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

K The essential Texts


Displaying posts 31 - 39 of 39 in total
Sat, 31 Mar 2018 #31
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 713 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
Wed, 04 Apr 2018 #32
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 713 posts in this forum Offline

Self-centred consciousness and (the universally integrated) Intelligence ( a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue from Tadition & Revolution)

P: I wanted to ask you Krishnaji, if there is one
(single essential) question which needs to be asked by the (Truth seeking) individual, which would open for him the ( Perceptive) Doors to Reality ? And if yes, what is the new perceptive instrument ?

Krishnamurti: I thought "K" explained yesterday that it is Intelligence.

D: Human intelligence functions in many different areas . The artist, the philosopher use intelligence, but that is not 'the' Intelligence we are looking for.

Krishnamurti: Intelligence is that quality of mind which can use all the vast field of knowledge, but not use knowledge in another field.

F: Then the only difference that exists between me and you, is it in the degree of intelligence or is there another factor operating in you?

Krishnamurti: Can we tackle this ( essential) question differently? Can the totality of the mind, empty itself of everything, of the knowledge of science and language and also the mechanism of ( time-creating) thought that functions all the time? Can the mind
empty itself of all that, not only at the conscious level, but at the deeper secret chambers of the mind? From that ( free inner state of ?) 'emptiness' can knowledge operate and not operate?

B: The ( crux of the ) question then would be this (state of inner) emptiness?

Krishnamurti: Let us see. Can the mind empty its whole ( psychological) content as ( being a dead thing of the ) the 'past', so that it has no (hidden personal ?) motivations? And can that ( state of intelligent ) emptiness use knowledge, pick it up, use it and drop it, but always remain empty?
( Experiential Clue : 'emptiness' in the sense of the mind being 'as nothing'; ( a dimension of being) which is not measurable in terms of time. The (timeless intelligent ) movement born in this 'emptiness', can operate in the field of
knowledge and nowhere else).

P: Are they two movements?

Krishnamurti: I am just investigating your question that "K" has divided knowledge and freedom from knowledge. Knowledge operating in the field of science in which there must
be a certain direction, an operative function, a
design; and knowledge not operating ( inwardly) where there is no place for
thought and therefore of ( personal ) will (-power) .

F: It seems sometimes we operate deliberately and sometimes spontaneously. I can see I do something of which I know
nothing, and yet I can operate. So there are these two operations: mental and non-mental.

Krishnamurti: Watch your own mind, F(riedman) . You can see your thought operating always within the field of knowledge. The knowledge
brings pain and that knowledge helps man to live more comfortably environmentally. Right? - and that ( the self-centred trend of) thought also brings (collateral inner ) misery, confusion. That is a fact. Then you ask, is ( that component of self-centred) thought really necessary? And why does it create misery? Is it possible for our thinking not to create (collateral psychological) misery? Keep it as simple as this.

F: My honest answer to that the (deeper) roots of (my psychological) misery are not known to me.

Krishnamurti: We began with ( examining) the superficial layers. Now we'll (haver to) go into the 'secret chambers' of the (human) mind .

F: When you make the (apparently absolute) statement that ''Thought 'is' consciousness'', can I place there a (serious) question mark? Is ( the process of self-centred) thought the entirety of our consciousness? Can we ( truly?) say that in the human consciousness there is nothing beyond thought? I would like to question this.

Krishnamurti: So we have to go into the question of ( what we mean by?) 'consciousness'...

B: We don't really need to go back to that. But you used the word "intelligence" in a different way and it can be the ( experiential) key, if we know what that is.

P: Will the cutting away of ( the self-centred component of) thought help solving the whole problem?

Krishnamurti: No.

P: Then what is the "other" (missing element) ?

F: Perhaps we should first distinguish between the two. Intelligence is much vaster than (our self-centred) consciousness. We can have an 'unconscious' intelligence.

P: Snce we're here, what is meant by 'consciousness'?

Krishnamurti: There is the waking consciousness, and there is hidden consciousness; a consciousness of the superficial (time-bound) mind, and an un- awareness of the deeper layers of consciousness.

P: I would say, Krishnaji, that there is a consciousness in which ( the self-centred) thought operates, then there is a ( non-personal dimension of) consciousness where attention is and where there is seeing; and a ( still deeper dimension of human ) consciousness which is unconscious of thought. I see these three states as they operate in
me.

Krishnamurti: Three states which are : the operation of ( our personal & collective) memory as thought, as ( temporal) action; then , a state of ( total) attention where there is no thinker...

P: And a state of being ( sound) asleep when you are not aware of thought nor of attention.

Krishnamurti: All this is (encompassing ) what you would call 'consciousness' ?

P: Plus that in all these three states whether consciously or unconsciously, the sensory perceptions are in operation.

Krishnamurti: Can we start this way? There is this (generic human) consciousness, wide or narrow, deep or shallow. As long as
there is a (thought 'control-?) centre' which is fully conscious of itself, this 'centre' says ''I am aware'', or ''I am not aware''. This 'centre' (of our spatio-temporal consciousness ?) has its deep roots in the 'caves' (of collective consciousness) and superficially operates. All that is ( the generic human ) consciousness. In all that there must be
a centre.

P: May I ask you a (very personal) question? Would you say there is no operation of this (generic) consciousness in you?

Krishnamurti: We will come to that presently. That is not the point.

A: Is such a thing as an ( energy field or ) matrix of human consciousness in which there is not even a centre, because it is out of that the centre is formed? A matrix of temporality.

Krishnamurti: Look, let us begin very
simply. When are you actually (fully ) conscious?
Either through a sensory shock, an (imminent) sensory danger, or through a conflict in which there is pain-pleasure involved. It is only in those ( critical) moments when I am personally challenged that I say ''I am conscious''. I want to start here; otherwise we get lost in theories. And this whole phenomenon is going on (indefinitely) whether there is a deliberate ( personal) awareness or not, this thing is operating all the time - the brain cells are receiving all these (sensory & mental) impacts ( recorded & processed?) in terms of pleasure, pain, conflict, sorrow – consciously or unconsciously this is going on all the time and there may be an awareness of all that at one moment, and at other moments there may not be. But (this recording  & processing ) is going on all the time. So what is the next question?

B: What is the nature of the 'unconscious'?

Krishnamurti: It is still ( functioning in ) the same (way) . Only it is ( happening on the?) deeper layers.

B: Why are we unconscious of these deeper layers?

Krishnamurti: Because superficially we are very active all the time.

B: So the density of the superficial ( temporal) layers prevents our being conscious of the deeper layers ?

Krishnamurti: It is like swimming on the surface (of collective consciousness?) . So what is your next question?

P: Is there anything else in the human consciousness other than thought?

Krishnamurti: Why do you put that question?

P: Because you always speak of an area where thought has a legitimate place and of one
where thought has no legitimate place .

Krishnamurti: Slowly. Is ( the self-centred) thought only a part of this whole thing? What is its relationship to consciousness? Consciousness 'is' ( to a great extent being polarised by the psychological ) content of thought - pain, conflict, registration, memory, remembrance.
So, when your superficial consciousness is making ( or absorbing ? ) a lot of (mental) noise, you come and ask what is the relationship between thought and all that? Thought 'is' all that.

P: But you have said just a few moments ago : ''thought is part of all that''. Then what is the rest?

A. In the totality of human consciousness (the process of self-centred) thought comes into operation when the "I" wants to focalize.

Krishnamurti: That is right. All that we have described, memory, thought, everything, is ( part of the everyday ) consciousness. Now ( the self-centred process of ) thought comes into operation when I am interested in a ( particular aspect or ) part of life. The scientist is interested in the material phenomena, the psychologist in his area, because their ( specialised ) thinking has limited the field of investigation. Then ( the controlling part of ) thought comes as a systematizer.

P: Is thought all there is to our consciousness ?

Krishnamurti. Let's go slowly . I do not want to say something which is untrue.

P: In everything "K" says ( in his public talks) the "Other'' ( a dimension of compassionate & intelligent consciousness ) is implicitly posited. If you were to perform a (psycho-surgical) operation and wipe out thought, it is not enough. Therefore the "other" is implicitly posited.

A: In other words, is there in the human consciousness a space which is not covered by thought?

Krishnamurti: I am not at all sure (that we can take it for granted ?) . I do not say you are not right. So go on.

A: I say there is space in consciousness which is not thought and that is also part of the human heritage. It is there.

Krishnamurti: I do not think in (the self-identified ?) consciousness there is any ( free inner ) space. We do not see that ( a free inner) space cannot be contained within the boundaries (of the self-centered consciousness?).

( The open inner) space in the sense in which we use the word does not exist in ( the self-identified ) consciousness. That 'space' ( of the mind) is something else. Leave that for the moment. Now what is our next question? Is there a state of mind when there is no ( accumulative ) learning at all?
Thinking, seeing, learning, hearing, are part of all this ( temporal consciousness) and the memorizing reacting to that memory is part of all this.

P: So, when each of these operates, it is ( the temporal) consciousness.

Krishnamurti: But it is not ( necessarily) a 'dualistic' consciousness. When thought is operating in any specific field (of practical activity) , there is no duality. When thought compares (and processes 'personally' ) that particular operation to another, then there is duality.
( A simple 'in class' example  : ) If just I see how marvellous that lamp is , it is finished. But when thought says ''I wish I had it in my room'', then there is ( the beginning of) duality. See what has been found : when there is the simple functioning of thought without any (personal interference or ?) motive, there is no duality.

P: This again is very difficult because the common self-centred thinking is always personally motivated.

Krishnamurti: What is thought? I see that sunset. It is recorded at that moment, it (the actual experiencing) is finished. Then ( due to some obscure psychological reasons?) thought says, ''I wish it would happen again''. In that (after-thought, the 'personal' ? ) motive operates.

D: Agreed, when you look ( for the first time) at that sunset, ( the personal) motive is irrelevant.

P: Sunset is an impersonal thing, let us not take that. Suppose I am jealous (or envious?) . There is a movement of thought as 'jealousy' .

Krishnamurti: This ( 'personal') reaction of jealousy is the factor of duality - that is, my wife looks at another man, and I feel
jealous because I ( like to think that I) possess her, she is mine. But if I am becoming
aware that she is not 'mine' from the beginning, then the factor of jealousy does not enter. She is a free human being as I am a free
human being. I allow her freedom.

P: I understand that point; but you were saying that as a thought arises in our consciousness. In that thought itself there is no duality ?

Krishnamurti: There is duality only when there is the ( subliminal) operation of ( self-interest ) as (a personal) motive, measurement (evaluation & ) comparison. But in a ( 'first time' ) observation of the lovely sunset, in seeing the light, the shadows, there is no duality.n The moment I say I wish I had that experiece again, there begins the dualistic process. That is all.

P: We have somehow moved away...

Krishnamurti: I will come back : ( our generic) consciousness is (including the sensory ) perception, hearing, seeing, listening, as well as the recording of all that and the responding according to that memory. All that is (the functioning of the generic) consciousness, whether it is ( ego-) focalized or not. In that consciousness is ( included an inherent continuity of ) time; a ( psychological) time which creates ( its virtual ) space (of the known) because it is ( self-) enclosed.
The whole of that field is (our temporal) consciousness. And in that there is no (free) space at all because it has ( self-protective) boundaries, frontiers, which are limitations.

A: There is another factor which I would like to have included : the process (of our collective consciousness) which is constantly syphoning into (my personal consciousness) ? The very movement of the "I" is something that is
constantly being fed and renewed by that. Unless I become fully aware of this process,
I do not understand.

Krishnamurti: The whole field of ( our shared human) consciousness is a constant movement of contraction and expansion, a complex movement of information, knowledge, motivation, change - all that is happening in my environment, is part of me: I am the environment and the environment is the me. In this whole field (of any human consciousness) there is the ( overlayered) movement of the 'me'.

A: In this wide canvas we see thought is syphoning into this focus which we call ( the self-) consciousness.

Krishnamurti: And this (self- focussed) consciousness creates ( a lot of) mischief by saying, "I like this ", "I do not like that", a movement over which I have no control at all.

A: But that is not our problem. The
problem is the identification which gives this weightage to the "I like" and "I don't like", and to all that it builds around it.

Krishnamurti: Sir, I 'am' all that, the past and the present and the projected future; I am born in India with all the culture of
5000 years. That is all my point. That is what I call consciousness.

A: It is wider; it includes the whole world...

Krishnamurti: But a (personal) 'choice' arises when you say 'I am a Hindu', when there is a focalization through identification, there is then choice.

P: You have been often stating that it is legitimate for thought to operate in fields where knowledge is necessary and when it
operates in other fields then it brings sorrow, pain, duality. My question is: the 'other' state ( of the Mind) which you are talking about, is it
also ( part of the whole human) consciousness?

Krishnamurti: The 'other' is not thought.

P: Since seeing and listening are still operating, therefore why do you say it is not part of human consciousness?

Krishnamurti: The 'other' is ( a dimension of ) consciousness in which there is no conflict.

P: There is conflict only when thought operates in the field where it has no legitimate place. Why should there be conflict in consciousness
when thought is not operating?

Krishnamurti: There is no conflict at all there.

P: Then what is it that operates there?

Krishnamurti: Is ( the Universal ) Intelligence (part of the generic human ?) consciousness? Intelligence is not consciousness.

P: Now we come to a stage (of inner learning) where we just 'listen' .

Krishnamurti: (To recap:) ( Our whole evolutionary ) heritage 'is' ( the active content of ) consciousness. As we know it now , this consciousness is ( entangled in a complex net of self-interest generated ) conflicts. So, the chief concern is to put an end to these conflicts with their (psychological burden of) sorrow, pain. And in examining that ( sad situation ) there is the (insightful) discovery that it is all ( generated by ) the process of thought. From ( that profound ) insight, the thinking mind says it must ( legitimately ) operate in the ( outward) field of knowledge and but not in here. What has happened to this mind? It has become pliable, soft, alive. It 'sees', it 'hears' – because it does not have the quality of
conflict in it, and that is ( the awakening of an universally integrated) Intelligence. And that is not part of our (temporal ) consciousness.
Intelligence is not heritage whereas ( the common self-centred) consciousness is (part of our cultural) heritage.

( Do not translate this ( universally integrated) Intelligence as 'God')

Now this Intelligence can use ( any factual) knowledge, it can use thought ( brain's thinking capacity ) to operate (objectively) in the field of knowledge and therefore its operation is never 'dualistic'.

D: The language of intelligence must be different from the language of thought ?

Krishnamurti: Intelligence has no ( need for a ) language, but ( in order to communicate) it can use language.
That Intelligence having no language is not personal. It is not mine or yours.

P: It may not be 'personal' but is it focalized?

Krishnamurti: No, it appears to focalize.

P: When it moves, does it ( have to) focalize?

Krishnamurti: Of course, it must, but it is never ( living ) in focalization.

P: It is never held ?

Krishnamurti: It is like holding the sea in your fist: what you hold is a part of the sea, but it is not 'the' Sea.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 04 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Apr 2018 #33
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 713 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
Thu, 12 Apr 2018 #34
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 713 posts in this forum Offline

IS THERE A TIMELESS DIMENSION OF THE HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS ?

( a 'reader friendly' edited K dialogue from Exploration into Insight')

P: Shall we discuss the relationship of ( our self-centred) consciousness to the ( intimate functioning of the?) brain cells? Are they of the same nature or is there is a 'something' which gives them separate identities?

K: What do you mean by the word 'consciousness'? What does it mean 'to be conscious of' ? One is conscious (or aware) , for instance, of this microphone and then I use the word 'microphone'. So, whenever
you are ( becoming aware or?) conscious of something a proces of recognition & naming begins; then ( the information is personally processed in terms of?) 'like' and 'dislike'. So 'consciousness', or being conscious of something, is to be cognizant of the sensory contact.

A: My personal feeling is that some ( self-) consciousness is there even prior to sensation. There is this whole field of reality
and at any one time I am aware of some part of it through
sensation; I feel that the human consciousness is actually much vaster, but usually we are aware only of a part of a very wide thing. That 'whole field' ( of human consciousness) is not in
my ( everyday) awareness. So, I would not restrict consciousness to
the awareness of something that exists at any given moment. My personal awareness may not be extensive, but the human consciousness can be seen to be much more vast.

K: Pupul asked what is the relationship between that consciousness and the brain cells? What is that relationship?

P: When K says that the content of consciousness 'is'consciousness,
it would imply that the (whole memory) content of the brain cells is ( coloring our everyday) consciousness.
If there is a ( 'mind'-) field which is outside the brain cells and which is also (part of our) consciousness, then you have to say all that is consciousness. But then you cannot say that the 'content' of consciousness is (all there is to the human ?) consciousness.

K: Is that clear? I have said ( in many of our talks & dialogues that ) the content of (our self-) consciousness 'is' ( generating its own self-centred ?) consciousness. Therefore 'what is' outside the field of ( our self-) consciousness is not ( conditioned by ) its content.

A: Is the 'known' a part of our ( content-related) consciousness ?

P: The major difference between K's position and the ancient Vedantic position is that K uses the word 'consciousness' in a very special sense (of 'self-consciousness') . While the Vedantic position is: Consciousness (aka : the Universal Mind) is that which exists before anything exists.

A: They're saying basically that the source of (all manifested & unmanifested) existence is a vast incomprehensible energy which they call 'Chaitanya'. (Chaitanya' is the Mind energy and there is a Source of this energy, which they speak of as 'Chit'.) The Buddhist tradition refuses to say a single word about it. The Buddha would say: 'Don't ( bother to) talk about it; ( since) any talk about it will be speculative, and the speculative processes are not meant for the actual ( meditative) practice.'

K: ( Quoting Buddha's saying : ) 'Ignorance has no beginning, but it has an end. Don't enquire into the beginning of ignorance but find out how to end it'.

A: We have immediately come upon something. Buddhists say: 'There is no such thing as 'Consciousness' in general. Don't let
us ( indulge in) investigating the beginnings of ignorance because that would be speculative, would be a waste of time.' Now, how is it possible to end this ( collective heritage of?) ignorance? This ignorance 'is' ( constantly conditioning our) consciousness.'
The Vedantins will say that the source which you refer to
as 'ignorance' is ( fundamentally ) of the same nature of 'Sat, Chit and Anand' . It is constantly renewing itself, it is constantly coming into being; and the entire process of birth, death, decay is a movement in it.
My feelingg is that the average man would not ( readily) accept the Buddhist statement that the beginning ( of human consciousness) is just ( a dumb?) ignorance and that it is a self-sustaining process. I have just stated the two views , as they are very conflicting ( metaphysical) positions.

K: One can see it in oneself : that ( mankind's ) 'ignorance' has no beginning , see it within the field of one's own consciousness.

P: If it is within this field, then has it (an independent) existence apart from the brain cells which contain the ( residual) memory of it? The modern scientific position is: whereas the brain cells and their operation are measurable, consciousness is not measurable and therefore the two are not synonymous.

A: When we look through the (Hubble ?) telescope, we see the vast expanse of the cosmos as far as the (definition of that ) instrument will allow. And though we can measure it (in terms of 'light' years) , our measurement is relevant only to the instrument which is a relative element. Now when we come to the (inward universe of human ) consciousness there is no instrument to which it
can be related. Consciousness is something about which one cannot
say that it is measurable or immeasurable.

K: That is right. ( The 'mind'-field of ) human consciousness is not measurable. But what Pupul was asking is: Is there outside consciousness as we know it, a state (or an inner dimension) which is not knowable, in the sense, of not recognizable; something totally new.

A: I would say that the human consciousness as we know it
is the source of all the recent memories and all the memories man
has had. The brain cells will 'recognize' everything that comes out
of their own racial memories; everything that comes within the field of time, out of what has been previously known.

A: Even the earliest memories of man, the brain may be able to
remember (under deep hypnosis?) .

K: Wait, keep it very simple. We said the 'known' is
( generating its own ?) consciousness - the content of consciousness is the known. Now, is there something outside this (field of the known) , something totally new and which does not already exist in the ( memory of the ) brain cells? And if it is outside the (field of the ) known, is it recognizable? - for if it is recognizable it
is still in the field of the known.
It is available (experientially) only (in a silent state of mind?) when the recognizing and experiencing process comes to an end.

( In a nutshell:) Outside the ( 'content generated' consciousness of the ) brain, is there anything else? I say there is. But any
movement of the brain cells moving away from the known, trying
to investigate into the 'other' is still ( within the boundaries of ) the known.

M: But then...how do you 'know' that 'there is' something else?

K: You cannot 'know' it. But there is an inner state (of not-knowing ) where the ( conscious) mind does not ( have to) 'recognize' anything, a ( timeless meditative ) state in which recognition and (the desire to) experience, which are the (common) movements of the known, totally come to an end.

A: In what way is it differentiated from the ( cognitive) process of
recognition, experiencing?

P: Is it of a different nature?

K: You see, when the ( physical) organism, the brain cells, come to an end, when the whole thing 'collapses'; there is a different state (of consciousness) altogether.

P: But is it a living state, is there a sense of existence, of being?

K: The words, 'existence' and 'being' do not apply.

A: Then, how is it different from ( the unconsciousness of the ) deep sleep? In deep sleep the processes of recognition and recording are also, for the time being, put in total abeyance.

K: 'That' is quite a different thing.

P: What has happened to the senses in the state you mentioned
earlier?

K: The senses are in abeyance (on stand-by?) .

P: Are they not operating?

K: In that state, I might scratch myself - you follow – a fly comes
and sits on me. That recording is the action of the senses, but it does not affect 'that' (state of creative emptiness?)
I want to be quite clear that you and I are understanding the same thing. That is: when the ( active memory) 'content' of ( the temporal) consciousness with its ( sensory) experiences, demands,
its craving for something new, has 'completely come to an end', then only does the 'other' quality come into being. The former has a motive; the latter has no motive. The ( self-centred) mind cannot come to 'that' through (any personal?) motive. (clue ; the personal motive is functioning only within the 'known') .
So, can the ( personally motivated activities of the ?) mind come to an end ? When that ( particular) mind comes to an end, then the 'other thing' is there.

M: In the situation in which we are here & now, do you know that?

K: Of course. The senses are in operation. Recognition is in operation normally, but the 'other' is there. There is no duality.

M: ( Trick question:) Is knowledge also a part of it?

K: No. I know what you are getting at, but I want to come to this ('otherness' experientially) very 'simply'. I see the colours; the senses are in operation...

A: There's another difficulty that arises in our communication.
I think that the verbal communication about the 'other' is not possible. I am trying to understand the state of the mind of this (K) man who talks to me. On what basis does he tell me that there is something else?

K: The basis for that is ( purely experiential :) when there ( in a silent inner state of mind there ) is no movement of recognition, of experiencing, of motive, ( the timeless miracle of the ) freedom from the known takes place. The ( thought-time) movement has come
to an end for the time being; that is all.

M: Where does the 'time' element come in? Is there another ( dimension of ) time?

K: Let us begin again (from scratch:) . The brain functions within the field of the known; in that functioning there is ( the process of verbal) recognition. But when your mind is completely 'still' - this stillness which we are talking about is 'non-recognizable' and 'non-experienceable' (personally ?) .

Then comes along the (K) entity that wants to share this with you
through verbal communication. The moment he, the entity,
moves into (the field of verbal) communication, the 'still mind' is not (totally still anymore) .

( To recap:) Something comes out of ( this meditative stillness ?) . It is there for ( the spiritually earnest?) man who understands the (intrinsical limitations of a life entangled within the field of the ) known. 'It' is there ( free for all?) and 'it' never leaves; and even though he (K) communicates it, he feels that it is never gone, it is there.

M: Who 'communicates' (about it?) ?

K: The brain cells which have acquired the knowledge of the language. It is the brain cells that are communicating (directly) .

M: The brain contains its own 'observer' (entity ) .

K: The brain itself 'is' ( containing ) both the observer and the operator.

M : What is the relationship between 'that' (timeless dimension) and this (temporal consciousness) ?

K: Tentatively, I'd say there is no ( mutual) relationship. This is the fact: the brain cells hold the known and when the brain is completely stable, completely still, what is the relationship between
the brain and that?

M: By what magic, by what means, does the state of a still mind
make a bridge? How do you manage to make a permanent bridge
between the brain and that, and maintain that bridge?

K: If one says 'I don't know', what will you answer?

M: That you have either inherited it through some good karma or somebody ( from the higher realms ) has given It to you.

K: Is it by chance that 'That' can happen to us, is it an exception?
( Even ) if it is a 'miracle', can 'it' happen to you?

M: What can we do (to make it happen) ?

K: I say 'you can do nothing' - which does not mean doing
nothing!

M: What are these two meanings of 'doing nothing'?

K: I will tell you the two meanings of (doing) nothing: the first one refers to desire to experience 'That', to recognize 'That' and yet ...to do nothing (of personal nature?) about 'That'. The other meaning of 'doing nothing' it is to see or to be (passively) aware of the ( danger of getting entangled in the field of the ) 'known'.

M: In other words, 'Do nothing, just observe  ?

K: Put it that ( 'Zen' ?) way if you want...

M: It brings down ( the spiritual dimension of ) 'enlightenment' to action.

K: ( A few clues for total beginners ?) You must touch 'that' thing, very very lightly. You must touch it very lightly - food, talk - and as the body and the senses become very light the days and nights move easily. ( And eventually) you'll see there is a 'dying' (to the known) every minute. Have I answered your initial question?

P: You have not answered specifically.

K: To put the whole thing differently: We will call 'That' the infinite energy and the other ( the time-bound mental ?) energy - created by strife and conflict - is entirely different from 'That'. When there is no ( inner or outer) conflict at all, that 'infinite energy' is always renewing itself. The energy that 'peters out' is what we know.
And...what is the relationship of the ( self-centred ?) energy that peters out to 'That'? ( As of now?) there is none.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 12 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Apr 2018 #35
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 713 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 #36
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 713 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 #37
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 713 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 #38
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 713 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
Sat, 21 Apr 2018 #39
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 713 posts in this forum Offline

FACTORS OF INNER DETERIORATION & K's SECRET

( A reader friendly K dialogue from 'Exploration into Insight'- cca 1974)

P: Could we discuss the problems of the mental deterioration, coming with old age & death? Why is it that the mechanism of the human mind has an inbuilt tendency to deteriorate, an ebbing away of energy?

K: Why does the (psychosomatic ) body & the mind deteriorate?

P: With age, with time, the body deteriorates inevitably; but why does the (quality of the?) mind deteriorate? The 'death' of the ( creative energy of the ) mind can take place even when the body is alive. Is it inevitable that the cells of the human mind, the brain, will also deteriorate?

K: Are we talking about the deterioration of the whole structure
of the 'mind and brain' (complex) with age, with time? ( Apparently?) the biologists have given their answer. What do they say?

M: The cells of the brain and of the body deteriorate because there
is no process of (proper) elimination. Actually they are not made for a 'perpetual' functioning. They do not completely eliminate the products of their own metabolism. But if they were given a chance to clean up themselves completely, they could (theoretically) live for ever.

K: What is the 'cleansing' element?

M: Adequate elimination.

K: It is much deeper than that, surely. Is it a matter of deterioration of ( the psychic ?) 'energy' or a deterioration of the brain cells in their capacity to produce energy? Let us first put the question clearly.

B: When we say that the brain deteriorates, the assumption is
that the brain is very alive at some stage, but one of the problems
of our existence is the 'mediocrity' of the human mind.

K: The ( 'energy' aspect of the ) question is: Why does the brain not keep its quality of sharpness, clarity, deep energy? As it gets older, it seems to
deteriorate. This happens even at the age of twenty. It is already
held in a groove and gradually peters out. I want to find out if it is really
a matter of old age. You can see that certain minds, even though they
are quite young, have already lost this quality of ( spontaneity & ) swiftness. They are already caught in a ( safe mental) groove and the deteriorating factor has already begun.

S: Is it that we are born with a certain ( genetic) conditioning? Is that the
determining factor?

K: Is it a matter of ( genetic & cultural ) conditioning and of a 'breaking through' which frees ( a non-entropic life?) energy and therefore enables the mind to go on indefinitely; or (also) has the deterioration to do with a mind that functions in decisions ( within pattern of self programmed choices )?

S: What do you mean by 'functioning in decisions'?

K: The (personal mind) which operates through choice and will. One 'decides' ( chooses) the course of action one is going to take, and that decision is based not on ( inner) clarity, not on a (holistic) observation of the total field (of human existence) but according to ( one's personal) satisfaction and enjoyment, which are 'fragments' of
that field. And one continues to live (safely settled ) in that (mentality of) fragmentation. That is one of the factors of deterioration : the brain
cells do not function totally but only in one ( specialised) direction. See, this is rather interesting...

P: So, you are saying that the ( present human) brain functions not fully, but only in one direction ?

K: The whole brain is not fully active, and I think that is 'the' (main) factor of its own deterioration. I have observed for these many years that a mind that has followed a certain course of action disregarding the totality of action, deteriorates (steadily and inevitably ?)

P: The brain cells themselves have an inbuilt sense of 'time', a sense of ( survivalistic) memory & instinct. They operate in ( 'full proof' mental ?) 'reflexes' which limits the brain from functioning totally. And ( as far as modern civilisation goes?) we know no other way.

K: We are trying to find out what are these (inbuilt) factors of deterioration. When we see what these factors are, perhaps we may get to the other (shore?) and see the 'total'.

P: One can think of twenty such factors, like for instance, conflict,

K: Let us not take too many (particular factors). Any (self-interest motivated ?) pursuit, based on choice, which has the motive of satisfaction or self-fulfilment, that ( kind of) action must create conflict. So, (the resulting inner & outer) conflict is one of the factors of
deterioration. Perhaps that is the major factor of deterioration : we disregard the whole structure of human existence, the biological, the sociological, and all the rest of it, and our ( personally motivated) decisions obviously brings about a conflict (of interests in the brain)
That is one of the factors of the deterioration of the brain (because unknowingly?) I am only using one part of it.
So (in a nutshell :) 'choice' and ( self-centred) 'will' are factors of deterioration.

P: And yet they are our two main instruments of action we've got.

K: That's right. All our ( outward?) life is based on these two factors: 'choice' (aka :  personal profit?) and the action of 'will' (power) in the pursuit of ( self interest & personal ) satisfaction.
Then the (100% 'holistic'?) question is, Is there a (way of)
action which does not have in it these two elements, these two
principles?

P: Let's also consider other 'psychologically' active factors – like the inherited (tendencies) for instance.

K: If I have inherited a dull, stupid brain, I am ( holistically speaking?) finished (better luck next life?) . I can go to various temples and churches but my brain cells themselves have been affected.

P: Then there are the countless (physical & psychological) shocks.

K: Which is what?

P: The ( brutal challenges of 'real) life' itself.

K: Why should life itself produce a shock?

P: It just happens.

K: But 'why' (should these shoks leave a mark?). Eg : My (beloved) brother dies. It has produced a psychological?) shock because I never realized that he would die (so soon) and I suddenly realize
he is dead - ( a huge ) neurological shock. Are you using the word 'shock' psychologically or physically?

P: ( To begin with ) is a physical shock, it is neurological shock, the coming into direct contact with the actuality of something which 'ends'.

K: All right. Let us take shock - physical, psychological, emotional
shock of suddenly losing something, losing somebody, the shock
of being alone, the shock of a close relationship that has suddenly come to an end. The brain cells receive ( the impact of) this shock. Now what will you do about it? Is the shock in itself a factor of deterioration?

S: No, but the way we respond to that shock is the factor.

P: Can one respond with a total quiet? The mind has registered
something which it is unable to understand. There are depths
beyond which it cannot respond. (We are talking of shock and of
new responses) To what depth has one penetrated (into the deeper strata of one's own consciousness?) ?

K: The (psychological impact of that?) shock has paralysed the mind, and it does paralyse it for the time being (& for a while ?) . How the mind comes out of it is the important factor. Does it come out with a hurt, with all the (engrammed) implications of hurt or does it come out without a single hurt?

S: I may not know it. Consciously I may say 'I have worked it out'.
But how do I know that there is not a trace of hurt?

D: Sir, Could it be that in the case of such a shock
there is a coming to an end completely of the ( temporal) patterns of the mind and the very seeing of that is the ending of it?

K: That is all implied. When my brother dies my whole life changes. The (realisation of the ) changes involved is the actual shock. I'll have to leave this house, I have to earn a different kind of livelihood, I have to do a dozen ( of other uncomfortable ) things. All that is implied in a (psychological) 'shock'. Now, I am asking whether that shock has left a mark or hurt, or not. If it has not left a single a single shadow of
sorrow, then the mind comes out of it totally refreshed, totally 'new'.
But if it is constantly hurt, brutalized, then that is a ( sure?) factor of
deterioration.

P: If it is hurt deeply, profoundly, does it mean that there is no
hope and it is all over? Or is there a way of ( redeeming or ) 'wiping away?

K: We are going to go into that, Pupulji. Neurologically, psychologically, inwardly, outwardly, the whole ( condition of my life) has changed. How does the mind come out of this? Does it come out ( by being ) hurt or does it come out totally purged of all hurt?
( And for meditation homework ?) Are the ( strata containing the personal ) hurts superficial, or so profound that the conscious mind cannot possibly know them at a given moment and, therefore, they will keep on repeating, repeating (the self-protective routines?) ? All
that is a wastage of ( intelligent ) energy. How does the ( self-conscious?) mind find out whether it is (or has been) deeply hurt?

P: The superficial hurts (such as personal insults ?) can be easily dealt with, but the deeper ( accumulation of) hurts...the everyday climate of brutality, death, violence...

K: Don't bring in violence. How does the mind come upon the
deep hurts? Is there in you any deep hurt?

P: Yes.

K: What do you mean by deep hurt?

P: The really deep hurts are ( created when ) because of a ( major existential) crisis, your very being is on the edge of sorrow.

K: I am asking : what do I mean by 'a very deep hurt'?

P: The depths of the ( personal & collective) unconscious are thrown up.

K: What is being thrown up?

P: Pain.

K: A ( karmic residue of) pain of which you have not been aware and ( a major personal) shock reveals that pain. Now, was the pain there or the cause of pain there?

P: The whole causation of pain was there, of which I was not even conscious. The shock comes and makes me aware of that pain.

K: Pain was there. It is one of the factors (of degeneration) . My brother is dead, that is absolutely final. I cannot bring him back. The whole world faces this problem, not you and I alone, everybody faces this problem. Was the 'causation' of the hurt there before and the shock has only revealed it? Was the ( karmic accumulation of?) hurts there because I never ( exposed it & ) faced it? I have never faced ( the sense of my existential) loneliness - which is one of the ( active) factors of (subliminally creating the self- protective image which is ) hurt.

Now (for a change?) can one, even before the ( major life-) shock comes, look at 'loneliness'? Can one go into this question of (psychological) dependency (aka : attachment?) , which ( along with creating self-protective images?) are active factors of hurt, the ( complex) causation of hurt, so that when the (Big?) shock comes, they are all brought out (& insightfully looked at) . Now (if the 'homework' is done) when the new shock comes, what happens? ( The new & innocent mind ?) will have no ( need to record the incident as ) hurt.

M: What makes you prepare yourself?

K: I watch life. I watch what are the implications of attachment or indifference or the cultivation of non-attachment. (clue:) Dependence causes pain, but to cultivate non-dependence may also bring pain. So, I watch and see that dependence of any kind must ( in time?) inevitably bring about deep hurt. So now, when the shock comes, the
causation of hurt is not (there anymore) . Therefore, a totally different thing takes place.

P: Sir, all these ( highly recommended ?) things one has done (for homework) . One has observed, one has gone into the problems of attachment...

K: Would you say shock 'is' ( triggering our latent ) suffering?

P: Shock seems to touch the depths of my being which I have
never been able to touch before, to which I have had no access.

K: If you have gone (diligently) through ( the sense of existential) loneliness, attachment, fear then what takes place? When
the shock of death, what takes place? Are you hurt?

P: That's a point I would like to enlarge upon. It seems to bring
out all the ( personal) pains I have had.

K: Which means what? You have not resolved the (deeper causation of that) pain – for instance, you have not resolved the pain of ( your own inner isolation & ) loneliness.

P: Is it just a matter of resolving of the pain of attachment or is it a matter of complete comprehension of 'whatever is' - an awakening to the total process of pain?

K: Look, we use the (holistic term ) 'suffering' ( in the holistic sense) to cover ( its whole causational package :) loneliness, attachment, dependence, conflict, the whole field of man's escape from suffering and the cause of suffering. We use the word 'suffering' to include all that. In other words, 'the totality of pain' , including the hidden and the observable suffering - the pain of a villager, the pain and sorrow of
a woman who has lost her husband, the sorrow of a man, ignorant,
unlettered, always in poverty; or the pain of (the urban ?)
man who is ambitious, frustrated - all that is suffering and the
shock brings all that ( collective karmic?) pain, not only 'yours', to the surface.
(Experientially) what takes place? I don't know how to deal with it. I cry, I pray & I hope to meet my brother in the astral plane. I do everything, trying to get out of this torture of pain. Why should only my big personal shock reveal all this? Seeing that beggar on the road, the leprous, or the villager endlessly working in sorrow, why has that not touched the human mind? Why should ( only the major personal ) shock touch it? Why does ( the presence of) that beggar not shock me personally and the whole of society? Why does it not move me?
I saw lately a Catholic monk in Rome. I cried to see the pain of someone tied to a 'post' called ( organised?) religion. We don't cry there but we cry here. Why? There is a 'why', obviously. There is a 'why' because we are ( becoming perceptively?) insensitive.

B: Our ( deeper) mind is asleep. The shock wakes it up.

K: That's it. The shock wakes it up and we are ( brutally) awakened to
our personal pain: ( as for survivalistic purposes?) we were not awakened to this pain before.

P: Sir, when I am awakened to pain and it is not a question of my pain...

K: It is pain. Now, what do you do with this pain?

P: It is like finding oneself in the middle of a storm, you don't
ask 'why'. In it is contain every pain of mankind .

K: It is not 'your' pain; it is pain. I felt pain when I saw
that beggar. When I saw that monk, I cried. When I saw that
villager, I was tortured. When I saw the rich man, I said, 'My God,
look !' The whole ( sadness of ) man's life is also contained in the
pain of my losing my brother. So now, what do I do with
pain? Is it deep or superficial?

A: It is very deep.

K: What do you mean by 'deep'?

P: What I mean by 'deep' is that it goes through every part of
my being. It is not sectional; it is not operating only in one part of
my life.

K: Don't call it 'deep'. Pain has no ( depth ) measurement. It is not deep or shallow. Pain is... pain. Then what? You remain in it, bear this hurt?

B: ( If we are true to ourselves ???) we cannot escape from it or find a substitute for it.

K: So, what shall I do with it?

P: I am in a position of 'standing still'....

K: You 'are' that pain. It is your (& makind's?) baby, and then what? I am the pain of the villager, the pain of the beggar, the pain
of that man who is ( 'trump) rich' who goes through agonies, the monk and all the rest of it. I 'am' that pain. What shall I do?

B: Is there not a ( qualitative?) transformation of this pain into (a meditation friendly ? ) wakefulness?

K: That is what I want to find out. What shall I do with it?

M: This ( holistic ) understanding by which the beggar's pain and another's pain becomes your own pain is unknown to us. Not everybody can see the beggar's pain as his own pain.

K: I am not concerned whether everybody sees it or not. Many people do not see ( this kind of) things. What shall I do?

K: ( To recap:) You asked what are the factors of deterioration of the brain cells and the mind. We said one of the major factors is conflict.
Another factor is hurt, pain. And what are the factors? - fear,
conflict, suffering, and the pursuit of ( personal) pleasure.
So, these are the ( active) factors of deterioration. Unless the human mind solves this (central issue?) , its action will ( directly or indirectly) produce more suffering, more pain.

P: In fact, the deterioration will be accelerated.

K: That's an obvious fact. We have come to the point of pain,
hurt, suffering and the factor of fear, and the pursuit of pleasure, as
a few factors that bring about deterioration. What shall the mind do if it finds itself immersed ) in pain, how can it act?

S: I have tried village work, I have tried social work, cinemas, sex, and yet (this imponderable existential ) pain remains. What shall I do?

Q: There must be some way to 'let go' the pain.

K: All you are concerned with is to make it go. Why should it go? There is no way out, is that it?

SWS: Then...you'll have to live with it.

K: How do you live with it?

Rad: When I stop 'doing anything' about it.

K: Are you doing it or are you just saying it as a theory? What
is the mind to do with this tremendous hurt which causes pain,
suffering, this everlasting battle that brings about the deterioration
of the brain cells?

B: One should wisely try to watch it ?

K: Watch what, sir? Is the pain different from the watcher? So, what
takes place? Now, what takes place when the 'observer' (of pain realises that it?) 'is' the ( pain?) observed?

M: We have come to the (insightful) conclusion that pain is the ( central) factor of deterioration. Therefore, doing away with pain is important and we cannot just say: 'I have to live with pain'. This is endless. We must cease to suffer (right here & now) . Now, what is the secret of it? You tell us.

K: Secret of what? I don't want to be a blank wall which does not feel anything .

M: Immunity does not necessarily mean insensitivity.

K: We all want to get rid of pain. It would be idiotic to say: 'I
must endure pain', (although) that is what most people do (unknowingly) because they endure pain, & take neurotic action like going off to temples and so on. So, it is absurd to say that we must endure pain.
On the contrary, knowing that pain is one of the major factors of
deterioration, how does it come to an end? Sir, at the actual ending of pain, the mind becomes extraordinarily passionate; it is not just a dull,
painless mind. You want the secret of it?

M: Do you know 'the' secret?

K: I will tell you. But let us approach it in a ( holistically) different way. Is it possible for a mind never to be hurt? ( Our standardising?) education hurts us, the family hurts us, society hurts us. I am asking: 'Can the human mind, living in a world in which there is hurt, never be hurt?' You call me 'enlightened' or 'stupid old man' - can I never be hurt? It is the same problem put differently (no hurts, no pain) .

S: Is there an actual possibility of never being hurt (inwardly) ?

K: I am showing you the ( experiential) 'secret'. We just now asked What takes place (inwardly) when the observer 'is' the observed ?

SWS: There should be a (non-personal) observation without the centre.

K: This 'observation without the centre' means there is only that thing
which you call 'pain'. There is no ( mental) entity that says I must go beyond the pain. Now, when there is no 'observer', is there ( any personal ?) pain? It is ( one's subliminal identification with?) the 'observer' that gets hurt. It is this (self-conscious) 'centre' that gets flattered or shocked. It is still the same centre that says 'I know pain'. Now, can you observe ( in full immersion?) this thing called 'pain' without the ( mental interference of the ?) centre, without the 'observer'? ( Clue:) It is not a vacuum. What takes place?

M: The 'feeling' of pain changes .

K: Sir, this is ( meditatively speaking ?) a difficult (finnicky & highly intimate?) thing because we are usually looking at our pain from a ( mental) centre as ( the knowledgeably active ?) 'observer' who says: 'I must be able to do something about it .' But when the centre 'is' pain, what is there to be done?
( Experiential clue : ) What is ( the nature of) compassion? The word 'compassion' literally means 'passion for all' and how does that come about? When ( one's subliminal identification with ) suffering is not, the 'other' is. How could a mind that is (struggling with its own ) suffering know compassion?

M: So, that pain becomes compassion ?

K: I never said 'become compassionate'. We are seeing the (inner) fact, the 'what is', which is suffering. That is an absolute fact. I suffer ( for various personal reasons) and my mind is doing everything it can to 'run away' (or to get rid of) it. But when it ( stops blindly ) 'running away' , then it ( takes the necessary 'meditation' time to ) observe (itself) . Then if one observes very ( non-personally & ) very closely, the
'observer' 'is' (not separating itself from ) the (suffering ) 'observed', and that very ( 'mind energy' which was caught in ) pain is ( ASAP?) transformed into 'passion', which is ( the beginning of ?) 'Compassion'.

So, ( as optional 'meditation' homework:) (1) don't escape from ( the ongoing personal pain or ?) suffering ; ( 2) Can you live with it 'completely' ? If yes, the ( sorrow-free) mind is now very clear & very sharp. The ( 'mind energy' which was engulfed in ? ) suffering is ( now being qualitatively ) transformed into 'passion' ( and/or compassion ? ) From that (3) arises the ( innocent ) mind that can never be hurt. Full stop. That's the ( K) 'secret'.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 21 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 39 of 39 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.)