends (and it heals?) .

B: It ends...

K: Because 'you' are not ( struggling to?) become anything.

B: In 'becoming' you are always continuing what you are.

K: That's right. Continuing what you are, modified and...

So, ( to re-recap) we are basically talking about ( having a total ?) insight. That insight being free of time acts upon memory, makes thought (the thinking brain?) 'rational'. We said insight comes into being when there is no (psychological continuity in ?) time. Thought which is based on memory, experience, knowledge, that is the 'movement' of time as becoming. We are saying that to be free of ( our self-created illusion of?) 'time' requires insight. Insight being free of time, it may use the capacity of thinking to explain, but it (basically) acts. Before our action was based on thought, now when there is insight there is only (a directly perceptive) action. So insight doesn't (need to ) use thought.

B: Well we have to make it clear because in certain areas of material existence it has to use thought. You see if for example you want to construct something you would use the thought which is available as to how to do it.

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

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

K: Partial. The scientists, the painters, the architects, the doctors, the artists and so on, they have 'partial' insight. But here we are talking of ( the holisticaly inclined?) 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who are seeking the Ground (of All Being) , they are becoming rational and we are saying insight is without time and therefore without thoughts, and that insight is action. Because that insight is rational, our action is rational. (Eg) When the young man K in 1929 dissolved the Order (of the Star ) there was no thought. He had an insight (into what was wrong with it & ?) finished. He dissolved it. Why do we need thought?

B: But then you used some thought in ( the practical aspects of?) dissolving the Order. Say, when to do it, how to do it.

K: That is merely for convenience, for other people and so on. But the (insightful ?) decision acts (dictates the general course of action?)

B: The primary action did not require thought, only that which follows.

K: That is nothing. It is like moving a cushion from here (Ommen?) to there (Ojai?) .

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

K: It is like a wave.

Q: Does not all your ( way of thinking) undergo a transformation in this process?

K: Yes, of course, of course. Because insight is without time therefore the brain itself has undergone a (holistic ?) change. (To wrap it up: ) does it mean, sir, every human response must be viewed, or must enter into ( the clarity field of?) insight? Is there a (timeless flash of ?) insight which will cover the whole field of jealousy: envy, greed, and all that is involved, so end the (whole causation of that?) jealousy. (Holistically?) 'irrational' people say, step by step, get rid of jealousy, get rid of attachment, get rid of anger, get rid of this, that and the other. Which is (refueling ) the constant process of (self-) becoming. But the (total ) 'insight', which is (holistically ?) rational, wipes all that away. Right?

B: Right...

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

B: Well, it is not clear how you could guarantee that.

K: Oh yes, I will guarantee it!

5-TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM

ESTABLISHING A 'WORKING RELATIONSHIP' WITH THE GROUND OF BEING

Dr Bohm: We raised several questions in these discussions. One was the nature of this Ground - whether we could come to It and whether It has any interest in ( the fate of ?) human beings. And also we discussed the possibility that there could be a ( major qualitative .) change in the physical behaviour of the (old?) brain.

K: Is this Ground of Being a (new) philosophic concept? Or it is something ( Real & ) 'absolute' in the sense that there is nothing beyond It? First I want to see whether we perceive That (Ultimate Ground of Creation?) as a (speculative intellectual) concept. Go we approach It from the (conceptual) point of view? Or with a ( philo-sophical?) 'love of truth', with (an authentic passion?) of investigating the process of the human mind ?

B: Well, perhaps not even all the 'philosophers' ( from the Greek 'philo-sophia meaning 'love of Truth'?) have been basing themselves on concepts. But certainly, (the modern ) philosophy is (opportunistically ?) taught through concepts.

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

B: Most of them. But certainly it is very hard to teach it except through ( abstract) concepts.

K: So, what is the (qualitative ?) difference between a 'religious' ( aka: 'holistic' ) mind and a ( conceptual) philosophic mind? Can we investigate the Ground (of Creation ?) with a mind that is disciplined ( to function exclusively in the field of?) knowledge?

B: Well, fundamentally we can say that the Ground is 'unknown', therefore we can't begin with ( using our available ?) knowledge. Many years ago we had a ( private ) discussion in London and you suggested we should start with the 'unknown'.

K: Yes, yes. Say for instance 'X' says there is such a Ground. And all of us say what is this Ground ? Prove it, show it, let it manifest itself. But do we ask such questions with a mind that has this passion for (finding the Ultimate ) truth, with (an authentic ) Love of Truth?

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

K: How can my ( culturally 'pre-formatted'?) mind which has evolved through knowledge, which has been highly disciplined in knowledge, even touch That, because that is not knowledge, that is not put together by thought.

B: Yes, as soon as you say, 'prove it', you want to turn it into knowledge. To be absolutely certain,( this kind of static?) knowledge is what you want. And yet ( in blindly accepting someone's authority?) ) there is also the danger of self-deception and delusion.

K: Right from the beginning we said the Ground cannot be (experientially approached ?) as long as there is any form of illusion (aka : wishful thinking?) - the projection of one's desire, pleasure, fear and all that.

B: The ( science) person who says 'Prove it', is also trying to protect it against those illusions. But ( in the area of Meditation?) this is a vain hope...

K: So is this (innermost?) Ground (of Creation ?) an idea that has to be logically investigated? Or is it something that cannot be investigated with a mind trained, disciplined, by (its materialistic ) experience and knowledge, which can only function in that area (of the known?) . And you ( K?) come along and tell me that this Ground is not something to be understood by thought. Then what am I to do? I have only this ( subliminally self-centred?) mind that has been conditioned by knowledge. How is one to (meditatively?) move away from all that and 'feel' this thing, touch it, comprehend it? You (K) tell me that words will not convey That, that one must have a mind that is free from all ( second hand inner ) knowledge. You are asking me an 'impossible' thing, aren't you? ( Metaphorically speaking?) You ( K ?) are on the other bank as it were, and tell me that there is no boat to cross. You can't swim across either . In fact 'you' can't do anything. Basically that is what it comes to. So you are asking this ( knowledgeable?) 'particular' mind to eschew all its knowledge ! Hasn't this been said in the Christian world ? B: In some sense the Christians tell you to put your faith to God, or (as an alternative shortcut ?) to 'give yourself over to Jesus' and let Him act as the mediator between you and God.

K: Yes. But (in the ancient Hindu spiritual tradition ) 'Vedanta' (literally 'the end of the Vedas') means (or points to?) the ending of knowledge.

B: It could mean that I suppose. I don't know Sanskrit that well, but 'Veda' by itself means knowledge. And 'Vedanta' means ( what comes at ?) the end of it, yes.

K: But being an (educated) Westerner, ( experientially speaking) this means nothing to me. Because from the Greeks on, the culture in which I have lived is emphasizing knowledge. But when you talk to a (highly cultivated?) Eastern mind, they acknowledge that in their religious life, a time must come when 'knowledge' ( symbolised by the Vedas?) must end. Vedanta is the whole way of looking at life ( free of knowledge) . They would immediately understand ( the concept ) that the mind must be free of knowledge. But it is a theoretical understanding. But to a Westerner, it means absolutely nothing.

B: Well, I think there has been a similar (spiritual attitude in) Western tradition, but not as common. Like in the Middle Ages there was a book written called 'The Cloud of Unknowing', which is on that line, but that is not the main line of Western thought.

K: So what shall I do since I can see (or intuit?) vaguely, that coming upon this Ground, could gives an immense significance to my life.

B: Yes, well people have used the notion of God to give significance to life.

K: (This) 'God' is merely an idea.

B: Yes but this idea contains something similar to the Eastern idea that ( the wisdom of?) 'God' is beyond our knowing. Most people accept it that way.

K: But you ( K) tell me that you cannot (experientially ?) come upon It through any manipulation of ( the self-centred?) thought.

B: I was just trying to say that there is this problem, danger, delusion, in the sense that in the West people say, 'Yes, that is quite true, it is through a direct experience of Jesus that we come upon it, not through thought', you see.

K: I mean after all a 'direct experience of Jesus'...

B: Well I may not be able to express their view accurately. Perhaps by the 'Grace of God' ?

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

B: Yes, why do you reject it?

K: Because it has become 'common' ( vulgarised ?) , first of all, in the sense that everybody says that. And also there may be in it a great (potential) of illusion created by our own desires, hopes, fears.

Q: But wouldn't you say that there are some more serious people in all religions who would say that God, or the 'absolute', or the Ground is something that cannot be ( dualistically) experienced ?

K: Oh yes, 'X' says it cannot be 'experienced' ( by the self-centred mind) - it is something so (immaterially?) immense that (the materialistic?) thought cannot capture it. So, how is a human brain conditioned in knowledge, ( culturally standardised &?) disciplined, how is it to free itself from all that?

Q: By understanding its own limitation?

K: When you say that my thought is limited I don't (really) feel it. It is just a lot of words which you have told me.

Q: Well, perhaps it does require some serious (self-) investigation ?

K: You don't even need the (analytical) investigation. How will you 'aid' (assist?) me to have this (holistic insight ?) that ( my self-centred?) thinking is such a small affair, so that 'I get it' - you don't have to explain it.

Q: But isn't it possible look directly at what the ( self-centred thinking?) mind can and cannot do ?

K: Which is, ('me' ) thinking, ( 'me') feeling, ( 'me') hating, ('me)' loving - the everydat inner activity of the (particular ?) mind. I know this ( limitation) very well, you don't have to tell me.

Q: I would say you don't ( actually) know it, you may only 'think' you know it.

K: I am fed up with this (psycho-analytical) investigation, I have done it all my life. I say these are all just words. How am I to have this 'passion' that will 'explode me out' of my little enclosure. You understand? I have built a ( self-protective inner interface or ?) 'wall' which (through a subliminal process of self-identification?) is (becoming) 'myself'. I have lived ( less or more safely?) with this 'thing' for millions of years and I am still (solidly) 'anchored' in it . You talk about the Ground because you see something that is breathtaking, so alive, extraordinary and I am ( stuck) in here, anchored in here. You, who have 'seen' the Ground must do something ( educationally?) that will 'break up' this thing completely.

Q: I must try to do something, or you must (try to) do something?

K: What is the human mind's relationship to this (innermost?) Ground (of All Being ) ? Perhaps if I could establish ( an interactive?) relationship, It could break up this ( self-enclosing?) 'centre', totally. If the mind could establish an ( inner ) relationship with That, my mind has become (an integral part of) That. So, I am just asking, is there an ( interactive ?) relationship between That and the ( holistically friendly?) human mind?

Q: Are you suggesting establishing a 'bridge' - if there is such a thing ?

K: I am asking this question being fully aware of (its potential ?) 'dangers' . Can this ( egotistic) 'centre' to be 'blasted' ? Do I see that this 'centre' is the cause of all the mischief, of all the illusions, all the effort, all the misery, everything is from that core ? After a million years,we haven't been able to get rid of it. Is there a ( possibility for a redeeming ?) relationship at all? What is the relationship between ( holistic?) 'Good'- ness and ( the self-centred fragmentation of ?) 'bad'-ness ? - it comes to the same thing. There is no relationship.

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

K: All right: contact, being in touch, being in the same room.

B: Coming from the same root ?

K: Yes, same root.

Q: So, Krishnaji, aren't we postulating there is the Good and that there is the 'evil'?

K: To use another (more holistically friendly) words : is there (an authentic?) relationship between the 'whole', and 'that which is not whole' ? Obviously not.

B: Well, if you are saying that the 'centre' is a (self -created) illusion - then an illusion cannot be related to that which is true because the content of the illusion has no relation to that wich is true.

K: That's it! You see, that is a great ( experiential?) discovery. 'I' - this petty (self-centred ?) 'thing' - want to establish relationship with That Immensity. ( Obviously...) 'I' cannot (do it) .

B: Yes, it is not just because of its Immensity but because in fact this 'thing' is not actually.

K: Yes.

Q: Dr Bohm says the centre is not 'actual'. But that is part of my (experiential) difficulty - I don't see this (psychological) centre is not 'actual'.

B: We are using the term 'actual' in the sense of not being a (self-created?) illusion. I mean, something is acting ( within our self-centred thought process ) but it is not the 'I' which we ( think we ) know.

K: Do you see that?

Q: No. You say this ( egotistic ) 'centre' must explode. It does not 'explode' because I don't see the 'falseness' in it.

K: You missed my point - it can't do anything about it. It has prayed, it has done everything (to transcend its limitations but...) it is still there. And he (K) comes along and tells me there is this (Otherness) 'thing'. And this ('self'-centred ?) mind says it it wants to have that relationship with That . And 'That' says, 'Sorry, 'you' can't have relationship with me.' That's all! My million years of ( materialistic ) experience has given me a certain ( intellectual ?) capacity, but... I realize at the end of it all that there is no ( interactive ?) relationship between 'me' and Truth. That ( Universal Intelligence ?) says, 'Sorry'. So what is happening to this (self-centred) human mind that has lived this way, done everything that man has done in search for That, and That one morning (returns your Call and?) says , 'You have no relationship with me' ?

Q: If It (really) says that, it is a tremendous shock to the 'me'...

K: Isn't it a shock to discover that all your knowledge is ( inwardly) valueless? All your self-examinations, all your struggles, all the virtues that one has gathered through centuries of abstinence, self- control, at the end of it... you see they are valueless. Sir, you understand what it does to me?

B: I mean, if the whole thing goes ( down the drain?) then it is of no consequence....

K: Because what you have done or not done (inwardly) , is absolutely of no ( authentic spiritual) value.

B: Not in a 'fundamental' sense. It has only relative value within a certain ( cultural) framework, but in itself it has no ( intrinsical spiritual) value.

K: Yes, thought has relative value. But the Ground says "whatever you have done on Earth" has no ( truly spiritual) meaning. Do we receive the full blow of it ?

Q: Well you see, ( modern science's ) dismissal of ( 'Universal Intelligence' or?) 'God' has not had any shocking effect on people.

K: ( As) I 'am' ( sharing the same Consciousness as all ) the people, it has given me a tremendous shock to discover the Truth that all the churches, all the prayers, all the books have absolutely no ( authentic spiritual?) meaning - except in building a better ( 'humane' ) society and so on .

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

K: From there I start creating a (new ) society.

B: But as long as this ( egotistic) 'disorder' is ( going on) at the 'centre' we can't use that (major insight?) in the right way. I think it would be more accurate to say that there is a great potential in all that (modern developpment) but as long as it does not affect the 'centre' - and there is no sign that it has ever done so...

Q: You see, what I don't understand is that there are a great many people who in their life have never ( even considered to ?) pursue what you call the 'Ground'.

K: The are not interested.

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

K: I am not interested in approaching any (such) person. All the 'good works' I have done, the Ground says are valueless. But if I can drop all that (karmic heritage of self-centredness ?) my mind 'is' (becoming one with?) the Ground. Then from there I (can really) 'move'. From there I can create ( the right foundations for a new?) society.

( To recap:) I want to clear up all the illusions that I hold - not just some of them . I have ( easily) got rid of my illusion about nationalism; I have got rid of my illusion regarding belief, about Christ, about this, about that. But at the end of it, I realize my ( 'all-knowing' ?) mind is ( the greatest?) illusion. To me, ( as a human being) who has lived ( personally or collectively?) for thousands of years, to find it is absolutely worthless, it is something enormous.

B: When you say 'you' have lived for thousands years, does that means that all the experience of mankind is...

K:... is 'me' ( contained in our shared consciousness ) .

B: Do you feel that?

K: I do.

B: And 'how' do you feel it?

K: It is an absolute, irrevocable 'fact' to me.

B: Yes, well perhaps we could share this ( holistic) feeling. It seems to be one of the ( important) steps that we're missing ; you have repeated this point quite often as an important part of (understanding) the whole thing.

K: Which means sir, that when you ( selflessly ?) 'love' somebody there is no 'me' (involved) , it is ( Universal?) Love. In the same way, when I say 'I am ( sharing the consciousness of all ?) humanity', it is so, it is part of me.

B: Well let's say it is a (holistic) feeling that if others have gone through it then I also have gone through it.

K: Of course. But one is not (yet totally ?) aware that our brains are not 'particular' brains but the (total) human brain that has evolved through millennia.

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

K: Because we are ( comfortably installed or ?) 'caught' in this self-centred narrow little ( egotistic ) cell, which refuses to look beyond (its safety perimeter?) .

B: That is the thing which has been going on.

K: But you come along as a ( holistically friendly?) scientist, or as a religious man, saying that 'my' brain is the brain of mankind.

B: Yes and that all our knowledge is the knowledge of mankind. So that in some way we all have ( access to) this knowledge. (Not in specific details, of course).

K: So you tell me all this . But I come to (see the actual truth of ) it only (after ?) I have given up the ordinary (psychologically 'sticky'?) things like 'nationalism', you know...

B: Yes, once we have given up our (personal ) 'divisions', we can see that our experience is that of all mankind.

K: It is so obvious sir. You go to the most primitive village in India and they will tell you all about their ( personal) problems, wife, children, poverty. It is ( essentially) exactly the same thing, only here ( in the Ojai valley ?) he is wearing a different style of trousers, or whatever it is. For 'X' it is an indisputable fact, 'it is so'. So, at the end of all this million of years (of a widely diversified evolution?) , I suddenly discover, that all that I have done (regarding my inner life ?) is ( either redundant or?) useless. They are 'ashes'. You see sir, this (realisation?) doesn't ( necessarily) depress one. That is the beauty of it. I think it is like the ( ancient myth of?) Phoenix.

B: Rising from ashes ?

K: ( Re-)born out of its own ashes.

B: Well in a way this is (the ultimate ) freedom- to be free of all that (burden of the past)

K: Something totally new is ( being) born.

B: You said before that this (newly born) mind 'is' ( becoming one with?) the Ground, it 'is' the Unknown.

K: Yes. But it is not this mind. It is a 'new' mind.

B: That's clear. The ( particular) mind 'is' ( intrinsically limited by ?) its (psychological ?) content, its content is ( expressing itself as ) 'knowledge' and without that ( heavy burden of 'psychological' ?) knowledge it is a 'new' mind

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 19 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Jan 2014 #4
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

6TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly edited)

INSIGHT & THE BRAIN CELLS

Dr Bohm: I wonder if we could discuss ( your assertion that?) insight changes the brain cells.

Krishnamurti: As it is constituted the human brain functions (predominantly) in the (closed circle of its past ?) memory, experience, knowledge. It has functioned in that area as much as possible and (apparently?) most people are still satisfied with it.

B: Well, they don't know of anything else...

K: Suppose 'X' asks himself what is a 'radical change', is it to take place in the outer environment, or in ( the field of) human relationships, with a sense of ( selfless?) love which is not in the area of knowledge and so on? Where is it to begin? Unless there is some ( qualitative?) mutation taking place inside the brain, it may be a superficial change, but not a change in depth.

B: Well, what is implied here is that the present state of affairs involves not only the ( conscious) mind but also the nervous system, the psycho-somatic body, all is set in a certain (self-centred) way.

K: Of course, that is what I meant, the whole movement is (set going ) in a certain way. And along that way I can modify, adjust, polish, a little more, a little less and so on, but if a ( serious) man is concerned with a very radical change, where is he to begin and what is there to change?
'X' sees he can change certain things along this way, but unless he finds a way to change the brain itself...

B: But what will change the brain?

K: The human brain has been set in a (self-centred?) pattern for millennia.

B: So the question is how can the brain change?

K: If this question is put to you as a scientist, what would your answer be?

B: I don't think science can deal with this ( 'mutational ') issue because it can't possibly probe that deeply into the structure of the brain anyway. Many questions are positing the relationship of brain and mind, which science has not been able to resolve. If it is not a ( quantifiable) material solution, for the moment science has very little to say about it.

K: You (K) tell me that insight can change the brain cells and so on. My immediate answer to that is, 'how'?

B: You were implying previously that there is 'something' beyond the brain, it seems clear, in putting that question. The very statement implies that insight is somehow beyond the ( physical) brain, else it couldn't change the brain.

K: You (K) explain that this 'insight' is not a result of progressive knowledge, it is not a process of time; it may be the real activity of an ( integrated?) brain.

B: I think people can generally see that ( 'intuition' or ?) 'insight' comes in a flash, it does not come through will. Those of us who have considered it at all, can see that. And probably ( bio-) chemistry won't bring it about either. So, it is not at all clear what is going to make this ( radical qualitative) change in the brain : is it something more than the brain, is it something deeper in the brain? This is one of the questions.

Q: Are you saying that the 'insight' is a function of the brain which acts without reference to its (previously known) content?

K: To the past, to the content.

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

K: Sir, apart from this (self–interest based ? ) consciousness with its (conditioned ) content, is there in the brain an activity which is not touched by the content of this consciousness?

B: All right, that suggests that it may be possible for the brain to change. Either the brain is entirely controlled by its content, or in some way it is not that conditioned, it has some...

K: That is a 'dangerous' ( 'risky' statement?) of admitting to myself, and so of trying to tell somebody else, that there is a part of the human brain...

B: An activity ?

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

B: It is a possible activity. It may be that has not yet been awakened ?

K: It has not been awakened. That's right. So, is there such an activity which is totally independent of the ( conditioned) 'content'? And is it part of the brain? Would you say it is still ( of a ) material (nature)?

B: Yes. There could could be a deeper (and finer) level of matter which is not conditioned by the content.

K: I don't quite follow...

B: If you say water is matter then it is clear. Now, consider water in the ocean. Its 'waves' are not matter, they are just a 'process' in matter. So, is thought a material substance, or is it a process in some other material substance, like in the cells of the brain?

K: It is a material process in the brain.

B: Yes, scientists would generally agree with that.

K: Then can that material process ever be independent of something that is not a material process …

B: You are saying that the 'insight' is not a material process?

K: I must be careful of using the right words. Thought is a material process in the brain and any other movements springing from that material process is still ( of a ) material (nature) .

B: Yes, it has to be.

K: And is it (in) there another activity which is not a material process?

B: Well of course people have asked that question for ages. Is there a 'spirit' (or 'mind') beyond matter, right?

K: Is there some other activity in the brain which be related to this, to the material process ?

B: Well 'insight' cannot obviously depend on the material process as it would be just another material process. But you were saying that the material process (of thought) may be changed by 'insight' ?

K: The material process is dependent on 'that', but 'that' is not dependent on this.

B: So, 'that' ( non-material energy of?) insight can still act within the material process of the brain ?

K: That's right. It (the Mind?) is independent of the material process but yet it can act upon the material process.

B: Well let's discuss that a little. Generally speaking in science if A can act on B it is usually reciprocal action of B on A. We don't find situations where A acts on B and B never acts on A.

K: I see, I see.

B: This is one of the ( logical) difficulties you have raised. In human relations if I can act on you, you can act on me – right?

K: Yes. But if I don't respond to your action, I am independent of it.

B: You see, science generally finds that this kind of situation is not possible : to have a one-sided action.

Q: Could one maybe envisage that 'insight' is ( the action of ) a much larger ( and/or subtler?) movement than the material process of the brain, and therefore that much larger movement can act on the smaller movement but the smaller movement cannot act on the larger movement?

K: Yes, we are saying the same thing...
B: Or if you drop a rock in the ocean, the ocean absorbs it with no significant...

K: Quite, quite.

Q: Well then they would still have an (inter)action amongst themselves but there is only one action that is significant

K: No, no, be careful. Don't enter into that too quickly. Sir, ( the action of selfless ?) love has no relationship to ( the action born of?) hate.
These actions are independent. And this is a very important ( experiential) thing to discover : ( in a self-centred consciousness?) where there is ( resentment and/or) hate the 'Other' cannot exist. Right?

B: Yes, they can't act on each other.

K: No, they can't. So when (these materialistic ) scientists say A must have a relation to B, B must have a relation to A, we are contradicting ( the 'psychical' validity of?) that.

B: Well not all scientists have said that, a few have said otherwise - I don't like to bring in Aristotle, but he said there is an 'unmoved mover', you see, he says that God is never moved by matter, he is not acted on by matter but he acts. Do you see? So that is an old idea then. Since that time science has thrown out Aristotle and said that is impossible.

K: If I see clearly that (the action of selfless?) love is independent of ( the action based on) hate, (it follows that an intelligence action of ?) love may act on ( a consciousness obscured by?) hate, but (in a consciousness dominated by ) hate, the 'other cannot' be (co-exist) .

B: Right. They have no ( mutual inter-) relationship. But perhaps ( the action of) insight could (have some impact?) .

K: Slowly. I am 'edging' my way into it. Violence and (non-) violence are two entirely different factors. Right?

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

K: That's right. I'll stick to that. So ( in a self-centred consciousness ) where there is this material ( self-centred thought) process in action, the 'other' cannot exist.

B: And what is this 'other' - 'insight' ?

K: Yes.

B: Well then this denies what we were saying before that there is an action from insight on the material process.

K: Where there is violence peace cannot exist. But where there is (a state of inner) peace, is there violence? Of course not. So (inner) peace is independent of the other.

Q: Sir, you have said many times that intelligence can act upon thought, insight can act, can affect thought, but it doesn't work the other way round.

K: ( The illuminating action of ?) Intelligence can wipe away ignorance, but ignorance cannot touch intelligence. Now, can (the insightful action of selfless ?) love wipe away (the residual content of ?) hate?
It just came to my mind (to put it this way) : Love has no cause. Hate has a cause. (In other words) Insight has no cause, but the material process in the brain, as thought, has a cause ( 'self-interest'?) .
That which has no ( material) cause, can it act ever upon that which has a cause?

B: Well, we can see no reason why 'that' (compassionate intelligent energy) which has no cause might not act on ( a material brain process ) what has a cause.

K: Yes, and apparently the action of ( the intelligent energy of) insight has an extraordinary effect on the material process in the brain (whenever the personal resentments are not active?) .

B: Yes, so as to wipe out (or 'delete') some ( bad karmic?) causes for example.

K: As ( the energy of ?) insight is causeless, that (inwardly perceptive action of?) insight has a definite effect on that ( residual content of the brain ?) which has cause.

B: Well it doesn't ( quite) follow (logically) but it is 'possible'.

K: No, no, I don't say (just that it ) is 'possible'. (However, since the selfless?) Love is without cause, and hate has a cause, the two cannot co-exist (simultaneously in the same consciousness?) .
Now, I just want to explore a little more. Is 'insight' ( the intelligent action of selfless?) love ?

B: Well at first sight we see that they are not necessarily exactly the same thing. ( The inner nature of?) Insight may be Love but you see,( the timeless perception of ) insight also occurs in a 'flash'...

K: It is a 'flash' (of pure spiritual light?) of course. And that flash alters the whole pattern, and uses ( recycles ?) the thinking patterns in the sense, of reason, logic and all that.

B: Well I think once the flash has operated then the (thinking) patterns are different and therefore our thinking would be more rational. The flash may make logic possible because you may have been confused before the flash.

K: Ah, yes, yes sir. Aristotle may have come to all this by 'logic'.

B: Well he may have had some insight, we don't know.

K: We don't know but I am questioning it. Would you say he had 'insight' by reading a few of his books?

B: I haven't really read Aristotle directly because it is' hard'. Most people read what other people said about Aristotle. There are a few ( catch?) phrases of Aristotle which are common - the 'unmoved mover', which suggest that he was quite intelligent, at least.

K: I am talking of 'total' insight, not partial insight. An artist can have a partial insight. A scientist can have a partial insight. I am talking - 'X' is talking about 'total insight'.

Q: So you mean that a partial insight illuminates only a limited area of consciousness , or a particular subject ?

K: Yes.

Q: Then what would encompass a total insight ?

K: The total human activity (inclusing its centre of self-interest?) . Right sir?

B: Well that is one ( very fine) point. But coming back to what we were discussing before, we are saying that insight is a (special) 'energy' which illuminates the whole activity of the brain. And in that illumination the brain itself begins to act differently.

K: That's right sir. That is what takes place.

B: And the source of this 'illumination', is not in the material process, it has no cause.

K: It has no cause.

B: But it is a real energy.

K: It is (100 %) pure (compassionate & intelligent?) energy. That's right, sir. Which means, is there (such inwardly perceptive ) action without a cause?

B: Yes, or without 'time', since any causation implies 'time'.

K: That is, (the in-sighting ) action of this flash has altered completely the patterns which the material process has set (in the brain) .

B: Yes. Could you we that the material process (in the brain) generally operates in a kind of ( psychic) 'darkness' (or 'lack of inner light'?) and therefore it has set itself in a wrong path ?

K: Darkness, yes. The material process acts in 'ignorance', in darkness. Right? And this 'flash' enlightens the whole field (of our consciousness) . Which means the ( residual heritage of ?) ignorance, the ( spiritual) 'darkness' has been dispelled. Right. I will hold to that.

B: Then you could say that 'darkness' and 'light' cannot co-exist for obvious reasons. Nevertheless the very existence of light is (operating a qualitative ) change in the process of darkness.

K: Quite right. I hold to that. What has happened is that the material process (of our self-centred thought) has worked in 'darkness' ( or has its 'blind spots'?) and has brought about such confusion and all the mess that exists in the world. And this flash wipes away the (surrounding) darkness. Which means what? That the material process (of thinking) then is not working anymore in darkness. Right?

B: Right. But now let's make another ( small technical?) point clear. Here is a flash (of insight), but it seems the light will go on.

K: The 'light' is ( freely available?) there, the flash 'is' the light.

B: You see, at a certain moment, the 'flash' is immediate but as you work from there there is still light ?

K: Why do you differentiate the flash from light?

B: Well just simply because the word 'flash' suggests that the ( illuminating) 'insight' would only last only for that moment. Like a flash of lightening gives light for that moment but then the next moment you are back in darkness.... until the next flash of lightening.

K: It is not like that.

B: So is it that the (inner) light suddenly turns on and stays on?

K: When we put that question 'stays on and goes off', you are still thinking in terms of time.

B: Yes, well we have to clear this up because it is the question everybody will ( eventually) put.

K: ( Recap:) The material process (of self-centred thought) is working in darkness, in time, in ( its past) knowledge, ignorance, all that. When that insight takes place there is the dispelling of that darkness. And then the same thinking, which is ( stiil) the material process in the brain , is no longer working in ( its self-created ) darkness, therefore that (intelligent flash of) 'light' has ended ( the inner cause of ) ignorance.

B: So we say this 'darkness' (of self-interest?) is really something which is built into the content of thought.

K: Its ( 'psychological) content' is darkness.

B: That's right. Then that (pure) 'light' has dispelled the (karmic causation of) ignorance.

K: That's right sir. Dispelled the (self-interest based ?) content.

B: But still we have to be very careful, you still have a content (of objective knowledge) in the usually accepted sense of the word, like you 'know' all kinds of things. So we can't say it has dispelled all the content.

K: It has dispelled the ( self-identified?) centre of darkness. The 'self' (-image) . The 'centre' of darkness, which has ( ctively) maintained this darkness, has been dispelled.

B: We can see that this means a 'physical' change in the ( behaviour of the ) brain cells. That centre (of selfishness is dispelled) and this alters the whole disposition of all the brain cells.

K: Of course sir, obviously. And this has an enormous significance in our relationship with our society, in everything.

Now the next ( technical) question which Mrs Lilliefelt has put, is: how does this 'flash (of insight' ) come about? Let's begin the other way round. How does Love come about? How does Peace (of mind?) come about? Which is, (inner) peace being cause-less, and ( our state of inner conflict ) is causal ( has so many material causes) , how does that 'causeless' thing come about when my whole (inner) life is ( entangled in the field of?) causation?
(For starters?) There is no 'how' since the 'how' implies a (new) causality. So to the ( trick?) question that Mrs Lilliefelt - 'how does it happen' ? I say that is a 'wrong' question. There is no 'how'.
If you 're attempting to show me 'how' you are back into the ( old causality of?) 'darkness'. Right ?

B: Right...

K: But I am asking something else : why is it that we have no ( free access to?) insight at all, why doesn't it start from our childhood ? Is it our education? Is it our society? - I don't believe it is just that. You follow?

B: What do you say then?

K: It is some other ( collective karmic ?) factor. I am groping after it. I am groping after this, which is why don't we have it, it seems so natural?

B: Yes, well at first one would say something is interfering with it.

K: For 'X' it is quite natural. Why isn't it natural for A, B, C ? Why isn't it possible? If we say blockage, education, which are all causes -and trying to remove the blockages implies ( creating) another ( temporal) cause. So we keep on rolling in that (linear ) direction. There is something 'unnatural' about all this. If to 'X' ( K?) it seems so natural. Why isn't it natural to everybody?

B: You see, many ( open minded) people might feel it is natural to everybody, but being treated in a certain way they gradually get caught in hate.

K: I don't believe that.

B: Well most people would say that it is natural for the young child meeting ( violence &) hate to respond (accordingly) with (violence&) hate.

K: Yes, this morning I heard that. Then I asked myself why? 'X' (K ?) has been put under all these circumstances which could have produced blockages, which could have produced all the rest of it - but 'X' wasn't touched by it. You follow? Why is it not possible for everybody?

B: We should make it more clear why we say it would be 'natural' not to respond immediately to hate with hate. You know, the child is not really able ( or inclined) to think about all this. Is it possible, meeting hate not to respond with hate ? Many people would say it would be the animal instinct to fight back.

The animal will respond with love if you treat him with love, but if you treat the animal with ( violence or with ?) hate he is going to fight back. Now some people would say that the human being in the beginning is like that animal and later he can understand. Right?

K: Of course. That is, the human being began his origin with the animal and the animal, the ape or any other animal, the wolf...

B: The wolf will respond with love too. Now you are saying why don't all children fail to respond to hate with hate? You were implying is that there is something deeper.

K: Yes sir. I think there is something quite different. Let's have an (illuminating?) insight! Would it be right to say that the beginning of man's (consciousness) is not in the animal?

B: Well that is not clear, you see. In the present theory of evolution you can follow the line where the apes become more and more like human beings....

K: And therefore if the beginning of man is (in) the animal (lineage) therefore we have that instinct highly cultivated and that instinct is natural.

B: Yes, that instinct is cause and effect.

K: Yes, cause and effect and it becomes 'natural'. And someone comes along and says, 'Is it so?'

B: Let's try to get this clear then. Because if it would not have been helpful for survival to respond to hate with love, then it would have been a 'natural selection' of people who responded to hate with hate.

K: So at the beginning there were some people, or there were half a dozen people who never responded to hate because they had Love, and those people had 'implanted' this thing in the human mind also. Right? And that has also been part of our (colletive consciousness) inheritance. Right? And why haven't we as human beings cultivated to respond to hate by hate, why haven't we cultivated the other?

Q: They have tried to cultivate it.

K: No, it is not 'cultivatable'.

B: It (Love) is not casual. It cannot be, and any 'cultivation' depends on a cause.

K: So why have we lost that?

Q: But when you ask why we have lost it, that implies that we have had it sometime.

B: Some have had it ?

K: Yes. Some. When man began some 'X', 'Y', 'Z' implanted in man this thing,( Selfless) Love, which is causeless, which will not respond ( violently) to hate. All right. That has been 'implanted'.
But (later on) we have cultivated very carefully by thought, to respond to hate by hate, violence by violence, and so on. Why haven't we moved along with the other line? You follow my question?

B: Yes, but...one doesn't see any way of proceeding.

K: To 'X' this (selfless attitude ) seems so natural. 'X' never even thought about the other. So (the 1000$ question is :) if that is so natural to 'X', why isn't it natural to 'Y' and so on? If he is ( considered a biological) freak that is a 'stupid' (or convenient?) way of pushing him off. If it is natural to 'X' it must be natural to others, why isn't it natural?

You know, there is this ancient idea in the Indian religions and so on, that the 'Manifestation of the Highest' takes place (on planet Earth) , occasionally. So, have we moved in the wrong direction?

B: What do you mean by that?

K: We have taken the 'wrong turn': responding to hate by hate, violence by violence, (rather than not responding the causal way)

B: And giving supreme value to ( self-preserving?) knowledge....

Q: Wouldn't another ( available) factor in the attempt to cultivate the idea of love?

K: Who says that?

Q: Well many (responsible) people have always tried to really produce love and better human beings.

B: That is the purpose of religion.

Q: It is the purpose of religion.

K: Is it cultivatable by ( the process of our self-centred) thought? Thought is a material process. Love has no cause, it is not cultivatable, full stop. (However,) if it is natural to 'X' why isn't it natural to A, B, C? I think this is an (experientially) valid question.

B: Another point of view is that you could see that the response of hate to hate just makes no sense anyway, so, why do we go on with it? Because people may ( subliminally) believe in that moment that they are protecting themselves with hate, but it is not ( a real) protection.

K: I think this is a valid (experiential question :) . 'X' s ( consciousness) is born without cause and A, B, C's are caught in causality. Is it the privilege of (the lucky ?) few, of a (self-selected ?) elite? No, no...
Let's begin the other way round, sir. 'X's' mind is the mind of humanity. We have been through that. This 'mind of humanity' has (traditionally) ( been thinking in terms of responding to) hate with hate, violence by violence, knowledge by knowledge and so on. But (the consciousness of?) A, B, C are part of 'X's' conscience, part of ( our original Consciousness heritage) .

B: Then why is there this (visible qualitative ?) difference?

K: Yes sir, that is what I am asking. One is natural, the other is unnatural.
Now, who is asking this question? The A, B, C people, who ( are thinking in terms of responding ) to hate by hate, are they asking the question? Or are the 'X' (type) asking the question ?

Q: It would seem that the X's are asking this question.

B: But you see, we were also just saying that (consciousness-wise) they are not ( fundamentally) different .

K: They are not different.

B: There is only one ( human consciousness or?) 'Mind'. And how does it come that an (overwhelming) part of this 'one mind' says, 'no'?

K: Of course there are all kinds of (possible) explanations - ( a poor collective?) Karma & reincarnation. But remove all those explanations, what am I left with, the fact that 'X', 'Y', 'Z' are (inwardly) different from A, B, C. And those are facts. X's do not respond with that ( violent heritage) . That is, X, Y, Z (the Founding Fathers?) have given me that gift and I have not carried that gift. You follow what I mean? I have carried the other 'gift' (of survival-oriented thinking) but not this – why?

Q: Did you say that it was implanted in (the Common Consciousness of ?) all of us?

K: Of course. If man began with the animal, if my father was responding to hate by hate, why has his (young) son not responded in the same direction?

B: I think it is a question of 'insight'.

K: Which means what? He (the young K) had 'insight' right from early childhood, which means what? There is some other ( hidden) factor that is missing sir. I want to capture it. You see, if that ( mind of the young K ) is an exception then it is silly.

B: All right then, then this ( 'otherness') thing is 'dormant' in all human beings - I mean that the ( 'selfless love' ?) factor is ( potentially ) in (the consciousness of) all mankind.

K: That is a 'dangerous' ('risky' ?) statement too.

B: But that is ( pretty much) what you were saying.

K: I know, but I am still questioning, and when I am quite sure I will tell you.

B: All right. We tried this (avenue) and we can say it seems promising but it is a bit 'dangerous' (or slippery) . The possibility ( of a holistic consciousness?) is there in (the all-one consciousness of) all mankind and in so far as some people have seen it.

K: Which means "God is in you"?

B: Not (necessarily, but ) just that the possibility of insight is there in everyone.

K: Why did that (young K) 'chap' have it?

B: Yes, why?

K: And he says this seems so terribly natural, what is natural it must be to everybody. Water is 'natural' to everybody.

B: Yes, well why isn't ( the selfless clarity of?) 'insight' present for everybody from the beginning?

K: Yes, that is all I am asking. Nothing could affect it, maltreatment, being put into all kinds of (odd ?) situations, it hasn't affected it. Why? You follow sir? We are coming to something.

7TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly" edited)

LIGHT & DARKNESS

Krishnamurti: Shall we start from where we left off?

B: We were discussing the other day that our inherited animal instincts may often be overpowering in their intensity and speed, especially with young children (& or teenagers?) . It may seem that it is only 'natural' for them to respond with animalistic instincts.

K: So that means that (consciousness-wise ?) after a million years we are still instinctively behaving like our ancestors?

B: Well in some ways. Probably the animal instincts have now become entangled with thought and it is getting in some ways worse. Because all these instincts of ( violence or?) 'hatred' now become directed by thought and are ( rationally?) sustained by thought so that they are more subtle and more dangerous.

K: So, during all these many, many centuries (of sloppy evolution?) we haven't found a way that will move us away from that track. Now, if 'X' (K?) behaves naturally in a way, which is not responding to the animal instincts, what place has such (holistic behaviour or ) insight in our modern human society?

B: Well, in the modern society as it is going now, it cannot be accommodated because society is organized under the assumption that pleasure and pain and fear are going to rule, except when you (can keep them under?) control. Say, friendliness is a kind of animal instinct too, people do become friendly for instinctive reasons or may become enemies for similar reasons.

K: We were talking really about (how )'insight' does actually change the nature of the brain itself.

B: Yes, by dispelling the (internal) 'darkness' in the brain, it allows the brain to function in a new way.

K: Yes. Thought has been operating in darkness, creating its own darkness and functioning in that. And (the spiritual clarity of ?) insight is (acting) like a flash (of inner light?) which breaks down that darkness. And after that insight is clearing the 'darkness' (of self-isolation?) , then does the human brain act & function rationally?

B: Yes, a 'rationally' of direct perception, rather than guided by rules and reason. But there is a freely flowing reason. You see some people identify reason with certain rules of logic which would be mechanical.

K: So are we saying that 'insight' is ( a holistic) perception?

B: It is the flash of inner 'light' which makes possible the perception (of the truth or falseness of something ?) So, it is something more fundamental than perception.

K: So 'insight' is (an all clarifying?) pure perception and from that perception there is a (holistic) action (or non-action?) which is then sustained by rationality. Is that it?

B: Yes. This ( holistic) 'rationality' being the perception of order, I would say.

K: So would you say: insight, perception and (establishing a dynamic ?) order' that is not mechanical since it is not based on (preset) rules. Then you brought the ( academical) question: is 'insight' continuous, or is it (coming only in a ) flash?

B: We went into that and said it was a wrong question since ( the insightful perception ) is not time-bound.

K: So now let's get a little further. This ( total) 'insight' is the elimination of ( the inner) ?) 'darkness' which is the very centre of the self (or of our soul?) , which is, the self (centred consciousness) creates this darkness (as it goes) . And so (the clarity of ) insight dispels that very centre (of existential darkness ?).

B: Yes, and (in the absence of?) that 'darkness' (a clear inward ) perception is now possible. In a way it was like a 'blindness' …

K: So, as an ordinary man with all my (well controlled ?) animal instincts, pleasure and pain and reward and punishment and so on, I hear you say this, and I see what you are saying has some kind of reason, logic, and order.

B: Yes, it 'makes sense' as far as we can see.

K: Then how is one to have such a total 'insight' in one's everyday life? Is it possible for me to have this insight so that (self-centred) pattern of life is broken? As we said the other day, we may have once in a while 'partial insights', but the partial insight is not the whole insight so there is still ( left some?) partial darkness.

B: It may dispel some darkness in a certain area but the source of the darkness, the 'creator', the 'sustainer' of it is still there.

K: So we have stated the general plan. Right? And I have to make the moves, or make no moves at all. But, (experientialIy – wise, there are some 'logistics' issues:) haven't the ( necessary volume of integrated?) energy. I haven't the capacity to see it quickly, I haven't got that sense of urgent immediacy. And outwardly, everything seems to be working against me: my family, my wife, society, everything – (not to mention?) that you (refuse to guide ?) me , so I am just left (on my own ) . So, is there a different ( more holistically friendly?) approach to this 'insight' question altogether?

B: Well, are you suggesting that there is another way? One certainly can't produce this flash of insight at will.

K: Oh, we have been through that, but also we came to this ( Karmic check-) point: if for 'X' this insight seems so natural and why is it not natural to others? If we could find that sir...

B: If you begin with the (common consciousness of the ) child, it seems natural to the child to respond with his animal instincts, which have a great intensity and sweep him away. Darkness arises because it is so overwhelming.

K: Yes, but why is that not true with 'X'?

B: It seems 'natural' to most people that the animal instincts would take over ( in any critical situation?) and they would say the 'other fellow' is 'unnatural' (a psychological freak?). That is the way mankind has been thinking for ages, saying that if there are indeed any such ( special) people they must be very unusual and unnatural.

K: But if this is natural, that is, ( the human responses of violence or ) hate, what is one battling against (inwardly) ?

B: Well, the (more thoughtful) people say we must battle to control this kind of responses it because it will destroy (our whole civilisation) . So, they say the best we can hope for is to control it with reason or with another ( 'alternative') ways.

K: If that ( self-centredness ) is 'natural', are 'the few' privileged by some miracle, or by some strange chance event?

B: Yes, many people would say that they (the X-ses) are unusual in some way.

K: No, that goes against one's grain. I wouldn't accept that.

B: Well, if you say they are fundamentally the same, then why do they behave differently?

K: This question has been asked many times, over and over again in different parts of the world. Why this division?

Q: Well I'd just want to say that the division does not seem to be so entire.

K: Oh yes sir, (holistically speaking ?) the division is entire, complete.

Q: Then why are people not saying ' Let's just live that way and enjoy it to the last moment'? Some would want to get out of it.

K: Now wait a minute sir. Do they actually realize the state they are in and deliberately want to get out of it?

Q: They are ambivalent about it. They want to go on getting the fruits of it but they have a sense there is something wrong with it , that it (eventually) leads to ( a gathering up of ?) suffering for them.

B: Or else they find they can't help it. You see, when the ( critical) time comes they get really angry, or ( are being tempted by?) pleasure, they can't get away.

Q: They are helpless, there are ( inertial psychic) forces which are stronger than even their ( good) will.

K: So what shall we do? Or this division ( can be insightfully perceived as being ?) false ?

B: That's the point. We had better called it an ( illusory ) 'difference' between these two. This difference is not fundamental. If you say the division is false, you say fundamentally they are the same, but a difference (of mentality) has developed between them. Perhaps one has taken a 'wrong turning'...

K: Let's put it that way, yes.

B: But the difference is not 'built in' like the difference between a tree and a rock.

K: Right. So there are (these) two (existential choices ?) , they start from the same (life) source and one has taken one direction and the other has taken another direction. But their ( Original) Source is the same. So, why haven't all moved in the right direction?

B: I was just saying that if we understand (the truth of ) that (unique Source) then you do not have to take the wrong turn. In some sense we are continually 'taking the wrong turn', so if we can understand this ('instant karma' of the ?) wrong turn, then it becomes possible to change.

K: Yes sir. That is, we start from the same source. 'A' takes one turn...

B: We are continually starting from the same source, there's no point for going back in time to the Source. If this Source (of All That Is?) is timeless, it seems that we are continually taking the wrong turn, again and again (resulting in a 'cyclic' or 'spiralling' evolution ) . Right?

K: Yes. If we cut out ( the cultural assumption of our linear progression in?) 'time', (it follows that we are using our 'free will' in ) constantly (taking) the 'wrong turn'.

B: Constantly the wrong turn, yes. Which means there is always the possibility of a 'right turn'.

K: Yes, of course. That is, if we (think of an original ) source from which we all once began, then we are caught in ( the irreversible logic of) time.

B: You can't go back.

K: You can't go back. That ( option) is out. Therefore, apparently we are ( unconsciously) taking the 'wrong turn' all the time.

B: Constantly.

K: Now ( when we exit the temporal logic) these (two existential options ?) are constantly (available) : one is 'living with insight' and the other is 'not living with insight'. So, ( even) the man who is (enjoying his/her temporarily comfortable ?) living in darkness can 'move away' at any time to the 'other' (existential option) . That is the point: at any time.

B: Then nothing holds him, except (the inertia of) taking the wrong turn constantly. You could say his ( inward blindness or ) 'darkness' is such that he doesn't even see himself taking this wrong turning.

K: Now, suppose you have that ( open access to?) insight, and the very 'centre of darkness' has been dispelled completely. And as I am a serious, fairly intelligent, human being, I come to 'listen' to you. And as whatever you have said (until now) seems (holistically ?) reasonable, rational, sane, I ( come to) question this division ( within myself) . The ( perfect illusion of my) division is created by this (karmic ) centre (of self-interest?) which creates ( isolation & ) darkness. Right?

B: Yes. It is the same as the outer divisions, it is (the subliminal working of our self-centred ) thought.

K: Thought has created (and maintained) this division. You who have the ( free access to ?) insight, say 'there is no division'. But I won't accept that ( even as a working hypothesis?) because in my darkness I can see nothing but division. Living in darkness we have created this division. We have created it in our thoughts...

B: I am constantly creating it.

K: Yes, constantly creating division, that's right, constantly creating division even in ( my sincere hope of ) wanting to live in a (holistic ?) state in which there is no division. Right?

B: Yes...

K: But that (kind of wishful thinking) is still part of the movement ( activity ) of darkness. Right?

B: Yes...

K: So, how is one to 'dispel' this constant darkness, to perceive the thought that is creating darkness and to see that the ('thinking) self' is the source of this darkness.

B: Well, intellectually it is pretty clear .

K: Yes but somehow that doesn't seem to operate. So do I realize sir, (as) for the first time, that my 'self (-interest'?) is creating the darkness which is constantly breeding ( the observer-observed) division ? Do I see that very clearly ?

B: Yes.

K: Now if I see this ( truth?) very clearly, what shall I do? I don't admit (living inwardly in this illusory ) division.

( Recap:) 'X' has ( free access to?) insight and he has explained to me very clearly how the 'darkness' ( of self-isolation ) is banished. I listen to him and he says, your (self-created ) darkness is creating the division. Actually there is no division, no division as 'light' and 'darkness'. So he asks me, can you banish, can you put away this (inner) sense of (self-) division?

Q: Can one put away (this inner sense of) division as long as one is (inwardly fragmented and actually feeling ) divided?

K: No, you can't, but (if I care to listen ) something so extraordinarily true, which has such immense significance and beauty, my whole being (the totality of my consciousness awakens & ) says 'Capture it !', this is not (the action of inner ) division. I have 'listened' to 'X' who says 'there is no division'. And my very listening (to the truth of) that saying has an immediate effect (impact) on me.

I have lived constantly in division and you come along and say : there is no division. What effect has it on me? It must have some impact on me (on the totality of my consciousness?) .

B: So then, that makes total sense. But on the other hand it seems that ( my inner sense of?) division does still exists.

K: I recognize the ( fact of this inner ) division, but ( the universal truth of?) your statement ''there is no division'' has a tremendous impact on my (total conscousness) . When (and if?) I see ( the truth of) something that is immovable, it must have some effect on me. I respond to it with a tremendous shock. ( If?) I am ( inwardly) sensitive, watch very carefully and all the rest, and realize I am constantly living in ( the darkness of my self- created) division, ( seeing the truth of) it has broken the pattern (of self-centredness) .

Q: At least for that ( timeless) moment, it breaks the (self-centred) pattern.

K: It has broken the pattern, because he has said something which is so fundamentally true: there is no (division between ) 'God' and (the Consciousness of?) 'man'. You follow sir? (The living truth of ?) that enters into me and therefore 'dispels the darkness'. It is not 'I' making an effort to get rid of 'darkness' but you are (bringing) the Light.. So it comes down to something (trés 'simple') which is: can I 'listen' in my (inner state of) darkness ? Of course I can.

B: Now on what basis do you say you can 'listen' in the darkness?

K: Oh yes. If I can't ...I am doomed (or...back to sleep for a couple of thousand years?) .

B: But that is not (a valid rational) argument.

K: Of course that is no argument but 'that is so'. If I am constantly living darkness...

B: That's clear: living constantly in 'darkness' ( or in the 'field of the known'?) is not worthwhile. But now we say that it is possible to 'listen' in the darkness.

K: Yes sir. ( This 'total ?) listening' (to something true ?) is not (the action of) division.

Q: Can you make it a little bit more clear?

K: Listening to (the inward truth of such an absolute ? ) statement has brought my constant 'movement in darkness' to an end . If this ('miracle of listening'?) doesn't take place I am perpetually living in darkness. There is a 'voice in the wilderness' and listening to that voice has an extraordinary effect in my wilderness.

B: You probably mean that this ( total) 'listening' reaches the source of my movement in darkness , whereas the common (self-) observation does not.

K: Yes sir, in that (inner) 'wilderness' a voice says ''There is water !''. You follow? ( If I listen non-verbally to it?) there is an immediate ( awakening) action in me. But would you say that one must (have the inner honesty to?) realize, understand, that this 'constant movement in darkness' is (all) my life (is about) . Can one realize with all the (immense outward experience and) knowledge of a million years, suddenly realize that (inwardly) I am (still) living in total darkness?

That means I have reached the end of all (my personal 'high ) hopes' . Right? My 'hope' is also ( a shiny projection from this inner ) darkness. So I am left ( to contemplate inwardly ? ) this enormous darkness and that is also the end of ( all 'psychological) becoming'. I have reached (in the meditational context ?) this point ( of timeless-ness) and 'X' tells me, 'Naturally sir !' You see, all the ( organised) religions have said this division exists. 'God' and the 'son of God', ('Brahman' and 'brahman', etc)

B: But haven't the Indian religions also said that this division can be overcome ?

K: I have discussed this with some 'pundits', but I doubt very much ( that they transcended it?) . It doesn't matter who said it (there & then) but the fact is that somebody( here & now?) in this 'wilderness' is saying that when there is ( total) Insight there is no ( inner sense of self isolation or?) division and... I have been listening to it ( it is not your insight or my insight) it is "Insight". In ( the flashing light of) that (total insight ?) there is no division.

B: Yes....

K: Which means sir, that in the ( Original) Ground (of Being) , which we talked about, there is no 'darkness' (per se) and no 'light' (per se) ; there is no such division and so It is not born or time, or thought and all that. So in that Ground...

B: ... 'light and 'darkness' are not divided?

K: Right.

B: Which means to say that there is neither.

K: Neither, that's it. There is something else - a different ( holistic) 'movement' which is non-dualistic.

B: But nevertheless there is (a living timeless ?) 'movement'. But what would it mean, 'movement without division'?

K: I mean by that (holistic syntagm ?) a 'Movement' that it is not time, and doesn't breed division. Would you say sir, that the Ground (of All Creation ?) is an endless movement?

B: Yes.

K: What does that mean?

B: Well, it is not clear - it is difficult to express...

K: I think one can go ( experientially ?) into it, and (try to) express it. What is a 'movement' ? Apart (of going ) from here to there, apart from the (chronological) time (involved ) is there any other 'movement'?

B: Yes.

K: There is. The 'psychological' movement from being (this) to becoming (that), the ( mental) movement of (a thought-created ) time. Now, is there an ( All-One?) 'Movement' ( of the Universal Consciousness?) which in itself has no division ? When you (K) have made that statement that (in the Ground of Creation ?) there is no division, it is that Movement, right?

B: Well, you are saying that when there is no division (within one's psyche) then 'That' Movement is ( present ) there. Right?

K: Yes. And 'X' says that is the Ground (of All Creation?)

B: Right...

K: Would you say that movement has no ending and no beginning?

B: Yes... it flows without (any temporal?) divisions, you see.

K: But do I capture the (inward) significance of that? Do I understand the depth of that statement? A movement (of Creation ?) in which there is no division (no separation ?) which means no element of time in it at all. Is that movement, surrounding man's ( consciousness ?) ?

B: Enveloping ?

K: Enveloping (the consciusness of ?) man. I am concerned with (the consciousness of ?) mankind, which 'is' me. 'X' (the 'Speaker'?) has made several ( holistic ?) statements and one seems so absolutely true: that (consciousness-wise ?) there is no division. Which (if properly understood ?) means there is no action which is (self-) divisive. And also I see that this Timeless Movement is (envelopping the whole consciousness of the ?) world.

B: The universe ?

K: The universe, the cosmos, the whole.

B: The totality (of All Existence) ?

K: Isn't there a statement sir, in the Jewish religious world, "Only God can say, I 'am' "? You follow what I am trying to get at?

B: That in fact, only this (timeless ) Movement (of Creation ) 'Is'.

K: So, sir, can the (human) mind be (an integrated part ) of that Movement? Because That is timeless, therefore deathless.

B: Yes, this Movement ( of Creation) is without death. And as the (human) mind takes part in That, it is of the same (nature) .

K: You understand what I am saying?

B: Yes. But then...what 'dies' when the individual mind dies?

K: It has no meaning once I have understood there is no division...(For a holistically integrated mind ?) death has no meaning.

B: Well, it still has a meaning in the (physical) context...

K: Oh, the ending of the (physical) body, that's totally 'trivial'.... But ( seeing the truth of your) ?) statement "there is no division", has broken the spell of my ( inner) darkness, and I see that ( down there?) there is an (integration into a?) Movement and that's all. Which means you have abolished totally the fear of death.

B: Yes, I understand that when the human mind is partaking in that (Timeless ) Movement then the mind 'is' that movement.

K: That's all. The mind 'is' that movement.

B: Would you say that 'matter' is also (part of ?) that movement?

K: Yes sir, I would say everything.

(To re-recap:) In my darkness I have ( still been able to) listen to you. That's most important. And your ( truthful) clarity has broken the 'spell'. And when you have said (that in the Ground of Creation ?) there is no division, you have abolished the division between 'life' and 'death'. One can never say then 'I' am becoming immortal, but you have wiped away the whole sense of 'moving in darkness'. I wonder if you get this?

Q: When you make this statement, there is no division, and ''life 'is' death'', what then is the significance for modern man's existence with all his struggles, with all his...

K: None. He is like struggling (to survive ?) in a locked room. That is the whole point.

B: So, the true significance (of human existence ) can only arise when the darkness is dispelled.

K: Of course.

B: Aren't we going to say that something more can be done besides dispelling darkness?

K: The mind of the one who has this (liberating ) insight, therefore dispelled darkness and therefore has understanding of that Ground, which is an (eternally creative ?) movement without time and so on, then that mind itself 'is' (becoming one with) that Movement.

B: Yes, and that Movement is including the material world, (as well as the Universal) Mind ?

K: Yes sir.

B: So we were saying that the Ground ( of Creation?) may be beyond the Universal Mind. You were saying earlier that this Ground is more than the universal mind still, more than the emptiness.

K: We said that, much more.

B: But you said the Ground goes beyond the Mind...

K: Would you say beyond that (Universal) Mind is this Movement?

B: Yes. The mind emerges from the movement as a Ground and falls back to the Ground, that is what we are saying.

K: Yes, that's right. Mind emerges from the (Ground) movement.

B: And it 'dies back' into that movement.

K: That's right. It has it being in the Ground movement. But sir, what I want to get at is: I am a human being faced with this (ages old mystery of death ?) ending and you have removed one of the greatest fears of our life - the fear of death. You see what it does to a human being when there is no death (on his existential horizon?) ? Which means the 'mind' doesn't age, the ordinary mind I am talking about.

B: Let's go slowly. You say the mind doesn't age, but what if the brain cells age?

K: I question it.

B: How can you know that?

K: Because there is no conflict, because there is no strain, there is no becoming, movement. You follow?

B: Well, ou are stating something about the (non-aging of the ?) brain cells about which I have no feeling for. It might be so, (or... maybe not?)

K: I think it is so. But for a human mind which has lived in the darkness is in constant movement there is the wearing out of the cells, they decay biologically .

B: But somebody might argue that even without conflict they could still decay, only at a slower rate. Let's say if you were to live hundreds of years, for example, in time the cells would decay no matter what you would do. But I can readily accept that the rate of decay of cells could be cut down when you get rid of conflict.

K: Decay can be slowed down.

B: Perhaps a great deal ?

K: A great deal. And that means what? What is the quality of that mind which has no ( personal ?) problems? Suppose such a mind lives in pure air, has the right kind of food and so on and so on, why can't it live two hundred years?

B: Well, some people already lived up to a hundred and fifty, living in very pure air and having good food.

K: Yes but the brain which has had insight has changed the cells.

Q: Are you implying in a way that even the organic brain...

K: Yes sir. We said that insight brings about a ( qualitative ?) change in the brain cells, which means these brain cells are no longer thinking in terms of time. Right sir?

B: If they are not so disturbed they will remain in order and perhaps they will break down more slowly, we might increase the age limit from one hundred and fifty to two hundred provided you also had a healthy environment all round.

K: Yes. That all sounds so 'damn trivial', all that.

B: Yes, it doesn't seem to make much difference. But it's an interesting idea.

K: What we are trying to find out is: what effect has (the impact of ?) this extraordinary Movement ( of Creation ?) on the human brain, you understand sir?

B: Yes. If we say the brain in some way directly "enveloped" in this (universal) movement, that would bring it to order, a direct (inter-) flow, physically and also mentally.

K: Yes, both. It must have an extraordinary effect on the brain. But to come much closer to ( life on planet ) Earth, I have lived with the fear of death, fear of not becoming and so on, and suddenly I see ( that consciousness-wise ?) there is no division and I understand this whole thing. So what has happened to my brain? If you see this whole thing as a tremendous truth -with all your heart, mind, you 'see' this thing, that very perception must affect (the everyday functioning of) your brain.

B: Yes. It brings order.

K: Not only order in my life but in the brain itself.

B: (The science) people did prove that if you are under stress the brain cells start to break down. And if you have order in the brain cells then it is quite different.

K: I have a feeling sir, that the brain never loses the quality of that Movement.

B: Once it has (touched ) it ?

K: Of course. I am talking of the person who has been ( seriously enquiring & meditating ?) through all this .

B: So probably it never loses that ( holistic) quality.

K: Therefore it is no longer (getting inwardly entangled ?) in time.

B: It would no longer be 'dominated' by time. The brain, from what we were saying, is not evolving in any sense, you can't say that man's brain has evolved since the last ten thousand years. You see science, knowledge, has evolved but people felt the same about life several thousand years ago as they do now.

K: Now, (for the 'ground meditation' homework ?) in that 'silent emptiness' is the brain absolutely still? I am talking of the (non-) movement of thought, or of any reaction.

B: Yes. The brain does not go off on its own, like (indulging in egocentric ?) thoughts.

K: You see, we have done a tremendous lot - we have abolished (the fear of?) death, which is a tremendous thing. And what is (inner state of ) the brain, when there is no more death? You follow? It has undergone a 'surgical operation'.

B: We talked before about the brain normally has the notion of (its own) death continually there in the background and that notion is disturbing the brain constantly. Because the brain foresees (is anticipating ) its own ending and it is trying to stop it, but... it can't.

K: It can't.

B: And therefore it has a (major) problem.

K: A constant struggle with it.

B: ...going on in the background.

K: So all that (psychologically created fear) has come to an end. How does that affect my everyday life? Because I still have to live ( for a while?) on this earth. But my daily life as this everlastingly becoming more & more successful, all that is gone (with the wind?) . What an extraordinary thing has taken place !

B: In bringing in this question of daily life you might bring in the question of compassion.

K: Of course, is that 'movement' Compassion?

B: It would be beyond. Compassion might emerge out of it.

K: Of course if you haven't got that yet. We had better stop (on a 'good ball' ?)

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 19 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 #5
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

8TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly edited)

The creative interaction between the Ground of Being and the Consciousness of mankind

Krishnamurti: We left off with 'non-movement'. A human being who has been pursuing (for ages) the (materialistic ?) path of becoming and (meditatively ?) went through this sense of (inner) emptiness, silence, energy, and abandoned almost everything and comes to this (central ?) point, the Ground (of Creation). And how does (such a total) insight affect his daily life? What is now his relationship to society, what is his action with regard to a ( materialistic) world that is really living and struggling in (spiritual) darkness ? As we discussed the other day, (his action) is ( one of inner?) 'non-movement'. What does that mean?

B: Well, in some sense it seems inconsistent to say 'non-movement' while you say the Ground is (in a constant creative ?) movement.

K: Would you say the ordinary, average man with all his (pleasant and/or ?) unpleasant activities, is constantly in ( mental) movement ? I mean a movement in ( thought &) time, a movement in (self-) becoming. And we are saying the man who has trodden that path and come to this (innermost) point, from there what is his action? We said, non-action, non-movement. What does that mean?

B: Well, it is not clear why you should call it 'non-action', we could think that it is action of another kind which is not part of the process of (psychological) becoming, but since whatever we do is 'action', his action would be directed towards ( the karmic cause) that underlies this illusory process: like we were discussing the other day the 'wrong turning' which is continually coming out of the Ground. Right?

K: Yes, yes. You see various religions have described the man who is illuminated, especially in the Hindu religious books, there it is stated very clearly, how he looks, how he walks, the whole state of his being. I think that is merely a poetic description of something which is...

B: You think it is ( a flight of?) imagination?

K: I'm afraid a great deal of it is imagination. But I have discussed this point with some (Hindu wise men ?) and it is not like that, that is no imagination. Somebody who described it knew exactly what it was. So how does a man of this kind live in this world? It is a very interesting (experiential ?) question if you go into it rather deeply. So, (inwardly speaking?) there is this state of ( mental) 'non-movement'.

B: You see it is not clear exactly what you mean by this 'non-movement'.

K: ( Metaphorically) it is like a single tree in a field. There is no other tree but that tree, whatever the name of that tree is, it 'is' there.

B: Well, the tree is (alive and ) moving but in relation to the field it 'stands'. That is the picture we get.

K: You see, if you have gone into this from the beginning to the end, now you are with a totally different kind of (inner) movement, which is timeless and all that.

B: I agree.

K: You 'are' (one with ?) that. And I ( the earnest follower?) come to you and say, 'What is the state of a mind, that has walked on that path and ended (its psychological becoming in time) , totally moved out of darkness, what is the state of that mind? And what does such a mind do, or not do, in the world which is in darkness?

B: Well, (for starters) this mind does not enter into the movement of the world . And it has a 'constancy' which is ( of ) the same nature as the Ground movement, which is completely free.

K: This mind being ( inwardly as) nothing, 'not-a-thing', therefore empty of knowledge - would it be always acting in the 'light' of insight?

B: Yes, it would be constantly pervaded by the quality of insight.

K: Yes, that is what I mean. It is acting constantly in that (light) of insight. So what does that mean in one's daily life? ( Get a job and?) earn a livelihood... ?

B: Well, you would have to find a way to stay alive.

K: But what if he has no professional skill and no coin with which he can buy (anything) ?

B: Well, you would need to acquire a certain practical skill to find the food which you need...

K: But this (K ?) man says, there may be a different way of living and earning (one's livelihood) . We are used to that ( learn & earn?) pattern - right sir? And he says, 'Look, that may be totally wrong'.

B: Then it depends what you mean by 'skill'. Suppose he has to drive a car, well that takes some practical skill, you see. But 'skill' could also have a bad meaning by being very clever at getting money.

K: So this man is not money-minded, he is not storing up for the future, he hasn't any insurance, but he has to live, and when we use the word 'skill', as driving a car...

B: But then people become very skilful at getting other people to (donate) them money, you see!

K: That might be 'the game'. That may be it! As I am doing!

Q: I wish you were more skilled at that!

K: Sufficient unto the day. So, we were talking of a man who has been through all this and has 'come back' to the world and says, 'Here I am'. What is his relationship to society ?

B: Well, there is a 'superficial' relationship he has to have. He has to obey the laws, he has to follow the traffic signals...

K: Quite. But I want to find out sir, what is he to do (in the creative sense) ? I think if we could find out the (inner) quality of a mind that has been through that from the beginning to the end, that man's mind is entirely different, and he is (living ?) in the world. How does he look upon the world? You have 'reached' and come back and I am an ordinary man, living in this world, what is your ( cooperating)?) relationship to me? Obviously none because I am living in a world of darkness and you are not. So (an authentic) relationship can only exist when (my inner) darkness ends. Then there is only That. But ( as of) now I look at you (the Enlightened One?) with my eyes which are accustomed to darkness and to division. You have to have some contact with me, a relationship (based on) compassion - not what is ( commonnly) translated as compassion: ''Oh it shows you are not compassionate if you don't do this''. I don't know what your love is, what your compassion is because my only love and compassion has been ( ego-centric). So, what do I do with you?

B: Of which one are you talking about now?

K: You, 'X', who have been through all that and come back.

B: Yes, and 'Y' has not.

K: Has not. 'Y' says ; ''Who are you? You seem so different, your whole way of looking at life is different ?'' And what will 'Y' (the worldly person) do with you, 'X'? That is the question.

B: I mean, what will 'Y' do?

K: Our initial question has been what will 'X' do with 'Y'. But I think we were putting the wrong question. What will 'Y' do with 'X'? I think what would happen generally is (a) 'Y' would worship him, (b) 'kill' him , or (c) neglect ( ignore ?) him. If (a) 'Y' worships 'X' , then everything is very simple . He has ( access to all ) the 'goodies' of the modern world. But that doesn't (totally) answer my question. 'X's' (educational role ?) is to say, 'Look, walk out of this ( inner mentality of?) darkness, there is no answer in this darkness so walk out.' And 'Y' then says ' Show me the way' - We're back again (in 'time') , you follow?

B: But if ( the Intelligence of Universal?) Compassion works in 'X'...?

K: Yes, 'X' 'is' ( one with?) That. He won't even call it 'Compassion'.

B: Then 'X' will work (educationally?) to find a way to penetrate that (dense 'psychological) darkness'.

K: Wait: so 'X's' ( educational) job is to work on darkness?

B: Well to discover how to penetrate darkness.

K: So, in that way he is earning a ( decent?) living.

B: Well... 'possibly'. It depends on whether people are willing to pay him for that.

K: Talking seriously : probably 'X' is the (holistic ?) Teacher who is saying to the 'people of darkness': ''Come out''. What's wrong with that?

B: Well nothing is wrong with that.

K: So, that is his ( right?) means of livelihood.

B: It's perfectly all right as long as it works for him...

K: It seems to work!

B: Of course if there were a lot of people like 'X' there would be some limits.

K: What would happen if there were lots of people like 'X'?

B: That is an interesting question (for the future generations ?)...

K: What would happen?

B: Well then I think there would be something revolutionary ( consciousness-wise) . The whole thing would change.

K: That is just it. If there were lots of people like that they would not be divided. That is the whole point, right?

B: I think that even if ten or fifteen people were (consciousness-wise) 'undivided' they would exert a ( psychical?) force that had never been seen in our history.

K: Tremendous. That's right.

B: Because I don't think it has ever happened, that ten people were undivided.

K: So, that is 'X's' job in ( his earthly?) life. A group of those ten 'X's' will bring ( possibly?) a totally different kind of ( Cultural ?) revolution. Will society stand for that?

B: They will have this extreme intelligence and so they will find an intelligent way to do it, you see.

K: Quite right, quite right. You are saying something that is actually ( on the way of?) happening. So would you say then that the ( educational) function of those many 'X's' is to awaken human beings to that (Compassionate Universal ) Intelligence which will dispel the darkness? And that is their (correct) means of livelihood. Right? ( Seen from a distance ?) that seems very simple. But I don't think it is all that simple.

B: Right...

K: Is that the only function of 'X'? That seems very simple, doesn't it?

B: Well it is a difficult function ( of any holistic education ?) , it is not really so 'simple'...

K: The function may be complicated but ( given the right people ?) it can easily be solved. But I wanted to aim at something much deeper: apart from this (' holistic' educational) function, what is 'X' to do? 'X' says to 'Y', 'listen', and 'Y' takes time and gradually, or perhaps once (...upon a time?) , he will 'wake up' and move away. But is that all 'X' is going to do in life?

B: Well that can only be an outcome of something deeper.

K: The deeper is the Ground. But is that all he has to do in this world? Just to teach ( or 'awaken' ?) people to move out of darkness?

B: Well that seems to be the prime task at the moment, in the sense that if this doesn't happen the whole society will sooner or later collapse. But he needs to be in some sense creative, more deeply.

K: What is that?

B: Well that is not clear...

K: Sir, suppose you are 'X' and have an enormous field( of Universal Consciousness ?) in which you operate, not merely bt teaching me, but (assuming) you have (free access to ?) this extraordinary Movement (of Creation) . That is, you have this abounding energy and you have (or...it has been?) produced all that (in order to) to teach me to move out of darkness. So what does the rest do, you follow? I don't know if I am conveying this.

B: Well, that is what I mean by some 'creative action' taking place.

K: Yes, beyond that. You may write, you may preach, you may heal, but all those are all a very small business. But you have (free access to ?) 'something else' . Have I ( the 'activist & follower' ?) reduced you to my pettiness? My pettiness says, 'You must do something more to help me move.' Right? You comply to the very smallest degree, but you have (access to ) something much more immense than that. You understand my question?

B: Yes. So what?

K: How is That ( 'Otherness') operating (more directly) on 'Y'? How is that immensity operating on 'Y' - I don't know if I am conveying this?

B: Well are you saying that there is some more direct action?

K: Either there is a more direct action, or 'X' is doing something totally different to affect the (total) Consciousness of mankind.

B: What could this (totally different action) be to affect ( the total consciousness of) mankind? It would almost suggest some sort of "Extrasensory effect" that it spreads.

K: That point is what I am trying to capture: because that Immensity must necessarily has other activities.

B: At other levels of Human Consciousness ?

K: Yes, other activities at various degrees of (human) consciousness. But (even) that too is a very small affair. What do you say sir?

B: Well since that Universal Consciousness emerges from the Ground, it may be affecting (the consciousness of) all mankind (directly ) from the Ground ?

K: Yes.

B: You see many people will find this ( 'holistic' concept) very difficult to understand, of course.

K: I am not interested in those 'many people'. I want you and I to understand that this Ground (of All Creation) , this Immensity, is not limited to such petty little affairs. It couldn't.

B: Yes, since this Ground includes even physically the whole universe.

K: The whole universe, yes, and to reduce all that to...

B:... to these little activities.

K: It sounds so silly.

B: Well, this raises the question of what is the significance of mankind in the universe, or in the Ground? The best we could be doing has very little significance on that scale. Right?

K: Yes. I think that by his very existence 'X' is just opening the (next evolutionary ?) chapter …

B:... he is making something possible?

K: Yes. Einstein ( along with a few other physicists?) has made something possible, which man hadn't discovered before.

B: We can see that ( kind of contribution?) fairly easily because that works through the usual channels of society.

K: What is 'X' bringing apart from the little things (in the field of education?) ? Would you say, sir, since 'X' has that immense intelligence, that Energy must operate at a much greater level than one can possibly conceive, which must affect the (struggling ?) consciousness of those who are living in darkness.

B: Well, possibly so. The only question is : will this ( Insider?) effect show manifestly?

K: Apparently not, but it must affect it sir.

B: Well ; why do you say 'it has to'?

K: Because ( in the area of Universal Consciousness?) 'light' must affect 'darkness'.

B: Well, perhaps (the open minded) 'Y' who is living in darkness, is not at all sure that there is such a (miraculous) effect. He might say : maybe there is, but I'd want to see it manifest. But not seeing anything and still being in darkness, he says ''what shall I do?'' It may be true that that activity is much greater but... it hasn't shown. If we could 'see' it...

K: How could it be 'shown'?

B: Well not proof but just to be 'shown'. 'Y' might say that many ( providential ?) people have made similar statements and some of them have obviously been wrong and one wants to say' it could be true'. Until now I think the things we have said make sense and they follow logically to a certain extent. : But now you are saying something which goes much further and other people have said things like that (for ages) and one feels that they were fooling themselves...

K: No. No. 'X' says we are being very 'logical'

B: Yes but at this ( innermost) stage, our 'logic' will not carry us any further. But having seen that the whole thing was reasonable so far, 'Y' may have some 'confidence' (good faith ?) that it may go further.

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

B: Of course there is no proof. So we could only explore.

K: That is what I am trying to do.

B: So, you were saying that somehow he (X) makes possible a (more direct) activity of the Ground in the whole consciousness of mankind which would not have been possible without him.

K: Yes.

B: That is what I understand.

K: Yes. We are trying to find out what is that (something) 'greater' that must necessarily be operating?

Q: Is it something that appears in the daily life of 'X'?

K: In his daily life of 'X' is apparently doing the petty little stuff - teaching, writing, ( watching TV?) or whatever it is. Is that all? It seems so silly.

B: Are you saying that in the daily life 'X' does not look so different from anybody else?

K: No, he apparently is not.

B: But there is a 'something else' going on ( within himself?) which does not show, right?

K: That's it. When 'X' talks, he may be ( sounding) 'different', he may say things differently but we are asking: if such a man has the whole of that (Intelligent & Compasionate) Energy to call upon, to reduce all that Energy to this petty little place seems so ridiculous.

B: Yes, well let me ask you a (more personal?) question. Why does that Ground require this ( 'K') man to operate on ( the consciousness of?) mankind? Why can't the Ground operate directly on it to clear things up?

K: Are you asking why does the Ground demand 'action'? That I can easily explain. It is part of Existence, like the stars.

Q: But can't that Immensity act directly upon (the consciousness of ) mankind?

K: Why does the Ground need this (X) man? It doesn't need him.

B: Yes but when he is (around ?) then the Ground will use him.

K: That is all.

B: Well, wouldn't it be possible that the Ground could do something more directly to clear up this ('psychological' mess) ?

K: That is why I am asking in different words. The Ground doesn't need this (K) man but the man has touched the Ground. So the ground is 'employing' him. He is ( an active) part of that 'Movement'. So, why should he do anything?

B: Well, perhaps he does nothing.

K: That very 'doing nothing' is (allowing) the 'doing' (of the Ground) .

B: So, in 'doing nothing' which has any specified aim, he is still 'supremely active'.

Q: Is there an action which is beyond ( the limitations of space &) time for that man?

K: He 'is' that . 'X' says: if I am only concerned to talk, that is a very small thing and I am not (really?) bothered about that. But there is a vast field ( of inward action) which must affect the whole ( consciousness ) of mankind.

B: Well in chemistry a 'catalyst' makes possible a ( normally impossible) chemical reaction, without directly taking part, merely by being what it is.

K: Yes, what it is...

Q: But even then 'Y' would say it isn't happening because the world is still in a mess. So is there a truth in the world for the activity of that man?

K: 'X' says : Sorry, I am not interested in proving anything. It isn't a mathematical problem or a technical problem to be shown and proved. He says "This is so": I have walked from the beginning of man to the very end of man and ( meditatively found that) there is a 'Movement' which is timeless. The Ground which is ( the Creative source of ?) the whole universe, the Cosmos, everything. And the Ground doesn't need the man but this man has ( been 'helped' to?) come upon it. Right? And he is still a man in the world. Right? And that man says 'I write and do something or other.' - not to prove anything but he does that just out of Compassion. But there is much greater Movement which necessarily must play a part in the (consciousness of the ?) world.

Q: Does this 'greater Movement' play a part through 'X'?

K: Obviously, obviously. And if there were ten 'X's' of course it (the impact) would be (far greater?) ... ( So, to make this long story short : ) 'X' says there is 'Something Else' operating which cannot possibly be put into words. There is nothing which a man like 'Y' will understand. He will immediately translate it into some kind of illusory thing. But all that 'X' can say is that there is ('something')

B: Well, the general view (the 'science') people are developing now is that the universe has no (spiritual) meaning. That it moves any old way, all sorts of things happen and none of them have any meaning.

K: None of them have meaning for the man who is 'here', but the man who is 'There', says it is full of meaning, not invented by thought and all that. 'X' says (or hopes ?) that perhaps there will be ten people who will 'join the (Universal?) Game', that might affect the present human society - it might be something totally different, based on intelligence, compassion and all the rest of it.

B: Well if the whole of mankind were to see this, are you saying then that that would be something different?

K: Oh, yes sir. Of course ... it would be 'paradise on earth'.

B: It would be like an organism of a new kind.

K: Of course. I think we had better stop there (on a good ball?) . But I am not satisfied with leaving (the inward action of) this Immensity to be reduced to some few words. You see, (the practical ) 'Y' (person) is concerned with 'show me, prove it to me, what benefits it has, will I get my future (life assured?) So he reduces that Immensity to his ( activistic?) pettiness (of mind & heart?) and puts it in a 'temple', and has therefore lost ( the essence of ) it completely. 'X' says: there is something so Immense, please do look at this, and 'Y' is always translating it into 'show it to me', 'prove it to me', 'will I have a better life' - you follow? He is concerned always with that (mentality based on self-interest) .

( In a nutshell:) 'X' brings the 'Light'. That's all he can ( or is supposed to) do. Isn't that enough?

B: To bring the ( Spiritual) 'Light' which would allow other people to be open to the immensity.

K: We that Immensity only as a very small thing ('mustard seed'?) . But that Immensity is the ( Consciousness of the ?) whole Universe. I can't help but think that it must have some immense affect on ( the consciousness of?) 'Y', on society.

B: Well, certainly the perception of this must have an effect, but it is not (at all obvious) in the consciousness of society at the moment.

K: I know...

B: But you are saying that Its effect (impact ?) is there?

K: Yes sir.

B: Well, do you (really ?) think it is possible that a thing like this could divert the evolution of mankind away from the dangerous course he is taking?

K: Yes sir, that is what I am thinking. But to divert this (collective karmic?) course of man's destruction, somebody must 'listen'. Right? Somebody - ten people must listen to that Immensity calling.

B: So ( being inwardly open to?) that Immensity may divert the course of man, yes. The individual ( good will) cannot do it.

K: The individual cannot do it, obviously. But 'X', who is supposed to be an individual, has trodden this Path and says, 'Listen', but they don't 'listen'...

B: Well then is it possible to discover 'how' to make people 'listen'?

K: No, then we are back ( to 'problem solving' within the field of thought & time ?) .

B: What do you mean?

K: Don't act, 'you' have nothing to do.

B: What does it mean 'not to do a thing'?

K: Sir, as 'Y', I can ( eventually?) realize that whatever I do, sacrifice, give up, practise, I am still living in that 'circle of darkness' (within the field of the 'known'?) . So 'X' says, 'Don't act, 'you' have nothing to do.' You follow? But 'Y' does everything except 'wait and see what happens' . We must pursue this sir. Because it is all (looking ) 'hopeless' from the point of view of 'Y'.

9TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly edited)

MEDITATION & INSIGHT

K: Can the human brain be psychologically (inwardly?) free of of time?

B: What does it really mean to be 'psychologically' free of time?

K: That there is 'no tomorrow'.

B: Can you describe this better, what do you mean when you say, 'no tomorrow'?

K: Let's take the other side first: what does it mean to live (inwardly) in time? Hoping, ( wishful ?) thinking (about tomorrow) , living in the (illusory comfort provided by the?) memories of past, and acting from the ( personally biased ) knowledge of the past, images, prejudices, they are all an outcome of the past, all that ( acting memory is projecting its own 'psychological') time. And ( outwardly) that is producing ( a major) chaos in the world.

B: So you say I am looking now at the watch but I am not (obliged to) 'psychologically' extend how it is going to feel in the next hour, when I have the fulfilment of my desire, or whatever.

K: I am just saying the way we are living now is in the field of 'time' (aka ; in the field of the known) . And there we have brought all kinds of problems, ( personal & collective) suffering, all that. Right?

B: Yes, but it should be made clear why this produces suffering necessarily. Say, if you live in the field of time you are saying suffering is ( eventually) inevitable?

K: Inevitable, inevitable.

B: Why?

K: It is simple. Which is, ( our inner mentality based on ?) time has built the ego ( the self- identified image ?) sustained by society, by parents, by ( our standardising?) education, and from there 'I' act. (and subsequently my 'self image' will be inevitably hurt by fellow 'image makers' ?) This ( imaginary) 'centre' is always (concerned by its own?) 'becoming'.

B: Trying to become better?

K: Better, nobler, and so on ; all this constant endeavour to become something psychologically, is a factor of time.

B: And are you saying that produces suffering?

K: Obviously. Because it is a divisive ( process) . It divides ( isolates?) 'me' and ( feeling inwardly insecure ?) I will depend on somebody and when that somebody (special) is gone, I feel ( still more?) lonely, miserable, unhappy, grief, suffering. So we are saying that any factor of ( self-) division which is the very nature of the self, must inevitably bring suffering.

B: You are saying that through time the 'self' is set up, organized, and then the self introduces division and conflict and so on. So, if there were no psychological (thinking in terms of) time then maybe this entire structure would collapse and something entirely different would happen?

K: And therefore the brain itself has broken out (from the limitations of i self-centred thinking ?) .

B: Well, that would be the next step, when the brain has broken out of that ( ego-centric) rut and maybe it could regenerate then. It doesn't really follow logically, but still ...'it could'.

K: I think it does follow ( even) logically.

B: Well, it follows logically that it would stop degenerating.

K: Yes...

B: And you are adding further that it would start to regenerate itself.

K: So can this 'time' element not exist (inwardly) ? I say it can. And we said the ending of suffering comes about when this 'self' ( egocentric consciousness) , which is built up through time, is no longer there.
Someone who is actually going through a terrible time, is bound to reject it, but ('if' and ?) 'when' he comes out of the shock of this (and, before getting entangled in other personal issues ?) , somebody points this out to him, and 'if' he is willing to listen, 'if' he is willing to see for himself the sanity of it, the brain is ( stepping ) out of that ( self-centred thinking with its?) time-binding quality.

N: Temporarily. Then he eventually slips back into time.

K: No, you can't go back, if you see (the egocentric thinking as ?) 'dangerous' . Like a cobra, or like any 'physical ' danger, you cannot.
( But unfortunately inwardly or ?) 'psychologically we are unaware of the (potential) dangers (of our way of thinking?) . But 'if' we become as (acutely) aware of these (hidden ?) 'dangers' as we are aware of any physical danger, there is a ( 'stepping out'? ) action which is not time-binding.

B: Yes, as long as you could perceive it you will respond immediately. But to use your analogy of the 'dangerous animal', inwardly it might take another form that you don't see as 'dangerous'.

K: Yes...

B: Therefore there would be a slipping back in ( the safe routines of) time . This 'illusion of time' might come in some other form.

K: Of course. Which is, the (unaware ?) brain itself might get back because it itself has not seen the danger.

B: But you see, ( our thinking in terms of 'time') and our 'individuality' are basically the same structure.

K: Of course.

B: Although it is not obvious in the beginning...

K: I wonder if 'you' see that.

B: It might be worth discussing that. Why is 'time' of the same structure as the illusion of 'individuality'? You see, 'individuality' is the sense of being a physical person who is located here or somewhere.

K: Located and divided...

B: ...divided from the others. And its domain extends outwardly to some periphery and also he has an identity which goes over time. He wouldn't regard himself as an 'individual' unless he had a (temporal) identity . So it seems that we mean by 'individual' somebody who is (existing) in (terms of space &) time.

K: I think that is such a fallacy, this idea of (our self-centred) 'individuality'.

B: Yes, but you may find it very hard to convince people that their individuality is a 'fallacy'.

K: Of course, many people find anything (inwardly challenging ?) 'very hard'.

B: The common feeling is that as an individual I have existed at least from my birth if not before, and go on to my physical death and perhaps later. The whole idea of being an individual is to 'be' (an entity that continues) in time. Right?

K: Obviously, sir...So if that (totally 'realistic' ?) illusion ( of temporal individuality?) could be broken...

B: Yes, it is through (our collective evolution in ?) time that this notion of 'individuality' has arisen.

K: Of course. Can the human brain understand that?

B: Well I think that there is a great (psychical ?) momentum in any brain, which keeps it 'moving along'.

K: Can this 'momentum' stop for a minute ?

(…)

N: Is there a faculty in the human mind which has some transforming effect on the brain?

K: We have said that (a totally integrated ) perception is out of time, seeing immediately the whole ( psychologically poisonous?) nature of time. Which is to have a (total) insight into the nature of time. If there is (such ) an insight into the nature of time the very brain cells which are part of time break away (from their old temporal patterns) and bring about a (qualitative) change in themselves. That is what this (K) person is saying. You may disagree, but I say this is not a matter of proof, it is a matter of (meditative ) action. Do it, find it, test it ( as homework?)

N: You were saying the other day that when the human consciousness is empty of its content..

K:... the (psychologically active) content being 'time'...

N: ... that leads to a (qualitative) transformation of the brain cells. So, when this consciousness is 'empty of its (temporal) content' there...

K:.. there is no (individualistic ?) 'consciousness' as we know it. This (self-) consciousness has been put together by its 'content' (of past memories) . If you have a (total) insight into that, the whole pattern is gone, broken.

N: But then, who has this insight?

K: Not 'me'. There is an insight. We are saying 'time' is the ( cummulative) factor which has made up the content. It has made it up and it also thinks about it. All this (dynamic ?) bundle (of personal memories?) , is the result of time. Now an (illuminating) insight into this whole movement brings about a (radical qualitative ?) transformation in the brain. Because that ( flash of ) insight is not time-binding.

B: We may say that in order for this psychological content to exist, the brain over many years has made many inter-connections of the cells, which constitute ( the neuronal infrastructure of ) this content.

K: Quite, quite.

B: And then there is a flash of insight which sees all this and sees that it is not necessary and therefore all this (old neuronal network) begins to dissipate. And when that has dissipated there is no 'content'. Then, you're saying that whatever the brain is doing is... something different ?

K: Which is, sir, then there is an (inner state of ) total "emptiness" ( aka : ''nothing-ness''?) .

B: When you say 'total emptiness' you mean 'empty' of all this inward content ?

K: That's right. ( And that state of inner) 'emptiness' has a tremendous energy. It is ( pure 'mind'?) energy.

B: So we can say that the human brain having had all these (survivalistic?) connections 'tangled up', has locked up a lot of ( intelligent) energy?

K: That's right. Wastage of (a highly intelligent?) energy.

B: Then when they begin to dissipate, that ( special?) energy is there.

K: Yes.

B: Would you say that is as much 'physical energy as any 'other' kind?

K: Of course, of course.

So Sir, these (highly paid?) 'scientists' or 'brain specialists', would they accept this? Would they even listen to all this?

B: Maybe a few would, but obviously the majority would not. To most scientists it will sound rather abstract, you see. They will say it could be so, it is a nice theory... but we have no proof (that it does really works) . Therefore even the more favourable ones would say, ''if you have some more evidence we will come back later, and become very interested''. And we can't give any proof because whatever is happening (in the depth of the human psyche ) nobody can see it with their (physical ) eyes.

K: Of course. It is the 'old' human brain which has evolved through a million years. One 'biological freak', can move out of it, but how do you get at the human mind to make him see this?

B: Well I think ( that for starters?) you have to communicate the ( holistic ) 'necessity' of what you are saying, that it is inevitable. And then, if somebody sees ( its validity?) when you explain it to him and he sees it happening before his eyes he says, 'That is so !'.

K: But sir, even that requires somebody to 'listen'. Somebody who wants to understand this, to find out.

B: Well it is a (central self preserving ) function of this (thought-) occupied brain that it is occupied with itself and it doesn't listen.

N: In fact one of the things is that this (self-preserving mental ?) occupation seems to start very early. When you are young it is very powerful and then it continues through all your life. How do you through ( (a holistic approach to ?) education make this..

K: Oh, if you are asking (me?) how to set about it ( educationally?) I will tell you. The moment you ( the aspiring educator?) see the importance of not being occupied (and/or of being inwardly free?) , you see that as a tremendous truth, you will ( hopefully?) find (the practical) ways and methods to help them. That is 'being creative', not being told ( by an authority?) and copy and imitate, for then you are lost.

B: Well then the question is: how is it possible to communicate (the vital necessity of 'freedom from the known'?) to the brain ?

K: You see, sir, I think 'meditation' is a great factor in all this. I feel we have been 'meditating' (without realising it?) . So (the right beginning of ?) meditation is this 'emptying' of consciousness'. You follow?

B: Yes, but let's be clear. Before you said it would happen through insight, you see. Now are you saying that meditation is conducive to insight ?

K: Meditation IS ( inseparable from?) insight.

B: It is insight already. But you see insight is usually thought of as the flash.

K: Yes, insight is a flash.

B: But 'meditation' sounds like a more constant (endeavour)

K: Now we must be careful. What do we mean be 'meditation'?

B: That's the question, yes.

K: We can reject the systems, the methods, the authorities, the traditional repetition, all this time-biding nonsense.
Now ( the active ingredient of any authentic ?) meditation is this (inward) penetration, this sense of moving without any past.

B: The only point we'll still have to clear up is that when you (K) use the word 'meditation', you seem to mean something more than 'insight', you see.

K: A bit more, much more! Because (the triggering flash of ?) insight has freed the brain from (its subliminal tethering to?) the past, from time, therefore there is no sense of (self-conscious ) becoming.

B: But that seems to mean that you have to insight if you are going to meditate. Right?

K: Yes, sir, that's right.

B: But you can't regard 'meditation' as a (diligent) procedure by which you will come to insight.

K: No. That immediately implies time.
(So, to start with : ) an insight into ( being inwardly driven by?) greed, fear, into all that, frees the mind from all that. Then 'meditation' has quite a different quality. It has nothing to do with all the guru's (fake?) meditations.
Would we say, sir that to have insight there must be silence?

B: My mind has silence, yes.

K: So the silence of insight has cleansed - cleansed, purged, all that...
B: ...structure of the self-centred occupation ?

K: Yes. Then Meditation, what is it? There is no ( mental) movement as we know it, and how we can describe by words that sense of a limitless state ?

B: But nevertheless it is necessary to find some ( holistically friendly?) language, even though it is unsayable.

K: We will find the language. Shall we continue next Sunday?

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 19 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Jan 2014 #6
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

10-TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly edited)

MEDITATION : THE EXPERIENTIAL LINK TO UNIVERSAL ORDER

Krishnamurti: We left off the other day at the point where real meditation begins : the mind is totally ( silent & ) empty of all the 'things' ( past memories & reactions?) that thought has put there. But I would like (to take an experiential detour?) and find out if the human brain, can ever be free, not only from all its 'illusions', from any form of (self-) deceptions , but whether it can have its own (sense of inner harmony and ?) order . And also whether the brain, however much damaged it is, and most brains are damaged by all kinds of shocks, whether this brain can 'heal itself' completely.

Let's begin by asking : is there a (sense of an Universal ?) Order which is not man-made, which is not the result of calculated order out of disturbance, an order which is not thought-made?

Bohm: Are you referring to the (universal order of the?) 'Mind'?

K: Is there a (sense of?) 'Cosmic' order?

B: Well, the very word 'Cosmos' actually means order, but (are we talking of ) the whole order which includes the order of the universe and the order of the mind?

K: Yes. Is there a (living dimension of the Universal?) Order which man can never possibly conceive? You follow? Because any concept (of order) is still within the (existing) patterns of thought.

B: Well, then how are we going to discuss about it?

K: Is the 'order' we know now part of disorder ?

B: Well (scientifically speaking) anything that actually happens has its own internal order. Now you can call (this entropic 'order') 'disorder' if you like. For instance if your (psycho -somatic) body is not functioning rightly, say a cancer is growing, there is a certain 'order' in the (developpment of the ) cancer cells, but in a way which tends to break down the ( total order of the) body, so, this whole thing has its own kind of order and it has not violated the laws of nature.

K: Yes, yes...

B: But relative to some (more personal) context you could say it is disorder because if we are talking of the health of the body then the cancer is called disorder.

K: Quite, quite. Cancer has its own order...

B: But it is not compatible with the order of the growth of the body.

K: Quite. So what do we mean ( inwardly) by order? Is there such a thing as (an inner sense of cosmic ?) order?

B: Well, 'order' is a ( holistic) perception - we can't get hold of 'order'.

K: You see, the human brain, the (self-centred ?) mind is so contradictory, so bruised, it can't find (any authentic sense of) order.

B: Yes, but what kind of 'order' does it want?

K: It wants an 'order' (and harmony) in which it will feel safe, where it won't be bruised, shocked, or feel physical or psychological pain.

B: The whole point of ( any psychological) order is not to have ( self-) contradictions.

K: That's right. But the ( average human) brain has a lot of such contradictions

B: Yes, something 'has gone wrong', as we said before , it took a 'wrong turn'.

K: We think it took a wrong turn, yes. But I want to go into something else , which is: can the mind, the brain, be totally free of all (mentally) 'organized' order?

B: Why you want it to be free of 'organized' order ?

K: Because then it becomes a (mechanical ) pattern.

B: You mean by 'organized' an order that is 'imposed' ?

K: Imposed or self-imposed. I am trying to find out whether the brain can ever be free from all these (cultural) impositions, pressures, wounds, of all the trivialities of modern existence, which are pushing it in different directions, whether it can be completely free of all that. If it cannot, Meditation has no meaning.

B: Yes, but you could go further and say probably that human life itself has no meaning if you cannot free it of all that. It just goes on (& on?) indefinitely.

K: Yes. If it goes on ( drifting in the Stream of Time ?) as it has done indefinitely for millennia, our life has no (true) meaning. But I think there is a ( more universal?) meaning if the brain is free of all these (temporal pressures & diversions?) .

B: Well, so that is what you call 'disorder'. We could say it is almost like a ( 'virtual' ?) cancer going on inside the brain. It is moving in a way which is not compatible with the natural health of the brain.

K: Yes.

B: It grows as time goes on, it increases from one generation to another, through tradition. Now we say - it is almost the same question to ask how are we going to stop these (mental) 'cancer cells' from taking over.

K: That is what I want to get at. How is this (entropic) pattern, which has been set, and has accumulated for generations, how is that to end, to be 'broken through'? That is the real question at the back of my mind.

B: Why does the brain provide the soil for this ( mental disorder?) stuff to go on, to grow?

K: It may be merely (due to the psychological comfort of our materialistic ?) traditions & habits.

B: Well, but why does it 'stay' in that, you see?

K: It may be that it is (instinctively ) afraid of something new taking place because in the old traditions it feels safe.

B: Yes, it seems that the brain deceives itself about this ( psychological) 'disorder'. It doesn't seem able to see clearly (what is really wrong with ?) it.

K: I am asking why the brain has accepted that (entropic) pattern in spite of all the conflicts, misery and goes on in the same way, and is it possible to 'break through' that pattern? Dr Bohm asked, why does it go on, why doesn't it break through? And we said : is it so heavily conditioned that it cannot see its way out of , or it may be that by this constant repetition ( recycling its repetitive mental patterns?) the human brain has become 'dull' (inwardly inert?) .

N: Is there a 'momentum of repetition' ( going on in the brain?) ?

K: Yes. That (self-sustained) 'momentum' of repetition makes the mind sluggish (sloppy & ?) mechanical. And in (in the mental & sensory comfort of ?) this mechanical sluggishness it takes refuge and says, 'It's all right, I can go on'. That's what most human beings do (instinctively?) .

B: Well to think that way 'is' a manifestation of disorder.

N: Do you connect 'order' with 'intelligence'? Or is order something that exists on its own?

B: Intelligence certainly requires the perception of order without (hidden ) contradictions. But in the terms what we're discussing we don't impose this order but rather it is natural.

K: Yes. Sir, let's come back (to the Meditation cursus?)
Suppose that I am the ordinary ( A, B, C...Y ?) man caught ( in time) - my whole way of living; my thinking and my attitudes and so on, beliefs, are the result of this enormous length of time. 'Time' is (the materialistic ground of) my whole existence. I take refuge in the (knowledge and experience of the ?) past, which cannot be changed.

B: Yes, but this 'ordinary' man, doesn't really understand that ( this process of ) 'time' happens (within ?) himself.

K: After talking over with you (the 'X' person) , I see that my whole existence is based on time. Which is, 'time' is the ( recycled continuity of what happened in the?) past and in that the brain takes refuge.

B: What does that mean exactly? How does it take refuge in the past ? People also think that the future can be changed, the Communists have said, give up the past, we are going to change (it all for you ?) .

K: But I can't give up (my personal & collective background of ?) the past. We only (may like to) think that we can give up the past.

B: Yes, well that is the second point : that even those who try to give up their past, those who don't want to take refuge in the (deadly routines of the) past, still can't give it up.

K: That is just my point.

B: Then it seems that which ever way you're doing it, you are still stuck (in time) .

K: So the next (meditational ) step (to consider ?) is: why does the human brain accept this way of living, and why doesn't it break it down? Is it just (a matter of psycho-somatic?) 'laziness'? Or is it that in breaking down ( the existing 'temporal' order?) it has no (more personal expectations or ?) 'hopes'?

B: Well, we haven't really understood why it does this. Say this (traditional) behaviour is disorderly, irrational and so on, and people have said, 'OK, let's give up the (psychological conditioning of the ?) 'past'... but (eventually) they find that they can't. Why can't we ?

K: Why can't we give up the (psychological conditioning of the ?) past? If I give up the past... 'I' have no ( sense of my) existence.

B: Well you'll have to clarify that...

K: It is simple: if I 'give up' all my (personal) remembrances, etc., etc., I have nothing ( to identify myself with ?), I am (feeling as) 'nothing'.

B: I think some people would look at it a little differently, like the Marxists. Marx said that it is (first) necessary to transform the material conditions of human existence and that will remove his (psychological burden of the ) past, you see ?

K: But ( history shows that) it cannot be done.

B: Well, is that because when he tries to transform (his physical environment) he still works from (his mental projections of the ) past?

K: Yes, that is what I am saying.

B: So, we don't rely on (our experiences of the ) past at all, as you (seem to?) suggest, then what ( exactly) are we going to do?

K: ( At this major experiential 'check-point' ?) I am 'nothing' (not-a-thing) . Because all my (self-centred) existence, my way of thinking, my life, everything is (projected) from the (memories of the ) past. And if you say, ''wipe that out'', what have I left?

B: Well, we obviously have to keep certain things (acquired in) the past like practical knowledge and technology. But suppose we keep this (useful) part of the past and wipe out all the (redundant) parts of our past which are contradictory...

K: What is left? Just (the daily chores and ) going to the office? Inwardly there ( seems to be?) nothing left. Is that the (subliminal ) reason why we cannot 'give it up'?

B: So you are saying simply that when people say they are giving up the past, they are not really doing it (inwardly) ?

K: They are not doing it. Because our whole (psychological ) being has its (active) roots in the past.

B: Now if you told somebody 'OK, give all that up and in the future you will have something quite different, or better', then people would be attracted. You see, people want to be 'assured' of at least something.

K: That is just it. There is no-thing . The common man wants to be assured, wants something to which he can cling to, can hold on to.

B: Or something to reach for: they feel not that they are clinging to the past but they are reaching for something (new) .

K: If 'I' reach for something it still is the ( same updated?) movement of the past.

B: Yes, but that is not often obvious because people say it is a big new revolutionary situation. But it has its roots in the past.

K: That is what I am asking. As long as I have my roots in the past there cannot be an (authentic sense of Universal ?) order.

B: Because our (personal & collective) past is pervaded with disorder?

K: Yes, disorder. So, ( in the context of this transformational Meditation?) is my mind, my brain, willing to see ( face the fact?) that if I give up ( my psychological anchoring in?) the past there is absolutely 'not a thing' (inwardly) ? Is one willing to inwardly face (this feeling of ) absolute 'emptiness'?

B: Well, what will you tell somebody who is not 'willing'?

K: If somebody says, 'I am sorry I can't do all this nonsense' - you say, 'Well, carry on'. But if I am willing to (experiment with?) letting go completely my (psychological) past completely - which means there is no ( personal expectation of) rewards, punishments, no 'carrots' (either) , nothing. And the ( meditating) brain is willing to face this extraordinary state, totally new to it, of existing in a state of 'nothing'-ness. ( But if for 'experiential' purposes ?) I am willing to face this absolute 'no-thingness', ( inner) emptiness, because it has seen for itself that all the various places where it has taken refuge are illusions, it has finished with all that.

B: I think this ( Great Meditational Leap into the Unknown?) leaves out something. You have also brought up the question of the damage of the scars to the brain. A human brain that it wasn't 'damaged' possibly could do that fairly readily.

K: Look: can we discover what has caused damage to the brain? One of the factors is strong emotions.

B: Strong sustained emotions.

K: Strong sustained emotions, like (a major personal frustration and/or ?) hatred, anger, they are not only a ( momentary) shock but ( if cyclically repeated?) they do wound the brain . Right?

B: Well, as does any form of excessive excitation.

K: Of course, drugs and all that ( 'heavy metal'?) stuff. Excessive excitement, excessive anger, violence, hatred, all that. The natural responses doesn't damage the brain. Right? But suppose that my brain actually got damaged, suppose, it has been damaged through (recurring reactions of?) anger.

B: You could even say probably that neurons get connected up in the 'wrong way' and the connections are too fixed. I think there is evidence that these things will actually change the brain cells structure.

K: Now, can one have an insight into the (destructive) nature of ( responding emotionally with?) anger and/or violence ? If so, ( this holistic?) insight changes the cells of the brain which have been wounded.

B: Well and possibly it would start them healing, yes.

K: All right. Start them healing. But this 'healing' must be immediate (or begin ASAP?) .

B: It may take some time if wrong connections have been made it is going to take time to redistribute the ( neuronal) material. But the beginning of it, it seems to me, is immediate.

K: Make it that way, all right. And all the adjustments the ( synapses & neurones involved) will be as rapid as possible.

B: Something similar happens even with the cancer cells. Sometimes the cancer (tumors) suddenly stops growing and it goes the other way, for some reason that is unknown but a change must have taken place in those cells.

K: Would it be, sir, that when the brain cells change, a fundamental change there, the 'cancer' process stops?

B: Yes, fundamentally it stops and it starts to dismantle.

K: Dismantle, yes that is it.

N: But there is another thing which we did not mention when talking of about ( our instinctual attachment to the ) past: for most people the past also means memories of pleasure.

K: Not only past pleasures, the (personal) remembrance of all the things.

N: One starts disliking ( a repetitive ) pleasure only when it becomes stale, or it leads to ( financial) difficulties but basically one wants pleasure all the time. Now, what is your (holistic) attitude to pleasure?

K: What do you mean, 'my attitude'?

N: How does one deal with this immense problem of pleasure in which most people are caught, because it is (part of this momentum of the ) past.

K: There is no ( instant mental processing of ?) pleasure at the moment it is happening. It comes in later when it is remembered. So the remembrance (of pleasure) is -(the momentum of) the past.

(Back to our cursus in Meditation ?) am I willing to face (this inner state of) 'nothingness', which means wipe out all that ('personal' content?) ?

N: How does one 'wipe out' this instinctual drive for pleasure?

K: What is ( the inward origin of?) 'pleasure'? It is a constant remembrance of (sensory rewarding?) things which have happened in the past.

B: And also the expectation that it will happen again ?

K: Of course, always (projected from the memory of the ) the past.

B: But you have also usually made this distinction between ( thought sustained ) 'pleasure' and (the spontaneous) 'enjoyment'...

K: Yes, I did.

N: But the ( average sensuous?) human being, even though he understands ( intellectually?) what you are saying, he is sort of 'held back' in this field...

K: Because he is not willing to face this inward 'emptiness'. ( The instinctual craving for) pleasure is not compassion, nor love. But perhaps if there is this (qualitative inner) mutation, Compassion is stronger than pleasure. So pleasure has no place in Compassion.

B: Even the perception of (the Universal) order may be stronger than pleasure. If people are really concerned about ( learning or discovering ) something new, the ( factor of personal) pleasure plays no role at that moment.

K: Compassion has got tremendous strength, an incalculable strength, ( and the personal factor of?) pleasure is nowhere in it.

N: But what happens to a man in whom pleasure is dominant?

K: As long as he is unwilling to face this extraordinary emptiness he will keep on with ( updating & recycling) the old patterns.

B: We have to say that this emphasis on sustained pleasure is producing a certain brain damage, as does ( any response of) fear, anger and/or hate.

K: But we were saying that the damaged brain is healed when there is insight. So do you, as a ( holistically responsable?) human being, have an insight into the (psychological ) past, how very destructive it is to the brain, and the brain itself sees it and has an insight into it and moves out of that (ASAP ) ?

N: You are saying the beginning of order comes from insight?

K: Obviously. Let's walk from there.

N: Isn't it possible to gather a certain amount of inner order so that it gives rise to a certain ( level of energy necessary for ) insight?

K: Ah! You cannot through the false find truth.

N: I am saying it on purpose, because for many people the basic ( qualitative) energy that is required for insight ; or even the 'keenness' , seems to be lacking.

K: You are tremendously keen to earn a livelihood, to do something you are interested in. If you are (becoming) vitally interested in this transformation, you will have the energy.

( To recap:) If this ( total ?) insight has wiped away the (psychological residues of the ?) past, and the brain is willing to live in 'no-thingness': there isn't a thing which thought has put there, there is no movement of thought, except (regarding the practical activities involving ?) knowledge ,which then has its own place. But we are talking of the 'psychological' state of mind in which there is no ( interfering) movement of thought, there is absolutely nothing.

B: What does this 'no-thingness' really means, experientially ?

K: What it really means is: thought is 'movement', thought is time. So, (in the meditational context?) there is no (mental movement of) 'time and thought'.

B: Yes, and perhaps no sense of the existence of a (self-conscious) 'entity' inside ?

K: Absolutely, of course. The existence of the (self-conscious?) 'entity' is the bundle of ( collective & personal?) memories, the 'past'.

B: But the (sense of one's inner) existence is not just (the mechanistic result of ) thought thinking about it , but also the feeling that 'it is' there, inside, you get a sort of feeling.

K: The feeling of one's ( total?) 'being', yes. But otherwise (on the mental level ?) there is nothing.

B: Yes, even though it doesn't seem verbalizable.

K: Of course. But I wonder if you are caught in an illusion that there is such a state...

B: Well it may be. So that inner 'no-thingness' would be a state without any interference of will, without...

K: Of course. All those are gone (with the wind?)

B: Now, how do we know that this state is real, is genuine?

K: In other words you want a proof of it ?

B: Not a proof, but some 'communion' of that state.

K: Now wait a minute. Supposing you have this peculiar (sense of) Compassion, How can you communicate it to me who is living in pleasure and all that? You can't.

N: But what if I am prepared to 'listen' to you ?

K: Prepared to listen - how deeply?

N: To the extent my ( inward capacity of?) listening takes me to.

K: Which means what? That you will go with it as long as it feels safe, secure ?

N: Not necessarily...

K: This ('X') man says (that in that meditative state of 'no-thingness' ?) there is no (self-consciousness of one's ?) being. One's whole life has been this movement of (self-) becoming, being and so on. And in that state he says there is no sense of 'me' being (there) at all.

Now if you say, 'Show it to me'. It can be shown only through certain qualities it has, certain actions. What are the actions of a mind that is totally empty of 'being' (or 'becoming' something ) ? What are its actions? ( For starters?) this ( 'X' ?) man has got this sense of emptiness and there is no (sense of) 'being' (anything) , is not acting from self-centred interest. So his actions are ( totally visible) in the world of daily living and you can judge only there, whether he is a hypocrite, whether he says one thing and contradicts it the next moment, or whether he is actually living this 'Compassion' - not the 'I' who feels compassionate.

B: Well if you are not doing the same you can't tell, you see....

K: That's just it. So how can you convey to me in words that peculiar quality of an (universally integrated ? ) mind? You can describe, you know go round it, but you can't give the essence of it. I mean David, for example, he could discuss with (Professor ?) Einstein, they were on the same level. And he and I can discuss here up to a certain point, I can go very close but I can never enter or come upon that (inward quality of ?) mind unless I have (meditatively found ) it ( for myself) .

N: Is'nt there any way of communicating it (non-verbally) for one who is open?

K: We said Compassion. In the everyday life such a mind acts without the (all-knowing supervision of the ?) 'me', without the ego, and it might make a (honest ?) mistake but it corrects it immediately and it is not carrying (over) that mistake.

N: It is not 'stuck'.

K: (Is not) stuck (not entangled in time ) . We must be very careful here not to find (convenient) excuses for doing something wrong.

So sirs, (if and when in this inward journey ?) we come to that point (of selfless Love & and Compassion ?) , what is then (the universal significance of) Meditation? To the man ( engaged in ) 'becoming' or 'being' (someone or something ) and who tries to 'meditate', it has no meaning whatsoever (besides quieting his mind?) . But when there is this no ( active process of psychological) becoming, or ( constantly tweeting about one's mentally troubled state of?) being then what is Mediation? It must be something totally (non self-) conscious, totally 'uninvited' (unpremeditated?) .

B: You mean without a 'conscious' intention ?

K: Yes, without conscious intention. Would you say, sir that the (Intelligent Mind of the ?) Universe, the Cosmic Order, is in a ( constant ) state of Meditation?

B: Well, regarding this (Cosmic) Meditation, what is it doing?

N: What 'order' can we discern, which would indicate cosmic meditation or universal meditation?

K: The sunrise and sunset is (just one visible expression of Universal ?) Order, all the(galaxies?) stars, the planets, the whole thing is (moving) in perfect order.

B: Yes, but...we have still to connect this with Meditation.

N: I am told that 'contemplation' has a different connotation from meditation. Contemplation implies a deeper state of mind, whereas meditation is...

B: It is hard to know. The word 'con-template' comes from the word 'temple' really. To 'make an open space' so you can ( have the inner peace and leisure?) to look at it.

K: Is that to create an open space between God and me?

B: That is the way the word arose. From 'temple', which means an 'open space'. I just asked in what sense is K using the word 'meditation'. Let's find out ( from the 'horse's mouth'?) what he really meant here.

K: A state of infinity, a measureless state ( of Being?) in which there is no division of any kind.

B: Yes, but isn't there any sense of the mind being in some way aware of itself ? At other times you have said that (in meditation) the mind is emptying itself of (its known) content.

K: Yes. What are you trying to get at?

B: Well I am trying to get at that it is not merely 'infinite' but it seems that something more is involved (experientially-wise?) .

K: Oh, much more.

B: So, in this 'emptying of content', we said that this ( psychological) content is the ( active memory of the?) past which has become disorder. So, we could say that in some sense 'meditation' is constantly cleaning up the past. Would you agree to that?

K: No, no.

B: When you say ''the mind is emptying itself of content''...

K: 'Has emptied' itself.

B: All right, then you say that when the (psychological residues of the?) past are cleaned up...

K: That is ( part of?) 'contemplation'..

N: So, the 'emptying of the past' is just a beginner's (contemplative chore?) ?

K: That must be done (for starters) . ( Exposing, Examining and?) Emptying this (psychological content of the ) 'past' which is anger, jealousy, beliefs, dogmas, attachments, all that is the content. If any part of that exists (in thought's background ) it will inevitably lead to illusion. So the ( meditating) mind must be totally free of all illusion - illusions brought by desire, by wanting ( to optimise its temporal ?) security and all that.

B: Are you saying when this (cleaning-up) is done this opens the door to something broader, deeper?

K: Yes. Otherwise life has no ( spiritual?) meaning, just repeating this (cyclic survivalistic) pattern.

N: What exactly did you mean when you said the Universe is in (a state of?) Meditation?

K: I feel that way, yes. Meditation as a 'non-movement' ( a silent ?) Movement.

B: All right, yes. Could we say first of all that the Universe is not actually governed by its past ? It is free and creative.

K: It is 'creative', moving (and... creating?)

B: And then this 'movement' is in itself a (creative?) order.

K: Would you, as a scientist, accept such a thing?

B: Well, as a matter of fact I would! You see the Universe creates certain forms which are relatively constant, so if people look at it superficially they only see that,- the order of the Univers seems to be then determined from ( what happened way back in) the past.

K: Sir, (regarding the experiential approach to meditation ?) can we put the question the other way: is it really possible for ( our self-centred thinking in terms of ? ) time to end - the whole idea of ( 'I-me-mine' constantly projecting itself in ?) time, ( inwardly ) to have 'no (sense of?) tomorrow' at all? Of course there is ( a chronological) 'tomorrow', but the (inward) feeling, the actual reality of having no ('existential' problems to solve for ?) tomorrow. I think that is the healthiest way of living. Which doesn't mean that I become irresponsible - that is all too childish.

B: It is merely a question of physical time ?

K: Sir, is the (total order of the ?) universe based on time?

B: I would say, no, but the general way it has been formulated (by the professional scientists?) ...

K: That is all I wanted (to hear ?) ; you say "no". Now, can the human brain which has evolved in time...

B: Well, has it evolved in time ? That is a (convenient ?) way of talking but (inwardly) it has become entangled in time - because if you say the universe is not based on time, the human brain is also part of this (living order of the?) universe.

K: I agree.

B: However, ( the self-centred process of ) thought has entangled the brain in time.

K: In time. Now, can that ( temporal?) entanglement be unravelled, freed, so that the (creative order of the ?) universe 'is' ( integrated in the human ) mind? You follow? If the (Holistic order of the ?) universe is not of time, can the human mind which has been entangled in time, unravel itself and so 'be' (integrated with ?) the (intelligent order of the?) Universe? You follow what I am trying to say?

B: Yes...

K: That is ( the Cosmic?) Order.

B: So, would you say that (reaching It?) is (the true role of ?) meditation?

K: That's what I would call 'meditation' : an (inner) state of (mind?) in which there is no ( interfering?) element of the past.

B: So, you(re saying that the mind is disentangling itself from time and it is also disentangling the brain from time?

K: Yes, sir. Would you accept that?

B: Yes, as a ( valid experiential ?) proposal.

K: Now, somebody (like K?) says one can live in this (holistic ) way and then (your everyday) life has an extraordinary meaning, it is full of compassion and so on, and every ( 'faux pas' ?) action in the physical world, can be corrected immediately and so on. Would you, as a (holistically friendly?) scientist, accept such a state ?

B: I feel it is perfectly possible, it is quite compatible with anything that I know about (the Laws of ) Nature. Part of our (mental) entanglement in time is that the 'science' (people?) have put time into a fundamental position which actually 'helps' to entangle (the human consciousness?) still further.

K: We had better stop (on a good ball?) , sir. Of course just putting it into words is not the actual (meditative?) thing. But can it be communicated to other (earnest truth seekers?) ?

B: Well I think that the very point of (sharing these insightful dialogues?) is to bring it about.

K: Of course. So, can some of us (experientially access this profound dimension of Meditation ?) so that we can 'communicate' it actually ?

11-th K conversation with David Bohm (reader friendly edited)

ESTABLISHING A CREATIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNIVERSAL MIND

Krishnamurti: Last time we talked about ( the Universal?) order, whether the order of the universe is based on time at all, and whether man can ever comprehend (or meditate?) and live in (harmony with ) that supreme order. Dr Bohm and I wanted to investigate profoundly, how to live from that Ground (of all Being) that is timeless, there is nothing beyond it. And I think we had better begin from there.

Dr Bohm: Begin from the Ground...

K: Sir, I don't know if you will agree as a scientist of eminence, whether there is such a Ground, and whether we can as human beings come to That ?

B: Well, I don't know if science as it is now constituted can say much about that.

K: ( For starters?) I can bring (some ?) order in myself, by careful observation, self-study, self-investigation, by understand the nature of (my ongoing) disorder, and a (global) insight into it dispels that ( superficial?) disorder. And that's one level of order.

B: Yes, that's the level that most of us have been concerned with, till now, you see. We see this ( tidal surge of?) disorder going on in the world, and in ourselves, and we say it is necessary to be aware, observe all that, to be aware of that and as you say, to 'dispel' (the causes of) it.

K: Yes, but ( inwardly speaking?) that's a very small affair.

B: May be, but most people generally don't feel it as a 'small affair' and feel that clearing up the ( ongoing) disorder in themselves and in the world would be a very big thing. And perhaps all that's necessary.

K: But a man who is fairly intelligent and cultured - cultured in the sense civilized - with a great deal of self-enquiry and investigation, can actually come to the point when in himself he can bring ( some basic) order.

B: Yes, and why not bring that kind of order into the whole of society ?

K: If we all could be (inwardly) orderly, we'll perhaps create a new society. But that again ( from the Universal point of view?) is a very small affair.

B: I understand that. But one should go into it carefully because most people commonly don't see it as 'small', although a few (might?) have seen that there's something beyond that.

K: Much more beyond that, that's what I want (to discuss) .

B: Perhaps it might be worth considering why is it that it is not enough to just produce an orderly living . In what sense is that not enough?

K: I mean, because we live in ( a thoughtfully organised?) 'chaos', to bring ( a holistic quality of inner?) order, we think that's a tremendous affair.

B: Agreed, from the present state it looks very big.

K: Yes, very enormous, but in itself it isn't.

B: Could you make it a little more clear why it isn't ?

K: All right. If I can put my (inner) room in order, that it gives me certain (free inner?) space, a certain sense of freedom. Can I, as a human being, put things in myself in order, which is, not to have ( endless?) conflicts, not to have comparison, not to have any ( divisive?) sense of 'me' and 'you' and 'they' - since out of that division grows conflict. So if one understands that, and profoundly realizes (the significance of) it, that ( ego-centric conditioning ? ) is finished.

B: Supposing we have achieved this ( level of selfless inner order ?) , then what? K: That's what I want to get at. Will that (inner clarity of ) insight really alter my whole structure and nature of my ( inner) being ? So what is "insight" - do we have to go again through that?

B: Well, just to sum it up, you could make it ( sound) more intelligible.

K: Could we start with (the very common inner condition of ?) being 'tied' ( identified or strongly attached ?) to some habit, to some personal experience, or to a person, an ideal ? Which ( psychological dependence?) inevitably must create disorder, because it implies the (illusory?) 'escape' from one's own loneliness, fear, and all that. Now to have a total insight into ( the nature & consequences of?) this 'attachment', clears it away.

B: Yes. I think we were saying that the 'self' is the centre of darkness, it could be considered like a centre creating darkness in the mind, or clouds, and the insight penetrates that, it would dispel the cloud so that there would be clarity and therefore this problem ( of personal attachment?) would vanish.

K: Vanish, that's right.

B: But even this would take a very intense ( intelligent energy of?) insight, a 'total' insight.

K: That's right, and are we (really) willing to go through that? Or this attachment (to my 'self'-image?) is so strong, that I'm unwilling to let go it ?

B: And then what?

K: Then.... this is (the actual condition in which ) most people are (presently) . I think it's only very few who( would really ) want to do this kind of thing. .. So, we are discussing the nature of ( a total) insight, whether it can wipe away or dissolve this whole ( existential condition ?) of being attached, dependent, feeling lonely, all that, 'at one blow' , as it were. I think it does this when there is a profound insight into this whole thing. That insight is totally different from the (ordinary activity ?) of memory, knowledge, experience.

B: Well, it seems such an insight ( throws light ?) onto the whole of (our inner) disorder, into the very source of all disorder of a psychological nature, not just into attachment or greed. So that in the (light of ?) that insight the mind can 'clear itself up' and then it would be possible to (meditatively ) approach the cosmic order.

K: That's what I want to get at. That's much more interesting than this, because this is all rather immature - any 'serious' man should be able to put his (inner) house in order. And that must be not just order in a particular direction, but order in the wholeness of man ( of his being?) .

Now, that can be done (eventually?) , and it is necessary, because society as it is now (is quickly) disintegrating and (becoming self-) destructive and all the rest of it, (not to mention that ?) it destroys (the inner quality of) human beings. ( Our self-centred thinking ?) is a 'machinery' (at work?) that is destructive in itself and if a human being is (getting) caught in it, it (ultimately?) destroys him (his integrity?) . So realizing this (xlear & imminent danger ?) , any intelligent human being must ( should?) do something about it', not just sit back and talk about it (academically ) .

B: But you see, most people might feel that 'doing something about it' consists of solving their particular problems like attachment or removing disagreements between people, or something of this nature.

K: The resolution of a 'particular' ( personal ) problem, is not the resolution of the whole.

B: So, that's the key point : if you find the source that generates this whole (inner disorder ) , then getting at its root is the only way (for a holistic solution) .

K: Yes, that's right.

B: Because if we try to deal with a particular problem, they are still always coming from the same old source.

K: The source is the 'me' ( my all-knowing 'self'- consciousness' ?) , and this little pond, this little stream, must ( eventually?) 'dry up'. So, unless this (self-identified ?) centre which is the very essence of disorder, is not dissolved there is no ( inwardly integrated?) order. So at this level it is ( conceptually very ?) clear. Can we go on from there?

B: Yes, I think so...

K: I'd like to ask, is there another ( holistic dimension of ?) order totally different from this? This is a 'man-made' disorder, and therefore 'man-made' order. Right? So realizing this (intrinsical limitation ?) is there an order which is totally different, of a dimension which is necessary to find, because this is so small an affair ?

B: Yes, eventually people won't be satisfied with this (man-made order?) , they'll get bored with it.

K: Yes. Now, a human being who has really deeply understood the (inner nature of the ) disorder made by human beings, says, 'Is there an order that's beyond all this?'

B: Yes, but... how do we get into that question? Even in the field of science men are seeking the order of the whole universe, not just to gett 'useful results' but because the question fascinates them. And I think that, perhaps many have been seeking the 'absolute' ( dimension of Universal Order?) - something free of all limitation, of all dependence, of all imperfection.

K: Yes, free of all ( personal) motives and all the rest of it – 'absolute'.

B: Yes, but this ( search for the ) absolute has been the source of tremendous illusions, of course because it is our limited 'self' who seeks to capture the absolute.

K: Of course, that's impossible.

B: But supposing that we recognize that this ( concept of an ) 'absolute' (Order) is 'dangerous' (a very risky ?) concept when the particular mind tries to grasp it, yet it seems that ( we can express it in terms of?) 'freedom' – it could mean the same as the 'absolute', you see, because anything that is dependent in any way is not free.

K: So how do we approach this ('top of the line' existential ?) question? As a scientist, would you say there is an Universal Order which is beyond all human order and disorder? B: Yes, I would say it. Although a scientist may not be able to say anything ( relevant?) on this question because any order discovered by science is relative.

K: Because their own 'egotism' ?

B: Not only that but also because the amount of information we have is limited. And we can only say that science can go only so far.

K: So as a human being who is ( a responsible representative of?) the totality of human beings, there is order in my ( inner) life. That ( inner sense of?) order is naturally brought about through insight and so perhaps it will ( or not ?) effect society. His enquiry then is, is there an Order which is not man-made ?

B: Free of man's ( mental) constructions ?

K: Yes.

B: Now we have (all around us?) the order of nature and of the 'Cosmos' which we don't really know in its depth, but we could consider that to be (pointing to) that sort of Order.

K: Yes. Unless man interferes with it, Nature has its own order. Now let's move to something else. Man has sought a different dimension (of Consciousness ?) and perhaps used the word '(Cosmic ?) order'. He has sought a different dimension, because he has understood (the limitations of) this dimension: he has suffered, he has gone through all kinds of mess and misery, he says, 'I've come to the end of all that' - actually come to the end of all that. And you may say there are very few people who do that, but this question must be put.

B: Yes, but what is the significance of this question to the vast number of people who have not gone through all that? Is it of any interest to one who hasn't gone through it?

K: I think it is.

B: All right, what is it?

K: Because even intellectually, he may see the limitations of it.

B: Yes, it's important for him to see this even before he has 'finished up' with it. Rather than saying : wait until I clear it all up and then...

K: Of course, that would be too (universally-wise?) 'stupid'. So how does the mind approach this problem? (pause...) Through 'meditation' ?

B: I think people may have used the word 'meditation' in the distant past to indicate that by looking (in terms of?) measure , you can see disorder as being out of proportion, but they may have also meant to go on from there.

K: Yes, let's try to do it. Perhaps it is a preposterous statement but let's see. First (of all) , this (insightfully meditative ) mind must be free of measurement, otherwise it can't enter into the Other (universal dimension of Consciousness?) .

B: Well, that's an important point, because the instinctive tendency is to try to 'make the measures come right', to correct (this inner disorder)

K: Correct it, quite. But we said...

B: But ( from the holistic point of view?) this might be a fundamental mistake ?

K: We said that all ( self-centred?) effort to bring order into disorder is (perpetuating the existing?) disorder.

B: Yes, but this (point ) is very different from what almost everybody has been saying .

K: Yes. We are, perhaps 'exceptional'...

B: There may be a few who implied it, but it's never been said explicitly to my knowledge.

K: All right, let's 'explicitly' say it.

B: So you're saying that the attempt to (inwardly) 'control' that ( ongoing disorder ?) is wrong, you see that it has no ( holistic ?) meaning.

K: No meaning, yes.

B: So, when we say 'no control', what do we do?

K: ( For startes?) if one has an insight into the ( violent ?) nature of ( self-) 'control', this liberates the mind from the burden ( of personal effort?) .

B: Could you explain the nature of such an 'insight', what it means (experientially?) ?

K: It is not a 'movement' ( a mental activity born ?) from knowledge, from thought, remembrance and all the rest of it, but (can only occur in ?) the cessation of all that - to 'look' with a pure observation, without any pressure, without any ( personal) motive, all that - to observe this whole movement of measurement ( comparison & evaluation ?).

B: Yes, I think we can see that this ( trend of ) 'measurement' is the same as (self-) becoming; and that this attempt of the mind to 'measure' itself, to 'control' itself, to 'set itself a goal', is the very source of our inner disorder.

K: That 'is' the very source of disorder.

B: So, in a way this was the 'wrong turning' in the sense that man has extended ( the capacity of mental?) measurement from the external sphere ( of reality) into the ( inward dimension of the?) mind.

K: Yes.

B: But I think that our first ( instinctual?) reaction would be that if we don't control this thing, it will 'go wild'. That's what somebody might fear.

K: Yes, but you see, if I have an insight into (the distorting nature of inner comparison & ) measurement, in that very insight there is a different (inner sense of ) order.

B: Yes, it (the personal mind) does not 'go wild' because it has begun in order. It is really the attempt to 'measure' (to inspect and control?) it that makes it 'go wild'.

K: Yes, that's it. This ( trend of control &?) 'measurement' is creating its own confusion. Right? Now after establishing all this (right fundation for a 'new' holistic order) , can this (newly integrated?) mind through 'meditation' find something which is not 'man-made' ? We've been through all the 'man-made' things and saw they are all limited, there is no freedom in them, there is Chaos, there is mess and all that.

B: Well, when you say : you've been through all the 'man-made' things , what are they?

K: Everything : ( ego-centric?) worship, prayers, anxieties, sorrow, attachment, detachment, loneliness and suffering and confusion and ache and anxiety, all that.

B: And also all the attempts (to change everything ) by (a physical ?) 'revolution' ?

K: Of course, physical revolution, or a 'psychological' (Utopia?) , all that. Those are all 'man-made'. And many (thoughtful?) people have put this question and therefore they say, 'God' - another ( man-made ?) concept that creates disorder.

B: Well, that's clear that man has invented 'God' and given Him the power of the absolute... which is (... a glorified image of?) himself.

K: Now, one has finished with doing all that. Then the question is, is there "Something" beyond all this , which was never touched by the human thought ?

B: Yes, now, that makes a difficult (experiential) point, ''not touched by the human mind'', so the mind might go beyond (the limitations of ) thought.

K: That's what I want - yes.

B: Then what do you mean by the 'mind' ? Only thought, feeling, desire, will, or something much more?

K: For the time being, we have said the human mind is all that. As long as the human mind is caught in that , it is limited (by its own self-centred content?) .

B: Yes, so the human mind has a larger potential.

K: Tremendous potential.

B: Which it does not realize right now, since it is caught ( entangled) in ( self-centred) thinking & feeling, desire, will, and that sort of thing.

K: That's right.

B: So, that ( Universal Order?) which is beyond this is not touched by this limited sort of mind.

K: Yes. (pause)

B: Now what will we mean by a (meditating?) mind which is going beyond this limit?

K: First of all, sir, is there such a ( mature ) mind that can actually say, ''I've' been through all this and finished with it''. Is there such a mind? Now, this "mind", having come to the end of it, is no longer the same old limited mind. Is there a ( holistic quality of?) mind which is totally limitless?

B: Now that raises the ( experiential?) question of how the brain is able to be in contact with that "mind", you know.

K: I'm coming to that. But I want to be clear that this human mind (which includes the emotions, the brain's reactions, physical responses and all that) - which has lived ( for ages?) in turmoil, in chaos, in loneliness - has finally a profound insight into all (its unhappy past ?) . And having such a deep insight has cleared the field. This ('emptied'?) mind is no longer the old damaged mind. Let's use that word '(time -) damaged'. But when there is this ( flash of total ?) insight and therefore ( a perception of the Universal?) order, the ( karmic?) damage is undone.

B: We can see that ( physiologicall) this 'damage' was done by disorderly thoughts and feelings, which over-excite the cells and disrupt them and now with the insight, that stops and a new process...

K: Yes, it's like a person going for fifty years in a certain direction and realizes suddenly that that's not the (right) direction, the ( vital quality of his?) whole brain changes.

B: It changes at the core and then the wrong structure is dismantled and healed, that may take ( some healing) time.

K: That's right.

B: But the insight ( of wlking in a new direction?) …

K:... is the factor that changes...

B: And that insight does not take time.

K: Isn't ( the inner quality of ) that mind having had insight into this limitation, and therefore moved away from that limitation, isn't that something of a 'revolutionary' (nature?) ? It is no longer the 'man-made' mind with its (limited self-centred) consciousness.

B: Yes, so that is the 'general' (collective ?) consciousness - I mean, not just in individual's but it has been all round.

K: Of course I'm not talking (only) of the (particular) consiousness...

B: Yes. We discussed that the (so called) 'individual' consciousness is the 'particularised' outcome of a 'general consciousness' of mankind A particular outcome, rather than an independent thing. You see, that's one of our ( very common) confusions: we take this 'individualistic' mind to be the concrete actuality.

K: Yes.

B: So, it's necessary to ( wisely?) consider this 'general' mind as the 'actuality' from which the 'particular' mind is formed.

K: Yes. That's all very clear.

B: But now you are saying that we 'move away' even from that 'general' mind ; so, (in the meditative context ?) what does it actually mean?

K: If one has totally moved away from those (self-interest based?) limitations , then what is the (quality of one's ) mind? And what is the relationship between that (universally integrated ?) 'mind' - which is not man-made- , and the 'man-made' mind?

B: Well, didn't we agree to call it the 'Universal' Mind ?

K: I don't like (to call it positively ?) 'universal mind', but (rather) a Mind that is not made by man. Does such a (holistic ?) mind exist?

B: You see, one of the ( major experiential) problems that comes up is : 'Who' observes it ?

K: There is no ( such) division in ( the context of holistic?) observation. Not, 'I observe' , but there is only ( a quality of non-personal ) observation .

B: Would you say the particular brain takes part in this observation?

K: No, sir, it doesn't take place in the 'particular' ('personalised' ?) brain.

B: Yes, but it seems that even a 'particular' brain may respond to it .

K: Of course, but it is not 'K' 's brain.

B: What I mean by the word 'particular' brain, was that given the particulars of where a certain human being is in space and time or whatever his physical form is, is distinguished from another one which might be here or there.

K: Look, sir, let's get clear on this point. We live in a 'man-made' world, our brains are the result of a 'man-made' mind - and so on.

B: Well, the human brain itself is not 'man-made' but it has been (culturally ?) conditioned.

K: Conditioned by man, right, that's what I meant. Now, can this ( meditating?) 'mind' uncondition itself ( step out of its conditioned patterns?) so completely that it's no longer 'man-made'? Can it go to that extent, as to completely liberate itself from... 'itself' ? (from its 'self' -centredness ?) .

B: That's a somewhat paradoxical statement.

K: Of course. Paradoxical, but it is so. (In a nutshell:) One can observe that the (collective?) consciousness of humanity 'is' (conditioned by ?) its (past) 'content' - all the 'man-made' things : anxiety, fear, and all the rest of it. Now not only the particular, but the 'general '( human mind) having had an insight into ( what was wrong with?) it, has 'cleansed' itself from all that.

B: So, if this ( purifying) insight transforms the 'man-made' mind, it's no longer the (same ) mind ?

K: It's no longer. That (inward exposure to the truth of this ) insight means the 'wiping away' of all the (conditioned) content of consciousness. Not bit by bit, but the 'totality' of it. And this 'insight' is not the result of man's ( temporal ) endeavour.

B: Yes, but then where does it come from ?

K: Where does it come from? In (or from?) the Mind itself – in the whole of it.

B: So, we say there is ( an Universal ) Mind, right?

K: Let's go slowly - the (meditating ?) mind comes to a (Check-) Point when it says, 'Can all this ( conditioned content) be wiped away at one breath, one blow, in one movement ?' And that is the movement (timeless action of?) of insight. It is still ( occuring) in the ( same) mind. But is not born of the content of the (self-centred?) consciousness.

B: So, you are saying the human mind has the potential of moving beyond the (conditioned) consciousness.

K: Of course. It must be a part of the (intelligent heritage of the human ) mind.

B: So, the human mind can do that, but it hasn't generally done it ?

K: Yes. So, having done all this, is there a (holistic quality of ?) mind which man cannot conceive, cannot create, is there such a Mind?

B: Well, I think what you are saying is, having freed our mind from the general and particular structure of consciousness of mankind, from its limitations, now this Mind is much greater. And you say that this Mind is raising the question...Which is ?

K: Is there a (new ?) mind which is not man-made? And if there is, what is its relationship to the man-made mind? I think that can only be asked when the limitations are 'ended', otherwise it's just a theoretical question.

B: That'll be still part of the 'man-made' structure.

K: Of course, of course. So ( the meditating mind?) must be absolutely free of all this. Then only can you put this (two-folded) question : (a) is there a ( holistic quality of?) Mind that is not 'man-made', and (b) what is its relationship to the 'man-made' mind. (a) Of course there is. Without being authoritative or personal or all that business, there is. But it is not 'God' …

B: ...which is part of the man-made structure.

K: And (b) if there is such a Mind, and someone ( such as K?) says 'there is', then what is the relationship of 'that' (holistic?) to the 'man-made' mind? Has it any relationship?

B: Yes, this is a difficult (metaphisical) question because we could say that the man-made mind is pervaded with illusion, most of its (psychological) content is not 'real'.

K: So this (new mind) is 'real' in the sense of 'actual', and the other is measurable, confused - has 'this' a relationship to 'That'? Obviously not.

B: Well, I would say it has a superficial one at least at the practical or technical level, like let's say, this TV system ( recording our discussion) and so on. But as you were saying that is a very small area. But more fundamentally...

K: ...'this' man-made ('self-interest' based?) mind has no relationship to 'That'. (However) 'That' has a relationship to 'this'. Let's be ( more) clear: the human mind has got ( its own temporal?) illusions, desires and all the rest of it. And That 'Other' mind is beyond all ( space & time?) limitations. ( However?) this illusory mind, the man-made mind, is always seeking ( to reach) 'That' ( God, Truth, or... the Unknown?)

B: Yes, that's its main ( existential) trouble.

K: Yes, that's its main trouble. And it is always measuring it's 'progress' : I'm getting nearer, farther, all the rest of it. So this man-made mind is always seeking ( to contact ) 'That' (universal mind ?) , and therefore it's creating more and more ( colateral) mischief, confusion. ( But in a nutshell?) 'this' ( man-made mind) has no (actual) relationship to 'That'. Now, has 'That' any relationship to it?

B: It can have an (educational?) relationship to the 'man-made' mind in (the sense of ) understanding its true structure.

K: Are you saying, sir, that 'That' ( Universal?) Mind has a ( working?) relationship to the human mind the moment this is moving away from the limitations?

B: Yes, in understanding ( the truth regarding the nature of ?) those limitations it moves away.

K: Yes, moves away. Then 'That' has a ( 2-way working?) relationship.

B: Then It has a 'genuine' relationship to what this limited mind actually is, not with the (self-centred?) illusions of what it thinks it is.

K: Let's be clear...

B: Well, the Mind which is not limited, which is not 'man-made', cannot be related (or have a working relationship?) to the illusions which are in the 'man-made' mind.

K: Agreed.

B: But it has to be related to the source, to the real nature of the man-made mind, which is ( active) behind the ( screen of) illusion.

K: How can 'That' have a relationship to 'this', even basically?

B: So, you are retracting what you just said before ?

K: No, I'm just 'pushing' ( or 'dramatising'?) it a little . What is the relationship of (a Selfless ) Love to ( a 'selfish love' loaded with ?) jealousy? There is none...

B: Not to 'jealousy' itself- which is a (self-centred ?) illusion, but to the 'mind' of the human being who is jealous, there may be (some relationship)

K: Take (a holistic mind that has free affection & ) 'love' and ( the egocentric mind that) 'hates' -they have no ( authentic) relationship to each other.

B: No, not really....

K: None, not just 'not really' !

B: But I think that the latter might understand the origin of its hatred, see ?

K: Ah, 'it might' - yes, yes...

B: In that sense I would think they have a (shared learning?) relationship.

K: Are we saying, sir, that (a Selfless?) Love has a relationship to 'non-love' (to a 'mind without love' ?) ?

B: Only in the sense of 'dissolving' it.

K: In the ending of ( self-centred jealousy, resentment or ?) 'hatred', the 'Other' is.

B: Yes, then we have to ask how it (this inner transformation?) gets started ?

K: That's very simple.

B: I mean, supposing we say we have ( a psychological residue of resentment & ) 'hatred'....

K: Suppose 'I hate you' . I can ( sit down, meditate & ? ) see the origin of it. Because you ( or other people did hurt or?) insulted me.

B: Well that's the (immediate) origin, but why does one behave so irrationally is ( coming from a far ) deeper origin. You see, if you merely insulted me, why should I respond to your insult ?

K: All my (past) conditioning is ( responding in ?) that. Now, does your love (or your 'loving presence'?) help me to understand the origin of my hatred?

B: No, but I think that someone ( entangled in 'hard feelings' of resentment & ) hatred, by understanding their origin, can move away.

K:...and then the 'Other' is (Present) . But the 'Other' cannot 'help' ( 'push'?) him to move away...

B: No, but suppose one one human being has open access to this ( Selfless ) Love and the other has not - can't the first one communicate something which will start the (awakening?) movement in the second one?

K: The ( metaphysical) question was : is (the psychological content of?) 'hate' dispelled by ( Selfless?) Love ? Or in the ( insightful?) understanding of ( the violent causation of?) hatred and in the ending of it, the 'Other' is (coming) ?

B: That's ( holistically?) right, but supposing 'A' has reached 'That' and he sees B... what is he going to do, you see, that's the question.

K: What is the (interacting?) relationship between the two? My wife loves (selflessly?) and I hate ( personally?) . She can talk to me, she can point it out to me, but her ( selfless) love is not going to transform the innermost source of my hatred.

B: That's clear, yes, except (that a selfless ) Love is the energy behind her talk.

K: Behind the talk, yes.

B: Of course, that ( selfless) Love itself doesn't 'go in there'...

K: Of course - that's 'romantic' and all that ( wishful thinking?) business. So the man who 'hates' (everything?) , having an insight in the ( primary ?) source of his hatred , the causation of it, the ( reactionary ?) movement of it, and ending it, has (open access to ?) the 'Other'.

B: Yes, ( to sum it up:) if A is the man who has seen ( the truth regarding?) all this and he now has the energy to put it to B - then what happens it's up to B.

K: Of course. I think we had better pursue this.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 19 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Jan 2014 #7
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

12TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly edited)

GOING BEYOND THE INNER WALL OF SELF-CENTREDNESS

Krishnamurti: We were talking the other day about a human being who has ( meditatively?) 'worked his way' through all the problems of modern life, both physical and psychological, and has grasped the full (existential ) significance of freedom from his 'psychological' (self-centred) memories, conflicts and travails, comes to the (critical) point where his mind finds itself free (of the 'known' ?) but hasn't yet gathered that supremely (intelligent?) energy necessary to 'go beyond' itself (or transcend its condition ?). Can we go on from there?

Bohm: If you like, yes.

K: ( So, for starters?) Can the human mind ( our whole psychological structure) ever be free from all (personal ) conflict, from all shadow of any disturbance?

B: Well, some people would say (that in the 'real' world) we could have only a partial freedom.

K: Yes, partial freedom, like some modern philosophers have stated.

B: Well, some people feel that's actually the case. But of course there are those who have said it is done (naturally ) through reincarnation. But even that group say it will take a very long time.

K: Yes, they say it will take a very long time. You must go through various (40 +?) lives and suffer and go through all kinds of miseries and ultimately you come to That. But here we are not thinking in terms of (linear?) time. We're asking, a ( decent?) human being knowing that he is deeply conditioned, so that his whole being is that, can he ever free itself ? And if it does, what is 'beyond'? Would this ( ultimate existential?) question be valid, unless the mind has really finished all the (psychological ?) travails of life? As we said the other day, our minds are 'man-made' ( culturally formatted?) . And is there an (innermost ) mind which is not man-made? And is it possible for it to free itself from its own man-made ( characteristics ?)

B: I think there's this kind of a 'tangle' there: if this mind is totally man-made, totally conditioned, then in what sense can it get out of it? So if we would say that it had at least the 'possibility' of something beyond...

K: Then ( the experiential risk is that?) it becomes a reward, a temptation, a thing to be...

B: But I think that even logically there seems to be an inconsistency in saying that the human mind is 'totally' conditioned and yet it's going to get out (of that condition) .

K: I understand that, but if one ( assumes?) that there is a part which is not conditioned, then we enter into quite another inconsistency. In our discussions, we've said, that the human mind (although) being deeply conditioned, it can free itself through 'insight' - that is the real clue to this. We went into the nature of it that insight, and can it uncondition the mind completely, wipe away all the (self-centred ?) illusions, desires and so on, can that insight completely wipe it out? Or is it partial (acting by parts?) ?

B: Well, the first point to consider is that the human mind mind is not static and if one thinks it's totally conditioned, this suggests something static, which would never change. Now, if we say the mind is always in movement, then it seems in some way it becomes impossible to say what it is at this very moment -all we could say is that 'it has been' totally conditioned.

K: Can we say that it is in constantly movement, but its movement is within a border, within a certain field ?

B: Yes.

K: And this field ( of its self-centred knowledge?) can expand and/or contract, but the (margin of freedom?) within its boundaries is very limited.

B: Yes. And even if we try to move (or to transcend our condition ?) within that structure, then we stay in the same boundary.

K: The (man-made mind ?) is always moving within that limitation. Can it 'die away' from that?

B: That's the point, that's another kind of movement - in another dimension, I think you've said.

K: Yes. And we say this is possible through insight, which is a totally different kind of (perceptive ) 'movement'.

B: Yes, and you said that this ( holistic ?) movement does not originate in the particular , nor in the general mind.

K: That's what we discussed the other day. It is not the insight of a particular, or of the general mind. We are then stating something quite outrageous.

B: Yes, I think that it rather violates the sort of logic that people have been using, that either the particular and the general mind should cover everything, in terms of ordinary logic.

K: Yes.

B: Now if you're saying there's 'something' beyond both, this is already a question which has not been stated clearly . And I think it has a great importance.

K: How do we then state it, or how do we 'come to it'?

B: Yes, well, I've been noticing that people divide themselves roughly into two groups, one group feels the most important thing, the ground their existence is the concrete particular daily activity. The other group feels that the general, the universal is the ground. You see, the one is the more 'practical' type, and the other the more 'philosophical' type. And this division has been visible throughout history, also in everyday life, wherever you look.

K: But is the 'general' separate from the 'particular'?

B: It's not, but the question is what is it that's going to be given primary value, people tend to give emphasis to one or the other. Some people give the main emphasis to the 'particular' (aspects of human life) - they say the 'general' is there but if you take good care of the 'particular' the 'general' will be all right. The others say the 'general' and the 'universal' is the main thing and getting that right you'll also get the particular right.

K: Quite.

B: So there's been a kind of unbalance to one side or the other, a bias in the mind of man. Now what's being raised here is the notion of neither the general nor the particular.

K: That's right. That's just it. Can we have a conversation about it, using your scientific brain and and this ('X') man who is not all that, so we have a conversation to find out if the general and particular (aspects of human existence ) are actually not divided at all ?

B: Also that there's to be no bias to one or the other.

K: And not laying emphasis on one or the other. So, if we don't do that (splitting ) , then what is, what is there?

B: Well, then we have no easy way to talk about it... We have discussed in California about the Ground (of All Being) and you said that the 'particular' mind dies (in)to the general or universal mind or into the 'emptiness', and then saying that ultimately even this universal mind dies into the Ground.

K: That's right, we discussed that. Would an ordinary person, fairly intelligent, see all this?

B: I'm not so sure...

K: Or would he say, 'What nonsense is all this is ?.'

B: Well, if it were just thrown at him (as an intellectual proposition) , he would reject it as nonsense – but with a very careful presentation some people might see it, I think. But if you just say it to anybody, they would say, Whoever heard of that ?

K: So where are we now? We are neither in the particular nor in the general. That's a statement which hardly can be accepted reasonably.

B: Well, it's reasonable in the sense that if you take thought to be a (mental activity or ?) 'movement', rather than a 'content', then thought is the ( go-between) 'movement' between the particular and the general.

K: That's the whole point, isn't it? Ordinarily the general and the particular are in the same area.

B: Yes, and either you focus on one or on the other.

K: Yes, but in the same area, in the same field. And thought is the movement between the two. (In fact the self-centred ) thought has created both.

B: Yes, it has created both and moves in-between in that area.

K: Yes, in that same area ( of our personal & collective knowledge ?) And it has been doing this for millennia.

B: Yes, and most people would feel that's all it could do.

K: Now, we are saying, that when (the continuity of ?) thought ends, the 'time' movement' also comes to an end.

B: We should go more slowly here, because it's a 'jump' from 'thought' to 'time', which we've gone into before, but it's still a jump.

K: Let's see (the missing step ?) . Thought has created the general and the particular (area of experience and knowledge ?) , and thought is a movement that connects the two, thought moves round it, so it is (moving back & forth) within the same area.

B: Yes, and in doing this it has created 'time' - the particular (concept of ) time and also a general concept time -all time, for ever.

K: Yes, but you see, thought 'is' time.

B: Well that's another question, you were saying, thought has a (past memory) content which is about time, and besides that, thought is a (mental) movement ( projecting ) its own continuity in ?) time, from the past into the future. Right?

K: But, sir, thought is based on time, thought is the outcome of ( our whole evolution in?) time.

B: Yes, but then does that mean that 'Time', exists beyond thought? If you say thought is based on time, then 'time' is ( a concept ?) more fundamental than thought - is that what you want to say?

K: Yes...

B: So then we have to go into that (more analytically?) . You could say that Chronological Time is something which was there before thought, or at least is at the origin of thought.

K: Time was there ( entered into the human consciousness?) when there is the accumulation of (personal and collective ?) knowledge.

B: So it has come out of thought to some extent.

K: I can act and in the very doing I learn something . So is not (the very process of) thought essentially a 'movement' (a mental activity ) of time?

B: Well, in what sense is this 'learning' a movement of time ? You can say, when we learn it is registered. Right? And then whatever you have learned operates ( as practical knowledge ?) in the next experience

K: Yes. The (memory of the ?) past is always moving (or interfering) into the present (action)

B: Yes, mixing or 'confusing' with the present. And the two together are again registered as the next experience.

K: So, is ( the 'psychological' ) time different from thought, or time 'is' thought ?

B: Well, this movement of learning and the response of memory into (the new) experience and then re-registering, we say this is (a process of) 'time', and that is also (the actual functioning of ?) thought.

K: Yes, so, is there a time apart from thought? B: Well, that's another question. Wouldn't we say that physically or in the Cosmos that 'Time' has an (objective) significance apart from (our own) thinking?

K: Physically, yes, I understand that.

B: Right. So here we're talking of the ( movement of ) 'time' in the mind or 'psychologically'.

K: Psychologically. As long as there is an accumulation of 'psychological' knowledge, as the 'me' and so on, there is ( a personal thinking in terms of ) time.

B: Yes, so we say that wherever there is an accumulation there is time.

K: Yes, that's the point.

B: Which turns the thing around because usually we think that time is there first and then, in time you accumulate.

K: I would put it round the other way...

B: Yes. But it's important to see that actually it 'is' the other way. Then, suppose there is no ( 'psychological') accumulation, then what?

K: Then - that's the whole point - there is no ( sense of our 'personal' continuity in ?) time. But as long as keep accumulating, gathering, becoming, there is the process of 'time'. But if there is no gathering, no becoming, no accumulation, does any 'psychological' time exist?

B: Well, probably you could say that even the physical time must depend on some kind of physical accumulation.

K: Of course, but that's quite a different matter.

B: So, that chronological 'time' we are not denying - we're denying the significance of the psychological accumulation.

K: That's right. So (the self-centred process of ?) thought is the outcome of psychological accumulation, and that accumulation, that gathering, gives it a sense of (its temporal ) continuity, which is 'time'.

B: It seems to be a (cyclical) movement : whatever has been accumulated is responding to the ( challenges of the ) 'present' with the projection of the 'future' and then that (projection) is again registered...So, the constant accumulation of all that's registered is in the (sequential) order (or logic) of time.

K: That's right. So we're saying ( that inwardly ?) thought 'is' time.

B: Yes, or time 'is' thought.

K: One way or the other.

B: So, the movement of psychological time - which is the result of that accumulation is actually ( a background activity of?) thought. Both mean the same thing.

K: So the 'psychological' accumulation is ( generating) thought and time.

B: So, we have two words when really we only need one.

K: One word. That's right.

B: But because we have two words we look for two different things.

K: Yes. There is actually only one ( mental) movement, which is 'time-thought'. Now can the mind which has moved for millennia in this (well trodden) area, free itself from that?

B: Yes, but what exactly exactly is holding the mind in that area ?

K: (Its natural instinct of ?) accumulation.

B: Yes, but why does the mind continue to accumulate (all its 'personal' experience ) ?

K: I think that it is because in this ( indiscriminate ) accumulation there is (a global sense of?) security - apparent security.

B: I think this point needs a little discussion - since in the area (of material existence) the accumulation of physical things does provide a sense of security .

K: Of course.

B: But then, since no ( intelligent ) distinction was made between the 'outer' and the 'inner' ( accumulations) , there was the feeling that one could accumulate inwardly either more experience or some ( higher ?) knowledge of what to do.

K: Are we saying that the outward necessity of physical accumulation for security is necessary (for our survival) and the same urge ( spilled ) into the 'psychological' field ? And there you accumulate ( personal experience ?) hoping to be ( feel more) secure.

B: Yes, inwardly hoping to accumulate pleasant memories, or useful relationships, or principles you could count on.

K: So ( we just assume that in these ? ) psychological accumulations there is safety, protection, security.

B: The illusion (of it) , anyway.

K: All right, the illusion of security and man has lived in ( the inner comfort of ?) this ( perfect?) illusion.

B: Yes, so it seems that the first mistake was that man never understood the distinction between what he has to do in the world 'outside' and what he has to do 'inside' himself, right?

K: Yes, it is the same (accumulative momentum ) outwardly and inwardly.

B: So, man carried that procedure which was right outwardly he carried it inwardly, perhaps being entirely ignorant, that this would make trouble.

K: So where are we now? A human being has come to the point when he says, 'Can I really be free from (the burden of?) this 'psychological' time?'

B: Yes...

K: Is that possible?

B: Well, if we see where it had this origin, then it should be possible to dismantle it, while if it were built into us, nothing could be done.

K: Of coursse it is not 'built into us'...

B: Although most people act as though they believe it was... So, if it's not built into us, then the possibility exists for us to change. Because in some way we said it was built up in the first place through (our evolution in ?) time. And I think that's one of the difficulties of people who are hoping that by bringing in 'evolution' they hope to get out of this static boundary.

K: Boundary, quite.

B: But they don't realize that evolution is the very means by which the trap was made.

K: Yes. So my next question is: can the mind move out from this field altogether, and enter, perhaps, into a totally different dimension ? We said this can only happen when there is insight ( a global comprehension of our inner condition ?).

B: Yes, and it seems that this insight arises when one questions this whole thing very deeply. One sees it doesn't make sense (to keep going that way ?).

K: Now, having had insight into this and seen its limitation and therefore going beyond it, what is there 'beyond'?

B: I think it's very difficult to even bring this into words, but we said that anyway, something has to be done along this line, right?

K: I think it has to be put into words.

B: Could you say why ? Because many people might feel we should leave this entirely 'non-verbal'.

K: Can we say that "the word is not the thing"?

B: That's clear, yes.

K: So, recognising that ( verbal) limitation then what is there beyond all this? Can my mind be so desire (-free) , so it won't create the illusion of something beyond?

B: Well, desire must be involved in the same process of thought-time

K: Of course, desire 'is' (the vector of psychological ?) time. After all, 'being' or 'becoming' something is based on desire.

B: Yes. They are one and the same, really.

K: Yes, one and the same. Now, when one has an 'insight' (a holistic perception ?) into the whole movement of (thought controlled) desire, and its capacity to create illusion, it's finished.

B: Yes, this is a very crucial point, so we should say a little more about desire, how it's intrinsic in this accumulating process, how it comes out in many ways. For one thing you could say that as you keep accumulating (more personal experience) there comes a ( nagging) sense that something is missing. So, you feel you should have more, something to finish, to complete , since whatever you have accumulated until now is not complete.

K: So, could we go into the question of ( our temporal) 'becoming' first, then desire comes into it. Why is it that all human beings right through the world have this urge to become (psychologically) ? Outwardly one can understand the desire of getting a better job, more comfort and so on. But why is there this need in the human mind of trying to become something better (within oneself)

B: Well, there must be some dissatisfaction with 'what's in there' already, that's one thing.

K: Is it dissatisfaction (with what one actually is ) ?

B: Well, you know, a person feels he would like his life to be 'complete' . You see suppose for example he has accumulated a lot of memories of past pleasures, but as these memories are no longer adequate and he feels something more is needed (to keep going?)

K: Is that it?

B: Well, to get more, that's one of the ( issues) – and eventually he feels that he must have the whole, the ultimate (existential experience ).

K: I'm not at all sure whether (thinking in terms of?) 'more' is not the real thorn : I will be more, I will have more, I will become - you follow? - this whole movement of moving forward, moving, gaining, comparing, advancing, achieving – psychologically.

B: The word 'more' is implicit in ( the very logic of) 'accumulation'. If you're ( engaged in ) accumulating, you will have to accumulate more, there's no other way to do it.

K: So why is there this seed (of the 'more' ) in the human mind ?

B: Well, he didn't see that this (wanting ) 'more' is wrong, inwardly. If he started outwardly to use the term 'more', but then he carried it inwardly, and for some reason he didn't see how (potentially ) destructive it was.

K: Why have fairly intelligent philosophers and religious people who have spent a great part of their life in 'achieving' (superior knowledge and/or wisdom ?) , why haven't they seen this simple (psychological) fact that where there is accumulation there must be ( this constant demand for) more.

B: Well, they did not see any harm in doing it. They're all saying, we are trying to get a better life - you see. (Starting with) the nineteenth century it was the century of 'industrial progress', of improving everything all the time.

K: All right, progress outwardly.

B: And they felt inwardly too that man would be 'improving himself' inwardly.

K: But why haven't they ever questioned this?

B: Well, what would make them 'question' it?

K: Obviously this constant struggle for the more (can eventually become frustrating or painful?) .

B: But they thought that was necessary for progress (as in the dictum :'No pain, no gain')

K: Yes, let us admit outwardly. Is it that this same urge of becoming something better outwardly, has moved into the psychological realm?

B: Yes. But can we make it clear why it does harm in the 'psychological' realm ?

K: What is the harm in accumulating, psychologically? It brings about a division between 'you' and 'me', ( the have's & the have not's) and so on.

B: Could we make that more clear ? Suppose you are accumulating in your way and I accumulate in my way. And then we try to impose a 'common way of accumulating' and that's creating conflict. They say everybody should be more...

K: Or I have accumulated 'psychologically' as a Hindu, another has accumulated as a Muslim.

B: There are thousands of such divisions in one profession or in another, in one place or another.

K: Therefore (the instinct of ?) accumulation in its very nature divides people.

B: Because each accumulates in his particular way. Right? Which is different from someone else, you cannot make a common way of accumulating (except in an Utopian Society ?)

K: So can we say then, in accumulation man has sought psychological security, and this ( optimisedd?) security with its accumulations (has become the active) factor of human division ?

B: Yes...

K: So, is it possible not to accumulate ( on the 'psychological' levels ?) That's a tremendous (task) .

B: Yes, because it seems the human mind automatically accumulates.

K: I know. And why? For the very clear and simple reason, that in the 'psychological' accumulation, as in the outwardly one , if feels safe, secure (in a pretty insecure world !) .

B: Yes. Well perhaps you could say that having got on into this trap it was very hard for the mind to get out, because the mind was 'programmed' by this process of accumulation and it becomes very hard to see any other option.

K: Yes, suppose my mind is filled with this process of ('meaningful'?) occupation, can all that ( burden of ) psychological knowledge, end?

B: Only if the mind will get to the root of it.

K: Which is, to 'see' that it is an (self-induced) illusion that in ( the process of psychological) accumulation there is security.

B: Well, now, one can see this at a certain level, like one has drawn a map of this whole process. But then the question is, when you have a map you must now be able to look at the (real) country.

K: Yes.

B: So (map-wise ?) we are saying, that desire is what 'keeps people going'.

K: Not only desire but this deep-rooted instinct to accumulate.

B: Like the squirrel ?

K: Like the squirrel, yes. For the future, for safety. That and desire go together (creating the process of 'time') Right?

B: You can say desire actually means 'need', a person feels he 'must accumulate more' because he 'needs' more.

K: Yes. Now, I'm asking, can this process 'end'. If it ends through an action of will, it is still the same thing ( 'frozen' in time ?) .

B: Well, 'will power' is part of (highly concentrated) desire.

K: Of course. If it ends because of ( expectations based on) punishment or reward, it's still the same thing. So one's mind 'sees' ( the falseness of ) all this this and puts all that aside. Right? Is the mind now free of accumulation?

B: Yes, I think that...

K: Yes sir, I think it can, ( at least) with us (here) . That is, to have no ( attachments to our ?) 'psychological' knowledge at all, and so on.

B: Yes, but we'll have to consider that this (psychological) knowledge goes very much further inwardly than is ordinarily meant : it builds up an 'image' of yourself and there is a lot of (associated) knowledge about what sort of person you are, that builds up into a (very realistic) 'picture', with all the ( personal) expectations involved .

K: But after all, if 'you' have knowledge of 'yourself', you have built an image already.

B: That's right, yes, but there's a subtle transfer of what you do ( with the objective knowledge) in the outside world , saying, "I know the sort of person I am" and it builds up, there's a lot of ( colateral) accumulations that builds up in forms that we don't ordinarily call 'knowledge', but '' our character', or our personal preferences, as likes and dislikes.

K: But once you realize that your 'psychological' ( image) based on your accumulations as ( personal) knowledge are an illusion and that (in time it ) causes ( various degrees of frustration) pain and misery, when you see it ( what's wrong with it?) , it's 'finished'.

B: Yes, but there may be other kinds of ( ancestral) knowledge which I don't recognise as being knowledge, I say that's...

K: What what other ( subliminal ?) knowledge does one have? Preferences, like and dislike, prejudices...

B: ...habits ?

K: Habits. All these are ( incorporated in ?) the 'self-image' that one has ( consciously or not ?) created about oneself.

B: Yes, but (the human 'psyche') has developed in such a way that this 'self-image' seems extraordinarily real. And therefore its qualities don't seem to be (mere) 'knowledge'...

K: All right, sir ( leave this fine observation for homework?) .

(To recap:) We have said, ( that this ancestral momentum of ?) accumulation 'is' (creating its own 'psychological') 'time' and in it there is ( a certain sense of ) security, but (on the other hand) this 'psychological' accumulation there must create division . And the mental process of 'thought' is the ( 'go-between') movement between the 'particular' and the 'general', and ( the 'thinker' ?) is also born out of the (personal) 'images' that have been accumulated.

B: Yes...

K: Right? All that is one's inward state. That is deeply imbedded in me.

B: Yes, both physically and mentally.

K: All round. I recognize that physically (the accumulation of knowledge) is 'somewhat' necessary...

B: Yes, although it is overdone, even physically.

K: Of course, but to realize that psychologically (inwardly) , how do I set about it? How do I, who has accumulated for millennia, that has been ( my inner ) habit , and when I do recognize the (psychological dangers of this?) habit, how does its 'movementum' come to an end? That is the real question.

B: Yes...

K: Does 'Intelligence' play a part in all this?

B: Well, there has to be some ( fundamental ?) intelligence just to see this.

K: Is it the so-called 'ordinary intelligence', or something entirely different?

B: Well, yes, I don't know what most people mean by 'intelligence', but if they mean just merely the capacity to discern and...

K: ...to solve technical problems, economic problems and so on - I would call that 'partial' intelligence...

B: Yes, we can call that (an intelligent) thinking skill .

K: Skill in thought, all right. But in here, another ( perceptive) quality is necessary. Is that quality Intelligence? (I'm trying to move away from the banalised term "insight" for a while)...

B: You mean, not to repeat this word so much ?

K: So, is 'intelligence' the outcome of very clear precise, exact, logical conclusions of thought ?

B: That would be just a higher ( thinking) skill. You seem to suggest that this 'Intelligence' is of a different quality.

K: Yes. Is this ( holistic) Intelligence related to ( the quality of Selfless?) Love?

B: I'd say they go together.

K: Yes, and one cannot (really?) accumulate Love.

B: No, but some people might try to...

K: It sounds silly!

B: Many people ( even) try do 'guarantee' their Love.

K: That is all romantic nonsense, cinema stuff, all that. You cannot accumulate Love, you cannot associate it with ( the mixed feelings of 'love &) hate', all that. So this 'Love' it's something entirely different. And has this ( non-personal?) Love (its own ) Intelligence? Which then operates - you follow? - which then 'breaks down the Wall'.

B: Yes... ?

K: All right, sir - I don't know what this ( Intelligence of ) Love is, but I do realize that pleasure, desire, accumulation, remembrance, 'pictures', are not Love. I realized all that, long ago. But now I've come to the point where my ( 'self'-enclosing ?) Wall is so enormous that I can't even jump over it. So I'm now 'fishing around' to see if there is a different movement which is not a 'man-made' movement. And this 'movement' may be Love.

B: You are saying it is an ( Universal) movement, not just a ( personal) feeling ?

K: So is that ( quality of selfless ) Love, with its Intelligence, is that the ( active) factor that will break down my (invisible inner) Wall? ( Clue :) It's not the 'particular' or 'general' Love ; it is something beyond.

B: Ywell, that's a hard point (to grasp) of course, since that ( quality of intelligent & selfless Love?) has never been part of (our cultural) background ; mankind tends to make love a particular thing or individual, but...

K: I think when one 'loves' ( selflessly?) with that Intelligence, it covers the whole ( of our existence) it's not the particular or general - it is 'light', not a 'particular light'. So if that ( selfless love ?) is the ( active) factor that can "break down the Wall" , and as a human being having reached a certain point, 'I' can't go beyond (jump the inward Wall) to find that love - what shall I do when I realize that any 'movement' from this side of the wall is still strengthening the wall?

So ( to make this long story , short?) you come along and say, 'Look, that (invisible inner ) 'Wall' ( of Selfishess?) can be dissolved, or 'broken down', if you have that quality of Love with ( its own ?) intelligence.' And I say, 'Excellent, but I don't even know what it is.' But realizing that 'I' cannot possibly do anything what has happened to the quality of my mind, when all its movement to accumulate, to become, has stopped ? The moment I realize this, is there in my mind a ( Silent ?) revolution? Revolution in the sense that ( all the traditional mental) movement has completely stopped. And if it has, is That 'love' still something beyond the wall?

B: Well, the Wall itself is the illusory product of the (self-centred) mental process.

K: Exactly, I'm realizing the 'wall' is ( created by my self-centred mental ?) movement. So when ( in the meditative context ) this 'movement' ends, that quality of Intelligence, Love and so on, is there. That's the whole point.

B: Could we say that the ( accumulative mental ) movement ends, when it sees that it has no point ?

K: It is like, it is like the skill to 'see' a danger.

B: Well, it could be...

K: Yes. Any (direct perception of?) 'danger' demands a certain amount of awareness. But I have never realized inwardly that this ( 'accumulative') process is a tremendous danger.

B: Yes, because that seems to be the essence of ( the inner sense of comfort & ?) security.

K: Of course, and you come along and point it out to me, and ( if.... ?) I'm listening to you very carefully, I can actually perceive the 'danger' of that. And ( this quality of direct ?) perception is part of Love, isn't it?

B: So, you're suggesting that (this selfless ?) Love is a kind of ( non-material) energy which may momentarily 'envelop' certain things.

K: So ( the 'loving ) perception' without any (personal) motive or direction, of this ( invisible inner ) 'wall' which has been brought into being by this (ages old) movement of (psychological) accumulation, the Perception of that is ( the action of ?) Intelligence and Love.

13TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM ( reader friendly edited)

BREAKING DOWN THE 'PSYCHOLOGICAL' WALL OF SELF-INTEREST

Krishnamurti: We came to this ( critical ?) point when after having been been through all kinds of (self-inquiry ) investigation and insight one comes, one comes to a 'blank wall' , and that ( 'invisible' inner ?) Wall can only be broken down when there is ( selfless?) love and intelligence. But before we go into that I would like ( to take a small detour &?) ask: why ( most) human beings, however intelligent, however learned, however 'philosophical' and 'religious', do always fall into this groove (of cummulative self-interest ?) ?

Bohm: Well, I think the groove is inherent in the very nature of knowledge .

K: Are you saying then that ( constantly functioning in the field of ) knowledge invariably must create a groove?

B: Not necessarily, but it has ( become routine) in the way it has developed in mankind. But the (gathering of) 'psychological' knowledge I would agree that it must create a groove.

K: But why has the human mind did not see the 'danger' of it - a life of mechanical repetition in which there is nothing new - and it keeps on doing it ?

B: It seems to me that the 'groove' of the 'psychological' knowledge accumulated seems to have a significance far beyond what its real significance is, that it seems to carrt vital a necessity. If we say we have knowledge of some object, like this microphone, that has some limited significance. But the knowledge about the ( family, tribe or?) nation to which you belong seems to have immense significance.

K: Yes, yes. So is this 'significance' the cause of this narrowing down of the mind?
B: Well, it 'holds' the mind, since this kind of 'psychological' knowledge seems to have a tremendous value. It makes the mind stick to that because it seems the most important thing in the world (in terms of our individual and collective survival) .

K: In India, there is this philosophy of Vedanta , saying that ( inwardly all) knowledge must end. But apparently very, very, very few people do (actually) end their (psychological) knowledge and talk from freedom.

B: You see, though a person may verbally say it should end the knowledge about the 'self'...

K: Yes. You mean I am ( inwardly so ?) 'stupid' that I don't see this psychological knowledge has very little significance essentially and yet my mind clings to it?

B: Yes, I wouldn't quite put it that a person is that 'stupid' but rather to say that this knowledge 'stupefies' (or 'drugs'?) the ( deeper areas of the?) brain.

K: 'Stupefied', all right, but it doesn't seem ( willing) to extricate itself.

B: Because it is already so stuck (in the field of the 'known' ?) that it can't see what it is doing.

K: So what shall it do? I have been watching this for many years, why human beings think or attempt to become free from certain things, and yet this is the root of it - this ( subliminal process of?) 'psychological' accumulation which becomes ( their 'personal'?) knowledge and so it divides and all kinds of things happen around it and within it. And yet the mind refuses to let it go.

B: Yes...

K: Is it that it doesn't see that it has given to ( living almost exclusively in the field of?) 'knowledge' such immense importance?

B: Yes, that is what I mean, yes.

K: Why? Is that because there is 'safety' or 'security' in it?

B: Partly, I think in some way knowledge has taken on the significance of the 'absolute', you see, while any knowledge should be properly considered as 'relative'.

K: I understand all that, sir, but you are not answering ( the psychological aspect of my?) question. Deeper down inside do we realise that ( living in the closed field of?) knowledge is very, very destructive.

B: That is true, but the ( illusion of a total inner safety provided by living in the field of ?) knowledge 'deceives' ( tranquilises?) the mind so that the person is not normally aware that it is actually 'destructive'.

K: Is that why human beings cling to it?

B: Well, even if we don't know exactly how it got started, once it gets started the mind is generally in a state in which it is not capable to look ( objectively) at this because there is a tremendous 'self defensive' mechanism to escape looking at the whole question.

K: Why?

B: Because it seems that something supremely precious ( like one's very 'individuality '?) might be at stake.

K: One is strangely intelligent in other directions, capable and efficient, skilled, having a great deal of skill, but here, where the root of all this trouble is, why don't we comprehend it fully?

B: I think once this ( settling down in the field of the known ?) has happened there is a mechanical process that resists intelligence.

K: So what shall we 'do' when we are ( finally getting) 'serious' about all this. Is it the lack of energy?

B: Not primarily. You see the (available intelligent?) energy is being dissipated in this ( very ?) process.

K: I understand that. Having dissipated a great deal of energy I haven't got the energy to grapple with this (potentially disturbing challenge ?)
B: That energy could come back quickly if we could ( see how to?) get out of this. The energy is constantly being dissipated and a person may be a little 'worn down' ( discouraged) but he could probably recover if this would stop.

K: So, realizing that this knowledge is inevitably forming the ( habitual) groove in which I live, my next question is: how am I to break it down?

B: Well, I am not sure that it is clear in general to people that this is just another 'knowledge' - it seems to be the very identity of our being, the self, the me, this is experienced as an entity which is not just having some knowledge, but as some real being. Right?

K: Are you saying this 'being' is different from that knowledge?

B: It appears to be, it feigns the difference.

K: But is it?

B: It isn't but it has a very powerful ability .

K: That has been my ( whole cultural ?) conditioning.

B: That is true. Now your question is, how do we get to the breaking down of that 'groove' (habit of living self-enclosed in the known?) ? Because it creates a pretension of a 'state of being'.

K: Look: if I really apply my mind to it then the question arises: is it possible to function without ( this very 'sticky'?) ?) 'psychological knowledge' in this world?

B: But you see, you may tell this to somebody, and he may feel that his ( existential ?) status is threatened . He does not see that the knowledge of his (personal identity or ?) status is behind the trouble. Knowledge seems to be at first sight something passive, something which you know, which you could use if you wanted to, or which you could just put aside, you see, which is the way it should be. But when the moment comes, this ( subliminal 'psychological) knowledge' no longer appears to be just 'knowledge'.

K: How does one go about it? Say for instance, I have a (professional) career, I know it is necessary to have (lots of practical & theoretical ) knowledge there, but (inwardly?) I have come to a point, where I see how important it is not to be caught in this (sticky?) process of 'psychological knowledge' which is always playing tricks with me. It is like hide and seek.

And we said ( metaphorically?) that is ( pretty much like an inner?) 'wall' that one has to break down (for homework?) . And we said ( as an experiential clue?) that this (mental) 'wall' can be broken down through ( a joint action of Selfless ?) Love and Intelligence. Aren't we asking something enormously difficult?

B: Well, it actually is something difficult...

K: We said the other day that the wall can be broken down through (having an ) Insight ( into the nature of self-interest?) - we went into that (briefly ?) but I immediately make an intellectual abstraction of it, which means that I move away from ( dealing directly with?) the fact and then, that 'abstraction' becomes all important. Which means ( that an 'image' of this miraculous 'insight' is created in the field of?) knowledge.

B: Yes, well it is incorporated the ( psychological) activity of knowledge.

K: So I am back again (in the field of the 'known' ?) .

B: Well, the general difficulty is that this (kind of 'psychological') knowledge is not just sitting there as a static form of information but it is extremely active, meeting every moment and shaping every moment according to the previous knowledge, so even when we raise this issue, (the same mechanism of ) knowledge is all the time waiting (lurking in the background?) and then... acting.

K: All the time ( on 'stand-by' ) and waiting (ready to act) , yes...

B: So, one point is that ( this 'psychological') knowledge is really 'active' ( or on 'stand-by'?) but people don't generally think of it that way.

K: Of course...
B: It is waiting to act, you see. And anything you would try to do about it, this 'knowledge' ( interface?) is already acting. By the time you realize that this is the problem it has already acted.

K: Yes. Do I realize it as an (actual experiential) problem , or as an idea (or concept?) which I must carry out? You see the difference?

B: Yes, so the first point is that (this 'all-knowning' attitude of ?) knowledge automatically turns everything into an idea which you must carry out. That is the whole way it is built. Right?

K: That is the whole way I have lived. Now, how am I to break (free from ?) that ( vicious mental circle?) even for a second?

B: If this ( active) 'knowledge (interface'?) could become aware of itself at work (it might eventually take a break ?) but the point is that (this kind of 'active?) knowledge' seems to work unawares, you see, it is just simply waiting (or 'lurking' from down ?) there and then 'acts' and by that time it has already disrupted the ( natural harmony & ) order of the brain.

K: Would you say ( that at this 'critical' point ?) the capacity to 'listen' ( non-verbally) is far more important than any explanations, any logic, just to 'listen'?

B: It comes to the same problem...

K: No, no. It doesn't. There is a possibility that when one 'listens completely' (openly & non-personally?) to ( the truth of?) what you are saying , this 'wall' is broken down. You understand?

B: If it is the capacity to listen then we have the question that the mind of the ordinary man is full of opinions, you see, so he can't listen. I think (this 'psychological') knowledge has all sorts of defences. If you trying to make it possible for the ordinary man to have this ( insightful ?) perception, that is really what you are asking, isn't it?

K: Yes.

B: Or at least, for those who are seriously interested. So, it seems that this ( 'self'-identified ?) knowledge has a tremendous number of defences, it has evolved in such a way that it resists, is built so as to resist seeing this, so it has 'personal opinions' which also act immediately.

K: I understand that, sir. But there must ( should?) be a ( quality of holistic?) communication between you and me who is so strong that my very act of listening to you and you communicating with me operates.

B: Yes, but then you have to break through this ( self-protective shield of ) opinions, through the whole ( 'psychological ?) structure'.

K: Of course, ( after all?) that is why I have come here. I have left all the 'churches' and all that stuff and I realize all that has been said here is true and I am burning to find out (what may happen) . When you (X) communicate with me your 'communication' is so strong, so real. You are not speaking from knowledge, you are not speaking from ( personal) opinions and all the rest of it. You are really a 'free' human being who is trying to communicate with me.

B: Right...

K: So, can I 'listen' with that same intensity which, you the communicator, are giving me?

B: Well, but we would have to ask here : is the ordinary man full of that (same passion for truth ?) ?

K: No, he is not. But if I want to 'listen' (without my self-protective mental shield?) to somebody who is telling the truth, in the very telling of it something is taking place in me - because I am so ardently listening, it just 'happens'.

Suppose I am one of your students, and you want to tell me something which must be enormously important because you have given your life to ( the study of) it, and as a student I have given up (a lot of stuff) just to come here. And if I don't receive it instantly, is it your fault who are communicating with me, or is it my fault that I am incapable of really listening to you? that?

B: Well, supposing the difficulty is that 'I' am 'incapable' of ( such a total?) listening, then what can be done?

K: You see, that is the difficulty (with all the 'followers'?) . If I am full of ( personal) prejudices, opinions, (value) judgements, self-defences and all the rest of course, I won't ( be able to really?) listen to you.

B: Well let's say there is somebody who has got through some of these defences and so on, but perhaps there are others that he is not aware of, you see. It is something not quite so simple as that.

K: I feel it is dreadfully simple somehow : if I could 'listen' with all my being, with all my attention, it takes place. It is as simple as that, I think. You see, sir, usually you are telling me something ( really insightful?) and there is an interval between your telling and my absorbing. And in that interval is the danger (of psychological becoming) But if I absorb it absolutely, listen to it with all my being, it is finished.

Is it because you are not offering me any (hope of personal) gratification ? You are saying, "it is so, take it". Is my mind so involved in ( high expectations of ?) pleasure that it won't listen to anything that is not completely satisfactory. I realize too the danger of that. I say, 'All right, I see what I am doing' - so I put that aside too. No ( high expectations of ?) pleasure, no reward, no ( fears of ) punishment in my listening, but there is only pure (inward) observation.

So we come back to that point: is this quality of pure observation, which is actually involved in 'listening', is that pure observation ( an action of selfless?) 'love'? I think it is. Then where am I? You have told me perception without any motive, direction, pure perception is love. And in that perception (of selfless ) love there is intelligence. They are not three separate things, they are all one thing. If I am sensitive enough by listening to all this, I come to that point when I say, 'By Jove, that is so'. But … it goes away so quickly. Then begins, 'How am I get it back?' Again the 'remembrance' of it, which is ( the psychological) knowledge, ( interferes with it and) blocks.

B: Well, what you are saying is that every time there is an authentic communication, ( our 'psychological' ?) knowledge gets to work in many different forms.

K: So you see it is enormously difficult to be free of this ( 'sticky' personal?) 'knowledge'.

B: We could ask why doesn't knowledge wait until it is needed?
K: Ah, that requires to be psychologically free of knowledge but when the occasion arises you are acting from ( a state of ) freedom (from the known?) , not from ( your past) knowledge..

B: So, ( the right place of ) knowledge is to 'inform' our action but it is not the (living) source of action

K: That is, to put it rather succinctly, freedom from knowledge, and being free it is from freedom one communicates, not from knowledge. That is, from 'emptiness' ( from 'not-knowing' ) there is communication. One may use the words, or language, which is the outcome of knowledge, but it is from that state of complete freedom.

B: Yes. Knowledge, communication, takes place but it is concerning the question of knowledge as the irrelevance of knowledge, of psychological knowledge, that is the communication.

K: Yes. Now, sir, can I communicate with you from (this inner) freedom? Suppose I, as a human being, have come to that point where there is complete freedom from knowledge and from that freedom a communication, using words, takes place. Can I communicate with you without any barrier?

B: Yes.

K: Can that man who is inwardly free from knowledge, but uses knowledge merely as a means of verbal communication, can I be in such a state of mind to receive that communication?

B: Well, (this psychological) knowledge ordinarily seems more than mere information, it seems that knowledge itself does not ordinarily see that ( its action in the field of?) knowledge is not free.

K: It is never free.
B: No, but it may seem it at first sight that 'you' are free to use 'your knowledge', you see.

K: Of course. But If I am going to understand myself I must be free to look at myself .

B: But ( this psychological) knowledge has pressures in it to prevent you.

K: Knowledge prevents me from looking then. That is so obvious !

B: Well, it may be obvious at this stage, but I am saying that generally people don't see that. One tends to say that there are certain kinds of knowledge which are obviously harmful like 'prejudice' and then you say there are other kinds which are not harmful. But the whole thing is part of one structure, yes. It is impossible to have prejudice in one part without having it in the other.

K: How will you communicate with me who have come to a certain point when I am really burning to receive what you are saying, so completely it is finished? Am I, having come here, am I in that state really or am I fooling myself ?

B: Well that is the question: knowledge is constantly deceiving itself. I would say that it is not even that 'I' am deceiving myself but ( the whole process of our) knowledge has a built-in tendency to deceive itself.

K: So, sir, is my ( self-interested ?) mind always deceiving itself?

B: The tendency is there constantly there when knowledge is operating psychologically.

K: So what shall I do?

B: Again I think it is the same point: to listen.

K: Why don't we listen, sir? Why don't we immediately understand this thing, instantly, immediately, why? One can give the reasons why but that doesn't - old age, conditioning, laziness, ten different things.

B: Well all that is superficial, but would it be possible to give the deep reason for it?

K: We come back to the same thing. You see I think, sir, is it that this ( psychological) knowledge is 'me' (is producing my self-consciousness ?)

B: Yes, that is the point, yes.

K:.. the knowledge which is ( projecting the ?) the 'me' is so tremendously strong as an idea, not as a fact?

B: Yes, but this kind of 'ideas' have tremendous significance and meaning. For example, suppose you have the idea of God, this takes on a tremendous power. And it creates a state of mind which seems to be the very being of the 'self'. Now the person doesn't experience it as mere knowledge but at first feels something very powerful which doesn't seem to be 'knowledge'.

K: Yes. Aren' t we going round and round and round?

B: Well I was wondering if there is anything that could be communicated about that overwhelming power that seems to come with ( this sticky kind of ) knowledge.

K: With ( self-) 'identification' ?

B: With identification. That seems to be something that would be worth looking into.

K: What is the Latin root meaning of 'identification'?

B: Well, "always the same".

K: Always the same, that's right. That's it, you see! It is 'always the same'.

B: That is the essence of it. You say the 'self' is 'always the same'. It tries to be always the same in essence if not in details.

K: Yes, yes.

B: I think this is the thing that goes wrong with knowledge that knowledge attempts to be knowledge of what is always the same, you see, so 'it holds', you see ? And even our rational knowledge itself tries to find what is permanent and perfect and always the same. I mean even independent of any of us you see. It is built into it, like ( in the DNA of) the cells, you see.

K: From this arises a question: is it possible to 'attend diligently' 'Diligence' in the sense of being accurate.

B: Literally it means 'to take pains'...

K: To take pain, (in considering ) the whole of it. Sir, there must be some other way round all this intellectual business. We have exercised a great deal of intellectual capacity and that intellectual capacity has led to the blank wall. I approach it from every direction and eventually the wall is there, which is the 'me', with my knowledge, my prejudice, and all the rest of it - me. And the 'me' then says, 'I must do something about it' - which is still the 'me'. We all know that.

B: Well the 'me' wants to be 'always the same' at the same time it tries to be different.

K: To put on a different coat. It is always the same. So the mind which is functioning ( identified ) with the 'me' is always the same ( good old ?) mind.

B: But you see, 'being always the same' gives a tremendous force. Now is it possible to let go of that 'always the same'?

K: You see, there is no other means to break down this (self-created inner ?) wall : when somebody who is beyond the wall, has gone beyond, broken down the wall, says, 'Listen, for God's sake, listen'. When I so listen my mind is (inwardly ?) 'empty' (as nothing?) , there is no sense of hoping to come back, to have it in the future, or - it is empty (all the burden of the known?) and therefore is (100%) listening. It is finished.

We had better stop here , we have come to an (essential ?) point. Even as a scientist, to discover something new, you must have a certain 'emptiness' (some freedom from what you knew before ?) from which there will be a different perception.

B: Yes, but here there is a difference in the sense that usually the (scientifc) question is limited and so the mind may be 'empty' only with regard to that question.

K: To that particular question, yes.

B: Allowing for discovery and insight into that ( scientific) question.

K: But without any specialization, does this (innocent state of 'not-knowing' or ?) 'emptiness' hold every other...

B: Well, I think we are not questioning this particular area but rather we are questioning the whole of knowledge.

K: It is most extraordinary when you go into it.

B: As you were saying, the 'ending of knowledge' is the the whole point of Vedanta.

K: That is the real answer.

B: But if a person can take this scientific attitude and question ( inwardly) the whole of knowledge...

K: Oh, of course, of course.

B: But generally people would feel they must keep ( at least some very basic ) knowledge in one area to be able to question it in another. You see this is something that might worry people to say, ''with what knowledge do I question that knowledge?'' In a way we have gone through it logically and rationally and seen that the whole structure of 'psychological' knowledge has no meaning.

K: Would you then ask from that emptiness: is there a Ground or a Source ( of Creation) from which all things begin? Matter, human beings, their capacities, the whole movement starts from there.

B: We could consider that certainly (next time) . But let's try to clarify it a little. We have the emptiness...

K: Yes, ( a state of inner) 'emptiness' (not-knowing?) in which there is no movement (or activity ) of thought as 'knowledge'.

B: As 'psychological' knowledge ?

K: Of course, and therefore no 'time'.

B: No 'psychological' time ?

K: Yes, no 'psychological' time.

B: Though we still have the time by the watch ?

K: Yes. We have gone beyond that, don't let's go back to it.

B: The words are often confusing, they often carry wrong meanings...

K: There is no psychological time, no movement of thought. And is in that emptiness the beginning of all Movement (of Creation?) ?

B: Well, would you say the 'emptiness' is the Ground of Creation then?

K: Let's go slowly into this. Shall we postpone this for another day?

B: Well perhaps it should be gone into more carefully.

K: We had better stop.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 19 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Jun 2014 #8
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

14TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly edited)

INNER FREEDOM & THE UNIVERSAL ORDER

Krishnamurti: We talked the other day about (the diligent ) mind that is entirely free from all ( self-centred inner ) movement, and from all the 'things' that thought has brought about, and we (got to the critical point ?) where the 'wall' (of self-centredness?) is broken down by an 'insight' into the ( time-binding?) nature of ( our mental) reactions.

B: So, you are saying that (the internal activity of the brain ) can be affected by an 'insight' which is 'beyond' matter ?

K: Yes, beyond matter. But is this (meditative) 'emptiness' (an actuality ?) within the brain itself? Or something that thought has 'conceived' as being empty? One must be very clear on this.

B: Yes, because (the self-centred process of) thought always feels that it can always make a contribution by saying : this state of inner 'emptiness' ( which is also free of all problems?) could do me good , therefore I will try to bring it about ...

K: Of course....So, we have come to this ( experiential check-) point: is this ( meditative?) 'emptiness' within the (self-centred?) mind itself, or beyond it?

B: What do you mean here by the 'mind' ?

K: The mind being the whole consciousness (including) the ( biological activity of the ?) brain, the whole of that is the 'mind'.

B: This word 'mind' has been used ( by you ) in several different ways ? So, now you are using it as representing the whole material process ( of the brain) : thought, feeling, desire and will … ?

K: Yes, the whole material process.

B: ... ( The 'mental activity' that?) is actually going on in the brain and the nerves.

K: The whole of it. And does this ( inner) emptiness contain "no-thing"?

B: You mean nothing that has form, structure, stability ?

K: Yes, all that, form, structure, capacity, reactions - all that. It contains none of that. Then, what 'is' it ? Is it then 'total' energy?

B: Yes, the ( free) movement of energy.

K: Movement of energy. It is not the movement of ( our mental) reactions.

B: It is not movement of 'things' reacting to each other. Because the material world can be regarded as made up of a large number of 'things' which react to each other and that is one kind of movement. But we are saying ( that within the meditating mind ?) there is a different kind of (timeless) 'movement' ( being born) .

K: Entirely different.

B: Which has 'nothing' in it.

K:' No -thing' in it and therefore it is not of time - right? And in that ( meditating?) emptiness there is a movement of timeless energy.

B: So we now have an energy that is timeless but nevertheless (alive and ?) 'moving' ; but what is (the nature of this new ?) 'movement'?

K: Sir, what is (involved in any material) movement? ( Going) from here to there, or from yesterday to today, and from today to tomorrow.

B: Yes, there are various kinds of ( physical and mental) movement.

K: But is there an inner (state of mind ?) which is not 'moving' , a ( creative? ) 'movement' which has no beginning and no end? Because thought has a beginning and an end - there is (the arising of) a (mental) reaction and the ending of that reaction.

B: Yes, in the brain.

K: And in this brain there are various kinds of ( mental and physical activities or ?) 'movements' ( going on) . That is all we know . And someone comes along and says there is a totally different kind of (timeless ) movement. But to understand that one must be ( inwardly) free of the movement of thought & time to understand a 'movement' that is not...

B: Well there are two things involved : it has no beginning and no end but also it is not determined as a series of successions from the past.

K: So, you want to understand logically a 'movement' that is not a movement ?

B: First, why are you calling it a 'movement' if it is not a movement?

K: Because it ( the movement of Creation?) is not still, it is 'active' .

B: It is energy ?

K: It has a tremendous energy, therefore it can never be 'still'. But there is in that energy a 'stillness' (a sense of inner Peace?) .

B: That 'movement' can be said to emerge from stillness ?

K: You see, that is what it is sir. When the ( meditating?) mind is so completely still there is a ( creative?) 'movement' out of it. Does it It sound crazy ?

B: Well it needn't sound crazy. In fact Aristotle also talked about the "Unmoved Mover" - that is the way he tried to describe God.

K: Ah, I don't want to do that.

B: This notion has been held in the past by various people, but since then it has gone out of fashion, I think...

K: Let's bring it back 'into fashion', shall we ? Is that ( non-moving ?) 'movement' ( emerging ?) out of stillness, the movement of Creation? Except that here (in the experiential context of meditation ?) this ('non-moving' movement of) Creation is not expressed in ( a material) form.

B: Yes, that is an important point, because usually we think that Creation is expressed as form or as ( mental) structure. So ( in the non-manifested) context what does it mean?

K: Would you say, sir, that this (innermost?) Movement (of Creation ?) , not being of time, is eternally new (is renewing itself?)

B: Yes, in the sense that Creation is eternally new. Right?

K: Creation is eternally new. But to come ( experientially ?) to that point where the mind is absolutely silent, completely silent, then out of that silence there is this a (timeless) 'movement' which is eternally new.
Now, the moment when that movement is expressed...

B: ... its expression is ( bringing It in the field of ?) thought – right?

K: That is just it.

B: And this may often be useful but (inwardly) it gets fixed and may become a barrier.

K: I was told, once by an Indian scholar, that before they began to sculpture a head of a god, or whatever it was, they had to go into deep meditation. And at the 'right' moment they took up the hammer and the chisel.

B: To have 'it' come out of the emptiness ?

K: ( from) that (inner) emptiness.

B: There is another point. The Australian aborigines draw ( sacred ?) figures in the sand, so they didn't have permanency. You see the marble is already too static, it stays there for thousands of years. So although the original sculptor may have understood (something beyond ?) , the people who follow see it as a fixed form.

K: Now, what relationship has ( the discovery of that still movement of Creation ?) to my daily life? In what way does 'It' act through my ordinary physical responses? (in other words:) what relationship has the physical (brain ?) to that 'silent ( creative) movement'?

B: Well in so far as the ( deeper layers of the?) mind are ( in harmony and?) silent then our thinking itself is becoming orderly.

K: Yes, it is orderly. And would you say that silent ( meditating?) movement with its unending newness, is ( expressing the ?) total order of the Universe?

B: Yes, we could consider that the order of the universe emerges from this (inner) silence and emptiness....

K: So what is the relationship of this ( silent meditating ?) mind to the (Intelligent Order of the?) Universe?

B: The particular mind?

K: No, beyond the general and the particular (mind) , there is the Mind.

B: Well would you say that is ( one with?) the universal Mind ?

K: I don't like to use the word 'universal'...

B: That which is beyond the particular and general would usually be called the 'universal' mind. But it may be that the word is 'difficult', eh?

K: Can't we find a different word?

B: Well you could say it is the source, the ( spiritual) essence. It has been called 'absolute' – literally meaning 'free of all limitations, of all dependence'...

K: All right, if you agree that 'absolute' means freedom from all dependence, from all limitations. Then we will use that, all right.

B: But it has its own 'unfortunate' (cultural) connotations.

K: Of course, of course. Let's use this word for the moment in our dialogue : There is this 'absolute' stillness and in that stillness or from that stillness there is a ( creative) movement which is everlastingly new. And then, what is the relationship of that 'mind' to the ( Cosmic Order of the?) Universe?

B: To the universe of matter?

K: Yes, to the whole universe. Matter, trees, nature, man, the heavens...

B: Well this is a very interesting ( metaphysical ? ) question...

K: The whole Universe is (existing and moving ) in order, whether it is destructive or constructive, it is still Order.

B: Well it is a 'necessary' order. You see this (Universal) order has the character of being absolutely necessary - it cannot be otherwise. The order that we usually know is not absolutely necessary, it could be changed, it could depend on something else, any ordinary order is contingent, it depends on something.

K: Quite. Now in the Universe there is this order and this mind which is still, is completely in order.

B: The absolute Mind.

K: So is this (inwardly integrated) Mind ( becoming part of the timeless order of ?) the Universe?

B: Well, in what sense is that the Universe?

K: It means sir, is there a division (a separation ?) between this 'absolute' ( integrated human consciousness or ?) 'mind' and the (Mind of the?) Universe? Or are both the same?

B: Both are the same, right.

K: That is what I wanted to get at...But I want to be quite sure we are not treading (intellectually?) on something which really needs very, very, subtle, great care, you know what I mean?

B: Well ( let's see if we got it right) : we have said that our physical ( brain & ) body is material. And we said the 'mind' ( or the consciousness?) of this body - including thought, feeling, desire, the general and the particular (mind) are part of the material process.

K: Absolutely, all our ( physical & mental) reactions are ( part of the ) material processes.

B: And therefore this 'mind' is not different from what we usually call the 'body'.

K: Quite, quite.

B: Now you are making this much greater in saying consider the ( Consciousness of the?) whole universe, and say that ( the 'absolute' ) mind is not different from what we call the Universe itself?

K: That's right. You see that's why I feel in our daily life there must be (a time-free?) "Order", not the order of (our temporal ) thought.

B: Well ( our self-centred?) thought is of a limited order, it is 'relative'.

K: That's it. So ( we're talking of?) an order that is free of limitations.
And in (terms of ) my daily life that means ( a mind that has?) no conflict whatsoever, no contradictions (no vested conflicts of interest?) . So if in my everyday life there is this complete ( flawless?) order in which there is no ( egotistic?) disturbance, what is the relationship of this ( newly found?) order to the never ending order (of the Universe ) ? Can that silent ( Creative ) movement of (the Universal) Order, of that "extraordinary something", can it affect my daily life when I have ( established a ) deep inward psychological order? You understand my question?

B: Yes, whether (the life of a holistically integrated ? ) human being in his daily life can be similar ( share inner that same harmony & Order) .

K: Similar. That's it. If not, I don't see what is the point of the 'Other'.

B: Some (materalistically minded ?) people would say ''Who cares about the Order of the Universe, all we care about is ( putting order in) our own society, what we are doing here & now '' . But then this ( local concept of Order ) falls down because it is full of ( its own hidden ?) contradictions.

K: Obviously. So that (the total order of the ?) Universe, which 'is' in total order, does affect my daily life.

B: Yes. But I think that many scientists might ask 'How ?'. You see, these (very brainy) people might say, 'OK, we understand that the universe is constituted of matter, and can see how the laws of matter affect your daily life,' - but...it is not so clear how (the Universal Order can ) affect the human mind – or even if there is this 'absolute' Mind which affects the daily life.

K: Ah! What is my 'daily life' (inwardly speaking ?) ? A series of reactions and ( a lot of residual sorrow & ?) disorder.

B: Well ( psychologically speaking?) it is mostly that...

K: Mostly. And ( the self-centred) thought is always struggling to bring some order within that (interacting 'inner-outer' disorder)

B: Yes...

K: And when it does that, it is still ( creating further ) disorder.

B: Because ( the 'self-interest' based?) thinking is limited by its own contradictions.

K: Of course. Thought is always creating disorder because it is in itself ( ego-centric and) limited.

B: And even as it tries to go beyond its limits, that is (creating still more ) disorder.

K: Now, (assuming that?) I have gone into it, I have an insight into it, I have ( established?) a certain kind of order in my life. But this order (brought in from outside?) is still limited.

B: Now, many people would be happy if they could bring even this 'limited' order - given that we have so much ( outer) disorder now...

K: Of course that must be done. But in the very doing of it one has to realize that it is 'limited' ( by a collectively shared mentality based on self-interest?)

B: Yes, even the highest ( level of?) order you can produce is limited...

K: Limited. So the ( holistically inclined ?) 'mind' realizes its limitation and says, ''let's go beyond it''.

B: Well let's try to make it clear because what is wrong with this (intrinsical) limitation?

K: In that limitation there is no ( inner sense of?) freedom, it only is a limited freedom (with invisible 'strings' ?) .

B: So let's try to put it more clearly : eventually we come to the boundaries of our ( materialistic) freedom - something not (previously) 'known' to us makes us react and through ( this personal?) reaction we would fall back into contradiction.

K: Yes, and (any decent?) human mind inevitably rebels against that (sad existential) condition of always moving within a certain area.

B: That is an important point: the human mind wants freedom. Right?

K: Obviously, ( if...?) I do realize I am a prisoner within this limitation.

B: Some people get used to it and say, 'I accept it'.

K: I won't accept it. My mind says there there must be a "freedom" beyond all that.

B: Now, which mind says this? Is it the 'particular' mind of the human being?

K: Ah! The ( personal & collective accumulations of frustration and?) pain, the very 'suffering' demands that we go beyond.

B: So, this 'particular' ( survivalistic ? ) mind even though it accepts ( to live in the safety of its self-imposed ?) limitations, ( eventually) finds it painful, therefore this particular mind feels that something is not right ?

K: Yes.

B: It seems to be ( in the very nature of human consciousness?) a necessity of freedom.

K: Freedom 'is' necessary. And any hindrance to ( accessing this?) freedom is ( resulting in stagnation & ) retrogression.

B: So that necessity is not an external necessity due to reaction.

K: ( The demand for ?) freedom is not a reaction. But you see, ( experientially that) means freedom from (our self-centred ) reactions, the freedom from all the 'movement' ( from the divisive activities ?) of ( thought & ) time. There must be 'complete freedom' from all that, before I can really understand the ( meditative value of an ?) 'empty' mind and the order of the universe, which is then ( becoming one with ?) the order of the mind. We are asking a tremendous lot! Am I willing to go that far?

B: Well you know...a life of 'non-freedom' has its ( own ?) attractions.

K: Of course. We have found safety, security, pleasure in 'non-freedom'.
( However, with some hinsight?) we can realize that (in the constant pursuit of?) pleasure,( and/or in the avoidance of?) pain, there is no ( inner degree of ?) freedom and the ( holistically responsible?) mind says, there must be freedom from all this.
However, to come to that point and to let go ( one's attachments to the past?) without conflict, demands its own discipline, its own 'insight'.
This is why I asked those of us who have given a certain amount of time and investigation into all this, whether can they go (inwardly) as far as that? Or there are the responses of the ( psychosomatic?) body, the responsibilities of our daily committments - wife, children, and all that - is that preventing this sense of complete freedom?

So, that ( Mind of the ?) Universe and the ( human) mind that has emptied itself of all this (residual psychological stuff?) , are they one?

B: Are they ?

K: They are not separate, they are one. But we must be very careful also not to fall into the trap of assuming that the Universal Mind is 'always there' .

B: Well, so how would you put it then?

K: They have said that: "God is always there" and all you have to do is to cleanse (purify ?) yourself (inwardly) and arrive at that. Which is also a very 'dangerous' (slippery ?) statement because then you say, ''the Eternal (is aways present ?) in me''.

B: There is even a 'logical' difficulty in assuming that 'It' is always there, because that implies ( thinking in terms of time ) ''that it is there every minute'', while ; as we discussed; 'That' has nothing to do with space & time. So we can't place it as being located 'here' or 'there', 'now', or 'then'.

K: Sir, we have come to the point, that there is this Universal Mind, and that the human mind can be (an integral part) of That' when there is ( an authentic inward ?) freedom .

15TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM ( reader friendly edited)

Ending all the 'personal' problems

Krishnamurti: We have cultivated a mind that can solve almost any technological problem. But apparently 'human' (our 'existential' ?) problems have never been solved. And (the modern) man in spite of his knowledge, in spite of his centuries of evolution, has never been free of (all his 'personal') problems.

Bohm: Well as they are put now they are really insoluble problems.

K: As they are now (man's existenial) problems have become so complex, and so incredibly insoluble, as things are. And no philosopher or (brainy ?) scientist, are going to solve them (for us?) .
So what are the things that prevent the solution of these ( existential) problems, completely? (a) Is it that we have never seriously turned our minds to it because we spend all our days and probably half the night in thinking about ( solving so many ) 'technological' challenges and problems that we have no time left for ( tackling?) the others?

B: Well many people feel that the (inner domain ?) should take care of itself. I think many people don't give a lot of attention to these problems.

K: Why, why? Is it ( due to a sloppy & lopsided ?) education? Is it our deeply rooted ( survivalistic) tradition to we accept things as they are?

B: Yes, that is certainly part of it. But our ( unsolved psychological) problems accumulate as civilization gets older, because people keep on accepting those things which make problems.

K: We are talking here about the 'human' problems - problems of relationship, problems of lack of freedom, of this sense of constant uncertainty, fear and all the ( daily) human struggle : it all seems so extraordinarily wrong, the whole thing.

B: Yes, well I think people have lost sight of that. Generally speaking they sort of, as you say, accept the situation in which they find themselves and try to make the best of it, like trying to solve some little problems to alleviate their global situation. They wouldn't even ( care to ) look at this whole big situation very seriously.

K: We live (holistically speaking ) in 'chaos' ( a form of organised disorder?) . Now, I'd want to find out if one can live without a single ( personal ?) problem for the rest of one's life. Is that possible? You see personally I refuse to have 'problems'.

B: Well, maybe because you are not seriously challenged with something ?

K: I was challenged the other day about something which involved ( the jobs of?) lots of people and so on, and a certain action had to be taken. But to me... it was not a problem.

B: Well, then you'll have to make it clear what you mean by '(personal) problem' .

K: Something you worry about, something with which you are endlessly concerned and questioning, answering, doubt, uncertain, and take some kind of action at the end which you may regret.

B: Let's begin with the 'technical' problem where the idea first arose. The root meaning of the word 'problem' ( something being thrown at you ) is based on the idea of putting forth a possible 'solution' and then trying to achieve it.

K: Or, I may have a ( deeply buried psychological?) problem and I don't know how to deal with it. So I go around asking other people, getting more and more confused.

B: Well let's take a ('homebound'?) example : people cannot agree (on how to run a K school ?) , they fight each other constantly.

K: Yes, even with with a group of ( well intentioned & educated ?) people, it seems almost impossible to 'think together', to have the same outlook, the same attitude - ( due to obscure issues of 'authority' & 'power') each person puts his ( personal) opinion forward and he is contradicted by another. And so this goes on all the time both in the world, and also...here.

B: Well, people will probably cooperate better and 'work together' if they are paid highly. But in a situation where this (option) is not available, then we have a 'problem'...

K: Yes, that is right. Now how do we solve such a ( compounded 'personal & collective' ) problem? All of us are offering their 'personal' opinion and we don't meet each other at all. So what shall we do? It seems almost impossible to give up one's opinions.

B: Many people find it hard to give up their personal opinions simply because they feel they are true...

K: They call them 'facts'.

B: Well, people have not only (strong) opinions, but ( a still stronger ?) self-interests...If two people have self-interest which is different, then there is no way in my view that they can 'work together'...

K: Agreed. Suppose in a place like this (B Pk school ?) , we are a group of people, and it is important that we all work together; and apparently that becomes almost incredibly difficult.

B: Now, this being the actual problem, how do you break into this?
And why is it that we cannot carry out our (original good) intentions? It seems puzzling.

K: One can give lots of reasons but even knowing all those causes and reasons and explanations don't solve the problem, don't solve the issue. We come back to the same thing: what will make a human mind change? Some 'new' factor is necessary. Is this new factor 'attention'?

B: Yes, but what kind of attention ?

K: We can discuss this (quality of 'holistic' attention ) . Where there is 'attention' there is no ( personal effort or?) problem; but where there is inattention everything arises. So can I understand the (compassionate?) nature of this (non-personal?) attention in which no problem can ever exist ? Obviously it is not ( the result of the mental ) effort to be attentive. When there is attention there is no ('control ?) centre' from which 'I' attend.

B: Yes, but that is the difficult thing : we may only 'think' we are attending.

K: In that state of ( pure ?) attention there is no ( interference of ?) thought.

B: But how do you stop ( the whole momentum of ?) thought then? You see, while thinking is going on there is a ( strong) feeling of 'me' paying attention, which is obviously not the pure 'attention' (you seem to be talking about). That is, one just assumes that one is paying attention.

K: When one supposes one is paying attention, that is not 'attention'.

B: So how do we communicate the true meaning of 'attention'?

K: Could we approach it ('negatively' in terms of ?) 'what is inattention' and through ( an intelligent act of?) 'negation' come to the positive ? When I am inattentive, what takes place?

B: All sorts of things take place (and keep going on indefinitely)

K: No, but ( experientially speaking ?) in my 'inattentiveness' I feel lonely, depressed, anxious and so on.

B: Yes, the mind begins to 'break up' ( work in isolated comparments?) and ( eventually end up?) in confusion.

K: 'Fragmentation' takes place. Or in my lack of attention I can identify myself with so many other things.

B: Yes, and it may also be pleasant.

K: Of course. But I find later on that that which was pleasing becomes painful (or simply boring ?) . So all that is a ( fragmentary mental ) 'movement' in which there is no attention. Are we getting anywhere?

B: I don't know...

K: I feel that ( a holistic quality of ?) attention is the real solution to all this. A mind which has understood the ( sloppy ?) nature of inattention and moves away from it.

B: So, what is the nature of 'inattention'?

K: The nature of inattention? Indolence, negligence, self-interest , self contradictions, all that, is (involved in ?) the nature of inattention.

B: Yes. Now, a person who has self-concern may feel that he is attending to the concerns of himself. He feels he has got problems, then paying attention to ( try to solve) them.

K: If there is a self-contradiction (a conflict of intersts ?) in me, and I pay attention to it in order not to be self-contradictory, that is not attention.

B: Then, can you make it more clear, because ordinarily one might think that that is attention.

K: No, it is not, it is merely a ( self-centred ?) process of thought, which says, 'I am this (inattentive) , I must be that (attentive) '.

B: So, you are saying the ( self-centred) attempt to become (inwardly attentive) is not attention.

K: Yes, that is right. (Trying to ?) 'become (attentive'?) breeds ( the ego-centric form of ?) inattention.

B: Yes, although the person may think he is 'attending' to something but he is actually not, when he is engaged in this process.

K: Isn't it very difficult sir, to be free of (self-) becoming? That is the root of it. To end ( the illusory process of self-centred ) 'becoming'.

B: Yes...

K: Does this convey anything?

B: Well we have just answered it: there is no ( integrated ?) attention and that is why all our ( personal ) problems are there.

K: Yes. So ( after this brief detour) let's come back (to what we were discussing last time) : The (meditating ?) human mind ( generally ) so full of knowledge, self-importance & self-contradictions has come to the critical point where it finds that 'psychologically' it can't move

B: There is nowhere for it to move, yes.

K: So I come to that point and I want to 'break through' it. Is this desire to become the root of all this?

B: Well it must be close to the root, ( but) it keeps on coming in without notice. The inattention is such that you would say that I am looking at my problem, but my problem is always 'becoming' (evolving?) , so trying to stop this 'becoming', is ( another, more subtle form of?) inattention.

K: So how do I look at this whole complex issue of 'myself', without the movement (implicit expectations?) of becoming (something different ) ?

B: Well it seems that one has to look (non-personally ?) at the whole issue. When you said, 'how can I pay attention', you not look at the whole ( process of self ?) becoming - part of it seemed to slip out and became the 'observer'. Right?

K: Sir, (the process of 'psychological' ) becoming has become our (invisible inner) ' curse'.... And though it sometimes brings pleasure & other times (fustrations and ?) pain, this sense of becoming, fulfilling, achieving psychologically, has made our ( inner & outer ) life into all that it is. Now I ( finally ?) realize that but I can't stop it.

B: Yes, 'why' can't we stop it?

K: Partly it is because I am always ( subliminally involved ?) in this (self-) becoming - there is (the expectation of a future ?) reward at the end of it and ( also ?) I am also avoiding ( facing the present) pain (or a future) punishment . And in that (vicious?) cycle I am caught. That is probably one of the reasons why the mind keeps on trying to become something. And the other is this deeply rooted fear that if I don't become anything I am lost (a nobody) , uncertain, (and financially?) insecure. So the mind has (subliminally) accepted these ( very common collective ?) illusions and says : I cannot end that.

B: But there is no ( true) meaning to these illusions...

K: How do you 'convince' me that I am caught in illusion? You can't, unless I see ( the falseness of?) it myself. And I cannot see it because my (subliminal attachment to this ?) illusion is so strong. That illusion ( of self-centred becoming ?) has been cultivated by religion, by family and so on and so on, it is so deeply rooted that I ( subliminally ?) refuse to let that go.

B: Well then the whole attempt ( of letting go our 'personal' illusions) seems impossible.

K: That is what is happening. That is what is taking place with a large number of people. They say, '' 'I'd really want to do this... but ( on a second thought?) I cannot''.

Now given this (given) situation, what is one to do (educationally?) ? Will your (logical) explanations of all the various contradictions, and so on, will that help him? Obviously not.

B: Because all gets absorbed into my ( ' highly knowledgeable' mental) structure.

K: Obviously. So what is the next thing?

B: Well, if a human mind is healthy it will not accept living in such a contradiction.

K: But our mind isn't ( harmoniously integrated or?) 'healthy'. So how do we help him to see clearly the danger of this 'psychologically becoming', which implies identification with (my name & form, my family, property …) all that business.

B: Yes, ( not to mention) holding to one's (personal) opinions...

K: Opinions, beliefs. How do you (educationally) 'help' such a person, to be free of all that? I wonder if there is another factor, another way of communication, which isn't based on words, knowledge, explanations and ( fake promises of ?) reward and punishment. You follow? Is there another way of communicating, of which we were talking about last time for a brief moment?

B: Perhaps there is.

K: Now how do you communicate non-verbally with me, who got caught in this ( ages old) trap (of self-interest?) , so that it breaks away everything else? My mind has always communicated with another with words, with explanations, with logic, with analysis, either compulsive, or with 'suggestion' and so on. There must be another element which breaks through all that, otherwise it is really impossible.

B: Something that will break through the inability to 'listen' ?

K: Yes, through the inability to listen, to observe (compassionately & non-personally ) and so on. There must be a different method. You see, I met a man once, who have been to a place with a certain ( Ramana Maharishi?) 'saint' and in his ( silent) company they say "all our problems are resolved". But then they go back to their life, back to the old game.

B: Yes, well there was no 'intelligence' in it.

K: You see the danger ? That man, that 'saint' (holy person?) , being (inwardly) quiet, in his very presence they also felt quiet. And they were feeling that all their ( personal) problems got 'resolved'.

B: But it is still ( an influence induced ?) from the outside.

K: Of course, it is like going to church. And in a good ancient church, or a cathedral, you feel extraordinarily quiet. It is the atmosphere, it is the structure, you know, all that, the very atmosphere makes you be quiet (and momentary forget all your problems ?) .

B: Yes, well it communicates what is meant by quietness, I think, but it gets across the communication which is non-verbal.

K: But it is like incense, it evaporates! So if we push all that (sat-sang or (communion of the wise) aside , what is there that can be communicated, which will break through the (mental) wall which human beings have built for themselves? Is ( it the quality of selfless?) Love the element that is lacking?

B: Well, you see maybe people are somewhat chary of this word and therefore as they resist listening, they will resist love too. But we were saying the other day also that ( Selfless ) Love also contains Intelligence, that ( universal ?) energy which also contains intelligence and caring, all that.

K: Now (supposing ) you have (free access to?) that quality and I am caught in my misery, my anxiety and so on, and you are trying to penetrate through this "mass of darkness" with that ( Selfless Love & ?) Intelligence . Will that act? If not we human beings are lost.
I think that is the ( missing ) factor sir. Attention, perception, intelligence and ( Selfless) 'love'.
You may bring it to me but I can't hold it - the moment I go outside this room I am lost.

B: Well that really is the (BP School ?) problem.

K: Yes sir. That is the real problem. Now, is this (reservoir of selfless) 'love' something which you give me as a ( personal bonus or ) gift, or it is a 'common ground' for all of us ?

B: But somebody who is looking for ( this presence of selfless?) love is saying "you obviously have got it, but I haven't" - that is his way of thinking.

K: ( This selfless Love & its ?) intelligence is not 'personal'.

B: But again it goes contrary to the whole of our ( individualistic way of ?) thinking. Everybody says this person is intelligent and that one is not.

K: Quite, quite. It is the ( self -) 'fragmented' mind that invents all this.

B: We have picked it up ( this individualistic attitude?) verbally and non-verbally from childhood and by implication, therefore it pervades, it is the ground of all our thoughts, of all our perceptions. So it is this whole ( 'individualistic' mentality ?) that has to be questioned in the first place.

K: We have questioned it, we have questioned that grief is not my grief, grief is human.

B: But a person who is caught in grief feels that it is 'his' (personal) grief. Doesn't that seem right?

K: I think it is partly due because of our education, partly our society, tradition.

B: But it is also implicit in our whole way of thinking. So we'll have to have to 'jump out' (step aside?) of that (mentality ?) .
Perhaps many of us can see that ( the nature of Selfless ?) 'love' is not personal, love does not belong to anybody any more than any other quality.

K: That is what I want to find out sir: is ( this feeling of Selfless?) 'Love' something that is common to all of us?

B: Well in so far as it exists it has to be common. It many not exist but if it does, it has to be common.

K: I am not sure it doesn't exist. (Similarly) compassion is not 'I am compassionate' - compassion is there, it is not 'me' (having) compassion (for those who 'ran out of luck'?) .

B: Well, then Compassion is (of ) the same nature (as Selfless Love) , it is "universal".

K: Compassion, love, and intelligence. You can't be (truly?) compassionate without intelligence.

B: So you're saying that 'Intelligence' is universal too ?

K: Obviously.

B: But we have (QI) methods of testing intelligence in particular people.

K: Oh, no! Such (measurement is ?) part of our divisive, fragmentary way of thinking. Our ordinary thinking 'is' an (ego-centric) fragmentary process ( the 'thinker' who is 'thinking'?) .

B: Well, there may be a 'holistic' thinking, but we are not there yet ...

K: Yes. But this 'holistic thinking' is not ( just the common memory based ?) thinking, it is ( containing) some other factor.

B: Some other factor that we haven't gone into yet...

K: So if ( this capacity of Selfless?) Love is common to all of us, why am I blind to it? Is it the fear of letting go my old (inner) values, standards, opinions, all that (to be dumped down the drain ?) ?

B: I think it is probably something deeper. It is hard to pin down but it isn't a 'simple' thing. I mean this is just a partial explanation.

K: That is a 'superficial' explanation. But deeper down could it be due to deeply rooted longing to be totally secure (in a pretty insecure world ?) ?

B: But that again is based on ( the common thinking) based on fragmentation. If we accept that we are 'fragmented' (isolated inwardly) we will inevitably want to be totally secure. Right? Because being fragmented you are always in danger.

K: Is that the root of it? This urge, this demand, this longing to be totally secure in my relationship with everything, to be certain?

B: Yes, but you have often said that that the real (inward) security is to be found in 'nothingness' (in the inner innocence of 'not-knowing'?) .

K: Of course, in 'nothingness' there is complete security.

B: Therefore, it is not our natural demand for security which is wrong but the demand that the ( self-isolating ?) 'fragment' be secure. The 'fragment' cannot possibly be secure. But the ( cryptic ?) way you have often put it sounds as if we should live eternally in insecurity...

K: No, no. We ( should?) have made that very clear...

B: So, it makes sense to ask for security but we are going about it the wrong way ?

K: Yes, that's right. So, how do you convey to a man who has lived (for ages ?) completely in the narrow groove of self-interest) that ( this quality Selfless ?) Love is universal (and available to all?) ?

B: Well, will he be ready to question his narrow, 'unique personality'?

K: Some did actually question it. You see, people who have been very serious in these matters, have tried to find the 'wholeness of life' through every kind of way.
( Supposing) I have a brother who refuses to see ( the inward truth of ) all this. I have tried to communicate with him verbally and sometimes non-verbally, by a gesture, by a look, but all this is still ( felt as a pressure imposed ) from the outside.
Now, if I do point out that this 'Flame' ( of Attention) can be awakened in himself , it implies that he must 'listen' to me.

B: Well, he may not actually be free to take an action there, because of the whole structure of thought that holds him. So we have to find some (shared free?) place where he is free to act, to move, which is not controlled by ( his active ) conditioning.

K: So how do I 'help' my brother? We said ( for starters, by ) becoming aware - but after explaining all this he says, 'You have left me where I am'. But my ( compassionate ) intelligence, my affection, love says 'I can't let him go' (empty handed) .
Sir, ( as a brief mystical detour?) there is an (old spiritual ?) tradition in India, and probably also in Tibet, that there is one ( Highly Advanced spiritual entity ?) called the "Maitreya Buddha" who took a vow that he would not become the ultimate Buddha until he has (helped ) liberate ( other) human beings too.

B: Altogether?

K: Yes. But you see , the (popular belief in this ) tradition hasn't changed anything. How can one, if he has that Intelligence, that Compassion, that Love,- the purity of That - can that be transmitted to another? Even by living with him, talking to him everyday, it all becomes another mechanical (habit) .

B: Would you say this this question ( of holistic education ?) has never really been solved ?

K: I should think so, sir. But we must ( try to?) solve it. It has not been solved but this (compassionate ) Intelligence says, ( we should ?) 'solve it'. Or rather , that ( 'Buddha Maitreya') 'Intelligence' says, these are the 'facts' and perhaps some will capture (the inward truth of?) It

B: Well it seems to me that there are really two steps: one is the preparation by reason to show that it all makes sense; and from there possibly some will capture it.

K: We have done that sir. You laid out the map (of the human psyche) very clearly and I have seen it very clearly, all the rivers, the conflicts, the misery, the confusion, the insecurity, the becoming, all that is very clear. And I may have a glimpse of it, but it becomes (another personal) craving to 'capture' that ( Timeless) Glimpse and hold on to it and... (before you know it...) 'That' becomes a ( dead) memory. And all the nightmare ( of 'spiritual becoming') begins. So it is a constant battle, and I think the whole way we are living is so wrong.

B: Well, many people must have already seen that by now. At least a fair number.

K: We were talking in Ojai, whether man has taken a wrong turning, and entered into a (dark) valley from where there is no escape. That can't be sir, that is too depressing, too appalling.

B: The very fact it looks 'appalling' does not make it untrue. You should give a stronger reason why you feel that to be untrue. Do you perceive in the human nature some possibility of a real change?

K: Of course sir, otherwise we'd be ( just clever ?) monkeys (or programmable thinking ?) machines.
You see, if we don't look to ( follow) anybody and are completely free from all that, then that Solitude ( All-Oneness ?) is common to all of us. It is not (the loneliness of?) self isolation, but when you see ( the whole truth about?) all this you are naturally 'alone' (All-One ?) . And this inner sense of All-Oneness' is common to us all

B: I think we could say that when the ( meditating ?) mind goes deep (within itself ?) it comes into something Universal.

K: Universal, that's right. And that is the ( experiential ?) problem: to make the mind go very, very deeply into itself.

B: Yes, there is (psychological insight?) that occurred to me. When we start with our 'particular' problem it is very shallow, then we go to something more 'general' ( which has the latin root of 'genus'- to generate) you go to the 'depth' of what is generated.

K: That's right, sir.

B: And going from that, still further (inwards ) , the 'general' is still limited because it is ( still in the area of man-made) thought.

K: Yes, it is too limited – So if the (meditating?) mind can go from the particular to the general and from the general...

B:... to the 'absolute', to the Universal...

K: Move away from all that...

B: But you see, many people would say that this is ( sounding) very abstract and has nothing to do with their daily life...

K: I know. But ( approaching our daily life from the Universal perspective?) is the most practical thing. Not an abstraction.

B: But I think that many people feel they want something ( tangible ) that really affects their daily life, they don't just want to get lost in talking. Therefore they say all these 'vapid generalities' don't interest us. Instead of getting into the real, solid, concrete realities of daily life. Now, it is true that it must work in daily life, but the daily life does not contain the solution of its problems.

K: No. The daily life is the 'general' life.

B: The 'general' and the 'particular' ?

K: And the 'particular'.

B: Many problems which arise in our daily life cannot be solved (at their own level) - such as the 'human' problems.

K: From the particular move to the general, from the general move still deeper (inwardly) , and there perhaps is ( found ?) the purity of Compassion, Love and Intelligence. But that means giving your mind to this (insightful inquiry) , your heart, your mind, your whole being must be involved in this.
We have gone on for a long time. Have we reached somewhere?

B: Possibly so.

K: I think so !

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 19 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 Jul 2014 #9
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

THE LAST K CONVERSATION WITH PROF D BOHM 1983 (reader friendly edited)

THE MIND AND THE BRAIN

J.Krishnamurti: Can the ('all-one') consciousness of mankind be changed through time? That is one of the questions we should discuss this evening.

DB: I think that with regard to human consciousness time is not relevant, that it is a kind of illusion. We discussed prviously the illusion of (self-) becoming' .

JK: We are saying, aren't we, let's be clear, that the concept of an evolution of human consciousness is a fallacy.

DB: Of a gradual evolution through time, right. And since the future of mankind depends on the (condition of the human) psyche , it seems then that the future of mankind is not going to be determined through actions in (term of) time.

JK: That's right.

DB: So we are left with this (major existential) question: what will we do?

JK: Now let's proceed from there. Shouldn't we first distinguish between the 'brain' and the 'mind'? I think the 'mind' is separate from the 'brain'.

DB: Well what does it mean 'separate'?

JK: 'Separate' in the sense the 'brain' is (easily) conditioned and the 'mind' is not.

DB: You are saying that the (intelligent faculty of the?) 'mind' has a certain independence of the brain. Even if the brain is conditioned...

JK: ...the 'Other' is not.

DB Now, on what basis do you say that?

JK: As long as one's brain is conditioned, it is not free. And the 'mind' is free. What actually is this "freedom"? The freedom to enquire and it is only in this freedom ( from what was previously known ?) that there is a deep "insight".

DB: Yes, that's clear because if you are not free to enquire then you are limited (to what you knew already) .

JK: So as long as the brain is conditioned (to function predominantly in the 'known'?) its relationship to the ( natural intelligence of the) "mind" is (very seriously) limited.

DB: So, (there should be some interactive?) relationship of the brain to the mind, and also the other way round.

JK: Yes, yes. The 'mind' being free has a relationship to the brain.

DB: Yes. And you're saying that the ( non-material energy of the?) 'mind' is not subject to the ( temporal) conditioning of the brain ?

JK: Yes.

DB: Now one could ask a (still deeper) question: what is the nature of this 'mind'? For example, is the 'mind' located inside the body, or is it in the brain?

JK: No, it has nothing to do with the (physical ?) body or the brain.

DB: Has it to do with space or time?

JK: It has to do with (inner) 'space' and 'silence'. These are the two factors of the 'mind'

DB: You said 'space' and 'silence', now what kind of 'space' is this ? It is obviously not the (physical ) space in which we see life moving.

JK: Let's look at (this inner space ?) the other way. Thought can (create or ) invent 'space'.

DB: Well, we have the (physical) space that we see and in addition thought can invent all kinds of (imaginary ?) spaces.

JK: And space (as the measurable distance ?) from 'here' to 'there'.

DB: Yes, the (physical) space through which we move is that way.

JK: Then, there is also the 'space' between two noises.

DB: Well, they call it an 'interval'. The 'interval' between two sounds.

JK: Yes, interval between two noises, or between two thoughts.

DB: Yes...

JK: (Then there is the psychological ) 'space' ( or distance ) between two people...

DB: ...the space between the walls.

JK: And so on. But this is not the ( inwardly open ?) 'space' of the Mind.

DB: You mean, it is not limited ?

JK: That's right. It is not 'bounded' by the 'psyche'.

DB: By the psyche. But is it bounded by anything?

JK: No.

DB: Now the ( inner space of the ) 'psyche' is bounded because we have said it is limited and so on. Right ?

JK: So that is what I want to talk over : can the brain, with all its (memory) cells (being ?) 'conditioned', can ( the functioning of) those brain cells radically change?

DB: Well, we often discussed this, it is not certain that all the cells of the brain are conditioned. For example some 'science people' think that only a small part of the brain's cells are being used, and the others are just rather being inactive, dormant.

JK: Not used at all, or just touched occasionally.

DB: Just touched occasionally. But those cells that are conditioned, whatever they may be, they evidently dominate our consciousness – as it is now - right?

JK: Yes, can those cells be changed?

DB: But...how ?

JK: We are saying that they can be changed (qualitatively ? ) through 'insight'. 'Insight' being out of time, is not a (personal ) intuition, or desire, or hope, it has nothing to do with any (mental activity of ?) 'time & thought'.

DB: And you are saying that this 'Insight' is it the ( natural ?) activity of the 'Mind'?

JK: Yes.

DB: Therefore we are saying that (the non-material energy of the ?) 'Mind' can act in the matter of the brain cells ?

JK: Yes, we said that earlier.

DB: Yes, but you see this is a difficult point, you see, how is ( a purely spiritual?) 'Mind' able to act in ( the domain of time & ) matter.

JK: It is able to act on the ( perceptive quality of the?) brain, say for instance in any major personal crisis, or problem - (usually) we meet it with all the remembrances of our past, with a bias and so on. And therefore our 'problems' multiply. Now to have an (indepth) perception of that problem without any past memories and thoughts interfering...

DB: Now that implies that ( a totally insightful ?) perception is of the 'mind' ?

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: Are you more or less saying that in this case, the brain is becoming the instrument of the 'Mind'?

JK: (It can be an ?) instrument of the mind when the brain is not 'self'-centred.

DB: You see, our 'psychological' conditioning may be thought of as the brain exciting itself and keeping itself going just from that 'programme'. And this ( mechanistic activity ) occupies all of its capacities.

JK: All our days, yes.

DB: ( polarising) the whole capacity of the brain. It is rather like a ( poorly tuned ) radio receiver which generates (?) its own internal noise, rather than picking up the ( actual radio ) signal. Now would this ( technological) analogy be at all valid ? ...

JK: Not quite.

DB: Then, what is preventing our brain it from ( being inwardly open to the Mind & ) operating in an unlimited area?

JK: ( The 'self'-centred activity of ?) thought.

DB: So, the brain is running its own (thinking routine?)

JK: Yes, like a computer that is running on its own 'programme'.

DB: Now, essentially what you are implying here is that the brain should really be responding to this 'Mind'.

JK: And it can only respond (adequately) if it is free from the ( mechanistic routine of ?) thought which is limited.

DB: Yes, so that 'programme' does not dominate it. But (eventually) we are going to still need that 'programme'.

JK: Of course. We need it for...

DB: ...for many things. So, is 'Intelligence' (coming) from the Mind then?

JK: Yes, intelligence 'is' the Mind.

DB: 'Is' the Mind...?

JK: And there is no Intelligence without 'compassion'. And compassion can only be when there is ( self-less) 'love' which is completely free from all personal remembrances, jealousies and all that kind of thing.

DB: Now is all that 'Compassion' and 'Love', also of the Mind?

JK: Of the Mind. But you cannot be ( 'loving' & ) 'compassionate' if you are attached to any particular experience, or any particular ideal - like those people who go out to various poverty ridden countries and work, work, work, and they call that 'compassion'. But they are ( inwardly) 'tied' to a particular form of religious belief and therefore that is 'empathy' , not ( an intelligent action of ?) Compassion.

DB: Well, I understand that we have here two things which can be somewhat independent. There is the 'Brain' and the 'Mind', though they can make contact. And you're saying that 'Intelligence', Love & 'Compassion' come from beyond the ( physical) Brain. Can we go into the question of 'how' they are making contact ?

JK: Ah! An (interactive?) 'contact' between the Mind and the Brain can only exist when the brain is ( meditaively?) quiet.

DB: Yes, so that is the ( experiential) requirement. So, how is the brain to be (totally) quiet.

JK: Sir, this ' being quiet' is not a 'trained' quietness. It is a natural outcome of understanding ( the destructive nature of?) one's (egocentic?) conditioning.

DB: Yes and if the brain is 'so quiet' then it could 'listen' to something deeper - right?

JK: Deeper, that's right. Then if it is ( effortlessly?) quiet it is related to the Mind. Then the Mind can function through the brain.

DB: Now, has the human brain a ( natural quality or ) activity which is beyond thought ? For example, one could ask is 'awareness' part of the ( holistic ?) function of the brain?

JK: ( Yes) As long as in this awareness there is no ( personal interferences based on ?) choice .

DB: Yes, well that may cause ( a slight experiential) difficulty. You see, what is wrong with 'choice' ?

JK: ( Psychological) 'choice' means ( lack of inner clarity or?) confusion.

DB: This point is not so obvious. You see, if I choose which (sweater) colour I want to wear, I don't see why my mind should be 'confused'.

JK: There is nothing wrong there.

DB: But in the choices about the 'psyche' it seems to me is where the confusion is.

JK: We are talking of the 'psyche' who 'chooses' what to become, and this kind of choices exist where there is ( an existential) confusion ( regarding 'who' or 'what' you really are?) .

DB: Yes. Being (psychologically) confused it tries to become something better.

JK: And this choice implies a duality ( 'what I am' vs 'what I should be') .

DB: Yes but now it seems that we have another duality which you have introduced, which is the 'Mind' and the 'Brain'.

JK: No, that is not a 'duality'.

DB: That is important to get clear. What is the difference?

JK: Let's take a very simple example. Human beings are violent and the ideal of 'non-violence' has been projected by thought and that is (what we call) duality - the 'fact' and the 'non-fact'.

DB: So, the mental division of those two you call 'duality'. Why do you give it that name?

JK: Because they are divided.

DB: Well, they 'appear' to be divided.

JK: Divided, and they are the outcome of ( an go-centric) thought which is limited and this is creating havoc in the world.

DB: Yes. So there is a 'division' in terms of dividing something which cannot be divided. We are trying to divide the 'psyche', and the psyche cannot be divided into violence and non-violence - right?

JK: It is 'what it is'.

DB: If it is (basically) violent it can't be divided into a violent and a non-violent part.

JK: That's right. So can we remain ( inwardly with the fact of ?) 'what is', not invent ideals and all the rest of it?

DB: Now, could we return to the 'mind' and the 'brain' , where you are saying that is not a division.

JK: Oh no, that is not a 'division'.

DB: ( Because knowingly or not ?) they are in contact, is that right?

JK: We said there is ( an interflowing) contact between the mind and the brain when the brain is silent and has ( free inner) space.

DB: Yes, so if they are in contact and not divided at all, the 'Mind' can have a certain independence of the (spatio-temporal) conditioning of the brain.

JK: Now careful Sir ! Suppose my brain is (culturally) programmed as a Hindu, and my whole life is ( safely) conditioned by the idea that I am a Hindu. The 'Mind' obviously has no relationship with ( the active content of ?) that conditioning.

DB: When you are using the word "Mind", it means it is not 'my' mind .

JK: Oh, the "Mind", it is not mine.

DB: It is universal ?

JK: Yes. It is not 'my' brain either.

DB: No, but as there is a 'particular' brain, would you say there is a particular mind?

JK: No.

DB: That is an important difference. You are saying "Mind" is really universal.

JK: Mind is "universal" – it is not polluted by thought.

DB: But I think most people will be asking : " How do we know anything about this (non-personal ) Mind ?" The first feeling is that it is 'my mind' - right?

JK: You cannot call it 'your' mind . You only have 'your' brain which is conditioned. You can't say, "It is my mind".

DB: Well whatever is going on inside my 'psyche' I feel is 'mine' and it is very different from what is going on inside somebody else.

JK: I question whether it is different - we both go through all kinds of problems, suffering, fear, anxiety, loneliness, suffer, and so on and so on. We have our dogmas, beliefs, superstitions, and everybody has this.

DB: Well we can say it is all very similar but it seems as if each one of us is isolated from the other.

JK: By ( our self-centred ?) thought. My thought has created ( the concept ) that I am different from you, because my body is different from you, my face is different from you, so we extend that same (self-divisive mentality ?) into the psychological area.

DB: We have discussed that. But now if we said all right that division is an illusion perhaps.

JK: No, not 'perhaps', it 'is'...

DB: It is an illusion, all right. Although it is not (at all) obvious when a person first looks at it.

JK: Of course, of course.

DB: Now then, we say mind - in reality even brain is not divided because we are saying that we are all not only basically similar but ( consciousness-wise ?) really connected - right? And then we say that beyond all that is an (Universal dimension of ?) "Mind" which has no division at all.

JK: It is unconditioned.

DB: This would almost seem to imply then that in so far as a person feels he is a 'separate' being he has very little contact with this Mind - right?

JK: Quite right. That is why it is very important to understand ( in the first place) not the ( Universal dimension of the ) Mind but whether my conditioning can ever be dissolved. That is the real issue.

DB: Yes. But I think that any (serious ?) human being would like to consider what is the meaning of this Mind ? So, we have a Mind that is universal, that 'is' in some kind of (inner) 'space' you say, or is it its own space?

JK: It is not ( located ?) in 'me' or in 'my' brain.

DB: But it has (its own ?) space.

JK: It lives in space and silence.

DB: It lives in a space and silence, but it is the (inward ?) space of the mind. It is not a space like the space we know ?

JK: No. That is why we said that this (inner) 'space' is not invented by thought.

DB: Now, is it possible then to perceive this (inner open ?) 'space' when the mind is silent, to be in contact with it? JK: You are asking whether the ( Universal ?) Mind can be perceived by the brain ?

DB: Or at least if one can have an awareness, a sense (of it)

JK: We are saying "yes", through meditation. And that is the (main experiential ?) difficulty: in the 'meditation' as it is generally understood (and practised) there is always a "meditator" meditating. But this Meditation is not a ('self-) conscious' process.

DB: How are you able to say that meditation takes place then if it is 'un-conscious'?

JK: It is taking place when the brain is quiet.

DB: But there is also some kind of 'awareness' (of it) , isn't there? You see, there is also an 'unconsciousness' of which we are simply not aware of at all. A person may be 'unconscious' of some of his inner problems, conflicts.

JK: Let's go into it a bit more. If I do something 'consciously' it is the ( thinker-controlled ?) activity of thought. Right?

DB: Yes, it is ( the self-centred process of ?) thought reflecting on itself.

JK: Yes, it is the activity of thought. So, if you "consciously" try to practise ( a system of) 'meditation' then 'you' are making the brain conform to another series of patterns.

DB: Yes, there is some ( self-) becoming (involved) : you are trying to become inwardly better.

JK: There is no 'illumination' by becoming - if I can use that word.

DB: But it seems very difficult to communicate about a meditation of which one is not 'conscious', you see.

JK: Let's put it this way: a meditation practised 'consciously' – trying to control thought, or to free oneself from conditioning, is not ( an act of ) freedom.

DB: Yes, I think that is clear, but now it is not clear how to communicate what else is to be found there ?

JK: How can I tell you what lies beyond thought...

DB: Or what happens when thought is silent?

JK: Quite, silent. So, what words would you use?

DB: Well I suggested the word 'awareness'. Or...what about using the word 'attention'?

JK: 'Attention' is better. And would you say that in this 'attention' there is no ( controlling ?) centre as the 'me'?

DB: Well, not in the kind of attention you are discussing. There is a kind, which is the usual kind, where we pay attention because of what interests us.

JK: This ( meditative?) attention is not 'concentration'.

DB: So, we are discussing a (non-personal quality of ?) attention without ( the self-conscious?) 'me' present, and which is not the activity of conditioning.

JK: Not the activity of thought .

DB: Yes...

JK: In (this total ?) 'attention' thought has no place.

DB: Yes, but could you say more regarding what do you mean by 'attention'? Would the (ethymological ?) derivation of this word be of any use? It actually means "stretching the mind" - would that help?

JK: No, no. Would it help if we say this (total ) attention is not ( the result of mental ) concentration ? Attention can only come into being when the 'self' (-consciousness) is not (involved ?) .

DB: Yes but this seems to get us in a 'circular logic' because usually we are starting from a position when the 'self' is ( there ?) . A person who says meditation is necessary, begins with the 'self', he says, "I am here".

JK: As long as there is a 'measurement' ( a mental evaluation ?) which is ( a subtle attempt of personal ?) becoming, there is no ( authentic) Meditation.

DB: So, we can only discuss what ( the authentic ?) meditation is not ?

JK: That's right. And through the negation (of 'fake meditations' ?) the 'Other' is.

DB: So, if we succeed in negating the whole ( traditional ) activities of what is not meditation the "Meditation" will be there.

JK: Yes, that's right. As long as there is (any mental evalution or?) 'measurement', which is (a subliminal activity of ) 'becoming', which is the process of thought, ( the authentic ?) Meditation, or Silence, cannot be.

DB: So, this 'undirected attention' is it of the Mind ?

JK: Attention is of the Mind.

DB: And then It contacts the brain, doesn't it?

JK: Yes. As long as the brain is silent, the "Other" has contact with it.

DB: So this (meditating quality of ?) attention has contact with the brain when the brain is silent.

JK: Silent and has ( free inner ?) Space.

DB: What is this "Space"?

JK: The ( constantly busy?) brain has no (free inner) space now because it is concerned with itself, it is programmed, self-centred and ...(self-) limited.

DB: Now, the Mind is (exists ? ) in its Space, but doesn't the brain have its ( own mental) space ?

JK: Limited.

DB: Limited space?

JK: Of course. Thought has a limited ( self-enclosed) space.

DB: But when thought is absent does the brain have its (own inner ?) space?

JK: That's right. The brain has ( its own inner) space, yes.

DB: Unlimited?

JK: No. It is only the ( Universal ?) Mind that has unlimited Space. My brain can become quiet over a problem which I have thought about and I suddenly say, "Well I won't think any more about it" and there is a certain amount of ( free inner) space. In that ( knowledge free mental) 'space' you solve the problem.

DB: So, if the ( thinking) mind is silent, (the available?) inner space is still limited, but it is (potentially ) open to...

JK: ...to the 'Other'.

DB: ...to the "attention". Would you say that through this ( attending) attention , the Mind is contacting the brain?

JK: When the brain is not 'inattentive'.

DB: So what happens then to the brain?

JK: What happens to the brain? That (universal ?) Intelligence born out of compassion and love, ( can act or?) 'operate' when the brain is quiet.

DB: It operates through "attention"?

JK: Of course, of course.

DB: So "attention" seems to be the ( necessary) contact.

JK: Contact, naturally. ( But this) "attention" can only be when the 'self' is not (active ?).

DB: So in other words you're saying that Love and Compassion are the Ground (of Creation ?) , and out of this Ground comes the Intelligence through "attention" ?

JK: Yes, (It) functions through the brain.

DB: Now, there are two questions regarding this (Universal) Intelligence : one is about the nature of this intelligence, and the second is what does it do to the brain, you see?

JK: Yes. We must again approach it 'negatively'. (Universal ) Love is not ( associated) with jealousy and all that. Love is not 'personal', but it can be personal.

DB: Well, if it is ( coming) from the Universal Mind...

JK: (In a nutshell ?) this ( non-personal quality of?) Love has no relationship to ( the self-centred ?) thought.

DB: Yes, and it does not originate in the particular brain.

JK: Yes, and when there is that ( quality of Selfless?) Love, out of it there is Compassion and there is Intelligence.

DB: And this Intelligence (of the Universal Mind?) is able to understand more deeply ?

JK: No, not 'understand'.

DB: But what does it do? Does it perceive?

JK: Through perception it 'acts'.

DB: Yes. Perception of what?

JK: Now let's discuss ( the insight based ?) perception. There can be ( such ) perception only when there is no interference from the movement of thought. Then there is ( a holistic ?) perception, a direct insight into a problem, or into the human (psychological) complex.

DB: Yes, now this ( Insightful ?) Perception originates in the Mind?

JK: Yes. When the brain is "quiet".

DB: Yes, but here we used both words 'perception' and 'intelligence', what is their difference?

JK: Between (the insightful ?) perception and (the action of universal ?) intelligence? None.

DB: So we can say that intelligence 'is' perception.

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: ( So, the action of ) Intelligence is the ( instant ) perception of ( the truth regarding ) 'what is' - right? And through attention there is a contact (with the physical) brain)

JK: Sir, ( for instance ) let's take the ( eternal) problem of human suffering : the human beings have suffered endlessly, through wars, through every kind of disease, and through wrong relationship with each other. Man has suffered a great deal. Now can this suffering end?

DB: Well, I would say that the difficulty of 'ending it' is that it is on the programme. We are conditioned to (live accepting the inevitability of ) this whole thing - right?

JK: Yes, to this 'whole thing'. And this has been going on for centuries.

DB: Yes, so it is very 'deep' ?

JK: Very, very deep. Now can ( the causation of ) that 'suffering' end?

DB: Obviously, it cannot end by a (premeditated ) action of thought. Because the brain is caught in ( the very causation of) suffering and it cannot take an action to end its own suffering.

JK: Of course, that is why thought cannot end it. Thought has created it- thought has created ( or accepted as inevitable ?) the wars, the misery, the confusion, and ( the 'self-interest' based ) thought has become prominent in all human relationship.

DB: Yes, many people would agree with that, but still think that human thought can also do a lot of good things.

JK: No, ( holistically speaking) thought cannot do 'good' or 'bad'. It is thought, limited (by its self-interest)

DB: So, thought cannot get hold of this ( deep continuity of ) suffering. That is this suffering being ( implicit) in the physical conditioning of the brain, thought has no way of knowing what it is even.

JK: When I lose my ( brother or my) son I am ( getting face to face with it?)

DB: Yes but I mean just by thinking (about it) I don't (really ) know what is going on inside me. I can't (operate on) the suffering inside myself because my thinking will not show me what it is. But now you are saying that ( the compassionate action of ?) Intelligence...

JK: After all, we are asking can suffering end? That is the problem.

DB: Yes, and it is quite clear that our thinking cannot do it.

JK: Thought cannot do it. That is the point. But if I have an 'insight' into it...

DB: Yes, now this Insight will be ( happening) through the ( holistic ?) action of the mind, intelligence, and attention.

JK: When there is this ( inner clarity of ) insight, intelligence wipes away ( the very causation of ?) suffering.

DB: Yes, now you are saying therefore there is a contact from Mind to Matter which removes the whole physical & chemical (mental) structure which keeps us going on with suffering ?

JK: That's right. In that 'ending' there is a ( qualitative) mutation (occurring) in the brain cells. We discussed this some years ago.

DB: Yes and that mutation 'wipes out' (deletes?) the whole 'structure' ( of self-interest based attachment) that makes you suffer.

JK: Yes. Therefore it is like I have been going along following a certain tradition, and when ( a flash of insight ) suddenly changes that (path of) tradition there is a change in the whole brain. ( like before it has been going 'North', now it goes 'East'.)

DB: Of course this is a radical notion from the point of view of traditional ideas in science because even if we accept that "mind" is different from "matter" , many people would find it hard to say that 'mind' would actually...

JK: Mind is after all is 'pure' ( intelligent ) 'energy'

DB: Yes, but then... matter is also ( a crystalised form of ) energy .

JK: Therefore matter is limited, as thought is limited.

DB: So, we are saying that the 'pure (intelligent) energy' of the Mind is able to reach into the limited energy of (the human brain)

JK: Yes, that's right. And change the 'limitation'.

DB: Yes, removing (or deleting ?) some of the ( mental) limitations...

JK: ...when there is a deep issue, or a deep (existential) challenge which you are facing (directly )

DB: Yes, so we could also add that all the traditional ways of trying doing this cannot work because...

JK: It hasn't worked.

DB: Well that is not enough. We have to say that actually it cannot work , because people still might hope it could .

JK: It cannot.

DB: Because thought cannot get at the basis of its own physio-chemical (engramming ?) basis in the cells, and do anything about those cells.

JK: Yes Sir, we have said that very clearly : thought cannot bring about a (radical) change in itself.

DB: And yet practically everything that mankind has been trying to do was based on thought. There is a limited area where that is all right but we cannot do anything about the future of mankind from the usual approach.

JK: Exactly. We are saying the old instrument which is thought is worn out , except in certain areas .

DB: Well it never was adequate except in those areas.

JK: Of course, of course.

DB: And man has always been in trouble as far back as history goes.

JK: Yes Sir, man has always lived in turmoil, fear. But as ( responsible ?) human beings, facing all the confusion of the world, can there be a solution to all this?

DB: Yes, that comes back to the question that there are a few people who are (seriously) talking about it, and perhaps 'meditating' and so on, but how is that going to affect this vast current of ( the selfishness of?) mankind?

JK: Probably very little.

DB: I think there is an instinctive (common sense) feeling that makes one put the question.

JK: Yes. But I think that is ( a 'holistically ) wrong' question. Because if whoever 'listens' and sees the truth that ( our self-centred way of ) thinking in its activity both externally and inwardly has created a terrible mess, great suffering, one will inevitably ask : is there an ending to all this ( time-bound condition?) ? And if thought cannot end it what will? What is the new ( directly perceptive?) instrument that will put an end to all this human misery? You see, there is actually a new instrument which is Intelligence. But the difficulty is also people won't ( be ready, able & willing?) to 'listen' to all this. They have already come to definite conclusions, both the scientists and the ordinary layman so... they won't 'listen'.

DB: Yes, well that what I had in mind when I said that a few people don't seem to have much affect.

JK: Of course, of course. But after all, a 'few' people have always changed the ( course of the?) world....

DB: Do you think it is possible that say a certain number of brains coming in contact with Mind in this way will be able to have an affect on mankind which is beyond just the immediate obvious effect of their communication?

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: I mean obviously whoever does this may communicate in the ordinary way and it will have a small effect but now this is a possibility of something entirely different - right?

JK: You see, I have often thought about it - how do you convey this rather subtle and very complex issue to a person who is steeped in tradition, who is conditioned and won't even take time to listen, to consider?

DB: You see, the human conditioning may have some sort of 'permeability'. Is it possible that every person has something he can listen to... if it could be found?

JK: But 'who' will listen? Perhaps someone not highly educated and not too conditioned by his professional career, money, the (average decent ?) person who says, "I am suffering, please let's end that." So perhaps it is like ( starting?) a wave in the (shared consciousness of the ?) world - it might catch somebody. But I think it is a wrong question to say, 'how does it affect'?

DB: Yes all right, because that brings the human 'psyche' in the same process of becoming. So, what you are proposing is that it does affect ( the consciousness of ?) mankind through the Mind directly rather than through (endless talking?)

JK: Yes, yes. It may not show immediately (or 'manifest'?) in action.

DB: So, you are taking very seriously what you said that the Mind is Universal and is not located in our ordinary space, is not separate and the ( actual) question is that we have to come directly in contact with 'this' to make it real - right?

JK: Of course, that's it. They can only come into contact with 'It' when the 'self' ( centred consciousness ?) is not (in charge ?) . To put it very simply, when the 'self (-consciousness ) is not, there is Beauty, there is Silence, Space, and that Intelligence which is born of ( Universal ) Compassion operates through the brain.

DB: Now are there some ( practical) aspects of 'Meditation' which can be helpful even when the 'self' is acting ? Suppose a person says, "OK I am caught in this 'self' ( enclosed consciousness) but I want to get out. What shall I do ?" What would be your answer ? JK: That is very simple. Is the 'observer' different from the 'observed'?

DB: Well, suppose he says, "Yes, it appears to be different" - ordinarily one feels the observer is different from the things observed. I say we do all begin there.

JK: We begin there. Look at it : are 'you' (really ?) different from your anger, from your envy, from your suffering? Obviously you are not.

DB: Well, at first sight it appears that I am different , and I might try to control it.

JK: You 'are' that.

DB: Yes, but how will I see that I 'am' that?

JK: You 'are' ( mentally identified with ?) your name. You are ( psycho-somatically identified with ?) your body. You 'are' all the reactions and actions. You are the belief, you are the fear, you are the suffering and pleasure. You 'are' ( consciously or not, identified with ?) all that. DB: Yes but the first experience is that I am here first and that those are my qualities which I can either have or not have. I might be angry or not angry, I might have this belief or that belief.

JK: You 'are' all that.

DB: But you see, it is not so obvious. When you say I 'am' that, do you mean that I 'am' ( just ) that and I cannot be otherwise?

JK: At present you 'are' ( identified with all ?) that (psychological stuff) . But... it can be totally otherwise.

DB: Yes, OK. So I 'am' all that. But what if I feel like an unbiased observer who is looking at anger ? Are you telling me that this 'unbiased observer' is ( of the same nature?) as the anger he is looking at?

JK: Of course. Like I when I analyse myself, the analyser 'is' the analysed.

DB: Yes. He is biased by what he analyses. So if I watch my anger for a while I can see that I am actually biased by the anger, so at some stage I say that I am one with that anger - right?

JK: No, not 'I am one with it', but "you 'are' it".

DB: ( You mean that ) the ( reaction of) anger and I ( who am feeling angry ?) are ( part of ) the same (psychological process ?) , right?

JK: Yes. The observer 'is' ( not separate from) the (reaction) observed. And when that (holistic ) 'actuality' exists, you have really eliminated altogether (the "observer vs observed") conflict. ( A subliminal inner) conflict exists when 'I' ( consider myself as ) separate from 'my qualities'.

DB: Yes that is because if I believe myself to be separate, then I can try to change it, right?

JK: Yes, that's right. When the quality 'is' 'me', the (ages old dualistic ) division has ended. When that quality 'is' me, all that ( intelligent ?) energy which has been wasted is now ( integrated and free ) to look, to observe.

DB: But why does it make such a difference to have that quality 'being me'?

JK: It makes a difference when there is no division between the quality and me.

DB: Yes, so when there is no perception of a ( dualistic) difference, the mind does not try to fight itself. While if there is the illusion of a difference ( like between 'me' and 'my anger') the brain feels be compelled to fight against (another compartment of ?) itself.

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: In other words, when there is no illusion of a 'difference' the brain just stops fighting (with itself or with others )

JK: Stops fighting, and therefore you have ( integrated a ) tremendous energy.

DB: Yes. The brain's natural energy is released, eh?

JK: Yes, yes. And this ( unified ) energy is ( providing) the attention necessary for that thing to dissolve.

DB: Well, wait a minute, we said before that "attention" was a contact of the Mind and the brain.

JK: Yes Sir.

DB: ( Therefore) the brain must be (already ) in a state of 'high energy' to allow that (illuminating ?) contact ?

JK: That's right.

DB: So, a brain which is ( in a condition of ?) 'low energy' cannot allow that contact.

JK: Of course. But most of us are (indulging in a ?) 'low energy' ( living) because we are so conditioned.

DB: Well, essentially you are saying that this ( removal of the duality 'observer-observed') is the (right) way to start.

JK: Yes Sir. Start 'simply'. Start with 'what is', with what I am. That is why ( the experiential approach to ?) self-knowing is so important - a constant learning about oneself.

DB: Yes, but this 'knowing' is not the 'self-centred knowledge' we talked about before, which is conditioning.

JK: That's right. Knowledge conditions.

DB: Then, why do you still call it knowledge? Is it a different kind of knowledge?

JK: Yes, yes. 'Self- knowing' is to know and to comprehend 'oneself' (in real time?) , the 'self' which is such a subtle complex thing, it is 'living'.

DB: So, essentially this 'knowing yourself' in happening the very moment in which things are happening, rather than store it up in memory.

JK: Of course. Through ( becoming aware of my personal ) reactions I begin to discover what I am, and so on and so on.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 20 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Dec 2014 #10
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

Uncovering the Innermost Source of Creation ( experientially friendly edited )

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, most of our lives are so futile. And unless one discovers within oneself the capacity to leap out of this ( materialistic ?) 'futility', one will never be able to have a creative spring (in one's own life) . You see, sir, when the mind has this 'creative spring', whatever be the outer circumstances, one seems to go beyond them. And that happens when the mind is not dependent on anything, and when it has some inner space, some clear perception. I have been wondering for the last few months—what is the Ground of a 'creative' mind?

K: Would you call the activity of a poet, of a ( very thoughtful?) thinker, or even of a scientist who makes a new discovery, creative activity?

PJ: Perhaps...

K: But it is limited, 'partial' (in the sense that the gift creativity ?) is not related to their everyday life. Even the greatest scientist may lead a very mediocre life.

PJ: You see, that’s why I did not speak of 'creative action'...

K: ...but of a 'creative mind'?

PJ: Of a mind which rests in the Creative (Ground of Existence) .
You have not answered duirectly any questions on the Ground of Creation, on the ‘coming into being’ of anything.

K: Are you asking what is the Source of All Life—both the manifest and the non-manifest ?

PJ: Yes, if possible. And for starters I would like to probe into what you have said just now: the 'manifest' and the 'pre-manifest'... (I won’t use the word 'unmanifest').

K: Are we ( experientially) probing into something which you and I don’t 'know'? We know all about the birth of a baby...

PJ: One may know the 'how it comes into being', but one still does not know the quality of life which pervades it. You see, sir, the actuality of birth is very different from the description of birth.

K: Yes. Can we talk about what is the Origin, the Beginning, of all Life or of all Existence, in order to come upon that 'Something' which is the beginning of all things?

PJ: Yes... ?

K: Man has asked this question (for ages): what is the meaning and the origin of all this ( existence) is, what is the "ground" from which arises all existence, all life, all action? 
Now, to investigate (inwardly?) into that 'something' it demands an extraordinary (inner) freedom – a quality of mind which is both practical and sensitive and which has the quality of great Compassion.

PJ: Sir, I would like to 'move' with this question, but if I say that the mind can question only when it is free and, therefore, has love, what do I do?

K: But how else can you inquire into a question, that man has asked for millions of years? How does a mind inquire into something that must be extra-ordinary, that must have a quality of not only the universal, but one of supreme order? How does one’s inquiry begin? If you inquire with 'thought', that doesn’t lead very far.

PJ: So, how does the inquiry begin? Obviously by becoming aware of the (ongoing) disorder within oneself.

K: You see, Pupul, after all, I am the 'manifest'. I have been born. I am a human being.

PJ: Yes, but obviously, sir, there can be no other starting point.

K: ( How about holistically observing ?) the world outside and the world inside. If I can observe without any bias what actually is happening in the world outside of me, and if I can relate what is happening outside to what is happening inside (myself) , then I can see that it is only one "movement" - not two separate movements.

PJ: Sir, I am in the midst of life and I move into that.

K: You 'are' it.

PJ: Yes, I 'am' it. But you see, it is easier to see that ‘I 'am' it’ with regard to the interior movement. To see that with regard to an exterior movement is much more difficult. If you tell me that I 'am' (personally responsible for ?) all the wars which are taking place in the world, that’s very difficult for me to see.

K: Pupul, (holistically speaking ?) we 'are' responsible—in the deepest sense of that word—for all the 'wars' that are taking place.

PJ: Yes, but that’s a distant responsibility. I can’t relate to it in the same way to what is happening within me.

K: Why don’t we feel total responsibility for the wars, the brutality, the terrible things that are happening in the world?

PJ: In what sense is one 'totally responsible'? Just by being born?

K: My entire way of thinking and of acting—as a 'nationalist', or this or that—has contributed to the present state of the world.

PJ: I think it’s better to leave that. We were probing into the (Creative) Ground of existence which is the ''Is''-ness of life. And the only ( available ?) way to probe is to 'move into oneself'.

K: All right. Now, I can’t enter into it ( safely but ...dualistically ?) as an 'observer' coming from the outside, or I 'am' all that.

PJ: Yes, in uncovering what I am, I comprehend that one is uncovering the whole existence of man.

K: Yes, that’s very simple.

PJ: And in this 'uncovering' the superficial things are swept clean.
But once the superficial (cleaning-up ) is over, the (inner ?) room also has to be swept.

K: Is this (inner) 'sweeping', or 'uncovering', a complete moving away from all the superficial reactions, superficial conditionings, and attempting to enter into the nature of the central 'movement' ( of self-interest?) that conditions the human mind?

PJ: Obviously, sir, but you can’t say that you have swept the room and it is over...The 'dust' gathers again. And it is quite possible to sweep away the more obvious things, but the subtler things survive in hidden 'corners' you have not been able to get to.

K: Yes, that’s right. But, ( for starters?) let’s go into the 'obvious' things...

PJ: For instance, personal ambition, or envy...?

K: Yes, and also ( personal resentment or?) 'hatred'. Can you be free of all sense of aggressivity?

PJ: But isn't hatred different from the quality of aggression ?

K: Aggressivity is related to hatred, because it’s part of the same movement (of violence) . An ( ambitious or?) 'aggressive' person inevitably hurts another, and that hurt breeds hatred.

PJ: Yes, that’s what I meant by grosser things and the subtler things. Anyone who has known hatred knows that hatred is a very powerful and a very destructive thing. But the aggressivity ( involved in ambition & competitivity ?) may, to some extent, be part of one’s nature.

K: Yes, of course, it’s part (of the instinct ?) to survive, and all the rest.

PJ: That’s why I made the distinction between the grosser things which can be swept clean and the...

K: But how does one know what is gross and what is subtle? Nothing is (really ?) trivial and all (the gross ) reactions', have their source in one’s ( deeper) conditioning.

PJ: Please let us pursue this, since one can live a trivial life, think that it just doesn’t matter; or that nothing (really) matters.

K: You see, Pupul, the (holistic sense of ) ‘freedom’ also means affection, love...

PJ: And a tremendous 'discipline’ as well as an (inner) watchfulness, so that the trivial does not, at any time, creep in.

K: You see, the point is: does this (inner) 'watchfulness', or 'awareness', need training?

PJ: Sir, we commonly mean by 'discipline' some kind of ( mental or physical) regimentation. But I mean by ‘discipline’ the mind awakening to the (truth of the ?) fact that it must be aware of every movement within itself. Sir, that also is a form of 'discipline'.  Without such 'diligence' nothing is possible.

K: Go slowly. To be (inwardly) 'diligent’ means to be aware of what you are doing, to be aware of what you are thinking, to be aware of your reactions. And from those reactions, to observe the actions taking place. Now, the question is: in that 'awareness', is the ( perceptive) action controlled, or put into a certain framework?

PJ: No, obviously not.

K: What I am objecting is (the controlling connotation of ?) the word ‘discipline’.

PJ: Are you not restricting the use of that word ( discipline) to mean merely the putting of something into a ( thought controlled ?) framework ?

K: Yes, but I also hold that the very act of 'learning' is (generating ) its own discipline.

PJ: Yes. But how does this 'act of learning' come to be? Can we take it one step back? From where does the need for (a holistic) observation arise? Why should I 'observe' (myself) ?

K: For a very simple reason, namely, to see whether it’s possible for a human mind to change itself, to change the ( present trend of the ?) world which is entering into such a catastrophic (era ?) .

PJ: All right. If I start there, or if I start with my own sorrow—which is very often the real ground from which one starts...

K: Yes.

PJ: The ( starting) ground is really 'sorrow'. But I think we have moved away.
K: Yes, what we started out with was an inquiry into the Origin, the Ground, of all life.  And to inquire into that, you have to inquire into 'yourself', because you are the expression of that. You 'are' life.
So, I can only do this by understanding 'myself' - a messy, disordered living 'entity'. I said ( one can start by observing that ) the (outer) world is in disorder. I begin with that. And realise that there is also disorder inside myself . Now, how do I comprehend or become aware of the origin of this (tide of ?) disorder? If I can begin to understand the origin of disorder, I can move more and more deeply into something ( still deeper?) which is total order.

PJ: Isn’t this (inner-outer observation ) done by being as 'simple' as possible?

K: Yes, that’s what I am trying to say.

PJ: And I have certain instruments of inquiry: eyes, ears, the other senses.

K: Yes, but you don’t inquire only with your (physical) ears or eyes.

PJ: Don’t you?

K: A little bit, yes. But the question is: I can’t see the psychological complexity of myself with my (optical ) eyes. I must be (inwardly) aware, sensitively, without any choice, of this ( disorderly inner ?) condition.

PJ: Why do you say, sir, that you cannot be aware with your eyes?

K: Do you mean the "inward" eye?

PJ: Is there any other way?

K: Yes, I think there is. Hearing, seeing, feeling: those are actually sensory responses, right?

PJ: Yes. But is there not an 'inward seeing' or ' listening' to a 'psychological' reaction of anger?

K: Do you listen to it with your ears or do you (inwardly ?) "observe" anger?

PJ: How do you "observe" anger?

K: When you are (getting) angry, you look at the cause and the effect of that anger.

PJ: When you are ( really ?) angry, you can’t...

K: Yes, you can’t at that moment. So, later on...

PJ: But Sir, the word you just used is ‘look’. You 'see' the nature of the mind...

K: Would it help if we talked about (an inwardly integrated ?) perception?  I hear you make a statement. I’ve understood the words and see the (verbal) meaning of what you are saying. A verbal communication has obviously taken place. But the deeper significance...

PJ: But while I am listening to you and seeing you, I am also listening and seeing my own mind, the 'ground' of the mind.

K: 'Who' is listening?

PJ: Take attention. What is the state of the mind in that act of being totally attentive?

K: To answer that question, one must first understand what we mean by 'complete attention'. Attention is not concentration. I think that’s clear.

PJ: Of course, sir, attention is not (a mental) concentration.

K: Attention means that there is no 'centre' from which 'you' are attending.

PJ: Sir, are we still 'dusting the periphery'?

K: No, no; I don’t want to 'dust the periphery'.

PJ: Unless I understand what (the holistic?) attention is, I can’t even take the first step.

K: So, what does this attention—to attend completely—mean?

PJ: You see, ‘to attend completely’ is for the ‘I’ not to be there.

K: Yes, that is the real thing. When there is attention, there is no ‘I’. It isn’t a state of 'I' am attending, but only a state of mind which is wholly attentive.

PJ: With all the senses (integrated ) ...

K: With all the senses and with the whole body.

PJ: The 'whole being' is awake ?

K: Yes, you can use that word.

PJ: And if you are in that state when your whole being is awake, then you can listen, you can observe; you can proceed from there.

K: Because I myself am life and if I am to inquire into what I am, my inquiry has to be correct, accurate, not distorted. It is only then that I may come upon the Ground, the Beginning of all Life. It is only then that the ( innermost) Origin may be uncovered.

PJ: If we start from there, we will find that the ‘I’ is there in the first step. There’s the 'observer'...

K: I know that there is the ( perceptive duality between the ) 'observer' and the 'observed'. But I am inquiring whether this ( duality?) is actually true. So far I have taken it for granted.

PJ: Obviously, sir, when I first start inquiring, I start with (as an) 'observer' who is trying to observe . Now you have placed a doubt in my mind and I ask, ‘Is there really an observer?’

K: Is there an 'observer' (who is) separate from the 'observed'?

PJ: Having that statement within me, I look for the 'observer'.

K: Yes. Who is the observer? Let’s look into this slowly. Because if I understand the ( nature of the ?) observer, then perhaps I may see the falseness of the division between the observer and the observed.

PJ: Who will see the 'falseness' of this division ?

K: The point is not 'who' will see, but the ( insightful ?) perception of what is true. What is of ( experiential) importance is the perception (of the truth regarding that division ?) not 'who' sees.

PJ: So, 'seeing' the truth of what the 'observer' is, will end the state of division.

K: Yes, that is what I have said a thousand times.

PJ: Yes, for this instant it is so. But I cannot expect to have an understanding of what you say unless the mind is awake and is diligent about being awake. You cannot deny this.

K: No. It (one's mind?) has to be 'diligent'; it has to be watchful; it has to be attentive, subtle, hesitant. It has to be all that. I can only inquire into myself through watching ( non-dualistically !) my reactions—the way I think, the way I act, the way I respond to the environment, the way I observe my relationship to another.

PJ: And as I start to observe myself, I find out that that these (self-centred) responses and reactions are rapid, confused, continuous.

K: I know; they are contradictory, and so on.

PJ: So, in the very observing, an ( inner) space ( of freedom?) comes into being.

K: Yes, some (free inner) space, some order.

PJ: And ( as you have often said, this basic inner freedom) is just the beginning, sir !

K: I know. But I would like to ask a ( 'second wind'?) question. Is it necessary to go through all this? Is it necessary to watch my actions, to watch my reactions, my responses? Is it necessary to observe, diligently, all my relationship with another? Must I go through all this (time consuming routine ?) or...?

PJ: The fact is, sir, ( that after listening to your suggestions many years ago?) one has gone through all this.

K: You may have gone through it because you have ( subliminally) accepted ( the idea of a spiritual progress in time)  
That is what we have all done—the thinkers, the sannyasis, the monks, and...

PJ: ...and Krishnamurti ?

K: I’m not sure. ..

PJ: Either in the recent years you have taken a 'jump' or (you don't remember what you were saying thirty years ago ?) ...

K: Wait a minute. We have (all?) accepted ( the validity of ?) this (diligent, hard working ?) pattern of ( self-) examination, analysis and investigation, we have watched the ‘self’ and so on. Now, there is something in it which rings a 'false note'—at least to me.

PJ: You mean to say that a person caught in the whole confusion of (his wordly) existence...

K: Pupul, (s)he won’t even listen to all this...

PJ: So, there has to be ( created some inner) space in order to listen.

K: Yes.

PJ: And...how does this (necessity for some free inner ?) 'space' arise?

K: You suffer. Now, you can either say, ‘I must find out (the root cause of this ?) ’ or you merely say, ‘God exists, and I am comforted by that’

PJ: Now, sir, you have asked: Is it necessary to go through all this (self-observing routine ) ?

K: Yes, for I think that it may not be necessary.

PJ: Then show me how ( would he do it ?)

K: I’ll show it to you. We shall call, for the moment, the diligent watching of your reactions, the 'analytical' process of inquiry. Now, this self-investigative process, this constant watching, man has done for thousands of years.

PJ: Not really. He has looked at (whatever was happening in ) his mind and tried to suppress (the undesirable trends)

K: Ah, you see, that’s part of the same ( temporal) pattern . Suppress, escape, substitute, transcend—all that is within that ( evolutionary) framework.

PJ: Agreed, it’s not the same thing as to observe without doing anything about the observation.

K: But Pupul, you are not answering my question: Is it essential, that I go through all this?

PJ: No, but are you trying to say that out of the middle of ( your inner ?) chaos you can 'leap' to a state of total non-chaos?

K: No, I won’t put it that way.

PJ: Then... what are you saying?

K: I am saying that ( the mind of) humanity has already gone through this process. It has been the ( ethical ?) pattern of our existence—of course, some have gone through the process more diligently, sacrificing everything , inquiring, analysing, searching, but still ...at the end of it all you may be just a 'dead' (but totally disciplined?) entity.

PJ: But it may not necessarily be so.

K: May not be. But you see, Pupul, very, very, few—have got out of it.

PJ: So, sir, you are saying that all this whole ( evolutionary ?) process is not necessary ?

K: ....and if it is not necessary, then ''show me the other ''?

PJ: Yes, show me the other !

K: I’ll show it to you. But first, step out of this (self-becoming mentality ?) .

PJ: And if I 'step out' of it, the 'Other' is already there ?

K: Of course. Step out (of it ASAP?) . Don’t take time to go through all this.

PJ: But... what is exactly meant by ‘stepping out' of it?

K: I’ll tell you what I mean: (To see the truth : ?) that man has tried this process of introspective observation, diligence and so on, for a million years in different ways, and ( due to his subliminal expectation for a well deserved reward?) somehow his mind is not clear at the end of it (not to mention that ) this (time consuming ?) movement is very, very shallow. Now, can you 'listen' to ( this holistic ) statement—and actually see the truth of it? If you 'do (see it)', it means that your disordered (time-bound) mind is now quiet; it is 'listening' to find (the true way ?) out. Once you (get to ?) see the truth of this, you are 'out of it'. It’s like putting away something utterly meaningless.

Let me put it another way. My ( time-bound) mind is disorderly. My life is disorderly. You come along and say, ‘Be diligent; be watchful of your actions, of your thoughts, of your relationship and 'be watchful all the time’. And I say that that’s impossible because my ( time-bound ?) mind won’t allow me to be ( so inwardly) diligent all the time. It is not diligent; it is negligent, and I constantly struggle between these two (trends)

PJ: Do you mean to say that a mind which is not capable of observing itself...

K: No. I am saying this to a mind that is ( finally) willing to 'listen'...

PJ: Do you really think an ordinary (time-bound) mind can be in that state of 'listening'?

K: That’s very simple ( if it is approached adequately ?) I say: ''just listen to a story that I am telling you''. ( And if you are getting really ?) interested, your mind is ( naturally becoming) quiet; you are eager to see what the story is about and so on.

PJ: I’m sorry, sir, but it doesn’t seem to happen that way...

K: I am going to explain what I mean by ( a holistic quality of ) "listening": not only the listening with the sensory ear, but the listening with the ( mind's ?) 'ear' that has no movement. That is really 'listening'. Now, when you listen so completely, without any ( mental) movement, to a man who comes along and says, ‘Don’t go through all this diligent process, because it is false, because it is superficial’, what takes place? If you 'hear the truth' of his statement, what takes place? What actually takes place when you see something really true?

(The experiential answer is left for listener's homework)

( In a nutshell:) this diligent process ( of self-improvement ?) is time-consuming. But... my ( earthly ?) life is so short. I’ve got so many ( unsolved material ?) problems, and you are adding another; "be diligent". So this (K) man says, ‘I know you have got many problems which are all interrelated. But just forget your (immediate) problems for the moment and "listen" to me’.

PJ: Sir, you are talking of a mind which is already "mature". Such a mind, while listening to a statement like this...

K: You see, Pupul, we have made our minds so immature that we are incapable of ( freely) listening to anything.

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, you always start by making things ( look) 'impossible'...

K: Of course. ( To) 'see the truth'. It has a tremendous...

PJ: Where can I find the energy to deal with such an 'impossible' thing?

K: It’s very simple. Do we both ahree that this 'diligent process' has really led nowhere? And that in terms of 'going to the very Source of things’ , it is not the way?

PJ: Yes, obviously. I would accept that.

K: That’s all. If you (see the truth of ) that, what is the quality of your mind?

PJ: I know what you are trying to say, sir...

K: What is the quality of a ( time-bound) mind which has been caught ( for ages ?) in the process of diligent ( self-) inquiry when it sees that this 'diligent process' will not help it to come upon or to uncover the Origin ? This process is time-consuming. The 'Other' may have no time at all.

PJ: But, the danger is that I will not be concerned with (putting order in my inner house?)

K: That very inquiry demands that the mind and the heart—my whole existence—is orderly.

PJ: Again, you start with the 'impossible' …

K: (With great energy) Of course, I start with the 'impossible', Pupul, man has done everything that’s 'possible' (along this line ?) . Man has fasted, sacrificed; man has done everything to find ( God or?) the Origin of All Things. Man has done all that has been possible, and that has him to led to certain (cultural & social ) benefits, but it has also led to ( the accumulation of ?) a great deal of (inner) misery for mankind.
So, this (K) man tells me that this diligent process is time-consuming and also time-binding. He tells me that as long as I am doing this, I am just 'scratching the surface' (of Creation ?) which may be the most pleasant and ennobling thing—but it’s just the surface. If you actually see, actually feel that this ( diligent approach is) 'false', you have already 'stepped out of the ordinary' into something (into an inner dimension?) that is 'Extra-ordinary'.

But we are not willing to do that. We treat it like learning a (foreign) language - where discipline, diligence & attention 'are' necessary. We carry the same mentality into ( our inward inquiry into ) the ' Other'. That’s what I object to.

PJ: So, what if one puts aside this ( diligent ?) seeing & listening... ?

K: Which means what? That the ( time - thought) movement of diligence has stopped—right? If ( I see that it was ?) false, it's gone. So what has happened to the ( quality of ?) the mind that has been caught in a diligent (self-) inquiry which is time-bound, and utterly superficial? What is the state of this mind? It is a totally "New" Mind. Such a mind is necessary to uncover the Origin (of All Creation ) . Now, such a mind has no bondage to time. You see, the diligent process is ( a sublimated desire ?) to become something; to clarify, to understand, to 'go beyond' itself. This (New ?) Mind has no 'beyond'—it is not becoming something. 
Do you see the fact that such a mind cannot have any kind of dependence, any kind of attachment?

PJ: Yes, all this is part of the movement of becoming.

K: That’s right. All that ( self-introspective dilligence) is the perpetuation of the 'self' in a different (sublimated) form, in a different network of words. But when there is this "Oncovering of Origins", then my life, my actions—everything—is different.

( Recap :) The diligent process ( of self-introspective undersanding) is a time-consuming ( & time binding) action which ( in the spiritual realm?) is destructive. It may be necessary in order to learn a technique, but this is not a 'technique' (or a new trick?) to be learnt.

(Long pause)

PJ: Sir, you have an "antique mind", in the sense that it contains the whole of human...

K: You see, Pupul, that’s why it’s important to understand that "I am the world".

PJ: No one else would (sincerely ?) make that kind of statement but you.

K: And one must make it. When you see all the destruction, the brutality, the killing, the wars—every form of violence (and vulgarity ?) that has never stopped—where are you? A man who loved ( Life) couldn’t kill another. I see this process has been going on for thousands and thousands of years—everybody trying to become something. And all the diligent, religious workers are helping man to 'become' something—to achieve illumination, to achieve enlightenment. It’s so absurd.

PJ: With you, sir, the whole movement of the 'dormant' has ended.

K: That is, (self-) becoming has ended. Pupul, let us not make this into some 'elitistic' understanding. Any person who 'pays attention', who wants to 'hear', who is passionate and not just casual about it and who, really, says, ‘I must find ( in myself the innermost ?) Source of all Life’, will 'listen' —not to me; he will just 'listen'. It’s 'in the air'.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 21 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Jan 2015 #11
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

A K CONVERSATION WITH PROF.BOHM AND TWO BUDDHIST SCHOLARS -experientially friendly edited-

THE ULTIMATE INNER TRUTH OF 'NON-IDENTIFICATION'

Dr Rahula: This morning I want to ask you one or two things to clarify :
(a) In the Buddhist terminology there are three levels of knowledge: one is what we get through learning, reading the books, or listening to the teacher; then there is the 'wisdom' that you get by thinking, or meditating, but even this knowledge, still within words, it is still within language; and the highest wisdom goes beyond words, it actually has no words, meaning that you see the 'thing' without a word. Is this (non-verbal perception ) implied when you said, "when you see the thing, all our reflections, accumulated meanings disappear" ?
And my second question (b) is what happens to ( an 'Arhat') - to the person who realized the Truth, who is Liberated, who is free, after his death? "Does he (continue to ?) exist after his death?" The Buddha said, these terms 'exist' or 'does not exist', can't be applied to that (timeless ?) state." All those terms, relative, dualistic terms, are used only within our (earthly) knowledge, within our experience, within the empirical world. But the ( Arhat's liberated consciousness ?) is beyond that. So what do you say to this?

K: Could we (take a small philosophical detour and?) talk over together on what is 'living' and what is 'dying', and what is the state of the mind that is (involved) in the process of dying? Or are you asking what is the state of a mind that has no 'self' whatsoever?

Dr R: I think this is a good approach, because that is an 'Arhat' who has no 'self' (-identification ?) whatsoever.

K: So what is one's 'self' (consciousness?) ? The ( result of a subliminal identification with one's ?) name, the form, the body, the organism, plus certain (inherited) characteristics and with what I possess - my property, my house, my furniture, my wife, my books. All that, plus the ( momentary fits of?) violence, the pleasure, the fear, and the (existential?) agonies, constitutes the 'self' ( the 'personal' consciousness?) .
So is the root of tha 'self' (an unconscious identification with all one's ) acquired experiences ? And if there is no identification is there a 'self' (-consciousness ?) ? You understand sir?

Dr R : Yes, I follow.

K: So can this (subliminal process of attachment and/or ?) identification come to an end? Which is, this identification is the (result of a hidden activity of our self-interest based ?) thought. So the root of the 'self' is this ( identitary?) movement of thought. Now, 'death' is the ending of that movement. Or death (permits the?) continuity of that ( self-conscious ?) movement into the next life? You understand?

Dr R : Quite.

K: Now, the 'Arhat', or the 'Liberated man', why should he wait until the end, till he reaches that ( point of no return ?) which is ( commonly) called 'death'? When (and if ?) he realizes that the very root of the 'self' is the movement of thought in time, along with ( its accumulated) conflicts, fears, miseries, confusions, created by thought. . So when ( this 'psychological' movement of ?) thought comes to an end ; that is a form of ( experiencing ) 'death' while living.

Dr R : Yes...

K: Now, how can ( the 'psychological' continuity of ?) thought come to an end? Every human being has ( consciously , or not?) identified himself with something or other, with (the noble search for ?) God, Nirvana, Heaven and so on. Now while living can this (psychological ?) death, which is the ending of ( all the personal attachments of?) thought, take place ( 'now', in the safe inner space of meditation?) rather than at the very end of one's life which then is a 'graveyard' ( or compulsory?) renunciation ?

Dr R: I agree that it is not necessary to wait until the end of your life, and Buddha pointed out the same thing. When this ( personal) question was put to him : What will happen to the Buddha after his death ? He asked the disciple, "What is 'the Buddha'? Is it this body?" And the disciple said, "No". "Then if you can't pin-point ( what is ) the Buddha even now, while he is living, then how can you ( ask what happens to him ?) after death?" 
So, this is my ( updated?) question for you : What happens to the person who has realized the truth, who has become liberated ?

K: I would never ask ( someone else to answer ) that question, because he might say this happens, or he might say that happens, or nothing happens . Which ( if I accept his spiritual authority?) becomes a 'theory' to me, which is a (dead?) idea.

R: I wanted from you a little more than (this 'generic' answer ?) .

K: Then, if you want ( to hear ) it from this person, you'll have to enquire as he is enquiring. So, he asks : is it possible to live your life without this (time binding?) identification process which brings about the structure and the nature of the 'self', which is the result of thought? Can this (identification with this 'time-binding' ?) movement of thought end while I am living? That is the ( experiential) question, rather than 'what happens with me when I die'. 

( To Recap:) :) The 'me' ( aka : the 'thinker', the 'observer' or the 'experiencer' ?) is merely a (self-identified ?) movement of thought. And as the thought process itself is very limited, a fragmentary piece in a vast movement of (Universal Existence) whatever it creates will still be limited, broken up, fragmentary. Right?
So can a ( holistically minded ?) human being, you, I, or any of us, can we live without ( getting identified with ?) this movement of thought, which is the essence of the 'self' ? Suppose I say, yes, it can be done - what value has it to you?

Dr Schoegel: Well, once this (subliminal ?) identification is really broken ...

K: Ah, not 'broken', but 'end'. When you 'break' something it can continue (in another form ?) . Here (this 'psychological' death ) it is an 'ending'. Now, suppose this ( K) person says, yes, it is possible, then what? What (experiential) value has it to you?

Dr S: That is what personally I hoped we can discuss...

K: I can only start with what is a fact, for me - I suffer, I have fears, I have sexual demands. How am I to deal with all these tremendously complex things which make my life so utterly miserable, unhappy ?
So, I start, with something which is (inwardly) common to all of us - this confusion, uncertainty, insecurity, travail, effort - and the root of this is the 'self (centred consciousness) , the 'me'. 
Now : is it possible to be free of this 'me' (self-identification ?) which produces all this outer chaos, and also inwardly, this constant ( sense of existential) struggle, constant battle, constant effort? So I am asking, can ( this self-identified process of ?) thought end? That (meditating mind ) which 'ends' ( this self-centred continuity ?) has a totally different beginning. Right sir?
So, in what manner ( the virtual continuity of this self-identified ?) thought can end? That's the problem. The Buddha must have talked about it , but I don't think Christianity has ( experientially) touched this point. And somebody like me comes along and says, (making a super-human ) effort (to transcend itself ?) is the very essence of the self.

Dr S: You mean that the very effort that I make to ('end') it, that in itself is already contributing to my delusion?

K: The 'maker of the effort', who has already identified itself with something 'greater', is making an effort to reach its (own projection ?) . It is still within the movement of thought.

Dr S: And it is still a bargaining - if I do this, or if this happens, then I will get that.

K: So ( if this self-transcending effort is out, the next holistic question is : ?) how do you 'listen'?

Dr S: Listen to what ?

K: A person like me says, "effort of any kind only strengthens the (continuity of the ?) self". Now how do you 'receive' or 'listen' to that statement?

Dr S: I am entirely in agreement.

K: No, not agreement, or disagreement. How do you listen to it?

Bohm: You probably mean : do we listen in the same ( self-centred ?) way we have made identifications, that is in general we listen through the past, through our previous ideas, through what we 'know'?

Dr S: One can 'open out' and just listen.

K: Can you listen without the 'idea' (mental attitude of?) of receiving, or accepting, or denying, or arguing, but just 'listen' to a statement? It may be false, it may be true, but just listen to it. Can you do it?

Dr S: I would say 'yes'.

K: Then if you so 'listen', what takes place?

Dr S: Nothing...

K: No, madam, don't say immediately, nothing. I listen to ( the inward truth of ) a statement that ( the self-interest based ?) thinking is the root of the self. How do we listen to the truth of that fact, that thought is the root of the self? Is it perceived as an idea, a conclusion, or as an absolute, irrevocable fact?

Dr R: If you ask me, it is a 'fact' I can see.

K: Aren't you listening to it as a Buddhist (scholar?) - forgive me for putting it that way?

R: I am not identifying with anything at all. I am not listening to you as a Buddhist or a non-Buddhist.

K: Just a minute - aren't you listening as a person who has read a great deal about the Buddha, and what the Buddha has said and who is (surreptitiously ?) comparing - therefore you have gone away from ( purely ?) listening. Are you listening to the words and the implications of those words, or are you listening without any sense of 'verbal comprehension', through which you have gone through quickly, and see the absolute truth of that?

Dr R: That is what I said.

K: Then it is finished. It is like seeing it as something tremendously dangerous, it is over, you don't touch it.

Dr S: Why not touch it?

B: It seems to me there is a ( natural) tendency to listen ( in a self-protective mode?) ?) through the ( rationality of the ) words, while the ('self') identification still goes on (subliminally ?) and one (is honestly ?) thinks one is listening. It is very subtle...

Dr R: In other words, you are using 'listening' in the sense of 'seeing' (the truth or falseness of what is being said?)

K: Sir, I was listening to what you were saying about ( the Noble Truths of the ) Buddha. Just listening. Probably you were quoting correctly and so on, but you are not revealing yourself to me, while here I am revealing myself to you. Therefore we have a relationship through (the mutual appreciation of the wisdom of the ?) Buddha, not a direct relationship.

S: So, what you are looking for is our personal 'experiential' response.

K: Your 'personal' experience is also the experience of everybody else, it is not (really ?) 'personal'. If you and I suffer it is 'suffering', not my suffering and your suffering. But when there is ( a subliminal ?) identification with suffering there is 'my' suffering. And I say, 'I must be free of it'. But as human beings in the world we suffer.

Dr B: It seems to me this question of "identification" is the main one, it is very subtle, since in spite of all that you have said, the ( subliminal continuity of this ?) identification still goes on. It (this sense of 'my' continuity ?) seems to be built into us.

Dr S: And this raises a question whether that identification can be ended - if I understood rightly.

Dr B: Identification prevented listening freely, openly, because one listens through the (safe distance created by this ) identification.

K: What does 'identification' mean? Why do human beings identify themselves with something - 'my' car, 'my' house, my 'wife', 'my' children, 'my' country, 'my' God ? Why?

Dr S: To 'be something', perhaps ?

K: Let's enquire why. Not only identify with outward things, but also inwardly identify with (one's past) experience and say, this is 'my' experience. Why do human beings go through this all the time?

Dr B: At one stage you said we identify (psycho-somatically ?) with our (psycho-somatic) sensations, (with the responses of ?) our senses, and this seems a very powerful (psychological conditioning ?) . What would it be not to identify with our sensations?

K: One would 'attend' so completely that there is only the act of listening and nothing else. When one does listen this way, then one sees directly the the truth that thought is the essence of the self, and that the 'self' creates all (our psychological) misery, it is finished. It is all over when I see the (hidden ?) 'danger' of this thing. So can we listen so completely that there is the absence ( non-ingerence ?) of the 'self'? 

And ( for our everyday homework ?) can we see, observe something directly without the ( usual interference of the ?) self ? "This is my country, I love that sky, it is a beautiful sky" - and all the rest of that ?
So this "ending'' of thought, which is the cutting at the very root of the 'self' does happen when there is this active, non-identifying attention - this 'listening' implies listening to the (responses of the ) senses. I mean you can't stop the senses to respond , then you would be (physically) paralysed. But the moment I say, "That was marvellous taste, I must have more of that", there begins the whole ( psycho-somatic?) identification.

Dr B: It seems to me that this is the general condition of mankind, to be identified with the ( activity of the ?) senses. And...how are we going to change that?

K: That is the whole problem sir. Mankind had been conditioned for millenia to identify with everything - my house, my god, my country, my queen, and all that goes on...

Dr B: You see, with each one of those ( identifications) there is a 'personal' sensation.

K: Which you call the 'personal' experience.

Dr R: Can we come back to our initial point ?

K: When the 'self' ends, what takes place?  There is a totally different (perception of the?) world altogether, a different dimension (of consciousness ). Can I, as a ( liberated?) human being, living in this tremendously violent world, economically, socially, morally and all the rest of it, live without the (psychologically protective shield of the ) 'self'? That means I must put everything in its 'right' place. I have to continue to live, to have ( a decent shelter & clothes &) food, but I don't have to identify myself with that (gorgeous Malibu?) house or with that food, I eat the 'right' ( healthy ) food, and it's finished, therefore it has its right place. Also there are all the bodily demands, sex, put them at their 'right' place ( 'Enjoy responsibly'?) But...how shall I find out what is the right place for everything ? I have got the ( experiential) key to it : "non-identification with sensation", that is the 'key' of it. The identification with sensation makes the (psycho-somatic background of the ?) self. So is it possible not to identify with sensations? If I really see the (inward) truth of it then sex, money, everything has its 'right place'.

Dr R: In other words, you can now see without the 'self'.

K: There is this ( holistic ?) truth that the identification with sensation, with this, or that, builds the structure of the 'self'. Is that an absolute, irrevocable, passionate, lasting truth?

Dr B: But... doesn't that means the end of desire for anything ?

K: No, but ( in the holistic context ?) desire has very little meaning.

Dr B: Are you saying ( that thought's) identification gives desire excessive meaning?

K: Of course. So having put everything in its right place – and it happens because I have seen the truth of this thing - everything falls in its right place. Then what is the right place of thought? Obviously when I am talking I am using words, the words are associated with memory and so there is some 'thinking' (required) there - so thought has its place - to catch a train, when I have to go to the dentist, when I go to do something (in the real world) . But it has no place 'psychologically' when there is the identifying process taking place.

N: Are you implying that because there is no thought the identifying process has lost its strength?

K: We said just now, that living with the truth that identification brings about the structure and the nature of the self, which creates all the innumerable problems, seeing the truth, living ( in the spirit of?) that truth, ( even the complex process of ) thought 'falls into its right place'.

Dr B: So, you are saying that identification makes ( the objective capacity of ) thinking do all the wrong things.

K: That's right. ( the self-?) identification has made thought do the 'wrong' things.

Dr B: And it would be all right otherwise ?

K: Otherwise thought has its place.

Dr B: But when you say ''no identification'', you mean that the 'self' has no more ( psychological) content, doesn't it?

K: There are only sensations.

Dr B: Which are just going on by themselves ?

K: Yes, sensations are going on.

Dr B: Outside or inside ?

K: Inside.

N: And you are also implying there is no 'slipping back' (into the self-identified mode ?) .

K: Of course not. When you see something ( a bad habit?) as being most dangerous (inwardly) , you don't 'slip back' , it is "dangerous". 

So (back to our main theme) is this (ending of self-identification the essence of the 'psychological' ) death? And then, is there a ( new quality of ?) living with the senses fully awakened and alive - but non-identifying oneself with ( these?) sensation wipes away the 'self'.
And ( for more 'meditation homework'?) is it possible to live a daily life with 'death', which is the ending of the 'self'?

Dr R: Yes. Once you see it, 'Finished !'.

K: ( Providing that ) one 'has' an insight into the whole nature of the self.

Dr B: Would you say this ( total) insight transforms the person? 

K: That (holistic) insight transforms not only the state of the mind but the brain cells themselves undergo a ( qualitative) change.

Dr B: Therefore the brain cells being in a different state behave differently, it is not necessary to repeat the insight.

K: So I am left with this now: I am left with the question of what is ( the spiritual significance of ?) 'death'. Is the ending of the 'self' death? Being (inwardly ) nothing (not-a-thing) ? This 'no-thing'-ness, is quite a different state of mind. And this is (meant by entering the House of?) Death while one is still living, with ( armoniously integrated) sensations and the brain active, undamaged (by time) . 

Therefore there is an (inner state of) 'non identification', complete and total. Is that ( the open Door to Selfless ?) Love? This 'dying while living' is Love in which there is no attachment. When there is this (Selfless?) Love, it is a 'global' (Urbi & Orbi?) Love.
Sir, does one ( have this quality of Selfless) love without identification, which implies no self, no attachment?

Dr B: But wouldn't this Love (for All?) come if there were no suffering? You know if mankind were to be free of it... ?

K: Are you saying, a human being must go through suffering to have (this quality of Selfless?) Love?

Dr B: Well, you could say that there could be Love whether there is suffering or not. And the other is compassion, the way the Buddhists use it, is that is only for the suffering.

K: I question that.

Dr R: In the Buddhist doctrine there are four 'Supreme Qualities' - 'Maitri', 'Karuna', 'Mudita', 'Upekkha'. ( 'Maitri' embraces the suffering and the not suffering; 'Karuna' embraces only the suffering, 'Mudita' is directed towards the 'happy people', and 'Upekkha' is equanimity) . These four qualities are called the Brahma Viharas, the supreme, divine qualities. But when you use the word ( Selfless ) 'Love' it is much bigger.

K: No, I haven't come to ( our 'three supreme qualities' ; Love, Intelligence &) Compassion yet, sir. I just want to know as a human being, do I ( feel this selfless?) 'Love' for somebody - the ( local) dog, the chimney, the clouds, that beautiful sky, without identifying (myself with It?) ? Not as a theory but (as an actual) 'fact' (of life) ?

Dr S: As long as I feel (self-conscious?)... I cannot do it.

K: Madam, we said the ( ultimate?) truth is: "the identification breeds the self which causes all the trouble, miseries".

Dr S: But only if this (Universal Truth ?) is seen.

K: I said that (for K?) , it is an absolute, irrevocable reality, it is in my blood, I can't get rid of my blood, it is there.

Dr S: Then... you cannot help but 'Love'.

K: No, no. You are all too quick.

Dr S: I beg your pardon ?

K: Do you see the truth that (personal attachment &?) 'identification' is the root of the self, ( identifying oneself?) with thought and all the rest of it? That is an absolute fact, like seeing a precipice, or a deadly ( but...time-released ?) 'poison' ? There is absolutely no (desire for) identification, when you see the ( inner) "dangers" (implied) .
Then what is my (new) relationship to the world, to nature, to my woman, man, child? Is there indifference, callousness, saying "I don't identify" and put your nose in the air?

Dr R: That would be very 'selfish'....

K: Is this what is going to happen if ( your 'seeing' ?) is intellectual.

Dr R: That is what I meant : you would be even more 'selfish' you have not seen (the truth of it ?) ...

K: I am asking, sir, is this 'non-identification' becoming a (top of the line spiritual) ideal according to which I am going to live and therefore my relationship to the dog, to the wife, to the husband, to the girl, or whatever it is becomes very superficial, casual. It is only when this ( danger of personal ?) identification is absolutely 'cut out' of one's life, there is no ( more mental ) callousness then - because that ( totally insightful perception?) is Real.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 23 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Jan 2015 #12
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

LIFE AFTER DEATH AND THE 'STREAM OF TIME'

(a reader friendly edited K dialogue with Dr Rahula & Friends) )

K: Sir, your question was, if there is ( a continuity of ?) life after death ?

Dr Rahula : You see, I wanted to put you this question because all religions accept a life after death. However, Buddhism does not accept the idea that the 'self', or the 'soul', is something permanent, eternal, everlasting, unchanging. Buddhism states that man is composed of five 'aggregates' ( Form, Sensation, Perception, Mental Formation & Consciousness - and they are governed by the principle of impermanence. Therefore each of the aggregates is undergoing constant changes) and what we commonly call 'death' is only the non-functioning of the (physical) body. But this does not mean the non-functioning of all other qualities and forces, like 'desire', the "will to become", and all that. So ( the redeeming opportunity of?) 'rebirth' is there for him, because he is not perfect. But it is not one unchanging substance that goes on, but as Buddha says, every moment we are dead and reborn. So in Buddhism we use now the term 'rebirth'. The question is asked very often in Buddhism: is it the same person ( being reborn) or another one? The traditional Buddhist answer is, "neither he nor another". That is, as a child grows up to be a man of fifty, he is neither the same child nor another one. In the same way, it is 'neither he nor another'. That is the Buddhist attitude to rebirth. Now I would like to know what is your attitude and what is your interpretation?

K: Sir, could we take a journey investigating into this together ?
(For starters?) Would you say that ( the shared consciousness of?) all humanity is (presently) caught in sorrow, conflict, strife, loneliness, unhappiness, confussion; that is the common lot of all men, throughout the world? (In short) "You 'are' the world and the world 'is' you" ?

R: Yes. In a sense...

K: Not 'in a sense'. It is not 'partially so' , it 'is so'. Outwardly one's culture, one's tradition, one's climate, food, all that may vary. But inwardly we have the same feeling of ( existential ?) anxiety, loneliness, various forms of depression, sorrow and fear, this is (the shared substrate of 'ignorance' ? ) in the consciousness of all human beings. So all the human beings throughout the world are (inwardly) more or less similar, apart from their physical 'name' and 'form'. Would you agree?

R: Yes...

K: So one can say, as an ( inwardly perceivable?) fact, that we human beings are alike : you 'are' me and I 'am' you.

R: Yes, we are inwardly very similar.

K: And so the 'world', the (shared consciousness of ?) humanity is one. Would you agree?

F: ( The consciousness of ) Humanity is one.

K: So, if you see ( the inner truth of ?) that, then...'what' is it that dies? The 'name' & the (physical) 'form' (certainly) , but the anxiety, the pain, the sorrow, the misery does it also die ? If this is the Stream ( of Time ) in which man lives, psychologically, then what is it that dies? The form and the name may die but this vast stream (of human consciousness ?) is going on all the time. It's (like) a Great River. Let's discuss it.

M: Sir, are you saying that ( as long as we are part of that ?) stream , the whole notion of our 'individual' consciousness is a complete illusion?

K: I think so.

M: Then, why everyone has this ( very real sense of his/her isolated individuality ?) ?.

K: Because this whole 'idea' that ''you are an individual'' is part of our culture, both religiously and worldly. (And also because ?) the word 'individual' is really misapplied, because 'in-dividual' literally means "one who is indivisible". But we're all (inwardly ?) 'broken up' . So we can hardly call ourselves 'individuals'.

F: You mean that we are (inwardly) 'fragmented' ?

K: We are fragmented ( self-centred & ) broken up. So if we see that man's consciousness 'is' ( actually) the consciousness of the world , in that vast "River (of Time?) " which has no beginning, which is still going on, when I die, what happens to all my ( unfulfilled expectations &?) desires, what happens to all my (personal) anxieties, fears, longings, aspirations, the enormous burden of sorrow which I have (unknowingly) carried for years - what happens to all that?

F: It 'co-mingles' with the world's Stream ?

K: It 'is' part of that stream - which has manifested itself as 'K' , with his (personal name and ?) form. Sir, this is a very 'drastic' (statement ?) compared to all the (promises of ) religions.

R: Now this was exactly my question: in that stream there is 'X'...

K: Wait! There is no ( personal consciousness of ?) 'X'. That's my whole point. There is only that Stream (of Mankind's Evolution in Time ?) - made up of ( high hopes and ?) desires, ( of depressing?) anxieties and loneliness, and all the 'travail' of mankind. That is the River.

F: As well as their ( positive?) 'opposites' ?

K: My (joys &) pleasures, which last for a few days, and then I cry if I can't get them, so it's all part of that vast River (of Time) .

F: Would you say, sir, that that which we naw call the 'individual' (mind) is a misnomer ?

K: Not only a 'misnomer', but I don't think it (really?) exists: because ( at the deeper levels ?) your consciousness is like everybody else's.

M: Is there nothing else apart from that ( Collective Stream) in the human consciousness ?

K: In that Stream, man has invented 'gods', 'saviours', all that - they are all part of that Stream.

M: But apart from the invention, the illusions, isn't there any other 'something'?

K: You mean, is there anything 'spiritual', anything that is not of ( the Stream of thought & ) time ?  . Is that what you're asking?

M: Yes, whether in the human mind, or consciousness there is not something (else) that is not of the Stream ? I'm asking if there's something else in man's consciousness except this River (of thought & Time) .

K: Nothing. No 'atman', no 'soul', no-thing. Don't accept it , please.

M: If that were so, there would be no (possibility to ) end to the Stream...

R: What Mary (Z) just said, is a very important point to consider...

K: Yes. We'll answer presently (about) the ( consciousness of the ?) man who 'steps out' ... But in considering ( the psychological aspects of?) 'death', I want this point to be clear : that ( until further notice?) we 'are' part of that Stream, that our consciousness 'is' of that Stream.

F: Yes, that is so...

K: And when the body dies, the desires, the anxieties, the tragedies and the (compounded ?) misery goes on : I die (physically) but that Stream, that River (of Time ?) is going on. I don't see how you can reject it...
So ( back to the 'personal' issue :) this River (of Time) manifests itself as 'K'. 

R: Not the whole river, though... One of its manifestations is 'K'.

K: The river manifests itself as K. And K has certain (personal gifts &) capacities by ( his brahmanic ?) tradition, by education and so on, but we're talking 'psychologically'.

R: I agree that for the whole humanity without exception, all ( the deeper stuff?) you describe as 'suffering' and all the rest , are common to all humanity.

K: We are ( personalised manifestations of ?) of that Stream. I 'am' the representative of all mankind.

R: Well, I don't know about that...

N: (At least potentially?) all the qualities of the Stream are in me.

K: : Yes, that's right. All the qualities of that Stream.

N: In the sense that ( qualitatively) any 'drop' contains all the qualities of the River.

M: Would it be helpful to use the example of a 'wave' ? A wave is no different from the rest of the ocean. But it manifests momentarily as a 'wave' which then disappears.

K: If you like to put it that (metaphorical) way... But ( responsibility -wise) this point must be clear. Each one of us is (consciously or...not?) the representative of all mankind, the representative of the whole of that Stream. Now, that stream manifests itself as 'X', with a (physical) form and a name, and also in this Stream ( of our Collective Consciousness?) there is also 'art', every thing is in there.

Now, as long as one ( individualised?) 'manifestation' of that Stream leaves the Stream , he is completely free of that Stream.

R: So if you leave the River ( of collective Thought & Time?) , then you leave the whole humanity, then all humanity is away.

K: That Stream has manifested in X and if in ( the time-span of ?) that manifestation, X doesn't (care to ?) free himself completely from ( the man-made 'qualities' of ?) this stream, (at his death ?) he's back in it.

M: But, sir, this is what my earlier question referred to : what else 'is' there ( in the human consciousness?) ? And you said there was 'nothing' apart from the Stream...

K: I haven't yet explained it (properly?) . So, if that A doesn't 'step out' of that Stream, there is no ( true Hope for the ?) salvation for mankind.

M: Sir, what is there ( in 'A' s total consciousness that allows him ?) to 'step out'?

K: Finish with your ( time-binding attachments ?) anxieties, sorrow, all the rest of it.

M: But you said there was nothing ( else in that consciousness ?) except the 'content' of the stream.

K: ( Correction: ?) As long as 'I' remain in the stream.

M: What is this 'I'?

K: 'I' is the 'thing' that has manifested itself as 'A', and (s)he calls himself 'individual', which is not factual, which is illusory. So when 'A' dies, his ( "personalised" consciousness is still going on as?) part of that Stream. That's clear ?

M: Yes, but how can the ( drop of ?) water of the Stream 'step out' of the stream?

K: Oh, yes (it can, given enough energy ?)

P: So there is some logical error in your...

K: Is that 'so' or not ? Aren't you the 'representative' of whole of mankind, psychologically?

R: Yes, but I think that is both too general and too vague a statement.

K: No, ( responsibility -wise ?) it's not 'vague'. The 'Stream (of Time') is this ( karmic ?) 'content' of our consciousness, which is agony, pain, desire, strife, all that.

R: That is common to all. In that sense, all humanity is one. But I can't accept your position, that I 'am' humanity.

K: If I accept ( the inner reality of ?) that Stream, that I'm part of that stream, therefore I am like the rest of humanity.

R: 'Like' the rest...

K: I said that, therefore a 'representative' of all of that Stream.

R: That also I accept. But you can't say "I am the whole stream".

K: No, I 'am' that stream.

M: Sir, maybe we're being too literal, but what is 'that' that can (step out and ?) individualise itself from the Stream if it is only made up of the water of the stream?

R: Her point is this. What is it that 'steps out' of the river. That is the question.

K: If that is the question, I'll answer it presently. You see, in asking this question, "what is it that steps out ?", you're positing an 'Otherness', something which is not of the Stream. And I've said that as long as (a responsible ?) man does not step out of that Stream, there is no salvation to mankind. That's all.

F: Sir, I think the question which the lady (M) asked implies an identifiable (spiritual) entity.

M: A 'something' (of purely spiritual essence?) ?

K: I know what you're trying to say.

N: Some (dormant ?) aspect of 'intelligence'....

M: 'Something' that can step out of the Stream.

K: Yes, is there some (innate ?) aspect of ( wisdom or?) Intelligence in the stream?

N: Yes, which sees the...

K: Which sees the (whole situation ) ... yes, and therefore steps out?

N: Sees the futility of ( endlessly drifting within that Karmic ?) Stream.

K: Yes...

M: So then this quality is (innate in the consciousness of ) all the other human things, something that is able to separate (individualise ?) itself from all the rest of the stream.

K: Why do you (have to ?) introduce some other factor?

R: According to Buddha's teaching, in that Stream there is also (a non-personal quality of ?) 'wisdom' which 'sees' the (existential tragedy of the?) whole thing. And then is that 'stepping out', that 'seeing' is the stepping out.

K: A is of that stream, with a name and a form. And as he lives he realizes what he's going through. Right? In that realization he says, "I'm suffering." Then he begins to enquire into the whole nature of his suffering, and 'ends' that suffering. And he is out of that stream. That ( spiritually reborn ?) 'entity' is really unique, who is out of that stream.

S: So it's something (new awakened ?) that wasn't there before ?

K:(Recap ?) That Stream ( Of Time) has manifested itself in 'A'.
As 'A' is living (responsibly?) , he realizes he's suffering (or...the Noble Truth of Suffering?) , and he doesn't ( attempt to ) escape from it, because he wants to know the whole nature of it, what is behind that suffering. So he examines it, both logically, sanely and also non-verbally. Looks into it. And the very 'looking into it' is (coming?) the insight. It is not of the Stream, the looking into the suffering.

R: That 'looking in', from where does it come?

K: He's concerned, he's questioning the whole beastly thing: Why is there suffering? In the very enquiry of it ( Clue : the integrity of his enquiry depends on your resilient capacity of not 'escaping' and all the rest of it - in the very enquiry into the nature of suffering and the cause and effect of it and so on, in that very enquiry comes ( a Flash of Divine ?) Insight. Insight isn't in the Stream.

R: Then where does that (Flash of ?) "insight" come from?

K: As 'A' begins to enquire, he realizes (that an authentic ?) enquiry can only exist when there's complete freedom from all escapes ; so in that moment of ( holistic) enquiry there is ( a Divine Spark of ?) Insight.

N: You're implying that (spark of) 'Insight' is just being born, which is not of the stream ?

K: Don't introduce 'born', 'not of the stream'...

N: Then, where does it come from this insight?

K: I'm telling you. From the freedom to enquire.

N: Where does that 'freedom to enquire' come from?

K: From his own examination. He realises that that as long as he's not free from the blockages ( and the usual energy wastage ?) that prevents exploration, and thereforeas he ( wisely ?) puts them aside, he's now free to enquire. And in that freedom is (occurring the Flash of?) Insight.

P: There is missing a 'link' here.

K: There may be ten ( steps missing ?).... Let's follow it step by step : A is the manifestation of that stream. Part of ( one's safe living within ?) that Stream is suffering. A is suffering, so A says, "Why, should I suffer?" Man has given a dozen explanations, but the man who is (fully immersed in?) suffering says, " I reject all that, because that doesn't leave me the freedom to enquire.

F: So, the traditional (introspective) enquiry...

K: ...is part of the stream.

F: How about the 'free enquiry' ?

K: A realizes he can only explore (efficiently?) if he's (inwardly) free to look : free from fear, free from reward and punishment, free from any kind of (personal) motive. The moment he's in that ( holistic ?) state of examination, there is ( a Divine Spark of ?) Insight. This is (logically ?) very clear...

F: And of course ( experientially it is ?) very difficult to do.

K: Because we have never given all our energy to this. We don't care, we have put up with so many things... Suppose that 'B' is part of that stream, and he also suffers, but he says, "Yes, but that's the human nature, there is no way out, I'll put up with it." So he is contributing to the Stream. So we come to the (critical?) point: what is death?

R: So, A is out of the river ?

K: No, sir. A is not out of the river.

R: But he has seen, he has some insight ?

K: He has insight. The moment A is (becoming responsibly ) aware of his conditioned state and begins to enquire into it, he has got the energy to put aside ( the conditioned content?)

F: Tthe Buddha himself said, "Put aside with the right wisdom all (your attachments to ) shape and form, all sensation, all perceptions, even to your discriminative consciousness itself."

R: That's what I say. Put it aside with 'right wisdom', but he (K's 'absolute' approach ?) is making it look so complicated.

K: We're all making it complicated, it is actually very simple : A doesn't accept any (spiritual) authority. So in his enquiry into sorrow, A rejects everything that anybody else had said on this subject.
Sir, the printed word or the hearsay, to a 'hungry' man has no meaning.
The food is not cooked by anybody, I have to cook it, eat it.

So, what is the state of the mind of the human being who has had an insight into the whole nature of suffering, and therefore into the whole Stream (of Time) ? What is the nature of that mind? Is not ( the newly awakened ?) Intelligence essentially part of Love and Compassion ?
What do you say, sir? The 'love' in the stream is not Love.

R: Agreed, as long as there is the 'me' there is no Love.

K: You see, sir, are we discussing intellectually all this? Or realizing, seeing that this Stream ( of Time ?) 'is' you, and say, "Look, examine, end it ?"  The immediacy (of this 'ending of Time' ) only takes place when there is Insight.

See, sir, what is Immortality? We have related immortality as something beyond death - mortal and the beyond mortality, beyond death. No?

F: That's the usual conception. But... what happened to our initial question?

K: About death and rebirth?

R: Yes, what happened there ?

K: I've told you. "Rebirth" is in this constant Stream (of Time) , which constantly manifesting itself into A, B, C, down the alphabet.

SS: Are you also suggesting therefore death is part of that Stream?

K: You see, sir, to find out what 'death' is, one has to be with death. That means, to end one's (personal ?) attachments and beliefs, end to everything that one has ( psychologically ?) collected .
You see, the man who has gone through this, he doesn't think even in "Streams", it's something entirely different.

M: It's the action of the insight, is it not?

K: Yes, the action of insight. Action of insight, and you cannot have (free access to ?) insight if there is no ( Selfless) Love, Compassion & intelligence. And only then there is a relationship to Truth.

So have we answered the question? Is there a 'reincarnation', a continuation of the 'me' in different forms? I say, no!

R: Of course not, of course not. First of all there is no 'me' to be reborn.

K: No, sir, (it is ?) the Stream that 'manifests' (incarnates itself ?) and then B says, "I am ", therefore I'm frightened to die. But as long as B lives in that stream, his consciousness is part of that stream, he's only contributing more and more to the volume of that 'water'. So there is no (individually integrated ?) 'me' to continue. Sir, nobody will ( readily ?) accept this, but it's the truth.

F: You would agree then, that what is necessary is to see in this profound (way ?) …

K: Yes, ( the insightful ?) 'seeing' is that.

F: ... and that 'truly seeing' is the real creative action.

K: (The 'insightful' seeing ?) 'is' action, the moment I see, I drop anxiety. The moment I see I'm 'petty-minded', it's finished.

F: It is a complete transformation of the ordinary psychical process.

K: Yes.

M: Isn't it really the place where most people 'go wrong', that they do not 'see' in the sense you're talking about; they see verbally, intellectually, on various levels, but they don't really 'see' ?

K: I think mostly they don't mind being ( comfortably self-centred and ?) sorrowful, they say well why not? One doesn't see one's own petty reactions.

M: Or they don't 'see' that 'they don't see' They don't realize that what they think is understanding is not (what they think it is) .

K: But Maria, has one dropped any opinion that one holds? One's prejudices, completely? Or one's (personal ?) experience?

So if 'A' is no longer (part) of the Stream, his (time-free) Consciousness is entirely different. It is a different dimension altogether. Let's put it round the other way: Goodness has been always part of (the total Consciousness of ?) Mankind – as has been its 'badness' . (So, why ?) not contribute to the ( Reservoir of ) Goodness (rather than) to the other...

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 24 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Mar 2015 #13
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K CONVERSATION WITH PROF. BOHM, MR. NARAYAN AND TWO BUDDHIST SCHOLARS (experientially friendly edited )

The redundancy of verbal knowledge when dealing holistically with the internal dynamic of the human psyche

K: Most minds are weighed down with (second hand?) knowledge. Can such a mind perceive what is truth? Or must it be free from ( the field of) knowledge?

R: I think that in life, most of the things are useful at the beginning, for instance, as young children at school we can't write without rules, but today I can't write on ruled paper. But at that stage...

K: I agree that when you are at school, college and university, you need ( guidelines?) but (in the area of self-knowing?) does not the beginning matter enormously ? Does the freedom ( from the known?) exist (only) at the end or ( it should be there from the very?) the beginning?

R: There are two terms in Buddhism with regard to the (those following the spiritual) way: all those people who are on the way , but have not yet arrived, may need disciplines, precepts. But an 'Arhat' who has realized the truth has no ( need for these ) disciplines because he is beyond that.

K: You are talking about knowledge being useful or necessary, as a 'boat' to cross the River. Which means accepting ( the concept of a spirirual) evolution (in time) , advancing gradually, and ultimately reaching Truth.

R: What do you think?

K: What do I think? No.

Dr Schloegel: I am very much with you, I can't believe (that it works this way)

K: We must go into it very carefully because the whole tradition, both Buddhist, Hindu and Christian, all the religious and non-religious attitudes are caught up in ( the mentality of time) : 'I will become better, I will be good, I will eventually blossom in goodness'. I am saying in that there is ( a seed of ?) untruth in it.

S: I entirely agree, for the very good reason that ever since human beings have existed as far as we know, we all knew that 'we should (try to) be good'. If it would be possible to progress (along this line) we would not be the human beings that we are nowadays. We would all have progressed sufficiently.

K: We have progressed technologically, scientifically, medically and all the rest of it, but inwardly, we have not - we are what we were ten thousand years ago, or more (but in a more sophisticated way?) .

S: And having evolved so many systems of 'how to do it' has not managed to help us to become precisely that. As I see it there is a specific (hidden) obstacle in all of us, since most of us want to be good but most of us do not bring it off .

K: Biologically there is evolution. But we have transferred that biological fact into our 'psychological' existence, thinking that ( inwardly) 'psychologically' we will also evolve (or improve?) .

R: But I don't think that is the ( Buddhist) attitude. That realization of truth, attainment of truth, or seeing the truth, is without a plan, is without a scheme.

K: Is 'out of time' ?

R: Out of time. Exactly.

K: Therefore why should I ( bother to) accumulate (academic?) knowledge (in this area ) ? Is it because my brain , which has evolved for millenia, (assumes that ) acquiring knowledge (about its inner workings?) will reveal the extraordinary truth ?

R: Yes, but how can you 'undo' all that if you are ( already) conditioned ?

K: Let's go into it a little more. But is it a fact, or we have just assumed that inwardly truth will take place if I prepare the (psychological) 'ground' ?

R: The realization of Truth is a 'revolution', not an evolution.

K: So inwardly can there be (such a ) a 'revolution'?

R: Yes. Certainly.

K: Which means what? No time.

R: There is no time in it. But am I asking you : how do you proceed ?

K: Proceed with what?

R: With that 'Realization of Truth', how do you do it?

K: Ah, that's quite a different matter...

R: What I was saying is that we are ( presently) 'conditioned' (by our knowledge) . Nobody can tell us ( how to get free of ) that, however much they try. So the ( first step of your inner) 'revolution' is to see that you are conditioned. The moment you see that it has no time, it is an entire revolution ( which is set going) and that is the Truth.

K: But suppose one 'is' conditioned ( to think within ?) the evolutionary pattern : 'I have been, I am, I shall be'. That is our whole attitude, psychological structure of our being. This is an everyday fact.

R: ( In Buddhism) there is no question of 'trying to be good'.

K: But sir but average human being says, "I am not as good as I should be, but give me a couple of weeks, or a couple of years - and I will be awfully good".

R: Certainly that is the attitude of the people.

K: Practically everybody. That is our ( cultural) 'conditioning' ( the collective mentality?) - the Christian, the Buddhist, the whole world is conditioned by this idea, which may have come from the biological idea of progress moved (or transfered) into the 'psychological' field.  So, how is a ( serious) human being, to 'break through' this pattern without time?

R: Only by ( an insightful) 'seeing'.

K: You say it is only by seeing, but ... I can't 'see'.

R: Then you can't (make it)...

S: For me personally as a Westerner, as a one-time scientist, I have found the most satisfactory answer in the Buddhist teaching that 'I' blind myself, 'I' am my own ( perceptive) obstacle, as long as 'I', with all my (pro-active) bundle of ( personal & collective?) conditioning, am here, one cannot see and act.

N: There seems to be one ( extra ) difficulty in this. Knowledge has a certain fascination, a certain power - knowledge, whether it is Buddhist, or scientific, gives you a peculiar inner sense of freedom  and you value it, even if it hasn't got the quality of what you might call 'truth'. The ( hidden) difficulty with all ( these spiritual) practices seems to be that when you practice you feel that you achieve something; and that feeling of 'achievement' has got a certain power, a certain fascination and maybe a certain ( sense of inner) clarity.

R: By that you get 'attached' to it.

N: Yes. And to 'break away' from it is much more ( disturbing?) than for a ( total) beginner, who may see something more directly.

R: That depends on the individual. You can't generalize.

K: One can generalize as a 'principle'. But let's come back to being inwardly 'attached' to in this idea of ( our spiritual ) progress. One might have transferred ( the evolutionary attitude) to our psychological existence. Now is that the truth ?

R: I don't think it is the truth.

K: Therefore I abandon the whole idea of ( following a spiritual ?) discipline. When a ( spiritually minded) human being sees the falseness of it, actually not theoretically, then it is finished.

R: Absolutely.

K: Why should I then acquire knowledge of scriptures, of this or that, inwardly? Why do I read the Buddha?

R: I told you, because we are all ( starting from being) conditioned.

Bohm: Could I ask (you a personal?) question: do you accept that you are conditioned?

R: I accept it. To exist in time is to be conditioned.

B: Well, Krishnaji has said in some of our (private) discussions, that he was not deeply conditioned in the beginning and that therefore he had a certain (clarity) 'insight' that would not be common. Is that fair?

K: Please leave me out of it. I may be a 'biological freak' (a 'psychological' mutant?) ... Back to our (meditative?) inquiry : can we see the truth that ( spiritually) there is no 'movement forward' . Do we as ( holistically responsible) human beings see the falseness of what we have done?

R: You mean, the human beings generally?

K: The whole world.

R: No, they don't see it.

K: Therefore when you are telling them, read what the Buddha said, what Christ said, and so on - they are full of this ( greedy?) accumulative instinct which (they hope) will propel themselves into ( a Starway to?) Heaven.

B: But, is it true that we are all ( 100%) conditioned? That is really what I wanted to say.

R: That is a very complicated question. As far as our society is concerned, all are ( supposed to be culturally standardised or?) conditioned. But we are talking about an (individual ) Realization which has no time, which is unconditioned.

B: We can all accumulate knowledge about our conditioning, we can observe the common human experience, we can look at people and see they are 'generally' (speaking) conditioned. But...can we see in a more 'direct' way that we are all conditioned ?

K: There may be, or there may not be. But how would that help?

B: The point I was trying to make is that if we say « we are all conditioned » then I think there is nothing else to do but some kind of 'disciplined' or 'gradual' approach. That is, you begin with ( the reality of?) your conditioning.

K: Not necessarily...

B : That's the way I take from the assumption that if we begin all ( by being 100%) conditioned, then how can we be free of the conditioning as we do whatever we do?

R: The freedom from conditioning is to 'see'.

B: Well, the same question, how do we 'see' (as long as we are conditioned) ?

R: Of course, many people have tried various ways...

K: No, no, there are not 'various ways'. The moment you say '( there is?) a way', you have already 'conditioned' him.

R: Then you are also 'conditioning' ( people) by your talks, your lectures are also conditioning. Trying to uncondition the mind is also ( havong the risk of ) conditioning it ( in a different way?) .

K: I question whether what K is talking about 'conditions' the mind. I doubt it, I question it.

R: So, the ( experiential) question is how to 'see' it...

K: There is no 'how'. Do I, as a (holistically responsible) 'human being', see the falseness the step human beings have taken, moving from the 'biological' to the 'psychological' field , with the same ( evolutionary?) mentality? There is ( an obvious) progress, from the (discovery of the ?) wheel to the jet engine . But (inwardly?) do I see the 'mischief' that human beings have created, moving ( with the same mentality?) from there to this?

R: Yes...

K: Do I see it (here & now?) as I see this table? Or I say, "Yes, I accept the idea of it," and moving further away from ( dealing with the actual) the facts.

R: Yes. I guess that human beings (got stuck?) in that.

K: Sir, it is seen as a fact that we have (transfered?) that mentality (of our limitless material progress?), into the psychological field and create there a 'false' movement?

S: Don't we all want to 'become' something (better than what we are now) ?

K: Which is, you want a sense of (personal) achievement.

S: So, it is all in the 'wanting'...

K: So why doesn't a human being see what s/he has actually done ?

S: I may not like to see it. I fear it.

K: Therefore you are ( inwardly?) living in an illusion.

S: I want to be (inwardly) 'something else' than what I am actually afraid to see (now). This is where the divide is.

K: No, madam. when you see what ( is wrong with what?) you have done ( by avoiding to see it?) there is no fear.

S: But I usually do not 'see' it.

K: Why don't you see it?

S: I suspect, because of fear (of opening Pandora's Box?)  ?

K: You are entering into quite a different field, (of our unconscious) fears. But I would just like to know as an (academical ?) enquiry, why human beings have played this game for millenia. Why this living in this false ( yet... very safe?) structure ( of the known?) , and then the people come along and say, be unselfish, be this and all the rest of it – why?

S: Could it be that all human beings have a very strong irrational side ?

K: Because ( inwardly) we are not living with ( a direct perception of the?) 'facts' but with ( a mental 'firewall' of ?) ideas and knowledge. The actual 'fact' is that biologically there is (an evolution ?), but psychologically there isn't.
And so ( in ignoring it?) we give ( a disproportionate ) importance to knowledge, ideas, theories, philosophy, and all the rest of it.

R: You don't see at all a certain development, an evolution, even 'psychologically'? A man who has been very undesirable, criminal, telling lies, ( cheating on the stock market?) and all these things - you explain to him certain very fundamental, very elementary things, and ( while staying in prison?) he 'changes' into a better man, now he does not ( need to?) steal, now he does not tell lies...Don't you agree that you can meet a criminal like that, you explain to him what is wrong in the way that he lives, and he realizes what you have said, because of your personal ( noble?) influence, or whatever it be, he transforms himself, he changes himself.

K: I am not sure, sir. You can pacify him, you know, give him a reward and this and that, but the criminally minded man, will he ever listen to any sanity ?

R: I don't know. Until I have more proof I can't say that...

K: I have no proof either, but you can see what is ( generally) happening.

R: What is happening is that we don't know whether any terrorists have been converted into good men. We have no proof.

K: You see that is my whole point . The 'bad' man evolving into the 'good' man.

R: In the conventional sense I can't deny that. A 'bad' man, or a criminal, changing his way of life, and becoming a 'good' man .

K: Yes, we know that, we have dozens of examples ( of 'better ' people after quitting smoking or gambling...?) . But that is not Goodness. Goodness is not born out of 'badness'.

N: We might put it this way. In the conventional level the 'bad' man might become a 'good' man. But I think we carry same that attitude to our inner progress, psychologically. That's one thing we do, the human mind does.

K : May I put it this way: is there really an 'opposite' (to 'what is') 'psychologically' ? Is there an opposite of fear? Is there an opposite of goodness? Is love the opposite of hate?

R: When we talk about 'good' and 'bad' we are talking in the dualistic level. You can't talk about the absolute in terms of good or bad, there is nothing called absolute good, or bad.

K: Is courage the opposite of fear? That is, if fear is non-existent ( can the new condition be called) 'courage'? Or it is something totally different?

S: It is something totally different.

K: Therefore Goodness is never the opposite of 'badness' . The 'freedom' which is ( thought of as?) the ( idealised) opposite of my ( existing) conditioning is not freedom at all. That ( idealised image of?) 'freedom' is born out of my conditioning because I am caught in this prison and I want to be free. It is a ( mental) reaction to the prison, which is not freedom.

R: I don't quite follow you...

K: Sir, is ( the Selfless?) Love the opposite of 'hate'?
If it is, then in that 'love', there is (a karmic residue of?) hate, because it is born out of hate, out of the opposite.

R: How?

K: Sir, if someone 'hates' (dislikes?) you but then says I must have 'love' (for this person) , that ( programmed) 'love' is born out of ( the old feeling of dislike or?) hate. So 'that' is the opposite of 'this'. So you ( the ethically minded person?) are already caught in this 'corridor of opposites'. And I question its whole ( validity). We have invented it (for our ethical & moral convenience) , but actually it doesn't exist.

S: Personally I see this channel (of opposites) as a humanizing factor – ecvept that we got caught in it.

K: Oh no, that is not a ( really?) 'humanizing' factor. 'I have been a tribal (territorial?) entity, now I have become a nationalistic entity , and …. ultimately I will be internationalistic - it is the old 'tribalism' going on ( with higher levels of tolerance) .

S: I see some ( moral) progress in the sense I could have laughed when you had broken your leg, nowadays I could not laugh any more.

B: In the sense that we are not as barbaric as we were before. Right?

S: That is what I mean by the 'humanizing factor'.

K: I question whether it is (100%) 'humanizing'.

B: You are saying that this is not a 'genuine' progress. You see, in the past people were far more barbaric generally than they are today, but you're saying that that really doesn't mean very much?

K: We are still 'barbarous'.

B: Yes, but... not as 'barbaric' as in the dark ages

K: Not 'as'...

B: Let's see if we can get it straight. Would you say that our moral & ethical progress is not significant?

K: No. When I say that I am ( inwardly ) better than I was - it has no ( holistic?) meaning.

B: I think you should better clarify this...

K: I see how the (image of the?) 'opposite' is born in everyday life : I am greedy, that's a fact, and if I remain with the fact that now I 'am' that greed, then I can do something about it now. Therefore there is no ( point to project its ) opposite. So then I can then deal ( in real time?) with (my psychological) facts, ( rather than by trying to substitute them?) with 'non-facts'.

R: So... what is your point?

K: My point is, there is no ( need to think in terms of ?) duality even in daily life. It is the ( convenient?) invention of all these philosophers, intellectuals, who say there is the opposite, work for that. The fact is 'I am violent' ( or we have has a psychological heritage of strong self-interest based reactions?) and we can deal with them ( here & now) rather than invent ( 'fake ideals' of?) 'non-violence'.

S: The question now is: how am I going to deal with it (in real time)

K: Then we can proceed, I'll show you.

S: And the question is 'how ?' to proceed.

K: We'll proceed with the (preliminary step one : ) Don't run but remain with the 'fact'. Can you do it?

S: It is part of our (daily Zen Buddhist ) training.

K: Of course you can do it. It is like seeing something (as being) dangerous and you say, "It's dangerous I won't go near it".

R: If you 'see' ( the actual danger) there is no running away from it.

K: I am saying (step one:) Don't run. Then ( step two) you 'see'.
So there is no 'duality' as the (cultivation of the?) opposite.

R: So, what is the argument? We agree there are only facts.

K: Which means, sir, to look at 'facts', time is not necessary.
And if time is not necessary I can see it now.

R: Yes, agreed.

K: You can see it now. So...why don't you?

R: That is another question..
B: If you take it seriously that 'time' is not necessary (to see the 'facts') then right now one 'could' perhaps clear up the whole thing.

R: Yes, but this does not means all human beings can do it (right away) , there are people who can do it (right now, and some that can do it later...)

K: No. If I can see it, you can see it.

R: I don't think so. Here I don't agree with you.

K: It is not a question of agreement ? When we have 'ideals' ( or redeeming plans?) away from 'facts', then time is necessary to get there : I must have more (self-) knowledge to progress. All that ( time-delaying) comes in. Right? So can you abandon ( your spiritual ) 'ideals'?

R: It is possible.

K: Ah, the moment you use the words 'it is possible' ( but not right now, the postponement of the 'directly perceptive' action in?) 'time' is there. 'Do it now, sir !' - I am not being authoritarian, but when you say 'it is possible' you have already moved away.

R: I mean, not everybody can do it (right here & now) .

K: How do you know?

R: That is a ( statistical?) fact.

K: No, I won't accept that...

S: I can perhaps come in with a more concrete example : If I stand on a high springboard over a swimming pool and I cannot swim, and I am told ''  Just jump in and relax completely, the ( buoyancy ) will carry you (safely to the surface) ''. There is nothing that prevents me except I am frightened of doing it. That is the (same critical) point as in your question : Of course I can 'do it', there is no difficulty, but it is this basic (primal?) fear (of the Unknown?) which does not stand to reason that makes us 'shy away' (and temporise ) .

K: Please forgive me, I am not (yet?) talking of that. If one realizes that one is greedy, why do we invent 'non-greed'?

S: It seems to me pretty obvious that if I am greedy, then... I 'am' greedy.

K: So to deal (directly) with the problem, 'remove' (the interference of the 'known') . I can't have one foot 'there' and one foot 'here'. I must have both my feet 'here'.

S: And then, if both my feet are 'here'? Supposing I see that I am greedy, or violent ?

K: Then I have only this fact, '' I am greedy''. Now ( the next step is;) do we go into that (non-verbally ) ? The very word 'greed' is condemnatory. You cannot understand the depth and the feeling of 'greed' or be free of it if you are caught in words. So as my 'whole being' is concerned with observing the actuality of that greed ( including the observer's 'greed'?) is it the same (quality of?) feeling if the (non-personal) observation is divorced from the word 'greed' ?

S: No, it isn't. Please go on.

K: So as my mind is full of ( culturally loaded ) words and ( the 'observer' entity?) is caught in words, can it look at something, like 'greed', without the ( connotations of the?) word?

R: That is really seeing the 'fact'.

K: Then only I see (directly) the (ongoing) 'fact'.

R: Yes, without the ( screen of?) words.

K: This is where the ( experiential) difficulty lies, sir : I want to be free of ( violent reactions like ) greed because my (moral) education says 'be free of that ugly thing'. So I am all the time making an effort to be free of (or to dissociate myself from?) that (undesirable reaction) . So now I have only the fact : I am greedy. Can I look at it without past remembrances? Then ( as the ' censoring observer' does not interfere?) it is ( seen as ) something 'new' ( not previously known) so I won't condemn it. So ( the first & last perceptive step is:) can one look at it without the word, without the ( mental ) associations of words (and without the 'me-who-knows-best ' ?) That doesn't need constant practice, but just 'look' at that tree, woman, man, sky, heaven, without the word and find out (for myself what Life is all about?) ? 

(By Jove, we have been talking an hour and a half !)

R: There are several other things that I would like to ask you tomorrow morning and afternoon. (to be continued...)

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 25 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Mar 2015 #14
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

Another K CONVERSATION WITH PROF.BOHM, MR.NARAYAN AND TWO BUDDHIST SCHOLARS ( experientially friendly edited)

WHAT IS THE 'TOTAL' ( 'HOLISTIC') ACTION ?

Narayan: I have also got two things to ask Dr Rahula  : the first thing is about the ( meditative) importance of 'shunyata'.

R: From the Buddhist point of view 'shunyata' literally means 'voidness', 'emptiness'.

K: Nothingness ?

R: That is the literal meaning. Ananda who was Buddha's nearest disciple, asked one day, "Sir, it is said (by you that)  the ( total consciousness of the?) world is sunyata, empty'', what does it mean ?" Buddha said, "Ananda, it is without 'self' and anything pertaining to 'self', therefore it is (self-less or?) sunyata". In many other places he told a man, "See the world as 'shunyata' and you are liberated". And that is exactly what Krishnaji says also. There is no 'self', and if you see (the truth of) it, every problem is solved.

N: The relationship between the 'outer' and the 'inner' world .

R: That is exactly what Krishnaji and Dr. Bohm discussed as 'Actuality and Truth' : 'Sunyatasatva' is the conventional (reality ) , that is what we do, talk and eat and all these things ; you can't say that this table is false. But 'Paramatsatva' is the ultimate, absolute truth. But Nairanjana clearly says that ''one who cannot see and does not see the conventional truth is incapable of arriving at the ultimate truth''. 
The third question you raised was, about Nirvana and Samsara ('Samsara' is continuity, but 'Nirvana' is never defined in positive terms by the Buddha. Whenever he was asked ( to describe it) he said, ''no, that is not Nirvana''. And once I asked Krishnaji what he thought. Krishnaji paused for a minute and asked me, "What did Buddha say about all this?" I said, « nothing ». You (K) said, « that is correct, that is right ».

K: Now, sir, Dr Rahula) you had better ask your questions too .

R: One question is that in the western thought, 'free will' has played a very important part. But according to Buddhism, such a thing is impossible because all our thinking, all our construction, all our work, all our knowledge is conditioned. Therefore if there is a 'free' will, it is free only in a relative sense and it is not absolute freedom. That is the Buddhist position. That is one question .

K: Let's talk it over, sir. What is the origin, of will? - I will do this, I won't do that' . Is it not desire?

R: It is a desire.

K: Desire heightened, strengthened (or sublimated?) , which we call 'will'.

Bohm: It seems to me that we make that desire 'determined' and it gets 'fixed' there.

K: I desire that, and to achieve that I make a (mental) effort. The motive of that effort is desire. So will is ( a sublimated form of?) desire. Right?

R: It is a form of desire.

K: Now, can desire (even if sublimated?) ever be free?

R: Absolutely (not) . That is what I wanted to hear from you because you ( often) don't like to say this ( plainly) but I want to say it.

K: Desire can never be free. The objects of desire can change: I can desire one year to go to buy this, the next year that, change, but ( the nature of ?) desire is constant, the objects vary. And in the 'strengthening' of desire, ''I 'will' do that'', the ( personal free ?) will is in operation. Will is desire. Now can desire ever be free?

R: No.

K: But we say 'free will' exists because I can go from England to France 'freely'. So this idea of 'free will' is (culturally ?) cultivated with a sense that human beings are free to choose (or do what they want?), but apart from material things, (inwardly) why is there the necessity of ( a personal) 'choice' at all? If I have understood the whole significance of Catholicism, with its rituals, dogmas and I abandon that, why should I (choose to) 'join' something else? When I have investigated this I have investigated all the (organised) religions. So ( in the 'spiritual' area ?) choice must exist only when the mind is ( dull or?) confused. When one's perception is clear there is no ( question of personal) choice. Is that right?

B: But the western philosophers might not agree with you; they say that will is not just desire, and the 'free will' is an action (undertook ) in freedom. Catholic philosophers may say that when Adam 'sinned', he 'willed wrongly', he made a wrong ( existential?) choice and he set us off on this way.

K: You see that is a very 'convenient' way of explaining away everything.
First invent ( the myth of?) Adam and Eve, the Serpent and the Apple, and God, and then put everything as the 'primal crime'.

R: Yes, there's a lot of mental creation in that...

B: If one observes more carefully one can see that will is the result of desire. But many people have the impression that will is something entirely different.

K: Yes, that Will ( or God's Will ?) is part of something sacred.

B: That's what many people think.

K: Something derived from a divine Being.

R: According to the 'western' philosophy.

K: But if one puts all that 'theoretical' aspects aside, what is then the action without choice and will? Is there any action which is not 'compounded' with will?

N: Would you say that 'insight' has nothing to do with will?

K: Oh, nothing whatever to do with will, or desire, or memory.

R: Yes. Insight is (the clarity of inner ?) 'seeing' . And in that ( direct) seeing there is no (question of preference or) choice, there is no value judgement. You just 'see' (the whole truth about 'what is') .

N: So 'insight' is not visible to will, nor is it visible to analysis.

R: No.

K: So, we are talking about ( the perceptive?) 'action' in which there is no choice, in which there is no effort as will. Is there such action?

R: There is such an action.

K: You know it? Or is it a theory? One should 'move away' (distance oneself?) from theories, from ideas, from conclusions and find out for oneself the ( living?) truth of that matter: which is, is there an action in which there is no effort of ( one's personal) 'will' at all, and therefore no 'choice'? To find that out one must be very clear of the nature of desire : desire is part of sensation ( a mental extension of the sensory activity ?) and ( the 'psychological' process of?) thought identifies itself with that sensation, and through this 'identification' the 'I' is built up, (a mental entity who ) says, "I must", or "I will not". 

So we are trying to find out ( experientially) if there is an 'action' which is not based on ideals, on desire, on will ( power) ; is there such action? Because most of our actions have a ( personal) motive. I want to build a house, I want ( to marry?) that woman, or 'I' ( my 'self-image'?) was hurt and my motive is to hurt back - so there is always some kind of 'motive' in action, in what we do in our daily life.
This (personal) motive is part of the identification process. So if there is a perception of the truth that ( this subliminal process of?) 'identification' builds the (infra)structure of the 'self', then is there an action which doesn't spring from ( our self-centred) thought?

B: Before we go into that -could we ask why there is this 'identification', why is it that this is so prevalent?

K: Why does thought 'identify' ?

B: With sensation and other things. Specially with sensation.

K: Yes. Go on sirs, answer it. Why do you give such importance to sensation? Do you say, I am a 'sensate' being and nothing else?

N: If I have to identify ( myself ) with anything it can only be with sensation.

B: Isn't there a duality in 'identification'? Could we make it clear ?

K: In 'identification', as you point out sir, there is duality (a separation between ?) the 'identifier' and the 'identified'.

B: But aren't we trying to overcome this (real) duality by saying, "I am not different", when you are, or when you feel you aren't.

K: You see I don't want to enter into the ( very slippery?) field of ideologies, theories. I want to find out by talking over together if there is an action in which the 'self' is not (involved ) ? Which means the 'mind' has to find out an action which is not the result of ( previous) causes and effects. So is there such an action?

B: Well, it seems to me we can't find it (experiential) as long as we are ''identifying'.

K: That's right. As long as (the mental self-?) identification exists one can't find the answer.

B: So, why does thought identify? Is it something 'irresistible' or is that just something you can put aside?

K: I don't know if that is 'irresistible', or if it ( if thought itself?) is part of sensation.

B: You think that sensation is behind the (self-identifying process?) ?

K: Perhaps, but let's investigate (analytically?) . Why have 'sensations' become so important in our everyday life - sexual sensations, the sensation of power, whether occult power or political power, economic power, or power of a woman over man, or man over woman, power of influencing the environment - and why has thought yielded to this pressure ( of sensations?) ?

B: Does sensation necessarily produce a 'pressure'?

K: What do we mean by 'sensation'?  The operation of the senses - touching, tasting, seeing, smelling, hearing.

B: The ( direct sensory) experience at that moment ; and also the memory of it.

K: No, the (past) 'memory' is ( interfering?) only when there is an identification with sensation . When there is no identification, the senses are senses. But why does thought identify itself with senses?

B: Are you saying that when the sensation is ( registered, processed and?) remembered then we have identification?

K: Yes.

B: Can you give an example to make that more clear?

K: Take the visual perception of a beautiful (Swiss?) lake, what takes place in that seeing? There is not only the 'optical' seeing but also the other senses are awakened, the smell of the water, the reflexion of the trees on the lake...

B: The other senses start to operate.

K: And the other senses start operating. Why doesn't it stop there?

B: What is the next ( mental ?) step?

K: The next step is when thought comes in (to process and store that stimulating experience ?) - how beautiful that is, I wish I could remain here.

B: So thought 'identifies' with it. It says, " This very beautiful perception is mine".

K: Because in that there is ( the recording of a sensory rewarding?) pleasure. The ( pure) delight of seeing (that Swiss Lake?) , then ( one's self-centred thinking ) coming into operation and saying, "I must have more, we must build a house here, it will be all mine (or ours?) ".

B: Why would thought do all this (redundant thinking?) ?

K: Why does thought 'interfere' with senses - is that it? 
The moment when the senses ( fully enjoy ) the picture and stop there, thought doesn't enter. ( This may also happen when the perception ) is something painful thought doesn't want to identify itself with that.

B: But there too it does 'identifies' against it, it says, "I don't want it".

K: Either denies it or moves away from it. But if it is 'pleasurable', when the senses begin to enjoy, then thought begins to identify itself with it.

B: But why?

K: Because of ( the 'high hopes' brought by that ?) pleasure.

B: But why doesn't it give it up when it sees how futile this is?

K: Oh, that's ( coming ?) much later, when ( a 'wiser' ) thought is (becoming) aware that 'identification' breeds both pleasure and fear, then it begins to question.

B: Well, are you saying that thought is making an 'honest mistake' in the beginning ?

K: That's right. Thought has made a ( honest?) mistake in identifying itself with ( the image of ) something that brought it pleasure, or in ( wishfully ) thinking there is pleasure in something.

B: So, thought tries to take over. To make it 'permanent', perhaps ?

K: 'Permanent', that's right, which means ( storing it in the 'personal files' of?) memory. A fine 'remembrance' of that (Swiss ) Lake with the daffodils and the trees and the water and sunlight, and all the rest of it.

B: And even if thought later discovers its mistake, it seems to be too late because it doesn't know how to stop (the 'image making' mechanism)

K: It is now 'conditioned' (got stuck with it?)

B: So why it cannot give it up ?

K: Why it cannot give it up ? That's our whole problem.

B: Can we try to make it more clear ?

K: Let's take a simple example: psychologically one is getting 'hurt'. Why can't one immediately give up (completely forget ?) that 'hurt', knowing that (carrying over the painful memory of that?) hurt is going to create a great deal of (colateral?) damage - like building a ( mental fire-)wall round 'myself' in order to not be hurt more, ( with which comes ?) fear, self- isolation, and a string of neurotic actions that follows. 

And why doesn't thought (or...'the thinking brain'?) just say, " By Jove, I have seen this !", and drop it (that whole image making mechanism?) immediately? Simply because when it drops the ( personal) 'image' there is 'nothing' left.

B: So, we have another ingredient here : thought wants to hold on to the memory of that ( self rewarding) ) image.

K: Hold on to the ( many personal ?) memories which have created the 'self'

B: And which thought feels they are very 'precious'.

K: Yes, they are very precious, nostalgic and all the rest of it.

B: So somehow it assigns a very high value to all that. How did it come to do that?

K: Why has it made the ( self-) image so valuable ? Why has the ( personal) image become so important which thought has created?

B: I would say that in the beginning it was an (honest) mistake, and thought made an image of pleasure and it seemed to become very important, precious, and ( later on) was unable to give it up.

K: Sir, if ( our self-interest based ) thought gives up ( its ages old pursuit of?) 'pleasure', what is there left?

B: It would return to the (innocent) state ( it had ) in the beginning (in the early childhood?) when there was nothing (to identify with ) .

K: Ah, that is the 'pristine' state.

B: But now it seems unable to return to that state.

K: It can't because thought ( has its own dynamic ?) - you know, all the rest of it.

B: And thought thinks that in giving up a 'pleasure' which has become very precious, the simple thought of that is 'painful'.

K: Yes, 'giving it up' is ( felt as potentially ?) painful.

B: And therefore thought runs away from that.

K: Yes, so it clings to that pleasure, until there a better pleasure (comes up) .

B: But that's no change. So thought seems to have constantly fallen into this (psychological 'trap' created quite naturally by ) innocently remembering yesterday's pleasure, and then gradually making it important and then.... it becomes too painful to give it up. Because any change resulting from the immediate removal of a pleasure is resented as (personally ) painful.

K: Because then it has nothing ( left to look forward?) afterwards, and it is getting frightened (just by thinking of that alternative?) .

B: But you see in the beginning ( as a young child) it was not frightened to have nothing else. Now it is.

K: Yes, In the beginning, that means the beginning of man. Can we question even that? Beginning of the ape.

B: Yes, if we go far enough back, thought has built this ( mental) trap which has gradually got worse.

K: Sir, could we say as the human brain is very old - all out brains are very old – and merely tracing it back further and further and further in time , you can never find out (the original 'faux pas') .
But I can say : my brain is now as it is, which is (subliminally) conditioned ( to think ) in terms of pleasure and pain (and of its temporal continuity?) .

B: They say the 'old brain' is also the emotional product of the brain.

K: Of course, emotional and all the rest of it, sensory. So where are we now?

B: Well, we say this brain has conditioned itself by continually (recycling the ) memory of its image of pleasure, along with the 'unpleasantness' of giving it up and the fear.

K: So it clings to what it 'knows'.

B: Which it knows and which is very precious to it.

K: But it doesn't ( want to ) know that this is ( eventually) going to breed ( a residual sorrow and?) fear.

B: Well, even when it 'knows it', it still clings...

K: ...it would rather 'run away' from ( the collateral pains and ?) fears hoping that ( its Long March Forward for safety & ?) pleasure will continue.

B: Although eventually it starts to become 'irrational' because ( this collective drive?) creates pressures which make the brain unable to get this straight.

K: Yes. So (to recap:) we started off, with the question : ''Is there an 'action' in which there is no motive, no cause, the self doesn't enter into it at all?'' Of course there is such a (holistic way of action) when 'self (interest' ) is not (involved) , which means no ( subliminal) process of 'identifying' takes place. There is the perceiving of a beautiful Swiss Lake with all the colours and the (timeless) beauty of it, that's enough. Not 'cultivating' the memory of it, which is developed through the ( self-) identification process. Right?

B: This raises the ( key experiential) question, how are we going to stop this (subliminal process of?) 'identification'?

K: I don't think there is a (preset methodology of ?) 'how'. You see , following that way makes the mind mechanical (repetitive and?) dull, literally incapable of receiving anything new.

Schloegel: If these practices are done (in a spirit of) imitation, this is precisely what happens.

K: Do you remember that famous story of a guru, he had a favourite cat, and he also had many disciples. Every morning before they all started meditation, he caught hold of the cat, put it on his lap, and meditated. And when he died the disciples had to search around for the ( meditating ) cat. You see our minds have been made 'mechanical'. Can't we investigate why we have become mechanical, rather than practice a ( Sudden Awakening) which is 'non-mechanical' ?

S : We are looking at your approach as a possible proposition.

K: I ( would ?) start with myself. I don't have to look for somebody who is ( supposed to be ) « enlightened » because they may deceive themselves (in a very credible way?) . So one must start with 'oneself'. 
This approach is so simple, whereas the other leads to so many complications.

S: I do not necessarily see it as a 'complication', because if I do not think that there is a possibile (way out ?) then I might not even try. But If I see that there might be a possibility, this gives me the sense that it is worthwhile trying to work with myself as my own subject of experiment, to work it out.

K: Why do you want a 'motive'?

S: I think it is almost impossible to start without ( having a serious spiritual) 'motivation'.

K: I just want to know myself, not ( necessarily?) because I suffer, but I just want to know what I am, just know about myself. So I begin to enquire, I begin to look into the ( 2-way ?) 'mirror' (of relationship) , which says : ''this is what your ( self-centred?) reactions are and as long as you have these reactions you are going to 'pay heavily' , you are going to suffer''. So how am I to observe myself without a ( 'personal' ?) cause based on reward and/or punishment ) .
So can I look at myself (free of?) any ( personal) 'motive'?

S: At this stage (of meditation) where I am 'trying to do it', I may realise that I cannot do it, because I am too conditioned.

K: I wouldn't admit that...

S: But nevertheless I can be able slowly, to have a closer look at those things that normally I do not like to see in myself.

K: I understand that madam. I don't know myself but I will gradually learn about myself.

S: In the very looking into my suffering there is a 'changing factor' - which in the end makes it possible. And if it is continued in that spirit, with that attitude, then there is a sudden change which is possible...

K: Madam, either you have ( the inner clarity of  ?) insight immediately, or you don't have it. There is no 'preparation', that means time, which means cultivating ( or upgrading?) the (self-) identification, the 'me'.

S: Not necessarily. But if I do it for something that I want to gain out of it, then it is certainly a cultivation of the self.

K: Madam, ( the perceptive clarity of?) insight is timeless, it is not a thing to be cultivated by thought. So to have an insight into oneself instantly, not by degrees. Is that possible?

S: Yes. I would say with my own conviction and experience, yes.

K: So, if you have (such) an insight, that insight wipes away the 'self'-(identification) , not ( just) 'momentarily'.  So would you say its action then is without motive?

R: If you have such an 'insight', all your actions are without motive.

K: Are we talking theoretically or actually?

R: Actually.

K: That means your action is correct, accurate, right through your life ?

S: May I make one point clear - it is not that 'I' have the insight, that is not possible. There is that 'insight'. It is not as if 'I' had it.

K: If I say that "I'' have an insight... I (could be?) a little bit mentally deranged. 

R: Now I have another question dealing with Intelligence : there is this theory, that we 'think in a language'. ( Our universal capacity of?) thought has no language, but the thought is immediately interpreted into the nearest language.

K: Sir, could you convey your thoughts to me without the word?

R: That depends on the level. But even without talking, without words, there is a certain qualty of communication.

K: That is, sir, there can only be communion, when you and I are on the same level, and with the same intensity, at the same time. Then words are not necessary. Wouldn't you call that ( Selfless) 'Love'? When that quality of Love exists, words become unnecessary. There is instant communication. 

But for most of us ( the cultural meanings of the?) language 'drives' us, pushes us, shapes us. But if we use words without the ( 'cultural ' connotations of the?) language, words then have an entirely different meaning.

B: I think that ordinarily we are identified with our language and therefore it is driving us, but if we are free of identification...

K: That's right, sir, It is extraordinary how language has made us. I am a ( defining myself as a?) 'communist'.

B: That's a (self-) 'identification' right there But do you think that language is the major source of identification?

K: One of them.

B: One of the big ones ?

K: Yes.

R: I would like to remind here of a very important Mahayana Buddhist philosophical attitude. It is said that '' The world is caught up in language  like an elephant in the mud''. So one must obviously go beyond words to see them. Because as long as you are, as you say, driven by language...

K: Are you?

R: Are you asking personally?

K: Yes, are you? Am I or Dr.Bohm he driven by language?

R: That I can't see. You answer it.

K: I can answer for myself, but I am asking you.

R: As you said, you can answer only for yourself. That's enough.

N: I think the more 'scholarly' one becomes, there is a great possibility of being caught in ( the complexities of) language.

R: Yes...

N: Whereas the 'rustic' ( person) might just use it for simple communication.

K: Does the words create the thought, or is thought creating the word?

B: You once asked the same question, but lightly differently « Is there a thought without the word? »

K: That is very interesting, sir, shall we go into it a little bit?

R: If there is thought without words ?

B: That is the question.

R: I think thought has no ( need for using ) words. Thought is ( based on?) images.

B: Agreed, the word can easily be turned into an image, for example, by an artist, a verbal description can be turned by an artist into an image, or vice versa, the image could be described and turned into words. So they have an equivalent content.

K: Sir, what is the Origin of Thought?

R: Is there an 'origin of thought' ?

K: In you sir, what is the origin?

R: No origin.

K: Of course, sir, there must be a beginning of thought.

R: That is a wrong way of looking at it. By assuming everything must have a 'beginning'.

K: With the dogs, with the animals, everything that is living, they all 'think' in various ways, or 'feel', and so on - there must be a beginning of that. What is that ( beginning) in human beings. How did thought begin in myself? What made you think?

R: I would say that it is in(herent) the nature of yourself, thinking. There is no other cause.

K: Oh yes there is. I'll show you.

R: What is that?

K: If I had no memory, would there be 'thinking'?

R: I ask you again, what is the origin of that 'memory'?

K: That's fairly simple to answer. I remember seeing you in Paris - that is recorded, isn't it?

R: That is the generally accepted - an old 18th century theory - that everything is recorded in the brain somewhere.

K: Look, I meet you and ( my thought) says, ''yes, I recognize you''. How does that recognition take place? We have met last year - the brain has recorded that memory of meeting you, learning your name. So that is (stored in my personal ?) memory, and when I meet you next time ''I recognize you''. Right?

R: How does it happen?

K: It is very simple. A ( background process of ?) 'recording' ( & remembering) goes on (independently) - how to drive a car, or whatever it is, it is a careful accumulation of ( experience stored in brain's ) memory, which then acts (responds?) .

R: It is not so clear to me. Let us admit it is recorded, how does that record come up when we meet next year?

K: When I see you. That memory comes up and says, oh, this is Mr. Rahula. And the ( objective ) recording is ( completed with an overall ) 'image' ( file stored previously ) , pleasurable or not pleasurable. So whatever it is (thought of) , there must be (a previous) recording. No?

R: Certainly it is so. But it is not (recorded in a specific part of ?) the brain but in what ( Buddhists) call the the 'mind faculty'.

K: It is the faculty of the brain to record.

R: But it is not (recorded in?) the physical brain. That is my point.

N: You are saying that this 'mental faculty' is spread all over the ( energy field of the ) body, not necessarily in the head?

R: This 'mental faculty' is (like the sixth) sense organ – the eye, ear, nose, tongue and sensory body deals with the external world, material world. And this 'mind faculty ' many aspects, many potentialities; one of them is the memory. 

K: Sir, I meet you today and I see you a week later. There is the process of 'recognition'. All right, that's one part of the ( 'mind') faculty. The other part of the faculty is to think logically, or not logically. So there are several aspects, 'faculties' which are made up in the mind. You cannot have ( this 'temporal') mind without the brain.

R: Yes. Without the physical existence you can't have the ( temporal) mind.

K: That's all. And this 'mind' ( faculty) as long as it is functioning within the 'field of thought' is limited.

B: You mean ( our self-) consciousness' ?

K: Yes, (this ) consciousness is limited.

S: And yet, if I have met you just for a moment, and there was not a sufficient 'impact' of you of that meeting image, I will next week pass you by and not recognize you.

B: That's the ( critical 'recognition' ) point, it has to be recorded with some energy, you see.

S: That is what I meant.

K: All recording must have ( a certain amount of ?) energy.

B: Like, if you don't 'turn on' this microphone, nothing is being recorded on the recording machine.

R: And many things that we casually see and hear we don't 'remember', only those things that leave a certain ( emotional?) impression.

B: I think it is fairly clear how the record could give rise to a recognition in the next experience. The next time you see the person the record is compared with.

R: It 'comes back'. Exactly like the computer.

K: So our brains are 'computers' ?

R: No, why do you only say brain, why not the whole body, whole heart, without heart can you think?

K: No. The 'mind' contains the brain, the feelings, the heart, the whole structure.

B: All the nerve centres.

K: We are using the 'mind' as 'consciousness', which is, I cannot have consciousness if the heart doesn't function.

R: That is why I used the word 'mental faculty' instead of the 'mind', or 'consciousness', the word 'faculty' embracing all that department. The mind has the power, the capacity, the potentiality, to do all that

K: Oh, I see.

B: The ( mind?) faculty is inborn ?

R: Inborn, innate, in itself has the power. And you can't ask 'why' and 'from where'. Say the 'mind' just like our eyes has the power to see.

K: So the mind is the 'active energy' to do all this.

B: Well also our physical structure is all over the body. I think that it is a good analogy to say that the eye has certain possibilities and in this whole body already the infant has the ability to think already built into him because of the heredity.

K: I don't know sir, how we have evolved but I do know the very simple thing which is, without recording there is no thought.

R: That means that thought is ( the response of?) memory ?

K: Of course. Memory, which is experience, which is knowledge, stored up and when it is challenged it operates.

B: Well, but thought is also (including ) the ability to reason logically along with the ( mechanical responses of) memory. All that together is what you have called 'faculties'.

R: Yes, I used that word because it uses a bigger field.

B: But you are saying it still depends on memory ?

K: Of course, a sense of recording is memory.

B: And without memory none of the other faculties could operate ?

K: Of course. So what is the origin, the beginning of this ( mental) conditioning? Why does man condition himself? For security, to avoid danger? The instinctual response of a human being is to feel secure, like a child, sir, obviously. No?

R: How does it come about, that sense of security, the feeling of security, what is the origin of that?

K: The mother and the child, the baby must have a physical security, it must have food at the right times, at the right hour, and all the rest of it. I don't know, not being a baby, but I am sure it feels safe.
So, from that physical security we turn to ( building up our ) psychological security, having comfort in some ( personal or collective) illusions. And you have your security in something, I have my security and each one of us clings to our own particular form of ( psychological) security, whether it is reasonable, sane, rational, that doesn't matter.

B: It seems to me that it is similar to the pleasure question, that is you register the feeling of pleasure and then try to build it up.

S: I think it is harder with pleasure because people nowadays can change their religions without too much difficulty, but we are much against giving up our ( hedonistic?) pleasures when it really comes to it.

R: But where are we going with our discussion ?

K: Is there an action which is total, which is complete, total, whole, not partia ?. Which means can I observe myself wholly, not in fragments? So is there an action which is whole? I say, yes, there is, definitely. Don't you ask me, what is that?

R: What is that ( holistic) action ?

K: First of all, can you see the tree as a whole? Can you see your wife, or your husband as a whole entity? Can you see anything totally, or are you always seeing partially (as a safely separated 'observer' ) ?

R: When you use the word 'totally' what is the meaning?

K: Whole. Can I see 'myself' as ( a representative of all?) humanity? Because (total consciousness of?) humanity is like mine - suffering, miserable, confused, agony, terrified, insecure, sorrow-ridden, like another. So in seeing humanity, I see myself.

R: Or rather the other way: by seeing yourself you see humanity.

K: So I see the world as myself, which is a (holistic perception ) . Would that be right sir?

B: Could consider the perception of the tree for a moment. It is not clear when you say « see the tree as a whole. »

K: The whole thing, to see something 'wholly' (observerlessly?) , sir.

B: Just 'see it all' ?

S: This, " seeing as a whole", really it means that the self, or the fallacy of the self, has clearly been seen into and has broken down, because otherwise however much I see the tree as a whole it is still (the action of) my (self-centred) thought.

K: That is the 'ultimate' thing ( for 'advanced' learners ?) . What happens when you can see something wholly?

S: Tremendous warmth ?

K: So, if you (selflessly ) 'love' that tree you will see it 'wholly'.

S: But we have also to be careful what we mean here by 'love'.

K: To keep it very simple, ( the Selfless) Love not ( containing ) possessiveness, acquisitiveness , all the rest of that nonsense, if one 'loves' (selflessly) the whole thing is there, the totality of that man or woman is there. So can I see myself ( holistically or?) wholly - 'myself' being humanity? I am not different from humanity. ( Consciousness-wise) I 'am' the rest of the world, I 'am' the world. Can one see this as a whole? 

I can only see myself (holistically) 'as a whole' when I ( feel that I ) am actually the rest of mankind. When one sees oneself 'as a whole' the ( fragmentary ) parts disappear, therefore the 'self' is not. Sir, I can see this tree 'completely', only if I don't say, "It's my tree, it's in my garden." You understand what I am saying?

R: Yes, yes.

K: So when I ( non-personally) love that tree, I can 'see it as a whole'.

B: Would you say then that it is similar to all trees? Like saying, if I see myself as a whole I am the same as all mankind.

K: So I love all trees.

B: Is that the same?

K: Of course.

B: It doesn't depend on that single tree. It is not just this tree that you love.

K: I love all the 'trees' whether they are in your garden, or my garden, or on the field. I raised this ( holistic) question of 'seeing wholly' because this is the ( perceptive) action which is not fragmented, not broken up as the ( specialised) action of a business man, professor, or priest, an action which is 'total' ( encompassing the totality of human existence) .

B: So, you are suggesting, 'See the self 'wholly' and it will not be there' ?

K: Yes, sir.

B: Therefore would you also say that you have to ( have some inteligent selfless ) love ( for observing ) the 'self'?

K: That is a 'dangerous' (slippery?) statement which I was going to make, but... stopped myself in time.

B: Could you say instead of ''You 'are' mankind'', ''you (selflessly) Love mankind''? 

K: Ah, now, be careful...

B: So, these verbal analogy seem to be limited ?

K: Analogies are limited.

S: So are the words in themselves.

K: Any more questions, sir?

R: There is no end to these questions, but you have answered all my today's questions, and thank you very much for all your very 'enlightening' explanations.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 27 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Mar 2015 #15
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

A K CONVERSATION WITH BUDDHIST SCHOLARS & FRIENDS ( experientially friendly edited )

TRUTH AND REALITY

Dr Rahula : Sir, I want to ask you just one thing today. You see we all talk of truth, absolute truth, ultimate truth; and seeing it and realizing it; always we talk about it. And the Buddha says '' there is only one Truth, there is no second ''. But this 'one truth' is never defined in 'positive' terms or at most 'metaphorically', in a symbolic way. So, I am asking you today: what is the absolute truth, what is ultimate truth and what is 'non-duality' as you see it? Tell us. It is a (pretty tough?) challenge.

K: Don't you think, sir, that if we could distinguish between what is 'reality' and what is 'truth', then perhaps we could (perhaps?) penetrate more deeply into this question ? So, what is 'reality'? The latin root (of the word) means 'things'. Could we say that everything that human thought has created is ( our man-made ) 'reality' - like this microphone - it's made by ( a very ingenious human) thought, and it is there, an 'actuality '. ( On the other hand?) Nature is not created by thought. It exists (independently) but we have used nature to produce 'things', like houses, chairs, and so on and so on. So we could say then that anything that thought has created, brought about, put together, is 'reality'- including the illusions it has created, as well as the material things it has created through technological knowledge and so on, so on, all that is 'reality'.

R: According to Buddhas's teaching, there is a 'relative truth' and an 'absolute truth'. What you say is fully accepted, that is our 'reality'.

K: That is, everything that human thought has created is (our) 'reality'. 
The dreams, all the sensory and sensuous responses, all the technological world of knowledge, all the things that human thought has put together as literature, poem, painting, illusions, gods, symbols - all that is 'reality'. Would you accept that, sir?

F: Yes, but through the centuries, people have tended to talk of 'reality' more in terms of an 'ultimate' Reality.

K: I know, but I would like to separate the two - 'truth' and ( our man made ) 'reality'. Otherwise we mix our terms all the time.

S: Are you also including Nature in your ( concept of ) 'reality'?

K: No. Nature is not created by thought.

R: That means, you don't take the tree as a reality ?

K: I take is as a reality, of course it's a reality, but it's not ( the man-made 'reality') created by thought. So, let us look at this 'reality' - the world is reality, these lamps are reality. You sitting there, this person sitting there, are realities. And the illusions that one has are an actual reality.

M: But sir, the people sitting there are not created by thought. So the 'reality' of which you are speaking is 'man-made', in a sense.

K: Man-made. Like war is a ( man-made) reality.

F: Could we regard all that is apprehended through our senses, and then interpreted by the brain as 'reality' ?

K: That's right, sir. And would we say that the 'actual' is what is happening now?

F: Yes, that's a good way of putting it. But the (experiential) point is that we are not capable of apprehending the totality of 'what is' happening now. We apprehend only a portion of it.

K: Yes . So, what is happening now is the 'actual', but the interpretation or the understanding of what is happening now depends on our thought. Can we see that from ( this time-bound ?) 'reality' you cannot go to ''Truth'' ? Can the human mind, which is the network of all the senses, actualities and so on, can that apprehend, see, observe what is Truth?

F: Provided the mind can be free of all its conditioning.

K: That's the problem. To find out what the 'absolute truth' is, ( the 'real' limitations of?) thought must be understood - the whole movement and the nature of thought must have been gone into, observed and (put into its) 'relative' place, and so the 'mind' ( or the energy matrix of the brain ?) becomes absolutely still and perhaps in that stillness, ( the Whole?) Truth is perceived, which is not to be measured by words.

R: Yes, I agree with that.

K: Now, the 'mind' (the intelligent 'energy matrix' of the brain ?) is caught in the 'movement' of thought. And this (time-warped?) movement projects ( its own concept ) what is truth.

F: This is the 'mistake' (the karmic 'faux pas'?) that man makes.

K: Of course. He projects ( his needs & values ) from 'this' (spatio-temporal reality?) to 'That', hoping to find what is truth. Or projects what he thinks is truth. And this ( 'reality' based concept of) 'truth' can be put in different words – God, Brahman, Nirvana, or Moksha.
So, our ( experientially critical) question is then : can this (reality based ?) mind cease to 'measure' ? This ( habit of mental? ) 'measurement' is ( the result of all ) our cultural & social (collective ?) conditioning (Eg : one 'measures' ( evaluates & compares) oneself against the cultural standards or somebody else ; so there is this constant mental measurement of comparison, both externally and inwardly.) Right?

R: Well, then what is non-duality? What is truth?

K: As long as thought is 'measuring' (comparing) there must be 'duality'.

R: Absolutely, that is a fact.

K: Now, how has this conditioning come about? Why has man been caught in this constant ( competitive mental attitude of?) 'measurement', comparison, imitation ?

R: The whole measurement is based on the ( 'reality' of the?) 'self' …

K: Yes, but what is the source of this measurement ?

P: It seems that ( our thinking brain?) needs a 'fixed' point to measure, and itself being in a state of continuous flux or movement, it creates a static (refference) point  which is (apparently) immovable, which is the 'centre', or one's self-(consciousness) . From there only you can measure.

K: But why has ( the collective thinking of?) mankind been held in this measurement?
SS: Probably he thinks it's the (only way to move?) 'forward', because, for instance if you're a farmer and you plant to crop in a certain way, and you get this kind of result, the next year you plant in a different way, and you get a better result.

K: Yes, so it is ( the result of thinking in terms of our personal or collective favorable evolution in ?) time. Why has man used time as a means of 'progress'? (I'm talking 'psychologically', not about the time which is necessary to learn a language, to develop a certain technology and so on.)

F: Do you think that starting with the physical facts of difference, in size, in quantity, and so forth, we apply that analogically to the 'psychological' process also ?

K: Yes. Without ( comparison and?) measurement there would have been no ( development of ) technology. But man used 'psychological' time as a means of self growth, of 'getting better', getting more noble, achieving enlightenment? All this (evolutionary mentality?) implies time. And that's what we're discussing. Whether there is any 'psychological' (inner) evolution at all : do we need time at all 'psychologically' ( for a qualitative inner change?) ?

SN: What is it that creates time?

K: Thought  is ( projecting its self-centred continuity in ?) time. 
Time is involved in moving from 'here' to 'there'; ( from being poor to becoming materially secure, or if ?) one is (unhappy ?) greedy & envious, one needs 'time' to ( improve this 'psychological' condition or?) be free of it.
We are questioning whether that is not an illusion - this 'psychological' distance. Is there (psychologically speaking) a 'tomorrow'?

F: Only in terms of anticipation. But in addition to (this psychological projection of ) thought, there is the fact of our physical experience, of day and night, and therefore the 'tomorrow' does actually exist

K: We are asking whether thought (or 'the thinking brain'?) has invented this 'psychological' time in order to live in some kind of ( inner) security?

R: What is 'time'? (Inwardly speaking?) 'time' is nothing but the unbroken continuity of cause and effect, and we give a name called 'time' to that (mental) movement.

K: Yes, that's one aspect of 'time'. And also the (chronological) aspect of time (necessary to cover a ) physical distance. I have to go to London and it takes time to get there.

M: Sir, would you say that thought in itself 'implies' time, because the action of the mind going through the thought process, even if it it takes a very small amount of time, it does take 'time' ?

K: Surely, because thought is ( based on?) the response of memory, and memory is ( the result of ) time. 

So ( to recap:) . There a 'physical' ( or 'chronological' continuity of ?) time, ''yesterday, today and tomorrow'' . There is also the time of growth – the tiny acorn becoming a big oak tree. So time, physically is a 'reality'. But 'inwardly' , thought has invented ( its own becoming in ?) 'time' as a means of either achieving (a higher level of?) security, or because it is too lazy to completely transform itself (now ?) . So it says, "Give me time". Give me time to become 'strong' psychologically, give me time so that I get rid of my anger, my jealousy or whatever it is, and I'll be free of it. Using ( the reality of chronological ?) time as a means of achieving something (inwardly ?) 'psychologically'.

M: But then one can ask : How can you be without thought psychologically?

K: We are coming to that. Isn't the the whole movement of the 'me' put together by thought ?

M: If that is so, then how would it be possible for time not to be involved in any 'psychological' movement?

N: In the whole religious world there is ( a profound spiritual ) aspiration. Wouldn't you say that?

R: Of course in all the religious traditions, there is ( this spiritual) aspiration, always. But what we are discussing here is whether you can 'see the Truth' at this very moment, or whether you postpone it till you 'become better'. So if something is 'true' (or not) , you can see it only Now.

K: I don't want to enter the 'World of Truth' yet. If there is no psychological ( postponement for ?) 'tomorrow' our whole action ( in the world of 'reality' ? ) is different.

N: You would say then, any aspiration, however 'noble' it is, is in the field of reality ?

K: In the field of thought (in the field of the 'known'?) , yes.

F: Yes, because it is a 'formulation'. So would I be right in saying you are concerned with being free of the 'time factor' totally, in psychological terms.

K: Yes, sir. Otherwise our mind is living always in a 'circle' ( within a closed area?) .

F: Yes, that is true. We are tied the ( 'tethered' to our ?) past, to that which has become fossilised.

K: Yes, this (active memory of the?) past modifying itself into the 'future' is time. So when one says, "I will become better", "I will understand", I quesion whether it's merely an invention of thought and so it is illusory, and so there is no ( point to postpone the 'psychological' action for ?) 'tomorrow'. (Eg:) If one is ( greedy and/or ?) envious - a thought sustained sensory response, we generally say, give me some time to be free of that envy.

F: Yes, provided we perceive (objectively?) that 'envy'...

K: Oh, yes, everybody can perceive this envy, this jealousy, this antagonism. So is it possible, being envious, to (have a flash of insight into its nature and?) 'be free' of it instantly, and not allow time to intervene? That is the whole point.

F: Isn't this 'envy', a (personal) reaction to what is perceived through the senses?

K: Yes, that's right.

F: So these 'psychological' reactions follow (surreptitiously) the sensuous activity. And that involves this (ages old?) pleasure/pain drive within us.

K: Obviously. One sees you driving in a big lovely car. And I'm driving a small car, so there is comparison.

F: This is more pleasant or this is less pleasant.

K: That ( mental pattern of comparison?) begins from (early) childhood.

F: So we get (caught) in this psychological habit.

K: First one must realize the actuality of it. Not say "Yes, I have already understood it''

Do we see (the truth?) that the psychological usage of time is a very ( 'realistic' ) illusion ? We must be clear on this point : ''I will reach heaven'', ''I will become enlightened'', ''I will eventually through various series of lives, or one life, achieve Nirvana, Moksha'', all this is psychological time. We are questioning whether this ( whole mentality?) is an illusion. It if is an illusion it is part of thought.

N: I think there's also some difficulty in apprehending what you're saying, because there is maturity and growth in nature, through time. Isn't there a mental maturity and growth in human beings, through time?

K: Yes, but what do you mean by 'maturity'? A tree is mature at a certain age, a human being physically is mature at a certain age. But is there a 'psychological ' maturity at all? That's my whole point.

M: Even psychologically there is a certain 'maturity', but it's still founded on thought and time.

K: Yes, but I'm just asking, Maria, do we understand clearly, even intellectually, that we have used time as a psychological catalyst to bring about ( a holistic inner) change? I'm questioning ( the validity of?) that catalyst.

F: Sir, when you say, "Do we see that psychological time is an illusion", what do you mean by the word 'see'?

K: I mean by that word 'see', to observe ( acutely & objectively) without the interference of thought.

F: That means, to be completely conscious, to be completely aware of time being an illusion, ( to see it ) as a 'fact'.

K: Yes, like when I see a snake, I don't mistake it for a rope. (or the other way around?)

F: So would that involve a complete (qualitative) transformation of our mode of awareness, of our consciousness?

K: Just to observe without any ( buffer of mental?) 'reflection'.

F: Without naming it ?

K: Naming it all the rest of it.

F: In other words, to 'see' is a (holistic ?) seeing...

K: Is it to 'listen' first ( non-verbally) ; Take for instance ( this statement) '''Psychologically' there is no time, the 'psychological' time is the invention of thought, and may be an illusion''. Now to 'listen' to that without interpreting it or asking 'what do you mean ?', or saying, "I don't understand", just to listen to that statement and not make an idea of it. As one can 'listen' that ( profound, non-verbal) way, in the same way 'observe', 'see'. What do you say, sir?

R: What are you trying to tell us?

K: I'm trying to say, sir, that truth cannot possibly be perceived, seen, through ( a mental process of?) time. I'm trying to say that man through comparison with the outer world has created (invented ) a 'psychological' time as a means of achieving a desired 'rewarding' end.

R: I agree.

K: But...do you see that as a (true ) 'fact' ?.

F: Wouldn't you say that (our partial perception) is due to the fact that we are tied to the idea of a separate 'me', a separate 'I' ? Now, supposing one sees, hears, touches, in terms of an awareness of wholeness...

K: You can't be aware of the wholeness, unless you have understood the movement ( the time-binding activity ?) of thought.

F: Yes, of course, which means the intrusion of the self-consciousness as a separate 'something'.

K: Sir, how did this  'self separative'  consciousness  come into being?

F: Conditioning in the first instance. 'I', 'you', 'me'.

K: Of course, (and ?) measurement.

F: Measurement, exactly. And this mentality inevitably gets transferred to the realm of the psyche, the realm of the mind...

K: Of course. So you make a statement that 'psychological' time has been used by man as a means of achieving his reward. It's so obvious. And that 'reward' is away from the pain which he's had (in the past) . So we are saying, this 'achievement of the ( spiritual) reward', is a movement of time. And it may be illuson. Now, from this 'illusion', one can't go to Truth. So the mind must be totally, completely free of this (inner) movement of 'measurement'. Is th'at possible?

F: As a short answer, I would simply say yes' : if one really 'sees it' then one doesn't go in the other direction.

K: So do we 'see it', or we 'think that we see it' ?

M: Can we go back for a moment? When you said 'observe', what does the mind do in that 'observation'?

K: This ( holistic?) observation implies 'seeing' without naming, without measuring, without a motive, without an 'end'. Obviously that is actually seeing. Even the Greek root of the word 'idea' means to observe.

M: Sir, we would probably all agree with that. But what is 'acting' at that moment?

K: ( The holistic?) observation is just to « observe silently », without any psychological or sensory response and ( eventually having a direct ?) 'insight' ( into what is being observed) without the responses of memory.

R: Without any value judgement ?

K: Yes. Thought is absolutely quiet in (this direct ?) 'observation'.

F: When scientists, for example, have really new remarkable inspirations, or great artists when they create wonderful things, this happens when everything is 'quiet' inside, which allows this ( perception of the?) New to emerge, the pulse of Creation.

K: Yes, sir, but that insight is partial. ( A total?) 'insight' also implies a whole transformation of his daily life. 'Insight' implies the way the man lives as a whole. Insight implies an observation in which there is no ( interfering?) remembrance of things past, therefore the mind is alert, free to observe. Only then you have an Insight. And the 'insight' of which we are talking about, implies, his whole life, not as a 'scientist', as an 'artist'. They do have partial insights, but that's not what we're talking.

R: And what we talk is of the whole existence. And that 'seeing' is (transcending?) time. It is beyond time, that seeing is not limited or caught in time.

K: That 'insight' is not involved in time. But... wait a minute. Have we got this insight into this 'psychological invention' of time by thought, as achieving some result? Or it is just at a verbal, intellectual level?

R: Or... it is (seen as) a fact.

K: Then how is a human being to totally 'move away' from that, totally transform this whole inner concept (mentality ) of time? I say it's only possible when you have an « insight » into this whole thing. This is (the true purpose of a?) real meditation.

M: Sir, would you say that if an insight comes into being at that moment, then it doesn't fall back into the thought mechanism ?

K: Of course not. Insight means ''action'' instantly, not have an insight and later act. And that action is always ''right'' – in the sense of being accurate, precise, without any regret, without any effort, without any reward or punishment, it is so.

SS: But that action is not necessarily doing anything, though. It may be 'non-action' in terms of doing things externally.

K: You may have to, both externally and inwardly. If I have an insight into my attachment to ideas, attachment to conclusions, attachment to persons, attachment to my knowledge, experience. If I have an insight into that, the 'whole thing' is abandoned.

R: And if I may I put it in another way - to see 'what is' is to see the truth.

K: I'm not yet ready for that.

R: Your main thesis is, don't put in time. To see 'what is' as it 'is', is to see the truth. That's what I would like to cut it short. And truth is not away from...

K: You have told me what it means to 'see', but I may not see. I may just think that I see.

R: Well... then you are not 'seeing'.

K: I must be very clear that I am not 'thinking I'm seeing'. Our whole life is ( based on) - I ''think that I see''.

R: Which is very different from 'seeing'.

K: You say so, but the ordinary ( thoughtful ) person say, 'I see, yes'. Which is, 'I think I see' what you're saying. But I may not see actually 'what is'. I ( just delude myself in?) thinking that I see 'what is'.
So, sir, now come back to this question of ( the Ultimate) 'Truth'. We have a discussion this afternoon and can we then pursue 'truth'?

R: No. I don't want to wait for ( hearing the Ultimate?) Truth. (laughter)

K: You want it all in five minutes, sir?

R: Not even in five minutes.

K: One minute?

R: One minute. If you can't do it in one minute, you can't do it in five hours.

K: I quite agree. All right, sir, in one minute. ( The World of?) Truth is not perceivable through time. Truth doesn't exist when the 'self' is there. Truth doesn't 'come into (one's) existence' if thought is moving in any direction. Truth is something that cannot be ( verbally described or?) 'measured' . And without Love and Compassion, and Intelligence, Truth cannot 'be'.

R: Now again you have given it in 'negative' terms, in the real, tradition of the Buddha.

K: You see, you have already 'translated' Truth into terms of tradition, therefore you've moved away from the actual 'listening' of this.

R: I listened, I listened very well.

K: Then have you captured the (true?) 'perfume' of it ?

R: Yes, and I captured the 'perfume' of what you said. And that is why I wanted to have it in one minute.

K: So, sir, what then is the relationship of Truth to our (man-made) 'reality'? Are these two everlastingly divided?

R: No. They are not divided.

K: They are not divided. Now what do you mean by that, sir?

R: That is what I said, to 'see'.

K: No, just a minute, sir. Reality is everything that thought has put together, including illusion. And Truth, has nothing whatsoever to do with this, It can't. And therefore the two cannot 'be together'.
Truth is timeless, it's not 'your' truth, 'my' truth, 'his' truth - it is something beyond time. And ( the self-centred) thought is of time, the two cannot 'run together'.

R: That is again duality, again you are dividing them ?

K: No, I'm not. I'm just pointing out, that thought has created such illusions, and it may also deceive itself by saying, "Yes, I've seen the truth." Therefore there must be ( such inner) clarity that there is no deception whatsoever. And I'm saying that deception will inevitably exist if I don't understand the ( limiting) nature of ( our man made?) 'reality'.

R: I think here we have come to (the Ultimate?) Truth. I don't know whether you would agree ?

K: 'I' haven't come to Truth, 'I' can't 'go to Truth'. Truth can only 'be' , or Truth 'Is', only when the 'self' (-consciousness?) is not (present?) .

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 28 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 May 2015 #16
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

THE TIMELESS NATURE OF 'INSIGHT'

KRISHNAMURTI (K): As dialogue can be a conversation that takes place between two very 'religious' people— in the sense that they are totally free from all tradition, from all systems and from all authority. We are talking about this ( holistical?) kind of dialogue— a questioning and an answering where the very answering provokes a further questioning and so on. In this kind of dialogue 'you' and 'I' (as self-conscious entities?) , disappear altogether, and only the question and the answer remain. Do we agree with that?

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): I looked up the word ‘dialogue’ in the dictionary, and found that it can be a conversation between a group of people. It is not restricted, necessarily, to two people.

K: Yes.

PJ: But the essential nature of a dialogue is a probing into something. Now, it seems to me, that all problems of the mind...

K: Of the brain; let us stick to that one word.

PJ: All right. I would like to start with this, namely, that all problems of the brain are born of time.

K: Are born from the (brain's internal?) process of 'time'.

PJ: Problems arise because the brain changes ‘what is’ into something different, and the movement ( mental activity?) of the brain which wants to change ‘what is’ into something else, creates 'time'.

K: Could we say this very simply? There is both physical time and psychological time. Physical time is ( implied in?) going from here to there; in covering a certain distance from one point to another point. Physical time is ( measured clock or?) by sunrise and by sunset. All ( physical ) movement is a matter of time. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: Now, there is also the 'psychological' (dimension of?) time—the time of ( inwardly?) becoming something (other than one is presently?) . ‘I am this, I will be that.’

PJ: Yes.

K: There is also this whole process of ( brain's) evolution—both psychological and physical. All this is fairly simple and clear, and we all accept this. Right? Now, my question is: Is there a time (a 'timeless' dimension of conciousness?) outside this movement which we know and call 'time'? That is, is there a 'time of non-movement'?
Let us go slowly into this. Time as we know it, is a ( mental or physical?) movement. The ( psychological?) 'gap' between one action and another, between one understanding and another, is 'time'. Inwardly, 'time' is a movement (a projection?) of fear or hope. The whole ( thinking?) movement from the past to the present to the future is generally acknowledged as 'time'. (Any material?) movement—of evolution, of growth, of achievement, of fulfilment, of becoming something—involves time. The interval between seeing something, thinking about it and acting is time. And I'm asking whether there is a 'time' which doesn’t belong to this category at all.

PJ: When you use the word ‘time’ and say that it does not belong to the category of movement, does it belong to the category of matter?

K: Matter as I understand it—I’ve discussed the matter with Dr Bohm and others—is (a form of?) 'solidified' energy; matter is a 'manifested' energy. The body is manifested energy.

PJ: You see, sir, the brain is (living?) matter.

K: Yes, the brain is matter. And thought is a material process.

PJ: Let us leave aside 'thought' for the moment; let us take the brain. The brain is matter. Now, in that (living) matter, evolution must exist.

K: Of course. We were monkeys at one time. Gradually, through a million years of evolution, we became 'Homo sapiens'—what we are now.

PJ: Yes, but we can link that evolution with the 'content' which the brain cells hold.

K: Which is memory.

PJ: Yes. Now, we link the (physical) evolution which took place in the brain with the evolution in ( the content of our ?) memory.

K: I see what you are trying to get at. Is memory (in ) a process of evolution?

PJ: The brain of the ape has evolved to the brain of the human being. Within that brain is the ( memory ?) content of a million years.

K: Yes, millions of years of memory. The gathering process of memory which is (including?) knowledge, experience, isn't it a process of time?

PJ: Yes. We apply (extrapolate?) the process of evolution which exists in the brain to the 'content' in the brain. My question is: Is the content of the brain which is nothing but a gathering of experiences and knowledge, identical with the (evolutionary?) nature of the brain itself? We all know that becoming is illusion. That is (relatively?) simple to understand. But you then ask: Is there another (inner dimension of?) time which doesn’t belong to these two categories?

K: That’s my question.

PJ: Now, time and matter are one.

K: Time is matter. Time is manifested energy. The very 'manifestation' is a process of time.

PJ: So, time cannot exist without manifestation.

K: That’s what I want to inquire into : is there a (different dimension of?) 'time' which is not manifest?

PJ: When you say that it is not the outcome of 'manifestation', why do you then use the word ‘time’?

K: I have no other word for the moment (for the timeless 'now'?) ...

SUNANDA PATWARDHAN (SP): Are you saying that the very Ground ( of Being) from which all manifestation arises is ( existing in?) another ( dimension of?) time?

K: Probably. Love is not of time.

PJ: Forgive me for saying so, sir, but the moment you use the word ‘love’, you have cut the ground from under our feet.

K: Why?

PJ: Because it is an absolute statement. And with (such) absolute statements, no discussion is possible.

K: Wait, Pupul. That’s rather an unfair statement. We are trying to find out what 'Eternity' is. We are trying to find out a (timeless dimension of?) Reality which is not of time. We know that what is mortal grows and dies. We are asking whether there is a(n inner state) or a (psychical?) movement which is beyond time. Do you understand?

PJ: I understand, sir.

K: Which means, is there (available within ourselves?) a timeless activity which is infinite and measureless? You see, we are using words to measure (evaluate and describe?) the Immeasurable, and our words have become ( part of the inner process of thought ?) 'time'. Words have become (part of thought -) time and with those words we are measuring a state (of being?) which is not measurable, and 'that' is not of time.

PJ: Now let us go into (this inner process of 'time'?). We know 'time' as the (memory of the?) past, as (what we 'think' we are in the) 'present' and as a projected 'future'. But what is the perception of that (timeless 'now'?) instant which is the only Reality?

K: The (action projected in the) 'future' is the (action of the?) past modifying itself. That is 'time'. Now, there is also a 'timeless' action, an action which is « perception-action ». In this 'timeless' action, that is, in « perception-action » there is no (time gap ?) interval. Right? Do go slowly, if you want to understand it.

PJ: Before I can even go into this, I want to go into what is this ‘past modifying itself in the present’ .

K: 'I' am afraid of (something that happened in?) the past and 'I' meet the present. Thought (the 'me'-thinking process?) modifies itself and goes on, but it’s still (surrounded by?) ‘fear’.

PJ: But can we examine that 'instant' where this modification takes place?

K: Yes. I am afraid of what might happen (to me?) 'tomorrow', but (my projection of?) 'tomorrow' is (contained) both in the ( what I am?) 'today' and in the (what happened?) 'yesterday'.
The 'present moment' , the ‘now’, is (containing both?) the 'past' and the 'future'.

PJ: But a (time-free?) perception in the present negates both the past and the future.

K: That’s what I am saying. But such 'perception' requires a state without the past. Perception is timeless. ( But if ) I am full of prejudices, knowledge, conclusions, convictions, beliefs, with that ( psychologically biased background?) I look at ( what is happening in?) the present. And that 'present' is getting modified by the challenge—I might alter certain beliefs but I still remain in the same field. The present is 'modified', and so the 'future' is the modification.

PJ: Yes, but when you speak of another (dimension of?) time which does not belong to these two—the past and the future—obviously the essential element of this perception is the ‘now’.

K: Yes, and that 'perception' is not of time. Because that perception doesn’t contain the 'past'.

PJ: What is the ‘now’?

K: The ‘now’ is the past and the present.

PJ: Is it actually (just) that?

K: Yes, that is the ‘now’.

PJ: I want to question that.

K: The ‘now’ is ( containing?) all time: past time, future time and the present time.

PJ: Now, you can experience 'past time', and you can experience 'future time' because you project, but what is the experiencing of ‘all time’?

K: 'You' can’t 'experience' it.

PJ: This is exactly what I am trying to get at—the past you can experience...

K: You can project the 'future' and experience (visualise?) it without going through it.

PJ: Yes; but this experience of ‘all time’ is not an 'experience' ?

K: No; (having an?) experience implies an 'experiencer' who is 'experiencing (something)'. The 'experiencer' 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?

K: You are using the word ‘contact’ in the sense of 'me' contacting 'you' ?

PJ: No, I just asked : what is the ( non-dualistic experience of the?) ‘now’?

K: I’ll tell you what the ‘now’ is....

SP: Pupul, ‘what is’ is the present. Fear is the ‘what is’, though it is the ‘what is’, the whole (active memory of the?) past is (contained?) in the ‘what is’.

K: Pupul is asking: What makes you certain that the 'past' (and the future) are contained in the present? Is it an idea, is it a theory or do you have an 'insight' into that?

PJ: The only (time?) where the 'revelation' or the 'insight' into this can come about is in the present. Now, how do I come to this ‘now’ ('eternal present' dimension of?) of existence?

K: 'You' cannot come to it.

PJ: Yes. 'You' cannot come to it—then what?

K: You can’t experience it, but your brain is conditioned to ( want to?) 'experience'. Your brain is conditioned to (evaluating it in terms of its previous?) knowledge, it is conditioned to measurement in words. But 'this' (timeless dimension of the now?) cannot be approached that way. And this is where 'religious' minds meet – because (if?) they have wiped away the ( speculative?) theories and concepts. They deal with the actual state (of one's 'beingness'?). And this is where the ( meditative?) religious inquiry begins.

PJ: Is it possible to probe into this ( other?) 'time' which is not of this...?

K: Yes, it is possible. Possible in the ( non-verbal?) sense . You can’t measure (or probe into?) this with words.

PJ: But the moment words cease...

K: ... the 'question' remains.

PJ: This is something quite extraordinary, the question remains, but the 'questioners' do not remain...

K: Yes. The question remains and the questioners don’t exist.

ASIT CHANDMAL (AC): What does the 'question' operate upon?

K: I said: ( the non-dualistic?) perception (insight?) means that there is no ( self-conscious?) 'perceiver'. See what the implication of that is. The 'perceiver' is the ( creator of the?) 'past' and the 'future'. But the ( holistic?) perception is now. Therefore it is timeless just as its action is timeless.

PJ: Therefore, in that perception, the (observer's?) past and the future are totally annihilated (put on hold?) .

K: Listening is not of time. If I listen, it is now. So 'attention' has no time. And, therefore, there is no linear or horizontal time.

AC: I understand. In that state what is there a perception of? Who or what is listening or inquiring into that state? How can you ask a question?

K: You can. I am going to show it to you in a minute. I am saying that perception is timeless. But, please, realize what has happened before we probe. The mind has rid itself of all 'hopes' (self projected expectations?) : it is now in a state of clarity. Right? So in that state, you can inquire non-verbally. That’s what I want to get at.

AC: I don’t understand.
K: Look, sir, ( suppose that?) 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 those words are interpreted (translated?) according to your(cultural?) background, according to your intellectual capacity, your emotional capacity, and so on. But can you listen to the truth of it? Do you understand what I am saying?

AC: I am first listening to the words, therefore I can’t (simultaneously ) listen to the (truth of the?) thing said. How can I?

K: Sir, don’t you understand the simple truth of ( this statement?) « Love is not of time » ?

AC: It cannot have any meaning.

K: Now, have a dialogue with me. Don’t categorically state that it has no meaning.

SP: Then, what is the comprehension of the ( truth of this?) statement ‘Love is not of time’?

PJ: There is no 'comprehension'... you take a perfume...

K: We can have a dialogue regarding that. Here is a statement K makes: « Love is not of time ». Do you understand the ( meditative?) beauty, the depth of it?

SP: I can understand that love is not ( related to?) attachment. I understand that where jealousy is, love is not.

K: That’s analysing.

SP: I know that. But, in spite of all this dialogue, this 'state of love' which is not of time...

PJ: Sunanda, you can never use words to ( meditatively?) 'open up' this statement. Forgive me for saying it.

K: You are using your intellect. We all have been trained to be highly intellectual. A poor (simple minded?) man who is who has not passed exams and secured ( scholarships and?) professorships, will ( perhaps?) understand 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 state of (timeless?) perception?

K: I tell you, ( communicate the insight that ?) ‘Love is not of time’. To me that’s a tremendous fact; it is the truth. You say, ‘I really don’t understand you’. And I tell you, ‘You won’t understand it the way you want (expect?) to understand it, because you want to understand it through the (mental?) intellectual process’- through (logical?) arguments, through a reactionary process, 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 (show?) you what that instrument is if you can put aside your enormous 'weight' (emphasis?) of knowledge which is of time’.

AC: Do you put aside your 'intellectual' instrument or your 'knowledge'?

K: I said 'knowledge'. Knowledge is ( the cummulative result of all our?) evolution.
Is there an 'insight', an 'immediate perception' of (the truth of it?) without bringing all your ( past experience and?) knowledge into it? Oh yes, sir.

AC: I understand that, sir.

K: So, if you understand that there is a 'pure perception' of something, you will probe into that perception. I will show it to you.

AC: How can I inquire into that state?

K: I will show it to you.

PJ: Can you discuss that?

K: You can’t 'discuss' it.

AC: 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 inquiry', do you stop there? The brain—does it see ( the truth of?) this? Then that’s finished. Do you get it?

AC: Yes.

K: Do you get it? Do you 'get it' ( in the sense?) that the brain says, ‘Yes, that’s finished’?

AC: No, the brain cannot maintain that level of energy—it 'lapses' (falls back into the known?) .

K: On the contrary.

AC: Sir, as long as there is ( that integrated ?) 'energy', there is no further ( need for?) inquiry or question.

K: I agree.

(Madras 28 December 1985- one of K's last dialogues )

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 Feb 2016 #17
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

2ND CONVERSATION WITH PUPUL JAYAKAR 23RD JUNE 1982

THE ANCIENT MIND

PJ: Sir, I was wondering whether one could discuss the wonder and nature of 'birth' in a human mind that is jaded, old, incapable of perception, can it renew itself, or have a totally new perception? I think that is a problem with many of us. As one grows older one finds that the quickness of the mind, the capacity to perceive, and take in deeply, perhaps dims.

K: Are you asking: is it possible to keep the mind very young, and yet ancient?

PJ: Yes. And I also would like to go into the nature of what is meant by the word 'ancient'. If we could go into the nature of that first because I have heard you use it several times. Obviously that 'ancient quality' is unrelated to time as yesterday.

K: Yes, let's go into it : the human brain, as far as one understands, has its own (self-) protective nature, protective chemical reaction when there is a shock, when there is a pain and so on. Our brains are very, very old. It has evolved from the ape, the ape standing up, and so on till now. It has evolved through time, through a tremendous (lot of) experiences, acquired a great deal of knowledge, both the outward knowledge as well as inward knowledge, and so it is really very, very ancient. And as far as I can understand, it is not a 'personal' brain, it is not my brain and your brain. It can't be.

PJ: But obviously your brain and my brain have a different quality of the ancient in them.

K: I am just exploring the beginning, laying a few bricks. If that is granted, that we are very old, very ancient, in that sense, and that our brains are not 'individualistic' brains, it can't have evolved through (all this span of) time as 'my' brain.

PJ: No, obviously.

K: It may be (logically) 'obvious' but most of us think it us a personal brain, it is my brain. Therefore from that is born the whole 'individualistic' concept (mentality?).
Now are we saying such an ancient brain, which has been so conditioned, and has lost,(that quality) or it may be very, very deeply embedded in the unconscious, in the 'deep down', and is becoming very superficial, artificial and vulgar. You follow what I mean?

PJ: But an 'ancient mind' is the result of our evolution in time.
Now the (spiritual ?) search which has gone on for centuries...

K: Since the beginning of time man must have asked.

PJ: ...has been whether it is possible to free the human mind of that, because with time also is inbuilt with this 'aging' quality, is built in with the sense of the ancient. So are you talking, when you say it is necessary to have an 'ancient mind', are you talking of a brain which has also inbuilt in it...

K: ...the quality of its own deterioration. Of course, because experience, knowledge has limited it, has conditioned it, has narrowed it down. Right? The more we acquire knowledge, the more there is the limitation of itself.

PJ: So, you seem to be implying two things : one is the sense of the ancient, and also the weight of the past, which gives it a sense of being very old.

K: It is old.

PJ: Because it has experienced ( life on Earth) for millions of years.

K: Which has conditioned it, which has narrowed it down, limited it.

PJ: But the ancient 'quality' you are talking about, are you talking about that which it has experienced through time?

K: First let us see how ancient it is in the normal sense of that word. And how it has in its own million years of experience has limited itself. Therefore there is a quality of deterioration. And living in the modern world, with all the noise, with all the terrible shocks, and the agonies of war and so on, has made it still more limited, more in conflict. Because the very limitation brings its own conflict.

PJ: Sir, there is a mind which, because the sense of these millions years, has a density and weight.

K: Yes, yes, quite.

PJ: Then there is a mind which is 'brittle' , easily corroded.

K: Now, the mind or the brain, which are you talking about?

PJ: I am talking about the brain.

K: The brain, don't use the word mind.

PJ: All right, I'll use the word 'brain'. The brain has a certain weight to it, and a density to it, which...

K: Yes, a coarseness to it, a 'heaviness' to it, quite.

PJ: A 'heaviness' ; now, is that what you mean by the 'ancient'?

K: Not quite. If we admit that the brain, by its own evolution, has conditioned itself, and therefore it has the inherent quality of its own ( self-) destruction, and whether that 'quality' (tendency?) can ever be stopped, in the sense of its deterioration, can the brain cells renew themselves in spite of their past conditioning, in spite of its agonies, failures, miseries, all the complexity of the modern world in which we live, whether that brain can renew itself so as to achieve its 'originality' (original quality ?) , not originality in the sense of individuality, but originality in its origin.

PJ: Would you say that the brain cells of the baby are 'original' in that sense?

K: No. Of course not.

PJ: So what is meant by 'originality' of the brain cells?

K: What does the word 'original' means? Unique, special...

PJ: ... a quality of 'for the first time'.

K: A pristine quality. Untouched, uncontaminated by (its accumulations of) knowledge. Can such a brain which has been conditioned for a million, or two million years, reach that, or wipe away its conditioning and reach that 'quality of pristine freshness' of the brain?

PJ: But the scientists would say that the brain cells are dying all the time.

K: All the time...

PJ: Therefore the number of brain cells available...

K: And also arpparently, certain cells die and certain cells are reborn. It is not dying all the time so that the brain goes to pieces.

PJ: No, but the very fact of aging is that this renewal does not keep pace.

K: Yes, that's it. That's the whole point really, isn't it, is it possible for a brain that has been conditioned, and therefore, as you put it, has the built in quality of its own deterioration, can that quality (tendency?) stop, end, disappear?

PJ: Yes...

K: That is, can the brain keep young, young in the sense fresh, alive, has a quality of its originality.

PJ: Yes. How would you...

K: ...proceed from that ? I think we have to go into the question, what is 'consciousness'? What is that part of our 'whole being', which is our consciousness. What is this 'consciousness'? Not only being conscious '(aware?) of things, outwardly and inwardly, but the whole ( memory based?) 'content' of our consciousness. Because without this 'content' there is no (self-) consciousness, as we know it. So can that ( residual?) content, which makes up this consciousness, can that content end by itself so that there is a totally different dimension to our consciousness? Because the human brain, or mind, has the 'quality of ( self-) consciousness'. That ( content) is ( creating our ?) 'consciousness'. And this ('psychological') 'content' is ( a dynamic package of?) beliefs, excitements, sensations, reactions, faith, agony, seeking pleasure, suffering, affection, and so on, the whole of that is our consciousness. And as long as this 'content' exists, it must wear itself out , because of its (internal contradictions and?) conflicts, its confusion existing within our consciousness, . And that's why the brain 'becomes old' - in the sense of aging, it dies. There is no freshness to it.

PJ: Is this 'content' of our consciousness identically with the brain cells (are the brain cels identified with their 'psychological' content)?

K: Yes, of course.

PJ: Then this 'content' of our consciousness, because of its very nature, wears itself out...

K: ...through conflict. Be careful.

PJ: Yes, I understand that. That very ( entropic ?) process is wearing out the brain cells.

K: It's conflicts, the disturbances, the shocks, the pressures.

PJ: So the 'physical' and 'psychological' responses are the same thing really then?

K: Yes. The physical reactions and the psychological reactions, they are both 'reactions'.

PJ: Because the brain is physical. The 'content' of of consciousness is 'psychological'.

K: Which is also a process of the physical. So the 'psychological' (content) as well as the 'physical' (content), with all their reactions bring about the thought of pain, the thought of agony, the thought of pleasure, the thought of achievement, ambition and so on and so on, and belief, faith, is all this.

PJ: It creates (a constant) disturbance. But the nature of the brain cells is to continually die ?

K: They 'carry on'. The tradition carries on.

PJ: It is inbuilt, that also is inbuilt.

K: Of course. And also it is (creating its) own protection, its own reaction, chemical reactions, from what one hears, the cells with their reactions, they produce their own 'chemicals' to protect itself.

PJ: So (a materialistic process of ?) 'time' is inbuilt in them.

K: Of course, after all that is the product of (our evolution in) time.

PJ: Time is inbuilt in the brain cells.

K: The question really is whether all this 'consciousness' with its content can 'end', in the sense that its (internal state of?) conflict totally end.

PJ: But with ( this inner) conflict totally ending, will ( the entropic process of continuity in ?) time also end?

K: Yes. After all that is what the sannyasis, the real thoughtful people have enquired : whether ( this inner process of?) time has a stop. Of course, they have all asked this question (in terms of attaining 'freedom' and 'enlightenment' ?) .

PJ: You are talking of 'time' as the psychological process ( giving continuity to this inner and outer ?) conflict.

K: Conflict, yes. So what is it that we were trying to find out, or rather investigate together?

PJ: What is it that will bring this 'quality of (a new) birth' into the mind?

K: The quality of birth. A new, a fresh element entering into it.

PJ: A 'being born', with the freshness and purity of birth.

K: No, wait a minute, by 'birth' you mean what - a baby is born, but his brain already has the quality of its father, mother, and also the collective tradition,( his birth) is gradually bringing all that out.

PJ: But birth also has that quality of the new. Birth 'is' : it was not, and now it 'is'.

K: Ah, you are using birth in the sense of the ancient brain, which is neither yours nor mine, it is the universal brain, and it is reborn in a baby. And as it matures, the brain is the common brain.

PJ: But what is 'reborn' in a mind which is free? Is it the ancient reborn?

K: Firstly, is it possible to be free of this ( million years old) conditioning of the brain, which has brought about its own decay, and whether that consciousness can totally end all its (self-generated inner ?) conflict. Then out of that comes the 'new birth'. As long as long as one's consciousness, is in ( a state of internal?) conflict, there can be no 'new element' enter into it. That's obvious. Would you see this fact, that as long as I am inwardly struggling to become something...

PJ: I think one sees that.

K: All right. Now if one sees that, not merely intellectually , but actually inwardly sees it, then the question arises whether it is possible to end it - I mean, end ('discontinue' ?) suffering, fear.

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, you can 'end' it without (any) renewal. There is a possibility of 'ending' (one's attachments to ?) all these things and yet 'diminishing'.

K: Ah,then we mean two different things by this word 'ending'.

PJ: 'Ending' what?

K: Ending 'that which is' : which is ( the 'psychological' content of ?) my consciousness - all the ( wishful?) thoughts that I have had, all the complexities that have been accumulated through time, the ending of that. So, either you end it by deliberate act of will, by having a superior goal....

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, when actually this 'ending' happens, which is the 'coming to a stop', a real 'standing still' of the mind, it happens without any reason.

K: Yes. Sometimes...

PJ: Sometimes it happens without reason. It is not due to any single thing. So is it that you throw yourself to chance?

K: No, no. Let's be clear first, Pupulji, what do we mean by this 'ending' ; is this 'ending' creating its own opposite (expectation )?

PJ: No.

K: Careful! We generally 'end this' in order to 'get that'.

PJ: No, I am not talking of that 'ending'.

K: So I mean by 'ending', the total perception of 'that which is', a total (non-dualistic?) perception of my consciousness, the whole, the complete perception of that consciousness which is ( a total) insight, that insight has not a ( hidden expectation or ?) 'motive', it is an 'immediate perception', and there is something beyond (that ending), which is not touched by thought. That is what I mean by 'ending'.

PJ: Is it like the totality of that million years 'sees' (the truth of?) itself?

K: Yes, that's right. Let's make it a little more simple, or a little more definite. Can we see that our consciousness has been ( culturally and physiologically) 'cultivated' through time?

PJ: Yes, that's easy...

K: Just a minute. And that any reaction ( of fear or hidden expectations?) to the ending of that is furthering another series of reactions. Which is, if I desire to end it, then that very desire creates ( the image of ) another 'object' to be gained. So is there a possibility of perceiving without the movement of the (expected ) future? This 'ending' has no future, only ending. But if the brain says, I cannot end that way because I need (to think of my) 'future' to survive...

PJ: Yes, inbuilt in it is the (projection of a ) 'future'.

K: Yes, of course. So is there an 'ending' of the 'psychological' demands, (hopes?) conflicts, ending of all that, ending without the ( background) thought of ''what will happen if I end?'' Because, look, I can 'give up something' if you will guarantee (promise?) me something else. I will give up ( the attachments to my suffering?) if you will guarantee me that I will be happy with the ending of it. Or there is some extraordinary (heavenly?) 'reward' awaiting me. Because my whole brain is constructed as part of that (self-continuing) consciousness, (based on) reward and punishment. Punishment is the 'ending', and the reward is the 'gaining'. Now as long as these two ( contradicting) elements exist in the brain, the 'future', the ( time-bound) continuation of ( what I am in ?)the present will go on, modified and so on. Right? So can these two ( desire-based ?) principles, 'reward and punishment' , end? When suffering 'ends' the brain is not seeking a future existence in paradise.

PJ: But even if it is not seeking a future in paradise, suffering itself corrodes the brain.

K: Yes. But you see, Pupulji, this is very important to understand that the brain is seeking constantly security, it must have security. That's why tradition, remembrance, the past has extraordinary significance. Right? It needs security. The baby needs security. Our brains need security - security being food, clothes and shelter. Security is faith in god, faith in some ideal, faith in a future better society, all these are contributory causes which make the brain say, I must have deep security otherwise I can't function. Right? So physically there is no (permanent) security because it is going to die, it knows it is going to die. Psychologically it has no security either , actually.

PJ: With all this I still say that there is one central demand.

K: Which is to survive.

PJ: No, sir. The central demand is to have a mind, to have a brain which gives the flavour of a 'new existence'.

K: Wait, wait, who actually wants such a brain? Not the vast majority of people. No, they say, please keep things as they are.

PJ: But we are not talking about the 'vast majority'. I am discussing with you, or 'X' is discussing with you.
So it is basically that, there are many ways of getting security.

K: I question whether there is security in the sense 'we want security'.

PJ: So the brain will never understand because inbuilt in its very nature...

K: No, that's why I am saying 'perception' is important.

PJ: Perception of what?

K: Perception of actually 'what is', first. Move from there slowly, slowly.

PJ: Perception of 'what is' includes the creative things it has done, the stupid things it has done, what it considers worthwhile, what it considers not worthwhile, the perception of all these and the ending of all this.

K: Perception of what is actually going on. Both physically, outwardly, and inwardly. What is going on around me and psychologically, inwardly what is happening. That is 'what is'.

PJ: Yes.

K: Now, the next question is: can 'what is' be transformed? Which is 'my' consciousness, which is part of the brain.

PJ: But an emptying of that consciousness...

K: ... is that possible? Is it possible to 'empty', or to wipe away the whole of the past? The past is the time, the whole of my past, the whole of the content of my consciousness is the past, which may project the future, but it still has it roots in the past. Right? Now is it possible to 'empty' it ? Is it 'psychologically' possible not to have the burden of a thousand yesterdays? The actual 'ending' of that is the beginning of the new, 'is' the new.

PJ: You used a phrase just now: is it possible not to have the burden of a thousand yesterdays. Is the problem in the burden, or in the thousand yesterdays?

K: The ( memory of?) thousand yesterdays 'is' the ( time binding) burden. You can't separate the two.

PJ: No, no..

K: How do you separate the two?

PJ: Because the 'thousand yesterdays' is a fact. The burden is when I have given a special content ( a 'psychological' value) to the many of these experiences which I have had.

K: Just a minute. Would there be a ( the memory of a ) thousand yesterdays if there was no remembrance of those thousand years of sorrow, or whatever it is, I can't separate by the calendar.

PJ: Yes you can : you can separate a thousand yesterdays from the burden of the thousand yesterdays.

K: Show me how.

PJ: Let us take one's own life.

K: One's own life, which is forty, fifty or eighty, ninety, or whatever it is.

PJ: Now you can separate the thousand yesterdays of one's own life from the pain, sorrow, burdens, all that which is the burden of the thousand yesterdays. So you can cut away the pain and the sorrow.

K: What do you mean by 'cut away'?

PJ: Perceive. You just now said it. You see this is where the difficulty comes in. Can I cut away the fact of my thirty years, fifty, sixty years? I can't do that. My body is sixty five years old.

K: I have lived eighty seven years, of course it exists, but I am talking about the remembrances, of course, that I am talking about. I am saying a thousand yesterdays exist.

PJ: They can be cut away. You can divide it.

K: Ah, I can't divide. This whole brain, and all the material processes of the organism are part of it.

PJ: Then what do I do with the ancient mind? Sir, one has understood what one has to do with the burden of the superficial 'yesterdays'.

K: Do you know what that means? Have I really wiped, or ended a 'thousand yesterdays', with all its superficialities, its pettiness, its narrowness, its brutalities, cruelty, and ambition and so on, which are all superficial, can that all end? I can say, ''I can cut away'' - but , which is the entity that is cutting it? It is part of that ( same memory) .

PJ: No, but I am not cutting away one pain. I am cutting away the whole burden. You were using the words : the « seeing of 'what is' ».

K: The « ending of 'what is' », that is totally different.

PJ: Why do you want to draw a distinction between this « ending of 'what is' » and « cutting away »?

K: 'Ending' means there is no continuation of something that has been.

PJ: What is wrong with 'cutting away'?

K: 'Cutting away' implies - you know, when I cut a piece of wood there are two parts of the same thing.

PJ: Well I think it is a semantic thing.

K: Semantic. But I am asking: is it first of all possible to 'completely end' the whole content of my consciousness, of human consciousness which has grown through millenia. And that content is all this ( accumulated) confusion, vulgarity, coarseness, pettiness, triviality of (our current) life.

PJ: But it is also the 'goodness'.

K: Oh yes. But 'goodness' is something entirely different. Goodness has no opposite. Goodness is not the outcome of that which is not good. The ending of that which is not good is 'goodness'. That's a different matter.
Now is it possible to end all this inner conflict?

PJ: There is an ending to conflict.

K: Is there? Or just a 'forgetfulness' of that which has caused conflict, or really end it.

PJ: Do you mean to say, sir, the very fact of the ending of conflict is the birth of the new?

K: Yes. When you understand the inner implications of conflict, the depth of it, I am talking of the deep embedded things.

PJ: You are talking of 'conflict' as the sense of 'separateness'.

K: That is the real thing ( cause of our conflicts) . (Ending the inner ) isolation, which inevitably breeds conflict. Is that possible?
There is no conflict. Problems may arise but those problems are dealt with immediately, ended. Problem means conflict.

PJ: Why should problems arise?

K: The common usage in the dictionary, is that a problem is 'something thrown at you', a 'challenge', something you have to face. We resolve the problem intellectually, or physically and so on and so on, which is still creating further problems. Like the politicians, that is what they are doing: you conquer, and the result of that conquering is some other factor which is another series of problems. You keep this 'problem' (making) going all the time.
I am saying ( that for K?) there is no problem. Physically or psychologically there is no problem; if I can't live at Brockwood for a few months, all right, I won't live at Brockwood, if nobody feeds me, all right - you follow. There is no problem.
So, if a new thing (challenge) arises, either my brain is incapable of solving it and therefore it becomes a problem...

PJ: You mean to say, sir, that for the 'birth of the new' ( one should not carry such 'problems'?)

K: That's it, you are getting it. And therefore the 'birth of the new' is ( uncovering) the most 'ancient' (quality of mind) .

PJ: Would you say a little more about it?

K: After all that is the Ground beyond which there is no other ground. That is the Origin beyond which there is no other origin.
You see, Pupulji, this is really a question whether the brain can ever be free from its own ( memory ?) bondage. After all ending something is not total freedom. Right? I can end, say for example, my hurts, I can end it very simply : the 'images' that I have created about myself, those images get hurt, but the 'maker of the images' is the (actual) problem. So it leads to something else, which is: to live a life without a single 'image', and therefore there is no hurt and no fear, and if there is no fear there is no sense ( of seeking inner ) safety, comfort and all the rest of it.
Would you say the 'most ancient' ( Mind) is the Origin of all life? It must be the 'ancient of ancient', that is the origin of all life. When the mind which includes the brain, when that mind reaches that point of that Ground, which is totally original, new, uncontaminated... is that possible?
Meditation has been one of the means to reach it. Silencing the mind has been the way that one hopes will help, will bring about that coming to it. You see we are all 'making efforts' to come to it. That's what I am saying. It requires no effort. The very words (making an) 'effort' means conflict. You see, 'that' ( Ground of creation ?) which has no conflict cannot be approached through conflict. Of course not.

PJ: In this sense, does it really mean that there is no partial approach at all in your teachings?

K: Impossible. How can there be? If I approach it through various parts, which the Hindus have discovered, Karma Yoga and all the rest of it, it is just partial. 'You' can't approach it.

PJ: Then what can you do, as an ordinary human being ?

K: You can't do anything. You can only 'do' physical activities. Psychologically you cannot do anything (about reaching that Ground?) .

PJ: What do you mean by 'physical' activities?

K: Creating a garden, building houses, technological (stuff) .

PJ: But the physical is going on.

K: It is going on.

PJ: So what does one do?

K: But if there are no psychological fears there will be no division of countries and so on and so on. There would be no division. You follow?

PJ: Yes, but the fact is that there is a 'psychological' fear (in most of us) .

K: That's just it. Therefore a brain which has lived in psychological isolation, which means conflict, can never possibly come to that Ground which is the Origin of all Life. Obviously not. How can my petty mind, worrying about 'myself', come to it?

PJ: The whole of life is more futile if, after doing everything you haven't even taken the 'first step'. Then where are you?

K: What is the 'first step'? Go into it, what is the first step?

PJ: I would say the first step is 'seeing whatever is'.

K: Seeing 'what is'. How do you 'see' it, how do you approach it? On that depends seeing the totality of 'what is', or only seeing the partiality of 'what is'. If you see the totality of 'what is', finished.

PJ: It doesn't just work like that.

K: Of course not. Because our minds, our thoughts are ( already) fragmented, therefore I will approach the 'what is' with my fragmented mind, with a brain which has 'broken up' ( got compartmentalised?) .

PJ: And again, with time, the fragmented gets less. Don't jump on me.

K: I know what you are going to say.

PJ: With time the fragmented (fragmentation?) gets less. And it is possible to listen to you, for the mind to be still, not to make any movements, not to make any effort, but that is still not even the 'first step'.

K: You just said : the first step is to observe, or to perceive 'what is'. Right? If I perceive it 'partially', that leads to further complications. Partial perception creates ( many?) partial problems. Right? Now is it possible to see the whole complex of 'what is'? To 'see the whole' and not the fragment. That means, I have to see if I lead a life of fragmentation. That is where I would begin. Because if I approach life, which is my consciousness, which is the way of my thought, feeling, actions and all that, if I approach it 'fragmentarily' then I am lost. That's what is happening in the world. They are totally lost. Those people who govern us, those people who tell us what is right or wrong, and all the rest of it.
Is it possible to « look at life as a whole », without fragmentation?

PJ: Why doesn't the Ancient Mind ( help us to ) see this?

K: It can't, it won't. How can a total, complete Order...?

PJ: But you said that ancient...

K: Just a minute, that is the 'ancient', the riginal Ground is the most ancient.

PJ: But that is ( out) there...

K: No, no.

PJ: What do you mean, 'no'?

K: ' It is there' as an idea, is what all people have maintained : 'God is there'. That is just a concept, a projection of our own desire to be comfortable, to be happy, to be - all the rest of it.
Can a human being live a life in which there is no fragmentary action? If somebody says, "Where am I to begin?", I would say, begin there, find out for yourself if you lead a fragmentary life. You know what a 'fragmentary' ( compartmentalised?) life is - saying one thing and doing another, the whole fragmented way of living, which is (self-) isolation, and therefore I have no ( genuine) relationship with my wife, or with the rest of humanity. So begin there. You know what that means? What tremendous enquiry you have to make to find out.

PJ: What is this 'enquiry'?

K: To observe very clearly without any bias, without any motive, how my life is fragmented. Just to observe it. Not say, 'I am fragmented, therefore I must be whole'. The idea of 'becoming whole' is another ( by product of the inner ?) fragmentation. And observing the implications of this 'way of fragmentation'. Which means, ( the self-centred) thought itself is a fragment. Right? And that (way of thinking ?) is the cause of fragmentation. 'I' am becoming something different from 'you'.

PJ: So the birth of the New...

K: ...is not possible unless you have ( done?) this. Obviously. We had better stop.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #18
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

How Can the Brain be Free of its Own Limitations?

K: Apparently, the human mind (as of now) is a mass of accumulated knowledge and reactions according to that knowledge. And if the (intelligent ) machines, the computers, are going to take charge of ( our daily chores?) then what will the human being do (with his life?) if his sorrows, his anxieties are all 'wiped away' by ( bio-engineered ?) chemicals or by some implanted electronic circuitry? I don’t think we get the fullness of it.

ACHYUT PATWARDHAN (AP): Do I understand it rightly, that while on the one hand man has developed these extraordinary capacities, there is also a corresponding process of deterioration in the human mind, as a side-effect of super mechanization?

K: The question is: How shall we prevent that? Let us inquire whether the human mind can survive at all if it is deprived of its problems either chemically or by the computers.

AP: I am not quite clear about one point : there is in each human being a feeling of an (unknown inner ) void, of an 'emptiness', which needs to be filled.

K: It will be 'filled' by chemicals.

AP: I am questioning that. At some point you'll have to see that there is "something" (at the depths of your being?) which will remain untouched.

AC: What if you don’t find that?

AP: Before you come to the finding of 'that', at least you must posit a need for 'that'.

K: I am positing the (more immediate) need : the chemicals & the computers, both are going to destroy (the holistic quality of?) my brain.

AC : Isn't there 'something' within ( the human mind & brain ) which is of a different different quality and which needs to be preserved? And how am I going to preserve that against all these dangers?

K: ( For starters ?) I say to myself, as a human being who has survived several million years: Is man going to end like this?

AC: It seems to me that this (huge developpment of computer ) technology is an 'evil' thing : there is a certain ( natural human ) goodness which is being destroyed.

K: Agreed. But why do you call it 'evil'?

AC: Because it is destroying the world.

K: But it is not the machine which is destroying us. We are destroying ourselves.

AC: So the ( ultimate ethical) question is: How is man to create this new technology and yet not be destroyed by it?

K: That is right. The (average human) mind is deteriorating because it will not allow anything ( of a more 'holistic' nature?) to penetrate its values, its dogmas. It is stuck there. If I have created a strong (personal) conviction or opinion, I am already ( inwardly time-bound & ) deteriorating. The machines will only help us to deteriorate faster. That is all.

So what is a human being to do if he has no more ( profound existential ?) problems, and is only pursuing pleasure ? I think that is the root of it: what man seeks (as of) now, is pleasure in different forms.

AC: And the computer and television will provide the pleasure right in his home. Not only the computer scientists but also genetic scientists and the entertainment industry are going to converge in destroying the capacity of the human brain, by bringing the human mind in a constant state of pleasure without any side-effects. And any (humanely significant) relationship with other human beings will gradually disappear.

K: Perhaps no ( bio-) chemist, or computer expert has gone so far as yet but we have to be ahead of them. So what is it that man has pursued throughout all his existence? From times immemorial, what is the stream he has always followed? Pleasure.

AC: Pleasure, yes, but also the ending of sorrow. He pursues pleasure and at some point he sees the need not merely for pleasure, but in the negative sense, the ending of suffering.

K: You are missing my point. I want pleasure at any price and ( the sense of frustration or?) suffering is an indication to me that I am not having (enough) pleasure. I want to survive physically and also 'psychologically', and to survive, I must do certain things, and to do certain things, they must be pleasurable. Sir, please look into this very carefully. Ultimately man wants pleasure. The pursuit of God is ( a highly sublimated form of ) pleasure. Right? Is this going to be encouraged by the machine, by drugs? (Man's craving for) pleasure is the most destructive thing in life.

Now, this constant search for pleasure is always in the ( field of the ) known. I have no pleasure today but the day after tomorrow it might happen. I like to think that it will happen. So, pleasure is a time (binding) movement. My whole life is the known. I have no pleasure in the unknown. And the computer, etc., is in the field of the known. So, the real question is whether there is freedom from the known. That is the real question because there is pleasure, there is suffering, there is fear. The whole movement of the mind is the known. And it—the mind—may project the unknown, it may theorize, but that is not a fact. So computers, chemicals, genetics, cloning are all the known. So can there be freedom from the known? The 'known' is destroying man. The astrophysicists are going to space from the known. They are pursuing the investigation of the heavens, the cosmos, through instruments constructed by thought, and they are looking through those instruments and discovering the universe, they are watching but all that is still the known.

PJ: The mind of man at present is being destroyed, because of the way in which it is functioning. A very interesting thing has struck me just now, namely, that the present functioning of the mind—as we know it—will be destroyed either by the (intelligent) machine which will take it over or by the other, namely, freedom from the known. So the challenge is much deeper.

K: Yes. That is what I said. You’ve got it. What Pupul is saying is, if I understand rightly, that the ( closed space of the ) 'known' in which our minds are functioning now is destroying us. The 'known' is also (including our) future projections such as (intelligent) machines, drugs, genetics, cloning; all that is born out of these. So (living enclosed in the mental space of the 'known') is destroying us (slowly but steadily) .

AC: So, there are two possible movements : the movement of the known is leading to greater and greater destruction of the human mind. And the way out is the 'freedom from the known', which is destroying the movement of the known.

K: Wait. Freedom is not from something. Freedom is an ending. Do you follow?

AC: Are you saying that in this 'freedom from the known' thought has its place, and that the mind has its place? Are you saying in that there is freedom?

K: I say that there is only freedom, but not 'from' the known.

PJ: I would say that what we call the 'mind' operates presently in a 'particular' way as it is put under pressure by technological advances. The the freedom from the known, is also totally destructive of this ( particular) function of the mind. Therefore, a 'new' mind—whether born of technology or one which is free of the known—is inevitable. The present ( self-centred traditionalistic ) position is out.

K: Let us be clear. Either there must be a new mind or the present (technological developments) are going to destroy the mind. Right? But the 'new mind' can only exist actually, not theoretically, when knowledge ends. Knowledge has created the machine and we live on knowledge. We are machines; but we are now separating the two. The machine is destroying us. The machine is the product of knowledge; we are the product of knowledge. Therefore, (functioning exclusively in the field of) knowledge is destroying us, not the machine. So the question then is whether ( the knowledge can end and not whether there can be freedom from knowledge.

AC: Can knowledge end, or the 'action born of knowledge' should end? The action out of knowledge can end. Knowledge can’t end.

K: It can (inwardly) . You see, (the holistic) action is freedom from knowledge.

PJ: What do you mean when you say that all knowledge ends?

K: Knowledge is the (whole mental activity within the field of the ) known. Can this ( 'personal' movement of) knowledge end? We are not talking of ending the activities of technological knowledge.
And 'who' is to end ( this inner movement of) knowledge? The 'entity' who ends knowledge is still a part of knowledge. So there is no entity apart from knowledge which can end knowledge. Please go slowly.

AC: So, sir, there is (in depths of the human psyche) this tremendous momentum of self-preservation ; so when the inner movement of knowledge ends— does this mean self-annihilation?

K: I am leaving aside for the moment, the ( existential issue concerning the ? ) ending of the 'self'. I am just saying that both the computer and our present inner life—are based on knowledge. And so long as we are living ( totally submerged by ?) knowledge, our brains are being destroyed either through ( the daily) routine, or (indirectly) by the machine, etc.
So the human mind 'is' ( completely caught in the movement of knowledge). See this (actual inner fact?) and move from there.
( For meditation homework : ) what is the state of the mind that is completely aware that it 'is' entirely ( trapped in the 'time' movement of) knowledge?
We have ( experientially) moved : knowledge (itself) is a 'movement'. It has been acquired through ( a long evolutionary) movement. So knowledge 'is' a movement (of time) .

AC: And you are speaking of the state of mind when ( its movement in ) time comes to a stop ?

K: That is the 'freedom' (from the known) . (Inwardly speaking ) 'time' is the (mental) movement ( from what I knew 'yesterday' to what I know 'now', towards what I will know tomorrow)

Let me put it all together : The ( knowledgeable human) mind has invented the computer. ( I have used the word ‘computer’ to include all technology—genetics, cloning, chemicals, and so on) . All this (technological developpment) is born from the ( huge) knowledge which man has acquired (in the past) . It is still the product of the known, with its hypotheses, theories and refutals and so on. Man has also done exactly the same thing as the machine (is doing now) . So there is no division between the two. The ( 'time-bound' human) mind 'is' ( fully engaged in this movement of ) knowledge. Whatever it does will be born of (its previous) knowledge—his Gods, his temples are born of ( ages old accumulations of ) knowledge. ( And inwardly ) knowledge is (generating is own) movement (aka : time) .

(For meditation extra-homework?) Can this ( mental) 'movement' stop? ( If yes...?) that is really ( the door to inner ?) 'freedom'. Which means that our perception is now free from knowledge and ( the resulting ) action is not out of knowledge.
But... (until then ?) we are living in the field all the time. That is destructive, not the machine. Unless the ('time-) machine' of the mind stops we are going to destroy ourselves (not the computer)
So is there a (new quality of direct ) perception which is not born out of ( our past) knowledge? Because when this movement stops, there must be action.

AC: In other words, it is to act in the world, but nothing 'sticks', no 'marks' are left. Nothing takes root.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 01 Feb 2018 #19
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

The 'Book of Mankind' ( reader friendly edited)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, yesterday you spoke of reading the 'Book of Oneself', which is the Book of Mankind. Now, this 'Book of Oneself' is never complete. As you are reading it, you are creating it. In the very observing of something, the future is also being created. In this state of flux, there is a first (experiential) question which have to be clarified : What is the nature of this ‘what is’? What is the nature of what is seen (in the Book of Oneself) ? Because unless we are clear on the nature of what is seen, the instrument that (or reads it?) can never be clear. So, can we please go into the nature of ‘what is’?

K : The present consciousness of man is the storehouse of the entire accumulation of the past: past experience, all the superstitions, all the beliefs, the various Gods, the various rituals, and so on. The whole movement of (mankind's evolution in) time is (enfolded ) in the ( consciousness) background of every human being.
Once we see this ( profound inner) 'fact', we can start ( inquiring ) from here.

PJ: Quite obviously the human heritage is also my heritage. All that has taken place in the development of the human race is common to all of mankind.

K: If a few of us see the truth that we carry (in our consciousness?) —all the time—this vast human heritage, then we can proceed. But we should see the ( actual) truth of it, not merely the logical arguments or the verbal structure of it.

ACHYUT PATWARDHAN (AP): Sir, would you concede that although all this may have been accumulated through 'time & thought', when I say that I am the inheritor of the heritage of man, this (holistic realisation ) is not the result of the thought process ?

K: Do you as a human being who has studied the history of the world, see the truth that (inwardly) you are the result of the whole of human heritage? Do you see that you 'are' this vast and complex book of the story of man? Do you see it not as a matter of argument but as a 'fact'?
If you see the truth of it, we can proceed from there :
In 'me' (in my consciousness?) abides the whole (psychological) story of man: his sorrows, his anxieties, his loneliness, his miseries, his happiness, and so on. This vast story is me. Now, what is the 'instrument' with which we read that book? ( Experiential Clue : as you are reading it, ( the 'what is') is changing, it is moving.

PJ: Yes. As I read, the 'future' comes into existence; the future is projected.

K: Wait a minute. Let us be clear by what we mean by this ‘future’ - the 'past' modifying itself in the 'present' and going on to the 'future'. So the ( personal & collective memories of the?) 'past' become our 'future'.

PJ: In other words, every thought that arises now contains in it the 'germ of the future'.

K: It contains in it the 'germ of the future', if there is no alteration.

PJ: So perhaps we'll have to be more clear about the nature of this ‘what is’ ?

K: I am (inwardly speaking?) the storehouse of all human endeavour - I may not be fully aware it, I may not know all the content of it, but I want to learn if it is possible to explore the nature of this consciousness which is not (just) my consciousness but the whole consciousness of mankind .

PJ: So, I am reading the consciousness of man, not (just) my consciousness, the attitude to that reading has undergone a total change (in terms of a global responsibility ) .

K: That’s right. If you are under the ( very realistic?) illusion that this consciousness is just yours—separate from every other consciousness—then you are moving in a very different direction. Unfortunately, most people—including many ('old school' ?) psychologists—'believe' ( assume ?) that their consciousness is separate, that it is 'personal' .

PJ: But also , there is an (experiential ) trap there : if we are objectively looking at the ( recorded) history of mankind we would read it one way. We would read this history in encyclopaedias. But the moment we see that the ( actual trends of mankind's ) history arise within our consciousness, our response will, immediately, be of a totally different nature.

K: That’s what I was coming to : if one actually 'sees' (the holistic truth?) that one’s consciousness is universal, that the ( personalised) consciousness that exists within the individual 'is' ( at its deeper levels) the ( shared) consciousness of all human beings, then the whole (responsability & quality?) of our perception changes.
Now, do I regard this consciousness as ‘mine’, as my private ground? You see, in the ( non-personal) discovery that all human beings are (inwardly feeling ) 'lonely' and that all people suffer ( of a self-created isolation?) that I discover a tremendous (liberating) perception.

PJ: I would rather say that the consciousness of mankind is revealed on my private ground.

K: I'd go along with that, but at no point must I insist that it is 'mine'.

PJ: So, if my ( personal) consciousness is part of the total consciousness of man, my relationship to it is very different. Let us take, for example, an instance of observing as ( my feeling of) loneliness or sorrow arise. This ( personal) observation does not bring to the forefront the factor that it is the loneliness of all mankind. At that point, it is just...my loneliness.

K: It is in a (non-personal ?) investigation of my loneliness or my sorrow that I can discover ( the holistic ) 'fact' that all men are lonely and that all men suffer. The discovery that it is the whole of mankind that suffers is an enormously ( unburdening) perception.

PJ: So, what brings this ( quality of holistic) perception about? In observing what we ( generically) call 'sorrow', what brings in the 'other' element, namely, that I am observing not my personal sorrow, but the sorrow of mankind?

K: Look, Pupulji. Most of us have seen that wherever you go, (personal) loneliness and sorrow live together. This is so in Europe, in America, in India. This factor is shared by all of us. To realize that this 'thing' (sad existential condition?) is shared by all of us, is a great beginning. You see, ( a qualitative) change has already taken place.

PJ: Yes. But I would like to go back. What exactly is it that ( the absolute beginner?) has to observe?

K: I observe sorrow. Loneliness and sorrow are synonymous.

PJ: Which are emotional responses to a ( personally challenging) situation. I feel suddenly a sense of shrinking...

K: ...or the (depressing) feeling of great ( personal) loss

PJ: And I look ?

K: No, no, no; 'you' don’t look. Suppose you have just lost a great friend (a brother?) or a wife whom you really loved. What has actually taken place here? With the (physical) ending of that person, there is the ending of your entire relationship with that person. And suddenly there is the realization of how utterly lonely you are, because that has been the only relationship that meant something for you. So when, suddenly, that is gone, there is a sense of great ( personal) loss. Now, just 'hold it' for a minute. Remain with it; don’t let (the usual projections of) thought or any other feelings interfere with that state. If you don’t (try to) 'escape' from it you will have suddenly discovered this extraordinary phenomenon, namely, that with the loss of some person or some conclusion that you have held most dear, a certain (inwardly comfortable) 'state of mind' has come to an end. Can the mind remain with this fact? Not as a (separate ?) 'observer' observing the fact? When the observer 'is' (fully immersed in ) that state he 'is' the suffering; he 'is' that ( tragic experience of ) ending.
( If one can remain with the truth of this fact?) it is like a (spiritual) 'jewel' you are holding. But the moment you want to 'part with it', you have entered in the dualistic state of consciousness.

PJ: I understand.

K: Now, if the ( living) history of mankind 'is' my own history, I want to read this book. It must be an extraordinary book. It has not been written. There are no chapters. There are no paragraphs. It is just one tremendous 'movement'.

PJ: Can any mind contain the enormity of it?

K: We must begin here : what is the 'mind' and what is the 'brain'? The human brain has infinite capacity. Look what it has done in the technological world—something incredible! But... it has been (seriously) conditioned through ( its strenuous materialistic ?) evolution in 'time'.

PJ: Through the concept of time ?

K: See first that the brain has extraordinary capacity in the (outward) technological world and that in the other direction, namely in the 'psychological' world, it has not moved (inwardly) at all. And because it has not moved (inwardly) , it has not flowered (in Goodness?) . It is conditioned; it is limited. However, ( its 'intelligent energy matrix' aka?) the 'Mind' is not limited.

PJ: When you speak of the 'Mind', what is it you speak of?

K: The ( Intelligent?) Mind of the Universe, the ( intelligent) Mind of Nature. Everything that has been created and is in the process of creation is the movement of the Mind. And therefore there is no limit to Creation.

AP: Are you suggesting that when I 'see' that I am the entire heritage of man, it is not the brain that can take in this factor?

K: It is the brain that takes in this factor, because I have communicated it through thought, using words, and you are looking at it through thought, through words. So (at this point) our communication is verbal and through thought.

PJ: Now, back to the Mind, you said that it is all that is created and is in the process of creation...

K: Pupul, let us be very careful when we speak of Creation. The function of thought is to reduce everything to its limited, mechanistic, fragmentary activity. We are saying that as long as the brain is conditioned (by thought & time?) , it can never understand the immensity of the nature of the Mind. If you see this, you will also see your ( 'holistic) responsibility' to uncondition the brain, to uncondition (remove?) the ( ego-centric?) limitations which thought has imposed on it.

PJ: Is a matter of 'unconditioning' the brain so that it cannot move out of its ( egocentric) grooves, or to 'end' this movement of the brain?

K: Which (experientially, is coming down to?) the same thing.

PJ: Isn't it a qustion of 'holding the brain in abeyance' so that the Perception, which is the (holistic action of the?) Mind can operate?

K: You are putting in modern language what the old tradition says, namely, that God Is (deep down?) in me, or that there is in me some (purely spiritual) element which is not contaminated, and which then operates on the (temporal conditioning of the brain ?) ...

PJ: But... you too have drawn the distinction between the 'brain' and the 'mind', between the 'conditioned' and the 'non-conditioned' state...

K: Yes. I have said that we must differentiate between the two meanings of these words. I say that the brain which is limited cannot understand what the 'mind' is. It can only apprehend it , or grow aware of it, when there is no conditioning.

PJ: But you went further...

K: That I shouldn’t have spoken with Dr Bohm and a few others. So, let's leave the (Universal) Mind alone for the moment. See what an extraordinary capacity the human brain has in the technological, scientific, world. All these incredible (advances in the ) scientific world are the activity of human thought. But thought itself is limited because (of its dualistic nature, and the quality & quantity of the available?) knowledge is limited.
The (experiential ) question is : whether this thought can ever be free from its limitation. It can’t. It can never be free of its limitation because it is born of limitation. I don’t know whether you see this.

PJ: May I ask a question? What is the distinction between 'thought' and the 'brain'?

K: Thought is the (memory based) activity of the brain.

PJ: Isn't there anything in the brain apart from thought?

K: (Laughs) I won’t fall into this (speculative ) trap. You are now going back to the old...

PJ: I’m not. If you accept that the brain has such tremendous capacity and that -as of now- we are using only a very small part of it, why couldn't it do within the 'psyche' what it has done in the outer world of technology...

K: Then the ( Door to the Mind of the ?) Universe is open to you. That’s what I am saying. The brain has been able to do such extraordinary things technologically. Now, if the brain can free itself from the ( ego-centric) limitations of the 'psyche', it will be incredible what it can do. Then the brain 'is' ( harmoniously integrated with?) the Mind; then it is totally free (of temporal limitations) . Then there is no sense of (inner) division , there is a sense of wholeness...

PJ: If the brain has had the energy, the drive, the insight to pursue technology, why is it...

K: Why are you not willing to turn the other way?

PJ: You see, man is prepared to go into space and ( in the case of an accident?) die. So it’s not a question of death or disappearance...

K: But there’s a great deal behind that (outward conquering of Space) —national pride, praise, fame, being (recognised) a 'hero'. It’s not as if man is really prepared to die. He has been conditioned (influenced) , through an immense propaganda to 'die for his country'...

PJ: Then, what is that element that would give human beings the curiosity and drive in the outward direction of technology?

K: I think our ( culturally levelling ?) education is responsible for that. Every culture has emphasized, that you have to earn a livelihood, that you have to work, work, work, that you have to study, memorize, repeat, repeat. That is all that they say. This morning I met some of the students here in Rishi Valley. Unfortunately, they are the same. They haven’t thought about anything apart from mathematics, history, geography—memorize, repeat, good marks, good job, and so on. If you were to ask them to move a little away from this, they would be lost. You see, they have not given even a thought to the 'other' (spiritual option?) .

AP: You see, sir, the really thoughtful people or scientists who go to the 'impossible question' are very few. So also, today, there are a few who see the present crisis of the survival of humanity. There are a few people today who have sufficient motivation to say that this is the most intolerable predicament for man and that the brain must be explored.

PJ: They are exploring the ( material) brain but not the psyche.

K: Sir, they are exploring the brain; its functions. Just look at it. The brain has extraordinary capacity—I don’t like to use the word ‘capacity’ because it is based on experience, and capacity based on experience is not capacity at all. There is a different kind of movement which is not based on experience, knowledge. Sir, the brain has done extraordinary things in the technological world, but psychologically it has not moved an inch after all these thousands and thousands of years.
Now if there is a ( psychological?) breakthrough, there will be no division between the Mind and the energy (matrix?) of the brain. Do you understand? The same (intelligent) energy that has done the technological work...

PJ: Yes, but it has never been released for this (inner breakthrough) .

AP: It is the energy of attention.

K: Don’t use the ( psychologically loaded) word ‘attention’; just stick to the word ‘energy’, sir. Psychologically (our (supply of free intelligent?) energy is practically nil.
And I’m saying that when that (inner) limitation is broken through, there is a totally different ( brain & mind) energy. So far it is only channelled through technology, which is merely the activity of thought and, therefore, that energy is (inwardly ) limited. The (energy involved in the ?) 'breaking down' of the 'psyche' is not the energy of thought. All the modern technology is created by the energy of thought, (but inwardly) the energy of thought is limited.

PJ : So, we have to probe some more into the (inwardly perceptive ) instruments that man has. Let us examine our existing instruments : one is 'thought', and the other is 'the sensitivity of the senses'.

K: Which are both the same.

PJ: This point is what we must discuss. The sensitivity of the senses and thought—are they both the same?

K: I will show it to you : ( as of now?) our senses are controlled or shaped by thought. Take, for example, the sense of taste—anything that is bitter, I don’t like, and anything that is sweet, I do. So thought has come in.
Now, the (holistically friendly ) question is whether there is a ( harmoniously integrated ?) movement of all the senses, without the ( subliminal ?) interference of thought. Have you ever looked at the vast movement of the sea, at the movement of the tides, and at the enormous power of the waves, with all your senses operating (with all one's 'being'?) ? If you do that, there is no interference of thought. Now when thought interferes with the senses, it must inevitably limit them or control them.

PJ: What you have said is so. But sometimes there can be a (spontaneous) state where there is nothing contained in those senses.

K: Right.

PJ: So, there is a more subtle connection when the senses do not operate from thought, the place of (holistic) operation ( of the senses) changes (to a ' mind-in-the-heart' zone ?) .

K: That’s right. When the senses are observing completely, there is no 'centre', there is no thought. The moment thought comes in, there is an ('observing') centre. Right?

PJ: We have discussed thought, we have discussed the senses. Is there a third movement?

K: Ah! This is difficult. Is there an (inner) state which is yet not a movement of thought? That is your question, isn’t it?

PJ: Not a movement of thought, not a movement of the senses...

K: Wait, let’s look at those two things carefully—‘not thought’ and ‘not the movement of the senses’. When you observe the sea with all your senses, the senses are not aware that they are 'heightened'. Anything that is excellent is not aware of its own excellence. Goodness in the highest sense of the word has no ( self-conscious) sense of being good.

PJ: You are talking of the essence of all thought, of the essence of all the senses. Then it is this 'essence' itself that is the (new) instrument.

K: Now when thought is ( becoming) aware of its own tremendous limitation, then it is 'broken through'...
I must go into this carefully. Pupul, what are we trying to get at?

PJ: We are reading the story of mankind and we are asking what the ( reading) 'instrument' with which we probe .

K: I will tell you. The (unwinding?) Story of Mankind is an endless movement. It has no beginning and no end. But my brain being limited, is looking for an ending. Right? So I am approaching this Book ( in a logic of time) to find out what the 'end' of all this is.

PJ: The search is for the end.

K: Of course, but to realize that there is no ending is to enter into something (a timeless inner dimension ?) called Love. And when you come to this really deep (meditation?) point, namely, that this Book (of Life) has no end and no beginning, you realize that you 'are' the Book. This does not mean that 'you' (personally) become eternal, but that life as (part of ) this movement has no end. It is then the Universe. It is then the Cosmos. It is then the whole thing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #20
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

Investigating the Inner Nature of God ( experientially friendly edited)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Can we, please, investigate into the nature of God?

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): Are you asking what is Creation or whether Truth is God?

PJ: Behind our personal search for ‘God’ there are many millenia of human quest for something that is 'absolute'...

K: Yes, for something that is 'universal'.

PJ: So, is it possible to inquire into the nature of ‘That’—call it 'God' or 'Creation' or the 'Ground of Being' ?

K: I think it is possible (only) if one can free the mind of all 'beliefs' and of all the traditional implications of the word ‘God’. Canour 'brain and mind' be totally free to investigate that which the Israelis call the ‘Nameless’ and the Hindus call ‘Brahman’ or the ‘Highest Principle’? Can we put away all 'beliefs'? For only then will it be possible to investigate.

PJ: But, when you're saying 'the mind must be free of belief', what exactly does it mean?

K: Can one, consciously as well as unconsciously, be free of the (cultural connotations of?) the word 'God' which are still playing a tremendous part in the modern world?

PJ: If you were to ask me whether I believed in God, whether I believed in Krishna, Rama or Siva, I would say 'no' . But fhere is a feeling for God that seems to be integral to the fact of life itself. You see, there is a sense that without ‘This’ nothing could exist, the sense that ‘This’ is the Ground.

K: Shall we discuss the Ground from which everything originates? How does one find out about that Ground? As I said, one can only find out when one is (inwardly) absolutely free. But normally, our 'unconscious' being is loaded, is absolutely crowded with all this...

PJ: There is a possibility of a state of being where the belief in any particular God is negated.

K: Does one negate it verbally (intellectually?) or at the very root of one’s being? Can one ( honestly) say, ‘I know nothing’ and stop there?

PJ: I can say that the movement of thought as belief in a particular God does not arise in the mind. Therefore there is nothing outer to negate as 'belief'. But I still do not know the state of ''I-know-nothing'' which is a very different (religious) state from the outer movement as belief.

K: So could we go into that?

PJ: How does one proceed?

K: Can one ( in the quiet context of meditation ?) negate completely, the whole (inner) movement of 'knowing'? There is deep within one the whole accumulated experience of man which says that there is (an Universal Intelligence or?) 'God'. Can one negate the knowledge of all that one knows?

PJ: Let me put it this way. One has comprehended the way of negating the rising movement of thought as belief, but the depth, the thousands of years that form the matrix of one’s being—how does one touch all that?

K: That is what one has to do.

PJ: Yes, but how does one 'touch it'?

K: Could we begin ( 'negatively') by inquiring why the human mind has struggled with 'becoming'—a becoming that is based on knowledge, on constant movement—not only outwardly but also inwardly?

PJ: How are these two related -the investigation into the nature of God and the 'becoming?

K: Aren’t they related? I think they are, but I may be wrong. So let us look at it. You see, one’s being is essentially based on the feeling that lies deep in one that there is something enormous, something incredibly immense ; that traditional knowledge is the matrix, the ground on which one stands. So long as that is there, one is not actually free. Can one investigate into that?

QUESTIONER (Q): Is there an inherent movement in every human being towards some 'Unknown' ( Intelligence or?) Being?

K: Even if it is an inherent thing, can one totally empty one’s (consciousness) of all the (cultural) accumulation of a million years? Can one empty oneself of the centuries of belief that there is something beyond all this? I think that that is the most deep-rooted belief. It is something that is in the unconscious—deep things always are. And I think that if we want to investigate, that ( root assumption or?) 'belief' must go too.

PJ: Sir, is it really possible, without the 'unconscious' being exposed, for it to end? I can go through the whole of my ( memory bank of?) knowledge, and yet it will not contain it.

K: No. But aren’t you getting an insight ( a meditation clue?) into this, namely, that there must be the total negating of everything man has put together?

Q: But aren’t you saying that even to begin we have put aside the very 'ground' on which we stand? I wonder whether our 'personal' insights and perceptions are not mixed up with that.

PJ: Yes, what we consider (as our personal) insights have to go. I can also comprehend the (meditational necessity for the ) negation of all (thoughts) that arises in the brain. But the layers of the unconscious, the ( cultural) ground on which one stands, can one 'negate' that?

K: Just a minute. (The religiously inclined) man has tried in several ways to negate everything. He has fasted, he has tortured himself, but he has always remained anchored to something. Like the great Christian mystics; they were anchored to Jesus, and from there they moved.

Q: Are we not anchored to our few perceptions?

K: If you are, then put them away; weigh the anchor...

Q: One can be free of being anchored to most things, but all the answers about God, Reality, etc., are deep in us. That perhaps can be negated, but...

K: I wouldn’t even ask that question: What is God? For if my investigation is a movement towards the understanding of what is called God, that movement itself is a (temporal) bondage : going towards something, trying to find something, implies time—and that must stop.

Q: Then how can Pupul ask that question?

K: This is the whole (experiential) point : Is it possible—to be inwardly without any 'time and thought' (mental) movement? We never say, ‘I don’t know’ (and remain there?) . I think that that is one of our difficulties. We all want to know. We put 'God' into the realm of knowledge. To say, ‘I don’t know’ is a ( holistic) state of mind that is absolutely motionless.

PJ: Look sir, there are depths and depths and depths in me. You used once a very significant phrase—‘Play around with the deep’. Is this ( inner) 'depth' within the matrix (of the known) ?

K: That 'depth'—is it the depth of silence? Silence means that the mind, the brain, is utterly still; it is not something that comes and goes.

PJ: How can I go into that?

K: I think one can if there is no sense of ( personal) attachment to it, no sense of memory involved in it.

The whole world believes in God. But unfortunately I don’t know what 'God' really is. Probably I will never find out, and I am not interested in finding out. But what I am concerned with is whether the mind, the brain, can be totally, completely, free from all its accumulated 'knowledge-experience'. Because if it is not free, it will function always within its 'known' field. It might expand enormously, but it will always be confined to that area.
My concern is whether the mind, can be completely free from all taint of knowledge. To me that is tremendously significant, because if it is not, it will never be out of that area. Any movement of the mind out of that area is still a movement that is anchored in knowledge; it will then only be a 'seeking of knowledge' about God. So my ( only meditational?) concern is whether the mind, the brain, is capable of being completely 'immovable'.

Could one have the depth of insight into the ( time-binding nature of the inner) movement of knowledge, so that the ( very clarity of that) insight stops the movement? The 'insight' stops the movement, not I or my brain. The stopping of (all mental ?) movement is the ending of knowledge and the beginning of ( the awakening of?) 'something' else.
There is this enormous feeling that comes when we realize ( the inner truth?) that we are all one. The feeling that comes from oneness, from a harmonious unity, is extraordinary, but if it is simulated (mentally) it is worthless, for then you will only be perpetuating yourself. Right?

Q: Could we discuss 'having no anchor'? Is having no anchor the putting aside of everything?

K: Don’t you see the importance of it?

Q: Yes, sir, I do see the importance of it; but apparently that is not enough.

PJ: Somehow there is something we are missing.

K: Look, Pupul, suppose this person—K—were not here. How would you deal with this problem? How would you deal with the problem of God, with the problem of belief—how would you actually deal with it without any reference to anybody?
Let’s move from there : each one of us is totally responsible to answer this question. You have to answer.

PJ: Why should I have to answer?

K: I will tell you why : because you are part of humanity, and humanity is asking this question. Every saint, every philosopher, every human being somewhere in his depths is asking this question. But you have to answer it without any reference to what K has said or not said.

PJ: May I ask you how does one take a question like this and 'leave it in consciousness'? You see, sir, you have a way of taking a question, asking it and, then, remaining with it.

K: Yes, that is right.

PJ: When we ask such a question (about the existence of God) there is a movement of our mind towards it. With you, when such a question is put, there is no movement.

K: You’re right. Now are you asking ‘how’ to achieve this state (of no-movement )?

PJ: Can I ask it ?

K: You are totally right to ask that question. I am asking you as many human beings have for a million years: What is God? I come and put this question to you. Are you ready to answer ( 'Yes' to?) it, or do you hold (or remain with ) the question quietly? For out of that very holding in which there is no reaction, no response, comes the answer.

Q: Could you say something about the nature of that holding?

K: I am talking of a ( contemplative?) 'holding' that is without any wave, without any motive or movement, a holding that is without any trace of trying to find an answer.

Q: We may not try to find an answer either ; we may first remain quietly with an unanswered question, but sooner or later an answer comes from the deep wells of the unconscious, and that answer rises up to fill that space.

K: I know. Suppose I ask you this question: Do you believe in God? Can you say, ‘I ( really) don’t know’? Can you look at the question—just 'look' (or contemplate it?) —without saying a single thing?

PJ: Then there is nothing the (knowing) mind can do.

Q: Are you saying, sir, that this ( contemplative?) ‘holding’ is something that takes place outside the area of the 'known' ?

K: Of course. Pupulji you asked me a question, that had great depth, about the Ground - what was your response to it?

PJ: You see, sir, when such a question is normally put to ( our knowledgeable) mind, it is like a grain of sugar being dropped on the ground—ants from all over come towards it. Similarly, when a question is posed, all the movements, all the responses are awakened, and gravitate towards the question.
Now your (counter) question was : Can the question be asked without the movements?

K: Without the 'ants', yes. When the ( knowledgeable ?) brain is not operating, it is (getting naturally) quiet; although it has a movement of its own. We are talking of the brain that is ( caught ) in a constant ( mental) movement, the energy of which is thought. To quieten thought is the problem. How will you deal with this question? Can you 'question' thought completely? Can you have a mind that is capable of not reacting immediately to a question? Can there be a delaying reaction, perhaps a 'holding of the question' indefinitely?
Let’s go back, Pupulji. Can I have no 'anchors' at all—either in knowledge or in belief? Is that ( amounting to?) a state of real 'profound meditation', in which there is no personal achievement; nothing? A (purely contemplative?) state in which the 'meditator' is no more the ground of all things ?

PJ: So can the Ground be ( directly experienced) without the 'meditator'?

K: If the 'meditator' is ( still hanging around?) , the Ground is not.

PJ: But can there be a meditation without the meditator?

K: I am speaking of a ''meditation without the meditator''.

PJ: Let us investigate this if we may?

K: As long as I’m trying to meditate, Meditation is not.
Therefore there is only the 'mind (totally immersed?) in a state of meditation'.

PJ: Yes.

K: Now that is the Ground. The ( Intelligent Mind of the?) Universe is in a ( similar?) state of meditation. And that is the Ground, that is the origin of everything; and that is only possible when the (all-controlling?) 'meditator' is not (present) .

PJ: And that is only possible when there are no anchors (in the known?) ...

K: Absolutely. That is, when there is absolute freedom from sorrow. That ( blissful?) state of Meditation comes with the complete ending of the self.
You know, Pupul, this may be an eternal beginning.

You see, the ( experiential) question really is whether it is at all possible for the human brain to be completely free of the 'meditator' (of its self-controlling mechanism) . This is essential—right? The 'meditator' tries to meditate in order to 'get somewhere', to 'put his life in order'. Whichever way you put it—you meditate to put your life in order or you put your life in order and then meditate—it is still the 'meditator' in operation. The question is whether it is possible to be free of this (all knowing & all controlling?) 'meditator'. If it is possible then there would be no ( point to) question whether there is God or no God for then that Meditation is the Meditation of the Universe.

( For further meditational homework:) Is it possible to be so utterly free? I am asking that question. Don’t reply; hold it, let it operate. In the very 'holding of it', ( the 'critical volume' of intelligent?) energy is being accumulated and that Energy will act—not 'you'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Feb 2018 #21
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

A K CONVERSATION WITH JACOB NEEDLEMAN

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
Nirvana.

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
'unconscious'.
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
mark?

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
Sun, 11 Mar 2018 #22
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

All about the K 'Process'

( texts duly collected from the official K bios written by Mary Lutyens & Pupul Jayakar )

(Nitya's letter to TS leaders  :) On the evening of Thursday ( August 17-th 1922) Krishna felt a little tired and restless and we
noticed in the middle of the nape of his neck a painful lump of what seemed to be a contracted muscle, about the size of a large marble. The next morning he seemed all right, until after breakfast, when he lay down to rest. Rosalind went in and found Krishna apparently very ill, for he was lying on the bed tossing about and moaning as if he were in great pain. She
tried to find out what was the matter with him, but Krishna could give no clear answer. He started again moaning and a fit of trembling and shivering came upon him, and he would clench his teeth and grip his hands tight to ward off the shivering; it was
exactly the behaviour of a malarial patient, except that Krishna complained of frightful heat.

Rosalind would hold him quiet for a bit, and again would come the trembling and shivering, as
of ague. Then he would push her away, complaining of terrible heat and his eyes full of a strange unconsciousness. Mr Warrington sat at the
other end of the room, and realized that some 'process' was going on in Krishna’s body, as a result of influences directed from planes other than physical. During the morning things got worse, and when I came and sat beside him he complained again of the awful heat, and said that all of us were 'full of nerves' and made him tired; and every few minutes he would start up in bed and push us away; and again he
would commence trembling. All this while he was only half conscious, for he would talk of Adyar and the people there as if they were present; then again he would lie quiet for a little while until the ruffle of a curtain or the sound of a far-off plough in
the field would rouse him again and he would moan for silence and quiet. We tried our best to keep the house quiet and dark, but slight sounds which one scarcely notices are inevitable, yet Krishna had become so sensitive that the faintest tinkling would set his nerves on edge. Later as lunch came he quietened down and became apparently all right and fully conscious.

The next day, Saturday, it recommenced after his bath, only in a more acute form, and he seemed less conscious than the day before. But Sunday was the worst day and Sunday we saw the glorious climax. All through the three days all of us had tried to keep our minds and emotions unperturbed and peaceful, and
Rosalind spent the three days by Krishna’s side, ready when he wanted her and leaving him
alone when he wished it. Though she is only nineteen and knows little of Theosophy she played the part of a great mother through these three days.

On Sunday, as I’ve said, Krishna seemed much worse, he seemed to be suffering a great
deal, the trembling and the heat seemed intensified and his consciousness became more and more intermittent. When he seemed to be in control of his body he talked all the time of Adyar, Annie Besant, and the members of the Purple Order in Adyar, and he imagined himself constantly in Adyar. Then he would say, ‘I want to go to India! Why have they brought me here? I don’tknow where I am,’ and again and again and again he would say, ‘I don’t know where I am.’ Towards six o’clock when we had our evening meal he quietened down until we had finished. Then suddenly the whole house seemed full of a terrific force and Krishna was as if possessed. He would have none of us near him and began to
complain bitterly of the 'intolerable dirt' of the house, the dirt of everyone around, and in a voice full of pain said that he longed to go to the woods. Now he was
sobbing aloud that he wanted to go into the woods in India.

Suddenly he announced his intention of going for a walk alone, but from this we managed to
dissuade him, for we did not think that he was in any fit condition for nocturnal ambulations.
Then as he expressed a desire for solitude, we left him and gathered outside on the verandah,
where in a few minutes he joined us, carrying a cushion in his hand and sitting as far away as
possible from us. Enough strength and consciousness were vouchsafed him to come outside but
once there again he vanished from us, and his body, murmuring incoherencies, was left sitting
there on the porch.

The sun had set an hour ago and we sat facing the far-off hills (of Ojai) , purple against the pale sky in the
darkening twilight, speaking little, and the feeling came upon us of an impending climax; all our
thoughts and emotions were tense with a strangely peaceful expectation of some great event.

In front of the house a few yards away
stands a young pepper tree, with delicate leaves of a tender green, now heavy with scented
blossoms, and all day it is the murmurous haunt of bees, little canaries, and bright humming
birds. We gently urged Krishna to go out under that tree, and now we were in a starlit darkness and Krishna sat under a roof of delicate leaves black
against the sky. He was still murmuring unconsciously but presently there came a sigh of relief
and he called out to us, ‘Oh, why didn’t you send me out here before?’ Then came a brief silence.

And now he began to chant and it was a quiet weary voice we heard chanting the mantram sung every night at Adyar in the Shrine Room.
We sat with eyes fixed upon the tree, wondering if all was well, for now there was perfect silence, and as we looked I saw suddenly for a moment a great Star shining above the tree, and the place seemed to be filled with a Great Presence and a great longing came upon me to go on my knees and adore, for I knew that the Great Lord of all our hearts had come Himself;
and though we saw Him not, yet all felt the splendour of His presence. Then the eyes of Rosalind were opened and she saw. Her face was transfigured, as
she said to us, ‘Do you see Him, do you see Him?’ for she saw the divine Bodhisattva [aka : Lord
Maitreya]. Never shall I forget the look on her face, for presently I felt that He turned towards us and spoke some words to Rosalind; her face shone with
divine ecstasy as she answered, ‘I will, I will,’ and she spoke the words as if they were a
promise given with splendid joy. Never shall I forget her face when I looked at her; even I was
almost blessed with vision. In the distance we heard
divine music softly played, all of us heard though hidden from us were the Gandharvas [Cosmic angels who make the music of the spheres.]

The radiance and the glory of the many Beings present lasted nearly an half hour and
Rosalind, 'saw' it all; ‘Look, do you see?’ she would
often repeat, or ‘Do you hear the music?’ Then presently we heard Krishna’s footsteps and saw
his white figure coming up in the darkness, and all was over. And Rosalind cried out, ‘Oh, he is
coming; go get him, go get him’ and fell back in her chair almost in a swoon. When she recovered, alas, she remembered nothing, nothing, all was gone from her memory except the sound of music still in her ears.

The next day again there was a recurrence of the shuddering and half-waking consciousness
in Krishna, though now it lasted but a few minutes and at long intervals. All day he lay under
the tree in samadhi and in the evening, as he sat in meditation as on the night before, Rosalind
again saw three figures round him who quickly went away, taking Krishna with them, leaving
his body under the tree.

Krishna’s own written account follows:

Since August 3rd, I meditated regularly for about thirty minutes every morning. I could, to my astonishment, concentrate with considerable ease, and within a few days I began to see clearly where I had failed and where I was failing.

First I realized that I had to harmonize all my other
'bodies' with the Buddhic plane and to bring about this happy combination I had to find out what my ego wanted on the Buddhic plane. To harmonize
the various bodies I had to keep them vibrating at the same rate as the Buddhic, and to do this I
had to find out what was the vital interest of the Buddhic. With ease which rather astonished me
I found the main interest on that high plane was to serve the Lord Maitreya and the Masters.

With that idea clear in my physical mind I had to direct and control the other 'bodies' to act and
to think the same as on the noble and spiritual plane. During that period of less than three
weeks, I concentrated to keep in mind the image of the Lord Maitreya throughout the entire day,
and I found no difficulty in doing this. I found that I was getting calmer and more serene. My
whole outlook on life was changed.

Then, on the 17th August, I felt acute pain at the nape of my neck and I had to cut down my
meditation to fifteen minutes. The pain instead of getting better as I had hoped grew worse. The
climax was reached on the 19th. I could not think, nor was I able to do anything, and I was forced by friends here to retire to bed. Then I became almost unconscious, though I was well aware of what was happening around me. I came to myself at about noon each day. On the first day while I was in that state and more conscious of the things around me, I had the first most extraordinary 'experience'. There was a man mending the road; that man was myself; the pickaxe he held was myself; the very stone which he was breaking up was a part of me; the tender blade
of grass was my very being, and the tree beside the man was myself. I almost could feel and think like the roadmender, and I could feel the wind passing through the tree, and the little ant on the blade of grass I could feel. The birds, the dust, and the very noise were a part of me. Just then there was a car passing by at some distance; I was the driver, the engine, and the tyres; as the car went further away from me, I was going away from myself. I was in everything, or
rather everything was in me, inanimate and animate, the mountain, the worm, and all breathing
things. All day long I remained in this 'happy condition'. I could not eat anything, and again at
about six I began to lose my physical body, and naturally the physical 'elemental' did what it
liked; I was semi-conscious. The morning of the next day was almost the same as the previous day, and I could not tolerate too many people in the room. I could feel them in rather a curious way and their
vibrations got on my nerves. That evening at about the same hour of six I felt worse than ever. I
wanted nobody near me nor anybody to touch me. I was feeling extremely tired and weak. I
think I was weeping from mere exhaustion and lack of physical control. My head was pretty bad
and the top part felt as though many needles were being driven in. While I was in this state I felt
that the bed in which I was lying, the same one as on the previous day, was dirty and filthy
beyond imagination and I could not lie in it. Suddenly I found myself sitting on the floor and Nitya and Rosalind asking me to get into bed. I asked them not to touch me and cried out thatthe bed was not clean. I went on like this for some time till eventually I wandered out on the verandah and sat a few moments exhausted and slightly calmer. I began to come to myself and finally Mr Warrington asked me to go under the pepper tree which is near the house. There I sat
crosslegged in the meditation posture. When I had sat thus for some time, I felt myself 'going out'
of my body, I saw myself sitting down with the delicate tender leaves of the tree over me. I was
facing the east. In front of me was my body and over my head I saw the Star, bright and clear.

Then I could feel the vibrations of the Lord Buddha; I beheld Lord Maitreya and Master K.H. I was so happy, calm and at peace. I could still see my body and I was hovering near it. There was such profound calmness both in the air and within myself, the calmness of the bottom of a deep unfathomable lake. Like the lake, I felt my physical body, with its mind and emotions,
could be ruffled on the surface but nothing, nay nothing, could disturb the calmness of my soul.
The Presence of the mighty Beings was with me for some time and then They were gone. I was
supremely happy, for I had 'seen'. Nothing could ever be the same. I have drunk at the clear and
pure waters at the source of the fountain of life and my thirst was appeased. Never more could I
be thirsty, never more could I be in utter darkness. I have seen the Light. I have touched
compassion which heals all sorrow and suffering; it is not for myself, but for the world. The fountain of Truth has been revealed to me and the darkness has been dispersed. Love in all its glory has intoxicated my heart; my heart can never be closed. I have drunk at the fountain of Joy and eternal Beauty. I am God-intoxicated.

On September 2 Krishna was writing letters to Mrs Besant, Leadbeater and Lady Emily.
'' Nitya is writing in some detail the extraordinary experience I had on the night of 20th of
Aug. and the way the two previous days had been leading up to it. As you well know, I have not been what is called ‘happy’ for many years; everything I touched brought me discontentment; my mental condition as you know has been deplorable. I did not know what I wanted to do nor did I care to do much; everything bored me in a very short time and in fact I did not find myself. By
what Nitya has written and by what I have added to it you will see I have changed considerably
from what I was in Australia. Naturally I have been thinking clearly and deliberately about the
message Master K.H. gave me while in Australia. I had begun to meditate regularly every
morning for about half an hour. After a few days of meditation, I began to see clearly where I
had failed and where I was failing and after Aug. 20th I know what I want to do and what lies before me—nothing but to serve the Masters and the Lord. I have become since that date much more sensitive and slightly clairvoyant as I saw you with the President, the other night while I was sitting in the moonlight.
Such a thing has not happened to me for over seven years. In fact for the last seven years, I have
been spiritually blind, I have been in a dungeon without a light, without any fresh air. Now I
feel I am in sunlight, with the energy of many, not physical but mental and emotional. I feel
once again in touch with Lord Maitreya and the Master and there is nothing else for me to do
but to serve Them. My whole life, now, is, consciously, on the physical plane, devoted to the
work and I am not likely to change.
Please tell me, without any reservation, what you think of all that I have written and felt. ''

To Lady Emily he expressed his feelings more intimately:

''I have had the happy fortune of getting back, I
think, into the consciousness of the Master & my old touch with Lord Maitreya. I feel & live in exaltation; not the exaltation of pride. Nitya & Mr Warrington have written too & I have written mine when I was still in the spirit of exaltation & adoration. I
feel like that still when I think about it. All that I have written is absolutely genuine & profound.
I can never be the same. I am not going to stop loving you mother dear ever but my attitude
towards life is changed; there is nothing for me but the ''work''. I certainly have more energy
mental & emotional but not yet physical & that will come. I feel as though I am sitting on a
mountain top in adoration & that Lord Maitreya is close to me. I feel as though I am walking on
delicate & perfumed air. The horizon of my life is clear & the sky-line is beautiful & precise.
So mother you see I have changed & with that change in me, I am going to change the lives of my friends. I want them to climb the same mountain & look at the glories of the Great Ones from there. ... I want you to be up there with me. ... I am going to help the whole world to climb
a few feet higher than they are ... I hope you do not think that I am preaching to you, but since I have changed & now that I consider that I have found myself, I want to help you to realize your own self & become great. You must be for there is nothing else in the world but to tread the glorious and sacred Path & mother dear I am going to help you. There is nothing else to do but become like Them in
all things & to follow & serve Them by serving the world. You don’t know how I have
changed, my whole inner nature is alive with energy & thought & I am sure my ego has come down decidedly. I am slightly clairvoyant.

The Process Intensifies

Lady Emily vividly remembered having breakfast with the brothers the next morning and beginning to talk to K about his experience, whereupon he immediately went off into a dead faint. Nitya told her that K could not talk about it; if anyone mentioned it he just put his head down and became unconscious.

Lady Emily wrote to Mrs Besant ten days
later : ''Krishna seems outwardly little
changed though perhaps more beautiful, but one is conscious at every moment of a controlled (intelligent?) but immense concentrated 'power' flowing from him. His Esoteric Section talk was an immense advance on anything he has given before. He had no notes & spoke for 45 mins, fluently, easily & yet with such tremendous earnestness & force it was like listening to the throbbing of a great machine. ''

The first fortnight in Austria at Sonblick was a real holiday, but by the middle of August K’s ‘process’ started again even more severely.
On August 15 Lady Emily began to write a diary describing these strange evening occurrences:
''On Monday we went for rather a long walk up the mountains into a pine forest. At dinner time he was obviously hardly conscious & almost directly afterwards he went right ‘off’ and the body began to sob & groan. It lasted till 9 o’c. when he came round & went off to bed. But at 12 o’c. he began again till 1 o’c. & once again in the early morning. It is very curious that the vitality of Americans (here, Helen Knothe) seems to supply something that he needs. I asked him if I could not help him but he explained to me that being married would make it 'undesirable'—when in this state he is very particular that everything round him should be of the purest.

Yesterday he seemed very happy ...but again at dinner only Krishna’s body was there—& very much tired by any loud talk or voice.
Krishna went to his own room with Nitya & Helen & was ‘off’ again until 9 o’c. This time he
seemed in much less pain & did not groan much, but when he woke up at 9 o’c. he was very
dazed & confused.
Thursday Yesterday was rather a
curious day as at lunch time Krishna was very boisterous & full of jokes. It is very curious to watch the 'phases' through which Krishna passes. Sometimes he is just a
frolicsome boy with apparently not a serious thought in the world. Then swiftly he changes &
becomes the Teacher—stern & uncompromising, urging his pupils onward towards swift
progress. Again he is just tortured with the pain in his spine—not speaking & just wanting
quiet—or most strange of all the figure that comes to dinner—beautiful, with unseeing eyes
mechanically eating his food & shrinking at every sound. Most beautiful of all when he sits in meditation chanting mantrams—his soul going out in worship. These phases succeed each other in such swift succession that it is something of a strain to be always prepared for them.

Last night Krishna was 'away' for just two hours—not in much pain apparently but just
talking vaguely. He said that ''his body must not eat so much at night & must take more exercise''.

August 18. Last night just as he went off Krishna said that they must wake him up at 8.30. Then almost immediately some of the Great Ones came. Nitya apparently saw & heard Them on the balcony in front of Krishna’s room. Nitya says he has never before been so conscious of the presence of Master
K.H. & when they left be felt something of himself go after 'Them' and then he fainted. Krishna was conscious of this & called to him & he came round at once. Apparently, Krishna’s body faints off & Helen & Nitya have to revive it. Sometimes they have to pour water on him but he asked them not to do this if they could help it
as it hurt him so much. Before he came back his 'elemental' (body consciousness) said: ‘Krishna is standing there & laughing. I wonder what he is laughing at.’ Nitya suggested that he should ask him, but he said ‘Oh, no I couldn’t’. …

Sunday. ... When Krishna went up last night he again said they must wake him at 8.30 & then he
said that 'Someone' was coming & asked Helen & Nitya to wait outside. This they did for about
five minutes when they heard him fall with a bang & went in. He seems to have been in great
pain last night & swooned a good many times. He told them at the end that he was too tired for
more to be done, but it would be continued tonight. …

Monday. Krishna 'went a long way off' & the 'little child' came talking of his childhood, his hatred of school etc.

Wed. Yesterday ... Krishnaji went off at the usual hour & suffered terribly. Helen was not very well & the 'physical elemental' seemed conscious of this & tried to control his
groans—but at one time they were so bad that Krishna came back & asked what was happening.
They said nothing & when he had gone (off) again the 'physical elemental' or whatever is in charge of the body was dreadfully distressed at having brought Krishna back & said Krishna had told him to 'control himself' & he had done his best & could not help it.
(The Church bells begin to ring always about 8 o‘c. & their noise causes him agony. Last
night he fainted twice while they were ringing.)
Nitya told me of the message Master K.H. gave him : '' Krishna was wasting energy &
that he ought to read books which would increase his vocabulary but not give him set opinions''.
Nitya understood that these experiences will not be very long continued.

Thursday. Yesterday ... the 'evening performance' was very bad, an hour of concentrated agony. Krishna sent Nitya & Helen out of the room once as it was so bad.
Downstairs we could hear him banging himself on to the floor & his awful groans & it was hard
to keep one’s thoughts resolutely turned away. When I went up afterwards he looked so tired &
his poor eyes all bloodshot. The pain has been chiefly in his head during these days here. …

Friday. The 'evening performance' was again excruciating. He had to send Nitya & Helen out of the room several times & we could hear his poor body falling repeatedly. He lies upon the floor upon a rug but sits up in his agony & then faints away & falls with a bang. Happily he seems to sleep soundly & in the morning he is not too tired. This morning we had a good walk & to see him leaping down the hills so full of grace & beauty & vitality it is almost impossible to believe what his poor body has endured each night.

Sat. Last night was 'bad as usual' but he seemed more controlled & did not have to send them out
of the room. Helen thinks this was because she was more controlled. He told her one night that

if she was so nervous the whole business would have to stop & that her attitude should be 'kind
but indifferent'. Ruth was not well yesterday & we kept her in this house to sleep. She sat below with me while the process was going on, & the 'elemental' seemed at once conscious of a fresh person & asked who was there. …

Sunday. Yesterday the 'evening performance' was more than usually agonizing ... just when he
was at his worst the Church bells rang & caused him such a shock of agony that Krishna had to
come back & apparently consulted with them if anything more could be done to the body that
night. The 'physical elemental' begged them to continue. Afterwards K said ‘That was a very
narrow shave. Those bells nearly tolled for my funeral.’ He seemed very nervous all
the rest of the time & even when I went up afterwards Krishna it saying ‘What is the matter? I feel so uncomfortable tonight.’ [the physical 'elemental'] also told them that Krishna must go out & take exercise even when it rained.

Monday. Last night was very bad. We could hear his dreadful cries & apparently he said ‘It has
never been as bad as this’. After the worst is over he generally has about half an hour when he is a little child again. He then thinks that Helen is his Mother.

On September 7 : a new phase of intensity seems to have begun in Krishna’s nightly
experiences. On Monday [September 3] he suffered terribly or rather the body & was twice sick. On Tuesday he was in great pain all day & was sick again after every meal keeping nothing
down except his evening milk. Wednesday he was told he must eat nothing but fruit & this he
kept down. Thursday he was told to fast all day only drinking water. This reduced him to such a
state of weakness that the evening’s work was wasted as nothing could be done to the poor
exhausted body. He had to be given food & hot bottles to revive him, & when I went to say
goodnight his poor face looked so thin & haggard. …

Krishna was very much annoyed at the waste of time & reproached Nitya & Helen for
letting him fast, but of course they were following his own instructions... Now he is to use moderation—he no longer eats the evening meal, but has his bath while we eat, & then has his food after all is over. They seem to work on him the last two nights with greater concentration & intensity—it has been very awful to hear his cries & sobs. It
sounds like some animal in awful pain. But it is wonderful how quickly Krishna’s body recuperates. Even after that day of fasting when he seemed too weak to move, next morning he walked and played rounders as vigorously as ever.''

The Process continued in a less severe form, until September 20. On that evening K brought through a message from the Master Kuthumi which Nitya who immediately wrote it down:
''Nitya, listen : this is finished here, this is the last night. It will be continued in Ojai. But this depends upon you. You both should have more energy. On what you do in the next month will depend the success. Let everything be consecrated to the success of this. It has been a success here. But Ojai depends entirely on you, there it will be continued with much greater vigour if you are ready. When you leave this place you have to be exceedingly careful. It is like a fresh vase, just out of the mould, and any bad vibration may crack it, and this will mean repairing and remodelling and this would take a long time. You have to be careful; if you fail it will mean beginning everything from the beginning. This house (Villa Sonnblick) is sacred, it should be used for Austria.''

Climax of the Process

After a week in London the brothers sailed for New York on October 22 (1922) and eventually reached Ojai on November 8. ‘Helen was very
miserable when she left us & joined her family,’ K told Lady Emily. ‘I think she
is having a bad time. Good for her though.’ (This last remark, apparently so 'heartless', was characteristic of K: 'to go through a bad time' was an essential preliminary to change and growth; contentment was stagnation which led to mediocrity. (Mary Lutyens' note)
They now went to live in the larger house at Ojai included in the property they had bought in February. They called their new house 'Arya Vihara' meaning 'Noble Monastery'. Since they were extremely short of money, they did all their own cooking and cleaning which K found ‘past a joke’. Eventually they engaged a cleaning woman to come from the Ojai village twice a week, and a gardener.

On November 20, K’s ‘process’ started
again. It was so bad that Nitya became worried, wondering whether everything was as it should be. He naturally turned to Leadbeater for
advice and wrote him an anxious letter.
During the last days in Ehrwald, 'they' tried the experiment of leaving Krishna conscious
while the pain was still fairly strong, but this consciousness was only for 10 or 20 seconds at a time, and as soon as the pain became too intense, Krishna would 'leave the body'.
Seven days ago the process began again only now Krishna is fully conscious and the pain is
growing more and more intense, tonight has been the worst night for pain. I started this letter
while he was suffering and he has just come out of the room after an hour of fierce pain. After the pain is over Krishna leaves the body and the body weeps heartbrokenly with exhaustion. He calls for his mother, and I’ve discovered that he wants Helen, not Rosalind.

Krishna’s 'body' (elemental) repeated this message on the night of 26th, immediately after the process was over for the evening :
‘The work that is being done now is of gravest importance and exceedingly delicate. It is the
first time that this experiment is being carried out in the world. Everything in the household
must give way to this work, and no one’s convenience must be considered, not even Krishna’s. Strangers must not come there too often; the strain is too great. You and Krishna can work this out. Maintain peace and [an] even life.''

K’s torture meanwhile went on unabated – he wrote Lady Emily :
''I am getting more & more irritable & I am getting more & more tired I wish you & the others were here. I feel like crying so often nowadays & that used not to be my way. It’s awful for the others & myself. ... I wish Helen were here but 'they' don’t want anybody to help me along. So I have to do it all by myself. ...
However hard one may try, there is a 'loneliness' - that of a solitary pine in the wilderness.''

By February 7 Nitya told Mrs Besant that ''they had had seventy-six nights of the 'process' without cessation at Arya Vihara. The evening business is more of a strain than it has ever been, now all the excitement and Krishna I think has almost forgotten to smile. ... The
pain is getting more and more intense, though his capacity to bear pain is growing with it.'' ...
Towards the end of February K’s ‘process’ reached a climax which K described to Lady Emily:

''Don’t worry about me, because I think, this all has been arranged, so that I could go through
it by myself. Last 10 days, it has been really strenuous, my spine & neck have been going very strong and day before yesterday, I had an extraordinary evening. Whatever
it is, the ( Kundalini) 'force' or whatever one calls the 'bally' thing, came up my spine, up to the nape of my neck, then it separated into two, one going to the right & the other to the left of my head till they met between the two eyes, just above my nose. There was a kind of flame & I saw the Lord ( Maitreya) & the Master (KH) . It was a tremendous night. Of course the whole thing was painful, in the extreme.''

K was given a message on that evening which he repeated to Nitya who wrote it down
at once :
''My Sons, I am pleased with your endurance and bravery. It has been a long struggle and as far as We have gone, it has been a good success. Though there were many difficulties We have surmounted them with comparative ease. There have been many chapters in the progress of ( mankind's ) evolution, and each stage has its trial. This is but the beginning of many struggles. Be equally
brave, and endure it with the same grace in the future, with the same power and with the same
cheerfulness. Then only can you help Us.
You have come out of it well, though the entire preparation is not over. The part that has
been done is done well and successfully. We are sorry for the pain, long drawn out, which must
have seemed to you apparently endless, but there is a great glory awaiting each one of you. It has been like living continuously in a dark cell, but the sun outside is awaiting you.
My Blessing be with you. Though We have guarded the three 'places' in your body there is sure to be pain. It is like an operation; though it may be over you are bound to feel the effects
afterwards.
Do not go into crowded places unnecessarily, and keep in the open air as often as you can. Go slowly and gently, or you might break the body which has been under a tremendous strain. It must be treated with great care.
Though We may not be so consciously with you remember that you have had the tremendous privilege of many visitations from Us. Though Krishna had occasional doubts and
misgivings We were always watching. Do not worry about that side for We are always with
you. For the next months be happy in the knowledge that you have seen Him, Who gives
happiness to all things, to Us and to you.''

The ‘process’ started again at Pergine on August 21 (1924) and was more agonising than ever.
Instructions were given through K on September 4 that his room must be closed by 3 p.m. and that no one must touch him after that hour and that everything and everyone must be exceptionally clean; nor must he eat before his ordeal. At 6 p.m. he would have his bath and put on Indian dress and go into his chamber. Only Nitya was allowed to go in with him. On the evening of the 24th, K had a presentiment that it was going to be ‘an exciting night’, and sure enough the Lord Maitreya
came and remained with K for a long time and left a message for the whole party : ''Learn to serve Me, for along that path alone will you find me. Forget yourself, for then only am I to be found.
Do not look for the Great Ones when they may be very near you. You are like the hungry man who is offered food and will not eat. The 'happiness' you seek is not far off; it lies in every common stone. I am there if you will only see. I am the Helper if you will let Me help.''

(The process stopped after September 24 and K wrote from India to CWL during the spring of 1925)

''My 'process' is slowly beginning and it is rather painful. The back of my head and the base
of my spine are 'active' once again and when I think or write, it is almost unbearable. The moment I lie down, it’s very painful and when I wake up in the morning, I feel as though it had been going on all the night. It is altogether very curious and I don’t understand it in the least.''

After informing Mrs Besant of Nitya’s departure for treatment at Ooty, K went on to tell her about
''my own pain which was getting worse and worse.
I suppose it will stop some day but at present it is rather awful. I can’t do any work etc. It goes on all day & all night now. Also when Helen was here, I was able to relax & now I can’t. I feel as though I want to cry my heart out but what is the good ? ''

He wrote to Mrs Besant on February 10, recounting a 'dream' he had had: ''I remember going to the Master’s house and asking & begging to let Nitya get well & let
him live. The Master said that I was to see the Lord Maitreya and I went there and I implored
there, but I got the impression that it was not His business & that I should go to the Mahachohan.
I went there. I remember all this so clearly. He was seated in His chair, with great dignity & magnificent understanding, with grave & kindly eyes. I told Him that I would sacrifice my happiness or anything that was required to let Nitya live, for I felt this thing was being decided. He listened to me & answered (non-commitedly?) ‘He will be well.’ It was such a relief and all my anxiety has completely disappeared''.

The Star TS Congress followed on December 28 and at the first meeting under the Banyan tree a dramatic change took place while K was speaking. It came at the end of his talk. He had been speaking about the World Teacher: ‘He comes only to those who want, who desire, who long...’ and then his voice changed completely and rang out, ‘and I come for those who want
sympathy, who want happiness, who are longing to be released, who are longing
to find happiness in all things. I come to reform and not to tear down, I come not to destroy but to build.’ For those who noticed the change to the first person and the difference in the voice, it was a spine-tingling experience. Mrs Besant frequently referred to it thereafter. In the final meeting of the Star Congress she said:
... that event [of December 28, 1925] marked the definite consecration of the chosen vehicle ... the final acceptance of the body chosen long before. ... The 'coming' has begun. ...
And in the Theosophist she wrote, ‘For the first time the Voice that spoke as
never man spake, has sounded again in our lower ways in the ears of the great
crowd that sat beneath the Banyan Tree, it was on December 28 ... and we knew
that the waiting period was over, and that the morning star had arisen above the horizon.’

K himself had no doubts. Talking to the National Representatives at the end of the Star Congress he said:
''You have drunk at the fountain of wisdom and knowledge. The memory of the 28th should
be to you as if you were guarding some precious jewel and every time you look at it you must
feel a thrill. Then when He comes again, and I am sure that He will come again very soon, it
will be for us a nobler and far more beautiful occasion than even last time''.

And on January 5, 1926

''A new life, a new storm has swept the world. It is like a tremendous gale that blows and
cleans everything, all the particles of dust from the trees, the cobwebs from our minds and from
our emotions and has left us perfectly clean. ... I personally feel quite different from that day. ...
I feel like a crystal vase, a jar that has been cleansed and now anybody in the world can put a beautiful flower in it and that flower shall live in the vase and never die.''

A fortnight later he told Lady Emily that he felt now just like a shell—so absolutely impersonal. He used the phrase, ‘I feel somehow so precious now’. He said he was sure ‘the Lord would come more and more whenever there was the
occasion or the special need of Him’.

Leadbeater was no less certain. When we are asked if the World Teacher has come, what do we answer?’ That there was not ‘a shadow of doubt’ that ‘He’ had used
‘the Vehicle more than once’ at the Jubilee Convention, just as ‘He’ had used it
at Benares on December 28, 1911. ‘He’ would continue to use it only intermittently, though more frequently. Besides, ‘He would have to get the Vehicle used to Him’.

On the 11th, Lady Emily noted, ‘Marvellous talk & I am sure the Lord ( Maitreya) was there. K told me afterwards that he had to resist saying 'I' instead of Him.’

The talk on the 9th, the last day of the gathering, was, according to Lady
Emily, the most wonderful of all:
Krishna spoke as never before & one feels now that his consciousness & that of the Lord are
so completely blended that there is no distinction any more. He said, ‘Follow me & I will show you the way into the Kingdom of Happiness. I will give each of you the key with which you can unlock the gate into the garden’—and it was no effort to him to use the personal pronoun ... the face of the Lord shone through the face of Krishna & His glorious aura encompassed us in an almost blinding light.
I noticed an unusual dignity in his appearance. His face had grown strangely powerful and stern, his eyes at times
half veiled as if looking inwards, had an unusual fire, and even his voice sounded deeper and
fuller. The power went on increasing with every word he uttered. ... There was a strange
stillness—nobody moved or made a sound even after it was over. ... The speech you will read,
but I know I shall not find in it a tenth part of what I heard. ... It is not to be
described. What can one say? The Lord was there and He was speaking. I saw Krishnaji and as I was telling him how his whole appearance had changed the evening before he said: ‘I wish I could see it too.’

From the atmosphere of excitement in the Camp it was evident that the great
majority of those present believed they had heard the voice of the Lord Maitreya which, of course, they had been expecting to hear ever since the Convention
opened.
On July 28, Lady Emily
recorded that she knew the Lord was there again at the Camp fire, ‘but this time
with tenderness instead of power. It was infinitely touching and sad. K told us of
his own inner experience, took us into his very heart. He said “You may take my
heart and eat it, you may take my blood and drink it & I shall not mind—because
I have so much, & you have so little.”’

Two days after his arrival in Ojai
he wrote to Lady Emily from Arya Vihara:
''Here I am—without Nitya. We drove up here from Los Angeles with Amma. When we
entered the house, I saw Nitya & felt him almost physically & when I went into the room in

By January 1927, K wrote to tell
Leadbeater, the ‘old business’ of intense pain at the base of his spine and the nape of his neck began again and went on practically all day.

Mary Lutyens was now able to help him to relax when he ‘went off’ in the afternoons. When she first went to him on February 20 the 'body elemental' asked her who she was and then said, ‘Well, if you are a friend of Krishna and Nitya I suppose you are all right.’ He became like a child of about four, though without the restlessness of a child. Although he spoke English he would always call her Amma; he seemed very frightened of K, as of a stern elder brother, and would say things like, ‘Take
care, Krishna’s coming back.’ With K away the body did not seem to be in any great pain, though it was sometimes fractious. K, on his return, had absolutely no recollection of anything the 'child' had said.

K wrote to Lady Emily:
I am writing this in the Shrine, just after my 'affair' of every day. ...My head has been extra bad, but it’s extraordinary how the body can get used to anything. First day, the day you left, it was on the verge of tears but now it’s quite normal. Great times are ahead of us & you too must be great.''

The next day K wrote a little note
to Mrs Besant : ''More and more am I certain that I am the Teacher and my mind and consciousness is changed. My work and my life is settled. I have reached my goal. You need never doubt or think that I would love you any the less. I love you with all my heart. ... Oh! mother, the fulfilment of many lives has now come.''

On August 2, in a talk entitled ‘Who Brings the Truth’, K gave his first public answer to the question which was troubling so many—did he or did he not believe in the Masters and the rest of the occult hierarchy?

''When I was a small boy I used to see Sri Krishna, with the flute, as he is pictured
by the Hindus, because my mother was a devotee of Sri Krishna. ... When I grew older and met with Bishop Leadbeater and the Theosophical Society, I began to see the Master K.H.—again in the form which was put before me, the reality from their point of view. Later on, as I grew, I began to see the Lord Maitreya. That was two years ago and I saw him constantly in the form put before me. ... Now lately, it has been the Buddha whom I have been seeing, and it has been my delight and my glory to be with Him. I have been asked what I mean by ‘the Beloved’. To me it is all—it is Sri Krishna, it is the Master K.H., it is the Lord Maitreya, it is the Buddha, and yet it is beyond all these forms. What does it matter what
name you give? So you will see my point of view when I talk about 'my Beloved'. I want it to be as vague as possible, and I hope I have made it so. My Beloved is the open skies, the flower, every human being. ... Till I was able to say with certainty, without any undue excitement, or
exaggeration in order to convince others, that I was one with my Beloved, I never spoke. I
talked of vague generalities which everybody wanted. I never said: I am the World Teacher; but now that I feel I am one with my Beloved, I have found what I longed for, I have become united, so that henceforth there will be no
separation, because my thoughts, my desires, my longings—those of the individual self—have
been destroyed. ... I am as the flower that gives scent to the morning air. It does not concern
itself with who is passing by. ... Until now you have been depending on someone else to tell you the Truth, whereas the Truth lies within you. In your own hearts, in your own experience, you will find the Truth, and that is the only thing of value. ... My purpose is not to create discussions on the manifestations in the personality of Krishnamurti, but to give the waters that
shall wash away your sorrows, your limitations, so that you will be free, so that you will eventually join that ocean where there is no limitation, where there is the Beloved.
... Does it really matter out of what glass you drink the water, so long as that water is able to
quench your thirst. ... I have been united with my Beloved, and my Beloved and I will wander
together the face of the earth. ... It is no good asking me who is the Beloved. For you will not understand the Beloved until you are able to see Him in every animal, in every blade of grass, in every person that is suffering, in every individual.

K wrote to
Mrs Besant on August 22
''I am so happy to get your letter, Amma mine. I didn’t know that I had caused a storm by my
speech at the Service Camp Fire. I don’t remember what I said but when the copy comes I will see. I am very sorry that Lady D. and others are upset. She has not said a word to me. I am afraid they all object to think for themselves, it’s so much easier to sit, in comfort, in the thought of others. Life is curious and it’s going to be difficult. It’s all in the day’s work. I am, more and more,
certain in my vision of the Truth. These mountains and the clean air here are wonderful and I have the Beloved with me. More and more, I am certain of my union with my Beloved, with the Teacher, with the life
eternal. As 'Krishna', I do not exist and that is the truth of the matter. I am not going to convert anyone to my way of thinking but I am going to assert the fact, when it is necessary.
My head has been and is very bad but there it is. I am not in the least concerned about it
except that it is rather tiresome''

From a letter to Lady Emily dated December 5, 1928 : ‘Please tell Mary I am not “divine”
but the 'natural flower' of the world. The way she means “divine” is that I am a freak. Perfection is not freakishness. If all the world thought & lived like me it would be lovely & would not come to a standstill.’

K returned to Ojai in October 1931, determined to have a complete rest. He was writing to Lady Emily from his cottage: ''My being alone like this has given me something tremendous, & it’s just what I need. Everything has come, so far in my life, just at the right time. My mind is so serene but concentrated and I am watching it like a cat a mouse. I am really enjoying this solitude & I can’t put into words what I am feeling. But I am not deceiving myself either. I go down to Arya
Vihara to my meals & when Rajagopal & his family come, I shall
have my food on a tray here. For the next three months, or as long as I want to, I am going to do
this. I can never be finished but I want to finish with all the superficialities which I have.''

Another set of first hand details on K's Process from Pupul Jayakar's book of Memoirs on K (1948)  :

Late at night we woke to the sound of Krishnaji’s voice calling from the veranda where he slept. His voice sounded frail, and we were bewildered and thought he was ill. After a great deal of hesitation, we went to the doorway that led to the veranda and asked him whether he was unwell. Krishnaji was calling for somebody, his voice was fragile and childlike. He kept on saying, “Krishna has gone away, when will he be back?” His eyes were open, but there was no recognition. Then he seemed to grow aware of us and asked, “Are you Rosalind?” And then, “Oh, yes, yes, he knows about you, it is all right, please sit here, wait here.” Then again after a little while, “Don’t leave the body alone and don’t be afraid.” The voice started calling for “Krishna” again. His hand would cover his mouth and he would say, “He has said not to call him.” Then in the voice of a child, “When will he be back? Will he come back soon?” This went on for a while; he would be quiet, then shout for “Krishna,” then chide himself.
After about an hour his voice became joyful. “He is back, do you see them? They are here, spotless.” His hands expressed a fullness. And then the voice changed, it was again the familiar voice of Krishnaji. He sat up, apologizing for having kept us awake. He saw us to our room and left. The strangeness of it all bewildered us; we were dazed and did not sleep all night. Next morning at breakfast he looked fresh and young. We questioned him as to what had happened. He laughed and said he did not know. Could we describe what had happened? We did so. He said ''we would talk about it some time'', which by then we had come to understand meant that he did not wish to discuss the matter further. The next day we returned to Bombay.
Krishnaji wrote to Nandini and me to join him in Ootacamund. We had just returned from seeing him in Madras. Looking back, it appears incomprehensible that Krishnaji did not consider for a moment whether it was possible, whether the money for the journey and stay in Ooty was forthcoming, whether Nandini could get permission to come. I was free to travel within the constraints of my not very affluent finances, but with Nandini the situation was entirely different. Her estrangement from her husband was deepening; though her husband and his family were quite wealthy, they were orthodox and very conservative. Nandini had no independent means of her own.
But it had been always so with Krishnaji. Once a necessity arose within him and was expressed, it 'happened'—all hindrances were surmountable. And so Nandini, her children, her father-in-law, Sir Chunilal Mehta, and I with my daughter Radhika arrived in Ootacamund in the third week of May. Jamnadas Dwarkadas was to join us in Ootacamund a few days later. We found that Krishnaji had recovered from an illness and had grown a beard while he rested in bed. It was cold, and Krishnaji wore a long, flowing choga of natural wool. The large penetrating eyes, bearded face, and long robes gave him a biblical appearance.

We went with him for long walks, taking shortcuts through the pines. He walked lithely up vertical slopes and it was difficult to keep pace with him. It was the season before the rains, the forests were opaque with rising mists. We walked with Krishnamurti, entering enchanted woods where trees shrouded in rising clouds turned incandescent, as sunlight touched them, to dissolve as mists closed in. On one occasion, climbing up a steep path through the pine trees, we came on three women walking carefully downhill, balancing heavy loads of wood on their heads. Krishnaji stood to one side and watched every movement the women made as they passed him. Suddenly, one felt it—a compassion emanating from him, a tender attention and energy that wiped away the burdens of the women who passed, never knowing what made their loads lighter.
Toward the end of May certain incidents occurred which cast light on the secret mystical life of Krishnamurti.
In August 1922 in Ojai, when Krishnaji was undergoing violent awakening, he had two trusted friends with him. From Krishnaji’s early years, Annie Besant had insisted that two people be with Krishnaji all the time, to protect the body. The protection of the body of the sage when it is undergoing mystical processes of mutation and transference of consciousness, was deeply rooted in Indian mystical tradition. The body at this time is immensely sensitive, vulnerable, and empty of all ego sense.

The need to protect the body had been the main and perhaps the only function of those present while Krishnaji underwent enormous transformations of energy that opened up the previously nonoperative areas of the brain. To give any other significance to Krishnaji’s relationship to these people, as may have been claimed, is not valid. The only valid point is that they were people whom Krishnaji trusted, who would see that no harm came to the body, and who above all would have no strong emotional reactions, fear or otherwise, to what took place.

The incidents at Ooty extended over a period of three weeks, from May 28 to June 20, 1948. They took place in Krishnaji’s room at Sedgemoor. My sister Nandini and I were present. It was embarrassing for Nandini and me. Anyway, there was nothing we could do.
It began on an evening when Krishnaji had been for a walk with us. He started to say that he was not feeling well, and 'could we go home ?'. When we asked whether he wanted to see a doctor, he said, “No, it is not that.” He would not explain further. When we got home he went to his room, telling Friedman that on no account was he to be disturbed; but he asked Nandini and me to come into the room. He closed the door and then told us not to be afraid, whatever happened, and on no account to call a doctor. He asked us both to sit quietly and watch him. There was to be no fear. We were not to speak to him, not to revive him, but to close his mouth if he fainted. On no account were we to leave the body alone.

Krishnaji appeared to be in extreme pain. He complained of severe toothache and an intense pain at the nape of the neck, the crown of the head, and in the spine.

In the midst of the pain he would say, “They are cleansing the brain, oh, so completely, emptying it.” At other times he would complain of great heat, and his body would perspire profusely. The intensity of the pain varied as did the area where it was concentrated. At times the pain was located in the head, in the tooth, the nape of the neck, or the spine. At other times he groaned and held his stomach. Nothing relieved the pain; it came and went at will.
When the 'process' was operating, the body lying on the bed appeared a shell; only a body consciousness appeared to be present. In this state the voice was frail, childlike. Then suddenly the body filled with a soaring Presence. Krishnaji would sit up cross-legged, his eyes closed, the fragile body would appear to grow and his presence would fill the room; there was a palpable, throbbing silence and an immense strength that poured into the room and enveloped us. In this state the voice had great volume and depth.

After the first evening he started going for a walk alone in the evenings and used to ask Nandini and me to come later to the house. In the beginning the 'experiences' started at 6 P.M. and were over by 8:30 P.M., but later they sometimes went on until midnight. On days when he had to meet people , nothing happened. Toward the end the periods grew longer, and on one occasion went on all night. On no occasion did he speak of dirt or express a desire to leave the room as he had done at Ojai, though Sedgemoor was not particularly clean; nor did he speak of disturbing thoughts. On one occasion he asked Nandini to hold his hand, as otherwise he would 'slip away and not come back'.

While he was in the midst of the ordeal, his body would toss on the bed. He would have fits of shivering, would call out for Krishna, and then put his hand to his mouth and say, “I must not call him.” I tried to keep notes of what Krishnaji said in these mystical states. Some of the notes are missing. However, I have reprinted here the notes that do exist and Nandini has helped me reconstruct the rest.

May 30, 1948: Krishnamurti was getting ready to go for a walk when suddenly he said he was feeling too weak and 'not all there'. He said, “What a pain I have.” He caught the back of his head and lay down. Within a few minutes the Krishnaji we knew was not there. For two hours we saw him go through intense pain. He said he had a pain in the back of his neck, his teeth were troubling him, his stomach was swollen and hard, and he groaned and pressed down. At times he would shout. He fainted a number of times. When he came to, the first time, he said, “Close my mouth when I faint.”
He kept on saying: “Amma—oh, God, give me peace. I know what they are up to. Call him back. I know when the limit of pain is reached, they will return. They know how much the body can stand. If I become a lunatic, look after me—not that I will become a lunatic. They are very careful with the body. I feel so old. Only a bit of me is functioning. I am like a rubber toy, which a child plays with. It is the child that gives it life.”

His face throughout the occurrence was worn and wracked with pain. He kept clenching his fists and tears streamed from his eyes. After two hours, he fainted again. When he came to, he said: “The pain has disappeared. Deep inside me I know what has happened. I have been soaked with (spirit?) 'gasoline'. The tank is full.”
He then said he would speak so that he would not think of the pain inside him. “Have you seen the sun and the soft clouds heavy with rain? They pass over the sun and then the rain comes down with a roar on the earth that waits like an open womb. It washes clean. Every flower, every leaf. There is fragrance, a newness. Then the clouds pass and the sun comes out and touches every leaf and every flower. The gentle little flower that is like a young girl that ruthless men destroy. Have you seen the faces of rich men? Hard busy with their stocks and money-making? What do they know of Love? Have you ever felt every limb of a tree, touched a leaf, sat by a ragged child? You know when I drove to the aerodrome, I saw a mother washing the buttocks of a child. It was beautiful. Nobody noticed her. All they know is to make money and cesspools of their women. Love to them is sex. To hold a woman’s hand, when she is not a woman, that is (selfless) love. Do you know what it is to love? You have husbands and children. But how would you know? You cannot hold a cloud in a golden cage.”

He was silent for a time, then said, “This pain makes my body like steel—but, oh, so flexible, so pliant, without a thought. It is like a 'polishing'—an examination.” We enquired whether he couldn’t stop having the pain. He said: “You have had a child. Can you stop it coming when once it starts?” Then: “They are going to have fun with me tonight. I see the storm gathering. Oh, Christos!”
After some time, Maurice brought in some soup and then went out. Krishnaji had the light put on. He had sat up with the legs crossed, body erect. The pain had gone from his face. His eyes were closed. He seemed to grow. We felt tremendous power pour into him. There was a 'throbbing' in the atmosphere. It filled the room. Our eyes and ears were filled with it and with sound, though there was no sound; and every pore of our bodies felt a touch, but there was nothing in the room. Then he opened his eyes and said: “Something happened—did you see anything?” We told him what we had felt. He said: “My face will be different tomorrow.” He lay down and his hand went out in a gesture of fullness. He said, “I will be like a raindrop—spotless.” After a few minutes, he told us he was all right and that we should go home.

June 17, 1948: Krishnaji went out for a walk alone. He asked Nandini and me to wait for him. We sat by the fire and waited. He entered the room as if he were a stranger. He went straight to his table and wrote something in his file. After some time he grew aware of us. He came and sat down near the fire. He asked us what we had been doing and said that he had walked far beyond the Golf Club. There was a flute being played in the distance and he sat silently, listening to it intently. It was only after it stopped that he appeared in that semiconscious state. Twice while we sat there, that tremendous 'Presence' filled him. He grew in stature before us. His eyes were half-closed; his face silent and immensely beautiful.
And then he lay on the bed and there was just the body. The voice that came from it was that of a frail child. The Krishnaji we knew was not there. The body of Krishnamurti started saying that he was very hurt inside, that 'they had burnt him inside'; that there was a pain right through his head. He was shivering and started saying that something had happened on the walk. He turned to us and asked, “Did you see him return?” He could not synchronize his body and mind. At time he felt he was still in the woods. “They came and covered him with leaves.” He said, “Do you know, you would not have seen him tomorrow. He nearly did not return.” He kept on feeling his body to see if it was all there. He said, “I must go back and find out what had happened on the walk. Something happened and 'They' rushed back. But, I do not know whether I returned? There may be pieces of me lying on the road.” Twice he got out of bed and made for the door, but lay down again. Later, he went to sleep. When he awoke, he felt himself and stared at his hands.

June 18, 1948: Krishnaji asked us to come at about seven in the evening. He was out. We waited. He came in some time later. He was again the stranger. He wrote something in the book and then came and sat with us. He said: “Thoughts of my talk in Bangalore are pouring in. I am awake again.” He closed his eyes and sat for some time erect, silent. Then he complained of hurt and went and lay down. He said he felt he was burnt. He was crying. “Do you know, I found out what happened on the walk. 'He' came fully and took complete charge. That is why I did not know whether I had returned. I knew nothing.” A little later, “Then in the emptiness, there was a light and a storm and I was tortured that day in the wind. Do you know that emptiness that has no horizon—no limit—it stretches?” His hand moved to show empty space.
Then a little later: “They have burnt me so that there can be more 'emptiness'. They want to see how much of Him can come.” Then later: “Do you know emptiness? When there is not a thought? When it (the mind?) is completely empty? But, how could you know? It is this 'emptiness' that brings power—this is pure power—like that in a dynamo. You know, on the walk I was in an ecstasy. I have never cried like that. As I walked I met a poor man. He saw me crying and thought I had lost a mother or sister. Then he smiled at me and I could not understand.” Suddenly, he said, “I have a thought—time and emptiness—that’s it. I hope I remember when I wake up.”

He started saying that he could not bear it, that he was all burnt inside, hurt. Then suddenly he sat up and said, “Don’t move,” and again we saw him like the other night. His face was in the dark, but the fire leapt up and his shadow lengthened on the wall. All pain had disappeared from the face. His eyes were closed, his body was throbbing, as if some power was entering his body. His face was pulsating. He appeared to grow and fill the room. He sat without movement for about three minutes and then he fainted. He woke up calm and peaceful.


Although the notes we took on the final night are lost, Nandini and I remember the occasion vividly.
Krishnaji had been suffering excruciating pain in his head and neck, his stomach was swollen, tears streamed down his face. He suddenly fell back on the bed and became intensely still. The traces of pain and fatigue were wiped away, as happens in death. Then life and an immensity began to enter the face. The face was greatly beautiful. It had no age, time had not touched it. The eyes opened, but there was no recognition. The body radiated light; a stillness and a vastness illumined the face. The silence was liquid and heavy, like honey; it poured into the room and into our minds and bodies, filling every cell of the brain, wiping away every trace of time and memory. We felt a 'touch without a presence', a wind blowing without movement. We could not help folding our hands in pranams. For some minutes he lay unmoving, then his eyes opened. After some time, he saw us and said, “Did you see that face?” He did not expect an answer. He lay silently. “The Buddha was here, you are blessed.”
We went back to the hotel, and that 'Silence' came with us and enclosed us for the next few days. We were held by a pervading Presence. Most of the time we were in the room with Krishnaji, we had no part to play; yet our presence seemed necessary. There was nothing personal in him during the incidents—no emotion, no relationship to us. The ordeal appeared physical, and yet the next day left no trace on his face or body. He was aflame with energy—joyous, eager, and youthful. Not a word he said had 'psychological' (personal) overtones. A weight, depth, and strength was present in the silence that permeated the room and the atmosphere on every occasion.
When Nandini and I left Ootacamund, Krishnamurti asked us to “go to Bombay and rest. You have gone through a great ordeal.”

In one of his letters to me, K later referred briefly to what had happened. I had asked him one morning what was the reason for the two voices—that of the frail child and the normal voice of Krishnamurti. I said that it looked as if some 'entity' goes out of the body and some entity reenters the body. Krishnamurti said in his letter, “This is not so. It is not that there are two entities.” (continuing in the next post)

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 11 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Mar 2018 #23
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

( the ending of the post above) He said 'he would talk about it later'; but it was to be many years before he spoke of it again...

K was to undergo another ( major) psychic experience in India during the winter 1979-80 On 21 February 1980, when back in Ojai, he dictated an account of it to Mary Zimbalist where he is referring to himself in the third person :

'' K went from Brockwood to India on 1 November 1979. He went after a few days in Madras straight to Rishi Valley. For a long time he had been awakening in the middle of the night with that peculiar Meditation which has been pursuing him for very many years. This has been a normal thing in his life. It is not a conscious, deliberate pursuit of meditation or an unconscious desire to achieve something. It is very clearly uninvited and unsought. And each meditation has a quality of something new and fresh in it. There is a sense of accumulating drive, unsought and uninvited. Sometimes it is so intense that there is pain in the head, sometimes a sense of vast emptiness with fathomless energy. Sometimes he wakes up with laughter and measureless joy. These peculiar meditations, which naturally were unpremeditated, grew with intensity. Only on the days he travelled or arrived late in the evening did they stop; or when he had to wake early and travel.

With the arrival in Rishi Valley in the middle of November 1979 that momentum increased and one night in the strange stillness of that part of the world, with the silence undisturbed by the hoot of owls, he woke up to find something totally different and new. The movement (of the mind in Meditation) had reached the Source of all Energy. This must in no way be thought of as 'God' or 'Brahman' , which are the projections of the human mind out of the unyielding desire for total security. Desire cannot possibly reach it, words cannot fathom it, nor can the 'string of thought' wind itself around it. ( One may ask with what assurance do you state that it is the source of all energy? One can only reply with complete humility that 'it is so'.) All the time that K was in India until the end of January 1980 every night he would wake up ( in the middle of the night) with this sense of the 'absolute'. It is not something that is static, fixed, immovable. The whole universe is in it, measureless to man.

When he returned to Ojai in February 1980, after the body had somewhat rested, there was the perception that there was nothing beyond this. This is the ultimate, the Beginning and the Ending (of All that Is?) and the Absolute. There is only a sense of incredible vastness and immense beauty.''

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 11 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 #24
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

THE TRANQUIL MILL POND Exploring how K's mind works (reader friendly edited text )

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): In ( watching and) listening to you over the last thirty years, I have observed a certain manner in which you unfold a problem during discussion. I know that you have maintained that there is no ‘way' (to Truth) but a certain ‘process’ has revealed itself ( ‘methodology’ would be too hard a word).
I would like, sir, to investigate the way you receive a question and what follows (within your mind) after you receive a question.

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): You want to explore (how is working) my mind?

PJ: Yes; because I feel that we can understand better the way of our exploration in which we (usually) get bogged down.

K: All right, let’s begin.

PJ: Can we begin with the question: How do you receive a question which is put to you? What is the state of your mind which receives the question ?

K: I would say that first he (K) 'listens'; he listens without any conclusions, without any barriers. His mind is ‘empty’ - in the sense that there is no recording and no remembrances of his previous answers. There is a state of (mental) 'emptiness' and out of that K answers.

PJ: Now, in this state, what is the function of attention? If attention does not search, what happens to the question? You may receive it in emptiness, but what actually happens to the question? Because you do respond.

K: Yes. There is a ( holistic ?) 'hearing' of it—not only with the (physical) ear but also without the usual process of hearing. It is like a seed that is put into the earth—the earth acts upon the seed, and the seed acts upon the earth and, gradually, out of that comes a plant or a flower.
You see, there is also a state in which the question is heard not with the ear, and out of that state there is the answer.

PJ: Is it that a new 'listening' instrument comes into being ? When one observes you, it is as if your eyes are participating in the listening process as much as your ears. You have, if I may say so, a ‘listening eye'.

K: I think so. Now, I would like to answer your last question by bringing in the (magic?) word ‘insight’. ‘Insight’ is a state of mind in which there is no (interference of) memory, no (mental) reaction. But 'insight' is much more than all that. So, when you ask a question, there is a hearing with the ear and there is also a hearing with the 'non-ear' ( the mind's ear?) , which means that the mind is in an (innocent?) state where there is no remembrance, no conclusion, previous recording of that question and, therefore, no replying that question according to memory. All that (stuff) —remembrance, conclusions, ready responses, and so on—being absent, there is an (enlightening?) insight into the question.

PJ: Does this hearing with the 'non-ear' (with mind's ear?) come into being with the very ending of the processes of the mind, or is it something else?

K: When there is such an 'insight' the brain cells themselves undergo a change : the 'insight' actually transforms the brain cells.

PJ: Does this 'insight' arise because of the non-(verbal) hearing?

K: Yes, because of the hearing with the 'non-ear'.

PJ: Can we investigate this 'hearing with the non-ear' ( with the 'inner ear'?) or is it impossible to investigate it?

K: Let’s find out. This 'hearing with the non-(physical?) ear' is a state similar to dropping a (pebble) stone into a tranquil, completely quiet pond - it makes little waves which disappear.
This state of listening with the 'non-(physical) ear' is a state of absolute quietness of the mind. And when a question is put to such a mind, it is like a little stone that is dropped into a tranquil pond. The response is the wave, or the little waves.

PJ: Now, is this (tranquil) pond the ( energy) matrix of the mind? Is it ‘mind only’?

K: Suppose that the mind, our consciousness, is fragmented. Naturally when you put a question to that fragmentary consciousness, the answer must be fragmentary.

PJ: So, when the question is dropped like a pebble into a tranquil pool—is it the totality ( of one's consciousness?) which receives it ?

K: It is. You see, Pupul, can the mind be so extraordinarily (open & ) receptive that the ( residual memory of the ) past has no place in it at all?

PJ: The (memory of the ) 'past' being a 'fragment' (of our total consciousness?) ?

K: The ( residual memory of the ? ) past is a fragment and it does not enter into it at all.

PJ: Has this listening with the 'non-ear' (aka : inner ear?) a different quality than (the common) listening?

K: Oh yes; obviously : that state of (non-verbal) listening is not fragmented. There is no (interference of the?) past involved in the listening with the non-(physical) ear. I think the simile of a (tranquil) mill-pond is very good. Now, we are saying that the pond is absolutely quiet, and that the pond is nothing but clear, clean water, without all the pollution that man has put into it—the pollution is the past, and all the rest of it—and the question is put into that pond just as a pebble is, and the reply is the wave. I think that is how it functions.

PJ: Now, to explore further, as there is a non-ear listening, is there also a 'non-eye seeing' ( seeing with mind's eye?) ?

K: Yes.

PJ: Can we go into the nature of that?

K: Let’s see whether the hearing with the non-ear and the visual seeing without the past interfering with it are the same. Yes, to put it simply Pupul, when the past does not interfere in either case, they are the same.

PJ: Sir, tradition maintains that for the s?dhaka ( a man who is on the path of spiritual search) there is a movement of the 'eye within'. That is, the very optic seeing is thrown within and it breaks through the naming process, the divisive process. In fact it is known as the ‘backward flowing movement’.

K: The forward movement and the backward movement ?

PJ: It is not the forward movement turning backwards. There are the senses moving out and there is the ‘sense’—I am using the word ‘sense’ within quotes—that does not move out.

K: Ah, so there is another movement altogether which is going in ?

PJ: Which is ‘optically’ going in—that is what ( the ancient spiritual) tradition says.

K: So that is what tradition says. But what do you say?

PJ: You see, the 'looking out'—like the looking at a tree—focuses, but the 'looking within' ends the very instrument which focuses. It is as if...

K: This optical 'going out' and the 'looking within' are two entirely different processes ?

PJ: Would you say that the seeing with ( mind's eye) is of this nature?

K: I question the whole thing. You see, Pupul, I wonder if there is a 'looking within' at all because it may imply a movement of thought.

PJ: Not necessarily.

K: All right. Then if there is no movement of thought, what do we mean by ‘looking within’?

PJ: By looking within I mean a seeing of that which exists at a particular instant, both within and without. There is no 'within' and 'without' in that state.

K: Let’s be very clear- from what you are saying, tradition holds that the inward looking is not the reaction of the outward looking; it holds that the inward looking is entirely different from the outward looking, and that it dispels the whole structure of thought. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: I question that. What is there to look inward? One can look inwards, from what you say, into the whole movement of thought. Is that inward looking?

PJ: I would say this is a 'non-physical' looking. Thought is not something that can be ‘seen’ as such.

K: Pupul, all thought is a material process.

PJ: But it is so fleeting.

K: I know; but it is a material process. The recording of knowledge, the remembrance of it—all that is a material process.

PJ: Yes, but there is a distinction; there is a distinction between seeing this microphone and seeing a flashing movement of thought.

K: But that flashing movement of thought is still a material process.

PJ: I agree that it is a material process, but its existence is in a dimension which we usually call the ‘within’.

K: Yes, I know that you call it the ‘within’, but I question that whole thing. My point is why should it be either ‘within’ or ‘without’.

PJ: Because, sir, the movement of thought is not something which is visible 'without' oneself.
K: You are saying that thought is not visible; it cannot be perceived as one’s face is in a mirror. Thought cannot be perceived in a mirror. So that which is not perceivable you call the ‘inner’ ?

PJ: Yes, it is not perceivable and, yet, it exists.

K: But I would question whether it is the 'inner' at all.
I believe that when the Eskimos use the word ‘thought’ they mean 'something outside'.

PJ: Sir, what I am saying is that there is something which I can see outside—which is the physical seeing. I am also saying that I can never see, with the same optical eye, the movement of thought itself.

K: Yes, I can see my face in a mirror, but I can’t see my thought in a mirror. That is simple.

PJ: Then where do I see it? What is the 'seeing' then?

K: You know, Pupul, I don’t think there is a ‘seeing’ of thought.

PJ: Then what actually takes place, sir?

K: First, it is clear that there is no seeing of thought, for ‘seeing’ implies that there is a ‘seer’ and that there is the ‘thought’, and that the ‘seer’ and ‘thought’ are separate. The seer is thought. So there is only thought which cannot be seen in the mirror. So, for me, there is no inward looking.

PJ: Then what do you mean when you talk of the seeing of ‘what is’, for you say that thought cannot be seen?

K: Thought cannot be seen with the inward look(ing).

PJ: Then by what is thought 'seen' ? I ask this question because there is a seeing.

K: I wouldn’t use the word ‘seeing’.

PJ: Then what word would you use ?

K: I would use the word ‘aware’. I would say that thought becomes aware of itself, of its own activity.

PJ: But you have been talking all these years of the seeing of ‘what is’...

K: The seeing of ‘what is’ is the seeing of what is actually happening inwardly which is not the observation of what is happening with the optical eye or with another thought. ‘Seeing’ implies that.

PJ: What is that state, sir?

K: We are inquiring into that state. If you say that that state is one of ‘seeing inwardly’, I say that it is not possible, because then you would be bringing about a dual state—a state of ‘seeing’ and a state of ‘that which is seen’. Right?

PJ: Can there be a ‘seeing’ without a dual state?

K: Yes. (The insightful ?) ‘seeing’ implies that there is no opposite.

PJ: Yes, of course, because it has the same quality as the lake.

K: Yes. That’s why, Pupul, when you speak of ‘inward looking’, it sounds to me artificial and—forgive me—traditional. I think the thing (the insightful perception ?) actually works like a tranquil mill-pond. ( The process of self-centred) thought itself has to be quiet; it has to be as quiet as the lake. When you put a question to that 'lake', the question is answered from the 'lake'.

PJ: But, sir, suppose that jealousy arises. Jealousy is a material (response) .

K: Yes, absolutely.

PJ: I grow aware; but it is already over. You see, sir, I cannot see that which is over.

K: No, as (the reaction of) jealousy arises there is the watching (the inner 'awareness' of?) of it.

PJ: One of the things which has always puzzled me is this: Can there be a watching of the actual reaction of jealousy arising? For in such a state it would not arise.

K: The fact of jealousy is a (self-centred) reaction, which you name ‘jealousy’. The question is: Before you name it as ‘jealousy’, can there be a (non-verbal) watching of that reaction without the 'watcher'? Can one just ‘see’ the reaction?—I mean by that word ‘seeing’ an observation without the ( physical) eye or the ear.
What we are talking about is a (non-verbal) observation of ‘what is’ without the previous remembrances associated with ‘what is’; that’s all.

PJ: You say that it is neither 'optical' nor 'aural', and yet you use the word ‘observing’?

K: Yes, a (non-verbal) observation in which there is no ( interfering?) remembrance of the thing which is being observed. I am right in this, but let me go slowly.
In this process of (insightful) observation there is no (mental) 'centre' from which something is observed—the centre being (one's personal) memory, various conclusions, hurts, and so on, So, there is no (static) point from which it is being observed. And the question, or the ‘what is’, is a challenge and the challenge drops into the mill-pond which is absolutely quiet and which responds.

PJ: Sir, you have said a number of new things : you just implied that the ripple is the response. I have observed you, sir, and I feel that you listen to your own responses with the same attention as you listen to a question that is put to you. Do you listen to your response?

K: Yes, I listen to it to see if it is accurate.

PJ: So, your listening to your own response and to what the other person is saying—as far as this 'non-ear (non-verbal ?) listening' is concerned—are at the same level. Now, when the average person responds, he normally never listens to his own response.

K: No, he never listens.

PJ: He is always listening to what the other is saying. He never listens to his own response. At least I don’t listen to my own response, or I listen to my own response afterwards.

K: If you are talking seriously, you are listening to the questioner and you are 'listening'. But you see, Pupul, in this ( non-verbal) listening there is no ‘me’ listening to my responses. There is only listening.

PJ: Yes, and if what is said is not so, you move away from it. There is a total flexibility, if I may say so. You see, sir, with you there is no holding to an answer.

K: You see, if the pebble is very light, the ripple is just two waves. But if it is a rock it goes down and causes a great many waves. If the challenge is great, the waters must move in a series of waves; but if the challenge is very small, there is just a ripple. So the act of listening is not only to the person who questions, who challenges, but also to the answering. It is, in other words, a 'total' (full immersion?) state of listening—a listening to both the questioner and the person who replies. And, yes, when the answer, the reply, is not quite as it should be, there naturally is a movement away. Because you are listening, there is a withdrawal from that and, then, you change the movement.
So I have discovered that there is no 'inward looking'; there is only 'looking'.

QUESTIONER (Q): Sir, what is this 'mill-pond' ?

K: Now, all this 'mill-pond' analogy came about because Pupul began by asking: Can we investigate K’s mind? However, if you ask what is that mill-pond which is K’s mind, you will be entering into something else, and I don’t know if I would investigate that.

PJ: What is that 'mill-pond' (mind) , sir?

K: First of all, Pupul, whose mill-pond? Is it the 'mill-pond' of K’s mind or the 'mill-pond' of a person who is agitated and all the rest of it? You see, an agitated mind is not a mill-pond.

PJ: We are talking of K’s mill-pond. I mean, what is being attempted here is to see how far one can go into throwing open K’s mind.

K: Yes, I understand; you are asking: What is the state of the mill-pond that, apparently, K has? I don’t think K is ( self consciously?) aware of the mill-pond. If K is aware of it, it is not the (authentic?) mill-pond.

PJ: Sir, if I may ask, what is the inner nature of your self?

K: If I am being asked what is the inner nature of K’s mind and if I were to reply I’d say: Nothing, which means 'not-a-thing'. Yes, there is nothing. Would you comprehend this (empty) state of K’s mind, K’s inner being, which says that there is nothing, absolutely nothing?

Q: Sir, you said that K cannot be ( self-consciously) aware of the mill-pond.

K: It is like measuring the immeasurable, you follow?

Q: You said that the 'mill-pond' only shows itself in those ripples.

K: Yes.

Q: Otherwise nothing else could be said about it?

K: You can’t examine it; it can’t be examined. First of all, with what would you be examining it?

You see, the ordinary person’s 'mill-pond' (personal mind ) is constantly in agitation. Now, from that ( mental) agitation you are asking questions about the examination, what the tools, and so on, are of that—K’s—mill-pond. I am telling you that that mill-pond just cannot be 'examined' ( evaluated by common standards?) . K says that it is a state of absolute 'no-thingness', and this 'no-thingness' cannot be examined—because any examination implies measurement, and there is no measurement of 'no-thingness'; full stop.
You can only perceive this 'no-thingness' if your mind is also ( like) that. (Pause)

PJ: Sir, may I please ask you something? I find that in your dialogues, in your discussions, there is a great use of the (silent) pause. What is the significance of the pause?

K: What is music, Pupul?—Space between two notes, right? K pauses probably to see that the answer is coming from the mill-pond.

PJ: I understand. Now, during a dialogue it appears that you start at the same level as the person with whom you are discussing. Is it that the 'mill-pond' that is K’s mind, the mind which is (as) 'no-thing', enters the state of the mind of the person who is in duality?

K: No, no, no. There is no remembrance of ( this inner) no-thingness. Do you understand? If K remembers ( that state of inner) 'no-thingness', it is not then ( the authentic) 'no-thingness'. All we can say is that it is there; we cannot enter into that. (Pause)

PJ: How do you, sir, comprehend my duality?

K: By 'listening' to what you are saying.

PJ: But you don’t know the nature of duality.

K: No, but I am listening to you asking: How can I be rid of jealousy? How can I be rid of something or other? And I say that 'you' can’t get rid of it. My instant reply is that there is no 'riddance' of any thing.

PJ: No, when I make a statement, you will immediately see whether that is a theory or a fact. You see, sir, there is a capacity within you to 'see the truth'.

K: Obviously, everybody has that.

PJ: Not always, sir...

K: No, not always.

PJ: Sir, you have been questioned (by lots of people) for the last fifty years or so. Now, out of this questioning, which grows intense, you suddenly say, ‘I see’. My question is: What is it that brings about that insight, what is it which suddenly makes everything clear?

K: As I told you, K 'listens'. There is a 'listening' and, suddenly, there comes, out of 'no-thingness'...

PJ: So are you saying, sir, that (an insight?) arises in the very ( act of) listening?

K: Yes. To me what is important is the act of listening. There is a listening to the question—the question that is dropped like a pebble into a tranquil pond. .

PJ: Is this state the same as what takes place when you sit on a platform?

K: No, no. When K sits on the platform it is quite different. In an interview the person 'is' (impersonating his) the problem; so both of us can discuss it . I am not sure that it is different (from a public talk) . It is just that there it is much more concentrated.

PJ: But for those of us who have had an ( personal) interview with you ; it is like facing a totally empty state ( a totally transparent mind?)

K: Yes.

PJ: There is nothing except the oneself reflected. You throw back on the person exactly 'what is' in the person.

K: Yes. How did one come to this extraordinary quality of 'mill-pond' mind? How did it happen to you and not to me? Tell me the things that prevent the mill-pond?

PJ: Please proceed, sir....

K; All right. First of all you have no ( inneer) comparison; you have no sense of it at all. You don’t even feel that you have got it and that I haven’t got it. So you tell me first of all, ‘Can you be totally free of comparison?’ I have lived all my life by comparison and you are now asking me to throw away all the things that I have learnt through comparison. You tell me that the struggle, the pain, the envy, the jealousy, the drive—all that—must completely be dissipated. But you also tell me, ‘Don’t take time over it. Don’t say, “I will do it tomorrow”, for then that will never happen. It must be done instantly’. That’s what you tell me.
Now, because I have listened to you very carefully—with the hearing ear and with the 'non- (verbal) (inner) ear—I am very alert to what you are saying. Your very challenge makes me respond. Your challenge being very vital, very urgent, very forceful, awakens in me the quality of urgency and, so, I understand. I understand completely.

Then, you also tell me, ‘Don’t accumulate; don’t accumulate problems; don’t accumulate hurts, memories, names, forms; just don’t accumulate’. Again because my whole being is listening to you, I understand it instantly. You say to me, ‘Every problem must be resolved instantly’. Now that, of course, would require a great deal of back and forth, but at the end of it I would see what you mean. And I would understand the ordinary things. I would understand fear; I would understand pleasure. I would not suppress it, but understand the whole movement of it. And with the understanding would come the ending of sorrow; the whole thing would be wiped away.

If you were to put it to me, that’s how I would act...

You see, Pupul, I am in a state where I am surrounded by an immense stretch of (psychic?) water—water that is warm, healthy, sane. I am swimming in that marvellous water, and I won’t leave you. And if somebody were to ask me, ‘Why does Mrs Rao or Mrs Williams come and listen to you every year?’ I would reply, ‘I don’t know, but if I were (in their shoes?) I would come and listen every year and, if possible, every day—because the 'flower' is different every day. Beauty is different every day’.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Mar 2018 #25
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN AND THE INNER STABILITY ( A reader friendly edited K dialogue from Tradition & Revolution)

Questioner SW: When I look at a tree, almost immediately an idea arises from memory which says 'this is a mango tree' . This idea comes in the way of my looking at the tree and so I am not able to see the fact of the tree. This screen of ideas does constantly interferes with the present and there is no real perception.

Krishnamurti: Are you asking, Sir, about the relationship between the 'observer' and the 'observed' ? What does it mean to be related, to be in direct contact with something ?

A: We always think of our relationships in ( terms of of own ) isolation, not as a part of the whole.

Krishnamurti: Can there be a ( a holistic ) relationship if there is (the self-centred mentality of) the 'observer' ? When this 'centre' feels it is related to something, is that (a true) relationship? Where do we begin with this vast subject of 'relationship' ? What does relationship mean to you? When you look at me, at her, in what way are you related to me, to her? Are you related?

A: I think so.

Krishnamurti: Let us examine it closer. I look at you, you look at me. Is there relationship at all except our (intellectual) relationship?

R: There is a feeling of being in relationship when there is a movement together towards something.

Krishnamurti: If both of us are moving towards an ideal, is that ( an authentic) relationship? Can there be relationship when each one is in ( living inwardly in a self-centred ) isolation?

SW: The first question you asked was, can there be relationship if there is a 'centre'?

Krishnamurti: If I have built a (self-protective mental) 'wall' around myself, consciously
or unconsciously, in order to always feel secure, in order not to get hurt, is there any
relationship at all? Do please look at this. I am afraid (of the new challenges of life) because I have been previously hurt physically as well as psychologically and my whole being is
wounded and I do not want to be hurt any more. I build a ( self-protective mental) wall
around myself in order to feel completely safe from being further hurt. In doing that what
is my actual relationship to you? Is there any relationship?

A: That means when the 'centre' is there, there is no relationship
at all ? There is still is the ordinary goodwill.

Krishnamurti: What is my goodwill towards you? I am polite (& politically correct ?) but I keep a ( safe) distance. I am always inside ( an inner self protecting ?) Wall'.

SW: Even in the life of an ordinary man, there are moments of authentic relationships which are not always from 'behind a wall'.

Krishnamurti: Our ( everyday) relationship is an utilitarian relationship. But you are not answering the deeper issue, which is,
as long as there is the (subliminal identification with the 'thinker' or ) 'observer' who is committing himself to a course of action, is there an authentic relationship between you and me?

A: Is there no ( deeper) relationship between two people?

Krishnamurti: ( Having an authentic  ?) relationship is actually an enormous problem. ( Suppose ) I am married and I have built an image of my wife and she has built an image of me. This 'image making' is ( creating a psychological) distance (between us ) . Is there any ( deeper) relationship with my wife except the physical? When I have my own worries and she has her own ( existential) agonies - are we really related ? Even in looking at a tree, ( one feels a ) 'distance' between me and the tree and ( therefore) I am not in a 'direct' relationship with that person or with that tree. This 'distance' is created by my ( past) knowledge about them. Therefore, what is the factor of division?

SW: ( The mental) images in one form or another divide.

Krishnamurti: The physical distance between 'me' and that tree may be only a few yards, but
the 'psychological distance' between 'me' and that tree is vast. Though I may actually look
at it, my mind & heart is very very far away. This (psychological) distance is incalculable.
In the same way, I look at my wife (but inwardly) I am 'far away'. In the same way I am very 'far away' in any 'co-operative' action.

SW: Is the image-making process constantly interfering in all this?

Krishnamurti: We are going to find out. There is the ( collectively created ) 'image' of the goal towards which both are co-operating. We think that working together for a ( noble common ) 'goal' has brought us in contact, but in fact our 'goal' ( as projected in the future) is separating us ( in the present ) .

SW: But when two people come together for the joy of doing something together, isn't that different?

Krishnamurti: When people come together with (an authentic sense of ) affection when there is no (need for projecting a ) goal, a purpose, an utopia – since between them there is no ( sense of) division. Then all 'status' disappears and there is only 'function' - then I will sweep the garden because it is part of the needs of the place

Now, ( back to the real world) I can see that in my (actual) relationship between the tree and myself, the flower and myself, my wife and myself, there is a 'psychological distance'. Therefore, I am not directly related at all with anything. So what am I going to do?

A: If I see the truth of the fact that I am not related to anything . I may try to build a different relationship, by bridging the gap between myself -the 'thinker'- and 'my thinking'. Unless I do this, I feel totally lost

Krishnamurti: If I realize that ( inwardly speaking) I am not truly related to anything. Not being related to anything, I try to identify myself through action. And what is taking place in the mind? I am moving into peripheral commitments. What happens to my mind when it moves outwardly all the time?

A: I am 'escaping' from myself ?

Krishnamurti: Which means what? Nature (& ecology) becomes very important, or my family becomes very important, or the action to which I have completely given myself over becomes all important – my mind has completely 'externalized' everything. And what has happened to the mind that has 'externalized' the whole movement of relationship? What happens to your mind when it is occupied with the periphery?

SW: It has lost all ( its natural) sensitivity ?

Krishnamurti: Do look at what happens inside yourself : in reaction to this externalization, you withdraw, you become a monk. And what
happens to the mind when it withdraws?

SW: I am incapable of spontaneity ?

Krishnamurti: What happens when you withdraw into your own 'conclusions'? You create another ( virtual) world which you call the 'inner world'. That inward commitment is creating a world of imagination, of mystical experiences. What happens to the brain which is externalizing all action outwardly and (then projecting its) actions inwardly? It is the same movement, like a tide going out and coming in. What happens to such a brain & mind ?

A: It becomes (repetitive &) mechanical ?

Krishnamurti: It is becoming (inwardly) unstable, unbalanced and (self-) destructive, because there is no stability in its whole movement.

A: It is becoming restless.

Krishnamurti: This mind tries to find stability (by committing itself ) to a co-operative action about something, or tries to find stability in a world of utopias, hopes and again there is no stability and being unstable, narrow, not rooted in anything, gets lost.

R: That explains the cult of the beautiful.

Krishnamurti: So, a mind that is not stable, in the sense of firm, deeply rooted in ( harmony &) order, such a mind is the most destructive mind.

( Now, the 64,000 $ Question is  :) How is this unstable mind to become completely still? From that stillness, its action is entirely different. See the beauty of it ? A mind that is completely stable, firm, deep, has its ( spiritual) roots in infinity.
Then what is the relationship with the tree, with the family, with the committee?

(To recap:) I realize my mind is unstable, even as I sought stability in family (life) , in work, and I have also inwardly sought stability in withdrawal, in mystical experiences, in
knowledge and in God. And now I (finally) realise that I do not know what ( the authentic inner ) stability is. (Clue:) the 'not knowing' is the stable.
When the mind has understood what is not stable and realises that it cannot 'know' what is true stability, then there is ( the awakening of) a movement of flexibility, of harmony, because the
mind is not ( anymore stuck in the ) known.
The truth of 'not-knowing' is the only factor from which one can move. The truth of that is the stable. A mind that 'does not know' is in a state of ( timeless ) learning. The moment I say I have learnt, I have stopped learning and that stopping is the ( frozen) stability of division.

So, the (liberating ) truth is "I do not know". That gives you a quality of learning and in this learning there is ( a time-free) stability. Stability is in the "I am learning, not I have learnt". See
what it does to the mind ? It completely unburdens the mind and that is freedom; the freedom of 'not-knowing'. See the beauty of it -
the not-knowing, therefore, freedom.

Now what happens to the ( inner quality of the ) brain which functioned exclusively in the field of knowledge and that says I really do not know anything except the biological (practical)
knowledge of survival? What happens to the rest of the brain? The rest of the brain before was tethered. Now it is not occupied. That part of the brain has never been touched. So, there is now a 'new brain' ( being) born or the old brain is purged of its ( time-binding) occupations.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Apr 2018 #26
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

The Fusion of The Thinker with His Thoughts

(an experientially-friendly edited text from K's Commentaries on Living)

He had spent many years in the search of Truth. Bronzed by the sun and made lean by his wanderings, he was an ascetic who had renounced the world and left his own far-away country. Through the practice of certain 'disciplines' he had with great difficulty learned to concentrate and subjugate his ( sensory) appetites. A scholar, with ready quotations, he was good at argument and swift in his conclusions. He had also learned Sanskrit, and all this had given a certain 'sharpness' to his mind; but a mind that is (artificially) 'made sharp' is not pliable & free.

K: To understand, to discover, must not the mind be free (of the burden of its 'psychological' knowledge ?) from the very beginning? ( And this basic inner ?) freedom must be there from the very beginning, must it not? A mind that is disciplined, controlled, is free to operate within its (fool-proof) patterns; but that is not freedom. The (mere following of any spiritual) discipline leads (only to something that was already) known, (not to mention that it is subliminally motivated by the ? ) greed for ( personal) achievement.

Q: I begin to realize that there is something fundamentally wrong with ( following) all these ( highly recommended spiritual ) 'disciplines'. Though I have spent many years in trying to control & shape my thoughts, I find that I am not getting anywhere.

K: The means 'is' the end, they are not two separate processes. It is an illusion to think that through wrong means the 'true' can be achieved.

Q: Even from early childhood my 'education' has been a process of conformity, and self-discipline has been almost instinctive with me ever since I first put on this robe. Most of the books I have read, and all the gurus I have seen do prescribe (self-) control and you have no idea how I went at it. So what you say seems almost a blasphemy; it is really a shock to me, but it is obviously true. Have my ( wandering) years been wasted?

K: They would have been ( completely?) wasted if your practices would have prevented the receptivity to truth, that is, if these impediments are not wisely observed and deeply understood. The very urge to understand ( what is false & what is true ) is the beginning of ( inner) freedom. So, what is now your problem?

Q: My deepest instinct urges me to seek and find the ultimate Truth ; I am not really interested in anything else.

K: Let us begin near in order to go far : this 'searching' is a form of negative or positive acquisitiveness; and as long as the mind is the focus of ( personal) efforts & conflict, can it ever be still? Can the mind be ( naturally) still through (making a mental) effort?

Q: But is not effort of some kind essential?

K: We shall see. Let us first inquire into the truth (regarding the dualistic process of) search. To seek, there must be a 'seeker', a (self-identified) entity separate from 'that which he seeks'. And is there such a separate entity? Is the 'thinker' separate from his thoughts and experiences? Without inquiring into this whole problem (of the duality between the thinker and its thoughts ) , meditation has no meaning. So we must understand first : what is 'thought'?

Q: I have never approached the problem (of meditation) in this way, and I am rather confused; but do please proceed.

K: Thought is (the mechanistic response of our brain's recording & processing of) sensation, is it not? Through the visual 'perception and contact' there is a (pleasurable or painful) sensation; from this arises the ( choice of) desire for 'this' and not for 'that'. Desire is also at the beginning of ( self-) identification, of the 'mine' and the 'not-mine'.
( The common everyday) thinking is ( hardly more than) verbalized sensation; thought is the (mental) response of memory : remembering the name , the image, the experience. However, ( at this sensory level) thought is transient, changing, impermanent, and it ( therefore) is seeking a permanency (at a higher level). So thought creates the ( mental identification with the ) 'thinker', who then assumes the role of the 'controller' and 'moulder' of thought. This illusory permanent entity is the product of thought, of the transient. This ( self-conscious mental ) 'entity' is ( constantly sustained by its own ) thinking; without thinking he is non-existent . The thinker is made up of its qualities; his qualities cannot be separated from himself. The controller 'is' the controlled, he is merely playing a deceptive game with himself (and with other 'thinkers' ?) . Till this false ( dualistic process) is seen as 'false', Truth is not ( around ?)
In fact, it is (the subliminal splitting of ?) desire which creates the (virtual) separation of the 'thinker' from 'his thoughts'. ( A non-personal) awareness of these ( tricky?) ways of desire is ( the very basis of ) self-knowledge. ( Further down the line this ?) self-knowledge is the beginning of ( the authentic ) meditation.

Q: But how can there be (triggered ) this fusion of the thinker with his thoughts?

K: This 'fusion' can take place only when the mind is utterly still without ( even) trying to be still. There is this (spontaneous ) stillness ( in a meditation-friendly environment when ) the process of 'thought-time' is coming to an end. There must be (a certain degree of ) freedom from ( our mental ) conditioning, which is thought. Each (human) problem is solved ( holistically) only when there is no ( such mental ) agitation. How can there be (any insightful) understanding when the mind is agitated?
Earnestness must be tempered with the swift play of spontaneity.
You will find, if you have actually 'listened' to what has been said, that ( the inner light of ?) Truth will come in moments when 'you' are not expecting it.

If I may say so, be ( inwardly) open, and ( choicelessly) aware of 'what is' (going on inwardly & outwardly ) from moment to moment ( and one moment at a time?) . The Bliss of Truth comes when the (inner space of the ) mind is not occupied with (thought's self-centred? ) activities and struggles.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Apr 2018 #27
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

THE AWAKENING OF THE TIMELESS INTELLIGENCE

( A 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue from Exploration into Insight)

P: Could we discuss one of the chief blockages to ( a holistic approach to self-) understanding, that is, the factor of ( brain's ) self-centred activity?

K: When you talk about 'self'-centredness, a centre implies a
periphery. Can we say, where there is a 'centre' there is also a boundary, a limitation and all its action must be within the ( closed) circle all ( our psychological) action takes place: thinking about oneself, progressing towards something, is still from the centre to a periphery. Now, from that (self-identified) centre you can stretch ( your action) as far as you like, through social service,
electorate dictatorship or tyranny, everything is within that area.

A: The point is, sir, is any action possible which does not nourish this
centre?

K: Or, can there be no 'centre'?

A: Sir, this cannot be said from our position because we start
with a centre. We can honestly, factually say that we know there is
such a centre (aka : the 'thinker', the 'observer', the 'experiencer', and every activity, including breathing, nourishes ( the self-consciousness of?) that centre.

K: My point is this: the ( mental?) energy that is expanded within the circumference and the centre is a ( self-) limited energy, a mechanistic energy, and any action that takes place within its area is limited, fragmented and therefore a wastage of ( intelligent?) energy?

VA: We have been discussing ( academically about ) the circumference and the centre – but to realize the 'self' (identification) in ourselves would be the first problem.

K: That is the problem, sir. We are 'self'-centred
human beings, we constantly think about ourselves, our worries, our
family - ( and while doing this) we 'are' the centre. We can move ( or expand) our (self-centredness) to social work,
to political work, but it is still the (same 'good old'?) centre operating.

P: That is a little more subtle to see, because you can concern
yourself with something in which you feel the centre is not
involved.

K: We may ( like to ) think so. But it is 'I' who work for the poor,
still working within this limitation – identifying myself with the poor, with the nation, with some ideal and so on, that is the problem.

Apa: I think the question that Pupulji asked was whether this (self-centred) movement of the mind with its habits can be stilled? Can this constant movement of the mind from the centre to the periphery, from the periphery to the centre, can it be silenced? Is there an energy which can gush out, which will silence it or make it irrelevant ?

K: I don't quite follow this...

P: It is really like this: we have done ( for 'homework', practically) everything to understand the ( subliminal) nature of this self-(identifying) activity. We have observed, we have meditated, but the 'centre' does not cease, sir.

K: No, because we don't actually see, perceive in our 'mind & heart' that this ( self-centred mental) movement back and forth is a wastage of energy, that it must be ( entropically ?) limited and must bring ( frustration & ?) sorrow. Everything within that area is (ultimately ending up in death & ? ) sorrow. We don't see (the existential tragedy of ?) that.

P: Sir, if ( the self-centering instinct) is part of our brain cells and if it is the ( natural) action of our brain cells to constantly throw out these 'mental ripples' in which we get caught, then...

K: Pupul, the human brain needs two essential things: a sense of (its physical) security and a sense of (temporal) permanency.

P: Both are provided by our 'self'-(consciousness)

K: That is why it has become very important.

Apa: Sir, the human brain ( has created itself) a physical identity in its habit of seeking security and/or continuance. Now, how do you 'break out' of its ( ages old?) habits, its mechanical operations? That is what Pupulji has been hinting at.

K: Any ( calculated attempt ?) to 'break out', is still within (the 'I's own ) periphery. Is there a ( a holistic approach to ) action, a move (based on our total intelligence?) which is not self-centred?

P: We know ( such) states (of Grace?) when it appears as if the self is
not, but as the seed of self-centred activity is held within the
brain cells, it will ( eventually) repeat itself again. Therefore, there
must be ( awakened?) another energy, another quality (of intelligence) which will wipe it out. Now, (you tell us?)
what is the nature of this (very special) energy; is it attention, is it silence, is it exterior, is it interior?

K: First of all, our brain is 'programmed' (by evolution) to function ( indefinitely) from the centre to the periphery, a back-and-forth
movement. Is it possible to 'break' that mechanistic momentum of the brain cells?

P: Is there an ( intelligent) energy which (once awakened) can wipe out that momentum?

K: Can this momentum, can this ( survivalistic) 'programme' of the brain 'stop'? The moment it stops, is there a ( spontaneous awakening of an intelligent ?) energy which is not (dependent of the old) self-centred (mental activity ?) movement, an energy without any (personal?) motive, without a cause, an energy which without these ( materialistic restrictions?) would be endless?

P: Yes. Now, in order to investigate ( the nature of) 'That' energy,
the only instrument we have is attention. So, any energy that
you posit must manifest itself as 'attention'.

K: We have just discovered that the human brain has been conditioned through millennia to move from a (mental) 'centre' ( of self-identity) to the circumference and from the circumference to move to the centre, back and forth, extending or limiting , and so on. Now, is there a way of 'ending' that (self-centred mental) movement? The next question will be: Is it (something realistically) possible? I think that is a 'wrong' (redundant?) question. When the ( meditating?) brain itself sees the actual necessity of the movement ceasing, it 'stops'.

Q: Yes. But then...it starts again.

K: The moment you say you want ( it to last forever?) that is greed. It is not a continuous stoppage. When you want it to
be continuous, it is a time ( binding) movement.

Apa: So, this (totally insightful ) 'seeing' then, is without ( any mental) movement.

K: Seeing, observing the whole movement of the centre to the
circumference, from the circumference to the centre, that (back & forth mental) movement is 'what is'.

Apa: Therefore the (insightful) 'seeing' is on a different plane, on a different dimension altogether.

K: There is ( a holistic) perception when one is aware without any
( personal) choice. ( So, for extra homework try to ?) Just become aware of this ( subtle mental) movement. ( If it works?) the (psychological) 'programme' stops.
Pupul's question was : Is there ( in the depths of human consciousness?) a (source of creative?) energy which is non-mechanical, which has no ( temporal) causation, and therefore is constantly (capable of) renewing itself?

VA: That is the 'energy of death'.

K: In the sense of 'ending'?

VA: A total ending.

K: The total 'ending' of this movement from the centre to the circumference, in the (psychical) sense, that is death. So is that the energy which is causeless?

VA: It is causeless, sir. It comes, like the blood in the body.

K: But, is it a theory or an actuality?

VA: An actuality.

K: Which means that there is no 'centre' from which you
are acting now ?

VA: During the period when 'that' energy is there.

K: No, no. Not 'periods'...

VA: There is a sense of 'timelessness' at that time.

K: Yes, sir. Then, what takes place?

VA: Then again ( the self-centred process of ) thought comes back.

K: So, you are back again (caught in the back & forth mental movement) from the centre to the periphery ?

VA: One gets afraid of that 'particular' ( experience) happening again because it is like a 'total death'.

K: It has happened without your invitation.

VA: Yes.

K: Now, you are inviting it ?

VA: I don't know whether I am inviting it or whether I am
afraid of it.

K: Afraid or inviting it, it is still within the field of
this ( self-centredness) . That is all.

(Class dismissed?)

The other question that Pupulji raised (in private was ) about an 'endless journey'. You want to discuss ( the awakening of?) kundalini?

P: Yes, sir...

K: So, first of all, would you forget everything you have heard about
it? We are entering into a subject which is very serious. Can you start with a completely 'empty slate', from the position of not knowing anything about kundalini ?

Q: We just wanted to know whether there is an energy that can
wipe out our 'psychological' conditioning.

K: So long as self-centred ( mental) activity exists, you cannot touch it. That is why I object to any discussion on kundalini or whatever
that energy is, because we have not done the 'spade work' - we don't
lead a life of correctness, we just want to add something new to it
and so carry on our mischief.

P: But do you know of such an energy when self-centred activity ends? We assume that this is the source of 'that' endless energy. It may not be.

K: Are we saying that with the 'ending' of this ( back & forth mental) movement from the centre to the circumference, at the 'complete' ending of it – there is the release of 'that' (kundalini?) energy which is limitless?
Can we put the 'kundalini' energy in its right place? A number of
people are said to have the experience of what they call 'kundalini', which I question whether it is an actual reality or some kind of
'physiological' activity which is then attributed to kundalini. You
live an 'immoral' life in the sense of a life of vanity, sex, etc. and
then you pretend that your kundalini is awakened. But your daily self-centred life, continues.

P: Sir, if we are going to examine it, let us see how it operates in
one. The awakening of kundalini is traditionally linked to certain 'psychic centres' (aka 'chakras') located at certain physical parts of the body. My first question is whether that is so?
Has the release of this energy, which has no end, anything to do
with the psychic centres in the physical parts of the body?
( I take it that when one asks this question, there is a depth of
self-knowing with which one asks. It is not possible to investigate
the 'self' if one's life has not gone through a degree of inner balance, otherwise what K says has no (experiential) meaning. When one listens to Krishnaji, one 'receives' only at the depth to which one has 'exposed' oneself.

K: Unless your everyday life is a completely 'non self-centred'
way of living, the 'other' (spiritual energy?) cannot possibly come in. Whenever there is a 'coming back' (a 'falling back'?) I question whether you have had ( access to?) that energy.

P: So, the real problem is to what extent has ( the quality of ) your life totally changed - if there is a totally new way of looking, a new way of living, a new way of relationship.

Q: Taking for granted that one is leading a holistic life, is there something like kundalini?

K: Are you living a holistic life?

Q: No.

K: Therefore, don't that question.

P: I am just asking Krishnaji whether there is such an energy which,
on awakening completely wipes out that (egotistic) centre.

K: I would put it the other way. Unless the self-centred
movement stops, the 'other' can't be.

P: As it does not seem possible to proceed with this discussion, may I put another question? What is the nature of the (inner) field which needs to be prepared, in order to be able to receive 'that' which is limitless?

K: If one lives an (inner) life of contradiction, conflict, misery. ( The 'first & last step' is ?) to find out if one can end the whole of human sorrow and enquire into the nature of Compassion.
(In a nutshell:) Can the whole (mental) process ( of thought-time) end? Only then can I answer the other questions, which have then tremendous significance.

P: So ( one has to realise the truth that inwardly?) I am in conflict, I am suffering and to see that this a life of conflict and suffering has no end.

K: That is all. If it cannot 'end', just wanting to awaken the 'other' (timeless energy) in order to wipe this out is a wrong question.

P: Obviously.

K: It is like asking a 'home cleaning agency' to come and clear up your ( inner) house. I say that in cleaning your own (inner) house, a great many things that are going to 'happen' - clairvoyance, the so-called 'siddhis' and all the rest of it. They will all 'happen' (eventually ?) . But if you are getting caught in ( exploiting them personally ?), you cannot proceed further. If you are not caught in them, the Heavens are open to you.

( In a nutshell : ) is there a 'soil' (of the mind) that has to be prepared ? Clean the house so completely that there isn't the shadow of ( mental) escape. If you are doing that, working at the ending of sorrow, and you ask is there something known as 'kundalini power', then I am willing to listen. Is there an energy which is nonmechanistic, which is endlessly renewing itself? I say there is. Most definitely. If you are working, clearing up the house, the ( psychosomatic) body becomes very sensitive not sensitive to its own desires but 'sensitive per se'. Then, what happens? There is ( the awakening of?) a (purely spiritual ?) energy which is renewing itself all the time, which is not mechanistic, which has no beginning and therefore no ending. It is an 'eternal' movement. It is the most sacred thing, therefore 'you' can't invite it.
Clearing the house demands a tremendous (inner ) discipline, it demands a tremendous ( quality of) attention. When you give your
complete attention, then you will see a totally different kind of
thing taking place, an (awakening of an) energy in which there is no repetition, an energy that isn't 'coming and going'. ( However?) it implies, keeping the (inner) mind completely 'empty'. Can you do that?

VA: For a while...

K: Can the ( totality of one's ) mind keep itself empty? Then,
there is that energy. You don't even have to ask for it. When there
is ( free inner) space, it (the 'mind') is empty and therefore full of energy. So, in cleansing, in ending this (inner) house of sorrow, can the ( meditating ?) mind be completely empty, without any motive, without any (hidden) desire? When you are working at this, keeping the house clean, the 'other' things come naturally. But it isn't 'you' who are preparing the soil for that. That 'is' (the spontaneous action of ?) Meditation.

P: And the nature of this (meditative homework?) is the (qualitative ) transformation of the human mind ?

K: You see as Apa Saheb was saying, we are programmed by many
centuries of ( survivalistic) conditioning. When there is the stopping of its (residual karmic momentum?) , there is an ending of it – like when you unplug ( a poorly programmed?) computer, it can't function any more. Now, the question is: Can the ( ego-centric mental activity also known as?) 'selfishness', end? And not keep going on and on? Can that ( self-identified) 'centre' end?
When it ends, there is no movement of time. That is all. When
the movement of the mind from the centre to the periphery stops,
( the 'psychological' ) time stops. And ...when there is no ( mental) movement of selfishness, there is ( the awakening of ) a totally different kind of ( creative inner?) movement.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 13 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 #28
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

THE DISTILLING ACTION OF HOLISTIC PERCEPTION

( an 'essential' K dialogue - reader friendly edited- from Exploration into Insight )

Questioner P: We have so far discussed about the mind and its problems, but we have not yet discussed the 'movement of the heart'. Is it a different movement from the movement of the mind? I use the words 'mind' and 'heart', because they are the main focal points around which our sensory responses appear to focus. Are the
two movements in fact one movement?

Krishnamurti: What do you mean by the 'movement of the heart' ?

P: Any kind of emotional response like love,
affection, goodwill, compassion, seems to ripple, to move from a focal point which we identify as the 'region of the heart'. These (emotion charged) ripples affect the heart, make it physically beat faster.

Krishnamurti: Which is the response of the nerves, the heart, the brain, of the whole psychosomatic organism. Now, is the
movement of the mind separate from the movement which is generally called the 'movements of the heart'? We are not speaking of the physical heart, but of the emotions, the sentiments, the angers, the jealousy, the feelings of guilt - all the 'emotions' that make the heart throb and beat faster. Are these two movements of the 'mind' and of the 'heart' (really?) separate? Let us discuss it.

P: While dialoguing with you, there has been a silencing of the brain cells, along with a tremendous clarity, yet there has been no (emotional) response from the heart.

Krishnamurti: The movement of the mind and the movement of the heart, are they are (really) separate? And if they are not, then when the mind is empty of ( its 'psychological'?) content, what is the quality of the mind that 'is' (or has?) compassion - that 'is' (or has?) love, empathy? Let us begin by asking whether the 'movement' ( ( the emotional activity ? ) of the heart is separate. Is any movement ( of the human psyche) separate?

P: Separate from what?

Krishnamurti: Isn't all movement ( of our psyche ) unitary, like all energy is unitary, though we might have 'fragmented' it? One has 'broken it up' as the movement of the heart, the movement of thought, etc, but we are asking ( a 'holistic' question) , "Is there a
movement of the heart separate from the mind - mind being the brain?'' The mind, the heart,
the brain, aren't they one unit? And from that (integrated) unit, a ( holistic) movement flows; a
movement which is unitary.
However ( our cultural tradition) divides ( the 'positive') emotions & sentiments, like devotion, tenderness, compassion, enthusiasm from their ( 'negative') opposites as evil, cruelty, vanity.

P: But there is also a purely 'intellectual' (mental) movement which is neither one nor the other; the technological movement.

Krishnamurti: Is this 'technological' movement different from the movement of the mind?

P: ( The 'psychological' component of) thought has its own momentum, it has its own ( personal) reason for existence, its own direction, its own motives and its own energy.

Krishnamurti: ( To recap:) there is the (intellectual) movement of the mind, the movement of affection, love and compassion; and the movement of violence. So there are now three movements. Then, there is another (controlling) movement which says 'this must be' or 'this must not be'; so there are now four ( distinct) movements and every one of these movements has its own subdivisions, each in
contradiction with its opposite.
As a result, our psychosomatic organism has got dozens of simultaneous contradictory
movements, and there is a 'coordinator'
trying to arrange things so that he can operate.

F: Isn't the 'coordinator' a selective mechanism, which picks up and calls
it thought, mind, heart and so on?

Krishnamurti: Coordinator, chooser, integrater, selecter, call it what you will, these (psychosomatic fragments) are all in contradiction with each other.

F: Why do you say they are constantly in (conflict or in) contradiction ? Each one seems to be moving on its own.

P: At any given point if one is (totally active ) , the others are (on 'stand-by' ), Then there cannot be a constant ( conflict & ) contradiction.

Krishnamurti: When one is ('on') , the other is not. But the 'coordinator' weighs these two - I want this and I do not want that.

F: This ( acting in time-divided fragments) is the whole movement of our daily life.

Krishnamurti: Contradiction is not when one (fragment) is (active) , and the other is
not, but when the 'coordinating' ( fragment of desire) says 'I would rather not have this but
have that'; then begins the contradiction, the opposition (of fragmentary desires) as choice.

P: Are these movements moving in parallel to each other? Ultimately they are either the one movement or the other. And isn't the movement of the brain basically that which excites emotions?

Krishnamurti: Are the movements of the 'mind' and of 'heart' two distinct movements, or are they really ( part of ) one ( holistic movement) which we do not know?

P: Take the arising of desire. After a while it becomes a thought. Where will you put it?

Krishnamurti: Desire, hate, love, we say, are both emotive and mental movements. You
ask, are they parallel and therefore separate or is it all one movement?

P: The ( experientially) valid question is : if
they are two separate movements, is it possible for them ever to come together? Or is it the very cause of the misfortune that we have kept them separate?

Krishnamurti: We know only these two movements : one is the (activity of) thinking, the intellectual, the rational movement; and the second is the feeling of kindliness, gentleness. Are they two separate movements? Or because we have treated them as two separate movements, our whole misfortune, our confusion arises ,
You see, Pupul, the whole religious tendency in the west as well as in the east has been this division of the 'soul' and the 'body', but it is really a 'psycho-somatic' movement. So the
question is, are they two movements or have we accustomed ourselves to the thought that the two are separate - the body and the
soul - till somebody says it is a psychosomatic state and I say " Yes, I understand''.

P: But how can you neglect the observable fact that an emotional intensity brings a new quality of being, an authentic experience of what the
other person feels; a sense of unspoken understanding?

Krishnamurti: Do not bring that in yet. We are asking, are these two movements separate? Or because we are so habit-ridden we have (assumed) that they are two separate movements? And if they are not, what is the one unitary ( holistic) movement that includes the
movement of the brain and the movement of the heart?

How do you investigate this ( ages old?) question? We can only investigate it from fact to fact. We can see the 'movement' of ( our self-centred) thought. And I ask : when the movement of thought comes to an end without
any compulsion, is there not a totally different movement which is not that or this?

P: That is so, Sir . There is a state ( of Grace?) when it is as if an elixir is released, when one is
overflowing; a state in which the heart is the only thing that is there - I am using metaphors - and there can be action in that state, doing
in it, thinking in it, and everything in it. ( But more often than not...) there is a state when thought has ceased and the mind is very clear and alert, but the 'elixir' is not present.

Krishnamurti: What is the ( 'psychological') factor in us that divides the ( self-centred) emotive movement and the (self-centred ) thought movement?

A: As far as my ( meditative) experience goes, when the verbal movement ceases, there is an awareness of the entire body and an emotional content of pure feeling.

P: In the Hindu spiritual tradition there is a word called 'rasa' meaning the 'essence' (of one's being) , that which permeates it.

Krishnamurti: Essence means 'what it (really?) is'.
Now what happens? In observing the whole movement of thought, in observing the content of (our self-centred) consciousness,
the 'essence' comes out ( by distillation ) of it. And in observing the movement of the
heart, in that perception, there is the essence. Essence is the same whether it is ( coming from) this or from that.

A: That is what the Buddhists also say.

Krishnamurti: It is the ( distilled) 'essence' of all the flowers that makes the perfume and the quality. In ( the context of holistic) perceiving the whole movement of thought as self-centred consciousness with its ( active) content, in that very observation there is the external refinement which is the essence. Right? In the same way there is the perception of the emotional movement of the ( psychosomatic) body, love, joy. When you perceive all that, there is the essence ; there are no two essences.
This essence has to come into being. Now how do you produce it? When the flowers are distilled, the essence of the flowers
'is' the perfume.
Just look : during these discussions we have observed the movement of thought as ( self-) consciousness; the whole of it and the content of the movement is consciousness. The (holistic) 'perception' is ( operating) the distillation and the (resulting) 'essence'
is pure intelligence. It is not my intelligence or your intelligence but it is 'intelligence' - the essence (of 'what is' being perceived) . Similarly, when we observe (holistically, or non-dualistically?) the ( emotional) movement of love, hate, pleasure, fear, as you perceive it, the 'essence' comes out of that.
(Clue:) There are no two essences.

D: What is the relationship between this 'essence' and one's 'uniqueness'? Aren't they are interchangeable ?

Krishnamurti: I would rather use the ( non-personal) word 'essence'.

P: The great masters of alchemy were called 'rasa-siddhas' -those who have their being in that (spiritual essence?)

Krishnamurti: During these days and before, one has watched the movement of thought - and out of that 'choiceless (self-) observation' comes the essence. Therefore what is this 'essence'? Is it a refinement of our thoughts & emotions, or is it totally unrelated?

P: So ( the intelligent ) energy which is (involved in this ) attention....

Krishnamurti: This energy (of attention?) 'is' ( distilling the?) essence.

P: Though it is operating on matter, the (pure spiritual) 'essence' is unrelated to both.

Krishnamurti: ( To recap : ) Let us begin again slowly with what is that 'essence'. Is it
unrelated to ( our everyday?) consciousness? I am taking it that one has observed ( the content of one's own?) consciousness.
There has been a perception of the (active) content of this consciousness ( the movement of thought & its self-projected time) and in the very observation of that, the flame of observation distils. In the same way the 'flame of attention' brings the essence of
emotive movement. Now having (handy?) this (spiritual) essence, what relationship
has it to that and to this? None whatsoever. Essence has nothing to do (anymore) with the (originating) flower. Though it is part of the flower, the distilled essence is not of it.

F: Even grammatically it doesn't sound quite all right: ''although it is part of the flower it is not of the flower''....

Krishnamurti: Look, Sir, the other day I saw on TV how they were taking the bark of a tree to produce some kind of alcohol; the (distilled) 'essence' is not the bark.

D: It is realized because of the heat.

Krishnamurti: ( So, in a nutshell:) The heat of ( the totally attentive) perception produces the ( spirit-ual?) essence.

Now, what is the next (academic?) question? Is ( the spiritual) essence related to (the original  self-?) consciousness? Obviously not.

So the whole (experiential) point in all this is the 'flame of ( direct) perception' and the flame
of perception 'is' the essence.

D: It 'creates' the essence and it 'is' the essence ?

Krishnamurti: ( In the holistic idiom?) it 'is' the essence.

P: Is (this insightful) perception part of the movement of Creation?

Krishnamurti: What do you mean by Creation ? Bringing into ( one's) being something New or bringing into being ( something new ) in the mould of the known ?

P: Creation must be bringing into being the New, not (a recycling of ) the old.

Krishnamurti: Therefore let us be clear. Bringing into being something totally New. At what level? At the sensory level, at the intellectual level, at the memory level; so that you can see it, so
that you can visualize it? The man who produced the jet engine was familiar with the internal combustion engine, so, was
that creation totally new? So when you say bringing into being something totally new, at what level?

P: At the sensory level.

Krishnamurti: At the sensory? Can you bring into being something which is not self-expression?
It is not 'New' if it is self-expression.

P: If Creation is something entirely new which is unrelated to self-expression, then probably all all manifestation ceases. (In the real world?) there does not exist anything which is
not self-expression........

Krishnamurti: That is what I want to get at. The man who discovered the jet-engine - at the moment when he discovered it, there was
no self-expression. He translated it later into self-expression - something new is discovered, then it is put into a ('fame & fortune'?) formula) .
(But in the 'consciousness' realm) I only know
that the flame of perception has brought about the essence, and now the (metaphysical ?) question is, has that ( 'new' spiritual) 'essence' any (need for self-) expression? Does it create
anything new?

D: It ( helps ) creating a new perception.

Krishnamurti: No. The 'flame' is ( not apart from) the perception. One moment, the pure flame of
perception (is 'on'?) , then ( it is totally ?) forgotten, and then another (new) pure flame of perception, then forgotten. In this (time-free perspective ?) each time the flame is 'new'.

D: Such a ( totally New?) perception touches matter, and there is an 'explosion' (an insightful revelation ?) and there is ( qualitative) 'mutation'. As for that which emerges out of it, you cannot postulate. It is like the ( revolutionary) discovery of the jet engine.

Krishnamurti: Let us put it this way. When there is an (opportunity of) action, this ( Intelligent) 'essence' is not concerned with its own self-expression. It is concerned with 'action'. And its action then is total, not partial.

P: I want to ask one more ( bonus?) question. The manifestation of this ( 'mind' - essence?) has a direct contact with matter.

Krishnamurti: There is ( the holistic) action.

A: Up to ( the distilling action of) 'perception' we go with you.

Krishnamurti: No, Sir. You have gone further. There is a perception which is 'flame' (of attention) , and which has distilled (the 'what is' into ) its 'essence'. You cannot say 'I' have got it. There is only ( a timeless mind-) 'essence'. Now this ( 'mind') essence may act, or may not act. But if it acts (in the material world?) , it has no (self-limiting) 'frontiers' at all since there is no "me" acting. Obviously...

P: That itself 'is' Creation. Creation is not something apart from that.

Krishnamurti: The expression of this ( timeless inner ) essence is 'creation in action'. The essence is ( creating its own) expression.

P: Then is ( the insightful) perception also action?

Krishnamurti: Of course. See what has taken place in you : (the holistic) perception without any (academic?) qualifications is ( acting like ) a flame : it 'distils' ( the 'intelligent' essence from ) whatever it perceives. Whatever it perceives it distils because ( attention) is the flame. (Clue:) It is not a 'sensory' perception. Now, when there is that ( quality of direct) perception which 'distils' at every minute, and ( you try to hurt me saying ) 'you are a fool' , in that ( flash of insightful) perception there is an ( intelligent) 'essence' – which may act or not, depending upon the ( friendly or unfriendly ?) environment, but in that action there is no "me", there is no ( personal) motive at all.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 15 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 #29
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

THE HOLISTIC APPROACH TO INNER SILENCE (A 'reader friendly' edited K dialgue from 'Exploration into Insight')

P: Can we discuss what is (your personal view on ? ) Silence? Does silence have many facets or forms? How is it reached? Does it imply only the absence of thought? Or are there many kinds of silence; different in nature, dimension and direction?

K: Is there a ( holistically ?) right approach to Silence and if there is, what is it? Also, are there different varieties of silence, which means different methods by which to arrive at silence? (And, what is the nature of Silence?

Firstly, if there is there a 'right approach' to silence, what do we mean by a 'right' approach'?

P: Well, silence is generally defined as the absence of thought.

K: I can 'go blank' without any thought, just repeat some (secret mantra ?) and 'go blank'. Is that ( an authentic?) Silence?

S: How can we know what is the true silence?

K: I would like to approach this ( ages old ) question by asking: Is there a true approach to silence? is there a natural, wholesome and balanced approach to (inner) Silence?

S: There is a whole (spiritual) tradition that maintains that silence is important, is necessary and there are various systems of pranayama, ( aka : 'breath control') , to ensure it. So there are many approaches to silence and you cannot really distinguish between an 'unhealthy' silence and a 'healthy' one.

K: Supposing you don't know anything of what other people
have said and why you should become (inwardly) silent, wouldn't you ask whether there is a way of naturally & sanely, bringing about tranquillity in the mind? How would you approach this?

S: There are many ways of doing it.

K: You all say there are many ways, but how can the mind do this without (creating resistance or making a mental ) effort? Because 'effort' does not bring about ( authentic inner peace & ) tranquillity, it brings about a (subtle form of mental) exhaustion which may be translated as 'silence' by those who are completely tired out at the end of the day. But is it possible to bring about tranquillity in the mind without conflict, without a self-imposed discipline, without ( compulsion?) - all those are exhausting processes.

S: When ( the breathing exarcises of ) pranayama are done (properly) t it does not exhaust you but there is silence. What is its nature?

K: There you are breathing, getting more oxygen into your
system and the oxygen naturally helps you to be relaxed.

S: That is also an induced state of silence.

K: But it is possible to be (inwardly) really quiet ( at peace with oneself ) without any artificial means? To me that is a central
issue. ( A simple experiential clue : ) what happens when you look at a mountain? The greatness, the beauty, the grandeur of that (breathtaking vision fully ?) absorbs you and makes you silent. But
that ( naturally induced silence ) is still 'artificial'. I would not call it silence because the (psychological impact of that ) sightseeing is so great that for the time being its greatness 'knocks out' your (self-consciousness) .

S: The 'me' is not active at the conscious level, but it is still there ( on stand by) .

K: It is (pretty much like the mind of ) a child which is totally absorbed by a new (e-game or ) toy; that 'greatness' knocks out the 'me' for the moment and the ( self-centred) mind becomes silent. You can experiment with it (for extra homework?)

S: But you say that is not silence.

K: I would not call that silence because the mountain, the
beauty of something, takes over for the moment. The ( self-centred activities of the ) 'me' are pushed aside; but the moment that ( timeless moment of Grace ?) is gone, I am back to my ( everyday 'time & thought' mental ?) chattering. Then I ask myself (the holistically right question?) : What is the actual necessity of ( inner peace of mind & ) silence? If there was no particular motive, would I ask that
question?

Par: Are you describing your own mind? The state of your mind is already a silent mind.

K: May be, I don't know. So what is the natural, healthy 'approach' to tranquillity?

R: Doesn't any 'approach' imply a motivation of some kind ?

K: If I really want to listen to what you are saying, my mind must be (at least momentarily?) 'quiet' - that is a natural thing. Similarly, if I want to 'see' (the truth or falseness of) something very clearly, the mind must not be 'chattering' (or being busy with its everyday problems & worries ?) .

P: In that state (of authentic seeing & listening) lies all poise, all harmony.

K: I would say the basis for the depth of silence is a (holistic)
harmony between the mind, the body and the heart, great harmony,
and the putting aside of any artificial methods, including (self-) control.

P: You have used the word: 'harmony'. But how does this ( integrated state of being) solve the problem (for the average person) who only knows conflict ?

K: If there is an (ongoing) disharmony between the mind, the body,
the heart, deal with that, not with silence. If you deal with
silence, being disharmonious, then it is artificial.

R: But can an agitated mind deal ( holistically) with its own agitation?

K: That is a different question.

B: Doesn't the agitated mind naturally seek ( silence or peace of mind as?) the opposite state ?

K: Then it is ( getting caught) in a ( subliminal) conflict (of interests?) . The concept (of holistic silence) has its roots in its own opposite.

R: The concept itself is ( a resulting) part of ( its ongoing state of mental) agitation.

K: ( To make this long story short?) I would say that a ( dynamic inner balance of) complete harmony is the foundation for the purity of silence.

S: How does one find this complete harmony?

K: Let us go into that. What is ( the holistic) harmony between the mind, the body and the heart, a total sense of being whole without
(any inner) fragmentation, with the intellect operating clearly, objectively, sanely; the 'heart' operating with a quality of affection, care, love, compassion, vitality; and the ( psychosomatic) body operating with its ( natural) intelligence, not interfered with
by the ( habits cultivated by the ?) intellect.
The ( inner ) feeling that everything is functioning beautifully is important. No, Is this (holistic harmony actually ) possible (in the context of ) modern existence?) ?

Q: In that ( silent inner) harmony is there a centre?

K: When there is a (thought controlling) 'centre' it is obviously not possible, because that centre is translating everything according to its
limitations.

R: Why does this division arise between the mind, the heart and the body?

K: It arises through our education, where emphasis is laid on the
cultivation of the intellect as memory and reason, as a function
apart from living.

R: That is the over-emphasis on the mind. But even for a person without any education, there can be an over-emphasis on emotions (or on the physiological demands )

K: Of course. ( But the 'educated' person ) worships the intellect much more than the (sensations & ) emotions. Does he not? ( For example) any emotion is translated into sentimentality, devotion or into all kinds of (artistic) extravaganza
. Why does the human brain as the repository of ( racial & personal) memory, give such importance to knowledge - technological,
psychological, and ( also in the area of human) relationship? Why have human beings given such extraordinary importance to knowledge? I
become an important bureaucrat, which means I have ( a duly certified ) knowledge about performing certain functions, while ( inwardly) I become pompous, (mentally standardised ? ) & dull.

Par: Isn't it an innate desire (for a more comfortable survival?) ?

K: It gives security - obviously. It gives you status. Human
beings have worshipped knowledge - knowledge as identified with
the intellect. The erudite person, the scholar, the philosopher, the
inventor, the scientist, are all concerned with knowledge and they
have created marvellous things in the world and the public admiration of their knowledge is overwhelming and we accept it.
In contrast to that, there is the (new age ?) reaction to have feeling, to love, to have devotion, sentimentality, extravagance in expression, and if the body gets neglected you practise yoga.
Now ; if we want to bring about a natural harmony where
the intellect functions like a marvellous ( Swiss ? ) watch, where the emotions and affections, care, love and compassion are healthily functioning and the physical body which has been so often
misused, comes into its own. Now, how is this ( culturally sustained) division to come to an end naturally? How is the ( holistically friendly) mind to remove this 'gap' and be whole?

P: I think that we are getting bogged down. We started with silence. We
don't touch silence; then you used the word 'harmony' and we can't
touch harmony.

K: Then what will you do?

P: We come back to only one thing, which is, we know only (various degrees of) disharmony.

K: Therefore let us deal with disharmony and not with silence
and when there is a ( holistic) understanding of disharmony, from that may flow silence.

M: I observe my disorder and it is still going on independently of
me.

K: Therefore there is a duality in your observation, as the 'observer' and the (inner disorder which is being) 'observed'. You can play
with this endlessly (or we can stop all that mind game) and ask: Why is there disorder? Is it possible to end disorder?

P: If I observe the nature of my disorder, I can see that it is manifested as ( an endless continuity of) thought.

K: But why do I call it 'disorder'? Which means I already have an inkling of what order is. So I am comparing what I have experienced or known as (a wholesome inner) order and thereby ask what is (the cause of the present) disorder. I say, don't compare, just see what ( your ongoing) disorder is (all about?) . Can the mind ( meditatively approach its ongoing state of) disorder without comparing it with ( what it knew before as harmony & ?) order? So, can ( my thinking) mind cease comparing? Comparison itself may be ( an active cause of) disorder.
Measurement may be disorder, and as long as I am comparing ('what is' going on now with what has happened before?) there must be ( a subliminal conflict producing its own collateral) disorder.
So I see ( that the first thing to deal with ) is 'comparison' which is really important (to be tackled first) , not disorder. As long as
my mind is comparing, measuring, there must be disorder.

R: Even without comparing I can look at myself and see there is
disorder because every part of me is pulling in a different direction.

K: ( Speaking personally?) I have never felt that I am in ( a state of inner) disorder, except rarely, occasionally. I say to myself: Why are all these people talking about disorder?

D: You mean : ''do they really know disorder or do they only know it through comparison?''

P: You are bringing in new (holistic concepts?) which I find very difficult to follow . There is no conscious comparison by my mind which says, 'This is disorder and I want to end it.' I know ( my inner) disorder.... I can see a sense of confusion, one thought coming against another thought.

K: You're saying that your mind is in a state of confusion because it is
contradicting itself all the time. Proceed from that.

P: Then I am bound to ask: Is (the state of inner conflict) inherent in the nature of the human mind? If not, there must be a way out of this.

K: Then what?

P: There is an 'ending' (of the self-sustained state of inner conflict?) here. Now, what is the nature of this 'ending'? Is there an
undercurrent ( of thought - time?) still operating in that ending?
When we talk of different qualities and natures and dimensions of silence it means just this. The traditional outlook is that the gap between two thoughts is silence.

K: That is not ( the Inner?) Silence. Listen to that noise outside. Absence of noise is not silence. It is only a (silent interval due to the momentary ?) absence of noise.

P: We moved from 'silence' to 'harmony' and we found that it is
impossible to go into the nature of harmony without going into
'disorder'.

K: That is all. Keep to those three points.

R: There may not be necessarily a ( de facto) recognition of disorder, because when there is a conflict between the body, the mind and the heart , this conflict makes one weary, and one instinctively feels that there is something wrong with it.

K: So what you are saying is, if I understand it rightly, conflict
indicates disorder.

R: Even when you don't name it.

K: Conflict 'is' disorder. You only translated it (verbaly) as disorder.
Silence, harmony, conflict. That is all - not disorder.

P: Forgive me for saying it but you can take the word 'conflict'
and go through the same ( holistic mental ) gymnastics with it as you did with the word 'disorder'. But actually what do I do about conflict?

K: That is all we are concerned with right now : how am I to deal with ( the ongoing inner) conflict non-artificially? You have to go into it with me. You 'look'.

S: This much I can see clearly : I cannot think of silence or
harmony when I am in (an inner state of?) conflict.

K: Is the mind capable of freeing itself from every kind of
conflict? That is the only thing you can ask.

P: Or can my mind be free of disharmony? I don't see the difference between the two.

K: We have reduced it to ( inner) 'conflict'. Now stick to it and see if the
mind can be free of it. How can the mind, knowing what conflict is
and what it does, end ( its state of inner) conflict? That is surely a legitimate question.

Q: If we look into this question of ( our inner) conflict, look into various
aspects of it, we see there is no conflict without ( thinking in terms of) comparison.

K: Conflict is ( the combined result of ?) contradiction, comparison, imitation, conformity, suppression. Put all that into one ( holistically compounded) word and ask whether the mind can be free of conflict.

S: Of course it can be free of ( any particular) conflict, but the question arises: What is the nature of the total freedom from conflict?

K: How do you know before you can be free?

S: There is a knowing of the state of conflict for the time being.

K: Is there a complete ending of conflict?

M: I say there is no ending of conflict in the human universe as we live
in it from day to day.

K: In the ( Cosmic) Universe everything is moving in order. Let us stick to our own minds which seem to be endlessly (caught) in conflict. How is the mind to end ( its own inner) conflicts naturally . How can the mind
free itself from conflict? I say that 'the ( human) mind can be completely, utterly without (any personal) conflict'.

S: For ever?

K: Don't use the words 'for ever' because you are
then introducing a word of (thought's created ? ) time and time is a matter of conflict.

P: I feel myself totally helpless in this situation. The
fact is there is conflict and the operation of the self on it leads to
further conflict. Seeing the nature of that, can the mind see that it is
totally in conflict?

K: Is your mind totally aware of ( its inner) conflict, or is there a fragment which (subliminally) separates itself from the totality of conflict and says, 'I am aware that I am in conflict but I am not in total conflict.' So, is ( one's perception of the inner) conflict a fragment
or is it total? Is there total darkness or a slight light somewhere?

R: If that (slight) light were not there, could there be awareness?

K: When there is a fragmentation (compartmentation ?) of the mind, that very fragmentation is (generating its own) conflict. Is the mind ever aware that it is in total conflict?

P: I don't know anything about 'being in total conflict'.

K: Therefore you know only partial conflict.

P: Partial conflict or not, we know the fact that there is (a state of inner)
conflict and I ask: Can there be a refusal to move away?

R: Sir, the very awareness of the mind indicates that there is a
fragment.

K: That is all. Therefore you are never ( totally immersed?) with conflict.

SWS: Total conflict cannot know itself unless there is
something else.

K: When the whole room is full of furniture - I am just taking
that as an example - there is no space to move. I would consider
that to be utter confusion. Is my mind so totally 'full of confusion'
that it has no movement away from this? Is it so completely full of
confusion, of conflict, as full as this room is of furniture? Then
what takes place? When the (mind's ) 'steam' is at full pressure it must explode, it must do something. Could I use the words (being totally immersed in ) 'sorrow'? There is no 'moving away' from sorrow. Is there such a thing as being full of (fully immersed in?) sorrow? When you are completely full of this thing called 'confusion', 'sorrow', or (inner) 'conflict', it is no longer there. It is only there when there is a division (between the 'observer' and the condition of 'sorrow' which is being observed?) . That is all.

R: It seems to be a 'hopeless' problem.

K: That is why ( in the context of authentic meditation ?) one has to remain with the truth of the thing, not with the confusion of it. There is the 'truth of the thing' when the mind is ( abiding?) completely with that thing; then it cannot create ( any further) conflict.
( If I love you and there is attachment in it, that is a contradiction,
therefore there is no selfless love) . So I say, ( in a holistic meditation?) remain with the 'fact' of that thing.
Is the mind totally full of this sorrow, this confusion, this conflict? I won't move away till that is 'so' ( totally seen & done with ?) .

M: There is one 'peculiarity' about your ( holistic) approach. When you
draw a picture there is always a clear 'black or white' outline. The colours don't merge. In reality there are no such ( clearly defined ) outlines, there are only colours (undertones ?) merging with each other.

K: This to me is very clear : if the ( totality of one's 'mind &) heart' is full of ( selfless) 'love' and there is no part of envy in it, the (whole 'relationship') problem is finished. It is only when
there is a part that is jealous, then the whole ( spectrum of our 'psychological') problems arise.

P: But when it is full of envy?

K: Then remain with that envy fully - be envious ('be' envy?) feel it!

P: Then I 'know' its total nature ( as 'first hand' experience ) ?

K: It is ( meditationally - wise?) a tremendous thing. But you say, 'I am envious but... I should not be ' somewhere in a dark corner (of our collectively shared consciousness ) there lies the (moral?) educational restraint; then ( holistically speaking?) something goes wrong.
Can I 'be' envious and not move away from that? 'Moving away' is rationalizing, suppressing, all that. Just remain with that ( ages old?) 'feeling'. ( Or, for a change?) when there is ( a major personal?) sorrow, 'be' completely with it. ( Holistically -wise ?) This ( holistic immesion?) is 'merciless'. All the rest is playing tricks.
(But, on the 'plus' side?) When you 'are' (remaining completely ?) with that 'something', ( the holistic inner ?) action has taken place. 'You' don't have to do anything.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Apr 2018 #30
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

GOING BEYOND THE DUALITY BETWEEN THE 'OBSERVER' AND THE 'OBSERVED'
(A 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue from Exploration into Insight)

K: What is ( the 'observer'-'observed' ?) duality? Does this duality exist at all?

A: Of course, it does exist. The dualistic mentality of the 'I' and of the 'you' ( 'us' & 'them', etc) is deeply structured within us.

K: ( From a holistic point of view ?) there is only the 'what is', but because we are not able to ( directly tackle & ) solve 'what is', we invent the 'what should be'. So there is (an artificially created ?) duality. From the actual fact (the 'what is') there is a (wishful thinking?) abstraction into a 'what should be', the 'ideal'. But ( in the active present?) there is only 'what is'.

P: Even the 'what is' to me is ( already structured in terms ) duality.

K: (Because) you are (culturally) conditioned' to ( think in terms of) duality, you are educated to duality, so...you function psychologically in duality.

S: But ( even from early childhood?) our starting point is a dualistic position. It may be also due to many other factors.

K: That is what I want to investigate - whether this (self-centred & )
dualistic attitude towards life has come into being because ( during our long evolution?) the human mind has not been able to solve actually the 'what is'.

A: As far as we can see, the newborn baby does not cry only for
mother's milk, for nourishment. It also cries whenever it is left alone.
Duality is the actually expression of a (profound existential) inadequacy in oneself . And this begins (to manifest itself) almost from the beginning of our life.

P: It is already part of our racial heritage.

K: What I want to get at is  : if I can understand (have a global perception of?) 'what is', why should there be the duality?

B: Doesn't the problem arise because there is no (intimate ) contact with
'what is' ?

K: That is what I want to find out (experientially). What is duality?

P: Duality is the sense of 'I' as being separate from (whatever is) 'not-I'

K: That is the basic cause of duality. Now, what is (the nature of?) the (self-consciousness?) that says 'you' are different? What is the 'I'?

P: In observing the actual ( mental attitudes & activities ?) of the 'I', one
finds that it is not something as 'factual' as the (physical) body. In itself it has no 'objective' existence.

K: May I say something? . Duality exists only in the space between the centre as the 'I' and the centre as the 'you'. The ( self-identified consciousness?) of the 'I' looks at 'you' and there is a (safe psychological) distance between 'me' and the 'you'. This 'distance' (being subjective ) can be expanded or narrowed down. This process is ( generating the 'self - ) consciousness'.
There is the physical distance between you sitting there and me sitting here. And (inwardly) there is a ( mental ?) distance that my ( self-centred) mind has created between the 'I' and the 'not-I' and this ('psychological' ) distance is ( both protecting & limiting the  self-? ) consciousness.

P: That's why the (ages old?) enquiry into ''who is the 'I' ?'' is ( so slippery &) difficult.

K: The ( self-protective distance or?) 'space' between 'my' centre and 'your' centre, and the (interactive mental ) movement between this 'centre' and that 'centre', 'is' ( defining our 'personal' ?) consciousness.

A: Sir, you have suggested the existence of two centres - 'this' centre which comes across another 'centre'. I saying that even without the 'other' centre, the ( psychological ) 'distance' comes almost instinctively .

K: We are now questioning the whole (psychological) structure of duality. Our whole philosophy (of life) , our ( value) judgements, everything is based on the ( implicit ) acceptance of the 'I' and the ' not-I' , with all the complications arising out of it. I'd want to question the whole structure of the ( 'observer' is divided from 'what is observed' ) mentality.
So (for the 'observer' the ?) 'I' is the only centre. From there, arises the ( instinctual perception of anything 'out there' as ) 'not-I' , and therefore ( a dualistic ) relationship between the 'I' and the 'not-I', which inevitably brings about ( its own ) conflicts.
( In a nutshell:) There is only this ( self-conscious mental ) 'centre' from which arises the ( image of the?) other centre, the 'you'. This is fairly clear...at least for me. Don't 'accept' it.

M: But how does this 'centre' arise?

K: The 'centre' is memory, the centre is knowledge, which is always in the past. This centre may project itself ( temporally) into the future but it still has its roots in its ( memory of the ?) past.

D: The 'centre' is ( my consciousness of being 'here & now' in the ) present. So far as my ( timeless) identity is concerned, the past and the future are only accretions, I have nothing to do with them. I 'am' the present.

A: But ( culturally wise?) you are also the heir to everything of the past.

D: Not at all. That is an hypothesis. How do I know the past?

K: The language you are speaking is the result of your cultural past.

D: That is a theory.

A: How can that be a theory? ( In our collectively shared consciousness) there is the ( active memory of all our) past. So, when you say ''I am only the present', do please think (again) Do you mean to say that you are ( 100 % living totally awake in) this very moment, with no past and no future? If this is a fact... you are in Samadhi.

K: Just a minute, sir. You are now speaking English. That is
a (cultural) accretion. What is the 'centre' that accretes it?

D: That 'centre' one may call it 'I', but I don't 'know' it.

K: So the centre which has accumulated (and is using your knowledge of English) is the 'I'. Is there a centre without ( all its cultural) accumulations? Is the centre different from the ( memory of the ) things it has accumulated?

D: I can't answer this.

K: If there is no 'I' consciousness, there is no ( 'psychological') accumulation.

M: You are often stating that the content of consciousness 'is' consciousness. Does it mean that when there is no ( psychological) 'content' there is no (self-) consciousness (as we know it ?)  ?

K: That is what it means.

D: So then, there is a 'non-dual' consciousness.

K: That is a speculation. Stick to what we started out
with : Consciousness 'is' its content and the content 'is' consciousness.
This is a (holistically?) 'absolute' fact.

A: Sir, at any given time, this 'I' is not able to apprehend the
whole field of human consciousness ; in my ( everyday) perception, I don't see the whole field.

K: Because there is a ( self-identified ?) 'centre'. Where there is a centre, there is fragmentation.

P: In other words, the 'I' is only operational through a process of thinking which is fragmentary ?

K: That is all.

A: My point was that the content of consciousness has to
be part of my field of perception. Is it not so?

S: K's first point was that we experience only fragmentarily and
not ( with our) total consciousness.

K: That is what I am saying. As long as there is a ( self-identified?) 'centre', there must be (an inner ) fragmentation and this fragmentation is ( expressing itself as ) the 'me' and the 'you' and in the conflict in that relationship.

P: You say that this centre is ( creating its own) time & space, but you also seem to postulate the possibility of going beyond the field of time-space.

K: Let us start again. The 'centre' is the maker of
fragments and ( it becomes responsibly ) aware of the ( various) fragments only when they are agitated or in action; otherwise, the centre is not conscious of the other fragments. This (mental controlling) centre acts as an (objective ?) 'observer' of the fragments. So there is always ( a buffering distance between ) the observer and the observed, or between the thinker and its experience.

So, (in the first stages) this ( all-controlling) 'centre' is the maker of fragments and (later on ?) the centre tries to gather all the fragments together and go beyond.

S: The brain tries to bring everything in order. Is that process dualistic or non-dualistic?

K: The brain cells demand ( a deep sense of) order. Otherwise,
they cannot function (at their full potential) . There is no duality in this. During the day, there is disorder because ( as) the centre is there (in its endeavour to control everything ) and being the ( central?) cause of fragmentation, it is living in disorder, living in confusion. It cannot do anything else because it functions only in fragmentation.
( But at the same time ?) the brain cells need ( harmony & ) order; otherwise they become neurotic & destructive. This order is denied when there is an (all controlling) centre because the centre is always creating division, conflict and all the rest of it, which is a denial of security, which is denial of order. So, the brain saying 'I must have order', is not duality.

P: I feel we are moving away from the things which are tangible to
us.

K: This is very 'tangible'.

P: It is not ( experientially ) tangible. The brain cells seeking order is not
tangible.

K: Pupulji, we both see the point. Where there is a ( self-identified) centre, there must be conflict, there must be fragmentation, there must be every form of division between the 'you' and the 'me', and the centre is constantly re-creating this division. How do you know this?

P: Because I have observed it in myself.

K: Verbally or factually?
P: Factually.

K: This whole field (of our self-centred consciousness is in ? ) disorder. How are you aware of this disorder?

P: I have felt it and seen it.

K: You are not answering my question. 'How' are you aware of this inner disorder? If it is the 'centre' that is becoming ( mentally) aware that it is disorder, then ( the totality of consciousness ) it is still ( caught in the same dualistic mentality that created the ongoing ) disorder.

P: I see that.

K: So, how do you observe ( the ongoing fragmentation & ) disorder - without the centre ? ( Clue :) If there is no observation of the centre, then there is only 'disorder'.

P: Or order ?

K: Please go slowly. When the ( all controlling mental ) 'centre' is not there what takes place?

P: No ( 'self' sustained ) disorder ?

K: Therefore, no disorder. That is what the brain cells demand.

P: Can we now proceed ?

K: Stop there. We have discovered something ( experientially important?) , that the centre creates (and/or projects its own?) 'space' and 'time'. Where there is ( a 'psychological' continuity in ) space and time, there must be division in ( all its) relationship and, therefore, disorder - not only disorder in its relationships, but there is disorder (disharmony) in its thinking, actions & ideas.

P: I want to ask you a question: Which is the 'fact' (that needs to be perceived holistically ?) - the perception of ( brain's need for harmony & ) order, or of the perception of the ongoing ( psychological) disorder ?

K: ( For starters?) you are only ( becoming ) aware of disorder and see that the 'centre' is the source of disorder wherever it moves - in relationship, in thought, in action, in perception - there is the (division between the ) 'perceiver' and the ( thing which is being ) 'perceived'. So, wherever this ( self-identified) 'centre' operates, moves, functions, has its momentum, there must be division, conflict and all the rest of it.

( In a nutshell :) Where there is the (psychological interference of this) centre, there is disorder. Disorder 'is' (starting from?) the centre.
Now, how are you aware of it ? ( a) Is the 'centre' becoming aware of the ongoing 'disorder' or (b) Is there only (a non-personal observation of?) 'disorder'?

If there is no 'centre' ( endeavoring ) to become aware of 'disorder', there is complete (holistic ) order. The (inner) fragmentation come to an end, obviously, because there is no centre which is making the fragments.

A: When you say that the 'I' is the source and the centre of ( my inner) disorder, that is a fact for me. But when you say that there is no 'centre' observing that disorder...

K: Achyutji, there is no ( 'personal' ) consciousness' of ( inner harmony & ) order. And that is the beauty of order.

Let us go now into the question of the 'dream consciousness' because that is apparently one of the fragments of our life. What are the 'dreams'? What is the matrix of the structure of dreams? How do they happen?

Q: It happens when desires are not fulfilled during the day.

K: So, you are saying during the day I desire something and it
has not been fulfilled or worked out. So, the desire continues (during the sleep) .

P: Thought is an endless process without a beginning, expelled from the brain cells. In the same way, when the ( conscious) mind is totally asleep; it is another form of the same propulsion.

K: It is exactly the same thing. The movement of the day still
goes on. So, the 'centre' (of self-interest) which is the factor of ( any psychological) disorder, ( besides) creating disorder during the day, it still goes on, its (nightly) movement which becomes dreams, symbolic or otherwise, it is ( basically) the same movement and our dreams are the expression of that same 'me'. When I wake up, I say
'I have had dreams'. That is only a means of ( verbal) communication;
but these dreams are not separate from the centre which has
created the ongoing) disorder.

The next ( consciousness) factor ( left to be investigated) is 'deep sleep'. Are you aware when you are deeply asleep?

S: One is not conscious of ( what happens in the periods of ) deep sleep. All you can say is : 'I have had no dreams, I had a
peaceful sleep.'

K: So, all that one can say is: 'I have had a very good sleep
without dreams.' How does one investigate that state which is
without dreams, a state which you called just now deep sleep? How do you go into it (experientially ) ?

P: But you wanted to investigate deep sleep but... is it possible to
investigate deep sleep?

K: What do you mean by 'investigate'? Can 'I' investigate, can
the 'centre' investigate? ( Or it is similar to ) watching the film at the cinema. You are not identifying with it; you are not part of it; you are merely observing.

S: What is the nature of this (non-personal) observing ?

K: There is no one to observe. There is only observation.

S: What Pupul was asking is: Can ( the consciousness in) deep sleep be investigated?

K: Can it be revealed, can it be exposed, can it be observable? I say 'yes'. Can I observe you (non-personally?) , just (direct) observation without naming? Of course, it is possible.

P: But you still should have the tools, the perceptive instruments with
which this is possible. One has to have a state of ( non-personal) awareness where this is possible. It is only when there is this state of awareness or 'jagriti', that it is possible.

K: Is there an observation of this disorder without the centre
becoming aware that there is disorder? If that can be solved, I have
solved the whole momentum of it. What is order? We said the
centre can never be aware of (this selfless) order - an (inner state of ) virtue of which there is no consciousness of ( oneself) being virtuous?
( Holistic) virtue is a state of mind which is not conscious that it is virtuous. Therefore, it topples all the ( traditional) sadhanas.

( In a nutshell:) To 'see' (or to have a total insight into the ongoing inner) disorder - not from a centre- is ( bringing its own inner harmony & ) order. That ( inner harmony & ) order 'you' cannot be conscious of (possessing it?) . If 'you' are ( being self-) conscious of it, (as 'orderly' as it may appear? ) it is (just another 'avatar' of the old self-centred ?) disorder.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 18 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 68 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)