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

K The essential Texts

Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 68 in total
Sat, 21 Apr 2018 #31
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


( 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

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

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:'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
Thu, 03 May 2018 #32
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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

A: Yes...

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

A: Very well...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: Yes.

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

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

K: Absolutely.

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

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

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

K: the path, quite.

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

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

A: Yes, yes.

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

A: Yes. Right.

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

A: Yes, profoundly religious.

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

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

A: Exactly...

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

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

K: That's it. Cannot be episodic.

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

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

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

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

A: Upon every instant ?

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

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

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

A: Would you say that again?

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

A: Not fully awake in the present, exactly.

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

A: Yes, I do.

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

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

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

A: You are, you are.

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

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

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

A: Of course.

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

A: Through the dreams ?

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

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

K: That's another thing.

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

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

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

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

A: Yes.

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

A: Yes...

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

A: That would be pretty rare...

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

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

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

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

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

K: That's what we are doing.

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

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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

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

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

A: And no ( inner conflict & ) disorder.

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

A: Exactly.

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

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

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

A: Good, good...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 May 2018 #33
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

A: Yes...

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

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

K: Of course.

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

K: That's right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes, actually you are quite right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: Yes.

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

A: Yes I have. It's marvelous.

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

A: Oh yes...

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

A: Yes.

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

A: Exactly !

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

A; Yes.

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

A: Yes, exactly, terror !

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

A: Yes, I do...

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

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

K: I don't know...

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

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

A: Oh yes...

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

A: Exactly...

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

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

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

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

K: Absolutely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: Oh yes, yes...

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

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

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

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

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

A: Exactly, exactly.

K: Have I made it clear?

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

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

A: I do...

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

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

K: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 May 2018 #34
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: How is one to proceed then?

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

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

B: And where does the technical knowledge come from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

E: Yes, let's do that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E: Right, absolutely.

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

C: Say that again ?

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

E: Yes, you can.

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

E: So that is a (holistic ) observation.

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

D: I don't know...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Of course, sir, we agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E: Yes...

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

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

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

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

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

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

E: Yes...

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

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

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

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

K: Sir, do you realize what that means?

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

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

E: Well sometimes it is not.

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

E: It comes and goes.

K: No, it can't.

E: Why not?

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

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

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

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

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

E: How is it then?

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

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

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

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

K: ...they don't.

C: Why don't they?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C: But that's not true.

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

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

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

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

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

C: We still don't...

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

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

K: Why?

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

K: Yes sir.

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

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

E: Well maybe less...

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

E: No.

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

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

K: I think I am.

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

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

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

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

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

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

E: Oh, a long time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E: Or intuition ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 May 2018 #35
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

E: So is the brain a 'fact' ?

K: Of course.

E: How so?

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

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

K: That is a fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: I agree.

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

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

E: That is also a theory.

K: No, it is a fact.

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

K: That is a fact.

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

K: Tell me simply, sir.

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

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

K: I know nothing about that.

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

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

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

K: Yes, I understand.

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

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

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

K: Yes, sir, agreed.

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

K: Is that it?

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

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

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

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

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

E: Absolutely.

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

B: What action ?

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

A: It seems to be that way.

K: Apparently it seems so. Agreed?

E: It is not so clear...

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

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

K: Out of language ?

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

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

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

K: Information - right? Agreed?

E: Maybe...

K: Then that is a limited action.

E: It is limited by the knowledge you have ?

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

D: Isn't there another kind of action?

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

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

K: No, I didn't say that.

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

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

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

K: No, no.

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

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

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

K: Even physical actions.

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

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

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

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

K: Yes, naturally. You are doubtful ?

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

K: That's all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: I'll show it to you.

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

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

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

K: I said this, sir.

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

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

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

K: Of course, that is understood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: I question that.

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

K: What are you trying to say, sir?

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

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

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

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

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

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

C: Exactly, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

D: Yes, exactly.

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

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

K: I understand.

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

K: I understand all that sir.

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

K: Yes sis, yes sir.

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

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

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

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

E: So let's investigate.

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

C: OK. Right.

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

A: Do you have any suggestions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

E: It is 'observation'.

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

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

E: Yes, yes, no problem.

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

B: Yes, absolutely...

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

E: Yes, I understand...

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

B: Absolutely...

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

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

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

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

K: Of course.

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

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

E: Then its a self-centred action.

K: It is not.

E: Why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D: From where is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: We will come to that in a moment.

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

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

E: Right, so what is this Intelligence?

K: How do you enquire into this?

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

K: Is that possible, first?

E: Well it seems that it is possible.

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

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

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

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

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

C: Perception without a word ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

E: How do we find that out?

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

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

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

D: What is this 'love'?

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

E: OK, that's the question.

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

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

K: You don't 'know'.

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

K: With what?

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

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

E: Yes...

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

A: We have got five more minutes.

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

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

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

A: How do you 'see' that ?

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

C: Well, is there an end to desire?

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

E: I don't see that.

K: Ask ( yourself ) that question, sir.

D: I think there is an end.

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

E: Yes there is.

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 May 2018 #36
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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

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

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

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

K: After all we are ( culturally) programmed.

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

K: Of course not.

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

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

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

B: What is the nature of the creative act?

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

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

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

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

K: Would you use the word 'attention'?

D: 'Attention' would be good, yes.

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

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

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

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

D: Yes, a quality of silence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E: I mean the attitude.

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

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

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

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

C: ( A mentally focussed ?) desire ?

K: Again desire. Again thought.

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

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

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

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

E: All right...

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

E: Yes, it can.

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

E: Once and for all?

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

E: Are we in time now? Right now?

K: Of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

E: It is not my experience.

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

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

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

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

K: A (silent) interval between thoughts ?

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

K: But it is still the movement of thought.

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

K: I distrust all ( personal) experience.

E: Including yours?

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

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

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

E: OK, What would you use instead?

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

C: Not chosen.

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

C: Right...

K: So is there a cessation of thought?

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

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

E: Absolutely.

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

E: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

A: You mean it has been conditioned that way?

K: Yes, of course...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: So ?

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

K: Would you say thought is a material process?

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

K: All right, what is thought?

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

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

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

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

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

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

C: To the trees...

K: To nature.

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

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

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

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

C: No, no, I mean actually.

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

C: It doesn't necessarily mean that.

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

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

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

C: Yes but that's inbuilt into nature.

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

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

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

K: Now which shall we take?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Then what is the next question?

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

K: It is still the monkey.

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

K: Yes, but it still remains the monkey.

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

K: That's it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E: I am not disagreeing with that.

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

E: Oh, yes it does.

K: Somewhat.

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

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

E: No.

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

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

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

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

K: Which means what?

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

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

E: Yes.

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

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

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

C: Where is the monkey now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E: That's fine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: We have said that.

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

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

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

E: At the moment it sees its own futility.

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

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

K: In an ( existential?) crisis.

B: Crisis, suffering...

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

E: Yes.

K: I question that.

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

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

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

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

D: Why?

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

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

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

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

K: I can.

D: I am waiting.

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

E: Yes, agreed.

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

E: limited.

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

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

K: Then what do we do sir?

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

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

E: I question that.

K: Otherwise you would have the answer.

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

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

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

K: Is that an actuality to you?

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

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

E: But it is here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C: There is no answer to that question.

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

E: Now won't you cultivate that?

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

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

K: Therefore...

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

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

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

K: Constrained. Aren't we constrained ?

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

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

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

K: The monkey cannot make room for itself.

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

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

E: limited, it creates space right there.

K: Yes. All right.

E: Well isn't that a fact?

K: If you say so...

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

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

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

K: Of course not.

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

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

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

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

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

C: None?

K: No.

E: That is not my experience.

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

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

K: Of course.

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

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

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

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

C: No, we haven't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E: Yes.

K: Where?

E: Cultivate our love.

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

E: Itself it is not, but...

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 May 2018 #37
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


YOU ARE THE WORLD ('reader friendly' edited)

KRISHNAMURTI: We chose a (perrenial ?) subject to discuss during this Seminar : We live in a world of increasing violence, and disorder, what can I, as a human being, do to change this? We chose this question because it affects not only the people here but also we were thinking about India and all the people concerned there, Europe, and America. This would be a question that would apply to all ( serious & responsible) people.
What shall I, as a human being, concerned with the world, and naturally with myself, what is my action, not a rare action but a continuous daily action, what shall I do? How do we approach this question? Do I approach it with an already formed opinion or conclusion or point of view? Or have I (so many personal) problems that I cannot possibly be concerned with the world ?

Q: Sir, the problem is so enormous that one's left paralysed.

K: How does one approach this question? Because however I approach it may decide the quality of my attention, the quality of my enquiry, investigation and so on. So I think it's important before we start discussing this question, how do I or you approach this problem.

Q: It must be from compassion.

K: If you say 'it must be', that becomes an idea, a future thing. I'm not trying to push you down, sir, but if I say 'I must, it should be' or 'if it were' it's a 'conditional' ( temporal?) approach, and therefore your approach will dictate your investigation. How do I approach any ( psychologically related?) problem? Is it (seen as ) an (urgent) problem, as hunger, a problem which has got to be resolved (ASAP?) ?

Q: I feel a little bit as though I've got myself into some very deep water. I don't know how one can tell what's a violent action and what's not.

K: I know, but we'll come to the understanding and the resolution of it if to me it is an intense, demanding, immediate problem. You follow what I mean? That ( sense of urgency) may drive me.

Q: Sir, I think that we have to take a look at the nature of the violence in the world and see how we are related to it, before we could add any passion to try solving it ( holistically?)

K: All right then let's discuss what is our ( actual) relationship to a world that ( seems unable to deal with the ongoing ?) disorder,violence, terror, and all the rest of it.

Q: Aren't they by-products of an ongoing confusion within ourselves ?

K: Yes, but what is my relationship to all that is happening?

Q: Is it the same question, Krishnaji, to ask how do we participate (responsibly ) in the world?

K: If you like to put it that way. Who has created this awful mess?

Q: We have to accept our responsibility.

K: Wait, sir - who has created it?

Q: We have ( along with countless past generations?)

K: We human beings have created (all ) this mess. And what's my relationship to that?

Q: Are we really in ( a responsible) relation, sir, or do we feel different from the ( present state of the?) world.

K: That's all I'm asking. Is whatever is happening (out) there, different from me?

Q: In our present ( ego-centric) attitude, it is.

K: So, is s that your attitude? That the world is totally different from me? The (fast advancing technological) world, the scientific world, the world of misery, (triviality & ) confusion, all that's going on, sir, in the world - is it something 'out there' which I have nothing to do with?

Q: We realize that there is something very serious happening only when it touches us, then we start crying to see all this misery. But then ( the many problems of ) our daily life makes us lose sight of it.

K: We lost sight of this and we say, "I am different from the world." is that it?

Q: We do everything to protect ourselves, but we don't see ( the existential tragedy of?) it.

K: Sometimes we think we are the world, and sometimes the world is totally different from us. Is that your approach?

Q: No sir, we are part of the ( total consciousness of the?) world, we are (fully immersed?) in it.

K: Yes, but is that a burning reality ?

Q: We are ( subliminally) deluding ourselves (by thinking ) that we are separate. We are always part of it, whether we like it or not.

K: So why do we lose the sight of the actuality that we 'are' the world ?

Q: But what do you mean when you say, "You 'are' the world." ? Does it mean 'you are full of all that rubbish that's out there and violence', as well as all...

K: Aren't we?

Q: In one sense, I like to be important, I'm afraid of losing my ( material) security like everybody else. But I'm not joining the Army, I'm not shooting people around...

K: We'll answer all those ( 'conscience' related ?) questions (later?) , sir, but first, we're asking, how do you approach this question of a world in which there is disorder, disintegration, decay going on, confusion, all the rest of it, and what am I to do (regarding all this) ?

Q: I have to approach the question with my present attitude of mind. Unless I am clear about this.

K: All right, sir, what is your present attitude, sitting in this room, what is your present attitude?

Q: Sometimes one feels closer in relating to all the things that are happening, but then the 'preoccupation' of our usual daily demands comes in and we no longer feel with the depth of being actually related with the world. This is the fact, not what should be.

K: So you are saying, in this room, at the present time, I really don't feel so completely (involved) or realize that the world 'is' me. Is that what you all feel?

Q: No, it is not what we all feel ; I feel vastly involved, tremendously involved in the world, and part of that confusion manifests itself in me. I am that confusion.

K: So the world, being confused, that confusion is manifested in you ?

Q: Yes.

K: That violence, that disorder is showing in 'yourself'. Right? So you are different from the world.

Q: No, I'm caught in it.

K: Just a minute. If that can be manifested in you, then you are clean, healthy, and that manifests. Or is it the other way round?

Q: The feeling is that you can do something about it...

K: Yes, sir, the moment when you say, "I can do something about it", you are different from that.

Q: Then can we approach it by what we should not do.

K: What, sir?

Q: What we should not do about it, just see this disorder, this world, we cannot approach it directly.

K: When you have a toothache, the pain makes you act. Now is this problem as acute as that, or is it something to be casually discussed without putting some vitality and energy into it. That's all my first question.

Q: Sir, if somebody threatens you with violence, then it is a 'real' problem, to you at that time. If somebody is threatening somebody else with violence, it's not a ( personal) problem, unless they are your close friend.

K: So, as long as it doesn't touch you personally it's no problem.

Q: So what do you mean by touching you personally ?

K: Somebody comes and hits you, somebody comes and tears down your house.

Q: To me it is a fact that we are profoundly connected to what is happening in the world, whether we see it or not. But I think the problem is that we don't know what to do, that we are utterly unable to do anything. I think we all feel concerned but then we don't know what to do.

K: Let's pursue that one thing – if it is something happening 'out there', it doesn't concern me, but if it concerns me, personally, then I'll do something about it. Which means, as long as life leaves me alone, as long as I've a little corner safe and comfortable, I don't mind, I've nothing to do with that. But the moment my comfort, my security is touched, I will do something. Is that what you're all saying?

Q: I think that's the problem, yes.

K: So all that you have said so far, if I have understand right, as long as it doesn't touch me, it's not (an urgent) problem.

Q: It is an 'intellectual' problem - I can explain it, I understand the reasons for the violence in the world, it's a problem, intellectually, but it's not the same quality when somebody is threatening me personally.

K: Is that so for all of us?

Q: There are people who feel ( directly) things like this and for them the world 'is' them, they 'are' the world. But the trouble is that we are ( getting) caught in a trap of ( nice sounding?) words, where words in one's head create associations and ideas which may be exchanged in one situation, suggesting one thing. The problem seems to revolve around ( your?) words and what we do with them inside our own skull.

K: Could we begin by finding out it we could all 'think together' about this?

Q: Sir, what do you mean by 'thinking together'?

K: I'm coming to that, sir. It wouldn't be difficult if we both of us wanted to build a ( fancy guest?) house. You may disagree about the architect, the shape of the house, amount of room space, but we could talk over it together, if we are agreeable we say, let's both of us choose the architect, we'll do that, we'll agree. Right?

Q: Is 'thinking together' ( a matter of mutual) agreement then?

K: Yes, sir. We are saying the same thing. That is, sir, could we both of us put aside our prejudice about this architect or that architect and say who is the best(est) architect altogether. We can do that, can't we?

Q: Where there is an interest and enthusiasm in the subject, that dispels the prejudices and preferences that usually bung up a situation. In other words, you have a common interest in exploring the situation.

K: Is there a common interest ( in our discussion ) here? I want to find out for myself, what am I to do with the world, with all the catastrophe etc., etc., what am I to do about all that? That's all my problem.

Q: Surely one can only look at oneself first. See how violence arises in oneself. I don't see how you can start (from 'out there'?)

K: Are you saying, whatever is happening (out) there is affecting me,I have contributed to it, therefore I must see that in myself I don't give or contribute to all that. Is that what you're saying?

Q: But this affects only our immediate environment....

K: Not only the immediate environment...

Q: Sir, can we come back to this : that we do not feel that ''we are the world'', and some may feel that that is ( psychologically) incorrect (to impose it to others?)

K: I cannot understand a ( holistically ?) simple fact that I have created ( or supported?) this (chaotic ) world by my arrogance, by my selfishness, by my silly activities of self-centred interests – ''I'' have created ( or sustained ?) that thing (by adopting the general mentality based on self-interest) . It's very clear to me.

Q: It's also clear ( to many ?) that we don't seem to be prepared to accept that responsibility.

K: I do.

Q: Isn't that the first thing we've got to look at, our self-centred activity?

K: Do we all see the fact that there is terror, violence, disintegration, do we all see that?

Q: Obviously we all can see the (outward) acts of violence and so on. We can all see that intellectually, emotionally and so on, but it's not the same as when the violence is threatening us personally .

K: Let's go step by step into this : do you see it as something happening out there which has nothing to do with me, or because you read the newspapers, television, and that becomes an idea, a concept, something away there, nothing to do with me ? So I'm asking, how do you see ( holistically) this fact?

Q: Sir, it seems that first there is a world 'out there' of which I read about and somehow I separate it from the world 'in here' at Brockwood, I feel rather safe here, it's a nice place to be, people try at least to respect each other as much as they can. But as far as I am talking, I don't have any real concern for anybody, maybe one person or two that I like, but you see, I'm really indifferent whether this person dies or not.

K: All right, sir. You're only concerned about yourself. And you don't care a hoot what happens 'out there', as long as you're ( temporarily) safe at Brockwood.

Q: To be honest, that's it.

K: That's it. Do we think like that too?

Q: Yes, but when I leave Brockwood and I go somewhere else, then it touches me, and then it becomes a problem.

K: All right, so, you are reducing it to a 'personal' problem : as long as it doesn't touch me, please, I'm not (really) concerned about the world.
The main subject of this Seminar is that the world is in a terrible state, what am I to do? Can we all 'come together' and see one fact together ?

Q: Surely one fact that we can all see together is that we all like to think differently. Is it possible to find out the root of that confusion?

K: This may be one of the major factors of the confusion in the world, because (when it comes to cooperating) each one holds onto his 'personal' opinion.

Q: Isn't it possible for us just to look without 'knowing'?

K: We are trying, we are trying to do that. I say please let us drop our opinions, our conclusions, our ideas, let's consider the common factor, which is, as there is confusion between ourselves, who are supposed to be serious, we are met to discuss this thing, even here we can't clear that up. And we want to clear it up, do something out there. So can we clear up this confusion among ourselves first ? Can I say, "All right, I'll forget my ( personal) opinions for the moment, - let's look." Can you drop that? And join me, who says, "Look, I'm not only concerned about myself, but I'm also concerned with the world." Right? Could you do that? No, not verbally - actually. I'll drop my point of view and say, "Yes, I am concerned about my own ( material & psychological?) security, but also I'm concerned with the ( consciousness of everyone else in the ) world having the same pain, with the same anxiety...

Q: I just don't know. Can we all have the same intensity ?

K: No. You may not know, but will you 'do it now' ? I am doing it. I am concerned with myself - I know that. I am fully aware of it. And also I'm concerned with the world.

Q: It feels like taking a vow, Krishnaji - ''can we all feel this way ?''

K: No, nothing of the kind. I said ''I am concerned with myself, and perhaps I'm also maybe concerned with the world''. That's all. There is no ( subliminal?) compulsion, there is nothing.

Q: What is it, in each one of us, that thinks that her we're safe, that we're separate, that the world is not going to affect us personally.

K: Maria, what is happening in this ( safe & cozy ?) 'microcosm' is exactly ( the psychological mirror of ?) what is happening in the world. We can't agree about anything, or look at any fact together. If all the politicians dropped their opinions and said, "Look, what is best for the world," came together, they could solve all these problems. They won't, because they are Conservatives, Liberal and blah, blah, blah. And we are doing exactly the same thing here.

Q: Can we distinguish 'facts' from opinions?

K: Yes, sir, very simple. 'Fact' is that which is actually happening. And the 'opinion' is what I think about what is happening.

Q: So, when we say that everybody in this room is ( physically and/or psychologically) affected by what is happening in the world - is that a fact or an opinion?

K: It's a fact.

Q: But do we all see it as a fact, or is it for many just an ( holistically correct?) 'opinion'?

K: That's just it. So could we not offer any opinions, any judgements, but only look at the 'facts' ?

Q: It's a 'fact' that we're ( inwardly) divided.

K: Could we look at this fact that we are separate and the world is separate.

Q: Each person here is also ( feeling) separate.

K: Yes, yes. Each one is concerned about himself and the world comes second. Right? Is that a fact for all of us ?

Q: To me it is.

K: All right, it's a ( psychological) reality, therefore let's stick to that. Now could we look at that, 'me first and the world comes second ' . Could we look (non-personally?) at that fact ? Why do I lay such tremendous emphasis on myself first ? Go on, sir, answer this.

Q: Well, that's our years and years of ( cultural) conditioning. That's us. That's what we've been conditioned to, that's what we've been brought up as.

K: That's a fact. Right? The politicians, the priests, the economists, everybody says, "Me first & you second." Why do I give ( such overwhelming) importance to myself, what is the cause of all this? Is it my education, is it my culture, is it the ( material insecurity in the?) society I live in, is it the religion that says, (think of your spiritual ?) salvation first ?

Q: Also our survival instinct says that.

K: Yes, all that's included. So our ( ego-centricity?) it's a fact, isn't it? Now who has created that?

Q: Well, it certainly wasn't me.

K: My grandmother, my grandfather, great-grandfather?

Q: Yes they all (worked hard at?) it.

K: Which means what? I am ( inwardly) the result of all that ( mentality) .

Q: Sir, is this self-centredness entirely the result of our (cultural) conditioning? Is that all?

K: ( For starters?) that's good enough, I'll begin with that.

Q: There is already a sense of self-centredness when we say...

K: Sir, the moment the baby says, it's my toy, ( the ego-centric attitude is ?) already there. So everyone has said, 'me' first. Right? Do we all see this thing? Now the next ( academic?) question is, who has created this?

Q: Me ?

K: Don't go so quickly, that's an 'idea' then. My grandfather, my grandmother, my great-great.... – all the way down to me, have established a society based on ( self-interest ) and I'm caught in this ( psychological ?) trap.
Now do we all see this 'fact'? Are you quite sure, that the society with all the culture, superstitions, the religions, the popes, the Protestants and all that, has made me into a self-centred human being. My education...

Q: ... my biological needs..

K: Yes, and my biological needs. Do we agree, do we see this simple and clear fact ?

Q: Yes.

K: Right, sir? Then, I 'am' that. That (shared ego-centric mentality?) has created me, and me 'is' that. Do you see this fact or it's still a 'vow'?

Q: Krishnaji, it is easy to see that I am 'part of that' (cultural heritage) , it's not so easy to see that I 'am' that, full stop.

K: So, do we together see this fact, that world is me and I am the world, full stop.

Q: There is an action involved in this 'seeing'.

K: Yes, if you are the result of all that, you have to 'do something about yourself', because you 'are' that.

Q: How about the ( self-consciousness ) that says "I'm different and I'm important" ?

K: You are the world and the world has made you think that you are the most important person. Religions have done it, and all our competitive education says you're better than me. So all the way from the moment we are born till we die, everything around us says, "You are the first." Right? That's a fact.
Then my next step is, what am I to do? Knowing I 'am' (impersonating ) that ( ego-centric collective consciousness?) , what is my ( holistic) action, what is my ( global) responsibility? And at what level, at what depth is my responsibility, and is my action superficial or is it out of a deep understanding of this thing?
I think we'd better stop here  and we'll continue tomorrow from where we left off, can we?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 May 2018 #38
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


2ND K SEMINAR MEETING 1979 ('reader friendly' edited)

KRISHNAMURTI: Shall we go on where we left off? We were saying that the ( psychological) division between the (consciousness of the?) world and the 'me' ( our individualised consciousness?) is really very artificial. The society that man has created is the society that we have created, and we are caught in it. And unless man himself changes (inwardly, the cultural) environment cannot possibly change him. So that's where we are. Do we all see the same fact?

QUESTIONER: You're saying that one can't change the ( outer) environment, it's ourselves that we have to change first. And yet at the same time you were saying that the world is deteriorating.

K: That's right. We were saying the environment can only be - 'environment' in the sense of our society, the culture, the religion and all that - can only be, radically changed if man himself changes. That's the whole point.

Q: Why do you say it's deteriorating (right now) when it's really been like that since the beginning of time.

K: It has been like that from the beginning of time. So do we accept it? It has been like that through all the civilizations, through all the empires, throughout history. 'Me' first and 'you' second. In our relationships, in our activity, in everything that we do, it is me and you, two separate divisions, the world and me, as though they were separate. It has been like that for millenia.
Are you saying that it is impossible to change ( this ego-centric ) human nature, because it's been like that for so many million years. Is that what you're saying?

Q: Perhaps the important question is, how significant is the factor of the deterioration?

K: What do we mean by deterioration? Our minds are becoming more ( superficial, repetitive & ) mechanical, more caught in the trap (of daily routine) , our education is - you know all about that. So when we use the word 'decline', decline from what? Degenerating from what?

Q (1) : From wholeness ?

Q (2) : But there's never been a wholeness in civilization, that's only nostalgic remembrances.

Q (3) : Sir, to me you touched the fundamental question when you talked of (changing the ) human nature. Having been an ex-Marxist for 16 years I saw the way as the Marxists see it - change the ( socio-economic ) environment and we'll change the ( human) nature. Fundamentally they got it wrong. Now I'm going along with you, to changing the human nature, but where do we go from there? We 'are' this human nature - what are we going to do with ourselves? Do we want to face the fact that we 'are' that human nature.

K: Yes, but before we come to that the question was raised, what do you mean by degeneration, decay. What do we mean by that word?

Q: The original question that we were supposed to consider was that the world is becoming increasingly violent and disorderly. Do we want to go ( quibbling?) into ( holistically correct?) definitions, or can we accept the fact that it's rather a mess and concentrate on how we respond to that ?

K: That's what I want to get at. Can't we start from that, instead of defining the words, degeneration and so on. Could we start from that?

Q: Yes.

K: All right. Then what am I to do as a human being, living in this disordered, violent society, what is my action? That is the real problem. What am I to do, knowing that I am not different from society, that I am the world and the world is me? That's a fact, to me at least, that's an absolute irrevocable fact. Then what am I to do? What is my action in relation to what? And what is my responsibility, to what?

Q: Sir, our responsibility in our actions must be to everything because everything is the world. It can't just be directed to one thing.

K: Is there a 'holistic' action, that is 'whole'. Or all my ( self-interest motivated?) actions must be inevitably fragmented, broken up. That's one of the questions. So first, could we be clear on the word 'action'.

Q: Action suggests to me 'doing' something. And when one thinks of the word, I'm thinking in terms of the many and the one.

K: Let us find out, if we all agree about that word 'action', what is implied, what is its significance, and whether it is partial, whole, and so on.

Q: Action to change what? We know what the Marxist action wants to change, he wants to change the environment. You say change 'human nature'. I go along with you. Now how are we going to change human nature?

K: First I must find out whether I can change myself and so change the world. But before we enter into that, mustn't we enquire into what do we mean by 'action' ? Is there a (holistic way of) action which is not separative?

Q: Sir, are we distinguishing two types of action, a selfish action which comes from motive and a non-selfish action, or 'whole' action?

K: How do I know what is non-selfish action? I might think I am acting 'non-selfishly' but it might be the most ( subtly hidden ?) selfish action.

Q: The implications of this are that ( the holistic) action is an unbiased movement. Our usual movements are, as you were pointing out, orientated to self-interest and identifications. So for the self, for us to imagine, or for us to move without bias - this is the problem, isn't it?

K: Yes, sir.

Q: It seems as if action is something from ourselves, that we have to do something or other, so it is always from a centre.

K: If you're a doctor, you say, my action is to attend to the patient. Or a professor says, I must act (educationally) . But I want to find out what is ( a way of) action which is not separative, you understand?

Q: Sir, would we not have to consider ( 'who' or?) 'what' is doing the acting. If we are the product of our conditioning and its only our conditioning which acts, then that seems always that it will be separative.

K: So you're saying, are you saying, sir, as long as the mind is conditioned in a particular way its (action) is bound to be separative, it is bound to be divisive, bound to act in contradiction with others and so on. Is that it?

Q: Yes.

K: So we then have to go into the question : are we aware of our ( ego-centric) conditioning?

Q: And also there's the question, is there 'something else' besides this conditioning which can act (holistically?) ?

K: That comes much later, very much later.

Q: We're acting constantly, whether we're in the kitchen or what not, it's obviously action is coming from thinking and we can't separate the two
So, we have to talk about thinking, because if you're not thinking, how can there be any action. Or can there be one?

K: Thinking is ( a very common form of mental ?) action. So what is our action then, thinking, self-centred, conditioned, partial, contradictory, idealistic, acting according to a certain pattern, Utopia, Marxist, Maoist.

Q: In any action, there is simply an 'actor', and that actor implies will, either in the desire to change something, or in being separate and yet wanting to identify with the whole, so we always seem to come back to will. Is this correct?

K: I don't know how to approach this question, whether there an insightful action ( in the sense of) seeing the fact and acting ? Perceiving (holistically) the 'fact' and acting to the demands of that fact ?

Q: Yes. Yes, there is such a thing.

K: I observe ( the ongoing 'fact' that) I am ( openly or subtly reacting ?) violently. Now, is my observation clear, pure, or is it twisted, according to my desire to (cover it up) or suppress it ? Can I observe ( the unfolding of this reaction of) violence without any distortion? And that very observation is the ( insightful?) action. I don't know if I'm making myself clear.

Q: That is, acting from the clarity of that observation.

K: Now can we all do this?

Q: Is there anything more to do after that? Mustn't it be followed by a continuation of that action?

K: Of course, but first have we understood this?

Q: Krishnaji, if I am self-centred and full of ideas and prejudices, how am I to come upon this action?

K: So, if you can't, you can't.

Q: That's right.

K: So you have to see the ( obvious or hidden inner ) fact that you're self-centred, therefore to observe it (non-personally?) . Now can we together, is it possible for all of us, to observe this fact (of our inner) violence ( anger is violence, jealousy is violence, conformity is violence, imitation is violence, competition is violence, being attached to a particular ideal, the national divisions are violence and so

Q: But is it possible for a violent mind to see ( in real time ? ) its own violence?

K: Why not? Isn't it possible ( for example) to be aware of one's ( instant reaction of) jealousy as it arises ? Now, we are asking, is this observation clear, pure, not twisted ? That's the first thing, before I can act (insightfully?) . Can I observe myself, myself, which is the society, and therefore can I observe myself very clearly like in a mirror that is reflecting exactly 'what is'? Can I read the whole ( psychological) history of 'myself' ?

Q: Sir, I think there's a ( qualitative) difference in being able to observe it ( directly) in action and being aware of it partially ..

K: That's the question, sir : Can I be aware of (all this protracted?) movement of violence in me, not just one by one, anger or jealousy but of the whole (inner) structure of (our) violence ?

Q: What is going to make man act to bring about that (inner) clarity? That's the problem, as I see it.

K: I'm saying, sir, this ( insightful) observation 'is' action. So my question is, can I ( insightfully?) observe the whole nature of violence in me?

Q: Can I put it the other way round? What will make man put down his ( cultural?) prejudices so he can observe that?

K: A (major existential?) crisis, a challenge which you have to answer. A relationship that brings about a sense of responsibility. Right?

Q: Yes...

K: So, I'm asking, will you drop your ( elitistic ) prejudices? You have your own (open & hidden ) prejudices, your own opinions, your own experiences. Suppose I am prejudiced because I think I've got a better brain than anybody else. That's a (self-centred ) prejudice. And so on. Can I drop all that? What will make me drop my prejudices (and be inwardly humble?) ? That is the question.

Q : An immediate danger ?

K: Yes, but we have no immediate danger, sitting in this (cozy) room.

Q: Sir, aren't you missing out your 'catalytic' action? Isn't that why we are here just now ?

K: Maybe. Or... may not be. My ( elitistic ? ) prejudice may be so terribly strong. Right? Or I will drop my prejudice because I see the importance of having a 'good' (creative & harmonious?) relationship. You see, in all that is implied ( the looking forward to a?) reward, or a sense of if you don't do this you will be punished (banished ?) . That again is ( a conditioned) acting according to a desire of wanting reward or not wanting to be punished.
So can I just 'drop' this ( elitistic) prejudice of being a British, French, and all the things that go with it?

Q: Sir, doesn't one have to see first the ( psychological) danger and the destructiveness of these ( elitistic) categories ? The question is that the world is violent and disordered and what can we do about it. If the ( ongoing) disorder and violence were simply ( regarded as ego-stimulating or ) lovely, we wouldn't be asking the question, would we?

K: Of course not.

Q: Therefore there is a certain impetus in their 'unpleasantness', to put it mildly.

K: He raised a point, which is, I am here to listen to what is happening, to all of you and to you, I want to listen. That may act as a catalyst. That's his point. Now can I listen so completely that the very listening is ( the insightful action which is triggering) ) the 'emptying' of my prejudice? You understand?

Q: Yes...

K: Are you doing it? You are telling me that the (insightful action of) putting aside your prejudices, ( the overall quality of ) your mind will be different. And I 'listen' to you because I'm tremendously interested to be free of (the psychological burden of ) 'prejudice'. Because I've lived with it, and my fathers & my grandfathers, and many centuries of (taking pride in having a ) Brahmanical outlook, has prejudiced my mind. And the very listening ( to this truth ) may be the act of purgation.

Q: But sir, why would you wish to examine whether you can drop your prejudices?

K: Why? For a very simple reason : I see as long as I have my ( elitistic) prejudices (and you have yours?) we can never meet (and/or cooperate?)

Q: Is that not a valid motive?

K: All right, it's a valid motive. (Laughter) But it doesn't lead me any further.
So, what will make you drop your ( elitistic?) prejudices?

Q: It would have to be an action so totally different from any action we're used to. Something that I don't know.

K: Probably.

Q: I'm not sure I see my ( deeper) prejudices ; for instance, I don't feel identified with the country or with the religion.

K: All right, but your ( personal?) experiences are ( creating their own?) prejudices. Peter - you've had certain 'experiences' going to India.

Q: Yes.

K: And you're 'entrenched' in that.

Q: Yes, ( sometimes ) it makes me feel I'm a beautiful human being, but next moment I feel I'm a terrible human being...

K: You're entrenched in that, in those experiences which have become part of 'you' (of your 'self-image' ?) . And can you just 'drop' (the subliminal attachment to) those experiences and say, "Look, I must look at life differently," perhaps or see things which may be more accurate.
(In a nutshell:) Have I got a certain view ( of the world ?) to which I am attached, a certain concept which to me is so deeply rooted? Are you aware of your prejudices?

Q: Unfortunately, yes.

K: If you are aware of your (elitistic) prejudices, can you 'let them go'? And...can you 'do it' now ?

Q: I don't understand your ( experiential) usage of the word 'to do.' I don't know what's involved in that specific kind of 'doing'?

K: Are you ( becoming fully ? ) aware of your (elitistic?) prejudice. And at the same time realize its ( seriously divisive) consequences - the whole ( subliminal activity of this ) 'movement' of prejudice. Can you be ( ASAP?) aware of it and say, "Look, how ( holistically?) silly it is. Finished !'

Q: But surely, the answer most people would give would be that they don't know that ( this instant dropping?) is actually possible – and that is about as far as they can get.

K: Of course, sir. I know that. But are we in this room saying, "I hope to eventually get rid of (all of) them, when I'm 90 and just about one foot in the grave, then I'm really ready to give it up."

Q: Then, how is mankind going to drop these prejudices?

K: You are (an integral part of the total consciousness of ?) mankind. Have you dropped your ( own elitistic) prejudices?

Q: Can 'I' drop 'my prejudices'? Is that not a ( holistically?) wrong question to ask ?

K: You don't answer my question, you're all dissipating my question. We're saying, "Can you and I, in the process of thinking, watching, observing, talking over together, feel the absolute necessity of dropping prejudices?"

Q: Let me put it ( around in ) this way. I have dropped my ( elitistic cultural?) prejudices, and I see that you haven't dropped yours. And you're a good guy etc. etc. And I want you to drop them. What am I to do?

K: All right. Will you first 'listen'? Or are you 'listening partially' ( with one ear only?) , because ( some of) those ( elitistic) prejudices are very pleasant, very profitable or (otherwise) rewarding, and they (do subliminally) say, " We will prevent you from listening". So can you 'listen' ( beyond & ) in spite of all that? If not, no amount of your ( rational ?) arguments are going to get at ( the self-identified areas of ) my prejudices, no amount of rewarding or punishment or anything is going to get rid of it.
So sitting (comfortably?) together in this room, talking over together amicably, one of you says, "Unless you, as a human being, part of this society, drop your (subconscious elitistic cultural ?) prejudices, your action will always be limited, it will always bring about conflict." And that (might?) interest me, because I see what the world is and instinctively I don't want to live like that.
So Peter, as I listen to you (K) , can I drop them, not sometime later, but right here (& now) in this room & finish with them?

Q: But you've got to instinctively feel what you've just described. That's important.

K: Whatever it is, will you drop them?

Q: I can't see how my experience, say my trip to India, is a 'prejudice'. Is it because I give it a value different to other things?

K: Look, as we said, 'prejudice' means to pre-judge, to have a particular way of thinking, certain concepts which you hold dear, certain experiences which seem to you very important to yourself, ( in short?) various forms of illusions. All that and more can be summed up in one ( experientially friendly?) word 'prejudice', for the moment. We might change the word 'prejudice' into something else (self-created 'images'?) , but for the moment, let's call all that bundle 'prejudice.'
Now can one ( happily?) drop ( the psychological attachments to ) that (subliminally sticky?) bundle, that's what I'm asking. Because, otherwise one's mind isn't free to observe ('what is') clearly.

Q: But if all I am is prejudice, if all my vision is prejudice, how can that see itself? There has to be a 'something else' that comes !

K: We'll go into that, sir, I am a ( dynamic self-identified?) bundle of prejudices. Now is that 'bundle' different from 'me' (the 'conscious mind' that is examining it?) ? Is the 'observer' different from the (subconscious?) 'bundle'? Our ( mainstream cultural) tradition says the 'observer' is different from the 'bundle'. So it's very difficult (& destabilising?) for 'me' to accept that I 'am' that bundle, how terrible. I reject that instantly, because my whole upbringing says I am (or should be?) different. Because you can then control the bundle, you can get rid or keep parts of it and so on. But when one really sees the ( truth of the ) fact that the bundle 'is' me, there is no 'observer'. That's the whole ( experiential?) point.
( In a nutshell) when you come along and say, "You 'are' the bundle," it is a 'fact'. So what happens (inwardly) when there is the realization, the bundle is me? We have removed altogether the 'separative' ( the dualistic approach to inner) action when I realize ( see the truth?) that I 'am' the bundle. Is there a (non-personal) observation of that bundle without the ( distorting interference of the?) 'observer'?
Now you say to me (take some quality time & ) observe that bundle. And all my cultural (baggage) , says : "Act upon it, change it, (transcend it?) or...just suppress it''. But you come along and say, "Look, you're living in a (self-created) illusion, the (truth of the matter is that that ?) bundle 'is' you." Right? Which means what? There is no 'observer' who says, "I am the bundle." Dr. Bohm, what do you say?

Q: I think that the ( thoughtful?) mind has a natural tendency to try to prepare the 'ground' first by saying that there is something different, that I'm not only the bundle but something more (than just 'me' & the 'bundle' of cultural prejudices ?). And that ('something more') is almost universal...

K: That's another trick.

Q: And therefore we prepare to 'bargain' whether there's something more, in which the 'observer' could retreat. So I think that this ( devious?) attempt of logic to make sure of the 'ground' beforehand is interfering with the ( non-dualistic ?) thing.

K: But would you agree, or see the logic of the sequence of this (direct, non-dualistic approach?) ?

Q: I think it's a 'peculiar' ( non-dualistic?) kind of logic that we are not used to, this is why it's ( looking) so difficult. In the ordinary logic, we 'think' and try to form a concept of the 'totality' ( of the 'fact' ) before we act. Now if you say 'who' is going to observe or 'what' is it going to observe, you put back the 'observer' in the place of whatever is beyond the 'bundle of prejudice'. So it's a peculiar kind of logic which is correct but it is not common. You (K) don't do that, but actually work from the 'statement of the fact' as you have perceived it. I don't know if I've made myself clear.

K: Yes, sir, it's clear to me, but I don't know about the others....

Q: We are not accustomed to this kind of ( experiential) logic because it's something in which the logic itself will change the ( fact's ) totality when you observe it. By 'staying with the fact' in the way you have put it, rather than going on to ask for 'what' is it that will observe, then a ( holistic) observation can take place which will change the structure in the very moment of observation.

Q(1) : Don't we then get confused by original question, which was "Can I be free from my prejudices?"

Q: That's the same question. Whenever you say, "Can I do this?" you are (implicitly) assuming that 'I' will continue through this whole ( dualistic mental) process and therefore that defeats the ( experiential purpose of the ) whole thing. We were listening lately to a tape of your discussion with the buddhists, where you say that you 'die' to that prejudice and therefore 'you' are not ( remaining) the same person any more.

K: Right, sir. Sir, so what do you say to all this?

Q (1) : I was going to ask : what does the 'bundle' require so as to observe itself? But I don't think that goes as far as what David Bohm says.

K: Yes. But I'm not saying the 'bundle' can observe itself. It can't. But what we are saying is that (a total insight into it can happen when) you have removed the 'observer'.

Q: Do you mean, sir, rather that the bundle 'discloses ( unfolds?) itself'?

K: No, sir, it has been ( verbally) 'disclosed' - you've explained it to me very, very carefully.

Q: ...but you're saying previously that by acting on it I thought I was changing everything, but actually it remains the same.

K: Same, yes.

Q: Now by removing the 'observer' , the bundle itself discloses it's own (hidden?) features.

K: No, something else takes place. I said that whole bundle 'is' you, your ( self-) consciousness is made up of that bundle. But if you 'see' (the fact of ) that, there is only the bundle, nothing else.

Q: Aren't we attempting to do the same thing again, which is instead of having two things, an 'observer' and a 'bundle', we now think we have only got one thing which is a 'bundle', but we are still stuck with the idea that the 'bundle' itself will act... ?

K: I wanted to find out ( experientially?) if I've reached that point, what 'happens'. We haven't reached it, but we're ( indulging in ) speculating about it. Is there an ( holistic) observation of this bundle without the observer? The observer is ( the impersonator of ) the ( bundle of) prejudice, so when he observes with prejudice, he still remains (stuck) with an (upgraded form of) prejudice
So I'm asking, do we all of us together here in this room now see this simple point together – that the 'bundle' (of racial & cultural prejudice ) 'is' me. The moment that is a fact, there is already transformation in the ( quality of the ) observing. It is a simple 'fact' that I am the observer, that I am the bundle and nothing else.

Q: But if the bundle observes itself, then the bundle disappears, surely.

K: That's what I want to come to. When there is no 'observer', what takes place? Have you come to the ( experiential check-) point that you 'are' the bundle, not that 'you' are observing the 'bundle' ? In that (dualistic) observation you have dissipated ( through various conflicts) energy - there is a wastage ( an inner fragmentation) of energy, which is says, "I'm acting upon it, I must do something about it, I must change it and do something else." And so on, which is an indication of wasting ( precious inner ressources of intelligent?) energy. Have you come to that point? Otherwise we can't talk any further.

Q: This whole 'bundle' is a theoretical concept for me - I can't grasp this bundle, it looks theoretical, I can't see it, touch it.

K: You want to 'grasp' it, but can't you 'see' the (inward) meaning of the word ('bundle of prejudice') ? The ( sad?) consequences of ( one's elitistic ) prejudice, can't you see it instantly?

Q: Is it the sum of my total 'likes and dislikes' and that's all, or is there something else?

K: You're made up of that, aren't you? Like and dislike - so that's part of your ( cultural) prejudice. I like this, I don't like that.

Q: Is there anything beside this, this bundle, besides this 'liking and disliking'?

K: The whole bundle includes my experience, my value judgements, my opinions, my desires, my longing for something better - all that is me.

Q: What about the ( earnest?) enquirer who is trying to find out (the ultimate truth of the matter ) ? Is that also a part of the bundle?

K: As I'm looking, searching, I discover I've got 'tons' of bundles of prejudices.

Q: But it can't be just another prejudice seeing that, because if it were prejudice realizing that, you wouldn't see that with total clarity. There has to be a 'something' else.

K: Somebody says, "How am I to get rid of my prejudices, so deeply rooted?" And I say, "Look, there's a way, if you 'listen' very carefully I'll show it to you." Will you kindly listen to what the other fellow is saying ?He says the bundle is no different from you. That's a fact.

Q: I think that people are puzzled by your saying this, and at the same time that when you 'see' this is prejudice you're not a 'bundle' (anymore) , you see ? This doesn't seem to be clear.

K: Of course.

Q: Is it that we are still hiding the subject of the verb, the 'I' now in the bundle, instead of having it separate from the bundle, we've now stuffed it into the bundle?

K: I 'am' the bundle.

Q: That's right, but is that correct?

K: Oh yes. Absolutely.

Q: The one is correct but in the seeing of that, it doesn't...

K: Not only in the seeing, the feeling of it, in my blood, in my guts I 'feel' it.

Q: If there is an 'I' tucked into the bundle - you haven't changed anything, have you? The perception of that ( surreptitious mental trick) changes the whole thing.

K: I have changed completely because I see the truth, that the observer 'is' the bundle.

Q: So ( inwardly) there's no longer a 'perceiver' nor the 'thing perceived'.

K: I've made that clear.

Q: So there is (pure ) perception and not 'who' sees it or who...

K: I said that, I said there is only the realization, the fact that I am the bundle.

Q: But is it not the root of the matter that if we perceive that we 'are' the bundle we don't want to disappear ( go down the drain along with it?) .

K: Yes, of course, that's the...

Q: But then...I don't want to disappear. (Laughter) I'm sorry to have to admit it.

K: Professor Wilkins said, ''I don't want to disappear''. That's probably what most of us do (actually think) . But the 'I' is the very centre of violence.
And I want to find out as a human being whether it is possible to live without ( any inner trace of) violence. And for me the fact is that I 'am' that. When there is the ''absolute realization of the truth of it'' (aka : a total insight?) , something totally different takes place (inwardly) . If you are interested we can pursue it. ( However?) we can only pursue it (experientially?) only if you have come to the ( «  observer 'is' the obseved » ) point.

Q: Sir, I am part of this society, whether in the politics, economics, so for more than 20 years I am trained up to see myself different from that bundle of incidents. So for more than 20 years I always try to change it, to modify it. I always try to do something because I see also it causes something that is not good for me or for others, so I always try to change it. And now I see that it is not different from me, so surely there is an action.

K: So what is the action?

Q: Because I am not different from that bundle and I 'am' that bundle, surely I am not going to do anything any more.

K: No, no. Something else takes place, ( but for the time being) you are now come to a state that you don't act at all. I said, when you come to that point and you realize the bundle 'is' you, there is a totally different ( intelligent & compassionate?) action that takes place. It's not 'my' action or 'your' action, it's ( a holistic) action which will be common to all of us.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 May 2018 #39
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


3RD K SEMINAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 1979 (reader friendly edited )

KRISHNAMURTI: Where did we leave off yesterday?

Q: We talked about the observer and what we called the bundle (of personal prejudice) . And the notion was raised that perhaps one was just placing the self into the bundle.

K: All the accumulated ( personal & collective ?) despairs, anxieties, grief, sorrow and violence, all this bundle is ( subliminally identifying itself as?) 'me', my ( self-) consciousness is that. And that consciousness is part of the ( whole consciousness of the?) world. So that consciousness 'is' the world. The next point was : do we observe that (psychologically active) 'bundle' as though we were different from that consciousness, and therefore we can operate on that consciousness, or that consciousness, which is also the ( personalised) expression of the (consciousness of the ) world 'is' me, and therefore there is no ( controlling?) 'observer' separate from that bundle which is the 'me'. Right? That's where we left off yesterday.
And probably in most of us, there is the 'suspicion' (the strong belief ?) that there is something (else in our consciousness?) beyond all this (active 'bundle' of personal & collective prejudice) . Right? That there is something ( of purely spiritual essence?) which is not contaminated (by the passage of time) . ( For instance) in the Christian world and perhaps in the eastern world, there is the (concept of the ) 'soul', something that is not touched by the corruption of society, corruption of thought, corruption of time. Right?

Q: You seem to be implying that there is some kind of individual, indivisible sort of state of inner peace ?

K: No.

Q: When you are saying that 'we are the ( consciousness of the ) world', it seems to me that there's no place for a sort of subjective state.

K: I agree with you, there is no private 'me' apart from the public 'me'. ( But ...?) I can deceive myself.

Q: Then, why are you talking about the 'soul' and that sort of stuff, which is nonsense ?

K: I'm talking about it because this is a prevalent idea. Is the whole of my consciousness corrupt, in the sense that there is no spot of clarity?

Q: We might as well all go home if that's the case.

K: Am I only the whole 'bundle' of this and nothing else? Is there in my (total) consciousness - of which I'm not aware, of which I'm not cognizant - is there in me an area ( of pure intelligence ?) that is not put together by thought ?

Q: Is that the question you are putting forth to us?

K: Yes, sir.

Q: Well, if there is such a thing beyond our cognisance, how would we 'know' that, I mean, how could we even answer that question?

K: There is this wide spread idea I am not all this corruption, this 'time' element, all the greed, envy, there is also something in me which is not that. This is the religious attitude.

Q: This has been said throughout the ages. And it must be today the only hope of mankind, if I can dare use that word 'hope'.

K: So if there is such a thing which is not touched by time, 'that' ( time-free intelligence?) given the opportunity may wipe out all this.

Q: Exactly. But... on the other hand, it might just be a wishful thought.

K: That's just it. So what do you consider (to be the ultimate truth?) ?

Q: Couldn't we consider our consciousness itself - without ( quibbling about its?) 'content' as the thinking process and so forth ? Is it worth looking at that area?

K: Do we know (this total) consciousness, with all its content, or only part of it, not the whole content? You understand my question? That is (content-wise?) 'my' consciousness is made up of all the traditions, superstitions, belief, illusions, suspicion, anxiety, and so on, put there by thought. Would you agree to this? Not 'agree', but see it ?

Q: I don't think I do agree with that, because for some time now I think I've had some kind of change, and I now see that there is no difference between what is going on inside me and the content of consciousness outside.

K: All right. I'm saying (the same thing : ) the world consciousness is my consciousness.

Q: Yes, but we seem to have an 'immediate' problem like a doctor who says there's no time for prophylactic medicine, you keep saying it's so urgent that one has to deal with this ( 'bundle') problem.

K: I'm not following (what is ) your point...

Q: We seem to have 'jumped', when you asked whether there ( something else in the human) consciousness apart from thought.

K: I only said that my consciousness (as it is now?) is 'made up' of all the things that thought has put together there - the racial prejudices, the beliefs, the ideals, anxieties, all that is the movement of thought, which includes the emotional content and all that, all that is the ( active) 'content' of my consciousness. Are we aware of (all) that (active or dormant content) or only of parts of it, depending on circumstances, incidents, happenings, pressures ? And if we are (totally) aware, is there in my consciousness an 'area' which is not put there by thought?
I'm asking this because this has been one of the ( major metaphysical ) questions which mankind has gone into and asserted and denied, that there is something which is not put there by thought. Please, this is not my opinion, this is what the world is thinking about.

Q: But surely this seems to be implying, that there is a soul, some sort of personal subjective experience, some private space.

K: No, they don't call it private, individual, they call it something, highest principle, eternal something or other.

Q: Isn't that the same thing?

K: So ( for our current purpose ? ) we can put that aside ?

Q: I don't think it is quite right to 'put it aside'...If one's putting aside the content of consciousness that's one thing, but the very immediacy of consciousness, which we cannot dismiss, which is our very being, is rather a different area (of consciousness?) . Are you suggesting that we should dismiss that as an area of investigation?

K: I'm sorry I brought this thing up, because you haven't gone into it (for homework so?) , let's drop it.

Q(1) : I think this gentleman is asking if there is anything (else) in our consciousness other than the 'content' ( gathered by thought )

Q( 1) We seem to be looking at 'things' that are away from oneself and not in one's 'immediacy of being' ; and it seems to me that this area ( of prejudiced content) that we are discussing is a sort of peripheral area whereas there is another mode, which is a mode of...

K: Sir, my consciousness 'is' (not separable from its?) its content. Right?

Q: I don't see it that way, sir. It seems to me that it is possible for consciousness to be without the thought processes.

K: Ah, I see...

Q: And I think there's a danger in dismissing one's own 'immediacy of being'. So even though we 'are' the world, there are gaps in the thought process, there are gaps even between the words, and if there is ( enough attention & ) care there isn't a complete continuity of that ( time-bound consciousness of the ?) world within us.

K: We haven't ( yet ?) gone into the continuity of that, sir. All that we have said so far is that the ( time-bound consciousness of the ?) world is not different from my consciousness. The 'me' is the ( mentally active?) 'bundle' of all my desires, depressions, anxieties, sorrow and so on (along with everbody else's desires...etc) . Now ( in the meditational context?) am I observing that 'bundle' as though the bundle is (apart from) me, as though I was outside of it, and therefore looking at it? If I do this ( dualistic 'faux-pas'?) then there is the ( time-binding) urge to 'act upon it', to control it or... suppress it. But the fact is that bundle 'is' (not separated from ) 'me', there is no (separated) observer (observing it ) . That's where we came to yesterday.

Q: And what is the 'action' from there?

K: Yes, that's it. Lliving in this world which is so destructive, disorderly, (violent?) and so on, what am I to do? To find out what is that ( all comprehensive ) action we have come to this point: that is, there is only the bundle and no (separate ) observer. But, have we really come to that point not as an (intellectual) conclusion, but as an actuality, as a thing that is happening. Now could we go on from there ?

Q: Now what are we going to do, if we have seen that?

K: We may have seen it as an idea, as a conclusion, which is different from (seeing) the actual fact, as an actual reality.

Q: Perhaps we could try to go on to the difference between the seeing it as an idea and actually seeing it as a fact, or as a (direct) experience ?

K: Yes. From the observation (we draw a ) conclusion which is an idea, or without (any) ideation observe ( what is going on ?) , and not come to a conclusion? So when we say ''the bundle is me'', is it an idea, or the actual realization that it is so? ( In a nutshell) all this comes to, is there an action without the 'actor'?

Q: Is there an actual contact with the fact as we have an eye contact with any material object ?

K: Let's bear in mind that the leading question is, "What am I to do in this world"? And that we are trying to find out what is the right action in this (world) And we are saying there is an ( actual possibility for the?) 'right action' when there is no ( self-separating) 'observer' ( Clue:) the 'observer' is put there ( mainly?) by ( our seriously flawed?) education. So as long as there is this division between the 'bundle' ( of personal & collective prejudices?) and its 'observer', there must be ( a degree of inner) conflict, and all that.
So, what happens when there is the (insightful) realization of the actual fact that I 'am' the bundle, when there is a direct ( non-verbal) relationship with the fact, that whatever 'I' do either creates more mischief, more misery more confusion ?

Q: It's a shock when one sees it.

K: Then what takes place? From there there is ( the actual opportunity of holistic) action. I could tell you what takes place but (for experiential purposes?) I don't want to...

Q: Sir, can we discuss this ( non-dualistic) state of mind in which this perception can take place, otherwise there's no point. It seems to me that there is a state of mind, a perception, which is not a struggle, which is not an effort, but personally it seems extraordinarily difficult to be in that state, in that position, in that place.

K: Sir, are you answering my question?

Q: I see that this violence which is going on throughout the world is me.

K: Is that an idea or a fact to you, like your breath?

Q: Yes, I feel it and I want to do something.

K: If 'you' want to do something, you've already separated (yourself) from the fact. You understand? I say (the right) action will come into being when there is complete contact with the fact. From that there is a different kind of action.

Q: ( But in the meanwhile?) there is shock and despair at seeing that there is nothing, with what I've got that I can do.

K: Now wait a minute. You're still concerned with the 'doing', I'm not.
I have started with the ( rhetorical?) question - ''What to do?'' - but I must also find out if there is an action which is absolutely without regrets & ( high hopes & ) all the rest of it. So I come to the point where I say 'I am the world'. Now am I absolutely in touch with the fact, or I'm just 'imagining' it, or is it an idea, or is it some hope, because I want to act properly." You follow, sir? So I'm not concerned for the moment with action.

Q: But we are very concerned to find the right action, that's part of the difficulty, we already want to act rightly before going through all the...

K: No I don't know what 'right' action is, I said that.

Q: Yes, but we assume there is a right action and we can move towards it.
There's really only the 'seeing', isn't there?

K: You can see visually, optically, but it may not ( necessarily) be a complete (insight ?) .

Q: But it's also a fact that anyone that I have relationship with insists that there is a 'me' too. And I have to relate to that fact. What is the response to that? Intelligence?

K: Sir, what do you mean something relates to me?

Q: Oh, the rest of the world. All the people which you're talking about, that are causing all the violence, including myself.

K: Sir, the world, with all the people in it, with all their mischief, with all their conceit, with all their vanity, with their etc. is part of me (of my total consciousness) .

Q: I mean, I know you are a different entity - you know, 'entity'.

K: You see, psychologically all human beings are similar. Modified perhaps by their culture, by environment, by the climate, but the 'core' of it is similar.

Q: Yes, but why is it similar? That's the question.

K: Why? Because 'we (the) human beings', who have lived for a million years, have not resolved this ( elementary) problem (of their psychological 'ego-centricity'?) and therefore the ( collective mentality of the ) world which they have created is ( now manifested as?) 'me'. Psychologically I'm not different from you.

Q: I mean, when inwardly I feel empty (lonely &) and all this stuff, someone else is feeling my emptiness ?

K: Sir, that's part of me. I'm also empty, as a human being. I also feel terribly lonely ( although... I don't personally) so, I'm saying as a human being concerned with the question which has been the subject of all of our discussions, what am I to do?

Q: Could I try to put it in slightly different words?

K: Yes, sir, delighted.

Q: What you are saying is that what is required is an 'intense realization' of the fact that each individual is an integral part of the whole human consciousness , of the whole human condition.

K: Right, sir.

Q: And that the differences which appear significant to us, are...

K: ...superficial, trivial. Now have you understood that, sir?

Q: Krishnaji, I feel this is the point where we always 'jump' and you are always ahead of us and we get lost, so I feel that we come to the point when we see the bundle of memory, of violence, greed and all the limitations, but it seems here that nothing really then is fully clarified. Is there a way of exploring that more totally than what we do (here verbally) , and when we try to see this is there some part of consciousness that 'slips through' our exploration?

K: I wonder, Mrs. Cadogan, if you heard what Professor Wilkins said. He said we are integral part of all humanity, though we think we are separate, we are really essentially...

Q: One sees that we are not separate, then one looks at this process of consciousness, just to understand it (more intimately )

K: What are you trying to tell me?

Q: Well, I feel we looked at this 'bundle' (of personal & collective prejudices ) so many times. You look at, you see the bundle, the bundle was the fear, the greed, the doubt, the fear, the pain. But that seems almost like the 'symptom' rather than the deeper 'fact', somehow. There seems to be a (deeper time-thought?) movement of consciousness which comes even before that and with which we don't quite 'get to grips' with, which is still causing the ( observer-observed) separation. Can we go into that any more ( deeply) with you? Will you help us?

K: I don't quite follow what Mrs. Cadogan is saying....

Q: I think what she was trying to say is that, we get always stuck at this one point but there is this bundle which is made up of suffering, pain, effort - is there a step which we are missing before that?

K: Is that it?

Q: Not quite. I feel that there seems to be something more vital that's not understood by us. But it's more vital than the pain or the symptoms which slips through, it slips through, it moves ( so fast) without us seeing what happens.

K: I think I understand what you're trying to say. Is there something more vital behind all these ( content related?) symptoms, behind all the sorrows, misery, blah, blah, blah. Is there something much more active than this?

Q: Yes, that escapes our awareness.

K: Yes, that escapes - at last we've got it. Some of you answer it, sirs.

Q: I think Mrs. Cadogan is where I am. When you were asking a few minutes ago ''Is it a fact that I feel that all this which is going on in the world is me or is it an idea?'' And to me Mrs. Cadogan feels that ( for us) it's just an idea, and she wants something in between which is going to bridge the gap between idea and fact.

K: Not quite that. As far as I understood what she meant was : apart from all the symptoms, greed, envy and so on, is there something much more vital, active that we are missing?

Q: In our own (group examination ) process.

K: Yes, in the process of examination and investigation, are we missing something which is much more, which is deep, which has great vitality, which will wipe away all this. More or less. Right? Have I got it?

Q: Yes, yes, I mean something ( deeper down) is not clear, you see, and one feels it so immediate, so vital each time, and it's - ''yes, you go on Krishnaji, you explore that area''.

K: May I put it differently. Is there a cause, a 'root' which is producing all this (psychological content?) . The branches are all this, anger, jealousy, blah and so on, the root is there, if one can touch the root, then the symptoms may disappear. Is that it? I've ( finally?) made the question clear for myself : If instead of always pruning the branches and cutting the flowers and leaves and so on, if we could go to the very root of it, the tree would wither away. Right?

Q: I thought she was also implying that there was something other than content that was part of this root.

K: The content, sir, are the leaves of the tree. Put it like that - the branches, the flowers, the fruit and all that, but the root, if we can touch the root and understand that, the symptoms and all that will disappear. That's what, if I understand rightly, that's what she's trying to convey. Is that right?

Q: The 'root' (process?) is what seems to elude out observation.

K: So Mrs. Cadogan's question is, instead of always talking about the branches and the leaves and the fruit thereof, go to the root of it. Right?

Q: Can we go to the root of it? Is there a root at all?

K: So to come back to Mrs. Cadogan's question : is there a (roor) cause which in our investigation we are missing? If we could go into that, then perhaps the symptoms may disappear - may, I don't say it does, or it will.

Q: The leaves & branches of this tree are all the things that thought has put together. And so lower down must be the (internal ) mechanics of thought.

K: Sir, what do you think is the cause of all this?

Q: I think it's our ( ego-centric) thinking process that has created all this.

K: What he's saying is, the root cause of all this is the whole process of thinking. Thought is the root of it. Thought being born of ( outward) knowledge, and this knowledge implies (inner) ignorance. Knowledge and ignorance go together. There is no complete knowledge.

Q(1) : Can I try to clarify Mary's question, are you talking about the roots of violence, or the roots of our being?

Q: I was trying to talk about the part that slips through our awareness, almost a movement that comes. We can see our greed, our nationalism, that's easy. And we're not necessarily trapped obviously in that, but there is still something which moves too fast or too something for our awareness. And I wondered if Krishnaji could somehow (throw some light on this)

K: Let's do it slowly. Are you saying, we've always talked about the symptoms, the branches, but we have never gone down deeply, to see what is the origin of all this ?

Q: Or that thing moves so fast...

Q(1) : We're looking for something deeper then, as a cause of all this human trouble, deeper than thinking, is that it?

Q :Is there some primal cause before thinking?

K: Yes. Right?

Q(1) : I get the feeling that the way the discussion's going that we always get trapped in the new words, we use some words which seem to be helpful up to a point, a metaphor, I mean we had the metaphor of contacting the thing itself, and we could get into that in a way. And then we seem to come up against a block and we feel that there must be something else beyond that, we are not 'getting through' to the thing itself. And so we come up with a new image, with a new word which seems helpful...

Q: To me this is something which has been there a long time in my life.

K: But Mrs. Cadogan, what is right action? Confronted with this world, what am I to do - that's how we started. Will the answer cover your question?

Q: You said, what is right action, what is right action - for me the only right action seems to be to explore this unresolved part of my consciousness, obviously there is still something which I have not understood, which is the key to going into all the things we are going into.

K: How do you explore the deep, hidden consciousness? You follow? I'm pursuing the deep, hidden consciousness may be the root. You understand? How is the conscious mind, the mind that thinks, the mind that has knowledge, the mind that is caught in various illusions, going to investigate something which is totally hidden?
The analysts have said 'analyse', or it will reveal through dreams, through sleep. Or it will reveal itself through meditation. I'm proposing various systems which man has put together to find the deep hidden cause. Right? Now, we deny 'analysis', obviously. The other is dreams : you have a dream and the interpretation is going on at the same time. And when you wake up, it may (or not) not be true. Right?
So we're thrown back to one thing, 'meditation'. Now that covers a large field, which requires the conscious mind being absolutely quiet. Then in that quietude things may be revealed, the root cause.
So how shall we do this (for homework?) Will you 'meditate' - I mean this seriously - to see that your conscious mind, the thinking mind, stops completely ? Then there is a possibility of the deep, hidden activity surfacing ( exposing?) itself. Right? A possibility.
Or, instead of going through all these (time-binding) methods, is it possible to see the ( truth of this?) whole thing instantly? You follow? The cause, the symptoms, the activities of the symptoms, the totality of the thing, seeing it immediately.

Q: The whole.

K: The whole works. I say it is possible only when all the (superficial) symptoms have 'subsided'.

Q: Sir, for me that's way too fast.

K: I know, I'm answering her question quickly.

Q: Because the way I hear that, we are saying that if we see the whole thing, the root and all the branches and all of it...

K: Is that possible, first ?

Q: But Mary was saying that it is not possible because that root exists (or is active?) That's what blocks the perception of the whole thing.

K: That's what she means, too . Say, it is possible. I mean ( having a total insight of ) the whole, the root, the branches, the whole of it, to 'see' it. It's not ( necessarily ?) a miracle ...
( To recap:) I am left after three days of discussions (at the critical point where ) I don't know what to do. Right? But let's be clear : when there is the realization that I'm the integral part of the whole of ( consciousness of) humanity - what it does? What has taken place (inwardly) when there is the realization of this enormous fact ? What takes place when the mind realizes that it is part of all humanity.

Q: There is no more (emphasis on its) self-centredness ?

K: No, no. What takes place?

Q: It must be compassion ?

K: Look, why haven't you come to that point, that's what I'm asking.

Q: Because the sense of ( self-) separation is still operating in us.

K: So all these three mornings are wasted because we're still living at the verbal level.

Q: Yes...

K: So, are you really in contact with that truth that you are the integral part of this whole, vast, decaying (old consciousness of?) humanity?
I say that if you realize that, there comes quite a different (compassionate consciousness ?) state, from that there is ( right) action.
Sir, what is ( the holistic action born of Compassion &?) Love? Doesn't this happen when you're really in contact with that fact that you 'are' humanity? Gosh, something happens to you, doesn't it?

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 15 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 May 2018 #40
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


 4TH K SEMINAR 1979 (reader friendly edited )

KRISHNAMURTI: When we discover the truth that we are integral part of this enormous ( consciousness of?) humanity, what place has the individualistic (mentality ?) . Or there is no such 'individuality' at all ? It's up to you to discuss.

QUESTIONER: ( You were suggesting that when ?) ''The world is us and we are the world'' is no longer an idea, the full realisation of this 'fact' brings a totally different kind of action.

K: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, I don't know what that 'action' is. It certainly implies no further contributing to the disorder and the violence that is going on in society. But where does our individuality comes in there ?

K: Sir, first, that's why I want to go into the question of 'individuality', if there is such a thing at all. You may think that your ( egocentric?) individuality is very important, so it's very difficult to break through the ( invisible?) wall of your 'individuality'. But when I see the ( inward truth of the?) fact that I am part of the ( total consciousness of the?) world, what is the quality of a mind that has seen this fact that is an integral part of that vast mankind? What is taking place in your mind – in your emotions, your sensitivity, your quality of your senses, feelings, affection, the capacity to think clearly, all that. ( However?) is ( the self-centred process of ?) thought that realizes "I'm the whole, part of the whole" or our whole consciousness, which is the 'mind' sees (it directly?) and completely comes to the truth that it 'is' the rest of the world. So, I'm asking, what is the ( holistic) quality of this mind?

Q: Sir, we might not be able to answer your question, because that action, that ( holistic) perception is something that is unfamiliar to us.

K: That means we have to go back ( to square one?) and go over all the...

Q: Not necessarily, because we can go ( with you) most of the way, but that last action that 'sees the whole' is something that is new to us, is something that...

K: I'm not saying that it 'sees the whole' (yet?) , but that it has realized that it is not separate from the rest of mankind.

Q: I have an individuality related issue here : suppose that you are conditioned into having some 'private space' – mentally- and how is one not to respond 'neurotically' if one has no such privacy, for instance, even now.

K: I don't catch your meaning, sir.

Q (1) : I think, he's saying that there is a (certain incongruity ) between seeing that your consciousness is the same as the consciousness of mankind and the fact that you don't have a private (inner) space, or you don't have a private life.

K: Is that it?

Q: Well, that's not only it, but the number of people who've actually done what you're saying is very few. I'm not saying that...

K: Don't bother about the few or the many, sir, but what is the quality of your mind, your mind, after examining all this (holistic propostion?) that ( inwardly or?) 'psychologically' we are (exactly like?) the rest of mankind. Right? That's obvious (when looked at 'non-personally'?) isn't it? What you go through, (inwardly) your sorrows, your pleasures, your anxieties, the rest of the world goes through that (in so many ways?) . Basically, psychologically, we are ( sharing all the 'psychological' problems of ) the rest of mankind. Have you accepted that?

Q: Yes, I accept that.

K: As an idea or an actual living fact? Is it ( seen as) a 'living fact' or just a concept which you have gathered ( subliminally?) from the rest of us?

Q: How is one to tell the difference?

K: Oh yes, that's fairly simple - is there a seeing of that fact with all your being?

Q: But he's saying he doesn't know how to tell the difference between the two.

K: Between the illusion and the fact? 'Fact' is something that is actually happening. Right? And illusion, is what I conceive or my opinion of what is happening. I am feeling 'unhappy', or greedy, anxious, frightened - that is the actual fact. Right? And I can say that somebody will save me from this is an illusion (the result of my 'wishful thinking'?)

Q: Yes.

K: Now from there we can move (on) . The 'world outside' is put together by me (and/or) by my parents, (and/or the countless ?) generations past. Right? That's a fact.

Q: It's easy to see that one has suffering, pain, within oneself. But it's not so easy to see it in the others

K: Your neighbour is not suffering? That your wife doesn't go through hell?

Q: I haven't got a wife, but it does look to me as though some people are happy.

K: Now wait a minute. The world, which is violent, which is all that, I am also like that. Right? So I 'am' the world, ( and holistically speaking?) that's a 'fact'.

Q: No, it's not - you've jumped. There is disorder outside, there is disorder inside, but it doesn't follow logically that the disorder inside myself is anything to do with the disorder outside.

K: Sir, your neighbour is like you, 'psychologically' : he suffers, you suffer. He's anxious, you are also. We've been through all this. So you are your neighbour.

Q: Sir, it's one thing to say that you 'are like your neighbour', because he suffers and you suffer. But when you're saying, 'you are your neighbour', obviously one is not - we share certain things psychologically, but to say that you 'are that' I think may be...

K: Psychologically (consciousness-wise?) I am my neighbour.

Q: I am 'like' my neighbour, I may share all kinds of (psychological) things with my neighbour.

K: All right, I share the same thing. You see, we use different words but the ( gist of the?) 'fact' is that.

Q: One may feel that I share some things with my neighbour, but there may be some other things I don't share that ( for myself) may seem more important. For example, if one believes in ( one's spiritual) individuality, one would feel, it's true I suffer but my individuality, which is more important, is not shared with my neighbour.

K: Of course, that's just it. You see, I don't...

Q: Sir, have you an objective in being here this morning? A motive.

K: A motive? Haven't you a motive for being here?

Q: I think so, yes.

K: Then why do you ask me?

Q: It seems to me from your reactions that...

K: Sir, why do you bring that up, when that poor gentleman says I don't know what you're talking about.

Q: Because the turmoil in this room is affecting me, and I think to some extent you're perpetuating it.

K: I'm answering his question (holistically?) , I'm not perpetuating the turmoil.

Q: Probably you are stirring up the turmoil, because you're trying to bring to our attention the (inner) nature of the turmoil ?

K: Yes, sir. That doesn't mean I'm in turmoil.

Q: If we examine it more carefully, isn't that our difficulty (in communicating with each other?) : to 'accept' (the verbal description) of something is one thing, but in order to examine it carefully is (requires a very different approach ?) I'm just saying that in order to see it as a fact, I have to go into it very carefully.

K: We have been - three mornings we've been into it, very, very carefully.

Q: Yes, but... each individual has to go into it very carefully.

K: I thought ( assumed that ?) we were doing it, each one of us, as we went along, step by step.

Q: But it seems that isn't the case.

K: Then what am I to do? Go all over it again ?

Q:About distinguishing between an illusion and a fact, all illusion is created by thought, then it is clear that the only way to distinguish between illusion and fact is to go beyond thought to some other form of apprehension which does not involve thought.

K: Is that clear, so far? Professor Wilkins is saying that any form, any movement of thought, anything that thought has created as an idea, as a concept, a conclusion, (or may?) be an illusion. Only that which is happening without the interference of thought and the observation of it, is fact.

Q: You don't mean that thought always creates illusion.

K: No, of course I don't, of course.

Q: But all (our psychologically related?) illusions are created by thought.

K: I took the ( generic) example that I suffer and I as a Christian believer who has always accepted Jesus as 'the' Saviour, I leave all my ( burden of personal ) suffering to Him (in the hope that ) somehow He will save me from (all my) suffering. That is an illusion. The 'fact' is I'm suffering, that's all I'm saying.
Now have we come to the point that we have found an answer to what is one to do in a world that is ( getting?) insane. Have we found the (holistic) answer to the question, "What am I to do, what is the right action in this world?"
We have so far acted as ( self-centred) 'individuals', and as (such) we are trying to find what is right action. And the speaker says you can never do that, because the 'individual' (consciousness ) is a fragment of the whole (consciousness of mankind?) . And whenever this fragmentary consciousness acts independently, whatever its actions be, they'll be fragmented, incomplete. That's all we've said, that ( such self-centred) action do must be either destructive, pleasurable, violent and so on. It is a fragment that's acting and therefore it must create (or just perpetuate the existing ?) division, conflict and so on. So acting as a 'self-centred' human being, that's not right (a holistic ) action.
Therefore what is right action? I don't know. But I know this (egocentric approach to the everyday action ) is 'wrong', please understand it quickly. Am I different from the rest of the world? Basically, at the root, am I different from the rest of mankind? I find I'm not, psychologically.
So when I realize that psychologically I 'am' the rest of mankind, then (the emphasis on?) my individuality has disappeared. That's what I want to find out.

Q: Sir, aren't you talking of the 'illusion of individuality'?

K: Yes, sir, and we've said that (illusion ) is gone.

Q: So it's possible...

K: Is that so with you? Or am I just talking to myself?

Q: I think you are talking to yourself...

K: Sir, the individual(istic) action which the world is doing - each one acting for himself. His own security, his own pleasure, pursuing his own experiences, his own little family, you follow? - all that, every human being is doing that. That's a fact. And that has produced chaos in the world.

Q: Exactly.

K: Right? Division, and where there is division there must be conflict. So any action as a (self-centred) individual is not productive of peace, of real security for mankind. Right? So I discard ( this way of action?) , not as an idea but as a fact, I am not an individual.

Q: This is where the difficulty is, it doesn't follow logically from the fact that working as an (self-centred) individual has a destructive result, it does not follow that I have power to discard the ( illusory sense of my ) 'individuality'. This is where the question is.

K: Not if I perceive the ( holistic?) truth that I am part an integral part of the whole, ( providing that?) I see this as a fact, not as an idea.

Q: It's a delusion to think that you are an ( isolated) individual (consciousness?) , that's what you are saying ?

K: Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Q: But it's also an illusion to identify with (the concept ) that 'I am the world', because that leads to all sorts of tortuous things and sends me to mental hospital and God knows what, as a result of making an (identitary ) mistake. The thing is, I don't want to make a mistake.
K: Sir, look at it the other way. You think you're an ( self-isolated) individual and you are acting as an 'individual'. Right? Each human being is acting separately. Right?

Q: Well in my present situation I find that I can't even act as an 'individual' because there's so much violence in the world, it's not possible to function hardly (as such) .

Q(1) : Sir, isn't there some confusion which we should sort out : we can all see that you're talking about the illusion (of one's self-centred ' individuality' ), and being ( a truly integrated ) individual ?

K: The word 'individual' means indivisible, obviously. But we are divided, we are (inwardly) 'broken' up, we are contradictory in ourselves. We are not 'individuals' in the ordinary dictionary meaning. We ( like to?) think we are individuals. And I am saying that the very thinking that you are ( an isolated) individual, acting separately etc., etc. is an illusion.

Q: Exactly.

K: I know this is very difficult to realize, because we are so stuck in this (individualistic mentality) .

Q: The other day Professor Wilkins said that we just don't want to 'disappear'.

K: That's right. We like ( to rely on ) this 'idea' of individuality which is an illusion, and we hold onto it. I've accepted (the individualistic mentality ) for generations, everyone around me says, "You're an individual, you must be ambitious, you must fulfil, you are separate.'' It has become part of our whole structure of thinking, part of our nature to say, "I am an individual." And somebody comes along and says, "Look at it, you are an illusion." I say, "Nonsense." So he says, "Just, before you call it nonsense, examine it, look at it." But I'm unwilling to look. Therefore there is no ( deeper ) communication.

Q: I'm trying to look at it.

K: Wait, therefore you are willing to listen to. You're willing to listen. Therefore we're beginning to establish a communication between you and me. And the 'speaker' ( K) says to you, since individual action throughout the world has produced such chaos in the world is there a (different way of) action which is not 'individualistic'? That's all.

Q: Well obviously there is. Are you suggesting that there is some kind of (acting ) intelligence that one is in touch with other people, and therefore not selfish, or self-centred...

K: I can only find out if I am not living in an (self-protecting inner) illusion. If I am living an illusion, any amount of your telling me ''there is something greater or wider'', I reject, because ( my psychological attachment to ) the illusion (of my individuality?) is stronger than the ( truth of the ) fact.
So have you, gone into this sufficiently (deeply) and say, "Yes, I see for myself very clearly that my 'individualistic' (mentality?) is an illusion."
My God, to see (the liberating truth of ?) that, sir, when all the world round you is saying you're ( supposed to be self-centred & culturally standardised ? ) individual, that means you're going against the current of the world, and nobody ( seems to ) want to stand against the current - right?
So ( in a nutshell) If you want to find out what is the 'right' (or holistic ?) action, the 'individualistic' illusion' must come to an end. That's the first thing (to do ) if we are ( feeling responsible for ) the world.

Q: I think ( the feeling of our individuality ) is not merely due to the pressure of outside circumstances but also there seems to be the direct ( 'gut'?) feeling of the reality that you are an individual. It seems that is your experience of individuality...

K: Yes, sir.

Q: It's no good if other people tell you about it.

K: Yes.

Q: So, how will one see that this ( very intimate) experience is an illusion?

K: I (may ) agree logically to everything that you (K) are saying. But inwardly ( one's attachment to ? ) this thing is so strong that I won't let go.

Q: But I'm also convinced that it's 'real', you see - that's one reason that I don't want to let go.

K: For the majority of people here (at Brockwood?) that's our position. I've lived 40, 50, 80 or 20 years as a (+/- happy?) 'individual', my pleasures, my fears, my possession, my etc., are so embedded in 'me' (in my self-centred consciousness?) that I ( unconsciously?) refuse to 'listen' to you. Or I may ( try very hard to?) listen, but say, " I don't understand what you're talking about."

Q: I suppose one might say that something which is 'real' is essentially non-contradictory and makes sense, and if one can draw people's attention to the fact that regarding oneself as an (ego-centric?) 'individual' is filled with contradictions...

K: Yes, sir, we've said that umpteen times. My question then is, (if one has gone so far ?) "What am I to do?" Is there an action which is not born out of the idea or the illusion that I am an (isolated?) 'individual'? That is really the ( experiential) question... if we want to face it.

Q: From what you've said about people in this room, working together and sharing communal enquiry, then presumably this goes beyond the ( good willed conscious ) action of the individual.

K: Yes, sir. You see, we're not really 'thinking together' about this, are we ?

Q: So far as we are concerned, is there the possibility of an action that can take place, when a sense of separateness is not operating ? All our enquiry has been into the nature of what we regard as ( our individualistic ) separateness.

K: Sir, we've come to the crossroads. Either you accept ( the illusion of a separate?) individuality and go on, or you say, "Let us look in another direction."

Q: Yes...

K: But ( to be free to ) to look in another direction you must put that ( self-centred individualistic?) aside for the time being.

Q: I see that, yes.

K: All right. As I said we've come to a ( major existential) 'cross-road', either you see that ( the strong illusion of our separate ?) 'individuality' brings about conflict, all that, and therefore you say, "Look, I turn my back on it and let's look in another direction."
Are we now looking in another direction? If we are, then I'm saying, we have to go into the question whether my consciousness has lost its sense of separateness? Because ( it is this sense of?) separateness that brings conflict, inevitably. The 'Arab', the 'Jew' and all that (self-righteous attitude?) is invariably bringing conflict.
Now, when we 'look in another direction' am I really in contact with that absolute (holistic) fact that ''I am the world''? If I am, then what is the quality of my ( thinking & feeling ?) mind, from which action invariably comes?

Q: Surely something will happen that is also...

K: That's why I'm asking : after talking for four days, what has happened to your mind?

Q: Krishnaji, it seems that fear seems to dissolve.

K: If there is no fear - wait - then what is the nature of your mind?

Q: Inner peace. And less ( personal) problems, certainly, because no separation.

K: Surely there's something else going on - examine it a little more closely. That is, 'individuality' has lost its meaning to me, personally. And I realize that I am part of this whole ( Consciousness of ) Mankind, I realize it, it means something tremendous, not just words, something enormous has taken place ( responsibility-wise?)
But...have I lost the ( karmic ?) memory of my ( egocentric ?) 'individuality' with its ( personal) experiences, with its sorrows, with etc. etc?

Q: What do you mean by 'losing the memory' of it?

K: The remembrance of my sorrow.

Q: You mean that it's no longer active ?

K: No, no remembrance.

Q: How can you have no (more personal?) remembrance?

K: I'm going to show you, Maria (Z) : I have collected during 84 years of my life, as an 'individual', lots of ( personal ) memories of (good & bad?) experiences. Memories of sorrow, memories of happiness, as an individual. It is all ( embedded ) there, in ( the background of ) my consciousness.
Now when there is the realization of the truth - I'm using the word 'truth' in its right sense of the 'absolute truth' - that ( my presumed?) 'individuality' is just an illusion, with that realization, is there a loss of all the (personal ?) memories which I have collected during the 80 years? Are you still ( subliminally ) carrying the memories your past, all that, in your mind? Yes, sir, this is a real question . That is, the (lingering ) memories of my sorrow, the memories of being hurt as an individual – all the remembrance of it, is ( lingering?) in my brain cells. So, when I see that ( the self-isolating?) individuality is nonsense, have also I lost the memory of the ( past sorrows & ) hurts?

Q: I think that if this ('fake individuality' ?) is actually a (self-sustained?) 'illusion', what one remembers (as related to it) is an illusion, when the illusion is dispelled, the ( illusion related ) memory must go. We can't remember an illusion, because it is nothing. It's like waking from a dream, you're not ( personally caught in it?) you know, the thing is dispelled.

Q(1) : But you may still remember the dream.

Q: If you do, then you're not free of the dream, you see, that if you remember the experiencing of pain, in the illusion, then it's still the illusion.

Q(1) : It's of the past, it's not the present. The present has nothing to do with memory, remembering...

K: Maria, may I say something - have you heard my question? Have you investigated the question which I have put, or are you reacting to the question and asking out of that reaction. Go slowly, Maria, find out first. I put the question to myself, perhaps you will see it. As an 'individual' I may remember ( or... 'not forget completely '?) certain incidents which have caused me pain, along with all the circumstances involved in that particular incident.
And, as an (isolated) 'individual', those rememberances are still ( recycled ?) there, circulating. If I drop ( the very realistic illusion of ) my 'individuality', will the ( related) memories still remain ?

Q: You used the word 'circulate.' So, there are memories that are factually recorded in the brain...

K: I remember how and where it happened ten years or whatever time, I can see the whole thing, but the 'memory of my pain', that's what I'm talking about, the (psychically -related?) memory of that pain has gone.

Q(1) : Sir, could you use the word 'imprint' when talking about pain?

K: Imprint. Answer Mrs. Zimbalist, Sir.

Q(1) : It's possible, that one would remember the circumstances and perhaps remember the figures, in the sense that perhaps if they were in a movie or something like that, but there would be no ( personal ) 'imprint' inside.

Q: To me there is a distinction between an 'absolute memory' that is affecting my reactions, my life, my, whatever I am. The other (psychological memory) is something that happened (in the past and ) that has no meaning for me any more but I can remember it as a fact. I'm trying to find out, when you say, be without memory...

K: Could you put it this way : you're (emotionally) attached to somebody. And you see the whole (tail?) 'business' of attachment, what is involved, the whole structure, nature of it, the consequences of it. And you 'end' it. Right?

Q: Yes.

K: Then what happens? The person (to which you were attached) is there, the furniture is there or whatever you are attached to. But what has happened?

Q: There is no longer any ( personal) attachment.

K: That's all. What has taken place in the mind which is no longer 'attached to' ?
Q: Are you saying that there is a new mind?

K: Sir, I don't want to suggest a 'new mind'. I just want to see, if you have been attached to something, to a belief, to a person, to a piece of furniture, and you are no longer attached, completely, what has happened?

Q: Sort of sense of falling away. There's been a change...

K: Which means what? Have you also lost the memory ( of yourself ) having been attached? All the consequence, all that, when you drop completely (that emotional) attachment? Go ahead,

Q: Could you say it is like a wound healing without a scar?

K: I'm using the word ( 'personal) memory', purposely, because that is what is keeping me attached. This is an important (experiential check point?) , because if one has done this, what takes place?
( Here's the clue) When I was attached the whole (brain) 'mechanism of registration' was taking place. Right? Now when I am not attached, absolutely, the 'mechanism of registration' ( -and - recollection?) has stopped. If it has not, the attachment is still going on, in a different form (to a new 'loved one'?)

Q: We're talking about the emotional registration, we're not talking about recording in the same way that...

K: So, when the mind is free from that ( psyche-related ?) attachment, has the recording then been wiped out? That's my point.

Q: Of what? What recording?

K: All the ( ego-related?) memories. All the ( personal) incidents.

Q: Well just now you said it's the recorded memory a person, or a place, or of the circumstances, but you're no longer (personally involved in?) that, you're not, none of that is operating in you.

K: But I am not attached to you. Sorry for being personal : I'm not attached to anybody - forgive me. I'm not attached to you. I know you, you are there, you do all kinds of things. The mechanism of the whole process of attachment has completely come to an end. But you are there.

Q: OK, that I do understand, that attachment is not going on, but what about the memory of the attachments of the past, it's not going on, it's not still lingering in me...

K: It is not there. There is no ( attachment related?) memory, I'm telling you.

Q: What is the difficulty in understanding this?

K: Sir, this is one of the most difficult ( karmic burden?) - if you say, what is the difficulty, it's simple - it's not.

Q: I think the difficulty is with me. You say the memory is different from forgetting.

K: Forgetting is something else and having 'no (psyche-related?) memory' is something else.

Q: All right.

K: This is enough.

Q: Somebody called me 'stupid' yesterday but I don't remember the feeling that arose or the hurt any more, it's gone. Is that what you're saying?

K: Something like that.

Q: So there is no real 'memory of the feeling' you had. So the emotional contents are gone.

K: That's right, that's right, sir. If I wipe out that (psychological mechanism of) hurt completely, therefore in that wiping away, cleansing, there is no (more memory or) feeling of ever having been hurt. There is no feeling ever of being hurt. You cannot remember or recollect what was the state of the mind or feeling, when it was hurt. Is that explained somewhat?
Now, come back. As a (fake?) 'individual', 'I' remember certain ( real personal) incidents which have caused me pain or pleasure, or whatever it was. And with the cessation of that ( fake ) 'individuality' as an illusion, absolutely, then what is the quality of the mind which has remembered, recollected? I say it has ( become 'innocent'?)
Now what is my action, what am I to do in this world - I'm talking about myself, I've lost my individuality, I'm no longer separate, fighting for myself, struggling, conflict, all that. Then what is the nature ( quality?) of my mind which sees that I am part of the whole? The realization that I am the (Consciousness of the?) entire mankind.

Q: One feels a total responsibility.

K: Responsibility. Madam, do you feel that, or it's just a lot of words ?

Q: No, I feel that.

K: How do you act from that responsibility? What is your action?

Q: An action of great care, great attention ?

K: Yes. So, how will you meet (my) challenge : what are you to do in this world, if you have put away your little 'individuality' which ( spiritually-wise?) means nothing.

Q: I think that the only thing you can be done after your question is ( remaining) silent.

K: After four days, you're just 'silent' at the end of it?

Q: Exactly, I am, completely.

K: What is the action that is born out of that?

Q: Love?

K: Could I put the question differently. Is my ( fake?) 'individuality' dead? It cannot be resurrected, it cannot be called back, it is dead. Then what is my action? The mind is not recollecting, remembering the individual, feeling separate. Therefore what is its action when it is dead to (its illusory) separateness?

Q: Somebody said 'love' and you said, no .

K: I said 'no' because 'love' is one of the easiest words that we all use.

Q: But he's right.

K: He's perfectly right, but I just wondered if it is a reality or just a word.

Q: If one has lost one's individuality, sense of separateness, one is a whole being.

K: You understand, sir, if you feel you are the rest of mankind it's a tremendous realization. From that there is ( the holistic way of?) action. Perhaps we'll go into it tomorrow, from that point, if we may.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 17 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 May 2018 #41
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


5TH K SEMINAR MEETING cca 1979 ( reader-friendly edited)

KRISHNAMURTI: We will go on (deeper?) with what we were talking about yesterday : that the 'individual' action, as we have been indulging in, has not brought about peace to mankind, has brought about innumerable problems, conflicts & divisions – and if one sees that the 'individual' ( the 'particular' self-centred consciousness?) is an illusion, actually faces it as a 'fact', then what is the quality of a mind that has lost completely all it's ( false?) 'individuality'. And we said, too, yesterday, when the whole concept of the ( self-centred) 'individual' comes to an end, the (psychological) memory of all the incidents of his 'individuality' also come to an end. Is it possible, say for example, the 'individual' gets hurt, which we all know, and when that 'individuality' comes to an end, is there even a memory, a scar of that hurt? . Or if there is a (personal) attachment as an individual for another individual, or for an object, or for an idea(l) , and there is the ending of that attachment - is there any ( personal) recording ( left of) of that attachment? I think it is important to find this out, for it may lead us to some other quality of an (innocent) mind that is whole, not fragmented. Can the (self-conscious?) individual, or the separate thought that has created this individuality, can it love? Because by its very nature and structure, it is separate, at least it thinks it is separate, and it wants to be separate. And when that exclusive division exists, can that individual ever know what love is? Can there be love when there is the essence of (self-) separateness involved in it.

Q: Isn't it that our separateness prevents real understanding of the 'other'?

K: We were asking : when there is the ( profound?) realisation that ''I am the world and the world is me'' ( one's self-centred?) 'individuality' has come to an end. Is that so, or is it just a lot of words which we have bandied ( casually talked ?) about?

Q: I don't know if I have the (necessary) mental apparatus to understand whether one can 'die' to one's (self-centred) 'individuality'.

K: Yes - have you?

Q: I doubt it...

K: So it means that you haven't really investigated (for homework?) your relationship to the world and the world's relationship to you. You haven't really gone into it.

Q: I have tried to go into it, but there's been some kind of 'block' that has prevented me from...

K: All right - what is the block? Is it our 'unwillingness', is it the fear (of not being?) , is it the sense of solitude, a ( subliminal?) sense of (attachment to the safety found in?) isolating yourself and so on ? All of them or just one?

Q: Perhaps all the above , yes.

K: Then let's examine all of them.

Q: But even if we try to examine all of them, we're back in the immediate (self-protective) blocks (of self- consciousness) . Will a (holistic examination?) free the mind of blocks?

K: Yes, ( hopefully?) the 'blocks' will disappear if you look at them very carefully - is it fear, fear of what? If I lose my ( sellf-centred) 'individuality', what am I? Except my profession, my career, my particular idiosyncrasies what am I? So I am afraid of being (as?) nothing, of being 'empty' in the sense that (the temporal) 'individuality' has filled itself with a lot of things, possessions, attachments, so many things. And when that 'individuality' comes to an end, there is the (abyssmal ?) fear of what might happen to you if you lose ( let go the 'known' ?) Now, have you come to that ( experiential check-) point?

Q: No, I haven't come to that point.

K: So, this (abyssmal) fear (of the unknown?) is a (major) block. I'm afraid that if I lose my (isolate?) 'individuality' I face a feeling of ''nothingness'', of not being. Is that it?

Q: Krishnaji, it seems to me that we are trying to look at something new and unknown with the old tools, the thought process, and that's why we keep coming to this point. How can I see this with the thought process?

K: But we are understanding fear, you understand?

Q: But how can you ( holistically) understand fear with all the continuation of the thought process? How can you understand it?

K: All right, then attack it differently.

Q: You asked us yesterday and again this morning, what is the state of the mind that has seen as a fact the ending of ( this self-isolating?) 'individuality'. What I want to know is, what is the state of the mind that can perceive directly this fact. We haven't come to that.

K: What is the state of the mind that can perceive the fact that ( our time-bound ? ) 'individuality' is an illusion? Go on, sirs. I've got it.
First of all, we have seem the activities of this (fake?) 'individuality', where it has led us, humanity, human beings, individual as well as collective - we have explained that verbally, an ( holistically friendly?) explanation through words which we both understand, and in the process of explanation your mind is following the consequences very carefully, without any effort, like water flowing. So when you are doing that, what is taking place in the ('listening' ) mind? What is the quality of my mind when you have shown me the picture, the map, very clearly, and I've been watching it? What has happened to my mind?

Q: It is very passive and watchful.

K: All right. Watchful without any effort. Now go slowly - understand this. Before you have made a ( mental) effort, struggled to find out, analyse, you follow? - you made great effort. Here you are not making any effort at all. Right? So what has taken place in the mind?

Q: I would say that the two minds in a sense become one, if you are 'tuned in' on the same wavelength.

K: Yes. So what has happened?

Q: Do you mean conflict has gone away?

K: It's very simple if you look at it. Before conflict, now no conflict. So the mind is in a state of not having any (inner) conflict. Right? Because it has seen ( this point) therefore it is intelligent. This is ( the new tool of ?) intelligence. So we are looking at the 'blocks'. One may be the block of fear. Now examine it with the same way, without effort, look at the whole (subliminal activity of that?) fear, and its the consequences. Now as you watch it, what is operating? The 'intelligence' that was not functioning when you were making conflict, now that intelligence is functioning. Right? So the fear is no longer there. I wonder if you get all this.

Q: An (inward) observation without the (interference of the ) 'observer' ?

K: Yes - but see the ( qualitative ) difference of a mind that before was making a (great) effort (to understand?) and a mind that is observing the 'flowing of the water' without effort. Right? Then the block has gone (down the drain?)

Q: I see that very clearly but somehow, the block is coming back.

K: All right, let it come back again, but watch it (non-personally ?) without making an effort. You get it?

Q: So that's what is needed before one can reach the threshold of making that other step?

K: There is no 'other step'. Sir, I have made an effort, my mind has made effort to get rid of this block, which is fear. And it has struggled, it has analysed, it has been to a psychotherapist and so on. It has made tremendous effort. Now somebody comes along, you come along and say, "Don't do that, just 'watch' it (non-personally?) ." Right? So there is a vast ( qualitative) difference between the mind that made an effort and the mind which is not making an effort. Right? Before you were seeking a result, here you're not seeking a result. A total change has taken place.
So if a block recurs, you want to find out why. Is it because you're so ( greedy &?) eager to reach the 'other shore' ? Can we proceed?

Q: Yes...

K: So I'm asking what is the quality of a ( holistically friendly?) mind that is no longer 'separative', that has understood the whole nature of ( its time-bound?) 'individuality' the root of it, the separateness of it, the conflict involved wherever there is separation, two nations, two people, two ideas, two opinions, you follow? - wherever there is (self-) separation, there must be the expression of ( one's self-centred?) 'individuality'. The 'individuality' of (belonging to ) the nation, or as the Catholic - it's all in the same direction.
Now if this (sense of one's self-isolating) 'individuality' has gone, then (one has to deal with the still deeper 'fact' that?) ''I am the world and the world is me'', essentially. I may be a little more greedy than the other fellow, or he'll be a little less jealous than me, but ( essentially) the greed & jealousy is the same . We're not talking about the relative (degrees of) greed but of 'greed'. Shall we proceed from there?
What has happened to the mind when this (sense of its self-isolating) 'individuality' has come to an end? Its ending implies the ( ending of ) the remembrances of the 'individual' activities. If these (personal) 'recollections' remain, ( the time-binding?) 'individuality' still exists - that is the whole point. And I have raised the question, can (this self-conscious?) 'individuality' love, can this entity that thinks it is separate, which is essentially an ( strong & persistent mental ?) 'illusion', can that entity which thinks it is separate, love?
If I love my wife and I really don't (really?) care about what is happening about something else, my love is limited to that one person. Please, sir, this is very serious, you understand? Is that love? Or love, not being separate (exclusive) , is both personal and impersonal - it is just 'love'. Do we meet this? And therefore our ( 'individualistic ) love' is not love because it contains jealousy and all the activities of ( the self-centred) thought which has created that 'individuality'.

Q: It was possessive love.

K: Then what is 'love'? Does it discriminate? I can't discriminate and say, "I love you, but ...I don't love (another) 'you'."
Now let's move a little further. When there is the realization that I am the world and the world is me, the very ( realisation of the truth of this?) fact is a tremendous revolution, you understand? It has an extraordinary feeling in it.
Solitude is never secure, it has no security. (Self-) isolation can only be insecure, the (time-bound) 'individual' can only be always insecure, for in him there is no security.

Q: The ( self-centred) 'individual' is actually dependent on everybody, but he only pretends he's not, so, he's actually very insecure, (that much) is clear.

K: So, when there is the realization that the (self-centred) 'individual' can never be secure, can never have protection, safety, certainty, and ( there is the insight that) 'the world is me and me is the world', in that there is a tremendous sense of (timeless?) security - because there is no (more self-) separation.

Q: Maybe we should try to elaborate, perhaps this point is not entirely obvious because first of all one may think there's material security, you know, he needs money, he needs...

K: Even the material security is being ( gradually) destroyed. I wonder...

Q: I don't know if I made myself clear. Several of us may see this together, but we're surrounded with a lot of people in the world who don't see it and they may make us (feel pretty?) insecure.

K: As Dr. Bohm points out, the world generally is thinking the security lies in ( self-centred) isolation.

Q: So, they may affect us nevertheless, even though we see the point.

K: We can't do anything for them, because there are too many of them. Right? What shall I do? Come on, meet me. Look, you are all individualists, and your separateness, and there is one person who says "that's all wrong, you can't live that way." What are you going to do to that man? Either they 'kill' him (or his public reputation?) or 'put him on a pedestal' and say he's a (consciousness?) freak - forget him. Right? That's what you ( the local elite?) are all going to do (eventually?) . You either 'worship' him or feel (the living truth of?) this thing ( You 'are' the world?) absolutely, you understand what it would mean?

Q: I don't understand what that would mean.

K: What is the difficulty, sir? We explained, if you are one person amongst many who think differently, who act differently, who live differently, they either kill you or say, "He's God," put you on a pedestal and forget you. Forget you in the sense, you're God, and worship, put a candle round you, but we carry on. Are you like the rest of the world, or...- you understand?

Q: Now I do.

K: What would happen if many of us would realize there is no security in isolation, either the family or individual, there is no security in separation. So what will you do - you see - go on, sir, investigate, find out. Fortunately when you are talking like this (given the vast dispersion of modern media?) , they really don't hear you, because they are so enclosed in (dealing with the countless everyday problems ?) they won't (pay any attention?)
So what will you do?

Q: Surely, sir, this doesn't tell you what you will do, it removes the lines on which you did things before, so you can't say you will do this or that.

K: No. Do you realize as a human being representing all mankind in essence, an integral part of mankind, when you see ( that the mentality of self-) isolation is the most destructive way of living - right? - what is happening in your relationship with the world, with your wife or with your neighbour?

Q: A certain clarification takes place.

K: I am married, or I have got a girlfriend, and I see isolation as the most appalling way of living, as (inwardly deadly) . What is my action, what am I to do, what is my responsibility?

Q: I must change.

K: My wife says, "Nonsense". Be Catholic or whatever you want, because she's entrenched, bound to that. What am I to do, what is my relationship with her? Apparently you don't face all this.

Q: If I have love in my heart I will be talking to her.

K: I have talked to her and she says, "Go to hell!" (Laughter) Sir, you're not facing the thing. She lives a ( self-centred) 'individualistic' life. She wants that, it's in her blood, it's her education, her (Karmic?) conditioning so, I can talk to her till Doomsday.

Q: Yes, then there is nothing to do...

K: We're going to find out what to do - let's go into it for a minute.

Q: Unless she is prepared to change what can you do?

K: Are you prepared to change (the individualistic attitude?) ?

Q: That is the question.

K: For God's sake, you're my wife or my husband - are you prepared to change?

Q: I think there's nothing much that you can do about it , you cannot change the mind of another person, can you?

K: Is that all? Sir, look at it - between you and me, what is happening?

Q: Your relation is one of ( compassion &?) love.

K: Do you know what's going to happen? You may have lost your (egocentric ) 'individuality', and I haven't - so what happens? I leave you, at the end of talking, talking, talking, you're going to do exactly the same thing now.

Q: This is an impossible question...

K: Sir, we have talked, this is the fifth morning we've talked, we've gone into it very, very deeply. And you have lost, really lost ( the egocentric) individuality, because you see the consequences of it, you have an insight into it and so you have 'wiped it away'. And I haven't. So what takes place? I will 'drive you out of the house', which is what you're going to do here, when you leave.
Q: Well, if that is what is, let's face it.

K: You are doing that, sir, now.

Q: Exactly.

K: So let's go on. What is the action without ( the self-isolating sense of ) 'individuality'. What is action without this separative concept of 'me'? I knew what was action from a self-centred point of view. Right? I acted from that. And you come along and point out to me, and I've listened to you very carefully, and by the very listening I'm following you, my mind has become somewhat ( non-personally?) intelligent. And that (somewhat compassionate?) intelligence sees what the individualistic action has been, the (inward) consequences of it, the degeneracy of it, and now it says, "What is action without this separative element in my mind." What is that action?
(...Long silent pause...)
I don't know what that action is but I'm going to find out - I must. What is a human being, surrounded by (psychological?) 'wolves' - sorry - what is he to do? What is the action of a mind that is not separative ?
Let's put it that way. Our action has been based upon ( self-centred thinking in terms of?) time. Right? I will do, I have done, and I remember what I have done, and according to that or modifying that, I will do (something better tomorrow) . It's all based on self-centred recollections, projecting themselves into the future and so on and on. All that is thought's movement of time.
And I'm saying, is there an action which is not born out of (thought & ) time, which is, the action brought about through 'insight' ? Now, what do I mean by insight? Insight means a 'quick perception' into (what was false?) in the ( self-centred) individuality and its organization - quick perception of it, which is not (the mere upgrading of our personal?) intuition.

Q: When you said a 'quick perception', would it mean really quick in the ordinary meaning of time?

K: A (holistic) perception which is not of ( the process of thought-) time, which is not the result of careful self-analysis, examination or exploration. Seeing something immediately to be true (or to be false?) . Right? You must have had all this, this is nothing strange. You hear something the speaker says, yes you quickly grasp it. That quick ( flash of inner) perception is insight.

Q: Isn't 'immediate' better ?
K: Immediate perception ( of the truth or the false?) and action. That (instant 'seeing & doing' of ) insight can only take place when there are no ( mental dissipation in thoughtful?) arguments, opinions, conclusions but seeing immediately the truth ( or the falseness?) of something. Right? Can we go on from there?

Q: So insight is beyond thought.

K: Obviously. Thought has said, "Let me think it over''. Whereas we are saying, perception, immediate perception takes place when there is no (time delaying) movement of thought. Right?
So back to what is 'action' without this sense of 'individuality'? Is there an action without the 'actor'? You understand, sir?

Q: Verbally only.

K: No, no, not 'verbally'. Just listen to the question first. I'm asking, is there an action without the 'actor'? The actor was the ( time-bound) 'individual', the entity which struggled, which analysed, which remembered, "I must do this," - I'm saying, the 'actor' is also the 'observer, of course. Now I'm asking, is there an action without the observer, an immediate perception of it.

Q: Sir, it seems the only one we are aware of (such immediacy action?) in our lives only is when there is ( an imminent ) danger. The only we can actually see danger.

K: Yes – and the (invisible inner?) 'danger' is the 'individuality' who thinks he's permanent and separate. That is the greatest danger.

Q: Yes, but we still have to see (the truth about?) it.

K: Ah! That's up to you (for optional homework?) . I ( have just) pointed out the whole thing for you, 'laid down the map' : There it is – have an immediate perception of it ! So what is action without the 'actor', is there an action without the 'me'?

Q: Could we say it is simply 'being'?

K: No, sir, don't say it - first listen to the question, see all the implications involved in it. Do exercise your (intelligent?) mind, say 'Let's examine it,' just look at it, like a river flowing, you follow it. That is, the actor is the 'individualistic (entity') , the observer. He said, I will do this, I must not do this, this is right, this is wrong, this I will do in the future, based on the memory of the past, that has been our accepted 'norm of action'. Right?
Now that norm has disappeared. So now there is only the question, what is action without the (all-controlling interference of the?) observer? Is there a different action involved when ''I am the world and the world is me'' ? That brings about great sense of love, great sense of non-isolating existence, which is love. Now, what is action without the actor, without the observer?

Q: I really don't know what this (non-dualistic ) action is.

K: We are doing it, sir. But have you had an insight into the nature of the ( time-bound) 'individual' and his ( lucrative?) organizations? Finished. If you have seen the truth of it, finished, it can never enter into that.
So my question is, what is action without the actor?

Q: An action which will derive from your new state of mind, which is a state of compassion.

K: Have you that new state of mind? Have you, ( not you personally?) M. Maroger, but have you dropped that individual(istic) concept, completely? It is inevitable if you realize the truth that you are the world and the world is you, in essence. When I've dropped my ( self-centred) 'individuality' the quality of separativeness has come to an end. Right? And that (new) perception and immediate action brings about a quality of ( timeless?) intelligence, which is not ( the speculative intelligence of) thought. Right? An intelligence that has the quality of compassion, love, and the enormous responsibility involved in that Compassion, the feeling of my total responsibility.

Q: A quality of intense involvement ?

K: Not quite - I'm not 'involved'. Again that's a dangerous (very slippery) word. Wait. So, intelligence has taken place when there was an insight into the ( falseness of the self-centred?) 'individuality' there is ( the awakening of a compassionate?) intelligence. Now, this intelligence is ( born of ?) Love & Compassion, ( and ) without ( this non-personal?) intelligence there is no love, no compassion, they all go together.
Now, what is the action of that ( Compassionate?) Intelligence when one is surrounded by a million people who are not 'intelligent', in that ( holistic) sense. What is the responsibility of that Intelligence and what is its action when is surrounded by people who are (comfortably numb & ? ) indifferent? When there is love, you care, there is care, there is attention, there is everything involved in it, which is - if I can use the word 'responsible', that's implied in ''You are the world''. What is this 'X' to do with you?
He feels responsible, you understand, sir?

Q: No idea, I'm not that person.

K: Why aren't you? Because you haven't given the time, you haven't given your energy, you haven't listened.

Q: That's perhaps the case.

K: Therefore you're like 'all the rest of them', so what will you do with X, sitting in this chair, throw mud at him? You will, of course.

Q: I would not.

K: Of course you are, because you don't care. You don't face facts. Now, X says, am I talking to you ( only ) at the 'conscious' level? I'm asking a totally different question. When the speaker is talking, is he communicating only at the 'conscious' level which has acquired (tons of?) knowledge. ( Clue:) Knowledge can never be complete, therefore knowledge always goes with ignorance. So are we merely listening at the 'conscious level', and/or partly at the deeper level ? Or is there a ( holistic quality of ) listening with all your consciousness, the deeper and the superficial, the whole of it 'listening' ? You understand my question?

Q: This is just the problem, because to have this kind of listening can exist only after we have left (the individualistic) 'personality'....

K: No, no. Are we listening with only with the 'hearing' of the ears, or a listening with all our consciousness, with all your being, so that there is no part of you asleep, there's no part of you withholding, just listening?
Now if you so listened that listening is ( bringing its own ) complete attention, isn't it? And in that attention there is no 'me', there is no centre from which 'I' am listening. Do you, understand what I'm saying?

Q: Yes....

K: So if one listens in the same way, without the 'me' to the ( whole explanation regarding the ) nature of the individual, the nature of his activities and his organizations, then there is no problem, you have got it, because you are listening entirely without the centre.
Now in the same way,( for my meditation homework ?) can I listen to something that I've not even thought about, that isn't even anywhere near my ( self-) consciousness, which is, is there an action without the 'actor', without the ( time-bound) self-centred entity who has always acted, acted & acted?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 May 2018 #42
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


K IN CONVERSATION WITH J. UPADIAH & FRIENDS MADRAS JANUARY 1985 ( 'reader-friendly' edited text )

K: Sir, yesterday we talked about an ordinary man who starts looking at the outside world. It is like a great river flowing. As it enters the sea it is in a turmoil because it has got great volume of water for the last million years. And this turmoil, the conflict, the various deltas, the whole vast river entering into the sea, that is the (present state of the ? ) world. And (in his meditations?) he follows up that 'River' (of human Consciousness) up the mountain, he comes to a point where the river begins. And there he is after a million years, and he is alone and self-centred up there. It is like a funnel, wide at the end and very small at the beginning . And he realizes all that River is himself, and the whole movement of the ( collective consciousness of the?) world is based on self-interest – from the narrow end of that 'funnel'.

From there he begins to work ( downstream) and discovers slowly the enormity of that funnel on the other side. It is immensely wide, and he doesn't quite know ( where & ) how to move from there. (Ancient religious ) people have said that there is an Immensity beyond this limited self-interest, but he doesn't know anything ( 'first hand') about it, he is rather a sceptical man, very questioning, doubting, and doubting his own experiences, his own thinking, his own way of life, and he has never ( felt the need to?) 'discipline' himself. He has just been following the ( flow of the?) River from that enormous Delta, he has followed it up. And (here's another clue : ) the very following it up is not a ( self-imposed?) 'discipline'. He has reached that very small spring which is 'self-interest'. But he doesn't know how to go beyond that, he is stuck there.

And there have been ( many Spiritual?) teachers before him, along with a great many (materialistically minded ?) scientists telling him how the origin of man began, and from the ape to the present state of brain, this long endlessness stretch of time. That is obviously natural, but he has come to a point where he discovers there is no spiritual authority whatsoever because he has left all that (behind) as he has climbed to the origin of the River. As he climbed he hoped somebody would help him but he discovers that there is not a single person in heaven or in any philosophy to 'help' him , and he is stranded up there, aware of his loneliness, all the rest of it. And he can't stay there (forever) . There is a pull wanting to climb more, but there is nothing to climb ( knowledge-wise) either. He has come to that point.

Q(1) (speaking for Pundit JU) You have explained the whole thing very clearly but I would like to ask whether each individual who is in this river, in this stream, has to remain utterly helpless or whether there is a possibility for him not to be completely dragged in that stream, but to create something, a 'raft', by which he can be out of it. He is not entirely out of it and yet he can stand apart from it.

Q(2) : This calls for some ( compassionate & intelligent?) energy, some 'purushartha' - that does not come from outside but is special attribute of his own understanding. That means it, it comes from within him. And it is that (awakening of intelligence) which helps him to discover that (providential) 'rock' and to hold firmly to that rock while people are being dragged against their will in that stream and he watches that, he is a witness to the people being dragged in the stream. But can he find enough energy within him which will help him to cling to that rock?

K: Sir, I said that he is always 'moving up the river'. And that very moving gives him the strength.

Q2: But he is not being dragged down. He is moving up.

K: He has been in all that ( Delta) noise, all the (sorrow & ) travail, he is moving away, moving, going up. , I would rather stick to this (fine metaphysical?) metaphor : I have gone up the river and watched all this movement ( on the river of time?) and I realize that I am not different from that movement. I am that movement. I am that ( time-bound consciousness of?) humanity. Not 'humanity' and 'me' (the traffic controller?) , but I 'am' that because I have wandered all over that and I discover that. And as I move up the river, that very ( meditating?) movement creates its own discipline.
The man who is (mentally) 'static' needs ( self-) discipline, but the man who is constantly moving up and up and up, he is following the river is moving and won't allow 'islands' to be formed, because he sees the implications of all that.

Q(1) : The ( spiritual ) effort is (necessary) to rise out of the stream. Within ( any thoughtful ?) man there is the urge to rise above these sordid sorrows and worries and everything that happens. And this man by any act that he is doing is not trying to get out of this but he is part of this stream ?

K: Sir, he has spent his youth at the mouth of the river, sex, power, you know all the business. And he sees it is a habit, a conditioning, and he is now so exhausted and bored with the whole circus and he says, "By Jove, I must move somewhere." He starts ( the upstream spiritual journey) from there.
(For starters?) we 'are' all (being stuck in that Delta ?) - We want sex, we want power, we want etcetera, etcetera. And he says to himself, "My God, that is enough." and he begins to 'move' from there because he wants to see where the River begins.

Q2: As you have put it, you have described the stream which is dragging the people, everybody along with it and then you say...

K: If he wants to remain there, he is there. But he is curious enough to find out the 'origin of the River'. That's all. I followed Sir, the Rhine, up in the Alps and there it was, I a few drops, very slow, from the glacier, a few drops, and it became bigger and bigger and bigger, for miles it flowed. So if he is following that. But if he likes to stay at the mouth of the river, and the vast majority they 'like' living there. They like drugs, they like sex, they like power, position, knowledge, everything, they 'like' it - don't they?

Q1: Nobody denies that, but there is some energy which makes him follow the river to the...

K: ( His spiritually motivated ?) Curiosity. He has been through all that awful business and says, "My God, I am bored with this stuff"

Q5: Krishnaji, there seem to be two different metaphors which are so similar that they are clashing with each other. One is your metaphor of the person finding himself at the foaming mouth of the river, recognizing the river, feeling curious about it, and having been there sufficiently long and experienced some of the things he becomes is curious and then he asks 'where from?'

K: Move.

Q5:And the other metaphor that Punditji has brought up, is the ( classical Buddhist) metaphor of the suffering humanity, of seeing the whole (misery of the?) world and feeling compassionate about all the people being dragged down. Seeing this great misery which is called Buddhism, which talks about the world as 'a sad place'. So, he is saying : wouldn't it be nice if these poor people instead of being swept by there would be somebody to give them the way, somebody to give them a help and so on.

K: Pat him on the back.

Q5: Or at least as a traffic policeman.

K: I don't want all that.

Q5: No what I am saying is that there are two metaphors running at the same time. They both talk about the river but they seem to be talking about two different positions regarding the river.

K: I am talking of one river. My river is the river of everybody – the river of sorrow, and also the river of pain, the river of fear, the river of all that.

Q2: It is all part of ( the Buddhist concept of) sorrow.

K: Why reduce everything to sorrow?

Q5: Krishnaji, I am with you. I like the idea of not talking about sorrow but of talking about things as they are. Not about the theory of sorrow.

K: Punditji I am not trying to 'beat you down'....
Q2 (translating:) : He wants to know Sir what is the place of the arising of sexual desire.

K: Biologically, procreation, all the glands are prepared for that. For God's sake.

Q2: He doesn't agree. There is also an ecstasy in which there is self forgetfulness, this is joy.

K: That is sex.

Q2: That is sex, but he says, is not a biological but a psychological factor. He says that particular impulse can pull man out of the common run of...

K: Sex?

Q2: This urge for that ecstasy, self forgetfulness.

K: For God's sake. I can take a drug and forget all about myself. I can go to a Beethoven concert, and listen to the Ninth Sympathy, or the Fifth Sympathy and forget entirely about myself. I go to a temple and do puja, I can forget myself. Why?

Q4: I have a lot of features in common with mankind. I am humanity and yet that humanity is given a particular form in me.

K: We discussed that yesterday : I (the common self-centred human being?) have been through all that, sorrow, pleasure, pain, sex, drugs and I am bored with ( the dull & ) meaningless (existential) boredom. And I begin to 'move' up the stream. This is very important : I am now beginning to move, while that ( Delta drifting ?) was static.

Q2: This is static because it is just a repetition ?

K: Repetition, mechanical, habitual and all the rest of it. The moment I start moving I (also ) realize that the (meditative ?) movement has no discipline. This is where we are going to come in a conflict (of interests?) with all of you. While there is a movement there is no discipline. I am walking up the hill because...

Q3: Sir, you have often said that the River of (the consciousness of) humanity flows, unless I step out of the Stream - unless the mind is (steady as ) a rock...

K: I know (remember?) nothing about all this.

Q3: I am using your own words. What is the actual difference ( between your old position and the 'moving up the River'?) in terms of change of consciousness?

Q6: Pupulji, I have also listened to Krishnaji's ( 'holistic' ?) language and struggled with it for a long time and I now no longer pay any attention to the verbal meanings, because he means different things at different times. Previously when he talked about ( the stepping out?) movement it was an ordered movement, and therefore there was time (involved) . Only a thing which is moving according to prescribed law can be used for 'time'.

K: That's right.

Q6: .. But this ( 'upstream') movement comes by itself because (the Delta man ) is bored, so it has no ( time binding) law. And a movement without law is creativity, is freshness, isn't it ? , it has no time that can be associated with it.

K: That's right Sir, you have got it !

Q6: What I am saying is that all those ( holistic) statements are really the same even though the words are different. In any language there is something called surface meaning and the deep meaning. The deep structure of language and the surface structure. If you said I throw a stone at... I mean a stone broke the window and I broke the window, they sound different, the subject is different, the object is different but in fact they are really ( describing) the same (fact) . So we have to understand what is the context in which he sees it, and the only way we will find out is not by listening to the words, but by listening to what he has to say about human life.

Q2: He (the Pundit JU) now wants to know ''how comes that without 'stepping out it', some person arises who is able to end thought and he has love and he has insight, and all that : how comes that he is watching therefore he is different and still he is part of this?

K: I will come to that point. ( To recap:) I am ('dead?) bored' with all that and I have become very sceptical. This is important. Sceptical, doubtful, question. None of this has any meaning to him so he moves, naturally, it is not a seeking some high altitude. He 'moves'. And in this movement he is also becoming aware the difficulties of ( the meditative) movement. I understand now why it all our existence has become a habit, sex, high position and knowledge, it is all in here – I am a part of it because I have also collected a lot of ( personal) memories. And he starts questioning everything, Buddha, Christ, and all the churches and he says for God's sake I don't want any of it. So he is 'moving' (out of the field of the known?) and says, am I really moving, or am I ( wishfully) thinking that I am moving? In asking that question he becomes terribly honest and there begins the authentic humility (of 'not-knowing'?) - right? And with that (new experiential attitude ) he is moving, learning, watching. I am not different from all mankind, I am all that, but... I am ( inwardly free) to watch it. And he is climbing, moving. I will carry on the metaphor and the movement is ( a process of non-cumulative) learning, not accumulating knowledge. I don't know if you see the (qualitative?) difference.
And he comes to a point at the 'origin of the river' and he says, I by Jove all this, this tremendous effort I have made climbing, has been utterly useless because it (the active principle of self-interest ) was ( down) there and it is up here. I needn't have moved up here, because I was ( grossly) self-centred there, and I am (more subtly?) self-centred here. Right? That's all.

Q(1) : ( speaking For JU) He says is that yesterday we started with how this stream is there in the delta. He says that it does not concern him at all. How he happened to be in that stream or whether the stream is eternal or anything. He is concerned with the fact that being in the stream I have the urge to get out of the stream, that is my limit.

K: Is he ( really?) bored with the stream?

Q(1) : He says there is no desire to get out of it but to get transformed.

K: I have no ( such) desire.

Q1: He says that I am not concerned with the origin of the stream, I don't feel like going up there to find out.

K: Then remain here.

Q1: But he still wants to step out of the stream.

Q6: But Krishnaji it seems to me that there were irreconcilable differences in terminology  : the stream that you talked about is the totality of all the happenings that I am.

K: I 'am' that.

Q6: Right. His stream is an external stream. He is immersed in that ( collective) stream. He sees (himself being driven by ) that stream but the stream is not himself.

K: That's all (the misunderstanding) .

Q5: I personally feel to be fair to him - that the stream that Krishnaji has described and the stream that he refers to as a distance is the same. Self-interest is the core of it, as I understood it. Have I misunderstood him?

K: Listen to what K says : you 'are' that stream, you are not different from that stream - right?

Q6: Well Punditji's stream is one in which he finds ( lots of human ) misery and therefore he wants to transform it. Krishnaji says I recognize I am the stream, I am in it, I have been it for sufficiently long, I am bored with it.

Q3: If 'I' want to transform it or 'I' want to 'step out' , that ( 'I' entity) is also part of this stream (of self-interest) .

K: Part of this.

Q5: Krishnaji has led us a step ahead of this (experiential impasse?) . He said that this business of wanting to transform and wanting to change is also like pursuing a higher pleasure and other things that we have done. So ultimately you come to a point where you feel that there is an (illusory) movement without any real progress and with this ( 'stuck-in-the-mud') situation you are bored.

K: Just a minute. I don't want to transform (anything yet?) . I don't know what it means.

Q1: Perhaps some confusion has arisen because of using the word 'origin' in your metaphor, because you said this ( self-interest) is (encompassing) everything - it is desire for transformation, it is everything. Then the question is: What is the very substance of this everything? Is there a single root from which all these branches have come?

K: It is still water, whether it is up there or down here it is still water.

Q3: What I am questioning is that this state of your saying that I am bored with all this and there is nothing beyond. I do nothing but stay with it ?

K: Would you let me finish ? Sir, I am that. That thing is not different from me, both biologically, psychologically, in every way, atom, cells, all that is me. And I am that. So I am humanity. That has to me tremendous meaning. And I am there and I say is there any change at all possible? I thought change existed in climbing the hill and going to the source but I find I am still there. I have never left it. I thought by going up to the source I would find the whole explanation but that explanation is there, which is my desire, all the rest of it. And there as well as up here it is still ( the same water polluted by?) self-interest - right? And I see self-interest has created terrible mess, obviously. This doesn't need a great deal of insight and out of that observation I say is there any ( qualitative) change at all possible? Not 'transformation' (which literally means changing from one 'form' to another- I am not going to use that word although I have used it (very often?) . So I am concerned with ( a (holistic ) change (in consciousness ) - right? What does such a change mean? Is 'change' ending this?

Q2: But you would say there is an 'ending'?

K: Wait. I have reached a point where I see if there is no change man will be destroyed as he goes on. So I ask myself what is this change? Is it a matter of changing anything at all? Or there is only 'ending', which means 'dying'. Can one die today, to everything that one has known, which is ( the psychological aspect of) death ? So I question if there is a continuity at all, or simply dying. And then I will see what happens. The man who has been ( up) there has come to that ( metaphysical check) point. That's all.

Q2: He (Pundit JU) says is that he goes with you the whole way. And he says that therefore there is no 'change' but there is only 'ending'.

K: He knows what that means?

Q2: Yes Sir. He has taken the whole of it. But he says that in that stream itself is the seedling of a beginning because the stream ( of collective consciousness ) is continuity.

Q5: When everything ends according to this one, everything ends with the stream business.

K: Quite right. The Stream is my consciousness, the human consciousness. As I am the humanity I am that consciousness. Right? Now, if I die to that (time-bound) consciousness, I am not in it. ( It is out ? I don't know how to put it.)

Q2: Sir, what he says is that there is a continuity to the stream of consciousness independent of my ending it.

K: Sir, that ( Stream of collective?) consciousness is sorrow, fear, greed, envy, etcetera, which is the essence of self-interest - right? Now after travelling all that down there I come to that point. And I say is it possible for a human being, who 'is' ( totally responsible for ) the entire humanity, to 'step out' of it?

Q2: Now you have again changed the metaphor.

K: Same thing. As long as human beings have not 'moved out' of it that stream will go on. As I 'am' humanity, if that person who 'is' humanity steps out of that stream, that Stream ( of man's collective consciousnee ) will go on, that person, that something (the newly born consciousness) is out of it, therefore it has compassion, it has intelligence, therefore that ('changed' consciousness) acts (holistically) .

Q3: Sir, at one moment you say there is no 'individual'...

K: Because I am that.

Q3: I am humanity. So, what 'steps out'?

K: Nothing (not-a-thing) . [Laughter] No, no, I mean this. Let me explain. I have taken this ( self-interest based existence) as something perpetual, which it is, time. ( Can I use the word insight? A glimpse, seeing the whole thing as a unit, a unitary movement that is going on) And he is walking along the lane after seeing it is a whole unitary movement and suddenly realizes there is (inwardly) nothing (left) - in the sense not a thing. 'Thing' is thought, which is a material process. So he says that is the end of thought. That is ''nothingness'.

( To recap:) That ( main-) stream ( of human consciousness?) is self-interest. That is self-interest is perpetuating itself all the time, ( the consciousness of) humanity is perpetually caught in that. And that is thought etcetera, etcetera. He (K) says, ''By Jove, no movement !'' and therefore when there is no movement you are out of it. ( 'out of it' - that is a temporal word) but there is a 'something else' ( a holistic state of consciousness ?)
Now.... K comes along and says he has never been in all this. Never jealous, anxiety, pain, sex and all that. He never 'moved' (psycholgically) , saying 'I am that' - never having a 'psyche' as the centre. You understand my question? The moment you see that (non-personal insight ?) you are out, you are finished.

Q2 (For JU) He wants you to repeat this. Explain it a little.

K: Sir, we all have the idea of a (a spiritual) path, a goal, achievement. But he - somebody like K comes along and says don't go through all this stuff. Be aware of nature, be aware of all the senses, and how the senses (in conjunction with our self-interest ) create the self, etcetera, etcetera. See it as a tremendous movement and in a flash ( of insight?) you are out of it.

Q5: You were saying now from (total insight?) this you push out time, no time in this. There is no place for 'time' (or thought?) in all the understanding of this. The moment that goes it ends.

K: And I still doubt it! You understand? I question it, whether this is in myself. No. Therefore I began by questioning everything. I end up doubting, questioning, and asking.

Q4: Have I moved at all?

K: I leave that 'question' alive. I don't say, is there an answer. That question itself destroys every ( thought -made) 'thing'.

Q5: No conclusion.

K: No Sir. So, you and I have a dialogue. You put a question, I answer it. Then you answer that question. We keep this up. Asking, answering. We ( may eventually?) come to a point when the question itself 'is' (bringing its true ?) the answer. The question itself is so vital it bursts the...

Q5: You mentioned that K has never experienced this thing but he questions even that 'not experiencing'. Then he said that question continues to remain and the question is the answer. Could you say a little more ?

K: K comes along, some strange man from the dark Himalayas, and says : why do you go through all this stuff - the spiritual disciplines, the sacrifice, the renunciation, control ? If you (stop doing) all that there is 'something else'. Just see this, the futility of it - right? And when you really see the ( self-interest related ) depths of that ( time-binding) futility and you ask 'why it has come - you understand - and live with that question, then that 'question' itself opens and withers. Like a flower. If you leave the flower alone, watch it carefully, nurture it, the flower blossoms and withers, at the end of it there is no flower at all. Right? Which is no-thing.

Q3: This you have talked about, we all know that, we have talked about it. But you said something else and that is, in 'seeing (the karmic origin of ) this whole stream (of human consciousness) ' , the stream continues its flow. But the (timeless movement of the ) question remains.

K: That's it, that's it.

Q3: And it is such a powerful, potent question which has an explosive energy independent of me

K: It is like an (inner) 'fire' that is burning.

Q5: So there is nothing one can do (for a radical inner change?) except the ( enlightening action of the?) 'question' itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 May 2018 #43
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


THE HOLISTIC NATURE OF THE MIND (reader friendly edited)

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

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

JH: Why do you say that?

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

JH: So, our selfish activity ?

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

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

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

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

K: Which means what?

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

K: Which means furthering more misery.

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

RS: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RS: Yes. I've forgotten...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JH: And the child is the victim of that ?

K: Of course.

JH: And then grows up to perpetuate it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Why?

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

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

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

K: Let's accept that.

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

K: Right.

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

K: But you cannot fundamentally change it ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: I admit all that.

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

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

JH: That's right.

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

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

K: Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: But again, on a very superficial level.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JH: Yes.

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

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

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

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

K: I don't quite follow this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: That means I wipe out everything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JH: That's what we're asking.

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

JH: We don't know.

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

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

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

RS: But is it possible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JH: I do disturb you.

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

JH: I do say that.

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

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

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

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

K: Yes. I depend on somebody.

JH: Yes, deeply.

K: Deeply.

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

K: No.

JH: Why?

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

JH: No, not just verbal; not verbal.

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

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

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

JH: No.

K: Then why do I come to you?

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

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

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

K: That's just it.

JH: Yes...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JH: Okay....

K: So, can I push those away?

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

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

JH: Yes.

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

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

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

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

K: I should think so.

RS: Drives and activities?

K: I should think so.

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 May 2018 #44
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


2ND K CONVERSATION (reader-friendly edited)

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

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

JH: Memory being the...

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

RUPERT SHELDRAKE: You mean thinking about it?

DB: Yes. Based on memory, right?

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

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

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

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

K: But have you answered his question, sir?

DB: Which is?

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

DB: By 'thinking about it' and making (very realistic mental) images about it, along with thought reviving that memory and anticipate the feeling of the future; and while you are ( mentally caught in this kind of ?) it becomes a very serious problem because you can't stop it, you see. You will never attain (an authentic sense of inner?) security by 'thinking about it', but you are constantly seeking security. You see, the purpose of thinking is to give you security in practical affairs, technical affairs. Now, therefore you are doing a similar sort of thinking, saying how can I be secure against the possibility of suffering again? And there is no way to do that. You may take technical steps to make it unlikely, but as you think about it, you begin to stir up the whole system and distort the whole mental process.

JH: Well, it seems clear that by thinking about it we stir up the emotions and the associations that are those thoughts, but we're not suggesting we shouldn't think about it, are we?

DB: Well, it depends on 'how' you think about it. You see, this ( psychologically motivated?) thinking gets to be directed toward giving you a sense of security, you see, an image of security.

JH: Right, I get hurt when I'm little or some time along the line and it creates a fear in me and I anticipate that kind of situation. I may not even remember the incident, but I want to avoid it in the future.

DB: Yes, and now, the point is this: the mind is always searching for how to avoid it, and searching out thoughts, images, you know, saying, that fellow is the one who did it, I must keep away from (this kind of people?) ; coming to conclusions and if one particular conclusion gives you an image of security, then the mind holds on to it, right? Without actually any basis.

JH: Could you elaborate on that a little?

DB: Well, if you have had a bad experience with somebody, you may conclude that you should never trust him again, for example. Although that might be quite wrong (or... not?) . But the mind is so anxious to have ( a long term temporal?) security that it will jump to the conclusion that it's not safe to trust him. Right?

JH: Yes.

DB: Now, if you find somebody else who seems to treat you well and reassures you and flatters you, then you may jump to the conclusion that you can completely trust him. The (thinking) mind is now looking for thoughts that will give it 'good feelings', you see, because the feelings of the (painful personal ) memory are so disturbing to the whole system that its first function is to make the mind feel better, rather than find out what is the fact.

JH: Okay, so we're saying that at this point the mind isn't interested in what's true, it's interested in getting secure.

DB: Yes, it's so disturbed that it wants to 'come to order' first, but it's adopting a wrong way, as I see it.

JH: The 'wrong way' being?

DB: 'Thinking about it' and trying to find (alternative ) thoughts that will make it feel better.

JH: So you're saying these thoughts themselves in some sense are taking the place of reality, that the person is trying to get certain thoughts in his head that make him feel better.

DB: Yes. And that's ( a subliminal form of?) self-deception, you see.

RS: What makes you think that the primary drive is for (psychological) security?

DB: Oh, we discussed that yesterday : for the animal it's a very important drive to want security, right? But we also want pleasure, I think that's another drive - they are closely related.

RS: But to come back to this question of security, in its limited forms, security is clearly one goal that we have. People like to have houses and have them secure and cars and possessions and bank balances and that kind of thing. But there are some (collateral) factor that comes in : one is maybe the fear that you'll lose it, and the other is boredom with the whole thing and the craving for more excitement and thrill. And this doesn't seem to fit within this model of this central craving for security.

DB: Well that's why I said it's only one of the drives, right? That there's also the drive toward pleasure and much of what you said is included in the drive toward pleasure, right?

RS: I'm not so sure.

DB: Excitement is pleasurable and then people hope for pleasure and excitement rather than pain, as a (simple) rule (of thumb?) .

RS: But don't you think there's a pleasure in itself in curiosity and there's a sense of freedom in discovery that you can get from certain kinds of exploration which is neither just straightforward pleasure, it's not a repetitive kind of pleasure, nor is it security.

DB: Yes, well, I didn't want to say that all our drives are caught in this ( security & pleasure) thing, you see, I said that if you think about them and base them on memory, then they are going to get caught in this problem. Now there may be a natural free interest in things which could be enjoyable, and that need not be a problem, right? But if you were to become dependent on it and think about it and say, if I don't have it I become very unhappy, then it would be a similar problem.

K: Could we go into the question, what is ( psychological?) security? What does that word convey?

RS: I would have said invulnerability.

K: Not to be hurt ?

RS: Not to be hurt at all, not to be able to be hurt.

K: Not to be able to be hurt and not to hurt others. Now, physically we are all hurt, one way or another: (prostate?) operations and illness and so on, so on. When you talk about being hurt, are you talking about psychological hurts?

JH: Yes, when a person comes into my office, his complaint is his psychological hurts.

K: How do you deal with it? Suppose I come to you. I am hurt from childhood. by the parents, school, college, university and when I get married she says something, I am hurt. So this whole (time-binding) living seems to be a series of hurts (along with intervals of 'no-hurt' ?) .

JH: It seems to build up a structure of the 'self' (consciousness) that is hurt, and a perception of reality that is inflicting hurt.

K: Yes. How do you deal with it?

JH: I try to help you see how you're doing it.

K: What do you mean by 'how I'm doing it' ?

JH: Well, for example, if you have built up in yourself the notion that you're the victim. Then you perceive yourself to be victimized and you perceive the world to be a victimizer. And I help you realize that that's what you're (unconsciously ?) doing.

K: But by showing me that, will I get rid of my hurt? My hurts, very deep unconscious hurts that I have, that make me do all kinds of peculiar actions, neurotic, and (finally leading to completely ?) isolating myself.

JH: It appears that people 'get better' when they realize that they are doing it. And in some local areas it seems to help.

K: But aren't you concerned, if I may ask, with not being able to be hurt at all?

DB: What do you mean by that, not hurting somebody else or not hurting inside of you.

K: I may hurt others unwillingly, but I wouldn't hurt voluntarily somebody.

DB: Yes, you really don't 'intend to hurt' anybody.

K: Yes. I wouldn't.

RS: Well, maybe not, but I don't see the connection between not hurting other people and not being hurt oneself. There must be one, but it's not obvious. And most people's view of the best way not to be hurt would be to be in such a position that you can hurt others so much they'd never dare (to think of hurting you) . This is the principle of 'nuclear retaliation' and so this is a very common principle.

K: Yes, of course.

RS: So it's not obvious that not hurting others is related to not being hurt oneself. In fact, usually it's taken to be the reverse. It's usually assumed that if you're in a position to hurt others very much you'll be very secure (at least for a while?) .

K: Of course, I mean if you're one of those (hard boiled?) people who have built a 'wall' round themselves- you can never hurt them.

RS: Yes.

K: But when they were children they were hurt. And the memory of that hurt remains in the deep recesses of one's own mind. Now, how do you, as a psychoanalyst, help another who is deeply hurt and is unaware of it and to see if it is possible not to be hurt at all?

JH: I don't (even try ) address the question about is it possible to not be hurt at all. That doesn't come up.

K: Why? Wouldn't that be a (holistically?) 'reasonable' question?

JH: Well, it seems to be what we are asking here. It is the essence of the question that we're asking.

K: So how should we proceed?

JH: Well, it would seem that the (mental ?) structure that makes the psychological hurt possible is what we have to get at rather than (dealing with ) this hurt or that hurt.

K: I think that (in terms of superficial observation?) it's fairly 'simple' . Why am I hurt? Because you say something to me which is not pleasant.

JH: Well, why should that hurt you?

K: Because I have a (pretty good?) 'image' about myself and you come along and ( contradict it ?) . And I get ('personally' ?) hurt .

JH: What is it that's being hurt there?

K: The ( identitary ?) image which I have (created) about myself. I am a great cook, a great scientist, or whatever . I have got that ( 'fool proof' ?) picture in myself and you come along and put a pin into it. And that gets hurt. The ( emotionally loaded self-) image gets hurt. The image 'is' me ( my temporal identity?) .

DB: I feel that this (holistic view?) will not be totally clear to many people. I mean, how can I be just an 'image', you see, many people will ask. You see, how can an 'image' get hurt, because if a (mental) image is nothing at all, why does it hurt?

K: Because one has invested a lot of (thinking & ) feeling into that 'image'.A lot of ideas, emotions, reactions, all that is me, my ( temporal self-) image.

JH: It doesn't look just like an 'image' to me, though, it looks like something very real.

K: Ah, of course, for most people it's very 'real'. But the reality of that image is ( given by the 'thinker' ?) 'me'.

JH: Well, how can we get it more clear that it's just an image and not the real (me) ?

K: ( A mental) image is never real; the 'symbol' is never the real (thing ?) .

JH: You're saying that (in the field of thought?) I'm just a (mental) symbol ?

K: Perhaps.

JH: That's a big step...

K: From that arises the question whether it's possible not to have (mental) images (of oneself?) at all.

RS: Well, wait a minute. I don't think we've clearly established that I am just a (mental) image.

K: Ah, let's go into it.

RS: I mean, it's not entirely clear. I mean, it's obvious that to some extent one is an image, that when I have a feeling about myself and so on. But it's not entirely clear that this (over- simplified concept of the 'self') is entirely justified. You see certain aspects of it may be exaggerated, certain aspects may be unrealistic, but, you see, one ( rational?) approach would be, well, we've got to remove, shave off these unrealistic aspects and then that which remains would be the 'real thing'.

K: So, sir, are you raising the ( ages old existential?) question : (who or?) what am I?

RS: I suppose so, yes.

K: What are you ('attached to' or 'identified with'?) ? What is each one of us? What is a human being? That's the ( existential) question that's involved.

RS: Yes, that seems unavoidable.
K: Yes. What am I? I am ( subliminally identified with ) the physical form; the name, and with the (compounded?) result of ( our knowledge oriented ?) education.

JH: Your (personal?) experiences...

K: My experiences, my beliefs, my ideals, principles, the incidents that have marked me.

JH: The structures you've built up that are how you function, your skills...

K: fears, my so-called affection, my gods, my country, my language; fears, pleasures, suffering, all that is ( the time-bound?) me. That's my consciousness.

JH: And your 'unconscious'...

K: That's the whole (psychological) content of 'me'.

DB: But there's still that feeling of the 'actuality' that the 'me' is there. You could reasonably argue that it is only this (self-identified?) content, but when something really critical happens there's the feeling of its actual 'presence', at that moment.

K: I don't quite follow you there.

DB: Well, you see if somebody reacts to being hurt or angry, he feels at that moment that there's more than that, you see, that there is something deep inside which has been hurt, right?

K: My (self-identified) image can be so deep, that's my image at all levels.

DB: Yes, but how...

K: Wait, sir, I have an image of myself; suppose: that I am a great writer. But apart from that ( public?) image as a writer, I have ( collected many) other images about myself, so many images I've built around myself; and the (intimate?) image about myself also. So I may gather a 'bundle of images'.

DB: Yes, I understand.

K: Partial images.

DB: Yes, but you are also saying that (wthin the human psyche?) there is nothing but this 'bundle of images...

K: Of course!

DB: ...but you know, the question is, how are we to se this as an actual (as a totally true?) fact?

K: Ah...

RS: But wait a minute, there is something but this 'bundle of images'; and I mean I'm sitting right here, now, seeing you and all the rest of it. Now I have the feeling that there's centre of consciousness which is within my body and what is associated with it, which has a centre and it's not 'you', and it's not David: it's 'me'. And associated with this centre of action, there is my body, sitting here, is a whole lot of memories an experiences and without those memories I wouldn't be able to speak, to talk, to recognize anything.

K: Of course, of course...

RS: So there seems to be some (intelligent ?) 'substance' to this image of myself. There may be lots of false images associated with it, but there seems to be a 'reality' which I feel it's not entirely illusory.

K: Sir, are you saying that basically you are totally different from the three of us?

RS: Well, I'm in a different place and I have a different body - in that sense I'm different.

K: Of course, I'll admit that ( physically) you're tall, I' short, I'm brown, you're black or you're white or you're pink or whatever .

RS: Now at another (mental) level I'm not basically different in the sense that we can all speak the same language and communicate, so there's something in common. And even at a purely physical level all of us have a lot in common with each other, the same kinds of enzymes, chemicals, and so on. And those hydrogen atoms, oxygen (and carbon) atoms - we have in common with everything else.

K: Yes. Now, is your (self-) consciousness different from the (self-consciousness of all the) rest? Your (personal) beliefs, your fears, your anxieties, depressions, faith, all that?

RS: Well, I would say that many of the contents of my consciousness or many of the beliefs, desires, etcetera, I have, other people also have. But I would say the particular combination of experiences, memories & desires I have are unique, as everyone has an unique combination of these different elements.

K: So is mine unique?

RS: Yes.

K: So is his?

RS: Exactly.

K: The 'illusion' (of one's isolated 'individuality'?) makes ( our self- centred consciousness?) common to all. It's no longer 'unique'.

RS: That's not immediately clear.

DB: Why isn't it clear? Everybody's unique, right?

RS: Yes, we're all unique.

K: I question that. Apart from our particular physical environment, linguistic differences and accidents of experience, basically, fundamentally, deep down, we suffer; we are frightened of death, we are anxious, we are agonizing about something or other, and conflict, that's the ground ( of the collective consciousness?) on which we all stand.

RS: So, you are saying that what we have in common is (more) essential and fundamental rather than the more superficial aspects , you see. Now, I've talked with people about this and they say, everybody agrees we all have these things in common but sorrow, suffering and so on are not so important, the really important point are the higher achievements of culture and things like that, as an example.

JH: Maybe the distinction is between the form and the content. Our contents are all different and they have similarities and differences, but maybe the form is the same, their structure.

RS: I can recognize that there is such a thing as common (consciousness of the whole ) humanity but I would regard that as an abstraction or a (holistic) projection rather than a reality. How do I know that is not an abstraction?

K: Because as you go around the world you see human beings in depression, loneliness, lack of affection, lack of care, attention, that's the basic human reactions, that is part of our ( traditional concept of ego-centric ?) consciousness.

RS: Yes...

K: So (inwardly) you are not basically different from me. Deep down, the content of the 'river' is the same water.

RS: Yes, well that is clearly true at some level. But I am not quite sure at what level (it is seen as absolutely true?) you see.

K: I am talking basically, deeply.

RS: But why stop there? I can see something in common with all other human beings, but I can also see by looking at animals something in common with them. We have a great deal in common with the animals.

K: Surely, surely.

RS: So why stop at human beings?

K: I don't.

RS: Why not say...

K: Because one feels it is the ground on which all human beings stand. Their relationship with nature, animals and so on, and the content of our consciousness is again the ground of humanity. Love is not English, American or Indian. Hate is not - agony is not yours or mine, it is agony. But we identify ourselves with ( our own existential) agony, it is my agony, not yours.

RS: We might go through it in very different ways though.

K: Different expressions, different reactions, but basically it is ( the same ) agony, of (the whole consciousness of humanity entangled in conflict?). Why do we separate ourselves from all this? So why can't we wipe out all that (self-divisive mentality?) ?

RS: I don't know. You tell me, why can't we?

K: Because I (may enjoy) identifying myself with my nation because that gives me a certain (inner) strength, a certain social status, certain material security. When I say, "I am British" - which is really ( a respectable form of) glorified tribalism, is (a potential?) cause of war. Why can't we wipe that out? It seems so (holistically?) reasonable.

JH: It seems 'reasonable' on a level like nationalism, many people already don't think they 'are' England.

K: Start from ( that obvious level of self-identification?)

JH: Okay. But then I have a patient and he does think that it is 'his' (hard earned 'trophy?) wife'.

K: Of course it is his wife.

JH: Well, isn't that the same ( self-centred) action that you are talking about?

K: Sir, just let's go into it slowly. Why do I want to identify myself with something greater like 'nationalism', like God?

JH: Because I am not ( feeling inwardly ) sufficient ?

K: Which means what?

JH: Insecure.

K: Insecure, insufficient, lonely, isolated, I have built a wall round myself. So all this is making me desperately lonely. And out of that 'unconscious' loneliness I identify with God, with the Nation, with Mussolini or with any (famous ) religious teacher.

JH: Or I get married, I have a child, I make a place for myself. And that's all also identification.

K: Yes. Why do we want to 'identify' with something (or other) ? The more basic question is ''Why do we want ( temporal) roots?''

JH: To ( have the feeling that we) 'belong' ?

K: To belong, in which is also implied ( the personal desire to?) to become. So this whole process of 'becoming (something') starts from childhood when I am asked to become, become, become. I am this but I must become that.

JH: Okay, because what I am is not ( feeling?) sufficient.

K: Why do we want to become? What is it that is becoming?

RS: Well the obvious reason for wanting to 'become' (something other than what we are?) is a feeling of insufficiency, inadequacy, in the state that we are. And one of the reasons for this is that we live in an imperfect world, our relationship with other people are imperfect. We are not content for a variety of reasons with the way we are. So the way out of that seems to become something else.

K: Yes. That means escaping from ( facing) 'what is' (within ourselves).
Take the usual experience. I am violent and I have invented 'non-violence'. And I am trying to become that. I'll take years to become that. In the meantime I am (still) violent. So I have never escaped from ( my heritage of) violence. It is just an invention.

RS: Well you are suggesting that the normal way of escaping, trying to become non-violent, is one way of doing it which doesn't work. Whereas if you do another method where you actually look at the violence in a different way you can actually become non-violent.

K: By seeing whether it is possible to be free of it completely.

RS: But isn't that a kind of 'escape' from it?

K: Being free of something is not ( considered ) an 'escape'. The avoidance, running away from 'what is' is an escape, but to say, look, this is what I am, let's look at it, let's observe what its content is. That is not an 'escape'.

RS: You are saying that rather than escaping from violence, which leaves violence intact and still there, and you try and distance yourself from it, you try to dissolve violence, or abolish it.

K: Not abolish it, 'dissolve' it. I don't want to be partially violent. Or partially free from it. I want to find out if it is possible to totally end it. That's not an escape, that's putting my teeth into it.

RS: Yes. But you have to believe it is possible in order to 'put your teeth into it'.

K: For me, I know one can live without violence. But that may be a biological freak and so on. But to discuss together, the four of us, and see if we could be free of violence completely. Inwardly (our residual heritage of ) violence is manifested in imitation, conformity, this constant (self-) comparing, that is part of hurt, part of violence. So can I live without comparing myself (subliminally ) with you who are bright, clever, and got a lot of publicity, when you say a word the whole world listens. And I can shout, nobody cares. So I want to be like you. So I am comparing constantly myself with something I think is greater.

JH: So this is where ( the desire for ) 'becoming' comes, from comparing ?

K: That's just it. So can I live without comparison?

JH: Doesn't that leave me in an insufficient state?

K: To live without comparison? Not (necessarily) By comparing myself with you who are bright, who are clever, I may begin to think I am dull. But if I don't compare , I am ( fully responsible for) what I am.

RS: Well you may not compare but I may compare. I may say, you are dull.

K: The other day, after one of the talks in England, a man came up to me and said, "Sir, you are a beautiful old man but you are stuck in a rut". I said, "Well, sir, perhaps, I don't know, we'll go into it". So I went up to my room and said, "Am I?", so I went into it very carefully, step by step, and found what does a 'stuck in a rut' mean, to be stuck in a groove, to move along a particular line. Maybe, so I watch it. So ( the non-personal) observation of a fact is entirely different from escaping or the suppression of it.

JH: So he says you are stuck in a rut, then you just observe it, you don't compare yourself (with others?)

K: Am I psychologically, inwardly, caught in a groove (repeating every year the same stuff ?) , like a tramway car? I am going to find out. I am going to be terribly attentive, sensitive & alert.

JH: Now this requires that you don't react in the first place by saying, "No, I couldn't possibly be stuck in a rut''

K: I wouldn't. You may be telling the ( objective) truth.
This leads to something else : is there a learning about oneself which is not a constant accumulation ( of facts ) about myself? (Eg;) I observe myself. And I have learnt from that observation something. And that something is being accumulated all the time by watching. I think that is not ( the holistic way of?) learning about yourself. ( Self-knowing) is like a river that is flowing, you have to follow it.

RS: But then what about this (more pragmatic) approach: somebody says I am stuck in a rut, I look at myself and think, yes, I am stuck in a rut; then I can respond by thinking, well, what's wrong with that, being stuck in a rut?

K: Sir, that's just ( being inwardly) blind.

RS: No, you accept the fact, but then you think, well, why should I do anything about it? What's wrong with that as an approach?

K: Like a man (inwardly ?) stuck as a 'Hindu', he is then ( potentially or unconsciously ?) contributing to war.

RS: Well, I may say, well I am stuck in a rut, but so is everybody, it is the nature of humanity to be stuck in ruts.

K: If that is the nature of humanity, let's change it, for God's sake !
And if you prefer that way of living, go ahead. But I don't want to live that way.

JH: Well the person who comes into (psycho)therapy usually comes in with both sides going on at the same time. He says that, I have this problem which I want to be free of, I don't want to be stuck in a rut; on the other hand when it gets down to really looking at that he doesn't want to look at it either because it becomes (disturbing &) uncomfortable.

K: Of course. To come back to your original question: the world is in disorder, human beings are in disorder, and we described what is disorder. And is there a possibility to live (inwardly) free from disorder? That is the real basic question.

JH: As long as I identify on a personal level with my job, or with my family and so on, there will be pain.

K: So is it possible to have without identification with that responsibility?

JH: If I am not identified will I even go to work?

K: But I am responsible for the lady whom I have married. Responsible in the sense that I have to look after her, care for her, and she has to care for me. Responsibility means order. But we have become (inwardly) totally irresponsible by isolating ourselves - British, French.

JH: We handle the problem of responsibility by developing a (temporal) rut that we can work in.

K: Yes. That's it. If I see the fact that responsibility is ( to keep everything in) order, I am responsible to keep this ( global) house clean, but as we all live on this earth it is our earth, not the British earth, or French earth and German earth, it is our earth to live on. And we have divided ourselves because in this division we think there is (more?) security.

JH: Well it isn't clear, we have got to go slowly because I think that my job is security, I think that my family is security.

K: You may lose it.

JH: That problem keeps coming up : I need to have some self respect.

K: What do you mean, by 'self respect'?

JH: What I am trying to say is that there is some place at which I put an identification.

K: Why should I want to identify with anything, sir? That makes immediate isolation.

JH: For stability's sake.

K: Does isolation bring about stability?

JH: It gives one a sense of something hard and firm.

K: Does it? There have been during the last five thousand years nearly five thousands wars. Is that stability?

JH: No.

K: What is wrong with us?

JH: Well, why don't we see this thing? You are saying that the root of the problem is that I continue to identify with one thing after another, if one identification doesn't work I just find something else. I don't stop identifying.

K: Yes, sir, which breeds isolation.

JH: But in your example about a person that is stuck in a rut, you say I don't have to identify, I can just step back and look at this thing and see if it is true.

K: Yes.

JH: So you are suggesting that there is ( within us ) 'something' that is free to look.

K: This leads to something else. Back to our main subject : why do I want to identify myself? Probably basically the desire to be secure, to be safe, to be protected. And that sense (of identity ) gives me strength.

RS: But this is a biological fact. It is not merely an illusion. We again, to come back to the animal kingdom, we see it there: deer go round in flocks, birds have flocks, bees have hives and they are identified with the hive in which they work.

K: But bees don't kill themselves, species don't kill themselves.

RS: Well they kill other bees that invade their hide. They don't commit suicide. They kill others.

K: Yes, I know that.

RS: So we see even in the animal kingdom this identification with the group, in the social animals, but many social animals, and we are social animals...

K: Just a minute. By identifying ourselves with India, or China, or Germany, is that giving us ( a total inner?) security ?

RS: To a limited extent it is. Identifying myself with my family it does give me a kind of security, it actually works. And that is a very good reason for doing it, for most people.

K: Stretch it further from the family, to the community, from the community to the nation and so on, that is a vast process of isolating. And I say, for god's sake this is so damn stupid.

RS: Well it is not entirely stupid because it works to a certain extent.

K: It may work, but it is impractical, it is ( leading on the global scale to ) destroying each other.

RS: But there is some aspect of it that does work, and some security that is genuine that these things confer.

K: Yes, sir. At a certain (materialistic) levels identification has a certain importance. But at a 'higher' level it becomes dangerous. That's all we are saying. Of course if you are my ( beloved) brother you will look after me.

DB: Well it is very hard to draw up a line, you see, that starts spreading out.

K: That's right, spreading out.

RS: But where do you draw the line, you see. If you say the nation state is wrong, then what is wrong with the (family?) tribe, or the caste, then you have got conflict between those.

K: I wouldn't draw the line. I say that as a human being I am responsible for what is happening in the world. And so what is happening in the world is this terrible division, so I won't be a Hindu, I won't be a Catholic, Protestant, nothing. A hundred, or a thousand ( non 'self-identified'?) people like that, would begin to 'do something'.

JH: So you are saying that the problem comes up because I mistake my local security, I think that it rests in some local identification.

K: Which is isolation. And therefore in isolation there is no ( authentic) security, therefore there is no (holistic) order.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 May 2018 #45
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


3RD K CONVERSATION WITH BOHM, HIDLEY & SHELDRAKE cca 1982 ('reader friendly' edited)

JH: We would like to talk about the question of whether there is a deep security, and whether the 'self' (centred consciousness?) can be dissolved. You have suggested that if that's possible, then the ( 'personal' ) problems that the individual brings to the office...

K: Sir, why do we seek (a 'psychological') security, apart from physical? Apart from terrestrial security, why do we want security?

JH: Well, we all may know moments of peace and happiness, and we want to stabilize that, hold that.

K: Then that becomes a (nostalgic?) memory, not actual security. A memory that one day we were happy, and I wish we could go back to it. Or you project a hope to achieve it someday. But why is it that human beings, probably throughout the world, seek security? What is the 'raison d'etre' of this demand for security? What makes people ask for security, psychologically?

JH: Well, ( because most of the time?) they're occupied with their problems. And there is the feeling that if I can solve these problems, if I can find out what the right answer is, if...

K: That's not ( bringing any ) security (right now) , surely. There is great uncertainty, great sense of emptiness in oneself, loneliness. Really, loneliness – feeling ( inwardly & outwardly?) isolated & lonely. And it's ( pretty) depressing - after all, ( the gnawing sense of one's existential?) loneliness is the essence of a (self-) isolated (consciousness?) , in which I have no relationship with anybody. Is that one of the ( hidden?) reasons why human beings seek this desire for (psychological comfort & ?) security?

JH: Yes, to fill that up.

K: Oh much deeper than that. To be secure in my ( endeavour of self-) fulfillment, to be free of fear, free of my agony. I want to be free of all those so that I can feel completely secure in peace and happiness. Is that what we want?

JH: Yes. And we want that to be stable over time.

K: Stable, permanent - if there is anything 'permanent' - is that the reason why we crave this for security?

JH: Yes.

K: That means to be free from fear and then I am totally secure. So, is it that human beings are incapable of solving their deep-rooted psychological fears. I am taking fear as an example- and be freeing from it is to feel so marvellously secure (inwardly) .

JH: You are saying that if we can solve our problems at a fundamental level.

K: Otherwise what's the point, how can I be totally secure? So, is it the physical (need for) security, of shelter, of food and clothes, spilling over into the psychological field? You understand what I mean?

JH: Is that where the psychological feeling of the need for security comes from?

K: Yes, partly. One must have 'food, clothes and shelter' . That's an absolute essential, otherwise you four wouldn't be sitting here. But in (our) search of that we also want to be equally secure 'psychologically' ( to reach a lasting condition of 'psychological' or 'spiritual' protection ?) .

JH: They seem to be equated.

K: Yes, but I'm questioning whether the psychological desire to be (permanently) secure prevents (even our ) physical security ?

JH: It seems like the psychological desire to be secure arises out of the necessity to function in the 'real world'

K: I want to be psychologically secure, so I am getting (strongly ) attached to , or I 'identify' myself ( with ...myself?) or with a family, community or nation, that very isolation is going to (slowly) destroy me. So why do we seek this?

JH: Okay, then you're saying that there is a mistake, which is that we identify ourselves, attach ourselves to something and seek security in that, and that that's something fundamentally wrong ?

K: Yes, no, not fundamental. I won't say it is right or wrong. I am asking why? It is fact which is happening right throughout the world, not just for a certain community, all human beings want to be so unshakably ( self-centredly ?) secure.

DB: Well, in the case of a young child, or a baby, he feels the need to be loved by his parents and it seems that at a certain stage the infant has the need for a kind of 'psychological' security, which he should grow out of perhaps, but since very often, he isn't properly taken care of by his parents he begins to feel lost, as you say, alone, isolated, and there arises a demand that he become inwardly secure.

K: A baby must be secure.

DB: Yes, psychologically as well as physically, wouldn't you say ?

K: Yes, there must be.

DB: Now at some stage you would say that it would change. I don't know what age.

K: Why. At a certain age, a small baby or a young child, it must be protected.

DB: In every way, it must not be shocked psychologically.

K: protect it with affection, taking it in your lap, you make him feel that he is loved, that he is cared for. That gives him a feeling, here is somebody who is looking after me, and there is ( an authentic feeling of) security here.

DB: Yes, and then he will grow up not requiring (anymore) that security ?

K: That's what I am questioning, as he grows up, and as he faces the (real) world, why does he crave for security?

DB: Well, I think very few children ever have that ( unconditional) love to begin with, you see.

K: Oh, that's it. So is that the problem?

DB: Well, that's one factor.

K: That we really (are not loved & ) don't love? And if one loves (has affection & love) , there is no need for (psychological) security. You don't even think about security. If I really have (inward access to?) this deep sense of (unconditional) love for another, what is the need for ( a self-centred psychological) security? It's my ( holistic ?) responsibility to see that you are (feeling) secure. So does that mean we don't ( have unconditional affection or?) 'love' another?

JH: Yes, it means that what we 'love' is you making me feel like I'm going to get that security which I crave.

K: Is fear the root of all this?

JH: We seem to have mentioned already several things that are the root of it : as the baby grows up and does not feel loved, he tries to return (instinctually) to that ( loving memory) or, as an adult, he's afraid because he's not feeling inwardly protected, and he tries to create for itself that same protection.

K: Or, sir, is it that unconsciously we (kind of?) know ( that our self (centred consciousness ) , the 'me', the 'ego', is really totally unstable.

JH: You are saying that in its nature it's totally unstable?

K: In its nature it is unstable. And therefore there is this ( deep existential) anxiety for security outside and inside.

JH: Why do you say it's totally unstable?

K: Isn't it? Isn't our ( self-) consciousness unstable?

JH: It seems to have two sides to it. One side says that if I could just get such and such thing , I would be stable.

K: But much more fundamentally, is not this the 'self (-identified' consciousness?) itself in a state of movement (becoming) , uncertainty, getting attached; ( with the collateral) fears involved in that attachment; all that? That's state of lack of stability. Therefore I am asking, is that the reason that human beings 'unconsciously', knowing ( or intuiting ?) the instability of the self, want security, God, the Saviour?

JH: Wanting something absolute?

K: Yes, that'll give it an inner sense of complete ( wholeness & ) contentment. ( However?) our (self-centred ) consciousness is ( generated by ) its ( active memory) content. Right?

JH: Yes.... ?

K: And its (fragmentary 'thought-desire' ?) 'content' is always in contradiction. I believe , and yet I'm frightened of ( what could happen if I'm ) not believing.

JH: That's why you're saying in essence it's unstable ?

K: So clearly unstable. I want this thing and some other desire comes along and says, ''don't have that, for God's sake ! '' - there is this contradiction, this duality, within all that exists in our consciousness: fear, pleasure, fear of death, you know all the ( desire ridden?) 'content' of our consciousness, all that. So ( the very basis of ) that (psychological structure) is unstable.

JH: Now sensing all of that, people generally say : this problem is too deep or too complex, there's no way to solve it (completely ?) , but we can maybe just make some adjustments.

K: Yes, yes. And in those ( self-) adjustments also there is lack of stability. So unconsciously there must be craving for security. So we invent ( a 'larger than life' image of?) God.

JH: We also keep inventing lots of other (lesser ) things we hope will give us that security.

K: We create (the image of) 'God', he's our creation. We are not the creation of God, I wish we were. We would be totally different. So there is this illusory (but hyper-active) desire for security.

JH: Now wait a minute, why do you say that it's illusory?

K: Because we 'invent' something (an illusory mental structure?) in which we hope we'll be secure.

JH: Oh, I see. Yes.

K: Now, if the (illusory?) content of our consciousness can be 'changed', would there be need for security?

JH: If we could eliminate all its (internal) contradictions?

K: Yes, contradictions.

JH: Then maybe we would have the security because our consciousness would be stable.

K: So that maybe it. We may not even call it 'security'. Personally I never thought about ( my own ?) 'security'. You might say, well, you are looked after, you are cared for by others and all the rest of it, therefore there is no need for you to think about security, but I don't want (this kind of) security. I need, of course, I need food, clothes and shelter, that's understood, somebody to (provide them when needed ?)

JH: And you're saying that (an authentic inner security) occurs when the contents of consciousness are no longer contradictory ?

K: It may not be what we know now as ( time-bound?) consciousness, it may be something totally different. ( But, in the meanwhile?) all that we know is fear, reward and pleasure, and ( the grim perspective of old age & ) death and constant conflict in relationship: I love you but...

JH: Within limits.

K: Within limits. I don't know if that's called 'love'. So there is the content of consciousness is all that; which is (I -me-mine?) . My consciousness is me. In this complex contradictory dualistic existence this very fact creates the demand for security.

JH: Yes...

K: So can we eliminate the self (- centredness?) ?

JH: Well, it seems like there's 'somebody' in here, who's going to juggle all these things and get rid of the contradictions.

K: But that means you are different from this; from your consciousness ?

JH: Right....

K: But 'you' are that! You are ( your drive for?) pleasure, you are your fears, you are your beliefs, all that you are.( Experiential clue : Don't please 'agree' with what I'm saying. It may be all 'tommyrot' ( 'copy-pasted') !)

JH: I think there are a lot of people who would not agree with that.

K: I know there're a lot of people wouldn't because they haven't gone into it. They just want to brush all this aside.

JH: Well, let's look at this. Is there a self that's going to be able to somehow 'iron out' these contradictions?

K: No!

RS: How do you know? I mean it seems to me that there is - well, it may be illusory - but it's very easy to think that one is separate from some of these problems and that there's something inside oneself which can make (the right) decisions.

K: Am I separate from my fear? Am I separate from the agony I go through? The depression?

RS: Well, there's something within one which can examine these things objectively and this indicates there is some kind of separation.

K: Because there is the 'observer' separate from the ( stuff which is being) 'observed'.

RS: Yes...

K: Is that so?

RS: Well, it seems to be so.

K: It 'seems' to be so!

RS: Now, this seems to be the (dualistic ) problem, that it does seem to be so, I mean, in my own experience, of course, and many other people's it does indeed seem that there is an observer observing things like fear and one's own reactions. And it comes out most clearly, I find, in insomnia, if one's trying to sleep there's one part of one that going on with silly worries and ridiculous thoughts round and round; there's another part of one that says, I really want to sleep, I wish I could stop all these silly thoughts. And there one has this actual experience of an apparent separation.

K: Of course, of course.

RS: So this isn't just a theory, it's an actual fact of experience that there is this kind of separation.

K: I agree, I agree. But why does that division exist? Who created the division?

RS: It may just be a fact.

K: Is that so? I want to examine it.

RS: Yes, so do I. I mean, isn't it a fact that our consciousness has 'levels', some of which can examine others, one at a time?

K: No. Would you kindly consider (it holistically?) , is 'my fear' different from 'me' (the central entity which projects itself in time) ? I may act upon my fear, but the ( cause of the?) fear is me.

RS: Well, we often...

K: You only invent the separation (between 'you' and 'your fear') where you want to act upon it. But otherwise I 'am' fear.

RS: The common and ordinary way of analyzing it would be to say, I feel afraid, as if the 'afraidness' was separate from the I. I want to get out of this state of 'feeling afraid', so I want to put the fear behind me and the I will pass beyond it . This is the normal way we think.

K: I know.

RS: So what's wrong with that?

K: You keep up this conflict.

DB: I think he is saying it ( the splitting between 'me' & 'my fear' ) may be inevitable.

K: I question it.

DB: Yes, well, then how do you propose to show it's not inevitable?

K: First of all (taking another example) at the moment of (getting angry) , there is no separation. Right?

RS: When you're very angry, what we normally say is that ''you lose control of yourself'' and the separation disappears, you become ( totally identified with ) the (reaction of) anger, yes.

K: At the moment when you are really angry, there is no separation. The separation only takes place after. "I have been angry." Right? Now, why does this ('post facto'?) separation take place?

RS: Through ( the buffering action of our past ?) memory.

K: Through memory, right. Because I have (the experience of having) been angry before. So the (memory of the ) past is recognising and evaluating (the incident) . So the ( memory of the ) past is ( acting as ) the 'observer'.

DB: That ( buffering interference?) may not be so obvious, you know. For example, I may have physical reactions that go 'out of control', like sometimes the hand or the body, and then I say I am observing those physical reactions going out of control and I would like to bring them back in line, right? And I think somebody might feel the same way (inwardly) that his mental reactions are 'going out of control' and that they have momentarily escaped his control and that he's trying to bring them back in line. You see, that's the way it may look or 'feel' to many people.

K: So, what?

DB: Well, then (your example ?) is not clear. Have we made it clear that that is not the case, you see.

K: Sir, I was trying to point out that when one is frightened, actually, there's no 'me' separate from fear. When there is a (thought-) time interval, there is the division (between the 'observer' and the fear being 'observed') . When (the process-supervising ) thought comes in, then begins the division. Because thought is ( the controlling/stabilising response of our past experience stored in ?) memory.

RS: Thought involves memory – yes.

K: Yes, involves memory and so on. So (the active ) memory of the 'past' is (identifying itself as ) the ( all-controlling) 'observer'; who says I am different from ( that stupid irrational ?) fear, so... I must control it.

JH: Let's go through this very slowly because the common experience is that the observer is the present (all the time) . It seems like he's saying, ''I'm here now and I know what am I going to do about this the next time it comes up''.

K: Yes. But the 'what am I going to do about it' is the ( buffering) response of the past, because you have already had that kind of (painful) experience. Sir, haven't you had a (major ) fear that has really shaken you ?

JH: Yes.

K: At that very second there is no division, you are entirely 'consumed' (engulfed?) by that. Now, then (the 'thinker' along with its analytical ) thinking comes along and says, ''I've been afraid or because of this and because of that, now I must defend myself, rationalize fear and so on''... It's so obvious, what are we discussing?

DB: You see, coming back again to the physical reaction (of anger or fear) which can also 'consume you' and at the next moment, you say, I didn't notice it at the time, ( or in holistic terms) thought comes in and says, that's only a (natural) physical reaction.

K: Yes.

DB: Now, what is the difference of these two cases, you see, that in the second case it would make sense to say, I know that I have reacted this way before, and I can take such an such action.

K: I don't quite follow this...

DB: Somebody can feel that, it's true I get overwhelmed by a 'fear' reaction and thought comes in (to buffer it?) . But in many areas that's a normal procedure for thought to come in if something really shattering happens, and then a moment later, you think, what was it? Right? Now, in some cases that would be correct, right?

K: Quite right.

DB: Now, why in this (psychological) case it (thought's buffering) is not (valid)  ?

K: Ah, I see what you mean. You meet a 'rattler' snake on a walk. Which I have done very often. You meet a rattler, he rattles and you jump. That is a physically self-protective intelligent response. That's not ( a thought created?) fear.

DB: Right. Not a 'psychological' fear. But a moment later I may discover it's not a rattler, it's another snake which is not so dangerous. And then thought comes in and it's perfectly all right. Right ?

K: Yes,

DB: But here, when I am getting angry or frightened...

K: Then thought comes in.

DB: And it's not all right.

K: Oh, I see what you are trying to get at. Why do I say it is not all right ? Because ( living in the shadow of the 'psychological' ) fear ( regarding what might happen ?) is blocking one's (rational) mind and thought and all the rest of it, one shrinks in that fear.

DB: Yes, I think I see that. In the case of physical danger, it would still come in rationally...

K: Yes. Here it becomes irrational. So (to make a very long story short?) I am asking, why doesn't one clear up this awful mess?

JH: What mess are you talking about ?

K: Look, sir, this is a 'messy' consciousness, contradictory, frightened, oh, so many fears and so on. Now, why can't we 'clear it up'?

JH: Well, it seems we are always trying to 'clear it up' after the fact.

K: I think the (major holistic ?) difficulty is that we don't recognize deeply this this 'messy consciousness' IS 'me'. And if it 'is' me, 'I' can't do anything! I don't know if you get the ( 'non-action' contemplative ?) point.

RS: You mean we think that there's a 'me' separate from this messy consciousness.

K: We (like to ) think we are separate. And therefore it is our (traditional) conditioning, to 'act upon' it. But I can't do that if the messy consciousness 'is' me. So the problem then arises, what is ( the inner ) action when there is realization of the fact that I can't act, because I 'am' that.

JH: Then what is action?

K: That is 'non-action'.

JH: Okay...

K: Ah, that's not just 'okay', ( in meditation?) that is (making a ) total difference.

JH: Yes, I think I understand. On the one hand there's the action of consciousness on itself which just perpetuates things. And seeing that, then it ceases to act.

RS: We do all feel there's something in us which is separate from the contents of this messy consciousness. We normally act in such a way as to change either the contents of the consciousness or our relation to the world, and so on. But we don't normally examine this apparent separation between the self, the me, and the contents of the messy consciousness. That's something we don't challenge. Now you're suggesting that in fact this separation which we can actually experience and do, most of us do experience, is in fact something we ought to challenge and look at and we ought to face the idea that we actually 'are' ( both the cause & the effect of this) messy consciousness and nothing other ?

K: Of course.(For the 'speaker') it's so obvious .

RS: Well, it's not only 'non-obvious' , but a very difficult thing to realize (outside the field of meditation?) , because one's very much in the habit of thinking one is separate from it.

K: So can we move away from our conditioning? Our conditioning is me. And ( if one realises) that I 'am' that, then there's (inwardly a state of ) 'non- action', which is ( opening the door to?) the most positive action.

JH: But the common way that this would be 'heard' (interpreted?) is that if I don't act on it it's just going to stay the way it is.

K: Ah!

DB: You were first raising the question of action, though; if that is the case, how is (a holistically friendly) action to take place?

K: When there is perception of 'that which is true', the (liberating action of ) truth is sufficient, it (the 'messiness' of our consciousness ?) is finished.

RS: Sir, are you suggesting that the realization of ( the truth regarding) this messiness itself in some way dissolves the messiness?

K: Yes. Not a separative (dualistic) realization that I am messy. The fact is ''my consciousness is messy'', full stop. And 'I' (the self-centred entity?) can't act upon it. Because acting (dualistically) upon it was a wastage of (our 'high grade intelligent') energy.

JH: Well, I think that's another aspect of this. In therapy or in our own lives we seem to have insights that are partial, that do clear up a particular problem and we can gain some clarity and order for a time. But then, the thing returns in some other form or in the same form. You're suggesting that the ( clearing up) 'thing' needs to be done across the board in some way.

K: Before the observer acts upon it, upon the messy consciousness, right? Say, I'll clear this up, give it time, you know all the rest of it. But that's a wastage of energy. When the ( truth of the ) fact (is seen:) that you 'are' that - you are not wasting ( intelligent ) energy (in pointless conflicts) . Which is (that the total action then is ) 'attention'. I don't know if you want to go into this.

RS: Please do, this is very interesting.

K: Would we agree that 'acting upon it' is a wastage of ( one's 'high-grade' intelligent?) energy in this constant conflict between 'me' and the 'not me'. Whereas ( the truth of the matter is seen :) this messy consciousness 'is' me. I have come to realize that through ( a non-dissipative quality of) attention. Not I have come to – sorry.

DB: Would you say that the (totality of the ) consciousness itself has come to realize it?

K: Yes.

DB: So, it's not 'me' realising it, right?

K: Yes. Which is the 'total attention' that one is giving to this consciousness. ( In a nutshell:) ) there is attention and inattention. Inattention is wastage of energy. Attention is energy. When there is observation that consciousness is messy, that fact can only exist when there is 'total attention'. And when there is total attention, the (old state of ) confusion doesn't exist any more. It's only 'inattention' ( the lack of holistic attention?) that creates the ( psychologically related?) problems.

RS: I don't understand entirely what you're saying. This 'total attention' that you're talking about, would only be able to have this effect if one was living completely in the present and devoid of memory.

K: Of course, of course, 'attention' is (like) that. If I attend to what you have said just now, devoid of ( the psychologically related) memory, which is attention, I listen to you not only with the sensory ear, but also with the other (mind's ?) ear, which is, I am giving my 'whole attention' to find out what you are saying; which is actually happening in the present. In this attention there is no centre.

RS: You mean there's no 'centre' in the attention because the attention is all there is, the thing attended to and the attention is all there is.

K: Ah, no, no. There is ( still a karmic load of ?) messiness ( to be cleared up?) because ( during the time-bound existence ) I have been inattentive. Right?

RS: Yes...

K: When there is the (totally insightful) observation of the fact that the observer 'is' the observed (as they both come from the same inner source?) that state of observation in which there is no observer as the ( all-controlling interference of the?) past, that is 'attention'. I don't know if you have gone into the question of 'meditation' here...

JH: That may be a relevant subject because it seems that ( the clearing up of the 'messiness' ) you were talking about may happen only partially.

K: Ah! It can't happen  because then you keep a partial 'mess' and a partial 'non- mess'. We're back again the same ( dualistic) position.

RS: But don't you think that this 'total attention' you're talking about is the sort of thing that many people experience occasionally in moments of great beauty, or occasionally a piece of music they're really enjoying, they lose themselves, and so on - do you think that many of us have had glimpses of this in these kinds of ( transpersonal) experiences?

K: When I see a ( Swiss?) mountain, the majesty and the dignity and the depth of it drives away my ( self-conscious?) 'self'. ( Same case with ) a child with a toy, the toy 'absorb's him. That means there is something outside ( of myself) which will make me ( feel inwardly loving & ) peaceful. Which means an outside agency will keep me quiet: God, prayer, looking up to something or other. But If I reject ( this hypothetical?) outside agency completely, nothing can absorb me. (Clue : if your (holistic presence) absorbs me, when you are gone I am back to myself).

JH: Yes.

K: So I discard any sense of external agency which will 'absorb me'. So I am left with ( the challenge of 'becoming a light for?) myself', that's my point.

JH: I see. So you're suggesting that when this happens partially it's because we're depending on something.

K: Yes, of course. Like a devout Hindu, Catholic or anybody, they depend on something. Therefore that dependence ( creates its strings of ) attachment.

JH: But it's also possible to listen to you saying this and have the idea of what you are talking about and try to do that.

K: Ah, 'you' can't do it! That means 'you' are acting again because you want something out of it. Here (in 'becoming a light for yourself' ?) it's not like that, you are enquiring into something which demands a great deal of (non-personal) thinking, a great deal of ''intelligence and attention''. Why is there this division, this ( global) 'messiness' in the world? Because our consciousness is messy and so the world is messy. So from that arises, is it possible to be free of the 'self' ( of our self-centredness?) ? Consciousness, the messy consciousness, is the self.

RS: It is not possible to be free from the contents of consciousness, different experiences, as long as my eyes are looking outwardly. Now what you were saying about the attention when one's looking at a mountain, for example, are you suggesting that if I have that same kind of attention to everything I experience, that then this is the...

K: You see, again 'you' experience... You 'are' the experience.

RS: Yes.

K: Right. That means, there is no (personal) experience.

RS: There's just 'attention', you mean ?

K: Experience involves a remembrance of (what was known or happened in the past ?) time. Therefore the experiencer 'is' (not fundamentally not separated from) the experienced. If 'I' seek enlightenment, or whatever you might call it, I am then trying to do all kinds of (well known tricks or?) 'things' to achieve that. But ( the starting truth is that ) I don't know what illumination is. I don't know, but I am going to find out if the mind is totally free (that is:) free from prejudice, from fear, all the rest of that messy business. So my ( first ) concern is not with 'illumination', but whether the (psychologically biased ?) 'content' of my consciousness can be cleansed - whatever word you use. That's my enquiry. And as long as 'I' am ( considering myself as an entity ) separate from my consciousness, I can 'experience' it, I can analyze it, I can tear it to pieces, act upon it – but this means a perpetual conflict between 'me' and 'my consciousness'. So, I wonder why do we accept the 'psychological' authority, 'spiritual' authority? Again we come back to ( the instinctual desire for?) security. I don't know what to do but you ( are supposed to?) know better than I do; you are my 'guru'. I refuse that position.

RS: But don't we arrive at the same set of problems if we start from responsibility; say I'm the father, I have this child and in order to feed the baby you become preoccupied with ( your & his material) security: job tenure, you know, protecting the house against marauders and so on.

K: Of course, of course.

RS: So, don't you get into the same lot of things about preoccupation with security starting not from authority but from responsibility for others, for children, for example.

K: Of course.

RS: So then what is the answer to that ? It's easy to say you should reject responsibility.

K: Of course, if I have money, if I earn money, job, so on, I have to look after myself, I have children and perhaps their children too. I am responsible for all that. Physically I am responsible. To give them food, to give the right amount of money, allow their children go to a proper school like my children, I am responsible for all that.

RS: But isn't that going to bring you back to the same position of insecurity and so on that you were trying to dissolve by this rejection of (psychological) authority?

K: I don't see why I need 'spiritual' or 'psychological' authority if I know how to read ( the book of ) myself, I don't need anybody to tell me. But we have never attempted deeply to read this book of myself. So, I come to you and say, please, help me to read it . And then the whole (initiative?) thing is lost.

JH: But I think what Rupert is asking is that if we start by assuming responsibility for other people, that entails...

K: What? My earning capacity.

JH: Which must be secure.

K: Yes, secure as much as possible. Not ( easy to be done) in countries where there's tremendous unemployment.

JH: So you're saying that that doesn't entail any psychological insecurity.

K: Of course not. But when I say, he's my servant, I'm going to keep him in that place, you follow?

JH: No. Tell me more.

K: I mean, I treat him as a servant. Which becomes (psychologically) irresponsible. Naturally.

JH: But if it's just a servant, he can come and go. But if it's a child he can't come and go.

K: He's part of my family.

DB: I think the question is something like this, that suppose you are responsible for a family and the conditions are difficult, you may not have a job and you may start to worry about it and ( as a result you may) become insecure even 'psychologically'.

K: Yes.

DB: Right?

K: I ( personally won't?) worry about it, ''there it is, I have no more money''. So, my friend, if you want to stay, share the little food I have, we'll share it.

DB: You're saying that even if you are unemployed and you are responsible for a family it will not disturb the (inward ) order of the mind, right?

K: Of course not.

DB: You will find an intelligent way to solve it ? deal with it.

DB: Yes.

RS: But this kind of worry as a result of ( a self assumed) responsibility is relative.

K: I don't call it 'worry'. I am responsible and therefore I look after as much as I can.

RS: What if you can't?

K: can't. Why should I worry and bother if it's a fact.

DB: You're saying that it's possible to be completely free of worry, for example, in the face of great difficulties ?

K: You see, that's what I am saying. Where there is (a non-personal integrated?) 'attention', there is no (personal ?) worry, because there is no centre from which you are 'attending'.

RS: There are still problems and there may still be responsibilities that one has.

K: Of course I have problems, so I ( do my best to?) resolve them.

RS: But if you can't resolve them ?

K: Then... I can't.

RS: If your family is starving.

K: I can't. Why should I worry about it?

RS: But if you're a poor Indian, unemployed, your family is starving, there's nothing, you've tried everything, you've failed. And you don't worry. Actually, surprisingly enough, a lot of poor Indians in just that situation don't 'worry', that's the most amazing thing about India. But then of course (western) people coming along looking from outside say, well, this is 'fatalism'.

K: Yes, that's right.

RS: And it's often regarded as the 'disease' of India, the very fact that so many people manage not to worry in those circumstances... to the degree that we would expect.

K: I'd like to ask you a (personal ) question. You've listened to all this: messy consciousness - does one realize it, and empty the content: fear, you know, the whole business? Does it interest you?

JH: Yes.

K: Totally?

JH: Yes.

K: That means what?

JH: It means you just listen.

K: No, it means ( a meditating ?) 'dialogue' between us. Penetrating deeper and deeper and deeper. Which means you must be free to examine. (namely:) free from your prejudices, from your previous (knowledgeable?) experience. Otherwise you can't investigate... 'investigate' means to explore, push, push, push it further and further. Now are we willing to do that, so that actually the 'self' (-centredness?) is not? This doesn't mean you neglect your wife, your children - you follow? Can I be (inwardly ) so totally free of the 'self' (-centred identification?) that I can intelligently deal with these problems?

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 25 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 May 2018 #46
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline



K: What is ( wrong with self-analysis) ? And what is (the experiential advantage of a direct & non-dualistic inner?) observation? In analysis there is the analyzer and the analyzed. And so there is always that (illusory?) 'difference' maintained. Where there is 'difference' there must be conflict, division, and that's one of the factors that really is very destructive to our inner : this conflict, this division. And psychanalysis maintain this division. Whereas if one observes more closely, the 'analyzer' is (essentially not different from the inner content being) 'analyzed'. Again the same (ages old?) problem, ( our self-centred ) thought has divided the 'analyzer' ( the 'controller' ) and the (inner stuff being?) analyzed. The 'analyzer' (mental entity) is (impersonating the active memory of the?) past who has acquired a lot of knowledge, information, and ( for safety & stability purposes has?) separated himself, and is either correcting the (thoughts & feelings which are being ?) observed, the 'analyzed': and make them 'conform' (or fall in line with the accepted group mentality?) he is 'acting' upon it.

Whereas when the 'analyzer' (realises that it) is ( not separate from the thoughts & feelings being examined or?) ?) analyzed - if that ( experiential) truth is really understood very deeply, the 'psychological' (internal) conflicts end, because in that there is no division between the analyzer and the analyzed, there is only ( a holistic quality of intelligent?) observation. Which Dr Bohm and we discussed at considerable length (on & off?) in the last (20 +) years.
So if that ( fine point?) is clearly understood one can live the whole of one's life without conflict. That means the (thought's ) 'controller' is absent; which is a very 'dangerous' ( or 'slippery'?) question.
( In a nutshell:) I feel that 'inattention' - the lack of (an integrated holistic?) attention - is (creating the conditions for?) the whole process of (inner & outer ) conflict.

RS: Yes, I can see that if both sides ( of a marriage ?) saw this with the utmost clarity...

K: Yes. That means they are giving Intelligence to the whole problem.

RS: What happens if only one party in a conflict sees it with that utmost clarity?

K: Let's begin with that : you have given complete attention when she insults you, when she flatters you, when she bullies you or when she is attached to you, all that coming from her lack of attention. If you give complete attention and the wife doesn't, then what happens? Either you try to explain day after day, go into it with her patiently. After all, ( the holistic) attention implies also great deal of care, affection, love. It's not just (a dry) mental attention. It's attention with all your being. Then either she moves along with you, comes over to your side, or she holds on to her separative (self-) contradictory state. Then what happens? One is ( remaining?) 'stupid', the other is intelligent.

RS: But the conflict (may be going on?)

K: There is always the battle between the ignorant and the intelligent.

JH: A thing that seems to happen is that the one's intelligence makes room in which the other person who is caught in some attachment may have freedom to look.

K: But if the other ( person) refuses to look at it, then what is the relationship between the two people?

JH: ( Inwardly speaking?) there is none.

K: That's all. Will you have the care, affection, love, so that you ( holistically) understand ( the psychological roots of ?) my 'stupidity'? I may rebel against you, but ( subliminally?) you (might ) have 'sown the seed' somewhere in me. That does really happen, doesn't it, in life?

JH: But you have also said that you have seen it immediately and the other person may take a long time to come to 'seeing 'it. And it seems like in (the context of this holistic) attention that you're talking about, the (insightful) perception is immediate.

K: Of course.

JH: Well, that may be why the other person is having difficulty in 'seeing' it, is that they want it to be 'proved' to them.

K: For instance, you see ( that the 'time-thought' ) conditioning is destructive. And I don't. What is ( the quality of the ?) relationship between us two? It's very difficult to communicate with each other either verbally or with (tender loving?) care, it's very difficult.

JH: You won't know what I'm talking about.

K: And also I'm 'resisting' ( 'listening' to you) all the time. I'm defending myself.

JH: You're defending what you think you see.

K: What I think is 'right'. I have been brought up as a Hindu or a British or a German or a Russian, whatever it is, and I like ( relying on?) it. And I see the danger of letting that ( subliminal attachment ) go. I depend on public opinion, so I'm frightened to let go. So I stick to it. Then have we any (mutually creative?) relationship?

JH: I can tell you what I see ( as true?)

K: If you( would ) have ( an intelligent & compassionale?) Love for me, real, not just attachment, and sex and all that business, if you really care for me, you cannot lose the feeling of relationship. I don't know if I am conveying what I mean.

JH: In other words, I don't just say, well, I see it and you don't, and if you're not going to listen, the heck with you.

K: Sir, when there is ( this compassionate intelligence of ?) Love you have established a different kind of relationship, perhaps very profound . I may reject you, but you have that 'responsibility' of ( Universal) Love - not only to the particular person, but to the whole ( consciousness?) of humanity. What do you say (DB) about all this?

DB: Well, I think that this (intelligent loving) 'care' and 'attention' are the essential points. For example in the question of the 'observer and the observed' or of 'the analyzer and the analyzed' , the reason why that separation occurs is because there has not been enough (love in this ?) attention.

K: Attention, that's what I'm saying (in 'holistic shorthand' ?) .

DB: So one has to have that same attitude even in looking at one's own psychological problems.

JH: An attitude of 'care'?

DB: Care and attention to what's going on, you see, one starts to analyze by habit, and one might condemn that, for example, 'that would not be the right attitude'. But one has to give (a loving?) care and attention to exactly what is happening inwardly, just as in the outward relationship with people, right? And it's because that there was not this right kind of attention that that division arose in the first place, and was sustained, right?

RS: But it's possible to have perhaps this kind of attention towards people that we know: wives, children, friends, etcetera, but what about people we don't know? I mean, most of us have never met any Russians, for example, and we feel, the Russian ( cyber?) threat and all the rest of it. So how do we have ( this compassionate loving ) attention to 'imagined enemies' that we don't know?

K: What is an 'enemy'? Is there such thing as an enemy?

RS: Well, there are enemies in the sense that there are people who are also afraid of us, I mean, the Russians are afraid of us and we're afraid of them. Because they're afraid of us they're in a position of being our ( potential) enemies.

K: Because we are still thinking in terms of tribalism.

RS: Yes, certainly.

K: Supposing you and I move out of that (mainstream of tribal mentality?) . What's my relationship then with you? I'm not ( identifying myself as being ) a 'Russian' then. I'm a ( non-denominational?) 'human being' with all my psychological problems and you are another 'human being' with all your psychological problems. We are human beings, not ( colectivistic?) 'labels'.

DB: Of course the (traditionalistic ?) 'Russians' may reject this, you see, that is, suppose we're in this situation. Then what's the next step, right?

K: So what shall we do? You see, ( Consciousness-wise?) I represent all humanity. I 'am' all humanity. To me it's an actuality, not just an emotional or romantic idea. I feel I 'am' ( sharing the same ground-consciousness as ?) the rest of mankind. I suffer or I enjoy, I go through all the (everyday inner anxieties or ?) 'tortures' and so do you. So if you feel that you are (inwardly) the rest of mankind, there is a terrible responsibility involved in that. So when you meet a Russian or a German or a British or Argentine you treat them as 'human beings', not as 'labels'.

RS: Then does this simply mean that in this largely tribal society with governments and bombs and weapons of war, there'll just be a few ( holistically minded) individual scattered here and there who've dissolved tribalism in themselves?

K: Yes. If 'a hundred of us' all over the world really had (adopt?) a 'non-tribalistic' ( intelligent & selfless?) attitude towards life, we would be acting like a ( Beacon of spiritual ?) Light in the midst of Darkness. But (at this particular point in time -1982 ?) we don't ( bother to consider this holistic option ?) . So, this just becomes a (fashionable?) idealistic romantic idea and you drop it because everybody else pursues his/her own way.

RS: Yes...

K: Sir, I think we ought to differentiate between 'attention' and ( self-centred?) concentration. Concentration is focussing your energy on a certain point; and in attention, there is no (personal?) focussing on a certain point. It's attention.

JH: Concentration seems to have a (personal?) goal in mind.

K: A goal, motive; it's a restrictive process. Whereas if one gives complete attention to what is happening out of the window, that lizard which is going along the wall, with that same ( quality of holistic?) attention I can look at what I am doing.

RS: But then, if there's no 'controller' of the attention, the attention is simply a response to whatever the present circumstances are.

K: You insult me; Iff (?) I'm (totally?) attentive. There is no ( personal?) recording of that insult.

DB: Yes, that's it.

K: You flatter me: ''what a marvellous talk you gave the other day''. I've heard this so often repeated. And I'm bored with it, so, is it possible not to 'record', except where it is necessary? It's necessary to 'record' (the highway exits?) when you are driving. Record when you do your business and all the rest of it. But psychologically, what is the need to record?

RS: Isn't it inevitable? Doesn't our (sub-conscious) memory work automatically?

K: Our (subliminal) memory is rather selective.

JH: We seem to remember things that are important to us or that have some connection with who we think we are and what our goals are.

DB: It seems to me that when there is paying attention then in general attention determines what is to be recorded and what is not, our brain's 'recoding' is not 'automatic' any more.

K: It's not automatic any more. Quite right.

DB: But if an ( auto-pilot ) 'attention' comes from the past, from the concentration or from the analysis, then it will be 'automatic'.

K: Another (transcendental?) problem which we ought to discuss is religion, meditation, and if (within the human consciousness?) there is something 'sacred'. Is there anything 'sacred' in our (present?) life? Not thought creating something sacred, and then worshipping that 'sacred symbol'. Thought has created the (Holy ?) Image and then it worships it. I don't know if you see the ( spiritual) absurdity of it.

RS: Well, that's manifestly absurd, but the more sophisticated members of different religions would say that this ( highly symbolic) 'image' points to something beyond thought which is actually being worshipped.

K: Wait a minute, let's look at it (analytically?) We know that the symbol is not the Real, but why do we create the symbol? If there is 'something beyond', why do we need to create the intermediary?

RS: Well, I think the Jews were against all idolatry for exactly this reason, and also the Muslims, who don't have images in the mosques - they think the writing is what tells them about what lies beyond all symbols, you see.

K: Yes.

RS: Now you could say the writing simply becomes a symbol, but the words can help us. We're having a discussion, and these words that we're having, your words may help me, for example.
K: So; why do I have to have an 'intermediary' at all?

JH: Because I think I'm here and Truth over there and I don't have it. I need some way to get there.

K: You're not answering my question. Is it that you, the ( professional?) 'intermediary', understand Truth or whatever It is, and therefore you are telling me about it?

JH: Well, maybe I've seen something and I want to tell you about it.

K: Yes, tell me about it, but why do you make yourself the 'interpreter'? Why do you become the 'intermediary' between That ('something sacred') and me, who is ignorant, who is suffering? Why don't you deal with my ( inner condition of fragmentation & ) suffering rather than with That?

JH: I think that That will deal with your suffering. If I can get you to (have a glimpse of it?) ...

K: That has been the old trick of all the 'priests' in the world. We have had priests from time immemorial, right?

JH: Yes.

K: But you haven't released (me of) my sorrow. I am still suffering after a million years. Help me to get rid of that. Help me to be (inwardly) free (of it) then I'll find out. Is it that you want (a social) position, power, status, like the rest of the world? Now this is really quite serious.

DB: I think, if we try to give the priests the most favourable interpretation, that they may have considered to point to something beyond that, like we are now trying to point to this 'sacred' which we were talking about. Now would you say that that would that make no sense, you know, to have a symbolic image to point to the sacred ?

K: But, sir, why don't you help me to see what is happening (inwardly) with me?

DB: So, that's your point, don't point to the Sacred right away but look at this (sad inner reality ?) first ?

K: Help me to be free of it, then I'll walk.

DB: Yes, I understand that.

K: Nobody has gone into this like that. Always God, some Saviour, some Brahma, and so on, so on. And this is what we call (organised?) 'religion'. All the rituals are invented by thought, marvellous architecture by thought, all the things inside the churches, temples, mosques, are created by thought. And thought creates it, then thought worships it. But thought is not sacred.

JH: Yes, I see that. So you are saying, is it possible to put a stop to thought?

K: (Ending ?) thought. Is it possible?

DB: Right. Would you also add that 'time' is not sacred ? They always say only the eternal is sacred.

K: But to find out what is Eternity, ( the inner process of thought -) time must stop.

JH: But we get into a real subtle place here, because you have said things like, absolute attention dissolves the self. Then your (holistic concept of ) 'absolute attention' can become a thought.

K: The ( mental) idea of it, yes.

JH: So we may go the route of creating the idea. That seems to always be the danger.

K: You make a ( holistic?) statement: 'absolute attention'. I don't capture the depth of your meaning, I just make it into an idea. And then I pursue the (implementation of that?) idea.

JH: That seems to be the process.

K: That's what we do all the time.

RS: Yes.

K: So it ( the living spirit of it?) has gone. What you said had depth in it.

JH: But we don't even realize at the time that we're pursuing an idea.

K: Of course not, because I am used to this (intellectual capacity of ) reducing everything to abstract ideas. So could we realize that anything though does is not sacred?

RS: That seems self-evident to me. There's nothing sacred in itself in the words or the buildings or so on. But all these religions are supposed to point at something sacred beyond themselves.

K: Yes. And to help me to go beyond all this, I must start with my being free from my agony, understand my relationship with people. If there is ( darkness & ) confusion here, in my heart and my mind, what's the good of (thinking about ) the Other?
I am not 'materialistic', I am not anti the 'Other'. But I must start ( the inner journey) from where I am. To go very far, I must start very near : I must understand myself. ( And the experiential clue :) I 'am' the rest of humanity. I am not an (isolated) 'individual' (consciousness?) . The whole Book of Humanity is ( deeply encrypted?) in me ; I 'am' that book. So, if I know how to 'read it' from the beginning to the end, then I can I find if there is really something ( in myself) that is immense, sacred. But if you are all the time saying, look, there is That, and That will help you, I say, it hasn't helped me the average truth seeker ?) - on the contrary, You have only distracted me from (facing) 'what is'.
So, if I want to find out if there is anything sacred, I must start very near. The very near is me. Can I free myself from ( my 'self-centredness' which is generating?) fear and agony, sorrow, despair, all that? When there is ( this inner) freedom I can move, I can climb mountains.

RS: Sir, are you saying that the Sacred would become apparent if we dissolved fear and all these other things ?

K: Obviously, sir. That's ( the very purpose of the?) 'real' meditation, you see.

RS: Through (paying a non-divided ) attention to what is really happening in us.

K: That's it.

RS: And to what is really happening between us and other people and all the rest of it ?

K: In our (daily) relationships.

RS: Yes. Through attention to this, this action...

K: We have discussed too with Dr Bohm, some time ago, having a (liberating) 'insight' into the whole movement of the 'self' - a totally (impersonal & passionate?) perception of what you 'are', a total immediate perception of the whole ( self-centred) content of your consciousness, not take bit by bit by bit, that's endless.

JH: Oh, we're broken up so we look at each little piece.

K: Yes. And because we are (inwardly ) 'broken up' we can never see the whole. Obviously, that seems so ( holistically) 'logical'!

JH: Okay...

K: So, is it possible not to be broken up (inwardly?) ? What is to be 'broken up' ? This 'messy (self-) consciousness', which we talked about yesterday.
You see nobody wants to ( meditate & ) go so deeply into all this. One hasn't the time; one is committed to one's job, to one's profession, to one's whatever one is doing. And you say, please, this is too difficult or too abstract, not practical. That's the words they all use. As though all what you are now doing is so terribly practical. Our tribalism is it practical? Oh well, you know all about it.

So, sirs, let's move on from there (to Meditation) . Is 'silence ( & the peace?) of the mind' existing in this state of attention? Or is it something beyond attention?

DB: What would you mean by 'beyond attention'? Let's try to get into that.

K: Is attention a (self-centred) action of will? I 'will attend'.

JH: No, we said that's 'concentration'.

K: Sir, where there is ( the 'presence' of?) attention is there any kind of effort involved ? ( Experiential Clue:) The word 'diligent' is implied in attention; to be 'diligent' (earnest?) . Not 'negligent' (sloppy?) .

RS: What do you mean by 'diligent' ? You mean 'careful'?

K: Yes. Care. To be very ( accurate inwardly ) precise. Diligent.

DB: The literal meaning (of the word 'diligent') is 'taking pains'.

K: Taking pains, that's right. Which is to care, to have affection, to do everything correctly; orderly, but not repetitive. Does this ( holistic quality of) 'attention' demand the ( controlling ) action of thought?

RS: Well, it doesn't demand the action of analysis, and insofar as thought is analytical, it doesn't demand that. And it doesn't demand the action of 'will' insofar as will involves a separation, an attempt to, by one part of the mind, to force another part to do something else. It doesn't also imply any sense of 'going anywhere' or 'becoming anything' because becoming leads one out of the present.

K: That's right. You can't ( practice to?) become attentive.

RS: But in the act of attention...

K: See what is implied ? In ( the 'presence' of?) attention there is no time. Becoming implies time. Therefore it is not the result of thought.

RS: Yes.

K: Now: is that 'attention' (bringing the?) 'silence of the mind'? ( We are talking of having a healthy, sane mind: uncluttered, unattached, unanchored, free mind, which is the 'healthiest' mind.) Therefore I am asking, in that ( meditative quality of ?) 'attention', is the mind 'silent'? In it there is no movement of thought.

RS: Well, it sounds like it, yes. It sounds like a 'state of being' rather than a 'state of becoming' because it's not trying to go anywhere, or coming from anywhere.

K: When you say 'state of being', what does that mean?

RS: Well, 'being what it is'. It's not being something else.

K: Are you putting 'being' as a opposite to 'becoming'?

RS: By 'being what it is' I meant a state which is not in a process of going somewhere else in time.

K: Which means (a state of inner?° 'non-movement' ?

RS: I suppose so.

DB: You could say that it's non-movement, buth this doesn't mean it's static.

K: No, it's dynamic (alive?) , of course.

DB: But you see, it's a little difficult (to grasp the concept of 'non-movement')

K: Being (inwardly) without 'movement', means without thought, without time, which is the (mental) movement which we all know. But the 'other' (inward non-movement) has its own dynamism, its own (living) movement, but not the 'time & thought' movement. Is that what you call 'being'?

RS: I suppose it is.

K: Is that ( meditative state of ) being 'silent' - in the sense, without a single movement of thought ?

RS: Well, in that sense it must be 'silent' almost by definition.

K: Yes. So, has thought found its own place and therefore it's no longer moving, chattering, pushing around ? Then there is a great silence, then that which is Eternal is. You don't even have to enquire about it.

JH: Yes.

K: You hear X saying that. What ( experiential) value has it, what do you do with it? Has it any practical importance or none at all? What is a 'healthy' mind? A mind that's whole, healthy, sane, 'holistic'. All that means a healthy mind. That's what we started discussing. What is ( the action of ) a healthy mind in a world that is so neurotic. How are you going to tell people what is a healthy mind when nobody's going to pay attention ? They'll listen to the tape, (or watch it on U tube or on public ? ) television, and they'll agree (whole heartedly ) , but... they'll go on their own way. So what do we do?
First of all, do I have a healthy mind, a mind that's totally dispassionately unattached ?

JH: Are you suggesting that only then am I in a position to talk to anybody?

K: Obviously! Obviously. I may be ( happily?) married but why should I be ( emotionally?) attached to my wife? (Clue:) Love is not attachment. So, when a 'healthy' (holistically inclined ?) says, 'I love you' there is no ( personal) attachment. Is that possible?

RS: Sir, you make it sound so easy and so difficult at the same time because...

K: I don't see why it (should be ) difficult.

RS: Because I hear what you say, I think this is absolutely wonderful stuff. I want to have a 'healthy' mind, I want to be in a 'state of Being', and then I realize that I can't become that by an act of will or by desiring this state. It has to 'happen'. And it can't happen through any act of (personal) 'will'

K: No. So ?

RS: I have to 'let it happen', in some sense.

K: So we begin to enquire (see & discard what is 'false' ?) . Why am I not inwardly healthy? Am I attached to my house, to a person, or to an idea, to a faith, to a symbol, you follow? The whole cycle of (personal attachment) . To a nation, to my guru to my god, you follow? Can my mind be free of all that ? Of course it can.

RS: But not just by 'wanting to be free' of it.

K: No. But seeing the (sad) consequences of ( any psychological ) 'attachment' , by seeing what is involved in it: the pain, the pleasure, the agony, the fear, you follow, all that is involved in that. Such a mind is (holistically speaking?) an 'unhealthy' mind.

RS: Yes, one can see the movements (activities) of one's attachments, one can even see the destructive consequences of all this. But that doesn't in itself seem automatically to 'dissolve' it.

K: Of course not. So, it brings in quite a different question. Which is, do you hear it, merely with your sensory ears or do you 'really hear' it? Is it just casual intellectual hearing, or hearing at depth? If you hear it at the greatest depth, then it's part of you. I don't know if...

DB: Well, I think that generally one doesn't 'hear' at the greatest depth and something is preventing it, you see. All the ( cultural & personal) conditioning.

K: And also probably we don't want to 'hear' ( all the implications involved in ) it.

DB: Well, but the conditioning makes us 'not want' to hear it.

K: Of course, of course.

DB: We're unwilling to do so.

K: How can I say to my wife, ''I love you but I am not attached of you ''? She'll say, what the hell are you talking about? But if one sees the absolute necessity to have a healthy (holistic) mind, and the demand for it, not only in myself, but in my children, my society.

JH: But you certainly don't mean by that going around & demanding of other people that they become healthy.

K: No, no, no. I demand in myself. I ask why is not my mind healthy? Why is it ( frustrated & ) neurotic? Then I begin to enquire. I watch, I attend, I am (becoming totally ) 'diligent' in ( observing) what I am doing.

DB: You say that we must have to see the 'absolute necessity' of having a (holistically) healthy mind, but I think we've been culturally conditioned to the 'absolute necessity' of maintaining attachment. And that's what we feel, right?

RS: You see, there are many people who've seen there's something wrong with the ( present condion of the human) mind, and they feel that something could be done about it, and then take up some ( the largely advertised) system of meditation. Now, you're saying that all these kinds of meditation, concentrating on chakras and what not are all just the same kind of thing ?

K: I have played that trick long ago. And I see the ( time-binding?) absurdity of all that. That is not going to stop ( the self-centred movement of ) thought.

RS: Well, some of these methods are supposed to do just that. I don't know if they are working or not, you see. They've never done it for me, but I don't know if that's because I haven't done them right.

K: So instead of going through all that business, why don't you ( read the whole Book of Yourself' & ) find out. Let's find out what is thought, whether it can end, what is implied, you follow? 'Dig' (deeply) .

So, at the end of these four discussions, have you got healthy (holistic?) minds? Have you got a mind that is not (anymore) confused, struggling, demanding, asking? You follow, sir? It's like ( actually) seeing a ( dangerous ?) rattler and saying, ''I won't go near it''. Finished!

JH: It looks, seen from the inside like this (ending of thought?) is a tremendously deep problem that's very difficult to solve, and you're saying (looking at it) from the outside that it's just (as simple as ) seeing a ( dangerous) 'rattler' and you seem to be saying : ''there's nothing much to it, just don't go near it !''.

K: It is like that with me.

JH: Yes...

K: Because I don't want to achieve Nirvana or Heaven or anything. I say, 'look' - you follow?

JH: Well, then why it looks so deep, when in fact it isn't ?

K: Sir, because we have all ( become ) so very 'superficial' (& time-bound?) . That's my good house, good wife, good job, good relationship, pleade do not disturb anything, just keep things as they are.

JH: Well then you're saying we don't even want to look at it ?

K: Of course not.
( So, to wrap it all up?) a 'healthy' mind is a mind without any ( dualistic ) conflict. And then it is ( free to be ) a holistic mind and there's a possibility of 'That Which is Sacred' to Be. Otherwise all this is so childish.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 May 2018 #47
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline

The relation between Krishnamurti's Teaching and Truth?
BONUS: The timeless action of Compassion

(A 'reader friendly' edited K dialogue )

Questioner : Can we discuss the relation between K's Teaching and Truth ?

KRISHNAMURTI: Is it the expression of ( a living?) Truth? The (K) Speaker is either talking out of the (inner) silence of Truth, or he is talking out of the (outer ) noise of an illusion which he may consider to be the 'truth'.
So is going to see the truth of the matter? How shall we find it out? You hear him talking about these things and you wonder if he is really speaking out of this extraordinary silence of truth, or as a reaction and from a (TS) conditioned childhood and so on. How will you approach this ( finnicky?) problem? What is the ('truth) criterion', the (standardised?) measurement that you apply so you can say: "Yes, that is it."
Or you don't you know but are watching the truth of what he is saying. I would want to know whether he was speaking out of this, or out of that. But as I don't know, I am going to 'listen' to what he is saying and see if it is true.

Q: But what sees it as true?

K: Say one is fairly alive to (the psychological?) things. My life is concerned with this problem (of what is Truth?) - not just for a few years or a few days.
I don't know how you would (proceed to?) find out, but I'll tell you what I would do (if I were in your shoes?) I would put aside all his ( charismatic) personality, his (powerful subliminal ?) influence, & all that, because I don't want to be 'influenced', I am sceptical and very careful - I want to find out (the truth of this matter) .
But also I ask myself : Am I questioning out of my prejudice? Am I listening to him with all the knowledge I have gathered about religion, of what the (sacred) books have said, what other people have said, or what my own experience tells me?

Q: No. I may be listening to him precisely because I have rejected all that.

K: But...have I (actually) rejected it? If I have rejected that then I am free to listen very carefully to what he has to say. Now, am I capable of listening to what he is saying with complete abandonment of ( my personal burden of the?) the past? Then ( the quality of ) my relationship to him is entirely different. Then I am listening out of ( the same inner?) silence.
So, I have answered it for myself. There are a dozen of us here, how would you answer it? How do you know that what he is talking about is the (living spirit of ) Truth?

Q : The (first experiential) question which arises is: I reject all this knowledge and listen in silence. Is Truth in that silence?

K: I don't know. That is one of the things you'll have to find out.

Q: I think first of all you can be sensitive to what is (obviously) false. In other words, to see if there is something ( with a ring of) false, something incoherent. I think one of the questions implied here is: Are you deceiving yourself?

K: How can you know he is speaking the truth? Or that he is deceiving himself and is caught in an illusion which gives him a feeling that he is telling the truth? What do you answer?

Q: One goes into it oneself. You go through the layers of all those deceptions and beyond them.

K: If I were a stranger I might say: You have listened to this man for a long time, how do you know he is telling the truth?

Q: I have looked at what you have said, and each time I was able to test it to see if it was right. I have not found anything which was contradictory.

K: One's own sensitivity, one's own investigation, one's own delving - is that enough?

Q : In the moments when one is (really ) 'listening' one feels there is a (qualitative) change in oneself. It may not be ( triggering) a 'total revolution', but there is a change.

K: That can also happen (or not?) when you go for a walk and look at the mountains and are (inwardly) quiet, and when you come back to your home certain things have taken place.

Q : I think that for ( our self-centred) thought it is not at all possible to be sure about this matter. It is typical of thought that it wants to be sure that it is not deceiving itself, that it is listening to truth. Thought will never give up that question, and it is right for thought never to give up questioning, but thought cannot touch it, cannot 'know' (see the actual truth) about it.

K: Dr Bohm and I had a discussion of this kind in a different way. If I remember rightly we said: Is there such a silence which is not (self-induced or imagined ) by words, and is it possible to speak out of that (inner) silence?

Q: The question was whether the words are coming from perception, from the silence, or from the (personal or collective) memory. As we used to say: ( that quality of mind is ) like the drum which vibrates to the emptiness within.

K: Look, suppose you trust me and I trust you. There is a relationship of trust, confidence, affection, love; like a man and a woman when they are (just?) married, they trust each other. Now is that possible here?

Q: Can we say that truth is ( to be perceived ) in (sharing that ) 'silence' out of which the teaching comes?

K: But I want to know how the silence comes!

Q: Are we saying that ( the totally insightful) perception has to be pure and in the realm of silence in order to be able to even come close to (answering) this question?

K: Dr Bohm is a scientist, a physicist, he is clear-thinking, logical; suppose someone goes to him and asks, "Is what Krishnamurti says the truth?" How is he going to answer?

Q: For me it is a reality. I can't communicate it to you. This is what I have found out and you have to find it out for yourself. You have to test it in your own mind.

K: But how do you in your heart of hearts, as a human being, know that he is speaking the truth?

Q: I think I could say that when we did discuss these things it was from the emptiness, and that I felt it was a direct perception

K: Yes. Is direct perception unrelated to logic?

Q: It doesn't come from logic.

K: But you are logical all the same.

Q: That may come later, not at that moment.

K: So you are telling me: I have found out that man is telling the truth because I had a direct perception, an insight into what he is saying ?

Q: Yes.

K: Now be careful, because I have heard a disciple of some guru saying exactly the same thing.

Q: I have also heard a guru say this but a little later by looking at it logically I saw the thing was nonsense. When I was looking at the fact and the logic I saw that it did not fit. So I would say that in addition to direct perception I have constantly examined this logically.

K: So you are saying that (your intuitive) perception has not blinded you and with that perception goes logic also.

Q: Yes, logic and fact.

K: So (the insightful flash of inner ) perception first, then logic.

Q: Yes. That is what it always has to be.

K: So through perception and then with logic, you see that it is the truth. Hasn't this been done by the (early) devout Christians?

Q: I see that Christians say certain things, but when we look at the whole of what they (actually) do, it doesn't fit.

K: Isn't there a terrible danger (of self-deception) in this?

Q: I am sure there is (such) a danger.

K: So I have learned from talking to him that you can only understand whether Krishnamurti is speaking the truth if you are really prepared to walk in a field which is full of 'mines', the razor's edge path. Are you prepared to do that when one's whole (old) being says "Be secure".

Q: That is the only way to do anything (creatively) .

K: So this is what I wanted to get at. Can the human mind - which has been conditioned for centuries to be secure - abandon that, and say, "I will walk into danger"?

Q: In principle that is the way all science works. But the word 'danger' has to be explained too. From one point it is dangerous, and from another it isn't. I have to investigate. My conditioning is very dangerous.

K: So we're saying: "Through the perception of the dangers (of self-deception) I have found the truth of what Krishnamurti is saying. And there is no (question of temporal ) safety in this (inward listening from silence?) . Whereas all the others (are doing their best to) give me ( or to induce an illusory sense of ) safety."

Q: What you have described is actually the scientific approach. They say that ''every statement must be in danger of being false''; it has been put in that (pretty blunt?) way.

K: That is perfectly right. Are we saying that the direct (inward) perception, ( aka :) 'insight' and the (logical) working out of its (practical implications) demand great logic, a great capacity to 'think (straight & ) clearly? But the capacity to think clearly will not bring about insight.

Q: But if the logic does not bring about ( an insightful) perception, what does it do exactly?

K: It 'sharpens' the mind. But that certainly won't bring about an insight.

Q: So, it is not through the mind that the ( insightful) perception comes ?

K: That all depends on what you mean by the 'mind'. Logic makes the mind sharp, clear, objective and sane. But (only?) that won't give you the 'other'. Your question is: How does the 'other' come about?

Q(1): No. Is the mind the instrument of perception?

K: We said (the triggering of an insightful) perception does not need logic, but whatever it does is (ultimately ) reasonable, logical, sane, objective.

Q: It is like if you see what is in this room correctly, you will not find anything illogical in what you see ?

K: All right. So, will the (inwardly insightful?) perception keep the confusion, the debris away all the time so that the mind never accumulates it and doesn't have to keep clearing it away? That was your question, wasn't it?

Q: I don't see how (our inward?) perception can reach the stage at which it is continually keeping the field clear. I say that it can reach that stage for a certain moment.

K: At a certain moment I have perception. But during the interval between the perceptions there is a lot of debris being gathered. Our question is: Is perception continuous so that there is no collection of the debris? Put it round the other way: Does one ( insightful ) perception keep the whole inner field clear? Does it bring about tremendous clarity in which there is no ( further accumulation of?) debris?

Q: Are you saying that once it happens it will be there 'for ever'?

K: That is what I am trying to get at. Don't use the words "continuous," or "forever ". Keep ( meditating?) to the question; Once ( a totally insightful?) perception has taken place can the (temporal) mind (continue to) collect further debris & confusion? It is only when that perception becomes darkened by the debris, that the process of getting rid of (the residual darkness) begins. But if there is ( a self-sustained inner clarity of) perception why should there be a collecting, gathering?

Q: There are a lot of difficult points (to be clarified) in this. Does that mean that you would never have any confusion?

K: Yes, we came to that point. One has an insight, and that insight has its own capacity for reason, logic and action. That action is complete, because the perception is complete for the moment. Will further action confuse (the inward source of this?) perception? Or, having perception is there no further confusion?

Q: I think we were saying that there is a 'danger' (of self-delusion) in this. If you say: My action is always right...

K: Oh, that is dangerous! Some people who read the Bhagaved Gita act according to it and they call that 'insight'. Their action is patterned after their reading. They say this action is complete. I have heard many of them say this; also Catholics and Protestants who are completely immersed in the Bible. So we are treading on very dangerous ground and therefore are ( supposed to be?) greatly aware of it.

Q: You also said that the mind tries to find ( some personal) security in all this.

K: The mind has always been seeking security and when that security is threatened it tries to find security in insight, in direct perception.

Q: In the 'illusion' of insight ?

K: Yes, it makes( translated?) the 'insight' into (a temporal?) security. The next question is: Must there be a constant 'breaking of perception' or is there no further confusion after these deep insights?

Q: Are we saying : if this perception is whole?

K: Yes, if the perception is complete, whole, then there is no confusion at any time. Or, one may deceive oneself that it is whole and act upon it, which brings confusion.

Q: But isn't that a corruption of the perception, just making a pattern out of the action instead of continuing to look? It is like being able to really look at something, for instance looking out of the window and something is seen. But then you don't look out again and think everything is the way it was. It may have totally changed. The perception starts out being genuine, but you don't continue to look, have insight.

K: Yes. Scientists too may have an insight in some specialized field and that insight is put into a category of science unrelated to their (own inner) life. But here we are talking of a perception that is not only in the field of action but also in daily life.

Q: As a whole and so there is a ( temporal) continuity.

K: Yes.

Q: So, we have gone into the question of danger. You said that one day a man came to you and said that you are 'stuck in a groove'.

K: Yes, caught in a rut.

Q: You didn't say immediately, "I know I am not because I have had a perfect insight."

K: Ah, that would be deadly!

Q: But rather, you said you looked at it for several days.

K: Of course.

Q: I am trying to find out what you were are driving at. You are saying that there may be an insight which never goes back into confusion ?

K: Yes, would you say that when there is a 'complete' perception - not an illusory perception - there is no further confusion?

Q: It seems 'reasonable' to say that.

K: That means from day to day there is no confusion at all.

Q: Then why did you felt it necessary to 'look into it'?

K: Because I may deceive myself. Therefore it is dangerous ground and I must be alert, I must watch it.

Q: Do you mean after the 'real' insight you could still deceive yourself?

K: No. You have a deep insight, complete, whole. Someone comes along and says: "Look, you are deceiving yourself". Do you instantly say, "No, I am not deceiving myself because my perception was complete"? Or do you 'listen' and look at it all afresh? It doesn't mean that you are denying the complete perception,but you are again watching if it is real or illusory.

Q: That is not necessarily an intellectual process?

K: No, no. I would say both. It is intellectual as well as non-verbal.

Q: Is ( this newly awakened insightful ?) perception something that is always there and it is only that we...

K: That leads to dangerous ground. The Hindus say that ''God is always there inside you'' - the abiding deep divinity, or soul, or Atman, but it is (only) covered up. Remove the confusion, the debris and it is found inside. Most people believe that. I think that is a 'conclusion'. You conclude that there is something divine inside, a 'soul', the Atman or whatever you like to call it. And from a conclusion you can never have a total, complete perception (of the real 'thing' ?)

Q: But if you deny that (transcendental possibility?) then what makes one 'step out' of the stream? Does it mean that the stepping out is for certain individuals only or the possibility exists for everyone...

K: Yes, the possibility exists for human beings.

O: Then there is a (timeless intelligent?) energy which...

K: ...which is outside of them or which is in them...

Q: Yes. We don't know.

K: Therefore don't come to any ( speculative?) conclusion. If from a conclusion you think you perceive, then that perception is conditioned, therefore it is not whole.

Q: Does that mean that there would not be the possibility of a deepening of (one's inward?) perception?

K: You can't 'deepen' insight. You can't deepen perception. You perceive the whole - that's all.

Q: What do you mean then by saying there was this Mind into which you could continually go more deeply?

K: That is something else.

Q(2): You mentioned a 'watchfulness' after perception.

K: What happened was: A man came up to me and said, "You are getting old, you are stuck in a groove." And I listened to it. For a couple of days I thought about it. I looked at it and said to myself, "He may be right."

Q: You are almost suggesting that it could be possible.

K: No, I wanted to examine it. Don't say it could, or could not.

Q: I was just going to ask: to be caught in a habit after a (totally insightful?) perception, could that not ever happen again, at certain levels?

K: There is 'partial' (insightful) perception and a totally (insightful) perception - let's divide it into those two. When there is 'total perception' there is no further confusion.

Q: You don't anymore get caught in habits?

K: There is no further confusion. Because it is so.

Q: What if something happens to the brain physically?

K: Then of course it is gone.

Q: So there seems to be a limitation to what you say, because one assumes that the brain remains healthy.

K: Of course, assuming that the whole organism is healthy. If there is a brain accident, your brain suffers concussion and something is injured, then it is finished.

Q(1): The major danger is that we would often mistake a partial perception for the total.

Q(2): But it still means that 'it' is "here". You are not tapping it from "out there". That ( newly awakened intelligent ?) energy is within you, isn't it?

K: One has to go into this question of how do you come to ( a totally insightful?) perception. (For starters?) you cannot have (such a ) perception if your daily life is in disorder, confused, contradictory. Then, is that ( timeless intelligent?) energy outside, or inside?

Q: Isn't that an artificial mental division: 'outside' and 'inside'?

K: She said that this perception needs energy. That energy may be an external ( physical) energy, or a non-mechanistic energy which may exist deeply inside you. Both are mental concepts. Both are conclusions which one has either accepted because tradition has said so, or one has come to that conclusion by oneself. Any form of conclusion is detrimental to ( a direct) perception. So what does ( a totally insightful) perception mean? Can I have perception if I am attached to my position, to my wife, to my property?

Q: It colours the act of perceiving.

K: So we are saying that total perception can only take place when in your daily life there is no more confusion.

Q: May we look more closely into that?

K: If the 'windows' (the mind's eyes) are not clean, my view is confused.

Q: Would that mean that there is a conditioned insight?

K: If I am (inwardly caught ) in fear my perception will be very partial. That is a fact.

Q: But don't you need perception to end fear?

K: Ah, but in investigating fear I have a total perception of fear.

Q: Surely if there is fear, or attachment, even one's logic would be distorted.

K: One is frightened - as we said, that distorts perception. But in investigating, observing, going into fear, understanding it profoundly, in delving into it I have (a fear liberating) perception.

Q: Are you implying that although you have fear and it distorts, the distortion is not so total that you cannot investigate it. There is still that possibility, although you are distorting through fear?

K: I realize I am distorting perception through fear.

Q: That's right, then I begin to look at fear.

K: Investigate it, look into it.

Q: In the beginning I am also distorting it.

K: Therefore I am watching every distortion. I am ( becoming) aware of every distortion that is going on.

Q: But you see, I think the difficulty lies there. How can 'I' investigate when 'I' am (the) distorting (element) ?

K: Just listen. I am afraid ( of some past mishap to become public) and I see that this ( lingering) fear has made me do something which is a distortion.

Q: But before I can see that, the fear has to fade away.

K: No, I am observing fear.

Q: But how can you observe it (objectively) if you are afraid?

K: Take a fact: you are afraid. You are becoming aware of the 'fact' that there is ( a lingerinf) fear. And you observe also what that fear has done. Is that clear?

Q: Yes.

K: And you look more and more into it. In looking very deeply into it you have an insight.

Q: I 'may' have an insight.

K: No, you will have insight, which is quite different.

Q: What you are saying is that this ( worrying or ) confusion due to fear is not complete, that it is always open to mankind to have insight.

K: To one who is investigating (diligently?) , who is observing. Suppose that one suffers and you see what it does. In observing it, investigating it, opening it up, in the very unrolling of it you have a certain insight. That is all we are saying. That insight may be partial. Therefore one has to be aware that it is partial. Its action is partial and it may appear complete, so watch it.

Q: Very often it looks as if it is totally impossible to have a (total) insight, since you say: "If you are distorting how will you look?" But you are also saying, that as a matter of fact, when you have a distortion, the one thing you can look at is the distortion.

K: That's right.

Q: That factually you have that capacity (of a non-personal observation?) .

K: One has that capacity.

Q(1): So you can't say that no perception whatsoever is possible.

K: That's just it. Then you have locked the (inner) Doors (of inward Perception?)

Q: Could one say that the 'fear' can look at itself?

K: No, no. But in looking at that fear - not having an insight, just watching it - you see what it does, what its ( poisonous ) action is.

Q: You mean by looking, being aware of it ?

K: Without any ( preference or?) choosing – just being (non-personally ) aware. And you see what fear does. In looking at it more extensively, deeply, widely, suddenly you have an insight into the whole structure of fear.

Q: But there is still the (non-duality) question: in that moment of fear, I am fear.

K: How you observe fear matters - whether you observe it as a (separate) 'observer', or the observer 'is' that. You perceive the observer is ( separating itself from) the observed and in this action there is distortion, confusion. And you examine that (inner) confusion, in the very process of examination you have an 'insight'. Do it, and you will see it - if you don't limit yourself by saying, "I am too frightened, I can't look".

Q: To simplify it : when we said one can't see through the window because it is dirty, it distorts, the action of (non-personally ) examining that fear is the 'cleansing of the window'.

K: How you observe, how you investigate, that is the real thing. That is, (a totally clarifying inner ) perception can only take place when there is no division between the 'observer' and the 'observed'. This insightful Perception can only take place in the very act of ( a non-dualistic /non-personal?) exploring: to explore implies there is no division between the observer and the observed. Therefore you are ( leisurely) watching the movement of fear and in the very watching of it there is an insight. I think that is clear. And yet you see, Krishnamurti says: "I have never done this."

Q: Then how do you know somebody else can 'do it' ?

K: That's just it. Someone 'listens' and says, "I'd like to get that, I don't have to go through that whole process."

Q: Are you saying that we don't have to go through all we have been discussing just now is merely a pointer to something else?

K: Yes. I want to get at that.

Q: In other words, what helps to 'clear the ground' is not really the main point ?

K: No.

Q: Are you saying there is a 'short cut' (to Enlightenment?) ?

K: Must you go through (diligently examining all your) fears, jealousy, anxiety & ( the subliminal?) attachments? Or can you clear the whole thing instantly? Must one go through all this process?

Q: You previously said that you have never done this. And by having that immediate total perception you are able to see what those (looking through) 'dirty windows' can do to clean them. But that isn't necessary, there is perhaps a direct, an immediate way ?

K: First put yourself the question, and see what comes out of it.
Is it possible through investigating, and discovering that the observer 'is' the observed and that there is no division, in the very process of ( a non-dualistic) investigation to observe without the ( distortions of the observer) see the totality of it and be (ASAP?) free all the rest? I think that is the only way (to 'do it') ( In a nutshell:) what we are talking about is: Must one go through all this process?

Q: Couldn't we remove from the problem the 'personal' aspect? We are discussing what is open to man rather than to any individual.

K: Yes. Is it open to any human being without going through alI this process?

Q: By "this process" do you mean ( one's personal) involvement with the fear?

K: With fear, sorrow, jealousy, attachment, you go through all that, step by step. Or can a human being see the whole thing at a glance? And that very glance is the complete (insight), the total perception.

Q: This is what you mean when you say ''the first step is the last'' ?

K: Yes, a total(-lly enlightening) perception.

Q: Then what would one's responsibility be towards someone who is in sorrow?

K: The response to that human (condition) is the response of compassion. Nothing else.
So, what can you do actually? Suppose that somebody comes to you and says, "I am in deep sorrow". Do you talk to him out of compassion, or out of your own particular experience of sorrow which has (probably?) conditioned you, and you answer him according to your conditioning? A Hindu, who is culturally conditioned in a certain ( detached ?) way says: "My dear friend, I am so sorry, but in the next life you will live better. You suffered because you did this and that" - and so on. Or a Christian would respond from some other conclusions in which he takes comfort in. Also the man (or the woman) who is actually suffering is seeking (a psychological) comfort and avoidance of this terrible pain. Will you offer him any of those traditional 'escapes'? (If not) whatever comes out of ( an intelligent?) compassion will help him.

Q: Are you saying that as far as sorrow is concerned you can't directly help anyone, but the energy of compassion itself may be of help?

K: That's right; that's all.

Q: Many such wounded spirits will come to the Centre here and it is going to be a problem to know how to deal with them.

K: There is no problem if you are compassionate. Compassion doesn't create problems. It has no problems, therefore it is (eternally ?) compassionate.

Q: You are saying that total compassion is the highest form of intelligence?

K: Of course. If there is compassion, that compassion has its own intelligence and that intelligence acts. But if you have no (intelligent?) compassion, then your (cultural) conditioning makes you reply whatever he wants. I think that is fairly simple.
Now, going back to the other question: Must a ( truth seeking) human being go through the whole process? Has no human being said, "I won't go through all this. I absolutely refuse to go through all this"?

Q: But on what basis does one refuse? It wouldn't make sense to refuse to do what is necessary.

K: You see, we are such creatures of habit. But if I say, I won't ever operate ( from the knowledge of?) my conditioned responses, something else may take place. But why (the average?) human being never says, "I will reject the whole thing" ? I want to investigate that.

Q: But isn't the key to this somewhere in ( the subliminal action of thought & ?) desire? There is some sort of desire for continuity, for security.
K: That's right. (Being a 'psychological ) bourgeois' implies continuity, security, it implies belonging to something, a lack of ( aristocratic?) taste, vulgarity & all that.

Q: But Krishnaji, if you are saying that (the young) Krishnamurti never had the need to say it, we can only conclude that you are some kind of (psychological) freak.

K: You can say he is a (psychological 'mutant' or ?) 'freak' but it doesn't answer the your problem. Do, don't say 'Krishnamurti is a freak' (case closed?) , but ask: "How does it happen?" You are a (truth seeking?) human being, he is also a human being: so you want to find out (the whole truth about it?) So, don't you ask yourself the (holistically critical ? ) question: "Must I go through all this?"

Q: Krishnaji, you are taking two widely separate things. One is the uncontaminated person, who never had to go through the process because he was 'never in the soup' (of self-interest ?) but most other people, apparently, are in some form of (psychological) contamination, it may be fear, or something else. Therefore the person who has already got this ( existential?) sickness - let's call it that - says "This man has never been sick for a day in his life." What good is it to examine that (no-sickness possibility) , because one is already sick in some form.

K: Can we put this whole thing differently? Do you seek the (inner ) essence of excellence? Then everything falls away, doesn't it? An average human being who is fairly intelligent and decent, if he sought the essence of excellence, wouldn't this happen? (Once awakened, this spiritual?) 'essence' would meet all this. So, (take the quality time to ?) listen carefully first : That very demand for excellence (and also?) how you demand it - brings (or awakens?) the essence of it (Clue:) You demand it passionately. You demand the highest intelligence, the highest excellence, the essence of it.

Q: Where does the demand come from?

K: Demand it! Don't say: "Where does it come from?" There may be a motive, but the very (passion of your?) demand washes it all away. I wonder if I am conveying anything?

Q: You are saying: Demand this excellence – of which we don't know anything

K: I don't know what is beyond it, but (for starters?) I want to be morally excellent.

Q: Doesn't that mean 'goodness'?

K: I demand the excellence of goodness, I demand the excellent flower of goodness. In that very demand there is a demand for the essence.

Q: Does ( the holistic ) perception come from this demand?

K: Yes, that's right.

Q: Could you go into what is meant here by 'demand' ?

K: It is not a demand which means imploring, wanting ( asking for a personal favor?) - cut out all those.

Q: But then you are back with prayer.

K: Oh, no. Leave out all that.

Q: So, are saying that the 'impossible' is (becoming) possible to the average intelligent human being?

K: We are saying tha it is possible for the average human being, who is fairly clean (inwardly) , who is fairly decent, fairly kind, who is not a (psychologica?) 'bourgeois'.

Q: Traditionally we believe that there are special people with no ( self-) conscious 'content' of consciousness, so it is very difficult for someone like me to feel that one could really be completely free of it.

K: You see, you have not 'listened' (non-personally) . K says to you: "Please listen first, don't bring in all these (personal) objections. Just listen to what he is saying. That is, what is important in (one's inner ?) life is this supreme excellence which has its own (spiritual) essence." That's all. And to 'demand it' does not mean begging or (hoping to) get something from somebody.
Q: The point is, we find we confuse (this timeless ) demand with ( our terrestrial ) desire.

K: Of course.

Q: You see, when people feel that they want t

K: Let's find a good (holistically appropriate) word for it. A passion for excellence. Burning passion - not for something. The Communists are passionate about their ideas. The Christians have passion for missionary work - that passion is born of the love of Jesus. That again is not passion, it is very narrow. putting all that aside, I say: "Passion".

Q: As you were just saying, people have had some vision, or a dream of something and that has developed a great energy. But you are saying it is not a vision; but it is nevertheless some perception of this excellence ?

K: All those (conclusion backed ? ) passions feed the ego, feed the me, make me important, consciously or unconsciously. We are cutting out all that. There is a young boy who has a passion to grow up into an extraordinary human being, into something 'original' .

Q: He sees that it is something possible, and therefore he has the passion.

K: Yes, that's right. It is possible. Is that what is missing in most human beings? Not (just the ) passion, but the (awakening & ) 'welling up' of this supreme excellence (of being?) - that may shatter everything else. Again, that human being didn't (have to) demand it. He says: "I never even asked for it."

Q: Perhaps that is due to (our karmic) condition (of spiritual) mediocrity, not to make this demand. That is what you mean by 'mediocrity' .

K: Yes, of course. Mediocrity is lack of a great (existential) passion

Q: We are not only conditioned to mediocrity but to direction, so the demand is always to have some direction.

K: The (personal) demand is (implying) a direction, quite right.

Q: To have a demand without any direction...

K: That's right. That is the challenge.

Q: Doesn't a demand without direction imply that it is not in time?

K: Of course. It demands no direction, no time, no person. So does total insight bring this passion? Total insight 'is' (fueling its own) passion.

Q: They can't be separated ?

K: A total insight 'is' the flame of passion which wipes away all (inner) confusion. It burns away everything else. Then, don't you then act as a (psychic) magnet? The bees go towards the nectar - in the same way don't you act as a magnet when you are passionate to create? If it is this (inner) fire that is missing I would ( humbly?) ask for it.

Q: Could we talk about the (interacting) relationship between the ( personally) conditioned mind and the Unconditioned Mind, and whether it is only possible to ask for smaller things, or can we somehow leap beyond that into something bigger?

K: She is really asking: What is the relationship between the conditioned and the unconditioned mind ? And (as a corollary:) what is the relationship between two human beings, when one is (inwardly free & ) unconditioned and the other is not? There is no ( 2-way) relationship.

Q: How can you say that ?

K: There is no relationship from the 'conditioned' to the unconditioned mind. But the unconditioned (liberated?) mind has a ( compassionate ) relationship to the other.

Q: But is there an essential difference between the unconditioned and the conditioned? Because if you say there is, then duality is a reality.

K: What do you mean by 'essential difference'?

Q: Let's say a 'difference in kind'. If there is an essential difference between the conditioned and the unconditioned there is duality.

K: Essentially, deeply, is there a difference? The world is 'me' and 'me' is the world.

Q: That is an absolute fact only to the unconditioned mind . I may say right now that "I am the world & the world is me", but later on I revert to an action which is a contradiction to that. Therefore it is not an absolute fact for me.

K: Be careful, it 'is so'. It is ( for any objective onlooker ?) an 'obvious' fact.

Q: You mean that not only the unconditioned can perceive ( the absolute truth of ) that?

K: It isn't quite like that. Do I say to myself very clearly, 'I am the world and the world is me' and I (later on I may ) act contrary to that. Which is, I act personally, selfishly (I-me-mine?) . That is a contradiction to the fact that the world is me and I am the world. A person can say this merely as a momentary feeling.

Q: It is not just an intellectual conclusion, but I accept that for you the position is totally different.

K: No, you don't even have to accept that. When one (sees the truth ) that "I am the world and the world is me" there is no 'me' all the time. I function, but there is no me which is seeking a higher position and all that. Or, though I am married I am not attached, I don't depend on a wife or husband. The physical appearances may give you the impression that the 'me' is operating, but actually to a man who feels, "The world is me and I am the world", to him there is no 'me' (no lurking 'self'- consciousness?) . That human being lives in this world, he must have food, clothes and shelter, a job, transportation, all that, yet there is no 'me' (no self-identified consciousness?) .
Can that (selfless ?) quality (of mind & heart?) operate in all directions? It must operate in all directions. When you say, "I am the world and the world is me", and there is no me, there is no ( self-interest based?) conditioning.

Q: Therefore the ( image of the ) other person also is not there. There is no 'you'.

K: There is no 'me', there is no 'you'.

Q: The question is: How does that (selfless & intelligent ) person see the kind of ( egotistic) confusion going on in the world ?
K: When you and I really realize (the truth ) , or have the profound insight that, "The world is me and I am the world", there is no me.

Q: There is no 'me' and no 'you'. But there is "everything".

K: The world of living – everything.

Q: Then the ( academical) question, "Is there an essential difference between the unconditioned and the conditioned mind ", doesn't arise ?

K: Yes, that's right. That ( integrated holistic) state doesn't include the (limitations of the?) conditioned state. Is this too abstract?

Q: When you say, "I am the world" – doesn't it imply that the 'I' is still there ?

K: That is merely a ( generic verbal ) statement. But (for me ?) it is an actual fact that 'I am the world'.

Q: Whatever I mean by the word "I", I also mean by the word "world".

K: Yes.

Q: So we don't need those two words.

K: Yes. 'You' and 'I' - remove that.

Q: There is just everything.

K: This is ( psychologically ) a very dangerous ('slippery'  statement ?) . If you say I am everything then the ( consciousness of the ) murderer, the assassin is part of me.

Q: Suppose I say, "I am the world" instead, does that change it?

K: (laughing) All right. I see the actual fact that I am the result of the world. The world means killing, wars, the whole of society - I am the result of that.

Q: And I see everybody is the result of that.

K: Yes. I am saying the result is 'I' and 'you'.

Q: And that separation.

K: When I say ''I am the world'', I am saying all that.

Q: You mean to say (that consciousness-wise?) 'I' am generated by the (matrix of the collective consciousness of the?) world ?

K: Yes. I am the product of the world

Q: The 'world' is the essence of what I am.

K: Yes. I 'am' the essence of the world. Now, when there is a deep perception of that there is no 'you' or 'me'. I think that holds logically. But there is a danger. If I say 'the world is me and I am everything' (it can be interpreted as?) I'll accept everything.

Q: You are really saying that one is the product of the whole of society.

K: Yes. I am really the 'essential' result of all this.

Q: Does it help to use the word "ego"?

K: It is the same thing, it doesn't matter. When you say me, or ego, there is a possibility of deception that 'I' is the very essence of God. You know about that ( Hinduistic) superstition.

Q: The 'Atman' ?

K: Yes.

Q: But then, is the 'unconditioned' mind also a product of this (collective consciousness of the world?) ? Here we may come to a contradiction.

K: There is no contradiction. Without using the word "I" it can be said: the result of the world is this. The result of the world is that also. Which means the result has created the I and the you. When there is an insight into the (time-binding nature of this) result there is no "result".

Q: The 'result ' changes and vanishes when we see it.

K: That means there is no ( 'self'-identified ?) result. Therefore the 'you' ('your self-identified' consciousness ?) and 'I' ('my self-identified' consciousness ?) don't exist. That is an actual fact for a man who says (realises that?) , "I am not the result". You see what it means? There is no ( karmic?) causation in the mind and therefore there is no ( time-binding?) effect. Therefore it (that unconditioned mind?) is whole, and any action born of it is 'causeless' (selfless?) and without (any time-binding?) effect.

Q: You'll have to make this more clear, because we are still (thinking in terms of ) 'cause and effect' concerning ordinary, mechanical things.

K: Quite. ( The self-identified consciousness of ) this human being, 'X', is a result. And (that of) 'Y' is also a result. X says : I see ( the illusory nature of) this and 'goes into it' and ( eventually?) he has a (transpersonal?) insight. In that insight the two ( self-isolating) 'results' cease. Therefore in that ( content -free inner?) state there is no cause (no 'time binding' causation?) .

Q: There is no ( self-interest generated?) cause and no ( self-interest generated?) effect in the mind ?

K: Let's go into that ( holistic?) state (of mind) : there is no ( personal or collective?) result, no ( time-bound) cause & no (time-binding) effect. That mind acts out of ( the timeless intelligence of?) Compassion. Therefore there is no ( time-binding?) 'result'.

Q: But in some sense it would look as if there were a result.

K: But compassion has no (time-binding?) result. A is suffering, he says to X, "Please help me to get out of my suffering." If X really has ( free access to the universal Source of Love, Intelligence &) Compassion his words have no (karmic?) 'result'

Q: Something happens, but there is no ( personally rewarding ?) result.

K: That's it.

Q: But I think that people generally are seeking a ( personal) result.

K: Yes. Let's put it another way. Does ( the intelligent action of ) Compassion have a ( predictable ?) result? When there is a (predictable ) 'result' there is a ( predictable) 'cause'. But...when (your) compassion has a 'cause', you are no longer ( purely & selflessly?) Compassionate.

Q: It is an extremely subtle thing, because Compassion also 'acts'.

K: Compassion is compassion (& has its own timeless action?) But if it 'acts' because there is a (material ) cause and an (expected material ) effect, then it is no (more 100 % pure ) Compassion: it wants ( to produce a material) result.

Q: So, it acts 'purely' (independent of temporal causes & effects?) . Supposing there is a person suffering, 'I' would like to produce the result that 'he' is not suffering. But that is based on the idea that there is a 'me' and a 'he'.

K: That's it. It ( the action of Intelligent Compassion?) is a tremendous thing! So, one has to look at it very, very carefully.
(Let's look at it again : ) "The world is me and I am the world". The 'you' and the 'I' are the ( karmic) results of man's inner selfishness, and so on - it is a (time-bound) 'result'. When one looks into the (psychological content of this ) result, when one goes into it very, very deeply, the ( sudden clarity of this ) insight brings about a quality in which 'you' and 'I' - who are the (karmic) result (of collective self-interest?) - don't exist ( when you see it deeply there is no 'you' and no 'me'). Therefore there is no (karmic) result (left) - which means Compassion. But the ( self-centred) person upon whom that compassion acts wants ( expects?) a ( self-gratifying personal) result. We say, "Sorry, there is no result." But the man who suffers says, "Help me to get out of this", or, "Help me to bring back my son, my wife", or whatever it is. He is demanding a ( concrete ) result. This ( Other?) 'thing' ( the Compassionate Intelligence ?) has no (material) result. The result ( of its absence?) is the 'world'.

Q: But does Compassion affect the ( non-material) consciousness of man?

K: Yes. It affects the deep layers of human consciousness.
(To recap:) The 'I' and the 'you' are the ( manifested ?) result of the ( collective consciousness of the ) 'world'. And to the ( inwardly earnest?) man who sees this deeply with a profound (clarity of 'inner sight' or ?) 'insight', there is no 'you' or 'I'. Therefore that profound insight 'is' (a timeless action of Universal?) Compassion - which is Intelligence. And that (100% pure?) Intelligence says: If you want a ( personally rewarding material) result I can't give it to you, I am not the product of (any desire for personal) result. Compassion is not a result, therefore there is no cause.

Q: Does that mean there is no 'time' either?

K: No cause, no result, no time.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 28 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 May 2018 #48
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline

EXPLORING THE TIMELESS PERCEPTION IN THE 'NOW' (a 'reader friendly' edited K dialogue,cca 1985)

PJ: I would like to start with this question namely, that all problems of the human brain are born of time.

K: Are born from the process of (thought projecting itself in) time.

PJ: (All our psychological) problems arise because the brain tries to change ‘what is’ into something different, and the (mental) movement of the brain which wants to change ‘what is’ (such as sorrow, fear, envy...) into something else, creates time.

K: There is both a 'physical' time and a 'psychological' time. Physical time (involved in?) is going from here to there, in covering a certain 'distance' from one point to another point. ( The passing of?) physical time is ( easily observed & measured ) by sunrise and by sunset. All physical movement (involves) time. Now, there is also a 'psychological' time—the time involved in becoming something (inwardly or outwardly different from what we are right now?) . ‘I am this, I will be that.’

PJ: Yes....

K: There is also this whole process of (man's ) evolution—both psychological and physical. All this is fairly simple and clear. Now, my question is: Is there a ( inner dimension of?) time outside this (linear ) movement which we know and call time? That is, is there a time of 'non-movement'? ( aka : the 'Now'?) Let us go slowly into this. Time as we know it is a (measurable dimension related to?) movement. The division or the gap between one action and another, between one understanding and another, is (recorded in the brain in a linear sequence of) time. ( Thinking about what could happen in the future ?) time is a movement of fear. (Thinking in terms of) time can also (bring ) hope. The whole movement (of thought) from the past to the present to the future is generally acknowledged as ( a linear process of) time. Right? Movement—of evolution, of growth, of achievement, of fulfilment, of becoming something—involves time. The interval between seeing something, thinking about it and acting is time.

Now, nd I question whether there is a ( different dimension of?) 'time' which doesn’t belong to this category at all ?

PJ: But does it still belong to the category of 'matter'?

K: Matter as I understand it is (a) 'solidified' form of energy; matter is 'manifested' energy. ( For instance) The physical body is ( a stable form of?) manifested energy.

PJ: You see, sir, the brain is material . Now, in that (field of living?) matter evolution must exist.

K: Of course. We were ( restless ?) monkeys at one time. Gradually, through a million years of ( Darwinistic?) evolution, we became (the highly knowledgeable ?) Homo 'sapiens'—what we are now.

PJ: So, (the mentality of linear) evolution is inherent in the brain itself, because it is matter.

K: Just a minute! I want to be clear on this. The brain is matter. That’s a statement. What is the next statement?

PJ: The next step is, there is a 'content' ( of all our evolutionary experience & knowledge) in the brain cells. My question is: Is the content of the brain which is nothing but a gathering of experiences and knowledge, identical with the nature of the brain itself?

K: I see.

PJ: You see, we all know that (the psychological) 'becoming' is an illusion. That is very simple to understand. But there is something much more (within the human psyche) and (the uncovering of ) this ‘much more' is implied in your question about another ( dimension of) time which doesn’t belong to these two categories?

K: That’s my question.

PJ: So, time and matter are one ?

K: Time 'is' ( involved in any material (form of life) . The very manifestation is a process of time.

PJ: Time cannot exist without ( physical) manifestation.

K: That’s what I want to inquire into : is there a time which is not manifest?

PJ: When you say that it is not the outcome of manifestation, why do you then use the word ‘time’?

K: I have no other word for the moment.

SUNANDA PATWARDHAN (SP): Are you saying that the very 'ground' (of Being) from which all manifestation arises is ( existing in a ) another ( dimension of?) time?

K: Probably. ( For instance?) Love is not of time.

PJ: You see, forgive me for saying so, sir, the moment you use the word ‘love’, you have cut the ground from under our feet because with such 'absolute statements', no discussion is possible.

K: Pupul, we are trying to find out what ( the 'Now' of ?) Eternity is. We are trying to find out an (inner) Reality which is not of time. We know that what is mortal grows and dies. We are asking whether there is a timeless (inner reality) which is infinite and measureless? You see, we are using words to measure a state which is not measurable, and 'that' (inward essence?) which is not measurable is not of time.

PJ: Now let us go into it. What is the perception of that ( timeless) instant which is the only Reality?

K: Let us examine the common division between the 'seeing' and the 'doing', the ‘I must do’. Now, that future (doing) is the past modifying itself. That is time. Now, there is also a timeless action, an action which is perception-action. In this timeless action, that is, in the 'perception-action' (aka insight?) there is no (time) interval.
Let’s make it (more holistically?) clear. The present, the ‘now’, contains both the past and the future.

PJ: But a (holistic) perception in the present negates both the past and the future.

K: That’s what I am saying. (The 'seeing & doing') perception requires a state without the past. Perception is timeless.
(Eg:) If I am full of prejudices, knowledge, conclusions, convictions, beliefs, and with that (burden of past knowledge) I look at the present. And ( what is going on in the?) present is modified by the (incoming life's ) challenges—so, I might alter certain beliefs but I still remain in the same field (of the known) . The present is modified, and so the future is the ( result of this) modification.

PJ: When you speak of a ( inner dimension of) time which does not belong to these two—the past and the future—it is obviously the perception of the ‘now’.

K: Yes, and that perception is not of time. Because that perception doesn’t contain the past.

PJ: What is the ‘now’?

K: The (temporal?) ‘now’ is the past and the present.

PJ: I want to question that.

K: The ( temporal) ‘now’ is all time: past time, future time and the present time.

PJ: Therefore when you say that the ‘now’ contains the past and the future, what does it exactly mean? What is this ‘now’?

K: I’ll tell you what the ‘now’ is.

PJ: Krishnaji, you were asking whether there is a time which is not the linear time of the outside (world) or the inner time of ( my psychological ) becoming. Is there another dimension of time which is independent of both these times?

K: That’s all.

PJ: The only point when the insight into this can come about is in the 'present'. Now, how do I come to this ‘now’ of existence?

K: 'You 'cannot come to it.

PJ: Yes. 'You' cannot come to it—then?

K: 'You' cannot experience it (as a separate observer) but your brain is conditioned to 'experience' and to verbal measurement. But 'this' cannot be approached that way. And that is where the 'religious (meditative?) inquiry' begins. If you are inquiring into theories you will play around with it infinitely.

PJ: Is it possible to probe into this ( 'Now' dimension of?) time ?

K: Yes, it is possible - you may use words, but the words are not the thing. You can’t measure this with words.

PJ: But the moment when words cease...

K: Careful, careful... The 'question' ( of the Eternal Now) remains, but... the 'questioner' doesn’t exist.

ASIT CHANDMAL (AC): What does the 'question' operate upon?

K: I said: ( The time-free ) Perception means that there is no perceiver. See the implication of that ? The 'perceiver' is ( impersonating both?) the past and the future. But the perception of Now is timeless just as its action is timeless.

PJ: Therefore, in that perception, the past and the future are totally annihilated. (So, we started with the question ) What is the (time-free dimension of the?) ‘now’? Krishnaji started by saying that it contains the past, the present and the future. Then the next question was: How do I contact it? To that question, Krishnaji answered: It cannot be contacted (personally?) ; there can only be (a direct & non-personal ) perception. Now the ( non-verbal quality of ) 'listening' taking place in this state of perception, in this state of 'dialogue', wipes out all these...

K: Do you see what is happening now? Listening is not of time. If one listens, it is 'now'. So attention has no time. And, therefore, there is no linear or 'horizontal' time.

AC: I understand. But in that state what is there a perception of? Who or what is listening or inquiring into that state? How can you ask a question?

K: You can. I am going to show it to you in a minute.

PJ: I have asked you a question: Is it possible to probe into it ?

K: Yes. I say, yes. But, ( only if) before we probe, the mind has rid itself of all concepts, all theories, all hopes, all desires. It is now in a state of (total inner) clarity. Right? So in that state, you can inquire non-verbally.

AC: I still don’t understand.

K: Look, sir, if I tell you 'love is not of time'. How do you listen to that? What is your response to that? First you hear the words—those words have a certain meaning and those words are interpreted according to your background, according to your intellectual capacity, your emotional capacity, your feeling of affection, and so on. You 'hear' all this . But can you listen to the truth of it?

AC: I don’t think I can so listen. I am listening to the words. How can you separate the words from the rest of it?

K: Oh yes, you can (if you realise that ) the word is not the ( real) thing.

AC: Yes, and therefore while listening to the words, I can’t listen to the 'thing' . How can I?

K: Sir, don’t you understand the 'simple truth' that Love is not of time ?

AC: The next question is: What do you mean by ‘love’? What do you mean by...

K: We can go into all that. But we must remember that the verbal description is not the fact.

PJ: Isn’t this the crucial question : How do you 'listen'?
And I will answer it : Without translating everything into memory. (without dragging the question into the field of the known ?
In a dialogue with Krishnaji you can listen without thought operating and, yet, comprehend fully what he is saying. It is in listening at such depths that the statement, the question, the ‘what is’—opens up, it tells you; there is no other action.

SP: Pupulji, what is the comprehension of the statement ‘Love is not of time’?

PJ: There is no (mental) comprehension. You take its 'perfume'...

K: Wait, wait. I can’t explain it to you. Have a dialogue regarding that. Here is a statement K makes: Love is not of time. Do you understand (grasp?) the beauty, the depth of it? Have a dialogue regarding that.

SP: I understand that love is not attachment. I understand that where jealousy is, love is not. But, in spite of all this dialogue, that state of love which is not of time...

PJ: Sunanda, you can never use words ( from the 'known'?) to open up this ( holistic) statement.

K: You are using your ( highly trained?) intellect. You are not using a totally different capacity. A ( 'knowledge?) poor' man who is not so bright, who has not passed exams and secured professorships, will ( perhaps?) understand a simple statement like this. At least I think (assume?) he will.

AC: Sir, may I come back? How can there be an inquiry into that state of 'Now' perception?

K: Just listen and I will show it to you. I tell you, ‘Love is not of time’. To me that’s a tremendous fact; it is the ( ultimate inner?) truth. You say, ‘I really don’t understand you’. And I tell you, ''You won’t understand it because you want to understand it through the intellectual process: through ( your 'known') , through a constant back and forth of words. I say that you won’t understand it that way. You might say that that is the only instrument you have, but I reply, ‘Look, there is a totally different instrument. I will tell you what that instrument is if you can put aside the enormous weight (emphasis you put on your ) knowledge which is ( the psychological residue) of time’.

AC: Do you put aside ther intellectual instrument, or your knowledge?

K: No, of course not. I said knowledge. Knowledge is ( the time-binding) result of our evolution.

(To recap:) Is there a ( holistic) comprehension, an insight, an immediate perception without the word, without analysis, without bringing all your past knowledge into it? Oh yes, sir.

AC: I understand that, sir.

K: So, if you ( really) understand that, there is a state where words have lost their (conditioning) meaning, in which there is pure perception of something, you will probe into that perception.

AC: How can I inquire into that state? Can you discuss that?

K: You can’t discuss it.

AC: Yes. You cannot, for how does one inquire without the words? You see, to me, this state is the end of inquiry, not the beginning of inquiry.

K: All right, if it is the end of inquiry, do you stop there? The brain—does it see this? Then that’s finished. Do you get it?

AC: Yes...

K: Do you get it? Do you 'get it' so that the brain says, ‘Yes, that (the time-binding questioning starting from the 'known' is?) finished'?

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 29 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Jun 2018 #49
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


1ST K SEMINAR MEETING cca 1978 (reader friendly edited)

Krishnamurti: We are going to talk over together the question of what is the meaning of 'being a light to yourself'.

Questioner: What does it mean to be a light to oneself?

K: May I ( first) start the ball rolling?
I think most of us are ( psychological?) 'slaves' - either to religious concepts, beliefs and symbols, or to some ( personal) experience, or to institutions, and concepts. And being ( 'conscience?) prisoners' to all that how can one be a light to oneself? Does one realize, including myself, that one is caught in a (temporal?) routine, which naturally prevents ( the inner?) freedom ? When one is dependent on something ( or other?) one cannot be a light to oneself. That is the general outline, we can go very much into detail, and we should, if you want.
So we are proposing to discuss whether the human mind, our mind, your mind and my mind, can be completely free from all the impositions & the pressures and dogmas of religions - can one be ( inwardly ) free of that completely? That's one point.
Then can one be completely free from the imposition of language? Language drives us, shapes our thinking, forces us to a certain course of action. So is one aware of that, and be free of being a slave to language? And the next (related) question: can one be free of 'ideologies' and so on, because all these make our minds narrow, (virtual 'conscience?) prisoners' of (a lame?) social environment, economics and so on and so on. If that is so, how can one be a light to oneself?

Q: The way we are ( presently) educated, does it make our minds 'slavish'?

K: Go into it sir. I am not imposing what we should discuss but that was just suggested. But if there is something better than that, please put it forward and we can go into it.

Q: Can we ask the question, what is the ( proper) instrument of enquiry because there seems a contradiction between not knowing and enquiring.

K: What is the state of the mind that can freely enquire. What is (right now) your state of mind that is (or not?) capable of enquiry?

Q: Krishnaji, could be go(more profoundly) what you mean by 'being a light to yourself' ? Does it mean simply being free of words, and being free of institutions? Or is there something more involved ?

K: Doesn't it mean (for starters?) that we do not depend on the 'light of others' ? So can one be (inwardly) completely free from ( the illusion that) an external agency (will bring us ) happiness, or enlightenment, or whatever words we like to use ?

Q: Surely nowadays many people don't believe anymore in God (or in Masters?) , so they reject that, so they have no obvious external agency.

K: Then if you reject the 'outside agency',( the next step inwardly is?) how will you free yourself from all your own (karmic?) entanglements, from all your sorrows, pain and so on, if you don't depend on anybody, including the (K) speaker?

Q: Would 'being a light to oneself' in itself give you the necessary inner freedom?

K: First of all, is it possible to act rightly (in the everyday life) , accurately, truly without any ( 'psychological  ?) guidance' (coming) from outside? You follow my question? To think very clearly inwardly and outwardly, and act outwardly, without any imposition, without any pressure.

Q: What usually happens when somebody hears that at this point you may think ''OK I will have my inner guidance''.

K: Depending on your inner guidance, what does that mean? Eventually - when you reject the outer (psychological) guidance you must also reject the 'inner' as your guide.

Q: Can we go into what is implied in this (second option) ?

K: It becomes very complex, so, that's why I want to explore it, if you will.

Q: Also, sir, many people today do not think in those terms of having an outer guide or an inner guide. They simply go on living.

K: Therefore if you reject the 'outer' God and the 'inner' God, and then what?

Q: Obviously you will live a very confused life.

K: Isn't that what you are doing?

Q: We have your ( inspiring?) words.

K: Ah! Throw those out, because then you become ( a 'conscience) prisoner' of (K's) words.

Q: If I stand up and I say, ''well I am going to throw away everything - all my ( psychological) dependencies, all my 'crutches', everything I have used to get to where I am and 'go by myself' into the world'', what am I left with?

K: Nothing! Intellectually you have nothing left. However, if you just reject it 'intellectually', then ( the question that remains to be examined is :) have you done it 'intelligently' or merely verbally ?

Q: How can I do it 'intelligently'?

K: When I see something (really?) dangerous, or stupid, can't I see the danger or the stupidity of it and discard it (ASAP ?) - which is ( triggering) the awakening of (one's total?) intelligence.

Q: If I see something that is hurting me...

K: Not only 'you', humanity.

Q: Well, yes, humanity itself...

K: Which is part of you. ( The total consciousness of?) humanity is...

Q: Is part of me.

K: Therefore?

Q: Then I have to throw it (that 'stupid danger' ?) away.

K: Not 'have to'...

Q: If I don't I am ( getting neurotic or ) crazy.

K: Probably we are...

Q: If it is an intellectual understanding it's not discarding (anything) , it just stays in the mind (on the 'to do' list) . When you see the truth of something you don't say whether you have finished with it or not, you either have in fact, or you haven't, it doesn't become an intellectual question.

K: Yes, sir, that's just it. Is this what you want to talk about? Or do you want to talk about your personal problems?

Q: That is a (very?) 'personal' problem.

K: Do you want to talk over this personal problems, 'impersonally' ?
Q: The thing is, sir, that it is a personal problem but it is also everybody's problem.

K: May I suggest you to ask the 'right question' which will inevitably bring about the 'right answer'? Can we ask the 'right question' which will awaken our own intelligence, our own 'native' perception?
All right, let's begin with something (along this line?) . Are we 'sceptical'?

Q: Generally only when things are going bad.

K: Or have we a quality of doubt which is not cynical, which is not born out of bitterness, but a capacity to 'question' (the truth or falsehood of anything?) - questioning the way we live, the way we think, our actions, questioning the whole of our existence, as we live it now. Have you got the capacity to do that? Can we begin with questioning the way we live, our daily actions which have become mechanical, our feelings, our reactions, our fears, out pleasures, the whole of our existence, can we question the way we live ? Can we begin with that? What would you like to begin with, for god's sake?

Q: Sir, I think people generally don't 'question' ( this kind of things ?) I think their minds are mainly concerned with ( the rewards & worries of the) physical survival.

K: Yes, so can't we here, in the first ( scool?) day, learn the 'art of questioning' (of asking the 'right questions'?) I would want to learn this art of questioning for myself. There is 'art' in it, isn't there ? Because one can do it the right way, or the wrong way. The (right way?) must be a questioning that awakens the whole (inward) nature and structure of 'myself' – questioning the way I look the way I understand, the way I see the whole (inner) movement.

Q: Why must there be an 'art of questioning'?

K: Because if I put a 'wrong question' to myself I won't find out (anything other than what I already know?). No? Isn't there an 'art' (involved ) in the way you walk, or in the way you talk ? So mustn't one learn the 'art of questioning' - or the 'art of observing' if you like to put it that way.

Q: Is there an art of seeing that you ask 'bad' ( or inwardly irrelevant?) questions?

K: Oh, yes and it can become a 'lovely art' too.

Q: You are saying that there is an art to ask the right question.

K: So that out of that questioning ( one's dormant?) 'intelligence' can arise? I don't know how to push this 'heavy weight'...

Q: What is the questioning without motivation?

K: Well, let's find out. If I have an (open or deeply hidden?) motivation in my questioning it has already 'directed' my questioning. Right? I've already set a line according to which I will question. Therefore I shall never put the 'right' (insightful?) question if I have an (open or hidden personal) motive. So, I have to go into it and say, 'have I a (hidden?) motive in questioning,  in observing, or in listening to myself, listening to what is going on around me and the world and everything ?

Q: But isn't this 'wanting to find out' a motive?

K: No, no, that's not a ( 'personal'?) motive. If I see that ( fine point?) then I am already 'somewhat intelligent'.

Q: If the actual 'fact' is seen...

K: Say for instance, I am (feeling anxious or?) frightened - is that an idea, or is it a fact?

Q: Sir, perhaps the calling it fear is the 'idea'. But something is actually going on, which is a fact. But somehow we give more credence to the name that we give the fact than what is actually going on. Even in science we take many things as 'facts' which may be just working hypothesis.

K: Quite, quite, that's it. Can I differentiate ( in the act of observation?) the word from the fact?

Q: But most of us have to live our daily lives surrounded by facts unverifiable by us. So there is a margin ( of uncertainty ? ) even in our everyday life.

K: That certainly. But I am talking about the (inner) 'facts' about oneself - am I (indulging in ) living in a world of 'make-believe', in a world that has been imposed on me, or which I have invented, and then in turn have been a slave to that ? That is, I want to enquire into ( the inwardly observable) 'facts' as they are.

Q: Well, I can see that some facts, I can see that I do live in a world like that, but I only see (my) particular fears, or superstitions, but I don't see all (the inner movement of ) fear, or all of 'superstition'.

K: So, you're saying 'I only see part of it', but do you question why you don't see (the whole of ) it? And when you ask me 'why don't I see it', you are depending on me. So, you might have questioned it casually, or you might say, it is terribly important that I find this out.

Q: Isn't it connected with authority actually, psychologically?

K: Yes, yes.

Q: The superstitions and even the so-called 'scientific facts' are based on authority, some verifiable and some not.

K: Like those people who believe intensely in flying saucers - they come to me and say, do you believe in it ? I say, I don't know. But they are moving away from the most relevant facts, which is the world we live in, the actions we do, the way we think, feel, & all that. I am concerned because ( consciousness-wise?) I 'am' the world. The world is not something different from me. And I say, for god's sake let's come back (in?) here. From here we can (eventually?) go 'out there' and perhaps 'do something' about it.

Q: Sir, are you saying that we concern ourselves with these questions outwardly just in order to escape looking at ourselves?

K: Maybe, maybe.

Q: I find it very hard to 'hold to' what is actually going on (within myself) .

K: Mrs Zimbalist's question was, how do I differentiate the 'fact' or the 'actuality' and something which is a (self-created or a collective?) illusion - a 'non-fact'. How do you actually approach (such ) a problem, how do you come to it?

Q: I begin to ask questions about it, that's what I do.

K: Is that the way to approach it?

Q: If you are also bringing whatever competence you have in that field to it, otherwise you can't even enter the field.

K: Suppose one has a 'problem' in ( one's personal) relationship, how do you approach that problem?

Q: If I come to a (personal) problem with relationship I am (becoming) aware of the response that comes about after that relationship or that contact has taken place. It comes into my mind, I see that there has been a 'problem'.

K: That's right.

Q: So... I stay with it.

K: But I am asking you, how do you 'approach' a problem, how do you come to it?

Q: I think that if we make a separation between that problem and ourselves , it is an ego that is approaching.

K: All right. So I approach the problem (holistically when?) I realize the problem is not different from me. So, there is this whole ( complex & interelated problem of the ?) world around us of which I am a part. How do I look at it, how do I approach it, what is the state of my mind when I look at it, knowing this problem is not different from me ?

Q: An open mind without prejudice.

K: Now what do you mean by an 'open mind'?

Q: A mind which is not burdened by any thoughts.

K: So you mean a mind that is not burdened by opinions, by one's own accumulated knowledge, one is not approached by fear. So are you free from fear, personal prejudice and opinions and conclusions so that you are approaching it, approaching whatever the problem is, that thing, freely?

Q: How can one approach anything freely this without any (previously acumulated?) knowledge?

K: Do I approach the ( present?) fear (from the standpoint of?) my previous knowledge of other fears which I have had in the past ? Don't we do this - which is ( the ) 'natural' (approach) ?

Q: We do.

K: Now wait a minute. If we do, then are we approaching it rightly? That's all I am asking. What one does (instinctively for so many generations ?) may be right, but I am questioning whether it is ( holistically?) right.

Q: It seems it is clearly not right, but how is it possible to approach without the ( background memory of the?) past?

K: You are asking a question: is it possible to approach the problem of fear as though for the first time, without the remembrance of other fears which you have had. Whom are you asking?

Q: All of us together. But I think (this approach is impossible if ) there is no space, when our mind is 'stuck' with the problem. When there is ( some inner ) space there is some seeing.

K: Could stay with this question for a minute and examine whether that ('knowledge free' approach ) resolves the problem of fear. Is it possible to approach it without the past remembrances of (other ) fears and can that be done? If it cannot done, it is nonsense.

Q: The 'fact' that we have a (particular) fear is already ( the result of) an operation of the past.

K: Now, you have told me something that there is no separation ( between the observer and the actual reaction of (thought-generated?) fear which is being observed) and I realize that there is some truth in what you are saying. But have I listened to you, and made an abstraction of what you have said, which becomes an (abstract) 'idea'? Or what you are saying is immediately applicable in myself? Is that 'applicability' taking place in me? I realize what I have done ( unconsciously?) - I have separated myself from (the actual reaction of) fear, and I 'see the falsenes of trying to acting upon it since that fear is me. Is that a fact to me, or is it an idea to me? You follow, sir? If it is an idea then I enter into all kinds of theories, and play with the words. But if 'it is so' that I am not separate from fear, what takes place in me?
Let's leave fear for the moment. Let's take something else to widen this thing. Do I realize that I 'am' (not separate from) the total (consciousness?) of humanity, that (inwardly) I represent the whole (consciousness ) of mankind that suffers, goes through all kinds of illusions, pressures, agonies - so do I and so does every human being. So the ( whole consciousness of the?) world is ( constantly manifesting itself in?) me. Is that a lovely idea or is it an actual fact in my life?

Q: Well I can understand that intellectually, but...

K: The moment you say, I can understand intellectually, what do you mean by that?

Q: The whole idea (sounds totally ) true but I don't have the 'feeling' of it .

K: The moment you say 'intellectually' you are merely accepting the ( idea being suggested by the?) words. And 'intellectually I understand it' becomes rather ( elitistically?) arrogant, rather silly.

Q: How do we recognize whether we understand (the whole truth of it?) or not?

K: All right. How do you 'listen' to this statement? How do you actually listen to the ( truth of?) it ? I'll ( try to) make it (holistically ) clear. Every human being psychologically, inwardly, goes through - more or less - the same things as you do. They suffer, they are uncertain, there is separation, there is pain - everybody goes through this (sooner or later) . That's the common (psychological) factor of mankind. Doesn't my actual brother suffer like me? (Didn't?) my father go through the same agony that I am going through? Does that man in India go through the same thing that I am? Perhaps with a little variation, but basically, fundamentally this ( psychological condition is ) common factor of mankind, whether he lives in Jerusalem, or in Mecca, or in Moscow, or in Washington, here, there, anywhere, it is the common thing. No?

Q: Can I realize it not only by thinking (rationally) about it, but by feeling it ?

K: By seeing the (truth of this actual) fact. Seeing it in the sense, ''this is so''. Whether you live in France or somewhere else, you are (the universal?) 'human being', with all the ( ego-centric ?) things that are going on inside you. And the man living in Spain has the same agony going on inside him. So, say this is the common 'psychological factor' of mankind. Therefore mankind is ( in the same psychological condition as?) me.

Q: ( But still the sense of inner ) division and isolation continues.

K: It won't continue the moment it is ( 'seen' as an actual) reality. How can you say, I am isolated? I am (sharing inwardly the whole consciousness of the ) the world, all this ( protracted spectrum of selfishness?) that we have (collectively inherited & ) created.
That's why I have been asking 'how do you listen' to this statement? What does it mean to your mind, to your heart, to your feelings, what does it mean when you listen to a statement of that kind? Do I intellectually rationalize it, or do I immediately test the 'depth of it'? Are we judging the differences in culture & education, or are we saying, look, I know I am different, but (the other guy) has the same inner poverty as myself, the same sense of isolation, frustration, all that, as me. Apparently you don't see (the inner tragedy of) this. If you would, then a totally different thing takes place.

Q: I can see when I look at other people's behaviour and talk to them and so on, how we have the same problems, the same emotions.

K: Exactly.

Q: And yet it doesn't make me feel more responsible.

K: Does it mean that your (elitistic?) isolation, your sense of (self-) importance is so colossal, consciously or unconsciously, that you say, that (other person ) is not me ( 'not in my shoes') ?

Q: Perhaps it is easier to see ( this self-centredness) in somebody else, but most of the time I am not even aware of the complex problems, I mean I cover them up so easily (with endless daily chores ?) .

K: Sir, is it also that we like to identify (preferably) with (the company of) 'great' (remarkable people) - a professor, a marvellous engineer, or the admiral, you know something tremendous, we think powerful, and poor little chap down there in the street, throw him out.

Q: But even he is doing that and so am I.

K: So that (group elitism) goes on. So you are like that poor little man, empty inside, insufficient and all the rest of it, and so is the admiral, probably. I don't know how to convey this. Why don't you see this (holistically, with compassion?) ? Either what I am saying is total nonsense , or if it's not nonsense then why don't you see the thing actually, as a 'fact'?

Q: Isn't it a also a fact, Krishnaji, that our whole existence is based on separatism ?

K: Yes, sir, that is giving ( a prioritary) importance to yourself and refusing to see what is taking place around. So what will make you see the truth of it? More (personal & collective) pain & suffering? Man has been through all that, and yet we keep this thing going.

Q: It is all probably in the ( very nature of the?) 'self'.

K: (Even if) it is so, doesn't the 'self (-centredness') exist in the sense that we have given it ( such primordial ) 'importance'. Now, when I realize actually, that I am ( sharing the total consciousness of ) mankind, haven't I really lost that ( self-) importance?

Q: Isn't it this very sense of 'self -importance' that keeps us from seeing that whatever is making us miserable is the same for all mankind ?

K: Perhaps. My ( personal realisation of this ) misery may come about because I have lost my money, or another is miserable because his wife has run away, another's misery may be because his son is not fulfilling what his father wants. It is misery. Isn't it? Not the different expressions of misery, it's misery.

Q: Yes, but in the depth isn't there something that is common to all these miseries?

K: Which is (qualitatively speaking) my inner misery is equal to your inner misery. Now why don't I recognize that this 'miserable thing' that I am, is like the rest?

Q: Why do we need to feel different from our neighbour and what can we do to stop it?

K: Of course, your ( elitistic sense of) living in a 'beautiful place' may be affected if we realize that inwardly you and I are the same...

(Speaking) personally I would like to discuss with you 'what is meditation', but...I don't think you can (follow it all the way?) because I have to go into it very deeply and you haven't gone into it (at all?) . I would like to discuss it with a person who says, I have gone that far, now let's go much further. In the same way I would like to discuss with someone who says, what does it mean to have a mind that is completely 'empty'. Empty in the sense, it has no problems, no impressions, not any kind of imprint on it. And what is the quality of such a mind, with that extraordinary energy which is implied in this (inner) emptiness. I would like to discuss with you, what (a holistic) relationship really means, to be related to somebody, whether it is possible to be related without a single image about the other. Will you do that? Will you say, look, let's take relationship and go through it to the very end so that there isn't a particle of contradiction left? Can we discuss that? We are ( supposed to be?) here for that purpose, for God's sake !

Q: I am very interested in solving the problem of ''me and the world'', because our separation from the world seems to me to be the problem. Once you 'are' the world, then you have solved ( a major existential?) division.

K: Yes, now shall we discuss that?

Q: Krishnaji, even before going into that question, which is certainly very fundamental, can we discuss 'how' we are going to go into it.

K: That's it. What is the 'quality of your mind' - we will go into it, but take one subject which is common to us and work it out in detail and go to the very end of it, and at the end of it say, right, I'm out - and not always (keep) 'talking' about it.

Q: Why this sense of (our self-) isolation when we know that everybody is (inwardly) in the same boat?

K: Is that what you want to discuss? Will you put your 'guts', your energy, your vitality into solving something? Or you just float around? I thought we were all gathered here for that purpose, that a few of us take one human problem and work it out so completely. If you don't want to, what is the purpose of our meeting?

Q: It seems that we can only discuss the problem that is really 'real' for all of us.

K: What is that?

Q: Can we talk about relationship?

K: Now, can we go into that and work it out in detail and see ( the truth of) it, and find out how to live rightly with another, can we do that? Would that interest you?

Q: (chorus) Yes.

K: Can we discuss tomorrow morning, this one thing, relationship, with all the things implied in it, everything implied in it, and in discussing see if we cannot 'break down' this (sense of) 'psychological division' that everyone has created for themselves. Shall we do this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Jun 2018 #50
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


3RD K SEMINAR MEETING 1978 (reader friendly edited)

Krishnamurti: Shall we go on by talking over together, the question of fear? Is it really possible to be inwardly completely free of psychological fear? One may be afraid of death, of so many things, neurotically, and perhaps healthily, sanely, like fear when you face something dangerous physically, to meet it sanely, which is normal, not neurotically, with fear. So there is both physical fear and psychological fear. Perhaps they are interrelated, one giving emphasis to the other and so on. Can we go really deeply inside the whole business of it, and be free of it ? Does one demand that? Or we don't know how to deal with ( our subliminal?) fears and so we (conveniently) explain it away. Is that it, we never really want to go into it and completely dissolve it ? Is that ( our experiential?) problem – that we want a (quick) solution of it, how to the end it rather than the finding out the whole (inward) movement of it, the the whole nature of it, and so when one really has an insight into it, it's gone.

Q: Are we really aware that fear does play such a large part in our lives?

K: That's what I'm asking, sir. Are we aware how ( insidiously ?) destructive it is, because from fear arises violence & all kinds of neurotic behaviour.

Q: But we actually don't want to deal with it, we don't want to deal with its ( deeper cause) we just want to control it.

K: That's right, sir, let's be clear. Do we want to control it, we don't want to put our teeth into it, but waiting for somebody to help us to be free of fear - a psychologist, some ( compensatory) incidents, but remaining in the meantime (dominated by our conscious or unconscious ) fears. Which is it we want? Please let's be clear on this point.

Q: I think often the fear of something is worse than that thing itself. And so that if one could find out what (the root process of) fear actually is, then...

K: Do we want to go into the whole nature and structure of fear, into but the actual movement of it, or we are (postponing it ) because we want to control it, escape from it and so on ?

Q: Well, I think that's where we have to part from our likes and...

K: Is that our intent to go into this very deeply and resolve it or we just wait for somebody ( knowledgeable enough?) to help us to be out of it.

Q: Are you suggesting that most people here haven't got serious intention of going the whole way into it?

K: That's right, sir. Let me put it as Dr Bohm points out, have we the serious intent to go into it ? That's all I'm asking.

Q: Dr Bohm just said that we have to be free of fear before we can even be serious.

K: Oh, no. Then I'll wait till Doomsday. Let's put it the other way: do I want to learn all about fear?

Q: One can have the conscious intention of investigating fear, but then you've added a further thing; you said, in order to be free of it (there is the experiential risk that ) we don't know at this moment what will happen.

K: But do you want to investigate it, or do you want somebody to say, 'Do this, and you will be free of it'. You want to actually understand it?

Q: Absolutely. I want to understand the mechanics of it. But I am afraid of what will come or what will go on , if I do understand it.

K: Yes, which means you're still frightened of 'what might happen'.

Q: I want to open up the whole subject, that's all I can say.

K: That's all. All of us want to do this?

Q: Yes.

K: Avanti. So, are we conscious, aware, of our fears and what we do with our fears?

Q: I think we're probably all aware of the fact that we drag on.

K: So you know what you do with your fear : 'drag on', as Professor Wilkinson points out, how we go on (ignoring) it. We are now opening up the whole Pandora's Box.

Q: Krishnaji, I think part of it is because we maintain a 'facade' of ourselves that we present to others, and we want to continue to maintain this. And if we begin to face the question of fear, we will have to deal with this 'facade'.

K: All right, but I'm just asking apart from the facade, why do we do this - that is once we are aware of our fear, control it, suppress it, avoid it, run away from it, or wait for some incident to resolve it. Why do we go through this process?

Q: Couldn't it be because we don't know how to deal with it, otherwise?

K: You don't know any other way? Is that it?

Q: The 'entity' which is afraid remains the same and somehow ( dealing directly with ) that fear seems to threaten something inside you.

K: So, all right, it's a threat. A threat to my ( comfortably numb?) way of living? Is that it?

Q: Because the whole (sense of inner safety) will be threatened.

K: How do I know that my whole inner structure, which I've built up, will be destroyed? Or am I projecting an idea that it might be destroyed? Let me do it for myself, talk about it.

First, (for starters) I am unaware that I'm doing this. Then I become aware. I am becoming aware that I'm frightened (of something or other) but I learn to control it, suppress it, or...avoid it. And I 'drag on' this way for the rest of my life. And I am saying now, why do I do this, why do I live this way? And I find there is an (unconscious) threat involved in it, the threat of something unforeseen happening ( & everything going out of control) . So (that thought itself is ) adding more to the already accumulated fear. I live this way. Right? And I say to myself, why? Why am I doing this? What am I being threatened about? The relationship with my wife, girlfriend, or whatever it is? Threat to my ( self-satisfying) existence?

Q: Yes, that you won't exist (as you are now) .

K: You've already projected what might happen. But I don't know. You see the difference? It may ( or may ) not be like that at all. You follow? Threat implies that you have a certain standard of life and if you investigate into fear, that (upper middle class?) standard of life may be broken up. Therefore, you say, 'My god, I won't go into this problem at all'. So if you do not project, the idea of what might happen, let's investigate the ongoing (movement of) fear, not the future ( imaginary) fear. So I won't project. Can we go on from there?

Q: Yes.

K: So why am I doing this? That is, why am I carrying on this ( psychologically devious?) way, controlling it, suppressing it, avoiding it, waiting for somebody to resolve it and so on. Why do I do this?

Q: It seems I'm ( unconsciously) 'holding on' to something.

K: What are you holding on? Your relationship? Your money? Your way of life? Your profession, your career, your - whatever, you know, a dozen things. Are you holding on to them?

Q: All that, yes.

K: To all that. What is ( the attachment) underneath all that? To your life?

Q: All my structure.

K: The way you are living - let's put it that way, it's simpler. The way of your life, you're holding on. And in that way of life, fear is involved . So you're also holding on to ( a life subliminally controlled by) fear. Right?

Q: There is something about that, Krishnaji, that I think that it's more than just 'holding on' to the structure, it's as if you're holding on to the fact that if you don't have the capacity to deal with it.

K: I was coming to that : we think we have not the capacity to deal with the fact that I'm afraid, because I've been ( culturally ) 'discouraged' that I cannot do it by myself. So ( the joint efforts of a materialistic ) society, education, has helped me to have no capacity to deal with it.

Q: One could also feel that I can do it myself.

K: Saying 'I will solve it', may be another (form of) vanity. So I am free from that educated conditioning. Right? Are you?

Q: Are you?

K: Yes. I wouldn't talk otherwise, I wouldn't be a 'hypocrite'. Sir, we started at the beginning of this discussion, with being a light to oneself, and having this (total inner honesty?) is a ( fundamental) part of it...

Q: It seems this educated conditioning has a life of its own.

K: No, of course it has, but don't go off into that. Dr Shainberg raised the question that we, most of us, have not the capacity to deal with it.

Q: I did not say we didn't have it, I said, we 'feel like it'.

K: Quite right. So we are investigating why we don't feel capable, and we don't feel capable because of this. So are we free from that ( culturally imposed irresponsability?) because we can't investigate further if you are not free of that.
You see, this is ( qualitatively) different from ( psych)analysis. In the sense that as we are observing this whole movement, there is no ( division between) the analyzer and the analyzed. We are just observing (what is actually going on?) . We have been 'educated' to ( neglect our original potential of direct & non-verbal observation) . If you reject all that, what has happened?

Q: You are free to learn, you are free.

K: You are free of what?

Q: Of this ( cultural) conditioning.

K: Free. How did you get that feeling of being free?

Q: By doubting.

K: By doubting, by questioning you have ( awakened a dormant quality of ?) intelligence, haven't you now?

Q: Yes. Your own intelligence.

K: Not your own. You have intelligence. Which is ( a holistically perceptive) capacity. I wonder if you see this.

Q: There's a quality right there. You used the word 'happen'. I think that's exactly it, that you become a ( creative) 'happening'.

K: Yes, there is a movement, a happening, which is intelligence, not that (self-conscious ?) intelligence which is yours or mine, it's Intelligence.

Q: Which is not a function of the ( total) brain?

K: You have used the ( full capacity of the) brain to 'see' what the intellectuals, the priests, the authoritarians & the philosophers have done : they have made you ( inwardly unperceptive & ), dull. And if you see the whole thing, what they have done, and the very seeing is the movement of intelligence, it's not your seeing or my seeing, the fact that it is so.

Q: But, sir, one of the main things here, it seems to me, is a self helplessness. I'm trying to suggest that the ( direct) experience of fear is so tremendous that when you are (unconsciously) fearful and you examine it, you come to that ( liberating) perception with extreme difficulty.

K: We are not yet dealing with that. We've just reached a point where our (inwardly perceptive) capacities which have been made dull, by rejecting those ( extraneous) factors which make us incapable, the very rejection of it is the awakening of this ( directly perceptive) intelligence. That's one thing. So I'm saying the next step is...

Q: I still have the feeling that it will be a verbal game.

K: It's not a verbal game with me. If you have the intent and the seriousness of it, you cannot remain verbal.

Q: Sir, it seems at this point the fear is still there. Now ( our abyssmal) fears haven't been dealt with. All you've done is put aside incapacity and the intelligence has been awakened. Once that's awakened then it can start dealing with fear. But...the fear is still ( lurking) there.

K: Of course. Sir, I'm going to deal with - we're going to go into it. I say, by observing, by looking into this whole movement of fear, as we've just begun, that ( newly liberated) intelligence has in it this passion, this intent, the drive. I won't sit still any more. If I have fear, I'll go into it with that intelligence, with that energy, that drive. But unless there is this feeling - look: I've lived with fear for so many blasted years, wasted my life, and I must do something about it, which immediately puts me out of society. And I don't mind. But if I say I like the niceties of society, dinner parties, and blah, blah, then of course there is no ( inwardly creative) communication.
So what shall we do now? I have now - there is this intelligence operating, which is ( the holistically perceptive) capacity. And I've come to the point, where I'm afraid. Fear of what? What are you afraid of?

Q: The future.

K: Afraid of loneliness, afraid of not having ( any meaningful) communication with another? The other is the only person with whom I can communicate and with nobody else, therefore I'm afraid (to open myself to them) . And therefore I get attached. What am I afraid of, each one of us? Losing my job, having no status in society, nobody recognizing me as a great man? Afraid of death, afraid of darkness, afraid that I might physically get hurt? Go on, sir, please, what is it that you're afraid of?

Q: Practically all those things. All those things.

K: Are you afraid of all these?

Q: Practically, yes. And also of what will happen with my whole life, just letting everything drop by and...

K: She said, 'I'm afraid of all these things'. What does that mean? That I'm afraid of this, afraid of that, so you have separate fears. Or that fear has different expressions.

Q: It seems to enter into practically everything.

K: Do you want to get rid of those various expressions of fear, or the fear that ( our self-identified thought) creates? You follow? Desire creates many objects of desire. I want a house, I want to be famous, I want to be known, I want to have money. But it's still desire. So, though fear has many expressions, the common denominator, factor is ( the thought that is creating all these) fears. Are we aware of the objects of fear, or of (the movement of) fear itself? Can we move from there?

Q: Don't these fears indicate that one is actually afraid to be left alone?

K: Yes, sir, loneliness. Loneliness, isolation, building a wall round oneself, being hurt from childhood, build a wall round yourself and fear of anybody who might hurt you.

Q: Could we take a look at the process by which a single fear arises, by which ( a particular) fear comes into being? And take a look at it from that point of view.

K: Take it, sir, go into it, take one fact – I am afraid of this ( abyssmal) feeling of loneliness, which is ( the feeling of my profound self-) isolation. Right? I'm frightened of feeling isolated. Are we all aware of this (profound existential) loneliness, and running away from it, trying to cover it up, trying to fill it with various forms of entertainment, religious, football or this or that. Is it due to my ( 100% ego-centric ? ) way of life, acting for myself all the time, in my most intimate relationships, or business, whatever it is, I'm always acting from a centre. So what happens? I'm all the time creating this void in me, this emptiness, this sense of loneliness , by my own actions, by my thoughts. Do we all see this or not?

Q: It is all leading to isolating oneself .

K: Isolating oneelf all the time. And suddenly, walking in the (Brock ?)woods or sitting in my room suddenly one feels tremendously lonely, isolated, having no relationship with anything. Don't you know all this? And I have done everything to avoid facing it. Right?
And now I ( finally) want to find out how it arose, and I see how it has come about, how through my daily actions I've (consciously or not ?) isolated myself. Right? Which is ( resulting in) my loneliness. And I suddenly become aware of it. And so instead of running away from it, I say, ''all right, old boy, let's see what this is all about''. What is the state of the mind that is lonely, the sense of one's tremendous isolation ? And if you don't resolve it then you ( may end up in ) becoming neurotic. So you're stuck with it, and if you don't try to resolve it you (risk to ) become a neurotic human being.
Note : This is a verbal description, don't be deceived by the apparent clarity of the description, it (has to be seen as) a fact ! So what shall I do with this loneliness? (Hint:) The same 'I' who has created the loneliness, the isolation, says, 'What shall I do about it?' So, I've put a wrong question to myself when I say, 'What shall I do?', or 'Tell me what to do', ( since in the meanwhile) I'm still isolating myself. So the next ( holistically right?) question is, is that loneliness separate from me? Or I am that? Is that loneliness different from the actor who says, I must do something about it ? Or the actor himself is ( constantly creating ) that. I wonder if you see that the doer is that.

Q: He's sustained it artificially.

K: Yes, so the observer 'is' the ( creator of the condition which is being) observed. This is difficult for most of us to get.

Q: That ( non-dualistic perception ) seems particularly difficult.

K: Of course, because our (cultural) conditioning is to keep the two separate. Our conditioning is ( the observer) acting upon ( that which is being observed) .

Q: Krishnaji, isn't that the problem, that the actor creates the symptom. And then immediately the actor continues to create a reaction

K: That's right sir, that's right. But when you see the actor is the action, you have quite a different - ( the quality of) your mind is quite different when you see that.

Q: May we ask, 'how different' ?

K: Though we accept that division as a ( historical) fact, is that not an illusion?

Q: You mean, this division is an illusion?

K: Yes.

Q: Krishnaji, without meaning to be presumptuous, I can see that I 'am' that loneliness, and that there is not a division.

K: Be careful - how did you come to that?

Q: I can tell you how I came to it. In listening to what you said and in seeing the entity that felt that loneliness, that was the same, that was the loneliness came from the same source that felt it. So I could see in my way that I was the loneliness.

K: Yes, sir.

Q: But that doesn't give me any insight yet into...

K: That's what Dr Shainberg is pointing out.

Q: Is it that one has jumped and then you know you have jumped.

K: All right. Have you 'jumped' to ( the realisation of) this fact that there is no division between the actor and the loneliness ? If you see that, there is no (more inner) conflict about ( that illusory) loneliness. Is that a fact to you, no conflict about loneliness? Do I realize the illusion I've been living in, where I have separated loneliness from me, and therefore 'me' can act upon 'it'. Do I see that?
(Hint:) Loneliness hasn't been resolved. I'm still in the same position as I was before when I went round escaping from it. And I'm still in the same position when I ask the question, 'What shall I do about it?' -which means I don't see that ( my existential) loneliness is the action of my ( self-centred) thinking which has brought about this division, because I thought 'I' must become a great man, I must do this...

( To recap:) Have you seen that you are 'escaping' from ( facing your) loneliness? Which means you are acting upon loneliness. And now you see you can't escape from loneliness. Next, when you say now I'll not escape, can we face the fact (of that total loneliness) - not what I think about the fact. ( Hint:) You must be ( non-personally) intelligent to face the fact. Intelligent, without fear, or whatever the word you like to use. To face a fact I mustn't run away from it, obviously. But my whole education has been to run away from it. Why can't I face the fact? Because of education or I have lived all my life comparing myself with somebody else. I'm going slowly. Is it I cannot face the fact because I have not the capacity for it? Ask yourself, sir. I have the capacity now, you follow? I've understood what capacity is. Is it I cannot face the fact because I don't know how to look ?

Q: So, how do I have to look ?

K: I'll tell you how I do it ; through the ( direct) observation of escapes, controls, and all that, I say, loneliness, isolation is my daily life. So then my daily life changes completely.

Q: Yes, but that's the jump. That's not true, you didn't do that. You said, what am I going to do about loneliness. Yes. You yourself skipped that.

K: No, sir. I just expressed the question of others. I am not lonely. I won't go through that. Cut me out as the ( average self-cetred) person.

Q: Ok, forget about you. Let's go back, now we have seen the isolation, then we go to - I'm going to do something about that, I'm going to go to the movies.

K: You go to the movies, but when you come back home, it's still there. So can you face the fact of ( your loneliness) by looking at it correctly, without any deviation, which means, can you look at it without any ( personal) motive, which is deviation and so on. Can I look at the fact of my loneliness, not running away from it, not trying to find an answer for it, or trying to have a (personal) motive to say, 'Look, what am I to do with it?' Can you just look at a fact and 'keep looking at it'?

Q: Most people find this very difficult.

K: That's right, sir. Most people find it most difficult to look ( non-personally) at a fact; look at the fact that you're jealous, look at the fact that you're violent, look at the fact that you are ugly, both externally or inwardly. Like looking at yourself in the mirror and not compare yourself with somebody else who is more or less (beautiful) . So can you (similarly) look at that loneliness, without any deviation, without any motive, just look? Now this ( non-personal contemplation) is most difficult, because ( commonly our) observation is ( supervised by) the movement of thought, which is a 'deviation'. I wonder if you see?

Q: Yes.

K: I'm just discovering what I said. Yes, sir, can I observe my loneliness. And hear ( all its superficial) emptiness, the inwardness of it - observing means also listening. Can I do that? ( If yes,) it might tell its whole content, you follow? If I know how to look, if I know how to listen to the thing ( behind) that I call 'loneliness' -it may be the most extraordinary factor involved in it. But if I run away, escape, it's not revealing its true story.

Similarly can I face the 'fact' that ( inwardly) I am absolutely nothing (not-a-thing) . You know that is really...

Q: All your (personal) problems are solved.

K: No problems, but there is something much more when you come to ( the realisation of ) that actual fact - the fact that you're nothing, your ideas you've got, beliefs you've got, experiences, all those are words, words, words.
Now, can I (similarly) face the fact that I'm frightened, and not do a thing about it, just face it. Can I? Can you? If you face the fact, then a whole series of real enquiries begin not intellectual, verbal enquiries. See that gives you a tremendous ( inward) vitality.
I may ask, has it given you that vitality, that sense of drive, with passion? Say, I've faced the fact, it's finished.
I think we had better stop. Shall we go on with the 'fear' question?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 05 Jun 2018 #51
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


4TH K SEMINAR MEETING cca 1978 (reader friendly edited)

Krishnamurti: May we go on with what we were talking about the other day, how difficult it is to face facts, facts being that which is actually taking place now, what's going on (within our own mind ?) . And for most of us it's very difficult to face that due to the ( subliminal perceptive ?) division between the 'observer' and the (ongoing inner 'facts' which are being?) observed.
( As an easy in-class example?) Can we face the fact the reaction which we call 'fear' by watching it without the ( all-controlling ?) interference of thought, which naturally moves ( the observing mind ?) away from ( directly attending?) that which is actually taking place.

And is there a division between that which is happening inwardly, and the one who is observing what is taking place? That's the question we must seriously go into, because where there is division between the observer and the observed, or the thinker and the thought, there must be a conflict (of interests resulting in ?) control, suppression or running away - the 'observer' imposing what he thinks is right according to his cultural values, his tradition, his conditioning. So ( in examining the 'fact' of fear) we must really understand very carefully and deeply, whether there is such a division between the actual reaction that is going on within us, when there is fear, and the one who says, 'I am afraid,' implying that (s)he is different from fear.
Because, you see, this is a ( meditation related?) question which leads into rather complex things, which is, if the division exists, then the doer, the actor, the observer, the thinker can operate on that which he is observing. Then he can control, shape, alter. And that's what, traditionally, we have been doing (for millenia) . And we're asking now, is such a division between the observer and that which is actually going on, is it an (objective) 'reality' or whether we have made it into a ( mental ) reality because of our ( survivalistic) tradition, to divide 'me' from the 'not me', 'we' and 'they', my belief and your belief and so on. Now can ( the truth or falseness of ?) this fact be observed without the 'observer' who says, 'I can do something about it.' If it can be done, then you will remove entirely and completely the (time-binding) conflict between ( being) 'this' and ( wanting to become) 'that'. Let us, each one of us, find out the truth of it.

Q: How about the case when something is happening you actually can't observe it (live) ? In other words, if I get up and I have an inclination to run down the road, (by the time that) I become aware of it... it has already happened.

K: Therefore the 'observer' created (the mental representation of ?) it. But what we are discussing is (to observe it 'live'?) as it is happening, which is the fact, that's, not after it has happened or before it will happen, but actually as it is happening.
If we are concerned with the question of ( the ongoing background ?) conflict, then we must find out if it is at all possible to eliminate it in oneself, in one's relationships and so on. Is that possible? We say - I say it is possible only when this (subliminal perceptive) division between the 'observer' and that which is actually going on (is removed?)- when there is no such division, then you eliminate altogether conflict. When there is such division (or when the brain functioning in the old 'psychologically-safe' mode?) , the observer can analyze that which is happening, and go on (sinking ?) into the whole process of self-analysis and so on, which we won't go into for the moment. But if there is no actual division ( brain's 'safe-mode' is suspended ?) , then that which is happening undergoes a radical transformation. That's all my point.

Q: Sir, in this ( 'observer'-free) ) observation could there still be a certain degree of thought involved ?

K: No. Let's make it clear. When we observe (in the traditionalistic 'safe mode' ) there is (a perceptive) division, and ( the self-centred) thought is in operation. Thought then can say, 'I will control it, or ( still better?) I will analyze it. When there is no ( observing) 'observer', who is the ( self-identified ) essence of thought then there is only actually the 'what is happening' . Can't that (inner) actuality, the 'fact', be observed without the (interfering) movement of thought? If the movement ( the controlling interference?) of thought takes place, then 'you' are acting from the (memory & knowledge of the ) past, and therefore distorting it. Full stop.

Q: Sir, but can we describe this (non-dualistic) examination? We need the qualities of thought which are from the past, which are value judgements, which are associations, if we can say that when the observer and the observed are not separate, that those qualities are not present, then ( we have no control regarding) whatever is going on?

K: Find out (for yourself) ! Don't ask me.

Q: I am trying to find out if there is a (non-dualistic) 'thinking', (without ) the one who is thinking.

K: There is no operation of thought at all - according to me - there is just pure observation. And in that ( 'thought-free' space of ? ) observation the thing ( the inner 'fact') which is being observed undergoes a ( qualtative) change, a mutation.

Q: I think you're wrong there. There is the pure 'happening' and this is followed by ( a rational) observation. But the 'pureness' is in the happening, not in the observing. : In other words, if I say to you, 'What do you see going on in this room?' , what is happening is the primary thing, and the observing is something that follows on

K: I see. That is (inwardly speaking) in the happening at the moment of (a reaction of) anger, there is no observer. The 'observer' (safe mode ?) comes into operation a moment later. Obviously. Then the operator, the doer, the thinker acts upon it, and then the whole problem of inner conflict arises. Now can't you observe that 'happening' ( of anger) without the whole rigmarole of thought coming into it?

Q: Only if one is not on the defensive, against the fact.

K: Suppose there is a (spontaneous) reaction of anger - is there an observation of that feeling, that reaction, without the whole movement of thought ( without what was previously known ?) coming into it? That's all my (experiential) question.

Q: Sir, for the most part there isn't (such thought-free observation) Most of the time there is the anger and then the 'observer' (pops up) looking at that anger, and thinking that it's separate. So could we take a look at the process by which we move from that state of the observer being different from the observed, to where the observer 'is' the observed ? In other words, the observer 'being' the observed is not the normal ( perceptive) state, is not the normal frame of mind. So could we take a look at how that ( non-dualistic perception) could come about?

K: Would you consider for a moment, observing that which is happening right now, just to observe. Can one observe ( a 'gut reaction' of) jealousy as it arises, as a flower blooms, just to watch it ?

Q: But when you ask, 'can I observe ?' there already is the division.

K: All right, that's just a ( dualistic) way of talking -but is it possible to observe that reaction which is called jealousy without the ( controlling) movement of thought?

Q: But the moment you use the words 'Can one observe it ?' there's already a duality implied.

K: I've said that, sir, the 'observer' (safe perceptive mode ?) implies a duality. Agreed. But try it (right here & now) What is your actual feeling now?

Q: Bafflement.

K: Wait, bafflement, puzzled - can you watch that state of the mind which is in puzzled, just watch it, not say, 'I must be clear, what he's talking about,' just watch it, see.

Q: There seems to be a physical resistance to that, to that watching.

K: Are you saying there must be certain (inner) relaxation to observe?

Q: No, I meant some 'disturbance' that you feel in the body, a physical reaction.

K: Why should there be a physiological reaction to watching (something non-personally?) ? Maybe there is, I don't know - please, this supposed to be a (group) discussion in which each one of us takes part, not one or two and the rest keep silent and listen.

Q(1): I'm going to ask you, actually, when you're looking at fear, just trying to watch it, you're saying there's a physical resistance. Is this because you want an answer, the mind always seems to want an answer to a problem instead of just opening out ?

Q: At some point there's like a physiological refusal.

K: That refusal may be the result of ( the mental) strain due to the intensity of watching (exerced by K?) Perhaps we're not used to watching anything 'intensely'? The moon, the sky, the trees, whatever it is? To watch. Now, can we put the question differently - why should thought interfere with anything (happening inwardly or ) 'psychologically'?

Q: Somehow ( our thinking in terms of) time comes in : there are the reaction of jealousy, the immediate ( after-thought) seems to be, well, if I indulge the jealousy, what's the result of it.

K: All that's implied ( any in dualistic) thinking, isn't it? I'm asking, is there an observation – of the moon - without the interference of thought?

Q: It is a state of (holistic) awareness that happens occasionally.

K: Occasionally? All right. Can you watch a movement of cloud, occasionally? Now can you watch your reactions in the same way?

Q: Yes, this very morning I had occasionally the experience of...

K: Not 'you' , sir - just to watch something without any ( subjective?) movement of thought ? Or, can there be a (direct) observation without abstraction?

Q: There can be and there sometimes is, but it's infrequent.

K: Sir, may I ask another question. Has it ever occurred to you, whether it is possible to live without the conflict of duality - is it possible to live without ( any sense of ) conflict between yourself & your wife, between yourself, and somebody else or conflict (of self-becoming) within yourself.

Q: Not until you suggested the other day that it was 'possible'.

K: So, I suggested it. All right. Have you found out whether that is possible or not possible?

Q: It is possible

K: Now, to find out ( experientially) whether it is possible to live without conflict implies there should be no ( observer-observed) division. I said it's easy to look at the moon intensely for some time, because it doesn't affect us ( personally) deeply. But can there be ( a similarly intense) observation of our (inner ) reactions without any shadow of thought? That's what we're discussing. From that arises whether it is possible to live a life without any sense of conflict. And ( a background sense of ) conflict exists as long as there is division in the observer and the observed.
So, is that division artificially created ( as a menta 'safety device' by our self-centred) thinking or is it actual? You follow my question? If the division is not 'true', (intrinsical or ) factual, then as there is no conflict the thing which is being observed undergoes a ( radical qualitative) change. I

Q: Sir, what one is observing is often thought itself, so are you saying that the change comes about in thought itself?

K: Yes, sir. Can thought observe itself? I'm asking a (profound meditation related ) question : Can thought itself be conscious of its own 'movement' ?

Q: Yes, but commonly only the (central) part of thought is conscious (of its activities)

K: Of course, so can thought which is the whole (mental activity of the brain ?) be aware of itself?

Q; That raises the ( related) problem that thought is always fragmentary.

K: Yes, sir thought is fragmentary.

Q: But not always?

K: Wait. Can thought which is fragmentary, can that thought be aware of itself?

Q: But how can that fragmentary thought be aware of the whole ?

K: The particular ( subjective) thought. Let's leave aside the whole (of thought) for the moment, because that leads to something a little more complex. Say, you have a particular (train of ?) thought - can that ( particular activity of) thought be conscious of itself ? Not another thought to become conscious of it.

Q: You're saying that ( one particular) thought has to become conscious of itself, but if the total process of thought is in constant movement, it cannot become conscious of itself. It becomes another thought.

K: Let's leave out ( thinking about ) thought. Can ( our own ) 'consciousness' be aware of itself? Consciousness being ( the personalised display of ?) the whole content of thought . Your (self-) consciousness is made up of its (psychological) content - your jealousy, anxiety, fear, love & hate, sexual demands, the whole of human endeavour, struggle, pain, pleasure, sorrow, death, and so on. The whole of that ( self-consciousness) is made up of all these little parts. Right? Can ( the totality of ) that consciousness be aware of itself? Or is that not possible?

Q: Would you differentiate this from thought? You see, the whole consciousness must be aware of itself, not a particular aspect of it.

K: Yes, put it that way if you like.

Q: But what in the world can that mean, the whole of consciousness being aware of itself - what does that mean?

K: Don't ask me. What does it mean to you?

Q: To me it means a confused entity trying to look at itself...

K: You know we began by asking can we observe a fact. We mean by this ( observing that) which is actually taking place (outwardly or inwardly ) . Not a second later, or a minute later, but actually that which is going on, the very 'happening' itself. Let's stick to this, forget all that we've said (about thought becoming aware of itself) . So that is the central issue that we're trying to talk over together, and find whether it is possible to look at, to observe that which is actually taking place. That's all.

Q: So, you're saying that there must be a form of 'immediate apprehension' in observation which precedes thought?

K: That's right. As Professor Wilkins pointed out , can you apprehend that which is happening ? (Eg) we have all been envious, and we know what the feeling of it is. Is there a (non-verbal) observation of that (reaction of) , envy as it arises, just to stay with that 'envy' and observe that which is happening ?
(Or, for a change) is there an observation of fear as it is happening?

Q: Well, the funny thing is, as soon as I observe, it seems to go, it's hiding, it disappears.

K: Because you are observing it with ( a quality of non-dualistic) attention, it goes away ?

Q: Yes...

K: So it's only when there's 'inattention' ( a lack of integrated attention that ?) fear comes.

Q: Very much so.

K: So, then what is that 'attention'?

Q(1) : You have simply taken the (mental) focus off the sensation of fear and focusing on something called 'attention'. Therefore that feeling of fear diminishes.

K: Maria, please, don't explain it away, just see what he is saying. He says, when I attend to that fear, it disappears. And we asked, does that fear return, in another form ? So doesn't that indicate that when there is attention, fear is not. So can I 'attend' (that reaction of) fear, which is taking place, with that attention ?

Q: But what if I am simply confused ?

K: I 'attend' to that confusion, look, attend, give attention to that confusion. For the moment it is not. So (as a bonus?) I've learnt something else : when there is attention, confusion is not.

Q: Yes, but there's a new state (of mind) .

K: That's all, sir.

Q: From listening to you I know that this 'attention' is an extraordinary thing, but unfortunately...I do not know what it is.

K: We can go into that, (later on?) . Let me put the question differently - when there is attention, will there be fear? So does attention contain, or 'hold', the movement of ( self-centred) thought (which was creating that paricular fear?) I'm asking : in this state of ( integrated) attention is there any movement of thought?

Q: It seems that this attention doesn't belong to me, is it something non-physical or... what ?

K: It is not yours, that's all - I agree. It's nobody's (non-personal?)

Q: But Krishnaji, here is the brain, say it's feeling fear or whatever the emotion is. Now the attention comes about. What is going on in the brain which is looking at it ?

K: Would you want to discuss that?

Q: Yes, I do.

K: Maria, asked, ''what is going on in the brain ?''. Don't you want to find out what goes on?

Q: I'd rather want to understand how attention comes about, rather than what is happening.

K: Wait. We can come to all this slowly, please. Is this ( holistic quality of) attention to be learnt (from another)? Practised and repeated?

Q: No. It's there.

K: There is attention about something and that thing disappears. Then I say, 'By Jove, I've learnt something ! I'll keep on attending, and practise attention'. Then... it's gone. Right? So, Maria asks, what is the quality of the brain, when there is total attention. Right?

Q: The brain is highly activated in that state of attention.

K: I don't know, we're going to enquire. What do you say, Dr Bohm, and other 'experts' at this. What is the quality or the state of the brain when there is total attention?

Q: I think we must say that the people who do research on the brain don't really understand attention, and they admit it openly.

K: This is important to discuss : what is the quality of the brain when you are totally attentive ?

Q: I think we can look at inattention, because we don't have attention.

K: Maria, just listen carefully. You are listening now to me, which means, I hope, you're 'attending'. What do you mean by that word 'attending'? It means you are listening to what I have to say, therefore you are able to understand the words, and you're not caught in words (because) you also know the words are not the (actual) thing that he is trying to convey. And your whole nervous, physical organism is alert, listening, watching. Right? Would you call that attention?

Q: Well, that's rudimentary attention, because in that is left out what to me is the whole of...

K: Emotion ?

Q: Well, emotion, but what is being said is registering in the brain. And some process is going on.

K: You see, when you listen totally, is there registration?

Q: Isn't the first stage (of attention) one of a positive, open-minded receptiveness?

K: Yes. But open-minded generally means a mind that is like a sieve, everything pours in, everything, you follow? But I'm asking something, very simple, sir.

Q: It seems that there is a sensory sensation, and then the words take a quite different place.

K: Sir, I'm asking, do we 'attend' ( or pay undivided attention ?) to anything, attend?

Q: If we were attending now, we would understand you.

K: Not 'understand me'. You'd understand what (holistic) 'attention' means , not what I mean by attention. Do you know what attention is? Maria (Mary Z) says, attention implies ( mental) focusing. You are focusing ( mentally) on what I am saying, and therefore you think you are attending. I say that is not attending (totally) - when I listen to something that you are saying seriously, there is an immediate - there is an immediate understanding (not just verbal ) registration.

Q: Perhaps our problem is that our thought (ego-centric thinking?) is so quick, it comes in so quickly.

K: I know. Is it that ( the only reason?) we don't listen?
I'm making a statement: ''Is there a (direct, non-verbal) observation of that which is actually taking place ?''. Do you 'listen' to that? Or do you say, 'What does he mean by attention, what does he mean by observing ?' So, you're off (back into the field of the known?)

Q: Yes, I think that's what happens.

K: Whereas, can you listen to the (inner) impact of that statement, so that in that ( non-verbal) attention is there any registration at all?

Q: You made a ( holistic) statement. Now I've got to understand the statement.

K: No. No... If I say to you, ''I love you'', would you say, ' Let me understand what you mean by 'love' ? You don't (have to) go through all that circus. When there is such a statement made with full meaning, 'I really love you,' - do you go through all this ( intellectually censoring) mental process?

Q: No.

K: I don't know, probably you do (it unconsciously?) .

Q: The funny thing, at such a moment, there is complete...I'm not (really?) being impatient, sir, but how do you listen to a man or a woman who tells you from his heart and means it, that (s)he 'loves you'. What takes place? Do you register (mentally ) that statement? And later on say, 'Yes, I remember you told me you loved me.'
So in ( a selfless?) attention, is there any registration at all? In attention there is already a focusing, but it is not the focusing of (mental) concentration.

Q: Does it help at all to draw a parallel between this giving out of attention and the giving out of love? (Is it a 'loving attention'?)

K: Aren't they both ( supposed to be ) the same, sir?

Q: Yes, that's what I'm getting at. But I'm much more interested in the lack of attention, because that's my problem.

K: It's not ( only) your problem, it's all our problem : you're not listening to what I'm saying, you're listening to your own reactions, your own responses, say, 'How very nice of him - he's a beautiful man, I'm so glad.' But you haven't received ( the true essence of) what he has told you.
(To recap) As Mr Wilkins pointed out, ( holistic) attention may be ( of the same nature as) love. And when there is attention which is equal to love, do you register (it personally?) ? Now, most of us are inattentive, not attentive. Can you make inattention by some miracle, turn it into attention ? Or be aware of 'non attention', that very awareness is ( an act of) attention.
You see how we refuse to face a (simple inner ) fact ? We refuse to face the fact that we are (inwardly? ) frightened human beings. Can we pay attention to that (unconscious?) fear?

Q: To do that one must be 'in step' with ( the unfolding of) fear, pay attention to it, and then if one's 'in step', there's no step before, no step afterwards.

K: That's not - you know what fear is -both physically and psychologically ? Can you observe that fear as it is taking place? What do you say, sir?

Q: It seems to me that ( a wave of unconscious) fear was was coming up when you said, 'I love you', And a thousand unknown things might happen when there is this (total) attention.

K: Look, Dr Shainberg, my question is very simple : Can you look at your fear and 'stay with it' - in the sense of no (self-centred) thought deviating from that fact, the 'fact' being what is actually going on now. Can you watch it - use the word 'focus', or whatever - can you observe that ( thought-created fear ?) without any movement, both physical and non-physical ?

Q: The difficulty is that as soon as I do that, it disappears.

K: It 'disappears' (or it hides away?) because you're (fully) attentive at that moment.

Q: Then what happens?

K: Then, does that fear come back? ( If it does?) then 'you' (the thoughtful observer?) say, I must be attentive and it will disappear. So you have learnt a trick for the moment, that being attentive to that thing, it disappears. So you practise that trick, but that ( root cause of your psychological ) fear hasn't gone.

Q: Right...

K: Which means what, you have merely learnt a mental trick. Now, one wants to find out, if one is at all inwardly awake & intelligent : is it possible to be free of fear altogether, not this superficial trick of attention and disappearance and coming back and so on, that's all too - I want to ask you a much more serious, fundamental question which is, can ( the root cause of psychological ) fear disappear altogether, never to return. Otherwise I'm playing games.

Q: You will automatically enter into the field of desire, I think.

K: Of course desire has it's own fears. There are many forms of fears, desires and so on. But we're talking of ( the existential ) fear at the very root, the fear at its very root.

Q: My honest answer is 'I don't know'.

K: You say, 'I don't know' but that ( thought-creating fear) 'thing' goes on, under you, like you're on a bridge and say 'I don't know' but the waters of fear are flowing under . Now can you stop that '( streaming of thought & ) fear', end it ?

Q: If that fear cannot be stopped, well then we automatically accept it, I can't stop it, let it go. And then that's when it disappears. But that is something we can't attain.

K: You see, you're talking of 'attainment', you're talking of 'stopping' - I want to understand the whole movement of fear, how it arises, what is its structure, nature, the 'whole works' of fear. (Hint:) 'I' can't stop it, because who is the entity that's going to stop it?

Q: Something ( assuming to be) different from fear

K: Is it? We've been through that, the entity that wants to 'stop it' is part of ( the self-centred thinking which is creating the ) fear. So you're living in illusion, when you say, 'I'll stop fear,'
May I repeat (or recap) it again. One is ( consciously or unconsciously) afraid, there is a great deal of fear in our life, of many, many kinds. We are not dealing with the many kinds, but with ( the root cause of ?) fear itself. What is this fear, how does it come into being, whether it is possible to 'end' it, not I stop it - is it possible to 'end' it ? That's my whole question. How does it arise, what is the root (cause) from which it springs. What is it's beginning. I know what the ending is, 'darkness', all the ugliness of ( a life lived in) fear.
So I want to find, is it possible to find out the root (cause) of fear. What do you say is the root of fear?

Q: The sense of (our self-centred?) identity.

K: No, root, sir, root. ( Self-) identit(fication) takes place when there is fear (of not being?) . Because I'm afraid of this (unknown) thing, I must cling on to something which will get rid of it. I'm asking, please, sir, what is the beginning of fear? : Is the root (cause ) of fear the desire for (temporal ?) security? The desire to find some absolute, indestructible ( temporal ?) security? And as there is no such thing, so, you're back again: what is the beginning, the root, the source of fear?

Q: ( The self-centred process of ) thought ?

K: Look, Dr. Shainberg, what is the beginning of it? It seems to be, everyone has it, the child, the grown-up man and the young man, and every human being has some kind of this tribulation, this movement, which we call fear. And I say, what is the beginning of it? Like a river, you know where it begins, and it gets wider and wider, & goes on. And I say, where does it begin?

Q: Fear comes with time, the idea of ( 'myself' continuing in?) time.

K: I've stated many times that the whole movement of fear comes through thought. Thought which says, I must have security, thought says I must be attached ( to something or to someone) otherwise I'm lost, thought would say, where is there ( my everlasting) security? So we say, the root of fear is thought. Do you listen to ( the truth of?) it?

Q: I think it is the lack of ( selfless) love which precedes the thought, rather than the other way round.

K: All right. If it is the lack of love, then how am I to get it?

Q: That's a miracle.

K: No, I think there is. It's not a miracle. I won't say Jesus will save me, mankind has not been saved by any Jesus's

Q: I'm not suggesting the miracle is impossible, but it seems to me that you are suggesting that there is a possible miracle.

K: There is, but we don't capture it, we don't listen to it. I'm saying, the source of fear of every kind that human beings have is born from ( our self-centred) thought. Will you 'listen' to ( the truth content of?) that statement, as you will listen when I say ''I really love you''? Because it's looking too simple your mind immediately says, 'No, that's too damn simple, it's not, it is much more complicated than that'.

Q: Actually my mind says (my psychologial fears are) too complex.

K: Yes. ( This is why) I'm interested to find out the 'source' of it.

Q: In thought being the source, it implies behind that is the (instinct of) self-preservation.

K: Self-preservation, all right. Is that the source of it, that is (the constant demand for) physical security. But is it possible to have complete physical security? Never to be ill, never to have to go to the doctors, the organism functioning healthily all the time, which is to have complete physical security. Is that possible?

Q: That's what thought is trying to do but thought fails.

K: We're pointing out something (of a miraculous nature) , sir, if you can tell me what the source of fear is and I listen to you with 'great' (undivided) attention, because I really want to find out if fear can disappear totally from my whole thinking, living, acting. Then you say, 'thought is the source'. I listen to you, I don't dispute it, I don't say it is right or wrong, I'm going to find out. But first I must listen to ( the truth of) it without any abstraction. Therefore, in the complexity of it, I will not lose ( from sight) its simplicity.
So I say, (our self-centred) thought 'is' the (creator) fear. Thought 'is' fear. Thought 'is' time. Thought is measure – it has is own (temporal) measurement . I have had no pain, now I'll go to the dentist and have pain. and therefore I'm ( mildly?) frightened. And thought is ( projecting itself in) time, because I've had (that kind of) pain yesterday and I hope to god that tomorrow I won't have it. (Or, a still worse scenarion) I'm afraid of death, - I'm living ( pretty safely) now, but death may happen (at any time) . Or I'll 'invite death' and live with it, living and dying are together, I can play all those kind of tricks. But it's still ( the same self-centred activity of ) thought.
Show me this is not true, or if this is true, why don't you take ( the truth of) it ? If it is true, then what is 'truth' you also must take (it into consideration) if you want to find out the ending of fear.

Q: What is the source of animal's fear?

K: It may be only instincts.

Q: I think ( your holistical statement 'thought is the root cause of fear') it's the actual truth, What is the next step?

K: If that is the truth a whole (new) question arises, ''Can ( this process of self-centred thinking or ?) 'thought' come to an end ?''.
Dr. Bohm asked if that is so, that is, thought is the source of all fear - then what is the next question. The next question is, can this movement of time as thought, and thought as movement of time, can it stop?
Won't you ask naturally that question? If thought is the very root of this fear, then can thought come to an end? Not 'how can I stop thinking ?'. If you see the (inward) truth that (our self-centred) thought is the root of all (our) psychological fears , of all fear, then your next question would naturally be, healthy question: can this movement of thought as time, time as movement of thought, can this whole movement come to an end, unwind itself?

Q: I find myself asking another question, how does ( our self-centred) thought begin?

K: Oh, that's fairly simple, sir. What is the beginning of thought. I don't have to tell you, you can watch ( in) yourself how any pleasant or unpleasant experience is registered in the brain. So all this ( conscious or subconscious?) registration is the beginning of thought.

Q: Yes, but the brain keeps constantly registering.

K: Therefore you can ( legitimately?) ask, is it possible to end ( the 'personal' sub-process of this) registration ?
( To recap:) we are asking first - is that statement, ''the root of fear is thought'', is that statement valid ? If you (opportunistically?) accept it you're caught up in ( a self-created) illusion, but if you don't accept, and say, 'Look, is that so?' Then you (can meditatively?) 'go into yourself' and find out (the actual truth of it?) .

We'll continue tomorrow, but this is really an important question. If fear comes from the beginning of thought, and the beginning of thought is registration, the registration is the memory, collected through millennia, or the memory gathered through the last few days, and from that arises thought.
Then the whole question arises, is there a possibility of 'not registering' the , 'psychological' (impact of the everyday ?) events?
I'm asking a ( deeply resonating?) question - you have to 'think about it', you can't just say 'yes' or 'no'. It is like something a scientist puts forward, you don't just say, yes, right, wrong and no. He puts it out for you to study it ; I haven't said the whole of it, I've just stated one 'simple' fact: as long as thought moves psychologically, there must be fear. That's the root of it. And thought is (originating in ) the whole movement of registration in the brain. So I'm asking a ( profound meditation related  ?) question - is it possible not to register, psychologically, anything?

Q: That can only happen if you have understood.

K: No, Sir, not 'if' you have understood. Just 'see the truth' of it. Then from ( the realisation of that) truth you can explain (holistically or logically?), but it will always be true. And if it's false, equally your explanations will be false.
I think we'd better start (from this point ) tomorrow, don't you?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 05 Jun 2018 #52
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


 4TH K SEMINAR MEETING cca 1978 (reader friendly edited)

Krishnamurti: May we go on with what we were talking about the other day, how difficult it is to face facts, facts being that which is actually taking place now, what's going on (within our own mind ?) . And for most of us it's very difficult to face that due to the ( subliminal perceptive ?) division between the 'observer' and the (ongoing inner 'facts' which are being?) observed.
( As an easy in-class example?) Can we face the fact the reaction which we call 'fear' by watching it without the ( all-controlling ?) interference of thought, which naturally moves ( the observing mind ?) away from ( directly attending?) that which is actually taking place.
And is there a division between that which is happening inwardly, and the one who is observing what is taking place? That's the question we must seriously go into, because where there is division between the observer and the observed, or the thinker and the thought, there must be a conflict (of interests resulting in ?) control, suppression or running away - the 'observer' imposing what he thinks is right according to his cultural values, his tradition, his conditioning. So ( in examining the 'fact' of fear) we must really understand very carefully and deeply, whether there is such a division between the actual reaction that is going on within us, when there is fear, and the one who says, 'I am afraid,' implying that (s)he is different from fear.
Because, you see, this is a ( meditation related?) question which leads into rather complex things, which is, if the division exists, then the doer, the actor, the observer, the thinker can operate on that which he is observing. Then he can control, shape, alter. And that's what, traditionally, we have been doing (for millenia) . And we're asking now, is such a division between the observer and that which is actually going on, is it an (objective) 'reality' or whether we have made it into a ( mental ) reality because of our ( survivalistic) tradition, to divide 'me' from the 'not me', 'we' and 'they', my belief and your belief and so on. Now can ( the truth or falseness of ?) this fact be observed without the 'observer' who says, 'I can do something about it.' If it can be done, then you will remove entirely and completely the (time-binding) conflict between ( being) 'this' and ( wanting to become) 'that'. Let us, each one of us, find out the truth of it.

Q: How about the case when something is happening you actually can't observe it (live) ? In other words, if I get up and I have an inclination to run down the road, (by the time that) I become aware of it... it has already happened.

K: Therefore the 'observer' created (the mental representation of ?) it. But what we are discussing is (to observe it 'live'?) as it is happening, which is the fact, that's, not after it has happened or before it will happen, but actually as it is happening.
If we are concerned with the question of ( the ongoing background ?) conflict, then we must find out if it is at all possible to eliminate it in oneself, in one's relationships and so on. Is that possible? We say - I say it is possible only when this (subliminal perceptive) division between the 'observer' and that which is actually going on (is removed?)- when there is no such division, then you eliminate altogether conflict. When there is such division (or when the brain functioning in the old 'psychologically-safe' mode?) , the observer can analyze that which is happening, and go on (sinking ?) into the whole process of self-analysis and so on, which we won't go into for the moment. But if there is no actual division ( brain's 'safe-mode' is suspended ?) , then that which is happening undergoes a radical transformation. That's all my point.

Q: Sir, in this ( 'observer'-free) ) observation could there still be a certain degree of thought involved ?

K: No. Let's make it clear. When we observe (in the traditionalistic 'safe mode' ) there is (a perceptive) division, and ( the self-centred) thought is in operation. Thought then can say, 'I will control it, or ( still better?) I will analyze it. When there is no ( observing) 'observer', who is the ( self-identified ) essence of thought then there is only actually the 'what is happening' . Can't that (inner) actuality, the 'fact', be observed without the (interfering) movement of thought? If the movement ( the controlling interference?) of thought takes place, then 'you' are acting from the (memory & knowledge of the ) past, and therefore distorting it. Full stop.

Q: Sir, but can we describe this (non-dualistic) examination? We need the qualities of thought which are from the past, which are value judgements, which are associations, if we can say that when the observer and the observed are not separate, that those qualities are not present, then ( we have no control regarding) whatever is going on?

K: Find out (for yourself) ! Don't ask me.

Q: I am trying to find out if there is a (non-dualistic) 'thinking', (without ) the one who is thinking.

K: There is no operation of thought at all - according to me - there is just pure observation. And in that ( 'thought-free' space of ? ) observation the thing ( the inner 'fact') which is being observed undergoes a ( qualtative) change, a mutation.

Q: I think you're wrong there. There is the pure 'happening' and this is followed by ( a rational) observation. But the 'pureness' is in the happening, not in the observing. : In other words, if I say to you, 'What do you see going on in this room?' , what is happening is the primary thing, and the observing is something that follows on

K: I see. That is (inwardly speaking) in the happening at the moment of (a reaction of) anger, there is no observer. The 'observer' (safe mode ?) comes into operation a moment later. Obviously. Then the operator, the doer, the thinker acts upon it, and then the whole problem of inner conflict arises. Now can't you observe that 'happening' ( of anger) without the whole rigmarole of thought coming into it?

Q: Only if one is not on the defensive, against the fact.

K: Suppose there is a (spontaneous) reaction of anger - is there an observation of that feeling, that reaction, without the whole movement of thought ( without what was previously known ?) coming into it? That's all my (experiential) question.

Q: Sir, for the most part there isn't (such thought-free observation) Most of the time there is the anger and then the 'observer' (pops up) looking at that anger, and thinking that it's separate. So could we take a look at the process by which we move from that state of the observer being different from the observed, to where the observer 'is' the observed ? In other words, the observer 'being' the observed is not the normal ( perceptive) state, is not the normal frame of mind. So could we take a look at how that ( non-dualistic perception) could come about?

K: Would you consider for a moment, observing that which is happening right now, just to observe. Can one observe ( a 'gut reaction' of) jealousy as it arises, as a flower blooms, just to watch it ?

Q: But when you ask, 'can I observe ?' there already is the division.

K: All right, that's just a ( dualistic) way of talking -but is it possible to observe that reaction which is called jealousy without the ( controlling) movement of thought?

Q: But the moment you use the words 'Can one observe it ?' there's already a duality implied.

K: I've said that, sir, the 'observer' (safe perceptive mode ?) implies a duality. Agreed. But try it (right here & now) What is your actual feeling now?

Q: Bafflement.

K: Wait, bafflement, puzzled - can you watch that state of the mind which is in puzzled, just watch it, not say, 'I must be clear, what he's talking about,' just watch it, see.

Q: There seems to be a physical resistance to that, to that watching.

K: Are you saying there must be certain (inner) relaxation to observe?

Q: No, I meant some 'disturbance' that you feel in the body, a physical reaction.

K: Why should there be a physiological reaction to watching (something non-personally?) ? Maybe there is, I don't know - please, this supposed to be a (group) discussion in which each one of us takes part, not one or two and the rest keep silent and listen.

Q(1): I'm going to ask you, actually, when you're looking at fear, just trying to watch it, you're saying there's a physical resistance. Is this because you want an answer, the mind always seems to want an answer to a problem instead of just opening out ?

Q: At some point there's like a physiological refusal.

K: That refusal may be the result of ( the mental) strain due to the intensity of watching (exerced by K?) Perhaps we're not used to watching anything 'intensely'? The moon, the sky, the trees, whatever it is? To watch. Now, can we put the question differently - why should thought interfere with anything (happening inwardly or ) 'psychologically'?

Q: Somehow ( our thinking in terms of) time comes in : there are the reaction of jealousy, the immediate ( after-thought) seems to be, well, if I indulge the jealousy, what's the result of it.

K: All that's implied ( any in dualistic) thinking, isn't it? I'm asking, is there an observation – of the moon - without the interference of thought?

Q: It is a state of (holistic) awareness that happens occasionally.

K: Occasionally? All right. Can you watch a movement of cloud, occasionally? Now can you watch your reactions in the same way?

Q: Yes, this very morning I had occasionally the experience of...

K: Not 'you' , sir - just to watch something without any ( subjective?) movement of thought ? Or, can there be a (direct) observation without abstraction?

Q: There can be and there sometimes is, but it's infrequent.

K: Sir, may I ask another question. Has it ever occurred to you, whether it is possible to live without the conflict of duality - is it possible to live without ( any sense of ) conflict between yourself & your wife, between yourself, and somebody else or conflict (of self-becoming) within yourself.

Q: Not until you suggested the other day that it was 'possible'.

K: So, I suggested it. All right. Have you found out whether that is possible or not possible?

Q: It is possible

K: Now, to find out ( experientially) whether it is possible to live without conflict implies there should be no ( observer-observed) division. I said it's easy to look at the moon intensely for some time, because it doesn't affect us ( personally) deeply. But can there be ( a similarly intense) observation of our (inner ) reactions without any shadow of thought? That's what we're discussing. From that arises whether it is possible to live a life without any sense of conflict. And ( a background sense of ) conflict exists as long as there is division in the observer and the observed.
So, is that division artificially created ( as a menta 'safety device' by our self-centred) thinking or is it actual? You follow my question? If the division is not 'true', (intrinsical or ) factual, then as there is no conflict the thing which is being observed undergoes a ( radical qualitative) change. I

Q: Sir, what one is observing is often thought itself, so are you saying that the change comes about in thought itself?

K: Yes, sir. Can thought observe itself? I'm asking a (profound meditation related ) question : Can thought itself be conscious of its own 'movement' ?

Q: Yes, but commonly only the (central) part of thought is conscious (of its activities)

K: Of course, so can thought which is the whole (mental activity of the brain ?) be aware of itself?

Q; That raises the ( related) problem that thought is always fragmentary.

K: Yes, sir thought is fragmentary.

Q: But not always?

K: Wait. Can thought which is fragmentary, can that thought be aware of itself?

Q: But how can that fragmentary thought be aware of the whole ?

K: The particular ( subjective) thought. Let's leave aside the whole (of thought) for the moment, because that leads to something a little more complex. Say, you have a particular (train of ?) thought - can that ( particular activity of) thought be conscious of itself ? Not another thought to become conscious of it.

Q: You're saying that ( one particular) thought has to become conscious of itself, but if the total process of thought is in constant movement, it cannot become conscious of itself. It becomes another thought.

K: Let's leave out ( thinking about ) thought. Can ( our own ) 'consciousness' be aware of itself? Consciousness being ( the personalised display of ?) the whole content of thought . Your (self-) consciousness is made up of its (psychological) content - your jealousy, anxiety, fear, love & hate, sexual demands, the whole of human endeavour, struggle, pain, pleasure, sorrow, death, and so on. The whole of that ( self-consciousness) is made up of all these little parts. Right? Can ( the totality of ) that consciousness be aware of itself? Or is that not possible?

Q: Would you differentiate this from thought? You see, the whole consciousness must be aware of itself, not a particular aspect of it.

K: Yes, put it that way if you like.

Q: But what in the world can that mean, the whole of consciousness being aware of itself - what does that mean?

K: Don't ask me. What does it mean to you?

Q: To me it means a confused entity trying to look at itself...

K: You know we began by asking can we observe a fact. We mean by this ( observing that) which is actually taking place (outwardly or inwardly ) . Not a second later, or a minute later, but actually that which is going on, the very 'happening' itself. Let's stick to this, forget all that we've said (about thought becoming aware of itself) . So that is the central issue that we're trying to talk over together, and find whether it is possible to look at, to observe that which is actually taking place. That's all.

Q: So, you're saying that there must be a form of 'immediate apprehension' in observation which precedes thought?

K: That's right. As Professor Wilkins pointed out , can you apprehend that which is happening ? (Eg) we have all been envious, and we know what the feeling of it is. Is there a (non-verbal) observation of that (reaction of) , envy as it arises, just to stay with that 'envy' and observe that which is happening ?
(Or, for a change) is there an observation of fear as it is happening?

Q: Well, the funny thing is, as soon as I observe, it seems to go, it's hiding, it disappears.

K: Because you are observing it with ( a quality of non-dualistic) attention, it goes away ?

Q: Yes...

K: So it's only when there's 'inattention' ( a lack of integrated attention that ?) fear comes.

Q: Very much so.

K: So, then what is that 'attention'?

Q(1) : You have simply taken the (mental) focus off the sensation of fear and focusing on something called 'attention'. Therefore that feeling of fear diminishes.

K: Maria, please, don't explain it away, just see what he is saying. He says, when I attend to that fear, it disappears. And we asked, does that fear return, in another form ? So doesn't that indicate that when there is attention, fear is not. So can I 'attend' (that reaction of) fear, which is taking place, with that attention ?

Q: But what if I am simply confused ?

K: I 'attend' to that confusion, look, attend, give attention to that confusion. For the moment it is not. So (as a bonus?) I've learnt something else : when there is attention, confusion is not.

Q: Yes, but there's a new state (of mind) .

K: That's all, sir.

Q: From listening to you I know that this 'attention' is an extraordinary thing, but unfortunately...I do not know what it is.

K: We can go into that, (later on?) . Let me put the question differently - when there is attention, will there be fear? So does attention contain, or 'hold', the movement of ( self-centred) thought (which was creating that paricular fear?) I'm asking : in this state of ( integrated) attention is there any movement of thought?

Q: It seems that this attention doesn't belong to me, is it something non-physical or... what ?

K: It is not yours, that's all - I agree. It's nobody's (non-personal?)

Q: But Krishnaji, here is the brain, say it's feeling fear or whatever the emotion is. Now the attention comes about. What is going on in the brain which is looking at it ?

K: Would you want to discuss that?

Q: Yes, I do.

K: Maria, asked, ''what is going on in the brain ?''. Don't you want to find out what goes on?

Q: I'd rather want to understand how attention comes about, rather than what is happening.

K: Wait. We can come to all this slowly, please. Is this ( holistic quality of) attention to be learnt (from another)? Practised and repeated?

Q: No. It's there.

K: There is attention about something and that thing disappears. Then I say, 'By Jove, I've learnt something ! I'll keep on attending, and practise attention'. Then... it's gone. Right? So, Maria asks, what is the quality of the brain, when there is total attention. Right?

Q: The brain is highly activated in that state of attention.

K: I don't know, we're going to enquire. What do you say, Dr Bohm, and other 'experts' at this. What is the quality or the state of the brain when there is total attention?

Q: I think we must say that the people who do research on the brain don't really understand attention, and they admit it openly.

K: This is important to discuss : what is the quality of the brain when you are totally attentive ?

Q: I think we can look at inattention, because we don't have attention.

K: Maria, just listen carefully. You are listening now to me, which means, I hope, you're 'attending'. What do you mean by that word 'attending'? It means you are listening to what I have to say, therefore you are able to understand the words, and you're not caught in words (because) you also know the words are not the (actual) thing that he is trying to convey. And your whole nervous, physical organism is alert, listening, watching. Right? Would you call that attention?

Q: Well, that's rudimentary attention, because in that is left out what to me is the whole of...

K: Emotion ?

Q: Well, emotion, but what is being said is registering in the brain. And some process is going on.

K: You see, when you listen totally, is there registration?

Q: Isn't the first stage (of attention) one of a positive, open-minded receptiveness?

K: Yes. But open-minded generally means a mind that is like a sieve, everything pours in, everything, you follow? But I'm asking something, very simple, sir.

Q: It seems that there is a sensory sensation, and then the words take a quite different place.

K: Sir, I'm asking, do we 'attend' ( or pay undivided attention ?) to anything, attend?

Q: If we were attending now, we would understand you.

K: Not 'understand me'. You'd understand what (holistic) 'attention' means , not what I mean by attention. Do you know what attention is? Maria (Mary Z) says, attention implies ( mental) focusing. You are focusing ( mentally) on what I am saying, and therefore you think you are attending. I say that is not attending (totally) - when I listen to something that you are saying seriously, there is an immediate - there is an immediate understanding (not just verbal ) registration.

Q: Perhaps our problem is that our thought (ego-centric thinking?) is so quick, it comes in so quickly.

K: I know. Is it that ( the only reason?) we don't listen?
I'm making a statement: ''Is there a (direct, non-verbal) observation of that which is actually taking place ?''. Do you 'listen' to that? Or do you say, 'What does he mean by attention, what does he mean by observing ?' So, you're off (back into the field of the known?)

Q: Yes, I think that's what happens.

K: Whereas, can you listen to the (inner) impact of that statement, so that in that ( non-verbal) attention is there any registration at all?

Q: You made a ( holistic) statement. Now I've got to understand the statement.

K: No. No... If I say to you, ''I love you'', would you say, ' Let me understand what you mean by 'love' ? You don't (have to) go through all that circus. When there is such a statement made with full meaning, 'I really love you,' - do you go through all this ( intellectually censoring) mental process?

Q: No.

K: I don't know, probably you do (it unconsciously?) .

Q: The funny thing, at such a moment, there is complete...I'm not (really?) being impatient, sir, but how do you listen to a man or a woman who tells you from his heart and means it, that (s)he 'loves you'. What takes place? Do you register (mentally ) that statement? And later on say, 'Yes, I remember you told me you loved me.'
So in ( a selfless?) attention, is there any registration at all? In attention there is already a focusing, but it is not the focusing of (mental) concentration.

Q: Does it help at all to draw a parallel between this giving out of attention and the giving out of love? (Is it a 'loving attention'?)

K: Aren't they both ( supposed to be ) the same, sir?

Q: Yes, that's what I'm getting at. But I'm much more interested in the lack of attention, because that's my problem.

K: It's not ( only) your problem, it's all our problem : you're not listening to what I'm saying, you're listening to your own reactions, your own responses, say, 'How very nice of him - he's a beautiful man, I'm so glad.' But you haven't received ( the true essence of) what he has told you.
(To recap) As Mr Wilkins pointed out, ( holistic) attention may be ( of the same nature as) love. And when there is attention which is equal to love, do you register (it personally?) ? Now, most of us are inattentive, not attentive. Can you make inattention by some miracle, turn it into attention ? Or be aware of 'non attention', that very awareness is ( an act of) attention.
You see how we refuse to face a (simple inner ) fact ? We refuse to face the fact that we are (inwardly? ) frightened human beings. Can we pay attention to that (unconscious?) fear?

Q: To do that one must be 'in step' with ( the unfolding of) fear, pay attention to it, and then if one's 'in step', there's no step before, no step afterwards.

K: That's not - you know what fear is -both physically and psychologically ? Can you observe that fear as it is taking place? What do you say, sir?

Q: It seems to me that ( a wave of unconscious) fear was was coming up when you said, 'I love you', And a thousand unknown things might happen when there is this (total) attention.

K: Look, Dr Shainberg, my question is very simple : Can you look at your fear and 'stay with it' - in the sense of no (self-centred) thought deviating from that fact, the 'fact' being what is actually going on now. Can you watch it - use the word 'focus', or whatever - can you observe that ( thought-created fear ?) without any movement, both physical and non-physical ?

Q: The difficulty is that as soon as I do that, it disappears.

K: It 'disappears' (or it hides away?) because you're (fully) attentive at that moment.

Q: Then what happens?

K: Then, does that fear come back? ( If it does?) then 'you' (the thoughtful observer?) say, I must be attentive and it will disappear. So you have learnt a trick for the moment, that being attentive to that thing, it disappears. So you practise that trick, but that ( root cause of your psychological ) fear hasn't gone.

Q: Right...

K: Which means what, you have merely learnt a mental trick. Now, one wants to find out, if one is at all inwardly awake & intelligent : is it possible to be free of fear altogether, not this superficial trick of attention and disappearance and coming back and so on, that's all too - I want to ask you a much more serious, fundamental question which is, can ( the root cause of psychological ) fear disappear altogether, never to return. Otherwise I'm playing games.

Q: You will automatically enter into the field of desire, I think.

K: Of course desire has it's own fears. There are many forms of fears, desires and so on. But we're talking of ( the existential ) fear at the very root, the fear at its very root.

Q: My honest answer is 'I don't know'.

K: You say, 'I don't know' but that ( thought-creating fear) 'thing' goes on, under you, like you're on a bridge and say 'I don't know' but the waters of fear are flowing under . Now can you stop that '( streaming of thought & ) fear', end it ?

Q: If that fear cannot be stopped, well then we automatically accept it, I can't stop it, let it go. And then that's when it disappears. But that is something we can't attain.

K: You see, you're talking of 'attainment', you're talking of 'stopping' - I want to understand the whole movement of fear, how it arises, what is its structure, nature, the 'whole works' of fear. (Hint:) 'I' can't stop it, because who is the entity that's going to stop it?

Q: Something ( assuming to be) different from fear

K: Is it? We've been through that, the entity that wants to 'stop it' is part of ( the self-centred thinking which is creating the ) fear. So you're living in illusion, when you say, 'I'll stop fear,'
May I repeat (or recap) it again. One is ( consciously or unconsciously) afraid, there is a great deal of fear in our life, of many, many kinds. We are not dealing with the many kinds, but with ( the root cause of ?) fear itself. What is this fear, how does it come into being, whether it is possible to 'end' it, not I stop it - is it possible to 'end' it ? That's my whole question. How does it arise, what is the root (cause) from which it springs. What is it's beginning. I know what the ending is, 'darkness', all the ugliness of ( a life lived in) fear.
So I want to find, is it possible to find out the root (cause) of fear. What do you say is the root of fear?

Q: The sense of (our self-centred?) identity.

K: No, root, sir, root. ( Self-) identit(fication) takes place when there is fear (of not being?) . Because I'm afraid of this (unknown) thing, I must cling on to something which will get rid of it. I'm asking, please, sir, what is the beginning of fear? : Is the root (cause ) of fear the desire for (temporal ?) security? The desire to find some absolute, indestructible ( temporal ?) security? And as there is no such thing, so, you're back again: what is the beginning, the root, the source of fear?

Q: ( The self-centred process of ) thought ?

K: Look, Dr. Shainberg, what is the beginning of it? It seems to be, everyone has it, the child, the grown-up man and the young man, and every human being has some kind of this tribulation, this movement, which we call fear. And I say, what is the beginning of it? Like a river, you know where it begins, and it gets wider and wider, & goes on. And I say, where does it begin?

Q: Fear comes with time, the idea of ( 'myself' continuing in?) time.

K: I've stated many times that the whole movement of fear comes through thought. Thought which says, I must have security, thought says I must be attached ( to something or to someone) otherwise I'm lost, thought would say, where is there ( my everlasting) security? So we say, the root of fear is thought. Do you listen to ( the truth of?) it?

Q: I think it is the lack of ( selfless) love which precedes the thought, rather than the other way round.

K: All right. If it is the lack of love, then how am I to get it?

Q: That's a miracle.

K: No, I think there is. It's not a miracle. I won't say Jesus will save me, mankind has not been saved by any Jesus's

Q: I'm not suggesting the miracle is impossible, but it seems to me that you are suggesting that there is a possible miracle.

K: There is, but we don't capture it, we don't listen to it. I'm saying, the source of fear of every kind that human beings have is born from ( our self-centred) thought. Will you 'listen' to ( the truth content of?) that statement, as you will listen when I say ''I really love you''? Because it's looking too simple your mind immediately says, 'No, that's too damn simple, it's not, it is much more complicated than that'.

Q: Actually my mind says (my psychologial fears are) too complex.

K: Yes. ( This is why) I'm interested to find out the 'source' of it.

Q: In thought being the source, it implies behind that is the (instinct of) self-preservation.

K: Self-preservation, all right. Is that the source of it, that is (the constant demand for) physical security. But is it possible to have complete physical security? Never to be ill, never to have to go to the doctors, the organism functioning healthily all the time, which is to have complete physical security. Is that possible?

Q: That's what thought is trying to do but thought fails.

K: We're pointing out something (of a miraculous nature) , sir, if you can tell me what the source of fear is and I listen to you with 'great' (undivided) attention, because I really want to find out if fear can disappear totally from my whole thinking, living, acting. Then you say, 'thought is the source'. I listen to you, I don't dispute it, I don't say it is right or wrong, I'm going to find out. But first I must listen to ( the truth of) it without any abstraction. Therefore, in the complexity of it, I will not lose ( from sight) its simplicity.
So I say, (our self-centred) thought 'is' the (creator) fear. Thought 'is' fear. Thought 'is' time. Thought is measure – it has is own (temporal) measurement . I have had no pain, now I'll go to the dentist and have pain. and therefore I'm ( mildly?) frightened. And thought is ( projecting itself in) time, because I've had (that kind of) pain yesterday and I hope to god that tomorrow I won't have it. (Or, a still worse scenarion) I'm afraid of death, - I'm living ( pretty safely) now, but death may happen (at any time) . Or I'll 'invite death' and live with it, living and dying are together, I can play all those kind of tricks. But it's still ( the same self-centred activity of ) thought.
Show me this is not true, or if this is true, why don't you take ( the truth of) it ? If it is true, then what is 'truth' you also must take (it into consideration) if you want to find out the ending of fear.

Q: What is the source of animal's fear?

K: It may be only instincts.

Q: I think ( your holistical statement 'thought is the root cause of fear') it's the actual truth, What is the next step?

K: If that is the truth a whole (new) question arises, ''Can ( this process of self-centred thinking or ?) 'thought' come to an end ?''.
Dr. Bohm asked if that is so, that is, thought is the source of all fear - then what is the next question. The next question is, can this movement of time as thought, and thought as movement of time, can it stop?
Won't you ask naturally that question? If thought is the very root of this fear, then can thought come to an end? Not 'how can I stop thinking ?'. If you see the (inward) truth that (our self-centred) thought is the root of all (our) psychological fears , of all fear, then your next question would naturally be, healthy question: can this movement of thought as time, time as movement of thought, can this whole movement come to an end, unwind itself?

Q: I find myself asking another question, how does ( our self-centred) thought begin?

K: Oh, that's fairly simple, sir. What is the beginning of thought. I don't have to tell you, you can watch ( in) yourself how any pleasant or unpleasant experience is registered in the brain. So all this ( conscious or subconscious?) registration is the beginning of thought.

Q: Yes, but the brain keeps constantly registering.

K: Therefore you can ( legitimately?) ask, is it possible to end ( the 'personal' sub-process of this) registration ?
( To recap:) we are asking first - is that statement, ''the root of fear is thought'', is that statement valid ? If you (opportunistically?) accept it you're caught up in ( a self-created) illusion, but if you don't accept, and say, 'Look, is that so?' Then you (can meditatively?) 'go into yourself' and find out (the actual truth of it?) .

We'll continue tomorrow, but this is really an important question. If fear comes from the beginning of thought, and the beginning of thought is registration, the registration is the memory, collected through millennia, or the memory gathered through the last few days, and from that arises thought.
Then the whole question arises, is there a possibility of 'not registering' the , 'psychological' (impact of the everyday ?) events?
I'm asking a ( deeply resonating?) question - you have to 'think about it', you can't just say 'yes' or 'no'. It is like something a scientist puts forward, you don't just say, yes, right, wrong and no. He puts it out for you to study it ; I haven't said the whole of it, I've just stated one 'simple' fact: as long as thought moves psychologically, there must be fear. That's the root of it. And thought is (originating in ) the whole movement of registration in the brain. So I'm asking a ( profound meditation related  ?) question - is it possible not to register, psychologically, anything?

Q: That can only happen if you have understood.

K: No, Sir, not if you have 'understood'. Just seeing the truth of it. Then from ( the realisation of that) truth you can explain (holistically or logically?), but it will always be true. And if it's false, equally your explanations will be false.
I think we'd better start (from this point ) tomorrow, don't you?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Jun 2018 #53
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


5TH K SEMINAR MEETING cca 1978 (reader friendly edited )

Krishnamurti: I think we began by asking whether one can be a light to oneself. And that problem was never touched upon. Then from there we went to the question of relationship, what actually is our relationships are with another. And from that observation of our relationships, we talked about fear, fear of losing somebody, not being attached to somebody, and all the misery and confusion that come about. I don't know why you call it broken heart, but it's rather silly. Then we talked about what is the root of fear. And somehow I feel we are not facing the problem (of non-verbal inner observation?) of seeing the fact, the actuality which is (happening) the 'now', whatever our reactions, attachments or fears - can we face them (non-personally?) .
Can we face, for example the problem that we're 'attached' (inwardly dependent to?) to (something or to?) somebody. Attached to some belief, to some experience, or to some person. Can we observe the actual implications, the actuality, of this (conscious or un-conscious ?) 'attachment' ?

One is attached to one's ( life) experience, from which there is a certain (inner safety created by our accumulated ?) knowledge, and holding on to the ( reassuring?) memory of it - holding on, never letting go. Or to some ideal, cling to those ideals; all the politicians, all the priests they all have (high hopes backed by great sounding) 'ideals'. And we all, some of us have ideals too, and we hold onto them, which is a form of attachment, form, other forms of belief, certain routine and so on. And principally in our relationships we are attached to a person. Can we watch, stay with that fact that we are 'attached' (psychologically dependent?) and watch it. And let the attachment, the whole nature of your attachment (unfold and) reveal itself instead of telling 'you must not be attached' and so on. Can the story of attachment be revealed by observing it ? Because from ( holding to it?) arises fear. I might lose (whatever I'm attached to?) . And from that loss, I feel broken-hearted, or wounded, jealous, anxiety, the whole nature of attachment. Can you remain (meditatively & ) watch and let the story involved in that reveal itself?

(Silent pause)

Perhaps that might be very complex and rather difficult (for an in-class exercise?) . Can you watch, observe and remain with whatever is going on, with what is happening (inwardly ) , such as fear. And why is it we find it so difficult to remain with a 'fact'?

Q: Krishnaji, I think one of the difficulties with watching attachment in relationship is that is that our very participation in the relationship obscures the fear, or other (psychological 'facts') as long as the relationship is there, the real facets of it somehow are covered over. I am trying to say that relationship acts like a (psychological) umbrella, under which all ( our daily self-centred) experiences occurs.

K: In that, under that 'umbrella of ( an apparently stable & reliable ?) relationship', isn't there (the shadow of?) attachment?

Q: Yes...

K: Now can one ( contemplatively?) 'stay with that', watch it without any deviation, and let the thing that you are watching tell its story ? Can one do that? So that it reveals everything. Like a flower, when you watch it very, very closely, there it is, you see everything in its detail, the delicacy of the vein, you know, the beauty of the whole thing. In the same way if we could watch this 'burden of attachment' – since it may contain an extraordinary beauty in it, and from that move on. But apparently we can't do it (happily & effortlessly?) Why not?

Q: Because in this process there is (a subliminal interference or?) the destructive element of thought. Because to watch the action one has to feel it, one has to see it working.

K: No, Maria, I'm talking of something else : you watch a flower in the bud, then as it blossoms fully, and then a few days later dies, collapses, vanishes. In the same way, perhaps, if we could watch this sense of 'attachment' (aka : psychological dependence?) , let it flower, without your (all controlling ) thought telling it what it should do.

Q: Then you are using the ( holistic, all-purpose ) word 'thought' in the sense of a (mental) 'censor' coming in ?

K: Yes, the censor coming in - put it that way.

Q: And there is something else, which for want of a better word I'm calling feeling .

K: I have no 'feeling', I have no 'thought', I'm just observing (non-personally?) .

Q: But what you're observing is the movement of that ( personal) 'attachment' or whatever is going on in the mind. Is that thought or not?

K: No...

Q: Krishnaji, I think Mary is raising an important point. If you are actively (or personally?) involved in that attachment, who's going to do the watching? I'm attached, I'm quite clear here, every part of my life is organized around that attachment, now how am I going to watch that? I have been watching attachment but there's always going to be a piece that's going to get away, as long as I am in that (inner condition?) of attachment.

K: All right, sir - let's go into it slowly.

Q: Let me ask Dr Shainberg, can you see that very thing happening? Can you see that involvement, as part of the whole thing you're looking at?

Q: I don't think you can, as long as there is always ingredient, in other words, in many observations it's almost that the urgency of life is absorbed by that attachment. If you stop the attachment, that's a different thing, then that's removed. but as long as the attachment is (active in-) there, I don't think you ever see it (objectively?) , because you're ( personally involved in that) attachement.

K: Are you saying, sir, the ( invisible strings of?) attachment prevents you from observing (objectively its movement) ?

Q: That's it, in simple terms.

K: Dr Shainberg is asking a question which is, when one is attached to somebody, when I'm attached to you, can 'I' be aware of that attachment? Do I actually know that I am attached? Or I discover I'm attached through (its collateral) pain, through jealousy, through anxiety, then I ( may?) realize I am 'attached' (psychologically dependent?) . Right, sir?

Q: I think that your experience of the pain, jealousy, and anger is a reaction, not a real awareness, you're reacting to the loss, the moment that you have lost the ( object of your) attachment.

K: How do I know I'm attached, sir? Let's begin with that. How does one know, that one is 'holding on', having 'put a hook' in somebody, holding on to that. How does one know it?
You may tell me, as a friend, 'Look, be careful, because when you get involved with a tremendous attachment, you're going to pay for it (sooner or later?) .' I don't pay much attention to you, because I like this (enjoying the benefits of my) attachment. There is a sense of ( personal) gratification in that.
How do I know ( experientially?) that it is a real attachment? The actual fact, not the word. I don't know it till ( eventually) something happens in that ( safe & rewarding ?) relationship. I only know when there is some kind of discomfort, some kind of pain, some kind of quivering.

Q: Insecurity?

K: Insecurity. Now it's only then I say, 'I am attached, this is coming from that.'

Q: But Krishnaji, what Dr Shainberg is saying is that what you're seeing is not the ( actual) 'attachment', you're seeing how you are reacting.

K: I've said that - the reaction I have as pain, (is an indication of my) attachment. So can one observe ( objectively?) this whole process , is there an observation of the actual state and the nature of it, instantly? Or must I go through years and years of pain and at last break it  ?
Now, this is a 'fact' : there is the pain (of jealousy) - a reaction of ( one's possessive) attachment. Does one realize all the implications of attachment by observing it (ASAP?) , not letting thought wipe it away or distort it. Just watch it. Is that not possible?

Q: If you look at attachment, you immediately perceive the possibility of pain in it.

K: That's what I'm asking : why is it we can't see the whole implication of attachment instantly, and 'finished'. Where is the ( hidden?) difficulty in this?

Q: Now you are saying that we can see our attachment from its consequences, and therefore we infer the ( actual fact of ) attachment - but you were also saying before that we might see the attachment unfold from the bud.

K: I don't quite follow you, sir.

Q: You said that we see attachment through its consequences - right? But on the other hand, is there the origin of attachment, the bud from which it unfolds - are you suggesting that we see it from the inception?

K: That's what I'm asking. Why can't we see it, the whole nature of it, instantly?

Q: From its inception. From the point of its inception ?

K: From the point of inception, the whole story of it.

Q: In point of fact, though, because we see it from consequences, we don't go to it direct, we go to the solution.

K: Yes, sir, either through its consequences we realize we're attached, or we have instant realization what attachment implies and end, finished. Which is it we do? I wish you would stick to this.

Q: Do we really want to end the attachment, because surely...

K: Sir, wait - wxhy don't we see the nature and the structure of attachment instantly, all its implications ? That's apparent, we can't do it. But what we generally do is consequences, and then realize I'm attached and therefore pain.

Q: And then try to 'fix it up'.

K: Yes.

Q: I think pain is the obstacle in every direction, because surely we became attached in the first instance because we felt here is one person who's not going to hurt me. And then when we feel we've lost that, we're going to be exposed to other hurts, we've got no refuge.

K: Yes, sir, but can you watch your attachment, sir? You or any of us, can we watch our attachment?

Q: Sir, this implies that we have to learn to watch.

K: Do it now, sir. Learning ( the art of watching ?) implies generally , doesn't it, that you have accumulated knowledge and then watch with that knowledge.

Q: Are you going to suggest that there's another kind of ( non-acummulative ?) learning where you 'listen and observe and learn' ( by 'doing it now' ?)

K: Yes. Do you see, sir, what is happening right now? We are dissipating (our capacity for direct observation?) by talk, by words, by explanations, so we're not actually saying, 'Yes, I am attached, let me look at it.'

Q: Krishnaji, when I try to do this, my mind immediately brings an abstraction of what it is, and then I find myself looking at that (mental representation?) so, I'm not looking at the real thing.

K: Is that what you're doing? Or ( your psychological dependence?) is just an idea for you. Is that what you are actually doing and not looking at attachment ?

Q: That's what is happening and perhaps we could go into how can one step out of that ?

K: I don't know. Let's first watch it and then see what happens, whether it continues or whether it stops. Let's first remain with that 'fact' and let the fact tell its whole story. ( For anotherin-class exaple ?) can I watch the (psychological) wounds which I have received from childhood and let the whole thing flower, without 'you' making them flower or denying it, controlling it, loving it, holding onto it. Let that thing flower and see what happens.

Q: It seems a very painful thing to do.

K: It may not ( necessarily) be painful . I said, let it tell its story.

Q: Pain is surely a completely subjective thing, I just feel the pain (rather than the pain telling its story ?) .

K: Pain is the ( time-binding?) consequence, or the ( karmic?) effect of attachment. So when you say it is painful, are you actually watching the thing, or you have just assumed , 'It will be painful'.

Q: Isn't there a ( cause-effect) chain ( involved) in all this, that attachment is arrived at as a defence against another thing - pain or whatever it is- so that there's a series of attachments.

K: Yes, but - please, can you remain with the fact.

Q: Attachment is so many things - we are attached to so many things. I don't know which 'fact' to stay with.

K: I am trying to ask whether the ( contemplative?) mind can remain quietly observing the fact, observing 'what is'.

Q: My curiosity must be greater than my usual defences.

K: You see, you are again talking of what you might do- your curiosity, your effort - you're not ( passively?) observing it.

Q: That's what I meant by being curious, to see, to look, rather than the automatic.

K: That's it - to 'look'.

Q: It was your first question, Krishnaji : why can't we, or why don't we look at a fact ?

K: That's all I'm saying.

Q: We're not any closer, or I'm not any closer to seeing 'why'.

K: I think, sir, we are ( subliminally?) trying to avoid ( facing ) the issue because there is a sense of ( 'personal' ) apprehension about it. What might happen if ?, which prevents you from looking at the fact.

Q: Are we saying that (some unconscious?) fear prevents us from looking at facts then?

K: It may be fear, or it may be that you're not really concerned about watching - you like the state in which you are. You follow? Don't disturb me, for god's sake. I am attached, I am wounded – but don't disturb that because I'm used to it, and I that gives me a certain sense of security. You follow? Don't disturb that security. Is that what is happening (at the unconscious levels?) ?

Q: One problem is, it's very difficult to see the attachment here, in this room. In this room the attachment is sleeping.

K: Throw out attachment, sir, you have something or other, why can't your own feeling of anger, jealousy, whatever it is, just watch it.

Q: It's the same problem, whether its jealousy, or attachment or whatever - you're in the room, you're in a certain state of attention, and the attachments are ( waiting for you) outside, when you go out.

K: You see, you're not watching.

Q: I think one of the problems, Krishnaji, is I don't think we can get at it by going from consequences. It seems that there has to be another kind of 'watching'.

K: There is, but you're not willing to (learn it?) . I think the watching our existing attachment through observing its consequences is absurd, it has no ( holistic) meaning.

Q: That is a (mental ?) deviation in itself.

K: Now please watch. Can you watch the fact, because if we can understand this very seriously and integrally, the thing that we call fear may disintegrate through its own flowering.
Look, sir: (suppose that) one is getting (really) angry. At the very second of anger, there is no (conscious) identification with it at all. A few seconds later the whole business of (the thought-controlling ) identification is starting - I should, or should not control it - all that arises. But in ( a contemplation-friendly ) watching without any movement of thought, in this ( art of inward) 'watching' the surge of anger flowers, blooms, expands, and (eventually?) withers away. This ( art of holistic observation?) is what I want to get at. So that instead of suppressing it, which makes it stronger, by ( lovingly?) watching it, it expands (& dies of natural causes?) and the ( 'violence' ) chapter comes to an end, ( and eventually?) the whole book (of selfish heritage ?) comes to an end.

Q: But on the other hand, we can see that as an abstraction quite easily.

K: What?

Q: The problem, the anger, here and now we can see anger as an 'abstraction' – since we are not (really?) angry.

K: No, I took that as an (in-class ?) example.

Q: Yes, but it's the same for whichever example you take.

K: What are you trying to say, sir?

Q: If we are (really) angry we're actually caught in the reactions of the anger and so on. Here we are not (actually) feeling angry, here we are not feeling attached.

K: Then, would you kindly tell me, what you're all doing here?

Q: Maybe we're not quite meeting or understanding each other.

K: I'm asking, why are you here? Absolute silence

Q: To understand oneself.

K: Comment?

Q: Se 'comprendre soi-meme'.

K: Is that why you're here?

Q: To learn.

K: To learn ? But you're not learning. Learning implies that you listen. Learning implies that you're sufficiently intense, sufficiently eager to find out, learn. But apparently we're not learning from each other, we're just telling each other what each one of us thinks.

Q: So we are attached to what we think.

K: That's all.

Q: And … to what you think.

K: I haven't told you what I think.

Q: Oh yes, you have.

K: I have not. I have not told you what I think.

Q: Oh yes, you have.

K: All right, sir - since you know it, would you kindly tell me what I think. (Laughter)

Q: I know that game. (Laughter)

K: That's a very good question - please think it out, Why are you here ? Have you learnt anything about yourself?

Q: Yes.

K: Learnt what? At a superficial level? You don't have to come here to learn the 'top layer'. So have you learnt about the whole content of yourself ? Now, the whole - can you watch - coming back to the same thing - can you watch the whole content of yourself? Don't throw it away with a lot of words. Can I know myself totally - all my anxieties, fears, sorrows, pain, my psychological wounds, my attachments, my hopes, my fears, my longings, my loneliness, my - you follow? - the whole of it.

Q: It seems so difficult.

K: No, my question, sir - you said you came here to learn about yourself. I say, have you learnt anything? Or have you just scraped the surface and say, yes, I've learnt a little bit. That's not, that's not good enough. So I'm asking in return, can you learn all about yourself, not over the years, the months and days till you die. Can you learn about yourself completely now, as you're sitting here ?

Q: That means we'd have to see the ( psychological?) root of ourselves.

K: I'm asking you, again, can you learn about yourself, which is very complex, intricate, subtle thing, completely.

Q: I can't answer yes or no. Right? I have no means to proceed.

K: No, I've asked a question, sir. Do you want to learn about yourself completely?

Q: My response to that is, how is this possible?

K: If I say yes, what will you do?

Q: I still don't know.

K: So you want to learn whether you can have an insight into the whole nature of it. Right?

Q: Yes.

K: Then you can learn. Right? Is that what you want to do, learn - please listen carefully - learn the whole nature and the structure, which is a movement of yourself. That's why we have come together. Now who is going to teach you? The (K) man sitting here?

Q: No. I have to learn for myself.

K: What do you mean by that? You've said, you can't learn the entirety of yourself from me, from the speaker. One has to learn from oneself. Wait - remain with the question for two seconds. Is that so?

Q: I think the trouble is we are relying on someone else to do the work for us.

K: Yes, you're saying, really, I can't do it by myself, you tell me all about it.

Q: I think that's what happening, yes.

K: Yes, that's it. You want me to do all the work and then you listen to it, and then you may take it home with you or not.

Q: And in that way we make it into an idea.

K: Yes, so, are you depending on me?

Q: Yes, I think we are.

K: Why?

Q: Because we feel we can't do it on our own.

K: Now, why are you depending on me to tell you, to teach you how to observe the totality of yourself? Is it a ( cultural) habit, depending on another? Is it tradition? Is it what you have been educated into - to accept another to help you to understand the totality of yourself?

Q: Sir, it's a state of immaturity - it's a state of being immature.

K: Immature? Yes, if you like to put it that way. But, sir, look, it's very interesting, this, if you go into yourself. Who will teach you?

Q: Krishnaji, I don't think you're being radical enough about it, because what you're really saying is, no one really wants to learn.

K: That's all.

Q: But that's quite a radical statement.

K: Nobody wants to - I was being too polite. Sorry.

Q: I've often heard you say this about 'understanding all about myself', instantly. Now I find with myself that whenever I'm approaching anything I'm approaching it in a very separated way, like I try to find out about relationship, and then I try to find out about attachment or fear. And I would like to ask whether this whole approach is wrong - this whole approach is self-repeating, approaching things one by one, because there are so many things, you know, one can go on and on in this way. Or whether there is a stage where one prepares oneself to learn how to question, learn - you use the word 'art' of questioning, to learn how to approach things, to learn how to see.

K: What are you trying to say, sir?

Q: I'm trying to say, I'm trying to ask you whether before one can see, come to this point where one is looking at everything together...

K: Yes, looking at something holistically, as a whole. Is that what you are trying to say?

Q: I'm asking whether there is something that happens before that, one prepares oneself for that.

K: No, there's no (spare time left for?) 'preparation'. Do I want to learn about myself? Do I want to know, actually, not theoretically, is it my deep committed, irrevocable interest to know myself? Is that it? Is that what you have? Irrevocable, that you are so completely committed.
What is there to learn about myself? Nothing. Right? There's absolutely nothing to learn about myself, because 'myself' is nothing. We have put lots of things on this 'nothing' I have an education, science, philosophy, all the things, you follow? - piled it on, plus what all the things religions have said, which are the most destructive things, what religions have done - they have put all this on me, on this ( 'me' who is) essentially 'nothing'.
What have I to learn about myself? That I don't think straight, that I'm vain, that I'm arrogant, I am proud, I am this - what does it all mean? Words, don't they, memories, ideas. Have ideas any content, except what thought gives to that idea? I wonder if you capture (the truth content behind) all this. No, this is too 'radical', as you said.

Q: Sir, when you say 'nothing', I have the feeling of an empty room.

K: Oh, sir, you follow - you know the ( true ?) meaning of the word 'nothing'? Not-a -thing.

Q: That is why it is so difficult because we are still attached to all these (outward ?) 'things'.

K: That's right. If you ( would really ) understand, sir, the whole of my existence, the whole content of 'me', is put together by thought. And thought is ( the interacive display of) memory. Right? So I am living, I am a whole structure made by memory. And I can't touch it. I can't, there's nothing to say. It is totally unreal, living on memory.

Q: Sir, the interesting question is how I have made the (inner) illusion that 'I am something'. You see, it appears in ordinary life, to each person, he is really something.

K: Yes.

Q: And he creates somehow that illusion.

K: Yes, the illusion created by thought.

Q: Yes.

K: Which is, ''I am something''.

Q: Yes and what?

K: When that ( thought projected) 'thing' is not, I am (inwardly as?) nothing. So, how do we accept this illusion ( of an isolated 'self') about which we must learn. You follow, sir? Spend years, spend money, books – for what? It means one has to reject, psychologically (inwardly) , everything that thought has put together. That's why it's too radical and you (rather) won't, I mean, it sounds nice, it looks, it feels, ''By Jove, there's something in it !'' but one has to ( meditate &?) go into it very, very deeply.
So here we are. We asked the question, why are you all here ?. To learn, about oneself. And what have you learnt anything about yourself, while you're here? That you are jealous, anxious, fearful, have a position which you must maintain, that you have been ( psychologically) wounded (in the past) and cling to that wound, which becomes a totally neurotic existence and all the rest. So, have you learnt anything? Or are we all playing mind-tricks with each other?


Q: So, when we come to learn about the nature of the 'self', we are really learning about the nature of illusion ?

K: I am asking (everyone ?) a question. Why are you here? I know why I'm here : I want to tell you something which is tremendously important (for the total consciousness of mankind?) . K knows exactly what he wants to do. But...are you clear ( about why you came here?) ? Or you've got innumerable ( open or hidden personal?) motives.

Q: Innumerable contradictory (high expectations & other personal ) motives.

K: Yes, that's it – then how can we communicate with each other ?

Q: Krishnaji, I feel that the basic difficulty is that if our learning process is 'twisted' (egocentrically biased?) , and we continue in ( following) this process we won't be able to learn.

K: All right, now can we take up (the question of holistic ) 'learning', go into it completely, what is implied, and actually find out what it means to learn  ?
(For starters:) I'm asking, do you (really?) want to learn and what does it mean, the ( holistic) learning?

Q: How can you learn ( something new) if you are attached ( or tethered in the field of the 'known' ?) ?

K: Forget (this ) attachment for the moment. Do you want to find out the art of (holistic?) learning, what it is & the whole business of it ? Do you want to learn? And if you really want to learn it , what price do you pay for it?

Q: Our ( lodging ? ) reservations.

K: I'm not talking of that kind of 'paying'. What are you willing to pay (psychologically) 'Look, I'll give everything to find out.'

Q: That's a point.

K: Or, you say, 'Sorry, I can't give everything don't ask me 100%. I'll give you 10%'. Is that what we're doing?n I'm asking you. Is there someone who says to me, 'I'll give everything I have to learn, to find out.' Nobody has said that to me, here or in India or anywhere else. (Perhaps one or two have...) But I'm asking you, out of kindness, & respect, what do you pay for something which is unpayable ? So, sir, I'm asking, how much (passion) are you giving for ( learning ) 'stay with the fact'. I'm going back to that one thing, because that's very important : what amount of ( passion ?) energy are you giving to it, to stay with one fact. (For instance) to stay with a falsehood, with a (personal or collective) illusion - not call it an 'illusion' but to stay with the fact that one is (inwardly) caught and living and working for an 'ideal', sacrifice everything you have for that ideal ?
If ( for the meditation homework?) you want to go into the question very deeply, then (it is an act of holistic ?) meditation to remain completely with the (inner) 'facts' - every ( psychological ) reaction being allowed to flower and totally wither away, so that there is no ( ego-centric) psychological, inward reaction to any challenge.

Q: To become totally aware of the inner condition of one's...

K: Yes, sir, to become totally aware of our (ego-centric) conditioning, not bit by bit, but of the whole thing the nationalistic (or tribal consciousness ? ) the superstitions, the beliefs, of your whole sophisticated self-(consciousness) . There's so much to go in.

Q: Implied in staying with the fact, is the 'disillusion' of the illusion, but the illusion itself is trying to survive.

K: Illusion only survives because 'you' are ( either enjoying its materialistic benefits or you are ?) strengthening it by fighting it, by saying I must be free of illusion. But if you ( mindfully look at it & ) say - ' Yes, after all what is an 'illusion'? What's the root meaning of this word, sir?

Q: The ethymological root of this word is 'ludere' - meaning 'to play' or act falsely, to have a 'false play' really.

K: Now I'm asking, what do 'you' call illusion?

Q: A nothingness.

K: Oh no... if you go to church, if you are all Catholic, Protestant, all are Christians here, except a few, do you know the whole of that is vast illusion?

Q: Are we in church now?

K: No, sir, we are saying, those of us who go to church, or have been brought up in the Christian religion, with their symbols, with their saviours, with their Virgin Marys, with their rituals, etc., etc., is that not an ( organised?) illusion? Would you say anything ( the self-centred) thought has created, psychologically, is illusion? Are we living in that illusion (of knowing everything about our inner life?) ? Now,( for homework ?) can you remain with that illusion, let it flower ; just to say, yes, I see that psychologically I am living in illusion (in the illusory inner comfort which my self-centred ) thinking has created - something which is totally unreal.
So (in a nutshell:) anything that thought ( the self-centred thinking) has created 'psychologically' (for its inner safety?) is illusion ( illusory ? ). Can one remain with ( the truth of?) that fact, and not let thought move away from that?
( To recap:) If there is only an ( non-personal) observation of the fact, of the 'happening', don't you remove all conflict? Suppose I am attached (or psychologically dependent ?) , I've seen how my attachment arose, and now I'm just watching the (pleasurable & painful) consequences of being attached to that person - the jealousy, the suffering, the 'broken heart'-ness and all that business. Now in just watching it (affectionately & non-personally?) won't it expand (unfold) ? And therefore wither away? So there is no inner conflict involved . So if I remain ( mindfully) with the 'fact' of my attachment, see how quickly it withers, sir? I wonder if you see this & actually do it.

Q: It's clear what you mean by watching something outside but in a sense it's not so clear what you mean by watching something 'inside'.

K: Dr Bohm is asking, there are two different kinds of watching: watching something outside of you, and watching inside of you. Isn't there a difference? Now how do you watch - please, discuss - how do you watch something inside yourself, inside of yourself?

Q: By remaining with it ?

K: Please understand the question first. It is easy to watch outside- the moon, the trees, the birds, the water, the stray dog or your pet dog, and so on, or your wife, your husband - it's easy to watch. But is it as easy as that to watch what is happening inside? That's an (in class) question - so, try to answer it, find it out.

Q: It's not done with the senses, like when we watch something outside.

K: Why do you discard the senses?

Q: Sir, I pose a thought, and then I feel some reaction, this is the only way I can watch, I can't watch, the whole movement of thought .

K: Look, sir - you've been wounded, haven't you, psychologically? Can you watch that wound?

Q: At that time or now?

K: Now, now, don't...

Q: So I must recreate the wound.

K: No, it is there.

Q; I don't see it.

K: He said, 'I don't see it.' Which means what, it (the psychological wound) is probably there but he doesn't see it. Why? I may have forgotten it, I may not think about it, I may have thought of it and don't know, what to do with it, so I say, 'Keep quiet, old wound - I can't do anything.' So, but it's there. So he says, 'I can't see it.' Why?

Q: You only know that you have the wound if you think about, it or if something prompts you to think about it.

K: So when you don't think about it, it's not there?

Q: It's there, even though you haven't thought about it. It's still there, you still carry it.

K: It's still there, even though you haven't thought about it.

Q: Even though it hasn't come awake.
K: Yes, that's right. The moment you think about it, it becomes alive. If you don't think about it, it is dormant.

Q: Dormant.

K: So it's there. Now, can you see that psychological wound as it is now? This is a common factor, isn't it, sir? Everybody in the world is wounded. Some cling to it and worship it, others say, the thing is dormant, only occasionally it wakes up, and all the rest of it. As it is a common problem, can we all, can each one of us observe that which is common in each one of us. Watch it, I've been, you've been wounded. Is that wound a 'reality' - in the sense, anything that thought has put together is reality ?

Q: Yes, it's real.

K: Yes. So this wound is a reality. Right? Can the mind ( spend some quality time to?) watch this 'reality', and let that wound flower, not control it, suppress it, run away from it, just watching it ?

Q: Are you saying it's possible to be aware of it without thinking about it?

K: So, think about it (awaken it?) and it's there then. Right? Now can you watch that thing and let it come out, you follow? Let the wound tell you all its story, from the first word to the last chapter.

Q: Do we watch that also with the senses?

K: Sir, that brings a very interesting (experiential) question - the 'psychological' state, is it the result of senses at all? That is, have the senses put the thing there, or it ( the 'psyche') lives apart from the senses ?

Q: It is a part of the senses - the psychological state is a part of the (memory of the ) senses.

K: Forget what I said - let's go back to 'how to look at my (inner) wounds'. With a physical wound you can do something about it, but the psychological wound, the more I do something about it or I try to avoid ( or ignore ?) it, the wound survives. Now can I watch that wound, which is not an illusion, because ( my self-identified ) thought has created that wound. So therefore it is a reality. So can I watch the reality of the wound ?

Q: Sir, I can bring that feeling up inside me, I've done that, I've remembered a specific occasion, I've brought it up in me, the feeling how I felt. But you seem to be talking about going a stage further, where you 'read it' from the beginning.

K: Watch it, take time. If you watch, doesn't it grow, flower? Who is very badly hurt here? All right, I'll take it. I'm very badly hurt, I'm not but I'll take that ( example ) - I am very badly hurt, psychologically, I have done all kinds of things to avoid it, suppress it, control it, resist other people hurting me more, built a wall round myself, isolated myself, and hoping thereby nobody will hurt me. But in that isolation there is always fear. This is all the 'flowering', because I'm watching it. I wonder - you follow? It's all the story which is being told by watching the wound, how it arose. It arose because I had a good picture of myself, and that picture has been hurt, the image, the idea of myself has been hurt. And by watching the wound, the wound is telling me the whole thing. Right? So I am giving it freedom to open itself up, you follow, sir? Because of that ( space of inner) freedom, it opens and withers away. So there is no wound. I wonder if you see it.

Q: So the wound is still there because one has inhibited it from flowering.

K: The wound is there, but you have never looked at it. That's what - you've never looked at it, and said, 'Look, old boy, I'm hurt, let me look at this hurt.'

Q: I think you under-estimate the fact that approaching the wound hurts itself.

K: Of course, sir. That's why I talked previously about how do you approach a problem, do you come to it freely or with a prejudice, etc., a conclusion, this must be, this must not be, I must - or do you come to it, you follow, freely. Then the problem is like a wave that breaks down, withers away.

Q: Yes, but Krishnaji, the fact is, I have the feeling you want to stay with the fact, the fact is that when you approach it there is tremendous pain.

K: Is it?

Q: I think it's more than pain.

K: I agree. He's asked a question which is, he says, the very approach awakens fear. That's what Dr Shainberg says. I say, is that so? Or I (might) have a (preconceived) idea that it might cause pain and therefore I'm afraid. You follow, sir? Therefore I'm not approaching it at all.

Q: Isn't that what fear is about, the idea that I will have pain?

K: Yes, that's an idea. Therefore I'm not approaching it.
Sir, look, I want to know, or any religious man wants to know, if there is God. To find out you must come to the problem freely, without any conclusion, your belief, your prejudice, your conditioning. Right?
So ( in our case) your conditioning is the 'god'.

Q: I think you're moving away. Let's stay with this issue of the fear on approaching the wound.

K: Yes, sir.

Q: Let's stay away from God.

K: I brought in God, because that is fairly demonstrable. All right. I am psychologically wounded, if I am. And what is my approach to that wound. What's your approach to the wound that you have, if you have any? Come on, sir, tell me what's your approach?

Q: There is no approach, that's just it. We just run away from it.

K: I'm asking. Running away is your approach?

Q: We think about it.

K: You think about it. That's your approach. How do you think about it?

Q: There's a whole picture of it. But after a while it is a stumbling block and it won't go further.
K: So your approach is that you have a block. That is - keep it there. Your approach is you can't approach it, because you have a wall.

Q: Right.

K: All right. And others?

Q: It seems to have formed already certain conclusions about this problem.

K: So, your approach is with conclusions, another is with ideas, the other is to run away from it. So our approaches are preventing you looking at it. Right? Now if you want to observe the fact that you're wounded can't you approach it freely? To find out you (the whole plot) must come to it with the same curiosity, with the same eagerness, if you read a good book, a novel, then you watch it and see what happens. Because then you may totally eliminate altogether conflict. That means, a very sane mind.

Q: So is it that we are not afraid of the wound itself but of what may happen if ( our familiar) wounds disappear.

K: Partly. Because the wound has given me a sense of ( my inner) identity. You follow? I am somebody with a ( respectable?) wound, but without a wound, I'm nobody.

Q: Can it be said that the wound is caused by - we would like to have a pleasant image...

K: About yourself.

Q: From other people.

K: And yourself. So that pleasant image you have about yourself gets a pin prick. Somebody puts a pin into it. Then you get hurt.

Q: Yes, but I think there is a basic craving and wanting to be accepted by others.

K: Yes, sir, we've got basic craziness, sir. We are basically crazy, quite right, sir. I think we'd better stop, don't you?

Q: Being crazy?

K: You see, sir, it shows that we cannot remain with something and let it tell the whole story. I said, just watch it. Just say, take one fact , that you are influenced by your parents, by the school, by teachers, you are being influenced all around. Can you watch this ( subliminal) influence being a pressure on you? Just watch it.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 08 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Jun 2018 #54
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


 6TH K SEMINAR MEETING cca 1978 (reader friendly edited)

Krishnamurti: Can we now go back to (the art of holistically ?) observing what actually is happening in our relationship with each other ?

Questioner: This morning a few people and myself were thinking over what we were going to talk about. And it came to me ( a major existential three -in- one) question) : What we really are here for ? What we are creating within ourselves ? and What's going to become of us ?

K: What's going to become of you, when you leave here. Is that it?

Q: Well, out of what we have done here and what we have talked about.

K: What you will do with what have you learnt here, what have you found out for yourself ? Do you want to discuss that? Or do you want to go back to being a light to yourself, not to depend ( psychologically) on anybody else. Or are you frightened to open that 'Pandora Box' of relationship ? Please, just tell me which you want to discuss.

Q: Aren't they all related?

K: Maybe.

Q: Could we discuss all of of them?

K: I mean, not 'discuss' (intellectually) but can we remain with the fact, without any deviation, without the interference of all the accumulated memories of the past, which is thought, to observe what is taking place without all the (active memory of the) past - or 'thought'- acting as a ( self-protective?) barrier in observation.
Now can we talk over together this question of ( our everyday) relationship, and if it is possible to be a light to oneself, to be so completely, totally free from all (psychological) influence, both external and inward? Then only it is possible to be free from all ( environmental) pressures, and so discover what it is to be a light to oneself.

Q: Our actual problem is here relationship, obviously.

K: Let's start - do we know exactly what our (actual) relationship is now ? Are we aware of it, it doesn't matter, with my mother, with my father, with one's father, wife, husband, mother, sister - relationship, intimate and not intimate, far and near.

Q: As we pointed out yesterday, we are aware when there's ( some frustration &) pain involved .

K: You are related to somebody, aren't you? Are you aware of what that relationship means, what is involved in it - the reactions & pressures, the whole (complexity of the psychological) interaction between two people - possessivity, domination, attachment, the pain in attachment, the fear, the pleasing another and so on, the whole area of our relationship. Are we aware of it?

Q: It also includes the intrinsic loneliness of life and the desire for a companion.

K: All that's implied. Does each one of us know what exactly our relationship is with each other? Or is it all superficial, casual, or an avoidance of relationship ?

Q: I think it includes everything that you said, including sharing .

K: Yes, all that, but are you aware actually that each one is concerned with his/her own ambitions, vanities, pleasures and the other person also, in a different way. So two separate movements coming occasionally into contact. Is that what our relationships are?

Q: Yes, it seems to be that we are separate.

K: Yes, separate, and coming together occasionally, but sustaining this separation, maintaining it, nourishing it, creating it, driving along these separate paths.

Q: That's just one feature of it, Krishnaji. I think there's another feature, that in many relationships there is also a movement where there is a kind of sinking in, sort of merging where everything becomes one.

K: What do you mean 'merging'?

Q: Where there is no separation, where everything is sort of mixed up, it is joined.

K: Is it, everything is mixed up ? Merging, separating, companionship, no companionship, follow? - it's all a jumble. Would that be correct?

Q: Well, I think we're superficially aware, but we're not deeply aware of all the (psychological) implications.

K: All right, but are we aware that in our relationship there is a great deal of confusion ?

Q: I'm aware of that at some moments but most of the time I'm not aware of it.

K: Now, sir, if our relationship is so mixed up, so unclear, so confused, so, there is never clarity in it. Would we say that?

Q: I think I am clear about certain relationships.

K: I said in all relationships, I may be very clear, in my relationship to my father, but with your boy friend it's mixed up, it is it not as clear as pure water. As I told you, this is really a very serious subject, and we don't want to enter into the complexities of it, the fear of it, what might happen, whether I will lose my wife, husband, all the rest of it.

Q: Sir, I'm afraid we do not understand what it is, 'being aware'.

K: Know, recognize, actually see what is taking place, what is actually happening - not 'all the time' but say, now.

Q: Sir, are we looking at the entire problem of relationship, including the relationship to nature, or to the immediate relationship with our fellow men in certain fairly close...

K: No, Maria, I'm asking you, are you aware of what your relationship is actually? What is happening in that relationship?

Q: To other human beings?

K: Of course, I said that at the beginning.

Q: Are we talking only about our close relationships or...

K: Close, extended, far, near - all that is involved in relationship. What's my relationship when I go to India, or America, and, the whole problem of it.

Q: It seems to me I do see the difficulties and the motives , but still it goes on, it doesn't prevent the difficulties.

K: What is the common factor in our everyday relationship?

Q: Everyone seems to admit that there is at least some ( amount of) confusion.

K: Right, could we start with that, sir ? Does one want to live that way? Suppose one knows one is attached, and also one has seen in that attachment, the dependence, the holding on, great pain, suffering, anxiety, and fear. Knowing that, and continue to live that way, is neurotic. No?

Q: The natural question that comes up is, how can a man and wife be related in any other way?

K: But if in that relationship there is fear, attachment & all that - why don't you drop it?

Q: That's very easily said.

K: Is it? If you see that certain action leads to pain, and you keep on acting in that way, what does it indicate? We're trying to be serious, to find out (the truth of this matter) . You follow?

Q: Isn't this taking us back to what you were saying before, yesterday, Krishnaji, that we are unable to face the fact?

K: That's just what I'm saying - we are unable to face something actual. Why? I mean, if I have great pain and it may be cancerous, I must do something about it.

Q: Krishnaji, one thing that comes in there immediately is the fact that the very relationship itself is attempting to deal with a pain. That the relationship itself is embedded in a protection, is a protection from another (deeper) pain (of loneliness) .

K: Therefore you protect yourself against pain and in protecting yourself against pain you create more pain. What does that mean?

Q: It's no protection at all.

K: Apparently we are not facing this fact. So what do we do? Wait till the calamity takes place? ( the psychological earthquake)?

Q: With the pain always comes the pleasure, and I think that because there's pleasure involved in it, we accept the pain as part of it.

K: I see ; now there is a greater pleasure and not so much fear, ( but, as time goes by ?) the greater pleasure eventually ends up in (sorrow & ) fear. Obviously

Q: Why is it so 'obvious' ?

K: Ask Dr Shainberg, he agreed with me !

Q: I think that the whole idea of creating a relationship in order to protect against the pain (of loneliness) gives a temporary relief from the pain, but then the frustration of that relationship or the stopping of that, gives more pain. In other words, first is the pleasure of relief, then there's the pain of not getting that relief anymore.

K: So you ( eventually ) see that where there is pleasure and the pursuit of pleasure in relationship, it will inevitably end in greater pain. It's so obvious. Because you are giving another great pleasure, he 'holds on' to you, he wants to possess you, he says, 'she's (all?) mine'. And if you both like this thing, one day (or another) it's going to (end anyway )- you follow?
So are you actually aware, know, face the fact of what your actual relationship is now?

Q: What can a person do if he finds he is unwilling to face the problem ?

K: I can't do anything. His own intelligence observing what is happening must show him this.

Q: But Krishnaji, David has raised a good point, because when the drug addict goes down to the corner and takes some heroin, his consciousness is blurred to see what he's done, he's got a kick out of it.

K: All right. Are we in that position of being (totally dependent psychologically) ?

Q: No, sir.

K: Maybe - sir, don't deny it so quickly. Maybe our brains are affected.

Q: I am not.

K: That's one of the most difficult things to say, 'I am not'. I may be.

Q: I think, from what I see of myself, that one can be awake and very clear of certain facets of certain relationships, but realizing the whole (of one's relationship) in a direct way, it's a much harder thing.

K: Sir, how can I comprehend the wholeness of relationship and the real extraordinary beauty of this 'totality of feeling', unless, if I'm not clear at the beginning, of what it actually is now ? You follow? From there I must move. I must go forward in this realization. ( As of now) my relationship is actually this – just face it and see what happens when you face a ( the truth regarding a ) relationship which actually is ( entangled in ) attachment – an face that attachment, without the interference of thought, without any (hidden) motive, without any 'direction'. Then see what takes place.

Q: We agree to face things when they are important enough.

K: That's up to you. As Dr Shainberg pointed out, a man who takes heroin day after day - habituated to it, he's addicted to it, and he says, 'What are you talking about? I want my heroin, everything's all right, give me that.' Are we in that state, because one has lived ( for years) with one's husband, wife, say ''For God's sake, everything is ( going on just ) perfectly here, leave it alone''. And what one is pointing out is that when you face ( the actual truth of) a fact, without the interference and the barrier of thought, the very thing that is being observed undergoes a fundamental change. Why won't you try it ?

Q: Perhaps we like to believe that our particular different, and in that way we kind of 'falsify the evidence'.

K: And we say, 'Yes, it should not be that way,' and just carry on ?

Q: Quite.

K: So I am saying, face the fact of (the self-projected idea ) 'it should not be that way' and look at it.

Q: It seems to me that even here, discussing the fact is not facing it, because we can't go on.

K: That's right, sir. We've come to a (communication ) impasse each time because we are refusing to see, to face the thing. Sir, have you ever watched an ant, or a bee, closely? You must have. You're not telling the bee what it should do, or what the ant should do. Just watching. Can you do the same thing about your reaction in your relationship with another? Just watch it without any interference ?

Q: Is it possible, Krishnaji, is it possible to discuss the point before ( engaging in a particular) relationship. Dr Shainberg said that many relationships are ( boring & ) painful but we get stuck with these relationship because we were trying to cover up another pain, or another inadequacy.

K: So, you are trying to cover up other ( existential) pains? And establish a (convenient?) escape through that relationship?
I'll keep on (with pushing this issue ) till you get bored with me and throw me out. Are you facing the fact of your relationship? ( For example ) what is your actual relationship to the speaker? Do you know it?

Q: Well, I've I've reached a block - I come to a position where I cannot experience it.

K: I haven't made myself clear. You are and here I am, two (serious?) people. Why have you come?

Q: I think there are a couple of reasons for coming. One is there is a sense of sharing in investigating together into how we don't see. That's one. In other words, to tear down together (the shack of the 'known'?) .

K: Just a minute Dr Shainberg, you and I have met for years, talked to each other a great deal etc,. Now what is your relationship with this (K) person?

Q: I have a feeling of working together in some way.

K: I am asking you even before we do something together, what's our relationship?

Q: There are no words for it.

K: Come off it, Doctor, say there's no word for it.

Q: Sir, I sincerely try to answer it for myself. I have come to get something from you.

K: (Fair) enough. You want something from me. Then what is ( the gist of ) my relationship - I'll give you this, and you'll give me that ?

Q: A transaction ?

K: It's a transaction, all right. But.. don't you ask me what is my relationship to you?

Q: Ok, sir, we'll ask that question: what is your relationship to us?

K: Sir, this becomes too serious. Am I facing the fact that when I want something from another, that brings about a great ( subliminal) pain of ( psychological) dependence, which we are unwilling to look at
How can one be a light to oneself if there is any kind of (psychical) dependence? So, which is more important, the light to oneself or your (psychological) dependence? Which is more vital, energising, passionate?

Q: How do you distinguish that from pleasure? We are trying to distinguish which one is going to give me the more pleasure?

K: Yes, put it like that- which is more pleasurable, to be a light to oneself, the implications of that, to be 'a light to oneself' will that give me greater pleasure than the other?

Q: Can I tell until I am ( becoming) a light to myself?

K: Therefore, what will you do ? You want to find out whether 'being a light to oneself' ( the inward implications of it most of us don't understand) will that give me greater strength, greater energy, greater, much more vitality and passion, than my psychological dependence (on K & the Teachings ?) . Will my dependence give me vitality? Deep abiding strength? Or it's going to waste away my ( intelligent life-) energy? So if I think ( subliminally that my ) dependence may be greater pleasure, I will pursue this ( 'follower' mentality ) till I am awakened to it through pain. Then I say, 'My God, I must struggle to be independent,' or ''that (K) person is not right'', I'll go and take another (more 'enlightened' ?) person. But ( my choice for) this person is in the same field as the other , because ( my personal committment to ) that other person is going to cause the same (recurring psychological) problems.
So does my dependence ( on K) give great pleasure?

Q: When one realizes that ( any psychological) dependence is limiting , then it stops.

K: Do you realize the truth (regarding any psychological) dependence, ( or have ) a total insight into dependence ?

Q: I know I'm dependent. I may not see the full extent of it, but I certainly do see that I am dependent on others.

K: All right, don't you see that in this ( temporarily comforting?) dependence, that there is a great (potential?) of ( fear &) pain? Though it may be pleasurable for the time being, in that pleasurable state for the time being, do you see the ( increasing odds of ) pain going on at the same time ?
Then... why don't you drop it ?

Q: We are afraid that (the basis all our current ) relationship will stop when we drop it.

K: If you 'drop' ( the attachment to?) it, there may be a different kind of relationship.

Q: Sir, what on earth do you mean when you say, 'Drop it' ?

K: What do I mean by 'drop it ' - it's very simple, sir. Don't you drop something when it is dangerous, drop, that is, put it aside, avoid it.

Q: What do you mean, 'put it aside'? I don't understand at all.

K: All right. I see ( that any psychological) dependence implies pain. Do I want more ( instability & ) pain involved in this ( inner condition of) dependency? A continuous pain for the next thirty years?

Q: I think this is a confusion of words, Krishnaji. When you say 'can we drop it', we're probably thinking can we should also drop the actual relationship.

K: No.

Q: So, you actually mean to say : Can we drop the dependence ?

K: Yes, in the sense of being (inwardly) free of it. All right. Not dropping our relationship, but being free of (the psychological) dependence (involved in it ) .

Q: What does that mean, 'be free of'? That's the difficulty.

K: Free of, in the sense, if you have a physical pain, you try to get rid of it (ASAP?) , don't you? In the same way, psychologically dependence breeds pain. Do you see that? Can you face ( the timeless truth ) that in ( any psychological) dependence there is ( a real potential of ) pain?

Q: This is what I see.

K: See it, feelt, know it - it is an irrevocable (karmic?) law. Now if you like ( ignoring the karmic ) pain and hold on to ( the temporal benefits of) that attachment, then it's perfectly all right. But if you see it's not worth it, don't you let ( or allow the psychological) dependence wither away ?

Q: I think there's a step missing, here in the sense that a (normal) person may stick to something that is painful if he feels has a real necessity for it.

K: Oh, I see. One needs pain?

Q: Not the pain but one needs the (temporal benefits of the?) dependence that produces the pain.

K: One needs the dependence... ?

Q: One needs something to depend (to rely?) on, that's my point.

K: I understand. Do you need to depend psychologically...

Q: For example a person may be convinced that (s)he is too weak to stand alone.

K: One is 'convinced' that one cannot stand alone, therefore I depend on you. How do you know you can't stand alone?

Q: The common (life) experience seems to indicate that.

K: Has your experience told you that you can't stand alone?

Q: In a sense, yes.

K: Not in a sense - face it. Your (materialistic ?) experience has told you, ''my friend, you can't stand alone.''

Q: It has told me that as I don't live it very intelligently, I am not a light unto myself. So I come to depend on others (inner light?) .

K: As Dr Bohm pointed out, we are afraid to 'stand alone'. And that ( ancestral collective ) fear makes us rely ( psychologically) on another. Right? How do you know or aware or recognize, what tells you that you can't stand alone? Is it our education, our religions, our society, your mother, your father, say, 'You can't, you can't, you can't, you must depend.'

Q: I think all those things have happened.

K: Therefore, what do you do. Don't you test it out? Why should - sir, the churches have said to you, you can't be a light to yourself, you can't be, you must depend on Jesus in the West. Why do you accept that kind of statement ? Why don't you test it out?

Q: Sir, could you deal with the fact of being alone, what happens when you are alone.

K: I'm asking, sir, is it because you are (un-consciously?) afraid ( of what might happen?) when you 'stand alone' (inwardly) , when you don't depend (psychologically?)

Q: We've all 'stood alone' at various times.

K: All right, what happened when you have occasionally 'stood alone', can't you face that fact and see what happens?

Q: But you don't really want to 'stand alone' until you really dislike and are uncomfortable in your dependence.

K: Not until you have pain ? I'm not being personal - but haven't you had enough pain?

Q: Yes.

K: Then why can't you 'stand alone'?

Q: I think I'm learning to stand alone because I don't want any more of that particular pain (of psychological dependency) .

K: I said, face the 'fact' that dependence means pain, look at it. Be in total contact with ( the truth of) that fact. And this (K) person is saying that if you do this, ( the inner) conflict totally ends, completely, in life. You can test it out (for homework?) .
Let's face now the other (inward option) : What does it mean to 'be a light to yourself'? Why is Dr Shainberg, dependent on (psych-) analysis? Why doesn't he throw the whole thing away ( go 'non-profit'?) and say, "Be a light to yourself' I will help you to be completely free from all this (psychological debris) , so that you can 'stand alone' ?" Realising that nobody is going to help you (solve your existential problems), why not wipe away all that and say, 'look !'. Can't you do that (for extra homework) ?
Man has always sought (spiritual) freedom, from the most primitive till now. Inwardly, this 'freedom' means to be (inwardly) alone (all-one ?) , to stand alone. Which means freedom from the known.

Q: So then you stay with what 'fact' ?

K: The (transcending?) 'fact' is, there must be freedom from the 'known'. That's a fact to me. Not to you. The 'known' is all the ( background of the personal & collective?) memory. Now in order to 'be a light to oneself', or to 'stand by oneself', the ( psychological memory of our) past must totally vanish.

Q: So you stay with this (transcending) 'fact' and see its implications, totally.

K: Which means, that what has been registered on the 'tape of the brain', the ( ongoing psychological) registration must end, the past, and no present or future registration must take place. Sir, this is one of the most...

Q: I'm really interested to know what it means (experientially) .

K: You can find out for yourself, not from this ( K) person, how tremendously important it is to 'stand alone' ( 'All-One') , which doesn't mean isolation, which doesn't mean non-cooperation. To stand alone means to live a life without any (psychological) pressures from outside or inside. Find out ( for extra-homework) whether it is possible for a human being, who is the (Consciousness?) representative of all humanity - that's a (trans-personal) fact - the (collective consciousness of the ) entire humanity has said (for ages) 'I must depend' - on my faith in God, on this deity, on that (sacred) Book, etc. So our conditioning is (carrying the burden of) this tremendous dependence. Right?
Now, in being completely free of that ( psychological) conditioning, you're really a whole (human being) , an undivided 'individual'. Now, that means, no external imposition by another (spiritual authority?) seeing the absurdity of it and wiping it out. Then you can ask, is it possible to be a light - not only to yourself, because you are the humanity - but a light to humanity ? (the Light of the World?) Therefore can I be a light 'globally', not for my petty little backyard light ? ( Hint:) My 'backyard light' is just ( a local application of) Electricity which can be switched off and switched on from the main dynamo. But can one come upon something which is the Truth, the irrevocable Truth. Not 'your' truth or 'my' truth, but ( the living spirit of) Truth. can one perceive ( or have free access to?) 'that' thing, if one is not (inwardly) free (of the known?)

So, at the end of this ( rather hectic?) gathering can we at least, say to ourselves, 'I have faced a fact and discovered what actually takes place when I've faced ( holistically that ) one thing' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #55
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline

The Brain, the Mind & the creative virtues of inner Emptiness

( a "reader friendly" edited K dialogue with Mrs Pupul Jayakar, 1983)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Is there a 'within' of things, whether of man, of the tree, of nature, which is an inner space without ending, and is it a 'mirror image' of that vastness which exists in the outward (manifested?) world ?

K: You are asking whether there is or there can be a space without end, an eternity outside time within the human brain. For starters I’d like to distinguish between the brain and the mind.

PJ: How do you start inquiring? Do you start by examination or by posing the question? Now, what comes out of it—speculation or examination—depends on how you approach it; but the question has to be posed.

K: We have put the ( fundamental existential?) question: Can the brain ( experientially?) realize the truth as to whether there is eternity or not? Is (the total consciousness of?) mankind forever bound to time, the brain can actually realize ( within) itself a state of '( timeless) eternity' ? This is a question that has been asked for thousands of years and this is what we’re asking too.

PJ: So, you started ( this inquiry) by drawing a distinction between the brain and the mind.
Would you, please, elaborate?

K: First, we are saying that the human brain - at least some part of it- is conditioned. That conditioning is brought about through ( its survival-oriented ) experience. That conditioning is (present both in our?) knowledge and in our ( active?) memory. And as mankind's experience, knowledge and memory are limited, ( the resulting ego-centric?) ) thinking is limited. We have been functioning ( for ages ) with this kind of thinking, but to discover something new, there has to be, at least temporarily, a period when thought ( the self-centred thinking process) is in abeyance.

PJ: What is the 'mind' then?

K: The 'mind' is a wholly different dimension (of human consciousness?) which has no ( interactive?) contact with ( the self-centred) thought. Let me explain. The brain—that part of the brain which has been functioning as an instrument of thought—has been conditioned (by its 'survival-oriented' self-interest?) , and as long as that part of the brain remains in that state there is no entire communication—with the 'mind'. Now, when this (time-binding) conditioning is not (interfering) , then the ( intelligent & compassionate?) 'mind' which is totally on a different dimension, communicates with the brain and acts—using brain's thinking capacity .

PJ: So, you’ve already posited a state (of human consciousness?) which is outside the realm of thought ?

K: That’s right, and therefore, outside the realm of...

PJ: ...( material ) time ?

K: Yes, time.

PJ: As 'time' seems to be the essential core of this problem...

K: Time and thought.

PJ: ( The self-centred process of ) thought is a product of time. In a (more holistic?) sense, thought 'is' time.

K: That’s the real point. So, where do we start ?

PJ: Perhaps if we could go into this whole 'flow of time', at any instant an 'interception' is possible... you may also use the word ‘ending’. (Man's self-centred ) thinking is coming from a past immemorial, and is constantly projecting itself into a future, which is also endless...

K: In terms of thought, the 'future' is conditioned by the 'past'—as (pertaining to) a human psyche.

PJ: Yes. So, unless the human being ceases to be...

K: Ceases to be ( self-interest?) conditioned, right?

PJ: The (psychological) 'content' will undergo a change, but the mechanism of thought will continue.

K: Now, thought is the chief instrument we have. Thousands of years of various (matter oriented?) efforts and actions have not only made that instrument dull, but this instrument has also reached the 'end of its tether'. ( The mental process of?) thought-( projecting itself in?) time is limited, conditioned, divided, and in a perpetual state of (inner conflict & ) turstrong textmoil. Now, can that end? That’s the Question.

PJ: Now, the actual contact with thought-time, as a psychological process, is in the present, isn’t it?

K: Are you asking: what is the ‘now’?

PJ: It’s the point of ‘interception’ that I’m talking about —the contact with the fact, with ‘what is’.

K: May I put it in the way that I understand it? The ( mental continuity of the ) 'past', the 'present' and the 'future' is a movement of time-thought. How do you come to see the truth of it, how do I come into contact with the fact that I am ( mentally identified with?) a whole series of memories, which is (the process of) 'time-thought'?

PJ: No, let us be more concrete. That I am going away this afternoon is a thought.

K: It’s not ( just ) a thought; it’s an actuality.

PJ: Actuality, yes; but beneath that actuality, there are certain emotional, psychological elements which come to cover up the fact. So, what is the 'fact' which has to be contacted? Not the fact that I’m going away, but this ( psychological) pain (of leaving someone) .

K: The ( residual inner) pain of centuries of loneliness, sorrow, grief; the agony, the anxiety and all that—is it separate from the ‘me’ who feels it?

PJ: It may not be separate.

K: It 'is' me. (Emphatic)

PJ: But how do I touch it? It’s only in the (active) present that the whole of this edifice rests.

K: That’s what I said : the ‘now’ contains the past, the future and the present. Let’s understand this (holistically encripted statement?) The 'present' is (containing) the whole past and the future. This ( psychological dimension of the ) present is 'me' with all the ( personal & collective?) memories of a thousand years, which are being (updated & ) modified all the time. All that is the ‘now’—the ( me-in-the-?) present.

PJ: But the present is also something which is not static. It’s over before...

K: Of course, of course. The moment you’ve said it, it’s gone.

PJ : So what is it that you can actually observe?

K: You actually observe the ( truth of the ) fact that the ( 'me-in-the-) present' is the whole movement of time and thought. You, actually see the truth of that. You have an insight, a (timeless?) perception, into the fact that the (my temporal consciousness ?) ‘now’ is all (part of an endless continuity of) time and thought.

PJ: Does this ( enlightening ?) perception emanate from the brain?

K: That perception is a (timeless?) insight which has nothing to do with 'time & thought'.

PJ: But it arises within the brain?

K: Or does it arise outside the brain? Is it occurring within the sphere of the brain or is that ( inwardly enlightening?) 'insight' comes ( naturally) when there is freedom from conditioning, which is the operation of the 'mind'?—That is supreme intelligence, you follow?

PJ: No, I don’t quite follow...

K: Let’s be clear. The ( material) brain is conditioned by time & thought. As long as that ( self-centred) conditioning remains (active) , ( a total) insight is not possible. You may have occasional insight into something, but not a 'pure insight', which means the ( enlightening?) comprehension of the totality of things—I use the word ‘totality’ and not ‘wholeness’, because that word is now being used so much (by everyone here?) . That insight is the perception of completeness. Therefore that insight is part of that brain which is in a different dimension.

PJ: Let us take the word ‘insight’. It means ‘seeing into’. But...seeing into what?

K: An 'insight' or the comprehension of the totality, of the vastness of something, is possible only when there is the cessation of ( the inner process of ) thought and time. Thought and time are limited; therefore such limitation cannot have ( access to) insight.

PJ: Now, such an insight cannot arise without attention.

K: No, wait; don’t introduce the ( widely abused?) word ‘attention’. Stick to : insight cannot exist as long as time-thought plays a part.

PJ: But you see, in my consciousness, in my approach to this, I can’t start with insight.

K: No.

PJ: I can only start with ( mindful?) observation.

K: You can only start by realizing the truth that the psychological process of 'time & thought' is always (intrinsically) limited. That’s a fact, and you can see the fact of that.

PJ: You can see the fact of that in the world outside yourself.

K: You can see its (grave limitation) politically, religiously. Throughout the world it is a fact that 'time and thought', in their ( self-centred) activity, have wrought havoc in the world. That’s a fact.

PJ: Yes, yes.

K: So, now the (new) question is: Can this limitation ever end or is man condemned, forever, to live within the 'time-thought' area (in the 'known') ?

PJ: To 'see the fact' that ( the inner process of?) time-thought is limited? What exactly does it mean? What’s so wrong with it being limited?

K: There is nothing 'wrong' if you want to (enjoy?) living in ( an inner state of) perpetual conflict (& swimming with the sharks?)

PJ: Now, a move further. To actually 'end it' is not enough to feel that it is limited - there must be an action of ending it.

K: I say that there is.

PJ: What is the nature of this ending?

K: I must be clear that we both understand the same thing when we use the words—‘to end something’ - ( like) ending ( one's psychological dependency or?) attachment. To put an end to it.

PJ: Like the (inner continuity of attachment?) ceasing to 'flow' ?

K: Yes, the ( time binding) movement of 'thought & time' ceases—psychologically. What is your difficulty? You are making a ( holistically?) 'simple' action sound so terribly complex.

PJ: Sir, there is a point of ( time-free) perception which is a point of insight.

K: Yes.

PJ: What is that 'point of insight'?

K: What do you mean ‘point of insight’?

PJ: In what ( inner dimension?) do I see it?

K: Look, Pupul, let’s be simple. In the outer world the 'time-thought' process has divided the world: politically, geographically, religiously. That’s a fact. Can’t you see the fact?

PJ: Looking at the outside world and I can see it

K: No, wait, wait. Don’t look (just ) 'outside'.

PJ:(Inwardly ) I don’t see the truth of this fact.

K: What do you mean ‘I don’t see the fact’?

PJ: Because if I saw the ( inward truth of this) fact...

K: would stop that kind of thing ?

PJ: It would be all over .

K: That’s all I’m saying.

PJ: Therefore it's not such a 'simple' thing—because it has such devious ways...

K: No. (Emphatic) That’s the whole point. If you have an insight that the movement of 'thought-time' is ( not only time-binding) but self-divisive—at whatever level it is a movement of endless ( personal & collective strife & ) conflict...

PJ: Yes, you can see it more easily when it’s a matter outside you.

K: Now, can you see ( that all this mentality of conflict is caused ) inwardly by the movement of the psyche which is the movement of time-thought. This inward movement has created that. (Pointing outside) Simple (as 'pie'?) This ( self-) divisive 'psychological movement' has created the visible external facts. I am a German. I feel secure in the ( Germanic?) word. I feel secure in the feeling that I belong to something...

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, all these (outward manifestation like) being a 'Hindu' or being 'greedy'—one has seen as a product of this movement of time-thought.

K: That’s all I’m saying.

PJ: But it isn't enough ...

K: What is your difficulty?

PJ: There is, within it all, the ( subliminally self-identifying?) sense of ‘I exist’.

K: That’s the whole point. (With emphasis) You don’t realize that the 'psyche' is (the subliminal expression of?) that (same 'time & thought' process ?) .

PJ: Yes, that’s essentially the nature of my problem.

K: Because you (may?) think that the 'psyche' ( the higher 'Self') is something other than a conditioned state. You think that there is something in you which is timeless, which is ( part of) God, and that if only you can reach That, everything will be all right. That’s part of your ( self-created?) conditioning. Because you are uncertain, because you are confused, God or the highest principle or some kind of conviction gives you safety, protection, certainty. That’s all.

PJ: If this is so (elementary?) , then what is the nature of the Ground from which insight springs?

K: I’ve told you. Insight can only take place when there is freedom from time and thought.

PJ: 'Time and thought'. You see, it’s a sort of a never-ending story...

K: No. It is not. You are complicating a very simple fact : To live in peace is to 'flower' (inwardly) ; it is to understand the extraordinary 'World of Peace'. Peace cannot be brought about by ( the time-binding process of) thought.

PJ: You see, the brain itself (stops & ) listens to that statement.

K: Yes, it listens, and then what happens? When it really, actually, listens, and there is ( an inward) quietness that is not induced, and then there is insight. I don’t have to explain in ten different ways the limitation of thought. It is so.

PJ: I see what you are saying. Is there anything further than that?

K: Oh yes, there is. Is listening only possible when it is connected to a 'sound' , or is there also a listening to something without the verbal ( interpretation of the) sound? If you want to convey to me something much more than the words and the words are making a sound in my hearing, I cannot listen to the depth of what you are saying.

So, back to what we started with, namely, the 'present' is the (instant cross-section of the ?) whole movement of 'time-thought'. It is ( containing ) the whole structure. If the ( time-binding) structure of 'time & thought' ends, the ‘Now’ has a totally different meaning. The ‘Now’ then is ( being inwardly as ) 'no-thing'. And this (being as?) 'nothing' contains all. Right?

PJ: Yes...

K: But we are ( consciously or unconsciously) afraid to be 'no-thing'.

PJ: When you say, ‘ it contains all’, do you mean that it is the essence of all humanity, the environment, nature and...

K: Yes, yes.

PJ: The Cosmos as such?

K: ( Inwardly speaking ) there is 'nothing' (not-a-thing) . The (self-conscious ?) 'psyche' is a bundle of ( personal & collective?) memories, and those ( psychologically active?) memories are (creatively-wise as good as ?) 'dead'. They operate, function in us, but they are the outcome of past experiences, which are gone. I 'am' ( inwardly ) a movement of ( constantly updated & recycled personal & collective ) memories. Now, if I have an insight ( into the truth that?) that there is nothing (worth keeping ?), then the ( self-conscious?) ‘I’ don’t exist.

  • ( A Few Bonus Questions)

PJ: You were saying something about Sound and Listening.

K: Yes, listening (inwardly) without 'sound'. You see the beauty of it?

PJ: Yes, but I think this ( non-verbal listening) it possible only when the mind itself is totally still.

K: When the brain is absolutely quiet, there is no ( mental) sound made (or induced?) by the words. That is the real listening. The words have given me (the physical meaning of?) what you want to convey : ‘I’m going away this afternoon’. I listen to that...

PJ: But the (verbally conditioned ?) brain has not been (totally) active in this (kind of) listening.

K: The brain, when it is ( outwardly ?) 'active', is ( listening to its own mental ? ) noise. Let’s come back to this business of ( Listening to ) Sound, because it’s very interesting. The pure ( listening to?) Sound can only exist when there is (free inner) space and silence. Otherwise it’s just ( listening to one's own mental ?) noise.

(Silent Pause)

( Coming back to our worldly 'reality' ?) all our (traditional) education as well as all one’s past experience and knowledge, is a movement ( of personal & collective 'self-interest' engaged in ?) (self-) becoming— both inwardly and outwardly. ( The origins of the desire for ?) becoming ( safer, stronger & happier ?) is the (indiscriminate) accumulation of memory — more and more and more memories which constitute our 'knowledge'. Now, as long as that movement exists, there is (also the darker side of it ?) fear of being nothing (or of not succeeding & failing ?) . But when one has an insight that (inwardly) there is no-thing (not-a-thing?) , and when one really sees the fallacy, the illusion of (self-) becoming—which is (an endless process of ) 'time-thought' and conflict—then there is an ending of that (illusory inner ) movement which is 'time-thought'. The 'ending' of that ( mental ) movement is (resulting in a state of inwardly ?) being (as) 'no-thing'. This ( inward ) 'nothing-ness' contains the entire World of Compassion. Compassion is not a (material?) 'thing'. Therefore, that (state of?) 'inward no-thingness' is (inwardly open to ?) Supreme Intelligence. That’s All There Is.

PJ: Yes...

K: So, why are the human beings frightened of (inwardly?) 'being (as) nothing', so frightened to see that ( psychologically-wise ?) they really are a verbal (a mental structure of?) illusions, that they are (inwardly) nothing but 'dead' ( although... constantly updated & refreshed personal ?) memories? The truth of the 'fact' is that I am ( inwardly identified with my ?) memories.
If I have no ( personal) memory, either I’m in a state of ( moronic ?) amnesia or I'll (have to wake up inwardly and ? ) understand the whole movement (internal activity of my) memory, which is ( a collective stream of) 'time-thought', and see the fact that as long as there is ( an unbroken continity of) this ( thought) movement, (my inner existence will be ?) an endless state of conflict, struggle, pain.
(However on the 'plus' side?) when there is a (liberating) 'insight' into all this, (the inner significance of being inwardly as ) 'nothing' means something entirely different. That ‘being as nothing’ is ( living in the eternal?) Present, not in a ‘varying present'.

PJ: Not in a 'varying present' ???

K: It isn’t that one day it’s this, and the next day it is different. That ( inwardly being as?) nothing is not of time. Therefore it’s not ending one day, and being another day. You see, if one goes into this problem, not theoretically, but actually, this is the real meditation. That’s what S?nya (the Inner Void?) means in Sanskrit. The actual (truth of the?) fact is that inwardly we are ‘nothing’ except ( a self-identified mental structure of?) words, opinions and judgements. And (that's how?) we’ve made our (inner) lives petty.

So, ( in a nutshell?) we have to grasp ( the insight that?) in ( inwardly being as?) nothing, all the ( Consciousness of the?) World is contained — not the (personal) pain and the anxiety which are all so small. Now, having listened to all this, what is your comprehension? What is it that you, and that (silent minority?) who is going to 'listen' to all this, what do you capture, realize? Do you see the immensity of all this? Do you say, ‘By Jove, I’ve got it. I’ve got the perfume of it’?

PJ: Sir, don’t ask me that question ; as you were speaking there was (the feeling of that?) Immensity.

K: Yes, there was ( a visitation of ?) That. I could feel it and you could. There was the tension of that (Presence ?) , but is it (here only ?) for the moment and then it’s gone ?

PJ: No; but I realize is that the most difficult thing in the world is to be (inwardly?) totally simple.

K: Yes. To be ( inwardly ) 'simple'—that’s right. If one is really simple, one can understand the enormous complexity of things. But we start dealing with the complexities and never get to see the (inner) 'simplicity'. That’s our ( ages old cultural?) training. We have trained our brains to deal with the ( ever increasing?) complexities of daily life , and try to find an answer to the complexity. But we don’t see the extraordinary simplicity of life, of facts rather.

PJ: In the Indian (Spiritual) tradition, out of Sound were born all the elements - there is the Sound ( of All That Is?) which reverberates, and yet it is not heard.

K: That’s it. But after all, Pupul, especially in the Indian tradition, from the Buddha, from Nagarjuna, and the ancient Hindus, there is that state of 'no-thingness', for which, they said, you must 'deny' the whole thing.

PJ: Yes, every movement of the brain cells as we...

K: Yes, it is there in the ( Sacred) Books. Now, why haven’t they pursued that? You see, even the most intelligent of them have pursued some (mental) structure, and not the (authentic) feeling of religion, the feeling of the divine, the sense of something sacred. Why haven’t they pursued denying, not the ( reality of the?) world, but the ‘me’?

PJ: Sir, basically, renunciation refers to renouncing the 'me' , not renouncing the outer world

K: Yes, inside—which means what? Don’t be attached—even to a Highest principle. I think what is happening is that we are really caught in a ( self-protective?) net of words, in theories, and not in actuality. I suffer. I must find a way to end that. Why have human beings not faced and changed the fact? Is it because we (indulge ) living in ( self-comforting?) illusions, with ideas and conclusions and all those 'non-realities'?

PJ: We are living with the whole history of mankind.

K: Yes, and ( this history of) mankind 'is' (reflected in) me, - the ( temporal?) ‘me’ 'is' this endless human misery. So, if you want to end misery, end the ‘me’.

PJ: It’s really ( synonimous with?) the ending of (psychological) time, isn’t it, sir?

K: Yes, the ending of 'time-thought'. That means to listen without the sound. Listen to the Universe without a sound.

( Story time:) We were talking the other day in New York, to a doctor who is, I believe, very well known. He said, ‘All these questions are all right, sir, but the fundamental issue is whether the brain cells—which have been conditioned for centuries—can really bring about a mutation in themselves. Then the whole thing would be simple’. I said, ‘It’s possible only through insight’, and then we went into it as we’ve gone into it now. )

But you see, nobody is willing to 'listen' to this in its entirety. They listen partially, they agree up to a certain point and stop there. If ( a holistically responsible?) man would really say, ‘There must be peace in the world, therefore, I must live peacefully’, then there will be peace in the world. But man (the average sensory person ?) doesn’t want to 'live in peace'. He ( enjoys?) continuing with his ( wordly) ambition, his arrogance, his silly, petty fears and all that. We have reduced the vastness of all this to our petty little reactions and we live such petty lives. This applies to everyone—from the highest to the lowest.

PJ: What is ( the inward significance of?) 'Sound' ?

K: The Sound 'is' the ( life vibration of the?) tree. Then, take ( the Sound of?) Music – the pure Vedic or Gregorian chanting- they are extraordinarily close together. Then, you can listen to the Sound of the Waves, to the Sound of a Strong Wind among the trees, then (listening to the?) 'Sound' ( feeling the 'presence' ?) of the person whom you have lived with for many years, etc - if you don’t get 'used' to all this, you hear everything afresh-
( And still deeper inwardly ?) you tell me that 'time & thought' is the (central 'time-binding' ) movement of man’s life; which is therefore limited. Now, you have communicated to me a 'simple' fact, and if I 'listen' to it without ( getting distracted by?) the 'sound' of the words, I’ve captured the inner significance, the depth of that statement, and I can’t lose it. If I’ve listened to it in its entirety the Sound ( of Truth?) has conveyed the ( insight into that?) fact : 'It Is So'. And what is seen 'as being so' is ( an insight which is?) absolute—always. I believe that in the Hebraic ( spiritual ) tradition only the Nameless One can say ‘I Am’. ( Same thing) in the Sanskrit ; Tat Tvam Asi – Thou Art That

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 27 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Jun 2018 #56
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline

Exploring the inward nature of 'God'

( An 'experientially essential' - 'reader friendly' edited) K dialogue with Mrs Pupul Jayakar & friends, cca 1981)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Can we investigate into the nature of 'God'?

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): Are you asking what is ( the Source of?) Creation or whether 'God' ( is another name for ) Reality or Truth ?

PJ: Behind the (generic) word ‘God’ lies millennia of man’s quest for something that is absolute, for something that is untouched...

K: Yes, for something that is universal.

PJ: Is it possible to inquire into the nature of ‘That’—call it 'God' or Creation or the Ground of Being ?

K: I think it is possible, providing the 'brain and mind' (complex ) is totally free to investigate that which the Israelis call the ‘Nameless’ and the Hindus call ‘Brahman’ or the ‘highest principle’? ( For starters?) can we put away all 'beliefs'? For only then will it be possible to investigate.

PJ: What exactly does it mean for the mind to be free of belief ?

K: Can one, consciously as well as un-consciously, be free of that ( 'psychological load' of this) word - which has played such a tremendous part in the Islamic and Christian world?

PJ: At one level it is possible to say that one is free – like if you were to ask me whether I believed in God, or whether I believed in Krishna, Rama or Siva. But that is not the final thing. There is this inner 'feeling for God' that seems to be integral to the fact of life itself. You see, there is a sense that without ‘this’ nothing could exist, the sense that ‘this’ is the ( spiritual ) Ground of all Existence

K: Shall we discuss this ( Inner ?) Ground ( of Creation?) from which everything originates? As I said, one can only find it out when one is absolutely free (inwardly) . (Unfortunately?) the 'un-conscious' (part of our inner ) being is absolutely crowded with all this...

PJ: There is a state of my inner being where the ( mental) movement of 'belief' is negated .

K: Does one 'negate' it (just intellectually?) or deeply at the very root of one’s being? Can one say, ‘I know nothing’ and stop there?

PJ: I can say that the movement of thought as the 'belief' in a particular God does not arise in my mind. But I still do not know the state of ''I-know-nothing'' which is a very different state from negating the outer movement as belief.

K: So could we go into that?

PJ: How does one proceed?

K: Can one negate, completely, the whole (mental) movement (in terms) of knowledge? Not the technological knowledge, of course, but can one negate the (psychologically ingrained ) feeling that one 'knows'? There is deep within one the whole accumulated experience of man which (assumes?) 'that there is God'. Of course there have been 'seers' who have said that there is no such thing as ( an omnipotent, omnipresent & omniscient?) God, but their words just add to man’s traditional ( systems of) belief, to his traditional knowledge. The question is: Can one ( inwardly) negate the 'knowledge' of all that one knows?

PJ: Let me put it this way. One has comprehended the way of negating the rising movement of thought as belief, but the depth, the dormancy, the thousands of years that form the matrix of one’s (psychological) being—how does one touch all that?

K: That is what one has to do.

PJ: Yes, but how does one ( get in ) touch with it?

K: Could we begin not by inquiring into whether there is God, but by inquiring into why the human mind has worked with (the concept of) becoming—a becoming that is based on knowledge, a constant movement (mental attitude?) —not only outwardly but also inwardly?

PJ: We started with an investigation into the nature of God and then you went on to speak of the matrix of becoming—are they related?

K: Aren’t they related? You see, one’s ( religious sense of) being is essentially based on the feeling that lies deep in one that there is something enormous, something incredibly immense—I am talking about that part of one’s being, that knowledge is the matrix, the ground on which one stands. So long as that is there, one is not actually free. Can one investigate into that?

QUESTIONER (Q): Isn't there (in the depths of human consciousness) an inherent (aspiration for?) 'something' that is beyond what one is taught, beyond what one picks up through one’s cultural heritage?

K: Even if it is an 'inherent' thing, can't one (meditation-wise?) empty one’s self -(centred consciousness) of the accumulation of a million years? Can one 'empty oneself' of that which may be implanted from childhood? Can one 'empty oneself' of the centuries of belief that there is 'something' beyond all this? I think that that is the most deep-rooted belief. It is something that is in the 'unconscious', as all deep things always are. And I think that if we want to investigate (the truth or falsehood of it?) that belief must go too.

PJ: Can one get to the deepest movement of the 'unconscious' mind? How is it possible, without the (deep layers of our collective?) unconscious being exposed, for it to end? How does one experience that which lies beyond anyone's personal knowledge?
I can go through the whole of my knowledge, and yet it will not contain it.

K: No. But aren’t you getting an (absolute beginner's ?) insight into this, namely, that there must be the total negating of everything man's (self-centred thinking ) has put together?

PJ: Perhaps one is asking the wrong question. Perhaps there can never be a 'total' negating of that. How can one negate that?

K: Just a minute. Man has tried in several ways to negate everything. He has fasted, he has tortured himself, but he has always remained anchored (within the field of the known?) to something or other - like the great Christian mystics; they were anchored to (their faith in) Jesus, and from there they moved.

PJ:Don't you think we are also 'anchored' to you?

K: Maybe, but if you are, then weigh the 'anchor'...

Q: One can be free of being anchored to most things, but can one cease to be anchored to the question (regarding Divinity ) ?

K: Oh yes, oh yes (just for experiential purposes?). I wouldn’t even ask that question: What is God? For then my ( cultivated?) brain would start spinning a lot of words.

Q: It seems to me that we have already gone beyond the ( need for positive) replies. But behind all that remains the inquiry.

K: What do you mean ‘remains the inquiry’?

Q: By the ‘inquiry remaining’ I mean that the question whether there is something else seems to be innately in us. In other words, the movement towards ( finding an experiential answer to ) that question seems to be innately in us.

K: If my investigation is a movement towards the understanding of what is called 'God', that movement itself is a bondage.

Q: Why?

K: Because it implies a motion towards something. And any such action, implies (thinking in terms of) time. Don’t let us use words that have implications of time, implications of 'going towards' something. Going towards something, trying to find something, implies time—and that ( thinking in terms of time ?) must stop.

Q: Then how can Pupul ask that question?

K: That is the whole point. Our question is whether one can do such a thing in the first place. Is that possible—to be so totally in ( an inner state of?) non-movement? For otherwise we will be forever ( being involved ) with the movement time and thought, and all the rest of it. ( Which brings us back to square one?) Why do we want to find the meaning of God? Why do we want to find the meaning behind all this?

PJ: There is a part of us which is still...

K: ...still seeking, searching, demanding. We never (come to a full mental stop and ?) say, ‘I don’t know’. I think that that is one of our ( major experiential) difficulties. We all want to 'know' and we ( unconsciously) put God into the realm of knowledge. To say, ‘I don’t know’ is a (deeply meditative) state of mind that is absolutely motionless (not 'moving' mentally in any direction)

PJ: Is it not necessary to wipe out this matrix (of the known?) ?

K: Oh yes. Can you wipe out the matrix?

PJ: I don’t know.

K: Which is what? When you use the word ‘matrix’ what do you mean by that?

PJ: I only know that beyond the (known) 'horizons' of my mind, behind the obvious beliefs, there are depths and depths and depths in me. You used once a very significant phrase ‘Play around with the deep’. So you also point to depths which lie below the surface (of human consciusness) . Is this 'depth' within the matrix (of the known?) ?

K: No, it can’t be. But I wonder what you call the 'matrix'?

PJ: I mean by ‘matrix’ that which does not come within the purview of my eyes and ears, but is still there. I know it is there. It is ( the matrix of the ) ‘me’. Even though I am not able to see it, to touch it, I have a feeling that perhaps, if there is a right listening to the truth...

K: Then why use the word ‘depth’? For ‘depth’ is of necessity linked with the measurable.

PJ: I am using the word ‘depth’ to connote something that is beyond my (known consciousness or ?) knowledge. You see, if it is within the contours of my horizon, if it is available to my senses, then it is measurable. But if it is not available, I can do nothing about it. I do not have the (inwardly perceptive ) instruments to reach it.

K: How do you know that it is all not imagination? Do you know it as a ( pleasure seeking?) 'experience'?

PJ: The problem is: If you say ‘yes’ it is a trap, and even if you say ‘no’ it is a trap.

K: I want to be quite clear, Pupul, that we both understand the meaning of the word 'depth' . I am talking of a feeling.

PJ: Surely, sir, this word can be uttered lightly, from the surface of the mind, and it can also be uttered with great depth behind it. I am saying that there is this 'Ground' that contains the whole history of man. There is life in that utterance; it has great weight and depth. Can’t you feel that depth?

K: I understand Pupul, but is that depth—the depth of silence? Silence means that the mind, the brain, is utterly still; it is not something that comes and goes.

PJ: How can I answer that?

K: I think one can if there is no sense of attachment to it, no sense of ( personal) memory involved in it. Let’s begin again (from square one:)
The whole world believes in 'God', but I really don’t know what God is. Probably I will never find out, but what I am concerned with is whether the human mind, the brain, can be totally, free from all accumulated 'knowledge-experience'. Because if it is not free (of its 'known'?) , it will always be confined to that area, so can the brain be completely free from all taint of knowledge. To me that is tremendously significant, because if it is not, it will never be out of that area. Never. Any movement of the mind (attempting to move) out of that area is still a movement that is anchored in knowledge; it will then only be a 'seeking of more knowledge' about God. So my concern is with whether the ( meditating?) mind, the brain, is capable of being completely immovable.

When you confront a question of that kind, if you deny ( speculating ) both on the 'possibility' and the 'probability' of it, then what is left?
Can one have the depth of insight into the (self-limiting) movement of knowledge, so that the insight stops the movement? The insight stops the movement, not 'I' or the ( thinking) brain. The stopping of the movement is the ending of ( the psychological activity of) knowledge and the beginning of something else. So I am concerned only with this 'ending of knowledge', deeply.
There is this enormous feeling that comes when we realize that we are 'all one'. The feeling that comes from that 'oneness', from a harmonious unity, is extraordinary, but if it is ( verbally) simulated it is worthless, for then you will only be perpetuating 'yourself' ( your good-old self-consciousness?) Right?

Q: Could we talk a little more about this (inner) questioning which seems so complete? Could we discuss having no anchor? Is having no anchor the putting aside of everything?

K: Don’t you see the importance of it? And, even if you do, ask yourself whether it is merely (ego-centrically?) intellectual.

Q: Yes, sir, I do see the importance of it; but apparently that is not enough.

PJ: Somehow there is something we are missing.

K: Look, Pupul, suppose this person—K—were not here. How would you deal with this problem? How would you deal with the problem of God ? You see, each one of us is totally responsible. We are not referring to past authorities—to (the sayings of the?) 'saints'. Each one is totally responsible to answer this question. You have to answer.

PJ: Why should I have to answer?

K: I will tell you why : because you are ( a responsible part of the consciousness of ) humanity, and humanity is asking this question. Every saint, every philosopher, every human being somewhere 'in his depths' is asking this question.

PJ: May I ask you something else ? How does one take a question like this and 'leave it' (abide) in consciousness? You see, sir, you have a way of taking a question, asking it and, then, 'remaining with it'.

K: Yes, that is right.
PJ: When we ask such a question, there is a movement of the (temporal) mind towards it. With you, when such a question is put, there is no movement.

K: You’re right. Now are you asking ‘how’ to achieve this state?

PJ: I know that 'I' can’t.

K: No, but you are right to ask that question. I am asking you as a human being, just as many human beings have for a million years: What is God? I come and put this question to you. Are you ready to answer it or do you 'hold the question' quietly? For out of that ( non-personal contemplative?) holding where there is no reaction, no response, comes the answer.

Q: Could you say something more about the nature of that holding?

K: I am talking of a holding that is without any ( mental) waves, without any motive or movement, a holding that is without any trace of ( personally?) 'trying' to find an answer.

Q: With most of us, we may first remain (meditating?) quietly with an unanswered question, but sooner or later an 'answer' comes from the deep wells of the ( collective) unconscious, and that answer rises up to fill that ( free inner) space.

K: I know.... I ask you an (in class:) question: Do you believe in God? Can you say, ‘I don’t know’? Or do you immediately say, ‘I don’t believe’ or ‘I believe’ or ‘Maybe there is’ and so on? Can you 'look' at the question—just 'looking' —without saying a single thing? Can you? I really 'don’t know' whether there is God or not.

PJ: Then there is nothing that ( a thoughtful ) mind can do.

Q: Are you saying, sir, that this ‘holding’ is something that takes place outside the area (of the known?) ?

K: Of course.

Q: In holding isn’t there any further inquiry?

K: No, you see, unless you understand this it can lead to a great deal of misunderstanding.
Our brains work like pre-programmed computers way too. We have been programmed for thousands of years, and the brain replies immediately. If the brain is not programmed, it is watching, looking. Now, can our brains be (silent) without (running such ) a 'programme'?

PJ: You see, sir, when such a question is normally put to the mind, it is like a grain of sugar being dropped on the ground—'ants' from all over come towards it.
Similarly, when a question is posed, all the responses are awakened, and gravitate towards the question. Now the question is: Can the question be asked without the (gravitating) movements?

K: Without the 'ants', yes. I am told that when the brain is not operating (mentally) , it is quiet; it has a movement of its own. We are talking of the brain that is in constant movement, the energy of which is ( canalised by?) thought. To 'quieten' thought is the problem. Can you question ( the inner validity of using ?) thought completely? Can you have a mind that is capable of 'not reacting' immediately to a question? Can there be a delaying reaction, perhaps a holding of the question indefinitely?

To go back, Pupulji. Can I have no (psychological) anchors (in the known?) at all—either in knowledge or in belief? Can I see that (inwardly) they have no meaning whatsoever? I think it is absolutely essential not to give ( a verbal) meaning to anything.
Isn't that state of mind, out of time? Isn't this a state of real profound meditation—a meditation in which there is no (direction of) of achievement; nothing? The state in which the ( consciousness of the?) 'meditator' is not the 'ground', the 'origin', of all things.

PJ: So can the Ground (of one's inner being) be without the ( subliminally self-centred?) ) 'meditator'?

K: If the 'meditator' is, the ( creative) Ground (of one's being?) is not.

PJ: But can there be such a meditation without the 'meditator'?

K: I am speaking of an ( inner dimension of) meditation without the 'meditator'.

PJ: Is not 'meditation' a human process?

K: No.

PJ: Let us investigate this point, if we may? Meditation cannot be free of the 'individual' being. There can be no meditation without the 'meditator'. You may say that the meditator is not the ground, but...

K: No, just a minute. As long as 'I' m trying to meditate, ( the authentic?) Meditation is not.

PJ: Yes...

K: Therefore there is only a ( non-personal & compassionate?) mind, that is in a state of meditation.

PJ: Yes.

K: Now that is the ( Universal) Ground : The ( Mind of the?) Universe is in a state of meditation. And that is the Ground, that is the origin of everything; and that is only possible when the (self-consciousness of the?) 'meditator' is not (around?)

PJ: And that is only possible when there are no anchors (in the 'known'?) ..

K: Absolutely. That is when there is an absolute freedom from (man's personal & collective?) sorrow. That state of meditation comes with the complete ending of the (brain's identification with the?) 'self'.

You know, Pupul, 'beginning' may be the eternal (timeless) process, it may be an eternal Beginning. You see, the question really is coming down to whether it is at all possible for a ( meditating ) brain, for a ( holistically inclined?) human being, to be completely, utterly, free of the (self-identified consciousness of the?) 'meditator'. This is essential—right? The ( self-interested?) 'meditator' tries to meditate in order to get somewhere, or in order to hide something, or in order to put his life in order. Whichever way you put it—you meditate to put your life in order or you put your life in order and then meditate—it is still the 'meditator' s ( self-identified consciousness?) in operation. The question is whether it is possible to be free of this (self-identified, all controlling mental entity of the ? ) 'meditator'.
If it is possible to be free of the 'meditator' (personal engramming?) , then there would be no question of whether there is God or no God for then this ( 'meditator-free') meditation is the ( one with the?) Meditation of the Universe.

( For meditation homework) Is it possible to be so utterly free? I am asking that question. Don’t reply (right now ?) hold it. Do you see what I mean? Let (the truth of?) it operate. In the holding of it, ( one's intelligent inner ) energy is being accumulated and that ( integrated?) energy will act—not 'you'. Do you understand?

So, have we understood the (inward?) nature of God?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Aug 2018 #57
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline

A K dialogue with PROFESSOR J. NEEDLEMAN in CALIFORNIA, 1971 (reader-friendly edited)

Intelligence helping thought to find its right place

Needleman: There is much talk of a spiritual revolution among young people, particularly here in California. Do you see in this very mixed phenomenon any hope of a new flowering for modern civilization, a new possibility of growth?

Krishnamurti: As far as I have seen, I am afraid there is not a quality of seriousness in all this. I may be mistaken, because I see only these so-called young people in the distance, among the audience but they don't strike me as being very serious, mature, with great intent. I may be mistaken, naturally.

Needleman: Perhaps we can't very well expect young people to be serious.

Krishnamurti: That is why I don't think it is applicable to the young people. I don't know why one has made such an extraordinary thing out of young people, why it has become such an important thing. In a few years they will be the old people in their turn. For something new to take place there must be a nucleus of really devoted (to truth?) serious people, who would go through to the very end of it. After going through all these things, they say, "Here is something I am going to pursue". Or to discard the whole thing and start anew, and not go through all the trappings but start as though one knew absolutely nothing.

Needleman: To me, you are speaking (from) a state (of consiousness) which is itself very far along in understanding for a man. I feel very far from that myself, and I know my students do. And so they feel, rightly or wrongly, a need for help. Let me put it in a stupid way. You sort of 'smell' that you are (subliminlly?) deceiving yourself although you don't exactly know why...

Krishnamurti: ( Analytically speaking ? ) it is fairly simple : I find out what is the thing that brings deception. Obviously it is when I am greedy, when I want something, when I am dissatisfied. So instead of tackling my ( existential?) dissatisfaction or greed, I want something more.

Needleman: Yes...

Krishnamurti: So I have to understand ( the 'psychological' nature of my) greed. What am I greedy for?

Needleman: I think one is ( becoming psychologically?) greedy because one desires to be taken out of oneself, so that one doesn't see the poverty of oneself. But what I am trying to ask you is this : - the great spiritual traditions of the world always speak directly or indirectly of 'help' ( of a spiritual assistance for the truth seeker?) . They do say "The guru is yourself '', but at the same time there is help.

Krishnamurti: Sir, you know what that word 'guru' means?

Needleman: No, not exactly.

Krishnamurti: The one who points (the way) or who brings enlightenment, lifts your psychological burden. Now, the moment a guru says he knows (the way) what he knows is something (from the ) past, obviously. He is thinking of some ( spiritual) experience which he has had in the past , therefore it is not real ( actual?) .

Needleman: Well, I think that most of human knowledge is that. But I was reading a book the other day which spoke of something called 'Sat-San' - association with the wise.

Krishnamurti: No, (association ) with 'good' people. Being good you are wise. Not, being wise you are good.

Needleman: I am not trying to pin this down to something, but I find my students and I myself, when we read, when we hear you, we say, "Ah! I need no one, I need to be with no one", and there is also a tremendous potential for deception in this too.

Krishnamurti: Naturally, because you are being ( subliminally?) influenced by the Speaker.

Needleman: Yes. That is true...

Krishnamurti: Sir, look, let's be very simple. Suppose, if there were no book, no guru, no teacher, and nobody ( around) to help you, no ( magic?) drugs, no tranquilizers, no organized religions, what would you do?

Needleman: Perhaps there would be a moment of urgency there ?

Krishnamurti: That's just it. We haven't ( got) this ( sense of inner) urgency because we say, "Well, somebody is ( hopefully?) going to help me."

Needleman: But most people would be ( inwardly destabilised ) by that situation.

Krishnamurti: I am not at all sure. Because what have we done up to now? The people on whom we have relied, the ( organised?) religions, the ( standardised?) education, they have led us to this awful mess. We aren't free of sorrow, we aren't free of our inner ugliness, of our vanities.

Needleman: Can one say that of all of them? There are differences. For every thousand deceivers there is one Buddha.

Krishnamurti: But that is not my concern, sir, if it leads to such ( collective?) deception.

Needleman: Then let me ask you this : is there some hard work which is necessary for what we might call the ( awakening of intelligence or of the ? ) spirit? You speak against effort, but does not the growth and well-being of all sides of man demand some hard work of one sort or another?

Krishnamurti: I wonder what you mean by 'hard work' ?

Needleman: Going against ( the worldly?) desires.

Krishnamurti: You see, there we are! Our whole culture, is built around this 'going against', erecting a wall of resistance. So when we say 'hard work', what do we mean (to overcome?) ? Our (existential tendency for ?) laziness? Why have I to make effort to reach God, enlightenment, truth?

Needleman: There are many possible answers, but I can only answer for myself...

Krishnamurti: It may be just ( in?) there, only I don't know how to look (non-dualistically?) .

Needleman: But obviously there must be some (experiential) obstacles...

Krishnamurti: How to look (non-dualistically?) ! It (the living Truth?) may be just round the comer, under the flower, it may be anywhere. So first I have to learn to look (non-dualistically?) , not make an effort to look. I must find out what it means to look.

Needleman: Yes, but don't you admit that there may be a ( subliminal?) resistance to (that kind of direct ) looking?

Krishnamurti: You must find out what it means to 'look' before you make an effort to look. Right, sir?

Needleman: That would be, to me, a (good will?) effort. But this wish to 'do it' quickly, to get it all done is this not ( generating its own ) resistance?
So, isn't there something ( of a more subliminal nature?) in me that I have to study, that resists this ( non-dualistic?) looking thing you are speaking about? Is this not some ( inner) work, implied in what you are saying? Isn't it ( a spiritual?) work to ask the question so quietly, so subtly? It seems to me it is work to not listen to that part that wants to do it...

Krishnamurti: I am afraid it is all over the world the same. "Tell me how to get there quickly."

Needleman: And yet...don't you say it is ( happening ) in a moment ?

Krishnamurti: It is, obviously. But what is (the nature of our inner) laziness? Is it physical laziness, or is ( the self-centred) thought itself lazy?

Needleman: That I don't understand...

Krishnamurti: Let's find it out. I want that, but I shouldn't have it, I resist it. ( Overcoming?) this resistance is effort. What has made me lazy?

Needleman: The thought that I ought to be getting up.

Krishnamurti: That's it. So I really have to go into this whole question of thought. I generally do ( one or?) two hours of yoga every day, this morning I was tired; I had prepared the mat and everything to do yoga exercises and the body said "No, sorry". And I said, "All right" and went ( back) to bed. That is not laziness. The ( consciousness of the?) body said, "Leave me alone because I am tired." (On the other hand?) thought says, "You must get up and do the exercises because it is good for you, it has become a (good?) habit, you will get lazy, so...keep at it." Which means: thought is making me ( feel that I am?) lazy, not the body is making me lazy.

Needleman: I understand that. There is an effort (based on ) thought.

Krishnamurti: So no ( thought based?) effort! Isn't all ( our self-centred) thinking ( repetitive & ) mechanical? The 'non-mechanical' state is (born in ) the absence of thought.

Needleman: How can I find out (that most excellent inner condition ) ?

Krishnamurti: Do it now, it is simple enough. ( And the starting point is;) Thought ( thinking within the field of the 'known'?) is ( a) mechanical (& repetitive mental activity?) .

Needleman: Let's assume that.

Krishnamurti: Not 'assume'. Thought is a mechanical (mental activity?) - because it is repetitive, conforming, comparing.

Needleman: That part I see, constantly ( evaluating & ) comparing. But my experience is that not all thought is of the same quality. There are many qualities of thinking.

Krishnamurti: Are there?

Needleman: In my experience there are. There seems to be a thinking that is very shallow, very repetitive, very mechanical, it has a certain taste (of vulgarity?) to it. There seems to be another kind of thinking which is connected with my whole self, it resonates in another way.

Krishnamurti: Thought the response of ( my previously known?) memory.

Needleman: All right, this is an ( oversimplified?) definition...

Krishnamurti: No, no, I have to go to my house this evening - the memory, the distance, the design - all that is ( recorded in my?) memory, isn't it? I have been there before and so that ( factual) memory is well established and from that there is either an instant thought, or ( a train of?) thought which takes a little time. So I am asking myself: is all thought similar, mechanical, or is there a different quality of thinking which is non-mechanical, which is non-verbal?

Needleman: Yes, that's right.

Krishnamurti: Is there a thought if there are no words?

Needleman: There is ( a non-verbal?) understanding.

Krishnamurti: How does this ( insightful?) understanding take place? Does it happen when thought is functioning rapidly (streaming?) , or when thought is quiet?

Needleman: When thought is quiet, yes.

Krishnamurti: ( The insightful?) understanding has nothing to do with (the known based?) thinking . You may 'reason', use your logical thinking, till you say, "I don't understand it", then you become (inwardly) silent, and ( if an insight happens?) you say, "By Jove, I see it, I understand it." That ( 'jump'?) understanding is not a result of thought.

Needleman: You sometimes speak of an ( inward) energy which seems to be uncaused. We experience the energy of cause and effect, which shapes our lives, but what is this other energy's relationship to the energy we are familiar with? What is 'that' (causeless) energy?

Krishnamurti: What is (that causeless inner) energy? First of all: is (our total ) energy divisible? ( Scholastically?) it can be divided. Physical energy, cosmic energy, ( intelligent?) energy, it can all be divided. But it is all one energy, isn't it?

Needleman: Logically, I would say yes. But I don't 'understand' energy. I may experience something which I call ( total) 'energy', sometimes.

Krishnamurti: Why do we divide (our ) energy at all : sexual energy, physical energy, mental energy, psychological energy, cosmic energy, the businessman who goes to the office, with his energy, and so on ? Why do we divide human life as the business life, scientific life, the professor's life, and life of the housewife, why do we divide it all? What is the reason for this divisive (mentality?) ?

Needleman: There seem to be many parts of oneself which are actually (well compartmented & ) separate; and we divide life, it seems to me, because of that.

Krishnamurti: Why? Why has our ( self-centred?) mind fragmented the whole of life?

Needleman: I don't know the answer. I see the ocean and I see a tree: there is a division.

Krishnamurti: We are asking why the division exists, not only outwardly but in us.

Needleman: It is in us, that is the most interesting question.

Krishnamurti: Because it is in us we extend it outwards. Now why is there this division in me? The 'me' and the ( 'what is?) not me' Why this division?

Needleman: Maybe through the idea that there is something that I don't understand.

Krishnamurti: In me there is a division : the thinker and thought – right?

Needleman: I don't see that.

Krishnamurti: There is a thinker who says, "I must control my anger, I must not think this, I must think that". So there is a thinker who says, "I must", or "I must not". Look at those ( Malibu ) hills! Do you look at them with a (sense of ) division?

Needleman: No.

Krishnamurti: Why not?

Needleman: There wasn't the 'me' to do anything with it.

Krishnamurti: That's all. You can't do anything about it. ( But in-) here, with my thoughts, I think I can do something. I can't change 'what is' out there, but I (like to) think I can change 'what is' in me. Not knowing how to change the (what 'is' inwardly) I become lost in despair. I say, "I can't change", and therefore I have no energy to change.

Needleman: That's what one usually says.

Krishnamurti: So first, before I change 'what is', I must know who is the 'changer', who it is that changes.

Needleman: There are moments when one knows that, for a moment. Those moments are lost. There are moments when one knows who sees 'what is' in oneself.

Krishnamurti: No sir. Just to see 'what is' (non-dualistically) is enough.

Needleman: I agree with that.

Krishnamurti: Now, one can see 'what is' only when the 'observer' is not (around?) . When you looked at those hills the 'observer' was not (personally involved) .

Needleman: I agree, yes.

Krishnamurti: The 'observer' only came into being when you wanted to change (inwardly upgrade) 'what is'. Because you say: I don't like 'what is', it must be changed, so there is instantly a duality. Can the mind observe 'what is' without the (all controlling interference of the ) observer? It took place when you looked at those hills with that marvellous light on them.

Needleman: This truth is absolute (timeless?) truth. The moment one experiences it one says, "Yes!" But in the current experience one forgets this (ASAP?) .

Krishnamurti: Forget it, and (optionally ) pick it up again ?

Needleman: But in this discussion there is some ( actual ) help coming from this discussion. I know fairly well that it could not happen without the help that is between us. I could look forever at those hills and maybe have this non-judging, but it wouldn't be important to me; I wouldn't know that that is the way I must look for ( my spiritual?) salvation unless there was this. And it seems that this is the present human condition...

Krishnamurti: Sir, we looked at those hills, you couldn't change that, you just looked; and you looked inwardly and the battle began. For a moment you looked without that battle, without that strife, effort, and all the rest of it. Then you remembered the beauty of that moment, of that second, and you wanted to capture that beauty again. So what happens? It sets up another conflict: the thing you had and you would like to have again, and you don't know how to get it again. Whereas if you would say, "All right, it is over, finished", that moment of beauty is over.

Needleman: I still have ( lots?) to learn about this ( instant ending?)

Krishnamurti: What is there to learn ?

Needleman: I have to learn the futility of (giving continuity ) to this conflict.

Krishnamurti: Not if you see for yourself that that (timeless ) moment of beauty becomes a ( time-binding) memory, then the memory says, "It was so beautiful I must have it again." You are then concerned with the pursuit of pleasure. ( The temporal pursuit of a gatifying ) pleasure and ( the sense of timeless ) Beauty don't go together. So if you see that (fine point?) , it (the conflict of self-becoming) is finished. Like seeing a dangerous snake, you won't go near it again.

Needleman: (Laughs) Perhaps I haven't seen (what's really wrong with) it, because one keeps going back again and again.

Krishnamurti: This is the 'real thing'. If with that same quality of ( undivided) attention I want to see myself, there is a moment of perception which is as beautiful as that. Then what happens?

Needleman: Then I wish for it.

Krishnamurti: Then I want to cultivate it, I want to pursue it.

Needleman: And how to see (the psychological danger of) that?

Krishnamurti: Just to see ( the truth about what) is taking place is enough.

Needleman: That's what I forget!

Krishnamurti: It is not a question of 'forgetting'.

Needleman: Well, that is what I don't understand deeply enough. That just the seeing is enough.

Krishnamurti: Look, sir. When you see a (really dangerous) snake what takes place?

Needleman: I am afraid.

Krishnamurti: No. What takes place? You run, or you do (something to protect yourself) . Why? Because you know it is dangerous. You are aware of the danger of it. Or better take a cliff (hanger?) , an abyss. You know the danger of it. Nobody has to tell you. You see directly ( the danger of) what would happen.

Needleman: Right.

Krishnamurti: Now, if you see so directly that the beauty of that moment of perception cannot be repeated (cultivated?) , it is over. But thought says, "No, it's not over, the memory of it remains." So what are you doing now? You are pursuing the dead memory of it, not the living beauty of it - right? Now, if you see the truth of it, not just the verbal statement, the truth of it, it is finished.

Needleman: Then this (direct) 'seeing' is much rarer than we think...

Krishnamurti: . If I see the beauty of that minute, it is over. I don't ( have to?) pursue it. If I pursue it, it becomes a pleasure. Then if I can't get it (on a regular basis) , it brings despair, pain and all the rest of it. So I say, "All right, finished." Then what takes place?

Needleman: From my experience, I'm afraid that what takes place is that the 'monster' is born again. It has a thousand lives. (Laughter.)

Krishnamurti: When did that Beauty take place? When the mind was completely quiet. Wasn't it?

Needleman: Yes...

Krishnamurti: When you looked at that, your mind was quiet (& at peace with itself?) , it didn't say, "I will take a photograph of it, this, that, and the other" - you just looked. Thought wasn't in operation. Here thought comes immediately into operation. So one has to say, "Now can thought be quiet? How can one exercise thought when necessary, and not exercise it when it is not necessary?"

Needleman: Yes, that question is intensely interesting to me, sir.

Krishnamurti: Sir, why has thought become so extraordinarily important?

Needleman: It seems able to satisfy our desires; through thought we believe we can satisfy.

Krishnamurti: No, not just from satisfaction. Why has thought in all cultures with most people become of such vital concern?

Needleman: One usually identifies oneself with (the process of) thought, as one's thoughts. Is this what you mean?

Krishnamurti: Not quite. Apart from identification with the 'me' why is thought always active?

Needleman: Ah, I see...

Krishnamurti: Thought is always operating in (the field of our past) knowledge, isn't it? Thought is always operating in the field of the 'known'; it is always working in the ( memories of the?) past. So my life 'is' the past, because it is based on past knowledge, past experience, past memories, pleasure, pain, fear and so on, it is all the past. And the 'future' I project from the past, thought projects from the past. So thought is (constantly moving back & forth) 'fluctuating' between the past and the future. All the time it says; "I should do this; I should not do that; I should have behaved." Why is it doing all this?

Needleman: I don't know. Habit?

Krishnamurti: Habit. All right. Go on. Let's find out. Habit?

Needleman: Habit brings what I call pleasure.

Krishnamurti: Habit, pleasure, pain.

Needleman: To protect me. Pain, yes pain.

Krishnamurti: It is always working within that field. Why?

Needleman: Because it doesn't know any better ?

Krishnamurti: Can thought work in any other field except in the field of the known?

Needleman: No...

Krishnamurti: Obviously not. It can't work in something I don't know; it can only work in this field. Now why does it work in this? There it is, sir - why? It is the only thing I 'know'. In that there is security, there is protection, there is safety. That is all I know. So thought can only function in the field of the known. And when it gets tired of that, as it does, then it seeks something outside. Then what it seeks is still the known. Its gods, its visions, its spiritual states - all projected out of the known past into the future known. So thought always works in the field (of past memory) always working in a (self-created) prison, always within the limitations of a psychological 'barbed wire fence'. Thought has no ( inwardly legitimate) place when I say, "I really don't know." Right?

Needleman: For the moment...

Krishnamurti: When I say, "I don't know", which doesn't mean I am expecting to know, when I see ( the truth that inwardly?) I really don't know - what happens? The mind becomes completely humble. And that state of 'not knowing' is ( providing its own?) intelligence which can ( optionally?) think in the field of the known or be free to work somewhere else if it wants to.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 #58
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline


Needleman: In your talks you have given a fresh meaning to the necessity for man to become his own authority. Yet cannot this necessity easily be turned into a form of humanistic psychology without reference to the sacred, transcendent dimension of human life on earth in the midst of a vast intelligent Cosmos? Must we not only try to see ourselves in the moment, but also as creatures of the Cosmos? What I am trying to ask about is this question of the 'cosmic' dimension (of human consciousness)

Krishnamurti: Is there a difference between the 'outer' space, which is limitless, and the (inner) space in us? Or is there no 'free inner) space in us at all and we only know the outer space? We know the (very busy inner ?) space within us as a ( the space between a ) centre and its circumference. This is what we generally have, and call that inner space. Now if within it there is an (identitary ?) centre, the space must always be (self-inclosed?), limited and therefore we divide the 'inner' space from the 'outer' space.

Needleman: Yes...

Krishnamurti: So the (inner) space within me is the space which the centre has created round itself.

Needleman: Yes, a centre of self- interest.

Krishnamurti: Not only centre of (self-) interest, it has its own ( mental?) space - the centre creates a ( self-protecting) space round itself. And that space is always limited.

Needleman: It is a defined space, yes, which is limited.

Krishnamurti: Now, when you use the words 'cosmic space'...

Needleman: I didn't use the words 'cosmic space', I said 'cosmic', the dimension of a Cosmic consciusness . I wasn't asking about outer space and trips to the planets.

Krishnamurti: So we are talking either of the ( inner) space between two thoughts - the (silent?) interval between two thoughts, or of the (self-protective mental) space which the 'centre' creates round itself. Now what is your question, sir? How to expand the existing inner space or how to enter a different dimension of ( consciousness' ?) space?

Needleman: In a different dimension of Reality?

Krishnamurti: First I must see very clearly the 'space' between two thoughts.

Needleman: The (silent?) interval.

Krishnamurti: This interval between two thoughts. What takes place in this 'interval'?

Needleman: Well, I confess I don't know because my thoughts 'overlap'. There are moments when this interval appears, and I see it, and there is freedom there for a moment.

Krishnamurti: Let's go into this a bit, shall we? There is space between two thoughts. And there is space which the centre creates round itself, which is the space of (self-) isolation.

Needleman: All right, yes. That is a cold word.

Krishnamurti: ( Our self-consciousness is?) cutting itself off when I consider myself as (all) important, with my ambition, with my frustrations, with my anger, with my sexuality, my growth...

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

Krishnamurti: It is ( an inner space of self-) isolation. My relation with you is the image of that isolation, which is that space. Now ( the 64,000 $ question ?) is : Is there an (inner) space of a totally different dimension? That is 'the' question ! So ( experientially-wise?) is it possible to be free of the ( identification with this thought controlling ?) centre, so that the centre doesn't ( have to) create ( a 'known'?) ) space round itself and build a wall ( of self-isonation) and call that ( 'intimate' inner ) space? Can that 'centre' cease to be? One's mind cannot go beyond this ( self-created ) limitation unless that centre goes.

Needleman: Yes, I see what you mean.

Krishnamurti: So, what is that (self-protective?) 'centre'? That centre is the 'me', the ( knowledgeable ?) 'observer', the ( opportunistic?) 'thinker', the ( consummate?) experiencer, and this centre is also ( subliminally separating itself from?)?) the 'observed'. So there is ( a buffering ?) 'space' between the observer and the observed - right sir?

Needleman: Yes, I see that.

Krishnamurti: And that space it tries to bridge over. It says, "This must be changed, that must not be, I must be better than that." That is the ( constantly interacting?) movement between the 'observer' and the (outer things which are being ) 'observed'.

Needleman: I can follow that, yes...

Krishnamurti: And hence ( a becoming ?) 'conflict' between the observer and the observed. Now (as a 'meditative' option ?) can the 'observer' (also known as?) the 'thinker', the 'knower', the 'experiencer' - can this ( mental) centre be still?

Needleman: Why should it wish to be still ?

Krishnamurti: If it is not 'still', one's available inner space is always ( self-) limited.

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

Krishnamurti: You can see it now (if you take the necessary quality time ?) to look at it ( and see that) where there is a ( self-conscious?) 'centre' it must have a ( buffering ?) space round itself.

Needleman: Yes, I follow...

Krishnamurti: And when it observes , it observes through ( the screen of its own mental ? ) space. When I observe those ( Malibu ?) mountains there is a space (a psychological 'distance'?) between me and the mountains. And when I observe myself ( inwardly) there is (also a distance ) between me and the things I observed in myself. The same thing happens when I observe my wife : I observe her from the centre's 'image' (or past memories?) about her, and she observes me with the image ( or personal memories?) which she has about me. So there is always an ongoing self- division and ( its resulting psychological distance ?) .

Needleman: Now, without changing the subject entirely, there is something ( in mankind's spiritual experience?) called the (sense of the ) 'Sacred'. Sacred teachings, sacred ideas, 'the' Sacred, - which seems to show me that this 'centre' and this '( self-dividing inner) 'space' you speak about is an illusion.

Krishnamurti: We will ( eventually?) find out what is Sacred. But one can only find it out when one's mind has immense (inner?) space. And when the ( subliminal identification with the ?) 'centre' is (suspended or ) not in operation, then there is a vast space. In that ( inwardly open?) space, which is an (intrinsical) part of any authentic Meditation, there is something immeasurably Sacred - which you'll never find out if there is the (self-conscious ?) 'centre' (is active) .
So our real ( experiential) concern is this: whether ( the psychological content of ) that 'centre' can be completely 'emptied' ? That centre is (the core of our everyday self-) consciousness. That centre 'is' the ( active memory ?) content of one's consciousness and there is no self- consciousness if there is no (active memory?) content. You must work this out ( as meditation homework?)

Needleman: Certainly what we ordinarily mean by it, yes...

Krishnamurti: There is no house if there are no walls and no roof . Without this ( self-limiting ?) content, where is ( the self- ) consciousness?

Needleman: I can follow a little bit of what you're saying , but what is the important thing that you're trying to convey here ?

Krishnamurti: I'll put that question after I have ( done my meditative homework and?) found out whether the mind can be empty of the content.

Needleman: All right...

Krishnamurti: Then there is 'something else' ( like a 'holistic consciousness'?) that will operate, which will function even within the field of the known. But without finding 'that' (experientially) ...

Needleman: What you just said is (making it more) clear.

Krishnamurti: So may I proceed a little bit? Let's begin. (A silent inner) 'space' is between two thoughts, between two periods (sequences of psychological ) time, because thought is ( projecting its own continuity in?) time. Yes?

Needleman: All right, yes...

Krishnamurti: Then there is the (buffering mental ?) space round the 'centre', and the space beyond the self, beyond the 'wall' of the centre. The 'space' (psychological distance ?) between the observer and the observed, the space between the observer and ( the image that thought has created of) my wife, and the (psychological distance created by the ) image which she has about me, the ( psychological?) space. You follow, sir?

Needleman: Yes.

Krishnamurti: All that is ( instinctively?) manufactured by the centre (of self-interest) . To speculate what is beyond all that it has no meaning to me personally, it's the philosopher's amusement.

Needleman: The 'philosopher's amusement', I agree...

Krishnamurti: I am not interested.

Needleman: I am not interested either (at my better moments) but nevertheless...

Krishnamurti: I am sorry, I forgot you are a (professional ) philosopher...

Needleman: No, why should you (bother to) remember that!

Krishnamurti: So my (first 'Meditation 101' ?) question is: can the centre be still, or can the (instinctual identification with that) centre fade away? Because if it doesn't fade away, or lie very quiet, then the ( active memory) 'content' of one's consciousness is going to create (a virtual image of the ) space within consciousness and call it the vast space. In this lies ( a potential for self-) deception ; so can that 'centre' be absorbed? Which means, can there be no (self) image, because it is the image that separates? That (thinking self-) image talks about love, but the love of the image is not Love. Therefore I must find out whether the centre can be completely absorbed, dissolved, or (stay put?) as a vague fragment in the distance. If there is no possibility of that, then I ( implicitly ) accept ( the self-created inner) prison.

Needleman: I agree. Now regarding ( the implementation of) this possibility that you are speaking about, without searching for it consciously, something suddenly shows me it is possible.

Krishnamurti: It is there! But my life ( experience) has shown me only that when I look at that mountain there is an image in me; when I look at my wife I see that there is an image in me. That is a fact.
It isn't that I have to wait for another ten years to find out (all about that) beastly little (self-) image! I know it is there, therefore I say: "Is it possible to look (inwardly & outwardly) without the (interference of my self-) image?

Needleman: I am beginning to see the answer to my question. I am beginning to see that there is no distinction between humanism and sacred teachings. There is just truth, or not truth.

Krishnamurti: That's all. False and true.

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

Krishnamurti: So, (in the context of the 'meditator-free' Meditation ?) the (subliminal identification with the ) content of one's consciousness makes up (the self-)consciousness, obviously, without this (residual) content there is no (ego-centric ) consciousness, that's an absolute fact.

Needleman: All right, yes...

Krishnamurti: Without the four walls and a roof there is no 'house'. Can the (newly awakened ? ) consciousness empty itself of its content? Not 'somebody else' do it.

Needleman: That is the ( 64,000 $) question, yes...

Krishnamurti: Can the consciousness empty itself of all this content? First see the (holistic ?) beauty of it, sir.

Needleman: I see it...

Krishnamurti: And it must empty itself without ( the 'center' making ) a (good will?) effort. The moment there is an effort, there is an observer who is making the effort to change the content, which is ( only creating a collateral conflict which is ?) part of ( the same self-) consciousness. I don't know if you see that?

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

Krishnamurti: It must be without an 'agent' who is operating on it, whether an outside agent, or an inner agent. Now can this be done without any effort, any directive, which says, "I will change the content"? This means the emptying of consciousness of all (self-centred desire ) 'to be' or 'not to be'...
Can the (meditating ?) mind, with all its (karmic residual?) content, empty itself and yet remain (a totally stable) mind, not just float about?

Needleman: There is kind of subtle...

Krishnamurti: I have just put the (64,000$) question. And my ( first honest) answer is: I really don't know.

Needleman: That is the actual truth.

Krishnamurti: But I am going to find out (ASAP?) . The (residual) content of my consciousness is my (personal) unhappiness, my misery, my struggle, my sorrow, the images which I have collected through life, the frustrations, the pleasures, the fear, my gods... Can all that (psychological content) be completely emptied? Not only at the superficial level but right through the 'unconscious'. If it is not possible, then I must live in an unending ( existential ?) sorrow. Therefore the (prospective meditating ) mind must find out how to empty itself of all the content of itself, and yet live in this world with a brain that functions efficiently. Now how is this (very tricky thing?) to be done?

Needleman: (How indeed?)

Krishnamurti: This is (the experiential purpose of) real meditation : To see whether the (holistic intelligence of the?) mind can see the ( subtle) relationship between the emptying of consciousness and the thing called Love; the love (energy of ? ) the unknown, ( the 'known', being the existing content of one's ) consciousness.

Needleman: There must be this relationship.

Krishnamurti: The two must be in harmony. The 'emptying' (of the psychological content of the 'known'?) and ( the intelligence of?) Love must be in harmony. And ( further down the line?) it may be only ( the Compassionate Intelligence of?) Love that is necessary and nothing else.

Needleman: The 'emptying' is just another word for ( the intelligent action of?) Love, is that what you are saying ?

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

Needleman: No, it couldn't be.

Krishnamurti: Don't ever (start by saying) say 'yes' or 'no'; find out! What is Love? I really don't know. But there is some (holistic) factor in this : whether the 'emptying' of consciousness with its content is (allowing the coming into being of ) Love, which is the Unknown? What is the relationship between the Unknown, which may be called love, and the content of consciousness, which is the 'known' ? ( Hint : I may be unconscious of all of it, but one can open it up and find out (experientially or ?) non-analytically) what is the (working) relationship between the known and the unknown? To move freely between the known and the unknown in harmony, is (the very action of) intelligence, isn't it?

Needleman: Absolutely.

Krishnamurti: So the (meditating) mind must find out how to empty its content. That is, have no (self-) image, therefore no 'observer'. Can there be no formation of (self-protective) images at all? You hurt me, or you give me pleasure and therefore I have an 'image' of you.

Needleman: Is it possible (for this to be done in real time?) ?

Krishnamurti: Of course it is. For starters?) Isn' it possible when you insult me to be completely watchful, attentive, so that it doesn't leave a (psychological) mark?

Needleman: I know what you mean...

Krishnamurti: So the ( holistically friendly?) mind can do it: which is, no creating (psychologically loaded ?) 'images' at all. If you don't form an image now, the past images have no place.

Needleman: I couldn't follow the logic step of that – it just sounds beyond my grasp - You said that if I don't form an image now...?

Krishnamurti: ... the past images have no place. If you form a (psychologically loaded?) image, then 'you' ( who created it?) , are (subliminally) related to it.

Needleman: You are ( subliminally?) connected to all your past images. That is right.

Krishnamurti: But if you don't form any?

Needleman: Then you are free from the ( karmic residues of the?) past.

Krishnamurti: See it! See it!

Needleman: Very clear.

Krishnamurti: So the mind can ( start ) emptying itself of ( all its past ) images by not forming an 'image' now. So there is ( a free inner) space, not ( the mental) space round the centre. And ( further down the line of meditation?) if one delves, goes into it much further, then there is something sacred, obviously, not invented by thought, which has nothing to do with any (organised ) religion.

Needleman: Very clear. I have another (bonus personal ?) question which I wanted to ask you. Aren't there some authenti spiritual traditions transmitted from generation to generation which are valuable and necessary, and without which we would lose even the little humanity that we now have?

Krishnamurti: Is Goodness a factor (that can be handed down to the next generations by our cultural ) traditions?

Needleman: No, but perhaps there are (some holistically friendly?) traditions.

Krishnamurti: A good tradition, among the Brahmin community in India used to be not to kill any human being or animal. They accepted it (as a way of life), and functioned (accordingly) . But we are asking : can ( the living spirit of?) Goodness blossom in the context of an organised tradition?

Needleman: Aren't there ( spiritual) traditions which are formed by an intelligence either single, or collective, which are helpful in better understanding the true human nature?

Krishnamurti: Is intelligence traditional?

Needleman: I know that this is a 'self-initiating' thing that you speak of but are there not men of great intelligence who can shape the external conditions for me, so that I will not have quite as difficult a time to come to (realising the same inner truths ) that you have seen?

Krishnamurti: That means what, sir? Suppose you are the great person of tremendous intelligence and you say, "My dear son, live this way." Or you convey it by your your atmosphere, your aura, and then I say, "I'll try it. He has got it, I haven't got it." Can my (aspiration for) goodness flower in your ( holy?) ambience? Can goodness grow under your ( enlightened) shadow?

Needleman: I didn't mean that. I was asking, are there ( better human) environments which can be conducive to liberation?

Krishnamurti: : So what does the man who is Intelligent, who is concerned with changing the environment, do for that man?

Needleman: Perhaps, in the first place, he is changing the environment for himself . But he also understands something about man in general. I am talking now about a great (Spiritual) Teacher who presents a way of life to us which we don't understand, which we haven't verified ourselves, but which somehow acts (subliminally) on something within me to 'bring me together' a little.

Krishnamurti: That is Sat-Sun – living in the company of the Good. It is nice to be in the company of the good because we won't then quarrel, we won't fight each other, we won't be violent; it is good.

Needleman: All right. But maybe being in the company of the good I'll understand myself better.

Krishnamurti: So you want the 'Company of the Good' in order to see yourself more clearly?

Needleman: Yes...

Krishnamurti: Which means you depend on the outer environment to see yourself ?

Needleman: Well perhaps in the beginning.

Krishnamurti: ( In terms of one's spiritual awakening?) the beginning is 'the first step and the last step'.

Needleman: I don't agree.

Krishnamurti: If I am 'good' I don't ( really) need them. But when I am not 'good' (or inwardly integrated?) and come into their presence, then I can see myself more clearly. Then they ( the 'good people's community & helping with the daily chores?) become important, not my 'goodness'. This happens every day (in the 'new age' communities) .

Needleman: But it may happen that I do need ( to live in the presence of) this ( enlightened) man, maybe from the beginning.

Krishnamurti: I am going to 'question' it ( from the enlightened person's point of view?). First of all, if I am 'good' I don't need them. I am (as time-free as ) like those hills and birds, I don't need them.

Needleman: Right. We can rule out that case .

Krishnamurti: When I am not good I (sincerely think that) need their (holistic) company, because in their company I can feel a breath of (spiritual) freshness.

Needleman: Or (in what ) bad (inner shape ?) I am.

Krishnamurti: (If?) I am comparing myself with them.

Needleman: No, not always. (In their enlightened presence?) I can expose the image I have of myself as a lie.

Krishnamurti: If I need them (for that purpose) I will for ever hang on to them. This has happened since human relationships began.

Needleman: Yes, but I may hang on to them only for a while and then I 'right'(en) it.

Krishnamurti: Therefore why don't you, the 'good' man, tell me: "Look, you don't need me. Begin watching yourself clearly right now ."

Needleman: Maybe if I told you that, you would take it utterly wrongly and miss the whole thing completely!

Krishnamurti: Then what shall I do? Go on hanging onto you, run after you?

Needleman: Not what shall you do (genrally) , but 'What would you actually do?'

Krishnamurti: What people generally do is run after him and hold on to his skirts.

Needleman: But that is perhaps because the teacher is not ( really awakened & ) intelligent.

Krishnamurti: No. He says, "Look, I can't teach you my friend, I have nothing to teach you. You can learn from yourself."

Needleman: Yes, all right. Suppose he says that.

Krishnamurti: Yes, he says ''learn from yourself''. That means you, being good, are inviting me to look at myself (and in order to help it happen ?) you are pushing me in a corner so that I can't escape.

Needleman: I see what you are saying.

Krishnamurti: That means what? ( My psychological condition is that?) I depend. He has told me one thing: "Don't depend on me or on anybody, your wife, husband, daughter, politician, don't depend." That's all (he had to tell me?) . He goes away. He leaves me with that. What shall I do?

Needleman: Find out if he is right.

Krishnamurti: But I do depend.

Needleman: That's what I meant...

Krishnamurti: So I have to find out, I have to see the truth and the false. I have to see it. That ( freedom fom psycho-dependency?) doesn't depend on anybody. Even the 'company of the good' doesn't teach me what is good and what is false, or true. I have to see it for myself.

Needleman: Absolutely.

Krishnamurti: So I don't (have to?) depend on anybody to find what is true and what is false.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 Aug 2018 #59
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K SEMINAR MADRAS 'INSIGHTS INTO INNER REGENERATION' ('experientially friendly' edited)


K: One has to ask ( for starters ?) what is one's consciousness made up of, what is its ( active) 'content'? Apparently, in that consciousness there is a deep crisis. I would like to ask, (a) is one aware of it ? (b) what is the origin of thought (aka : the self-centred thinking? ( c) What is ( the psychological content of this ) consciousness? Without this content there is a totally different dimension, but one can only come upon that ( holistic dimension of?) consciousness when the 'content' is wiped away. So one has to be clear that we are taking up one's own consciousness and investigate into it. That is the ( K?) challenge.

P.J.: Isn't it also a question of what are the proper instruments for ( holistic?) learning ? The deep-seated instruments of 'knowing' are seeing, listening, feeling and learning. The probing into the significance of these instruments itself may throw some light not only on the nature of the instruments but also on the manner in which these instruments have been perverted to block their real function.

K: (For experiential purposes ?) would you agree that instead of using the term 'consciousness' as a ( fixed meaning ) noun, we use it ( to describe?) the (inner) movement of ( thought constantly projecting itself in?) time?
So, what is the beginning of thought? How does it come into existence? There is perception, sensation, contact, then thought and the 'imagination' (the 'image making'?) involved in that.

P.J.: Is not thought the reaction to challenge?

K: Yes. The memory reacts.

R.B.: But for thought to be aware of itself as a ( psychological) trap, is it really necessary to see ( inwardly ?) the origin of thought?

K: Yes. Then you ( would) only register that which is absolutely necessary and not the 'psychologically ( biased' mental?) structures. Why should I register your flattery or your insult (if I see the truth that?) such registration emphasizes the ego ?

S.P.: What is that state of mind in which registration does not take place?

K: Is it a theoretical question ?

S.P.: No. It is an actual problem. Otherwise one is in a trap. There is (always some psychological ?) memory responding, and ( still more of psychological ?) memory itself is registered even before I am aware of it .

K: Then you are acting ( mechanically) on reward and punishment.

R.B.: Registering by long habit is so 'instantaneous'. How can we learn to slow down the whole process?

K: Have you ever tried writing down objectively every thought ? Then you will find that you can slow down (the movement of) thought tremendously.
My question is : why do we (have to?) register the 'psychologically' ( related incidents?) at all? Is it possible to register only that which is absolutely, necessary ( on the physical level) and not build up the psyche through registration?

I.I.: By becoming older and working at it, one can cut down on this kind of ( ego-centric) registration.

K: That means it is a 'slow process'. I object to that.

I.I.: That's all I know. Sometimes one has the experience of a flash, lifting you to another level, being transformed, even like a phoenix from the ashes.

K: Is it possible to accelerate the 'non-registering' process that does not depend upon age, circumstances, environment, poverty, riches, culture? Can one see, have an insight into, the whole question of registration and end it (ASAP?) psychologically?

I.I.: It seems to me that there are several 'schools of thought' and I would imagine that these offer us a ladder. Some ladders are too short for the level which some people have to reach, while others are so long that we can jump off the ladder earlier than the ladder ends. For many people they are rather useful in the beginning. I can even imagine that they are useful in many instances - wisdom not to choose, not to search, during their whole life for the best ladder but to take one which does the job which luckily I have at my disposal.

K: But I question whether it is a gradual movement.

I.I.: My school, my institution, my language, say to me the development of the gifts of the spirit are like the riverside of this struggle for virtue. At certain moments we must struggle, practise what you spoke of as virtue. But moments come in when suddenly a bubble comes and I am lifted out of my 'yesterday' as if for ever. That does not mean my life must go on in the same direction to struggle again, but I do go back. I do know that there are some schools of thought, perhaps equally consistent, useful, for others where this will be considered very differently.

K: If I may say so sir, ( in these Teachings) there are no ( such) schools. If one sees clearly, has an insight into the 'psychological futility' of registration, realizes it, it is finished. It is as thought if you see danger, a precipice, it is over. In the same way, if one profoundly sees the danger of psychological registration, then the thing is finished.

I.I.: Is it not possible that for some people 'enlightenment' comes in several ways? The Arabs have seven words for seven ( intermediary) states, while for others it 'comes bang' like sunrise, the sun comes out and there it is.

K: I don't think it is a matter for the few or for the many. How do you listen? You tell me there are schools, degrees and I accept that. And another comes along and tells me it is not at all like that and I reject it because of my (previous cultural) conditioning. Whereas, if I listened to him and to you, I can see with clarity that in the very act of listening, I have understood the (true or false?) implications of both statements. Do you understand? The listening itself frees me from both of you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Aug 2018 #60
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 279 posts in this forum Offline

The redeeming role of the 'self-knowing' Meditation in the deeper context of Inner Regeneration

2nd K seminar Madras 1978 ( experientially-friendly edited)

P.J.: Could we discuss ( the nature of inner ) regeneration and - if it is essential to man and society - what is the place of self-knowing in this whole field?

K: I don't know what you mean by 'regeneration' - to be made anew, made afresh? We are talking about the (holistic) transformation of ( the consiousness of?) man, the ending of his ( existential ?) anxiety and of a whole way of life which is ( inwardly ) ugly - and out of this ending, a new thing being born. Is that what we mean by regeneration? If that is so, what is the relationship between (thinking in the field of?) knowledge and this ( inner) regeneration? Can our (vast accumulation of outward experience & ) knowledge bring about ( an inner) regeneration? Then there is the understanding of oneself, the 'Know Thyself'. The Hindus & the Greeks have said it, the Buddhists have said it in a different way, all religions have said it. Is 'knowing oneself ' besed on the same additive process ?
As Dr. Ivan Illich ( wisely?) pointed out yesterday, 'I have (some ) knowledge of you but I don't ( really) know you.' I have knowledge in the sense that I have met you before, but can I ever 'know' you? In the same way, can I know myself fundamentally, irrevocably?

R.B.: What do you mean 'irrevocably'?

K: A tree is a tree; it is irrevocable. A pear tree does not become an apple tree.

A.P.: This is where my difficulty arises. Even with regard to knowing oneself, ( the recognising & ) verbalizing (what is being observed inwardly) has a very important place. If that is taken away, will we have the capacity to know anything?

I.I.: I am asking the same question.The insight which comes in a flash and can be interpreted logically later on, can be referred to in words; is that 'knowledge' in your terminology?

A.P.: The channel of insight may be non-verbal but our normal movement is perceiving and naming, and with naming comes recognition and what we call knowledge. So, actually, naming plays a preponderant part in knowledge. Self-knowledge may be in the field of insight.

K: Are you asking if there is no verbalization, whether the ( psychological structure of the?) 'me' exists at all? I would say if verbalization does not exist, the (self-conscious?) 'me', the 'ego', ceases, comes to an end. Can there be an inner awareness that the word is not the ( actual) thing (which it is supposed to be describing) ? Obviously, the word 'tree' is not the actual fact. So ( in the context of our inward observation) if there is no verbalization, then what is the 'fact', what remains? Is it still the ( same solid ) self (-consciousness?) ?

G.N.: There are forms of knowledge akin to insight and some forms of insight which cannot be converted into knowledge through the ( knowledgeable) additive process. Some types of knowledge have the taste of insight but they are soon gettng reduced to ( intellectual) knowledge.

K.: We will (hopefully?) come to a different kind of knowledge presently. But do we all agree on the ( experiential) meaning of 'regeneration' , in the sense that something 'new' is born out of it?
Now, is 'knowing oneself' (in real time?) the central factor of ( inner) regeneration? If that is so, then how am I to know myself if there is no verbalization ? Take a violent reaction - if I don't use the word (anger, greed, etc ) what remains?
Sir, why do I to verbalize it? ( One reason for which?) I verbalize my feeling for you because I want to communicate to you.

A.P.: Also with myself. That is the big ( intellectual's ) trap. Suppose I see somebody in pain, I can express that intellectually ( to communicate with others ) but without feeling any (authentic) compassion in my heart. As a result , I live (& surf unconsciously ?) on words. Therefore, words are both my biggest ( psychological) protection as well as a (very efficient) barrier to self-knowledge. Unless I am able to deal with ( the self-protective screen created by ) words, I cannot move (inwardly) .( Hint : ) The human brain is constantly storing ( processing & recycling?) verbal images, creates images, symbols, etc.

K: Does it mean all our daily relationships between two human beings are based on words, images, ( mental?) pictures? Now we are asking, how is man to regenerate himself ( inwardly) without any cause, without any motive, without any influence of his social, political, moral, or religious environment ? What do you say, Dr. Ivan Illich?

I.I.: I would like to ask you a question. Are words also part of the ( cultural) environment?

K: Yes. The words are (part of our cultural) environment and they do influence my thinking. The language itself is affecting my (waking consciousness) and it may be a barrier between you and me.

I.I.: Like anything it can ( create or?) destroy ( the relationship between) two people.

K: So, realizing that language can also become a barrier ( for knowing myself) I cut it out. It is finished. I use it only to communicate (the real facts of life) .

I.I.: Is there anything within me which has not been affected by language ? Isn't there a point somewhere in me which the environment has not touched?

K: The (ancient) Hindus said there is 'something' ( in our original consciousness?) which is not shaped, moulded, contaminated, pressurized by the environment. As a ( knowledgeable ) Hindu scholar, a pundit - what would be your answer?

P.K.S.: Those parts ( of our consciousness) which are affected by language, etc. are only the temporal 'me'. I think that 'something' exists there prior to the environment affecting it.

K: So you are saying that there is in 'me', in my existence, in my life, an uncontaminated, unshaped state.

P.J.: How do we explore ( the truth or the falseness of?) this  statement ?

K: May I put it differently? I don't even ask that question, 'Is there something in me which is not shaped by the environment?' Unless a human being finds (in himself) the Springs of (this spiritual) regeneration the New is not possible. Regeneration is possible only when the influences from the outside or the influences which I am creating as a reaction, come to an end. Then I can answer it (experientially) . Until then I can only speculate.
So I begin by seeing that there is an absolutely necessary as a ( holistically responsible?) human being to bring about a ( qualitative) revolution in the whole structure ( our shared consciousness?) . So when I use the words 'know thyself', I also see that knowledge, when ( glibly?) verbalized, may be the cause which prevents me from enquiring deeply into myself. Knowing oneself may not be accumulative at all. So I ask, can my brain, my mind, my whole ( psychical?) structure, be free of words?

A.P.: Verbalization is the quintessence of knowing.

K: Can I use the (factual) 'knowledge' where necessary and in my ( meditative?) enquiry be free of the word?

S.P.: Are you saying there is a possibility of inward enquiry without using words?

K: That's it. . So we came to the ( inner check-) point where I don't know the substratum, the ( psychological) foundation on which 'I am'. I won't pre-suppose anything; I won't accept any authority including my own hope. So ( the emphasis falls on :) 'how am I to enquire into myself', not on 'how to have a wider knowledge of myself'

P.J.: Could you explain a little mor'e the (experiential) distinction between ( gathering lots of ) knowledge abut myself and 'knowing myself' ( in real time ) ?

K: I can gather ( lots of accumulated?) knowledge about myself through the observation of my reactions, my feelings, through my responses to another in my everyday relationships. I have been jealous, sensuous, angry. These are all reactions, but all that I 'know' (about them) is based on verbalization. When I say 'I have been jealous'; the very word 'jealousy', with all its (load of cultural) connotations prevents ( the direct?) observation of that feeling which I have previously named as jealousy. So is it possible to observe it without ( using) that word? Can there be only the (direct observation of that) feeling without the word, the word being the ( conditioning influence of my cultural) environment?
So now there is only the feeling, but in ( the background of ) this feeling is ( lurking ? ) the 'observer'. So, there is a ( subliminal) division (between the 'observer' entity and the feeling which is being observed . Now, is the 'observer' different from the observed? ( As a simple 'rule of thumb'?) in observing myself so long as the word is associated with the thing I am observing, it distorts the observation. So, can there be only observation without identification with the word? If yes , we remove altogether all inner division as the 'conflict of the opposites'.
Therefore, when observation is not verbal we eliminate one of the traditional factors (of duality) that this (observer-observed) division brings about - 'me' and 'jealousy' - and, therefore there is only ( a pure) observation.

A.P.: I have not come to that.

K: ( Because?) you have not wiped out the word.

P.J.: How does one 'wipe out the word' ?

K: I realize the ( elementary truth that?) ''the word is not the thing''. That is a deep ( step in self-) understanding. Therefore, I am ( the inward observation is?) not caught in the (cultural connotations of the?) word. I cannot wipe it out; words are necessary to communicate. But I am saying ( the mechanical habit of verbalisation?) falls away when one sees ( the inner truth that?) the observer 'is' (not actually separated from) the 'observed', the thinker 'is' the thought, the experiencer 'is' the experienced. ( The dualistic ?) 'division' comes to an end totally and, therefore, ( the subliminally generated inner) conflict comes to an end.

A.P.: It is like the halting of the red traffic light. The verbal communication stops like a traffic light, but (on green?) it comes back again.

K: Are you saying, I see this for an instant but then I am back again in the old grooves?

R.B.: Can we put it another way? You mentioned jealousy. There may be a movement of jealousy, and if one watches it without the word, at that moment there is an abeyance of that thing. In self-knowing, there is not only the movement of jealousy but of an enormous (residual ) content (of self-interest?) which has been built up (through a long evolution in time) . How is one to catch the 'whole thing' without the word?

K: Do you realize, (the actual inwardness of the truth?) that ''the word is not the thing''?

R.B.: I do realize it at certain moments.

K: That is not ( a full?) realization. It is like seeing the actual danger of a bus hurtling down on you.

R.B.: We are all conditioned to mix the two. It is a longstanding thing. But I can at this moment I can say that 'the word is not the thing'.

K: No, it is an 'eternal truth' ! And if that is so, and the word 'jealousy' is not the ( actual inner ) state, can't we look at ( this self-centred reaction of?) jealousy without the word? Without all the association of the word? Look at it as though you were looking at it for the first time and not bring in all the ( cultural) associations connected with it? That requires a great (inner) alertness & awareness. It has its own extraordinary discipline, it is uninfluenced.
( To recap:) We were concerned with the regeneration (of human consciousness?) - whether a ( holistically inclined?) human being, without ( the pressure of) outside influence, can bring about this extraordinary quality of regeneration in his brain, his mind, his feeling ?
To understand that deeply, you must 'know yourself' (in real time?) . So I ask, can I observe myself without the ( psychological background of the ) words, language, knowledge or recognition? ( EG:) Suppose the ( gut?) feeling of 'jealousy' just arises. ( In order to keep it under control?) there is an instant verbalizing reaction of that feeling, which means I have brought into it the 'remembrance' of that which has happened before and so I recognise it as 'jealousy' .
(On the other hand?) if there is no ( such verbal ) recognition, then it (the gut feeling?) is ( seen as ) something ( entirely) new and that is the ( experiential ?) beginning of regeneration. (QED?)

A.P.: As I notice in ( my own inner ) observing, the arising of recognition through the word, the word is giving ( temporal) stability to what is being observing.

R.B.: But Krishnaji is saying that if there is no recognition (the interference of one's past?) memory is eliminated and, therefore, the new ( perception) is there.

K: ( In a nutshell:) How am I to know myself, observe what I am? Do I bring into that (inward) observation ( the psychological burden of my) past memories, the hurts, the remembrances, and with those memories look at myself? That is my point. If I bring in these memories, then I am not looking, ( my personal & collective ?) memories are looking, and ( these self-identified psycho-) memories are in action.
Therefore, can there be an 'abeyance', can ( the earnest mind?) put those memories aside and observe? That may be the factor of regeneration because in that observation there is a breaking away from the ( subliminal continuance of the?) past.

S.P.: Once for all?

K: That is greed ! L
( To re-recap) I want to know myself because I realise that otherwise I have no foundation for anything. I know the ( cultural) limitation of words. . So if I don't use those ( culturally loaded) words Is there an observation of the movement of the 'self' (of the 'self- consciousness'?) without the word, without recognition, without the previous ( memories of similar) experiences - which in observation distorts ( the insightful understanding of?) what is happening?

I.I.: Right now I can put the 'word' (the process of 'verbal recognition') in abeyance. But at times I do need 'crutches'.

K: The moment you say 'I need crutches', you will ( probably) need them...
Achyutji, you were speaking of ( simili with the) the 'red traffic light' that stops you for the moment. Can all the ( mental trafic of the?) 'past' stop? But its ( momentum?) is so strong that it comes back. Dr. Illich also says the same thing, that he needs crutches at moments.
So at the end of this ( experiential discussion on self-knowledge ?) , where am I?
I can ( personally & ?) honestly say that there is 'nothing' - which means not a single movement of (the self-centred activity of ?) thought. So there is an ending, a stopping, to thought. There is not-a-thing. On this ( inwardly being 'as) nothing', everything is. Therefore this is the Real.
So I have found a key to regeneration, the key being emptying the mind of all the past which is knowledge, the limitations of knowing, feelings and the content of my feelings. Would you call this ( the redeeming action of?) Meditation?

I.I.: When I am doing it, yes.

K: Is that 'doing it' progressive or immediate?

I.I.: It seems to be immediate.

K: That is right, keep it there.

I.I.: But I agree there is a temptation to make it progressive, to transform it again into something you want (to achieve on a longer term) .

K: One of our ( major ) difficulties is that we see all this intellectually and then make a (very convenient & lucrative) abstraction of it, which is a (crystallised) conclusion, and then try to work ( it all out) from ( the mental platform of ) that 'conclusion'. Have I really understood deeply the (subtle) limitations of knowledge, knowledge meaning institutions, systems, everything?
I would like to ask you, is there a regeneration taking place? Have you captured it, tasted it, has it a perfume? Have I got it? If we have not, then are we merely ( indulging in?) ploughing in sand and never sowing?

I.I.: When you asked the question, 'Is there a regeneration going on ?', I wanted to answer! (But all I can say now is that?) I listen very attentively to the crow up there on the tree.

K. Yes sir. I have also been listening to it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 68 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)