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

K The essential Texts


Displaying posts 31 - 47 of 47 in total
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #31
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

EASY EXPERIENTIAL STEPS TOWARDS THE HOLISTIC TRANSFORMATION OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS

( first 'experientially -friendly' K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG cca 1976)

Krishnamurti: What do you think is the most important thing that we three can talk about?

Dr. Bohm: Well, I would like to talk about the question of 'wholeness' (of our inner life?)

K: I wonder how we can approach this question knowing that most people are ( self-centred ?) 'fragmented' and not (inwardly?) whole.

S: Through direct awareness of ( one's own inner?) fragmentation ?

K: Or by taking ourselves as we are and examining what we mean by a 'fragmented' (consciousness ) and then ( experientially?) work from there to what is the 'whole' (of human consciousness?) ? Then I think that has vitality, that has some ( holistic) meaning.
( For starters?) Can one become conscious of these various fragments, by examining one by one by one by one? And who is the examiner? Is he not also a ( thought-controlling?) fragment who has assumed an authority? So when we talk about being aware of fragments, socially, morally, ethically, religiously - business, art, you know, the whole human activity is fragmented. Can one (become) aware of the actual 'movement' (of the inward dynamic ? ) of these fragments ?

B: Generally, they presents themselves first as one fragment with a background of all the other fragments perhaps dimly present in it. I mean, in the beginning one fragment seems to take pre-eminence in one's awareness.

S: Isn't that one fragment fragments out quickly into many little fragments ? I mean, my identity is fragmented, my relationship is fragmented, my very substance of movement is a feeling of fragmentation.

K: I am not at all sure that there is no ( self-identified?) 'centre' when you are fragmented.

B: Right, definitely there is a 'centre'. That is the major 'fragment' that one is aware of.

S: Let us go into that more.

B: Well, I just think that there is a (thought-controlling?) centre which you may sense anywhere, say here, and that seems to be the 'centre' of everything that is connected to everything.

S: I see what you are saying, but I feel that when the fragmentation is going on it is like the centre is looking for itself, it feels like it has a centre.

K: Are you aware of this fragmentation? Not, (just saying intellectually that ?) 'fragmentation is going on'.

S: No, I am not.

K: Then what are we aware of?

S: I think we are aware of a movement ( directed) towards more fragmentation- it is like (the thought-driven thread of ) pleasure is pulling us forward into more fragments: this would give me pleasure, that would give me more pleasure. And it is that feeling of pieces.

K: Before we go into the question of ( the inward fragmentation produced by?) pleasure are we aware actually, from a (self-conscious?) centre, which ( glibly ) says, "I am fragmented"?

B: We are both aware 'of a centre', and 'from a centre'. And this ( self-conscious?) 'centre' seems to be, as you say, the fragment that is dominating, or constantly attempting to dominate.

K: That 'centre' is the dominating factor, but in itself it is a fragment ( of our total consciousness consciousness ?)

B: Well, it seems to be the 'centre' of your whole being, or as it were the centre of the self, which one might think is the whole (of one's inward being ) .

K: Quite, quite.

B: Because it is in ( a cvasi-permanent mental ) contact with everything...

K: Would you say having this 'centre' (of one's 'self'-identified consciousness ?) is the very cause of fragmentation?

B: Yes, I would say that, although at first sight it seems that the centre is what is organizing everything into a whole.

K: Yes, always trying to bring about an inward integration, a sense of wholeness, and all that. But I am asking whether when there is a ( self-identified) centre doesn't it make for fragments?

S: I see what you are saying. But in the common experience there doesn't seem to be a centre.

K: Sir, when there are fragments, I am aware of the ( existence of) many other fragments because of (a state of inward conflict or ) contradiction.

B: By 'contradiction' you also mean 'conflict' ?

K: Conflict. Out of the contradiction ( between various personal & collective needs ?) there is conflict. Then I am aware that there are fragments. I am (a self-identified fragment?) working in an area of ( collateral?) fragments.

S: Yes, but I am not aware of the fact that I have got a 'centre'. That is the self deception, right there.

K: Where there is ( a personal) conflict then only you are aware of a conflict of contradiction. The next movement is the conflict arises out of fragmentation; opposing elements, opposing desires, opposing wishes, opposing thoughts.

B: Are you saying that these oppose first, before one is aware; and then suddenly you are aware through the unpleasantness or the pain of the opposition that the conflict is unpleasant?

K: Yes, conflict is unpleasant and therefore one is becoming aware that...

B: ...that something is wrong - not just simply wrong but wrong with the whole thing.

K: The whole thing, of course. You are aware of yourself only when there is pain, or intense pleasure. Otherwise you are not aware of yourself. So (a subliminal inner ) fragmentation with its ( collateral) conflicts brings this (pretty sad?) sense of 'I am aware I am in conflict' - otherwise there is no self-awareness.

B: Then would you say that ( one's self-centred) thought in itself, even before there is (a focussing into) a centre breeds conflict? I mean one view is to say that the 'centre' and thought are always co-existent and that one breeds the other ?

K: One breeds the other, quite.

B: And the other view is to say that there might be thought first and that produces conflict and then that produces a centre.

K: Let's go into that a little bit. Does thought (the thinking brain?) exists before conflict?

B: Yes, because that comes in apparently to try to bring about wholeness again,( in its attempt?) to take charge of everything.

K: The 'centre' tries to take charge, or tries to create ( the sense of an integrated) wholeness.

B: Yes, to bring all the factors together.

K: Yes, but ( ignoring that?) this (self-identified) 'centre' itself is a fragment.

B: Yes, but it doesn't know that.

K: Of course, it doesn't know but it ( like to ?) think that it can bring all the fragments together and make it a whole. So Dr Bohm is asking the (ages old 'chicken or the egg'?) question: did thought exist before the centre, or the centre existed before the thought.

B: Or are the two together?

S: But he is also asking: does thought create the centre?

K: Thought creates the centre.

S: That would be a sort of after effect of thought. In other words is the organism - is the production of thought the very cause of a centre?

K: Are we asking: did thought create the centre?

B: And was there a kind of thought (natural thinking) before a centre?
I mean people think the centre is 'me' who was there first and then I began to think!

K: Yes. I think 'thought' (brain's thinking capacity?) exists before the centre.

S: Yes, then we have to ask the question - what is thought?

K: Oh, that is a different matter. We will go into that (eventually?) .

B: That might be a long story...

S: OK, That's not for now. But we'll eventually have to get at that.

K: We started out asking: can we talk about the wholeness of life. How can one be aware of that wholeness if one is ( inwardly) fragmented? That is the next question. You can't be aware of the whole (of life) if I am only looking through a small ( personalised ?) hole.

S: Right. But on the other hand in actuality you 'are' the whole.

K: Ah! That is a (very convenient) theory. When you are fragmented how can you assume that you are the whole?

S: Well, that is an issue because how am I to know I am ( inwardly?) fragmented?

K: When are you aware that you are fragmented? Only when there is conflict.
When the two opposing desires, opposing elements of ( thought's) movement, then there is conflict, then you have pain, or whatever it is, and then you (suddenly?) become ( self-) conscious.
What we are asking ( for homework meditation?) is: can the fragment dissolve itself, and then only it is possible to see the whole. You cannot be fragmented and then wish for the whole.

S: Right. All you really know is your ( ongoing multilevel inner) fragmentation.

K: That is all we know, therefore let's stick to that and not beat round the bush and say, let's talk about the whole and all the rest of it.

B: So, the supposition that there is a whole may be reasonable but as long as you are fragmented you could never see it. It would be just an assumption. You may think you have experienced it once, but that is also an assumption, that is gone.

K: Absolutely. Quite right.

S: I wonder if there is not a tremendous ( existential) pain that goes on when I am becoming aware of my fragmentation. That is the (sense of your?) 'loneliness' somehow.

K: Look sir: can you become aware of your fragments? That you are an American, that I am a Hindu, you are a Jew or whatever, - you just live in that ( inner comfort zone?) . You don't say, "Well, I know I am a Hindu" - it is only when you are (feeling personally) challenged, it is only when it is said, "What are you?", then you say, "I am an Indian", or a Hindu, or an Arab.

B: Or, when your country is challenged then you have got to worry.

K: Of course.

S: So you are saying that ( inwardly?) I am living totally reactively ?

K: No, you are totally living in a kind of (psychological) miasma, confusion.

S: From one piece to the next, from one reaction to the next reaction.

K: Reward and punishment in that movement. So can we be aware, actually now, now, of the ( existence of the?) various fragments? That I am a Hindu, that I am a Jew, that I am an Arab, that I am a Communist, that I am a Catholic, that I am a businessman, I am married, I have responsibilities, I am an artist, I am a scientist -of all this various sociological fragmentation, As well as of my psychological fragmentation.

S: That is exactly what I started with. This feeling that I am a fragment, this feeling that that is where I get absorbed, being a fragment.

K: Which you call the individual(ity?) .

S: That I call 'important', not just my individuality . That I have to work (for earning a living?) .

K: Quite. So can we now in talking over together, be aware that I 'am' that? I am a fragment and therefore creating more fragments, more conflict, more misery, more confusion, more sorrow, because when there is ( an internal) conflict ( of interests?) it affects everything else.

S: Right....

K: Can you be aware of it ( in real time?) as we are discussing it ?

S: I can be aware as we are discussing it a little.

K: Not a little.

S: That's the trouble. Why can't I be ( fully?) aware of it?

K: Look sir. You are only aware of it when there is ( a major personal) conflict. It is not a conflict in you now.

B: But is it possible to become aware of it without conflict?

K: That requires quite a different approach.

B: How will we consider this different approach?

S: This movement (of seeking psychological security) into ( the field of) fragmentation seems to be caused by something. It seems to be...

K: Is this what you are asking: what is the cause of this fragmentation?

S: What is the cause of the fragmentation? When the child separates from the mother ?

K: Biologically.

S: No, but also psychologically. The child starts able to walk, and the child can walk away, then he runs back and then he runs back and he looks back, he says, is she still there. Gradually moves away. Now the mother that is not able to let go says, "Come back here".

K: Quite. But we are asking something very important, which is: what is the cause of this ( inner) fragmentation?

S: That is what I was getting into. It begins with ''I have got to hold on to something''.

K: No, much deeper than that...

S: Fear ?

K: No, no, much more. Why am I ( identifying myself as) a Hindu? What makes me a Hindu?

S: Well, ( your cultural) conditioning makes you a 'Hindu'.

K: But behind that, what is it?

S: Well that gives me a place, an identity, I know who I am then, I am. I have my little niche.

K: So what made you? The great great grandparent made, created this environment, this culture, this whole structure of human existence, with all its misery and with all the mess it is in, what has brought it about? Which is this (mentality of) fragmentation, all the conflict. The Babylonians, the Egyptians, we are exactly the same now.

K: Let's find out why man has bred, or brought about this ( divisive mentality?) state, which we ( blindly?) accept - gladly or unwillingly. Is it the desire for security, biological as well as psychological security?

S: You could say yes.

K: If I belong to something, to some organization, to some group, to some sect, to some ideological community, I am ( feeling) safe there.

B: You may only 'feel safe'...

K: But it may not be ( a real) safety.

B: Yes, and it is essential that I shouldn't enquire too far to feel secure, isn't it? In other words, I must stop my enquiry at a certain point.

K: If I begin to ask questions about my community and my relation to that community, my relationship to the world, my relation to my neighbour, I am finished. I am getting out of (touch with?) the community. I am feeling lost.

B: It is still not clear why I should go on with it. You see in other words as long as I don't ask questions I can feel comfortable. But I feel uncomfortable when I do ask questions, very deeply uncomfortable. Because my whole of my situation is challenged. But then if I look at it more broadly I see the whole thing has no foundation, it is all dangerous. In other words this community itself is in a mess, it may collapse. Everything is changing so fast that you don't know where you are. So why should I go on with not asking questions?

K: Why don't I ask questions? Because of fear. So is it the beginning of this ( our inward?) fragmentation takes place when one is seeking security - primarily psychologically, then physically.

B: But isn't the tendency to seek security physically built into the ( psychosomatic?) organism?

K: Yes, that's right. It is. And I must have food, clothes, shelter. It is absolutely necessary. (In a nutshell:) insecurity takes place when psychologically I want security. I don't know if I am making myself clear ; if I don't psychologically belong to a group, then I am out of that group.

S: Then I am really insecure.

K: And because the group gives me security, physical security, I accept everything they say to me. But the moment I object psychologically to the structure of the society or the community I am lost.
But we were asking: why does this fragmentation take place? What is the source of it? Is it ( our functioning exclusively in the field of?) knowledge?

S: What do you mean here by 'knowledge'?

K: Knowing, to 'know' is the ( processed & recycled memory of the ) past. Would you say that?

B: Yes, I mean what we know is the ( result of all mankind's ) past (experience) . So, if we acknowledge that what we 'know' is the past, then that would not introduce fragmentation ?

K: No, it wouldn't, quite right.

B: But if we say what we know is also present now, then we are introducing fragmentation - because we are imposing this partial knowledge on the whole.

K: Sir, would you say that knowledge is one of the factors of fragmentation? A large pill to swallow!

B: And also there are plenty of other factors.

K: Or, that may be the only factor.

B: Wouldn't it be better to say that the confusion about the role of knowledge is because of fragmentation?

K: Sir, that is what we said yesterday in our ( prep) talk; art is putting things in its right place. So I will put knowledge in its right place.

B: Yes, so we are not confused about it.

K: We are saying that knowledge has its right place. Like in driving a car, learning a language and so on. But when knowledge is used psychologically..

.
B: One should see more clearly what the difference is. When we say ''I am so and so'', I mean the whole of me. And therefore I am trying to cover the whole by the part.

K: When knowledge assumes it understands the whole then begins the mischief.

B: But it is often very tricky because I am not explicitly spelling out that I understand the whole, but it is implicit by saying I 'am' this way.

K: Quite, quite.

B: It implies that the whole is this way, you see. The whole of me, the whole of life, the whole of the world. Then I shouldn't say 'I know all' because you are not a limited part like a machine is. You see the machine is fairly limited and we can know all that is relevant about it, or most of it anyway. But when it comes to another person that is immensely beyond what you could really know. The past experience doesn't tell you the essence.

K: Are you saying, Dr Bohm, that when knowledge spills over into the psychological field...

B: Well, also in another field which I call the whole in general. You see sometimes it spills over into the philosophical field and man tries to make it metaphysical, the whole universe.

K: That is of course. I mean that is purely theoretical and that has no (experiential ) meaning to me personally.

B: Some people may feel that when they are discussing metaphysics of the whole universe that is not psychological - probably is the motives behind it are psychological- but some people may feel that they are making a theory of the universe, not discussing 'psychology'.

S: Well, what you are saying, can be extended to the way people are in real life . They have a 'metaphysics' about other people: ''I know all other people are not to be trusted''.

K: Of course.

B: Or you may have a metaphysics about yourself saying, I am such and such a person.

S: Right. I have a metaphysics that life is hopeless and I must depend on these things.

K: So, ( to recap:) I said, what is the source of this conflict. The source is fragmentation, obviously. What brings about fragmentation? What is the cause of it, behind it? We said, perhaps 'knowledge' – when I use knowledge 'psychologically', I know myself, when I really don't know, because I am changing, moving. So is it that fragmentation takes place when there is a desire for security, psychological security, which prevents biological security?

S: Right.

K: And therefore this ( illusory?) security may be one of the factors: security in knowledge used wrongly.

B: Or could you say that some sort of (honest?) mistake has been made, that man feels insecure biologically, and he tries to obtain a psychological sense of security by knowledge?

K: By knowledge, yes. One feels secure in having an ideal.

B: But somewhere one asks why a person makes this mistake. You see in other words if thought, if the mind had been absolutely clear, let's say, it would never have done that. Would you say if the man were clear, what would be his response?

K: You would never ( wait to) be put in that position.

B: But suppose he finds himself without money, you see.

K: He would do something...

B: But he won't go into this well of confusion.

K: No, absolutely. (To re-recap:) We are trying to stick to one point: what is the cause of this fragmentation? And we said knowledge spilling over into the field where it should not enter.

B: But why does it always do so ? Why doesn't ( one's natural) intelligence show that there is no security, you see?

K: Can a fragmented mind be ( holistically?) intelligent?

B: So, are you saying that once the mind fragments then the intelligence is gone?

K: Yes.

B: But now you are creating a serious problem, because you are also saying that there can be an end to this (inward) fragmentation.

K: That's right. Let's stick to it and see if it can end. Is our 'psychological' security more important than the biological security?

S: It isn't but it sounds like it is.

K: But what is the 'fact' to you?

S: Biological security is more important. But... I think psychological security is what I actually worry about most.

K: Psychological security.

S: That is what I worry about most.

K: Which prevents biological security. Because I am seeking psychological security, in ideas, in knowledge, in pictures, in images, in conclusions, and all the rest of it, which prevents me from having biological, physical security for me, for my son, for my children, for my brothers. I can't have it.

S: No question. I sit in on meetings every week. Each man thinks his territory is the most important.

K: So man has given more importance to psychological security than to biological, physical security.

B: But it is not clear why he should delude himself in this way.

S: Images, power ?

K: No, sir, they are much deeper. The 'me' is the most important thing - me my position, my happiness, my money, my house, my wife – me.

B: Yes. And isn't it that each person feels he is the essence of the whole. The 'me' is the very essence of the whole. I would feel that if the 'me' were gone the rest wouldn't mean anything.

K: That is the whole point. The 'me' gives me ( the illusion of?) complete security, psychologically.

B: It seems all important, because people say, ''if I am sad then the whole world has no meaning''. Right?

K: So, we are saying that in the 'me' is the greatest security.

B: That is what is happening. But it is still a delusion.

K: We will come to that later.

S: I think that is a good point. That the ( temporal continuity of the?) 'me' is what is important. That is all it is.

K: Psychologically. Me, my country, me, my god, my house, and so on.

S: It is very important to let that sink in, but we have got your point.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #32
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

2ND ( 'experientially-friendly' edited ) CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG ON THE HOLISTIC TRANSFORMATION OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS (1976)

Krishnamurti: Do we go on where we left off yesterday?

Dr Bohm: I felt there was a (major existential) point that wasn't entirely clear in what we were discussing yesterday : Which is that we rather accepted that security, psychological security was an illusion; but in general I don't think we made it very clear why we think it is a delusion. You see most people feel that their 'psychological' security is a very real thing and quite necessary and when it is disturbed, or when a person is frightened, or sorrowful, or even so disturbed that he might get psychologically disturbed and require treatment, he feels that his psychological security is necessary before he can even begin to do anything.

K: Yes, right.

B: So, it isn't at all clear why one should say that it is not really as important as physical security.

K: I think we have made it fairly clear , but let's go into it. Is there really a 'psychological' security at all?

B: Well, I don't think we discussed that fully last time.

K: Nobody accepts that. But we are enquiring into it, going into the problem of it.

Dr Shainberg: But we said something even deeper yesterday - that our cultural conditioning sets the importance of psychological security, and that in turn creates insecurity. And it is the conditioning that creates the psychological security as a focus? Would you agree that?

K: I think that we two mean something different.

S: What do you mean?

K: First of all, sir, we take it for granted that there is an (ego-related ?) 'psychological' security .

B: I think that if you told somebody who was feeling very disturbed mentally that there is no psychological security he would just feel worse.

K: Collapse. Of course. But here we are talking of fairly sane, rational people. And we are questioning whether there is any (egocentric ?) psychological security at all; permanency, stability, the sense of a deep-rooted existence psychologically.

S: Maybe if we could say more then, what ( exactly ) you mean by 'psychological' security?

K: Suppose that I believe (very strongly) in something. It may be the most foolish belief (but for the time being?) that gives me a tremendous sense of vitality and stability.

B: We could think of two examples: one is that if I could really believe that after dying I would go to 'heaven', and be quite sure of it, then I could be very secure anywhere, not matter what happens. I'd say, I don't really have to worry, because it is all just a temporary trouble and then I am pretty sure that in time it is all going to be very good. Do you see?

K: That is the whole Asiatic attitude, more or less.

B: Or if I am a Communist, then I say, in time Communism is going to solve everything and we are going through a lot of troubles now but you know it is all going to be worthwhile and it will work out, and in the end it will be all right. So, if I could be ( 100%) sure of that then I would say I feel very secure inside, even if the present conditions are hard.

K: So we are questioning, though one has these strong beliefs which gives them a sense of security, permanency, whether there is such a thing (as psychological security) in actuality...

S: The question is: is it really possible to question it outside the ( comfort zone provided by meditation?) ?

K: Is it possible.

S: Yes, yes. ... But I want to ask David something. Do you think that, for instance take a scientist, a guy who is going to his laboratory everyday, or take a doctor, he is getting security. He takes security from the very 'routinization' of his life. In the case of this scientist , where from does he get his (inward) security?

B: Well, he has ( a strong ) belief that he is learning the permanent laws of Nature, really getting to something that means something. And also getting a position in society, by being well known and respected and financially secure.

S: He believes that these things will give him the thing. But the mother also believes that the child will give her security.

K: Don't you 'psychologically' have (an inner sense of temporal ) security?

S: I get a security out of my knowledge, out of my routine, out of my patients, out of seeing my patients, out of my position.

B: But if I think it over a little bit, if I question it. I say, it doesn't look all that secure, because anything may happen - there may be a war, there may be a depression, there may be a flood. So I say there is ( a potential) conflict and confusion in this ( psychological) security because I am not ( 100%) sure about it.

S: You are not sure about it.

B: But if I had an absolute belief in God and Heaven (in the 'after-life') …

K: This is so obvious!

S: I agree with you it is 'obvious', but I think it has to be really felt through.

K: But, sir, you, Dr Shainberg, you are the ( psychological) victim, for this (in class example) . Don't you have a strong belief?

S: Well, I wouldn't say 'strong'.

K: Don't you have a sense of ( psychological) permanency somewhere inside you?

S: I think I have a sense of permanency about my work, my social status, about the continuity of my interest. You know what I mean ?

K: Yes.

S: There is a sense of security in the feeling that I can help someone and I can do my work OK.

K: That gives you the 'psychological' security.

S: There is something ( implicit ) about it that is (feeling) secure. What am I saying when I say 'security'? I am saying that I won't be lonely.

K: Or, feeling secure that you have something that is impenetrable.

S: I don't feel it that way. I feel it more in the sense of what is going to happen in time, am I going to have to depend, what is my time going to be, am I going to be lonely, is my life going to be empty?

K: No, sir.

S: Isn't that (psychological) security?

K: As Dr Bohm pointed out, if one has a strong belief in reincarnation, as the whole Asiatic world has, then it doesn't ( really) matter what happens, as in the next life you have a better chance. So that gives you a great sense of "this is unimportant, but that is important". And that gives me a sense of great comfort, great - as though this is a transient world anyhow and eventually I will 'get ther'e, to something permanent.

S: This may be true in the Asiatic world; but in the western world you don't have that.

K: Oh, yes you have it.

B: It is different but we have always had the search for security.

S: Right, right. But what do you think ( the psychological) security is? I mean for instance if you became a scientist, you went to the laboratory, you picked up the books all the time. Right? You may not go to the laboratory, but you have had your own laboratory. What the hell do you call 'security'?

K: Having something to which you can cling to and which is not perishable. It may perish eventually but for the time being it is there to hold on to.

B: You can feel that it is permanent. Like in the past, people used to accumulate gold because gold is the symbol of the imperishable.

S: We still have people who accumulate gold - we have business men, they have got money.

B: You feel it is really there. It will never corrode, it will never vanish and you can count on it, you know...

S: So it is something ( projected by thought?) that I can count on.

K: Count on, hold on to, cling to, be attached to.

S: The 'me' ?

K: Exactly.

S: I know that I am a doctor. I can depend on that...
K: ...( professional) knowledge & experience. And on the other hand (your cultural) tradition.

B: Yes, it is clear enough that we all have that (inbuilt in our everyday mentality?) , it is part ( the mentality?) of our society that we want something secure and permanent. Wouldn't you say that in so far as thought can project (its own inner ) time, that it wants to be able to projectthat everything is going all right in the future as far as possible.

S: That is what I meant when I said loneliness: if I don't have to have to face my existential loneliness...

B: In other words the anticipation of what is coming is already in the present feeling. You see, if you can anticipate that something bad may come, you already feel bad.

K: That's right.

B: I would say that (the psychological) security would be ( thought's) anticipation that everything will ( eventually) be good in the future.
Even if it is not so good now it will become better with certainty.

S: So then security is ( transfered to the process of self-) becoming.

K: Yes, becoming, perfecting...

S: I see ( mentally disturbed) patients all the time. Their projected belief is I will become (happier?) - I will find somebody to love me. I see patients who say, "I will become the chief of the department", "I will become the most famous doctor", "I will become..." and his whole life goes like that. Because it is also focussed on being the best tennis player, the 'best'.

K: Of course, of course.

B: Well it seems it is all focussed on anticipating that your life is going to be good, when you say that. But it seems to me you wouldn't raise the question unless you had a lot of ( real-life) experience that life is not so good, in other words, it is a reaction to having had to much experience of disappointment, of suffering.

K: Would you say that we are not conscious of the whole ( time-binding?) movement (subliminal activities of ?) of thought?

B: No, what I mean is that most people they would say that it is only very natural - if I have had a lot of experience of suffering and disappointment and danger, and that is unpleasant - that I would like to be able to anticipate that ( at least from now on?) everything is going to be good.

K: Yes.

B: At first sight it would seem that that is really quite natural. But you are saying that there is something wrong with it.

K: We are saying there is no such thing as ( thought-projected) psychological security.

B: Yes, but is it clear for eeverybody now that these hopes are really vain hopes ?

S: That is a good question. You see, Krishnaji is raising a good ( meditation related) question : is it meaningful to look for this 'psychological' security. Is there such a thing?

K: Sir, after all, there is death at the end of everything. You want to be secure for the next ten years, that is all, or fifty years. Afterwards it doesn't matter. Or it if does matter then you believe in something. That there is God, or whatever it is you believe. So I am trying to find out, that there is no (temporal) permanency 'psychologically', which means 'no tomorrow' psychologically (speaking) .

B: That ( insight ) hasn't yet come out. But we can say empirically that we (kind of?) know these hopes for security are false because first of all, as you say there is death, secondly you can't count on anything (forever) since materially everything changes. And even mentally everything in your head is changing all the time. You can't count on ( the permanency of) your feelings, you can't count on enjoying tomorrow a certain thing that you enjoy now, you can't count on being healthy, you can't count on money.

K: You can't rely on your wife, you can rely on nothing.

B: So that is an (obvious) fact. But I am saying that you are suggesting something deeper ; we don't base ourselves only on that observation.

K: That is very superficial. So ( to consider in the meditation homework?) if there is no real security, basic deep, then is there a 'tomorrow', psychologically? And if there is not (a psychologically-projected) 'tomorrow' you take away all ( thought-projected?) hope.

B: What you mean here by 'tomorrow', is it the 'tomorrow' in which things will get better ?

K: Better, greater success, greater understanding, more love, you know the whole business.

S: I think that is a little quick. I think that there is a jump there because as I hear you, I hear you saying there is no security.

K: But it is so.

S: It is so. But for me to really say, "Look, I know there is no security"...

B: Well, isn't it just an observed fact, that there isn't anything you can count on psychologically?

S: Right. But you see I think there is a (hidden point of) action there. Krishnaji is saying, why don't you ( inwardly realise?) there is no such security? Why don't I?

K: When you hear there is no security, is it an abstracted idea? Or an actual fact (to be checked first in the field of Meditation?) , like that table, like your hand there, or those flowers?

S: I think it mostly becomes an idea.

K: That is just it.

B: Why should it become an idea?

S: That I think is the ( implicit) question. Why does it become an idea?

K: Is it part of your professional training?

S: Partly yes. Part of my cultural conditioning.

K: Part of a real objection to see things as they are.

B: Even if (intellectually ) one can see that there is no ( long term psychological) security, it seems that there is something which seems to be there which is trying to protect itself ; it seems to be a actual fact that the 'self' is there. And if the 'self' is there it requires security and therefore this creates a resistance to accepting that as a fact and puts it as an idea only. It seems that the factuality of the 'self' has not been denied. The 'apparent' factuality.

S: Right. But why do you think it hasn't been? What happens?

K: Is it that you refuse to 'see' things as they are? Is it that one refuses to see that one is 'stupid' (or...inwardly blind?) - To acknowledge that one is ( inwardly blind or ?) 'stupid' is already - you follow?

S: When you say to me ''you refuse to acknowledge that you are stupid'' - let us say it is me – this implies means then I have got to do something.

K: Not yet. ( At the deeper levels of huma consciousness?) Action comes through direct perception, not through ideation.

S: I am glad you are ( finally?) getting into this.

S: Is this what you mean when you talk about the rôle of destruction in creation? In other words, is there something here about the destruction (negation of what ?) I am not.

K: You must destroy (negate?) that (illusion of self-centred mental entity ?) .

S: Now what makes it so ( impossibly) hard for me to destroy it ? I mean destroy this ( irrational?) need for security, why can't I do it?

K: You see you are already entering into the realm of action. I say first 'see' (the truth about?) it. And from that global perception the (inward) action is inevitable.

S: All right. Now about seeing this insecurity, what do you actually 'see' ?

K: That you are clinging to something, belief and all the rest of it, which gives you ( a sense of your temporal) security. I cling to this where house I am feeling safe. it gives me a sense of physical and therefore of psychological security.

S: Right, you have a place to go.

K: A place to go. But there might be an earthquake (or...hurrycane?) and everything is gone. If you ask a poor man, he says, of course I have no ( long term material) security, but he wants it. His security is, give me a good job, and a house, and a good wife and children; that's my security. And that movement of ( seeking physical) security ( subliminally) enters into the psychological field. The ( direct?) perception of that is ( bringing its own?) total action with regard to security.

B: Yes, but you see why does (this psychological security ?) presents itself as so real? There is like a thought process which is driving on, continually.

K: Are you asking why has all this has becomes so fantastically real?

B: Yes. Abstractly you can see the whole thing as no security at all, I mean, just looking at it professionally and abstractly.

S: That is putting the cart before the horse.

B: No, I am just saying that if it were some simple matter, giving that much proof you would have already accepted it, you see. But when it comes to this, no proof seems to work. Here I am presented with the solid reality of myself and my security, which seems to deny - there is a sort of reaction which seems to say, well, that may be possible but it really is only words. The real thing is 'me'. Do you see?

S: There is no question about it. Me, me, me, is important.

K: Which is an idea.

B: We can say ( glibly or?) abstractly 'it is just an idea'. But the (experiential) question is, how do you break into this process?

K: I think we can break into it, or break through it, or get beyond it, only through (an 'observer'-free inward ) perception.

B: The trouble is that all that we have been talking about is in the form of ideas. They may be correct ideas but they won't break into this. Because this ( subliminal self-centredness?) dominates the whole of thought.

K: Look sir: if I feel my security lies in some ( self-identified ) image I have, a picture, a symbol, a great personal ideal and so on, I would put it not as an abstraction but bring it down (to be examined ?) .

B: Well, have you actually done that?

K: No, I haven't because ( for 'unknown' reasons?) I have no ( personal) beliefs. I have no (self-) image , I don't go in for all those kind of ( mind) games. I said, 'if' (I would have them?) Then I would bring the abstracted thing into ( the field of meditation?) as a perceptive reality.

S: To see ( my personal dependency to?) my belief, is that it?

K: See it.

S: Right. To see the 'me' in operation.

K: Yes, if you like to put it that way. Take a simple thing, not complicated, like the concept that I am an 'Englishman'.

B: Probably don't anymore feel attached to those concepts.

S: Let's take one that is real for me: take the one about me being a ( psy-) doctor. That is a very realistic conclusion based on training, based on experience, based on the enjoyment of the work and I get a kind of ( positive) feed back, I get a whole community of feed in. Books I've written, papers, positions and I continually act to continue that.

K: Yes, sir, that is understood. The concept that you are a doctor is based on ( your professional?) knowledge, experience, everyday activity. So what is factual in that? Your training, your knowledge, your daily operation. That's all. The rest is a conclusion.

B: But... what is the rest?

K: The rest: I am very much better than somebody else.

B: Or that this ( well paid) profession is going to keep me occupied in a good way.

K: A good way. I will never feel lonely.

B: But isn't there also a certain (subliminal) fear that if I don't ( continue to) have this, then things could be pretty bad?

K: Of course. What if the patients don't turn up?

B: Then I have no money; fear.

K: So ( I'll have to face my existential?) loneliness. So...better go back (again to being) occupied.

S: Be occupied doing this, completing this 'concept'.

K: Be occupied.

S: Right. Do you realize how important that is to all people, to be occupied?
I can see them running around.

K: Sir, a housewife is occupied. Remove that occupation, she says, please what shall I do?

S: We know that as a fact. Since we put electrical equipment into the houses the women are going crazy, they have nothing to do with their time (except going to Starbucks & Pilates, tweeting, etc, etc)

K: But the result of this, neglect of their children.

S: OK. Let's go on. Now we have got this fact, 'occupied'.

K: Occupied. Is this ( constant need for?) occupation an abstraction, or an actuality?

S: It is an actuality. I am actually occupied.

K: You are actually occupied?

S: Yes.

K: Daily ?

S: Daily.

B: Well, what do you really mean by occupied? I can say I am actually doing all the operations. That is clear. But being occupied it seems to me has a psychological meaning, further than that, that my mind is ( floating) in that thing in a relatively harmonious way. There was something I saw on television once of a woman who was highly disturbed, it showed on the graph, but when you was occupied doing her mathematics, the graph went beautifully smooth. She stopped doing the sums and it went all over the place. Therefore, she had to keep on doing something to keep the brain working right.

K: Which means what? ( Relying inwardly on?) a mechanical process. So you have reduced yourself to a (non-stop thinking?) machine.

B: But why does the brain begin to go so wild when it is not occupied? That seems to be a very common experience.

K: Because in ( a constant) occupation there is security.

B: Right. So we feel our (need for psychological) security really means we that want order. Is that right?

K: That's it.

B: We want order inside the brain. And we want to be able to project order into the future, for ever.

S: But would you say that you can get it by mechanical order?

B: Then we get dissatisfied with it, you see, you say, "I am getting sick, bored with it, I am sick of this mechanical life, I want something more interesting".

K: That is where the gurus come in!

B: Then the thing goes wild again. Do you see the mechanical order won't satisfy it because it works only for a little while. After a while I begin to feel it is too repetitious, I am getting bored.

S: OK. But suppose that doesn't happen. Suppose some people become satisfied with their job?

B: Well, they don't really. I mean then they become dull...

K: Quite. Mechanical; and if you stop that mechanism, the brain goes wild.

B: Right. So they feel they are a bit dull and they would like some entertainment, or something more interesting and exciting. And therefore there is a ( a subliminal) contradiction, there is conflict and confusion in the whole thing.

K: Sir, he (S) is asking what is disturbing him. He feels he hasn't put his teeth into it. What is disturbing you?

S: Well, it is this feeling that you see people will say that I can do something I like and it gets boring, let's say, or it might get repetitious, but then I will find new parts of it. And then I'll do that some more because that gives me a pleasure, you see. I mean I get a satisfaction out of it.

B: Right.

S: So I keep doing more of that. It is like an accumulative process.

K: No, you move from one mechanical process to another mechanical process, get bored with it and keep going. And you call that 'living' !

B: Even if I accept all that, the trouble is that I now try to be sure that I can keep on doing this, because I can always anticipate a future when I won't be able to do it. You see? I will be a bit too old for the job, or else I'll fail. I'll lose the job, or something. In other words, I still have insecurity in that ( self-projected temporal) order.

K: Essentially, essentially it is a mechanical disorder. Do you see this?

S: I see that, yes. I feel that, I think. I see it is very much like Piaget's theory. Right? In other words, there is assimilation, an accommodation and then there is seeing what doesn't fit and going on with it. And then there is more assimilation, and accommodation, and then going on with it. The French psychologist, describes this as the 'enormity' of human brains.

K: Yes, yes.

S: You know this ?

K: I don't have to read Piaget, I can observe it.

B: Right. So we are driven to this because we are frightened of the instability of the brain. Do you see? That would mean being occupied with this. And it seems then that is disorder. If you are doing something because you are trying to run away from instability of the brain, that will merely be masking disorder.

S: Yes. Well, then you are suggesting that this is being the natural disorder of the ( temporal) brain. Are you suggesting a natural disorder?

B: No, I am saying that the ( reflective?) brain seems to be disordered. This seems to be a fact. That the brain without occupation goes, tends to go, into disorder. And it is dangerous actually because if it keeps doing this because of what is going to happen . I mean it may do all sorts of crazy things.

K: Yes. All the ('stable genius'?) neurotics, you know all that ( ongoing) business.

B: In other words, I feel that the main danger comes from within, you see.

K: Absolutely. Now, if, when you see (the whole truth about?) it, observe it (non-personally?) there is ( a holistically-friendly) action which is not fragmented.

B: But you kow, one can feel that you do not know whether (or when?) this disorder can stop. In other words if you were sure that it could stop, that religion, that God will take care of it, or something, then you will have security. ( But apparently?) nothing can control that ( snowballing?) disorder. You see that this really seems to be the thing that there is nothing that can control that disorder. You may take pills, or do various things, but it is always (going on) there in the background.

K: Quite right.

B: I don't know whether we should say, one question is, why do we have this disorder? If it were in built into the structure of the brain,like this is human nature, then there would be no way out.

K: I think the disorder arises, doesn't it, first when there are ( multiple threads of ) mechanical processes going on. And ( falling asleep?) in that mechanical process the brain feels secure, but when the mechanical process is disturbed it becomes insecure.

S: Then it does it again.

K: Again, and again, and again, and again.

S: It never stays with ( contemplating?) that insecurity.

B: The ( 64.000 $) question is, why does the brain is constantly getting caught in mechanism? Do you see. In other words, it seems in the situation the brain gets caught in mechanical process.

K: Because it is the most (psychologically?) secure way of living.

B: Well, it appears that way, but in the long run it is not.

S: Are you saying (our brains are?) are conditioned to be time bound?

K: Conditioned to be time bound. Conditioned by our tradition, by our education, by the culture we live in and so on and so on, to operate mechanically (in a safe temporal sequence?)

S: We take the easy way ?

K: The easy way.

B: But it is also a kind of mistake to say in the beginning the mechanical way shows signs of being safer, and at the beginning the brain makes a mistake let's say, and says, "This is safer", but somehow it fails to be able to see that it has made a mistake, it holds to this mistake. Like in the beginning you might call it an innocent mistake to say, "This look safer and I will follow it". But then after a while you are getting evidence that it is not so safe, the brain begins to reject it, keep away from it.

S: Well, I think you could raise the issue whether there are certain given facts in child rearing. I mean when the mother feels the baby is crying and jams a nipple in its mouth, that is teaching the baby that you shut up and take the easy way out.

B: Well there is a lot of cultural conditioning that explains how it is propagated. But you see it still doesn't explain why the brain doesn't see at some stage that it is wrong. In other words, it continues in this mechanical process rather than seeing that it is wrong.

K: You are asking: why doesn't it see that ( the inward truth that) this mechanical process is essentially (generating inner & outer?) disorder.

S: Why isn't there some sort of feedback? In other words, I do something and it comes out wrong. At some point I ought to realize that. Why don't I? For instance, I have seen my life is mechanical.

K: You really see it? Why is it mechanical?

S: Well, it is mechanical because it goes like this: it is all action and reaction.

K: Why is it mechanical?

S: I want it to be easy. That is also mechanical. I want it to be easy. I feel that that gives me the most security, to keep it mechanical. I get a (self-protective?) boundary. I have got my house, my mechanical life, that gives me security, it is mechanical because it is repetitious.

K: You haven't answered my question.

S: Your question is why...

K: ...has it become mechanical.

B: And why does it remain mechanical?

K: What has caused us to accept this mechanical way of living?

S: I am not sure I can answer that. But I would see the (impending?) insecurity.

K: Wouldn't you be frightened? If the mechanistic ( continuity ) of the life that one lives suddenly stopped, wouldn't you be frightened?

B: Wouldn't there be some genuine danger?

K: That, of course. There is a danger that things might...

B: ...go to pieces.

S: It is deeper than that. It feels like that things take on a terribly 'moment-by moment' effect.

K: No, sir. Look: the human brain wants total order - would ( the sense of total (inner) order give it complete security? Wouldn't it?

B: Could you say that perhaps in the beginning that the brain accepted this just simply not knowing that this mechanism would bring disorder and it just went into it in an innocent state?

K: Yes.

B: Yes, but it is caught in a trap, you see. And somehow it maintains this disorder, it doesn't want to get out of it.

K: Because it is frightened of greater disorder.

B: Yes. It says, all that I've built up may go to pieces. In other words, I am not in the same situation as when I first went in the trap because now I have built up a great structure. I think that the whole structure will go to pieces.

K: What I am trying to get it is, the brain needs this order, otherwise it can't function. It finds order in mechanical process because it is trained from childhood; do as you are told, etc., etc., etc. There is a conditioning going on right away: to live a mechanical life.

B: Also a (subliminal) fear is induced of giving up this mechanism at the same time. I mean that in other words you are thinking all the time that without this everything will go to pieces, including especially the brain.

K: Which means (To recap) the brain must have ( an inward sense of harmony & ) order. And finds order in a mechanical way. Now, do you see actually the mechanical way of living leads to disorder? Which is (the way of) tradition. If I live entirely in the past, which is very orderly, I think it is very orderly, and what takes place? I am already 'dead' (stuck in time?) and I can't meet anything. So please don't disturb my tradition! And every human being says, "Please, I have found something which gives me ( a sense of inner) order; a belief, a hope, this, or that; so...please leave me alone."

S: Right.

K: But (the tribulations of modern life?) life are not going to leave them alone. So he gets frightened and establishes another mechanical habit. Now do you see ( the inward truth of) this whole thing? And therefore there is an instant (insightful) action breaking it all away and therefore the brain finds an order which is absolutely indestructible.

B: Well, for us it doesn't really follow from what you said that this would necessarily happen. In other words, it is you (Mr K who ) are saying this.

K: I am saying this.

B: I mean but it doesn't follow logically.

K: It would follow logically if you go (meditating?) into it.

B: Go into it.... But here can we reach a point where it really follows necessarily?

K: I think we can only go into it if you perceive the (inward truth about ) mechanical structure which the brain has developed, attached and cultivated.

S: I can see the mechanicalness. And I was flashing through my mind various kinds of interchanges between people. And the way they talk, they way I talk to them at a party, at a cocktail party, and it is all about what happened before, you can see them telling you who they are, in terms of their past. I can see what they will be. This guy who said, "I have published my thirteenth book", has got in his head that I am going to think this about him, and then he is going to go to his university and he is going to be thought that. He is always living like that and the whole structure is elaborate. Right?

K: But do you see that fragmentary action is mechanical action.

S: That's right. It is there, where we are.

K: And therefore political action can never solve any problems, human problems; or the scientist, he is another fragment.

S: But do you realize that this is the way our life is. Years and years and years.

K: Therefore, why don't you change it?

S: Change it. That's right. But we live in terms of our (cultural) structures. We live in terms of history. We live in terms of our mechanics. We live in terms of our form. This is the way we live.

K: Which means, that when the past meets the present and ends there, there is a totally different thing takes place.

S: Yes. But the past doesn't meet the present so often.

K: I mean it is taking place now (in the silent inner space of meditation?) .

S: Right. We are seeing it now.

K: Therefore can you stop (the mechanistic process of thought-time?) there?

S: Probably because we must see it totally ?

K: No. **The fact, simple fact: the "past meets the present". That is a fact.
B: Well, I think just briefly thatwwhen the (thought streaming of the?) past meets the present , it stops, while the past generally is active in the present & moving towards the future. Now when the ( thought-streaming of the ?) past meets the ( meditating mind in?) present then the (memory streaming of the ?) 'past' stops acting. And what it means is that thought stops acting so that (an authentic inner) order comes about.

S: Do you think that the past meets the present, or the present meets the past?

K: How do you meet me? With all the memories, all the images, the reputation, the words, the pictures, the symbol, all that, with that, which is the past, you meet me now.

S: That's right. That's right. I come to you with a...

K: So, the (thought-streaming memory of the ) past is meeting the present.

B: Aren't you saying that the past should stop meeting the present?

K: What I am trying to say is that the past meets the present and end there. Not 'move forward'.

S: Why should it stop?

K: I will show it to you. I meet you with the past, my memories, but you might have changed all that in the meantime. So I never meet you. I meet you with the past.

S: Right. That is fact.

K: That is a fact. Now if I don't have that (thought-streaming mental ) movement going on...

S: But I do have it .

K: Of course you do. But I say that that is disorder. I can't meet you then.

S: Right. How do you know that?

K: I only know the fact that when the ( memory streaming of the?) past meets the present and continues, it is one of the factors of time, mental movement, bondage, all the fear, and so on. If, ( in the context of an authentic meditation ?) when there is the past meeting the present, and one 'see' this, and one is fully aware of this, completely aware of this ( ongoing memory) movement, then it stops. Then I meet you as though for the first time, there is something fresh, it is like a new flower coming out.**

S: Yes, I understand.

K: I think we will go on tomorrow. We haven't really tackled the root of all this, the root, the cause or the root of all this disturbance, this turmoil, travail, anxiety - you follow.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #33
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

3RD ( 'experientially friendly' edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG ON THE HOLISTIC TRANSFORMATION OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF MAN

Krishnamurti: Shall we start where we left off? We were asking, weren't we, why do human beings live this ( ego-centric & mechanistic?) way? Nothing seems to have succeeded to make man live in order, happily & intelligently, without any of this chaotic activity going on. Why do we human beings live this way, in this appalling (psychological) misery?

B: I think people just get used to it. I mean, whatever happens you get used to it, and you come to miss it after a while just because you are used to it.

K: Is it that we like (the possible benefits of?) it?

S: It is not that we like it; it is a kind of orientation, a kind of, ''I know my state of inner conflict, I know what I am at''.

K: Have we all become neurotic?

S: I think so. I mean this is the argument we have all the time: is the society sick? And then if you say the society is sick, what is the value you are using for comparison?

K: Which is yourself, who is neurotic. So when you are faced with that, that human beings live this way and have accepted it for millennia; there have been 'saviours', there have been gurus, there have been teachers, and I come along and say, why?

S: Why do we keep it up ? I have it with my children. I say to my children, they spend fifty hours a week in front of the television box. That is their whole life. My children, they laugh at me, all their friends are doing it.

K: No, beyond that, why?

B: That is very secondary.

K: So looking at all this panorama of (man's psychological ) misery I say why do people live this way, accept these things, read history and, you follow, it is no longer conceived. They have become cynical. It is all there.

B: Nobody believes anything can be done about it.

K: That's it. Is it that we feel that we cannot do anything about it?

B: That's been an old story. People say human nature...

K: ...can never be altered.

S: But that's certainly true that people feel, or we feel this is the way it is, this is the way we live.

K: I know, but why don't you (endeavour to?) change it?

S: Many people have said that we don't accept that human nature is this way, we will try to change it, and it didn't work. You know, so many people tried doing the 'right' thing. The communists tried it, the socialists tried it, some others tried it.

K: The utopians...

B: The utopians, and there has been so much bad experience, it all adds up to the idea that human nature doesn't change.

S: Right. So let's say that we know all these ( psychological) facts about people and we also know the fact of the matter is they don't even try to change (inwardly) .

K: Some do - they go to ashramas, a dozen ways they have tried to change, but essentially they are (inwardly remaining ) the same.

B: I think people cannot find out how to change ( the inward) human nature.

S: Or is it the fact that the very nature of the way they want to change it is part of the (ongoing) process itself?

B: My first point is that whatever people have tried has not been guided by a correct understanding of human nature.

S: So it is guided by the old (ongoing) process itself. Right? The incorrectness?

B: Yes, let's take the Marxists who say that human nature can be improved, but only when the whole economic and politician structure has altered. But they can't alter it, you see, because human nature is such that they can't really alter it.

S: But they are using a mechanical way to make a mechanical change.

K: Sir, take yourself - sorry to be personal, if you don't mind. Why don't you change?

S: Well, the immediate feel of it is that there is still some sort of false security in the ongoing the fragmentation, the immediate pleasures that are gotten from the fragmentation; in other words there is still that movement of fragmentation. That's how come there is not the change. There is not a seeing the whole thing. I mean we keep getting something back from it, we get these immediate pleasure and failures, frustrations from...

K: There is (probably?) a much deeper issue than that.

S: I keep coming up with a kind of feeling that I am getting something from not changing.

K: No. Is it because the ( self-conscious) entity that wishes to change sets the ( a temporal agenda) pattern of change, and therefore the pattern is always the same (self-centredness?) under a different colour?

S: Can you say it another way?

K: I want to change. And I plan out what to change, how to bring about this change, but the 'planner' (the 'thinker-in -control' ?) is always the same.

S: That's right. I have an image of what I want to achieve .

K: The ( projected) patterns change, but 'I' create the patterns of change.
Therefore I am (constantly impersonating the?) old and even if the patterns (of change) are new, eventually the old (time-bound psychological structure?) is always conquering the ( timeless intelligence of the?) new.

B: But when I do that I don't really feel that I am the 'old', but I am the 'new'.
I really don't feel that I am (personally) involved in that old stuff that I want to change.

B: And each person who does it feels that it has never happened before.

K: My new experience ( acquired) through this or that book is entirely different, but the 'experiencer' (in command) is the same. I think that ( subliminal self-identification?) is one of the root causes of it.

B: It is a kind of sleight of hand trick whereby the thing which is causing the trouble is put into position as if it were the thing that is trying to make the change. You see, it is a deception.

K: I am deceiving myself all the time by saying, I am (ASAP) going to change that, become that; then if it doesn't, and so on and so on. Is that it?

S: That begins to get at it.

K: Look at yourself – suppose you read a Hindu, or some (other sacred) book.
And say, ''yes, how true that is, I am going to live according to that''. But the 'me' that is going to live according to that is the same old me.

S: Right, yes. You are really getting at the issue that the fact that the root is this belief that something can help 'you'.

K: The root ( of self-interest?) remains the same. Right? And we trim the branches.

B: I think the root (of our ages old selfishness) is something we don't see (clearly) because we put it in the position of the one who is supposed to be seeing.

S: It is like that Sufi story: I am looking for the key - you know the story? - I am looking for the key over here because the gate door it is locked. The Sufi, the guy comes along and the guy is crawling around under the lamppost, and another guy comes along and says, "What are you doing there?" "I am looking for my key". And he said, "Did you lose it here?" "No, I lost it over there but there is more light over here".

K: Yes, sir. So (in a nutshell:) if I really want to change, because I don't want to live forever that way, I don't want to follow anybody because they are all like the rest of the gang. I don't accept anybody's spiritual authority in all this.

S: Yes...

K: Authority arises only when I am (inwardly & ) confused.

S: Right...

K: When I am ( living inwardly) in (psychological) disorder.

S: That's right.

K: So I say, can one completely change at the very root?

B: Let's look at that because you say, "I am going to change", and it is not clear what is meant here by 'I'.

K: The 'I' (the self-identified consciousness?) is the root.

B: So, if the 'I' is the root... how can I change?

K: That is the whole point (that has to be clarified?) .

B: You see, (your 'holistic' ) language is confusing because you say, I have got to change at the root, you see, but I am the root. So what is going to happen?

S: Let's role it back a second. You state you are not going to accept any (psychological) authority, and then what ?

K: It is a miraculous change. So how do I proceed? What is the correct (way of) action?

S: What is the correct action to live properly?

K: That's all. So if everybody said, "I can't help you'', you'll have to do it yourself, look at yourself, then the 'whole thing' is beginning to act.

S: But the 'whole thing' doesn't work like that. There are a lot of people who will be willing to deceive themselves for two dollars.

K: Here is a man who says, "I am neurotic. I won't go to any other of neurotic actions to become sane". What does he do? He doesn't accept any authority, because I have created out of my disorder the authority.

B: Yes, well that is merely the hope that somebody knows what to do.
Because I feel this chaos is too much for me and I just assume that somebody else can tell me what to do. But that comes out of this confusion.

K: So let's start from there. In the rejection of ( anybody's psychological) authority I am beginning to become sane. So I say can I free the mind from being neurotic, is it possible? I am deadly serious because that is my life.

B: But I am saying that one will feel at this juncture that there will probably be an intense pressure towards escape, saying this is too much.

K: No. No, sir. When I reject authority I have much more (free intelligent?) energy. I am now concentrated to find out.

S: That's right. In other words then I have to be really open to 'what is' ( going on inwardly) as that is all I have got.

K: So I come to you as a friend and say, let's find out. Because you are serious and I am serious. So, can I look at my neuroticism? Is it possible to see my neuroticism? What is neuroticism? What makes me neurotic? All the things that are put into me - into me in the (egotistic) sense of the 'me' that has collected all this, which makes the me. Can my ( awakening?) consciousness empty all that?

S: Your consciousness is that though.

K: Of course.

B: Is it only that?

K: For the moment I am limiting it to that (for educational purposes?) .
Can the consciousness of man, which began five, ten million years ago, with all the things that have been put into it, generation after generation, generation after generation, from the beginning until now; all that is a fragmented collection: can you take one at a time and look at it? Or can you take the 'whole of it' and look at it?

S: Well, that's not clear. How can you take the whole of it and look at it?

B: It seems a language problem there because you say you are that, how are 'you' going to look at it?

K: I'll show you in a minute. We'll go into it.

B: Could we say that the words can be used flexibly?

K: The word is not the thing. It may be the big thing or the little thing but the word is not that.

B: No, here but we are using words and the question is how are we to understand them. You see they are in some way a clue to what we are talking about. It seems to me that one trouble with the words is the way we take them. We take them to mean something very fixed, like say this is exactly a chair. My consciousness is just so, you see. I am the neurosis, therefore we take it very fixed.

K: It is moving.

B: Yes, it is moving. It is changing, therefore you can't just exactly say I am the neurosis or I am not the neurosis.

K: It is constantly in flux.

B: Right.
S: But he is saying something bigger which is that the very act of the word being 'seen as the (real) thing' by consciousness, that very movement is the thing we must investigate.

B: Yes.

K: Now, can't you look at it without the word? Is that possible? The word is not the thing. The word is a ( creation of) thought. And as a human being I realize I am neurotic - neurotic in the sense that I believe, I live in conclusions, in memories, which are all neurotic processes.

S: In ( a space of the known filled by?) words.

K: In words, pictures and reality (in which I strongly?) believe.
My belief may be illusory - but because I believe so strongly they are real to me.

S: Right. They are very real to you.

K: Very. So ( for instance ) can I look at the nature of the belief, how it arose, look at it?

S: Look at the belief that the word 'is' the thing ?

K: You have got such a belief, haven't you?

S: Oh,yes....

K: Now look at it. Can you look at it?

S: This morning we were talking about the fact that my 'belief' is ( being ) doctor...

K: Can you look at that fact that you have a belief?

S: But how am I going to look at it if I really believe it? In other words, look: I say there is a God. Now you are telling me to look at my belief in God.

K: Why do you believe? What is the necessity of God? Not that I am an atheist, but I am asking you (for experiential purposes?) .

S: God is real for me, if I believe.

K: Then there is no more investigation, you have shut the door.

S: That's right. But we have got such strong beliefs.

K: We have tried hundreds of times to show somebody who has a very strong belief, and he says, what are you talking about? This is a reality.

B: That's right. That is how our word becomes reality. Can we investigate that? I think a deeper question is, how the (thinking) mind sets up a 'sense of reality', I mean even with objects you can say a word and it seems 'real' when you describe it that way. And therefore in some way the words sets up in the brain a 'construction of reality'. Then everything is referred to that construction of reality.

S: How are we to investigate that?

K: What created that 'reality'? Would you say everything that thought has created is a reality, except nature? Can we say thought, whatever it has put together is ( the human) reality? The chair, the table, all these electric lights; nature it hasn't created but it can describe it.

B: And also make theories about it.

K: Make theories and all the rest of it. And also the illusions it has created are a reality.

B: But to a certain extent, this 'construction of reality' has its place because you see if I feel that the table is real although the brain has constructed it, it is OK. But at some stage we construct realities that are not there, you see. We can see this sometimes in the shadows on a dark night, constructing realities that are not there. And also tricks and illusions are possible by conjurors and so on. But then it goes further and we say that mentally we construct a psychological reality, which seems intensely real, and very (realistically) strong. But it seems to me the question is: what is it that thought does to give that sense of reality, to construct reality? Can we watch that?

K: What does thought do to bring about, to create that reality?

S: Yes. You mean like if you talk to someone who believes in god, they say to you that is real, that it is really there, it is not a construction. And if you talk to somebody who really believes in their (own) 'self', I mean I have talked to many people and you have been talking to the psychotherapists, they say the 'self' is real, that it exists, it is a 'thing'. I mean you heard a man once say, a psychotherapist say to Krishnaji, "We know the ego exists. We have got a (fact-proven) theory, it exists".

B: Well, what happens is that this (psychological) illusion builds up very fast; once you construct its 'reality', all its events are referred to it as if they were coming from that 'reality'. You see, and it builds up a tremendous structure, a cloud of support around it.

S: Right. So how am I to investigate my 'reality making' mechanism of it?

K: Now we are asking very simply: can thought become aware of its own movement?

B: That's the question. A 'self reference' of thought - thought understanding its own structure.

S: And its own movement. But is thought that is aware of itself? Or is it something else?

K: Try it now! (And/ or for meditation homework?) Whether thought can be aware of itself, of its movement.

(Long experiential pause...)

B: It stops.

K: What does that mean?

S: It means what it says: with the sense of the observation of thought, thought stops.

K: No, don't put it that way.

S: How would you put it?

K: It is undergoing a radical (qualitative) change.

B: So even the word 'thought' is not a fixed thing.

K: No.

B: The word 'thought' does not mean a fixed ( a static process) thing. But it can change.

K: That's right.

B: In ( the context of a direct inward?) perception.

K: You have told me that in the very observation through an (e-) microscope of the object, the object of observation undergoes a change.

B: Well, in the quantum theory the (observed) object cannot be fixed apart from the act of observation.

S: This is also true with patients in psychoanalysis. Being with the patient they change automatically.

K: Forget the patient, 'you' are the patient!

S: I am the patient, right. It changes.

K: What takes place when thought is ( non-personally ) aware of itself? You know, sir, this is an extraordinarily important thing. That is, can the 'doer' be aware (in real time?) of his 'doing'?
( For example) When I move this vase from here to there, can I be aware of that moving?

S: Yes.

K: I can physically. That is fairly simple. I stretch out the arm and so on and so on.

S: Yes.

K: But is there also an (holistic ) awareness of thought – of its movement, its (time-binding) activity, its structure, its nature, what it has created, what it has done in the (real?) world, the misery, and all the rest of it?

S: Is this an awareness of the 'doing of the brain'? I'd want to save this question for tomorrow : when you are aware of your movement of the vase, it doesn't stop. But when you are aware of the movement of the brain it does stop. Isn't that interesting?

B: (Perhaps only) the irrelevant thoughts stop.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #34
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

4-TH ( 'experientially-friendly' edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG (1976)

Krishnamurti: I don't think we fully answered yesterday the (anguishing existential ?) question: why human beings live the way the are living ? I don't think we went into it sufficiently deeply.

Dr Shainberg: We got to the point, but we never answered that question.

K: I was thinking about it this morning rather, and it struck me that we hadn't answered it fully. We just went into the question of can thought observe itself.

Dr Bohm: Right, but I think that what we said was relevant to the answer.

S: No, it's not complete, it doesn't really get hold of that issue: why do people live the way they do, and why don't they change? Well, my immediate answer to that question was that they like (enjoying the existential irresponsability of ?) it.

K: I think it is much deeper than that : if one actually transformed (deleted?p one's (psychological) conditioning, the whole way one lives, economically, you might find yourself in a very difficult position.

S: Right...

K: And also it is going against the current.

B: Are you saying that it might lead to a certain objective insecurity ?

K: Objective insecurity.

B: Is it not merely a matter of the imagination ?

K: No, no, actual insecurity. Doesn't it imply you have to stand alone ?

S: Definitely, you would be in a totally different position.

K: No, because it is like completely away from the 'stream' (of collective selfishness?) . And that means you have to be inwardly alone, psychologically alone; can the (average) human being can that ?

S: Well certainly the other option is completely to be together.

K: That is herd instinct, which all these totalitarian people (but not only...) use (& manipulate?) , and also everything is together: be together, with people, don't be alone.

S: Be like them, be with them – but it is all based on competition in some way: I am better than you.

B: Well, it is unclear because in some sense we should be together but (the ongoing fragmentation of ) society is giving us some false sense of togetherness. But it is called 'being together' (or...thinking together?) at makes you feel that way.

K: So (to recap:) one of the main reasons why (99.99%) human beings don't want to radically transform themselves ( psychologically?) is that they are really frightened not to belong to a group, to a herd, to something definite, which implies standing completely alone (as 'all-one'?) ? But I think that only from ( properly integrating) this (inward) 'all-oneness' you can really co-operate; not the other way round.

B: Well, I think that even anthropologists find that in the more primitive people, the sense of belonging to the tribe is even stronger, they feel completely lost, their entire psychological structure depends on being in the tribe.
K: And I think that is one of the reasons why we are (subliminally?) frightened. Better cling to the (psychological) misery that you already know, than come into another kind of misery that you don't know.

B: There is something deeper in the sense that people feel this togetherness, this sense of belonging to a group : they just feel it is safe, they will be taken care of, like their mother may have taken care of them, and that you are sort of gently supported, and that fundamentally it will be all right because the group is large, it is wise, it knows what to do. I think there is a feeling like that, rather deep. The church may also give that feeling.
Now, isn't it possible that we are discussing an (inward state of) all-oneness in which you have a certain security? You see, that people are seeking in the group a kind of security, it seems to me, that sense of inner security can arise actually in ( facing holistically this sense of ?) all-oneness.

K: Yes, that is right. In all-oneness you can be completely secure.

B: I wonder if we could discuss that because it seems there is an illusion there: most people sense you should have a sense of security inner, but they are looking for it in a group, the group being representative of something universal.

K: The group is not the universal.

B: It isn't, but it is the way we think of it. The little child thinks the (family) tribe is the whole world, you know.

K: I mean a human being as he lives this way, if he transforms himself he becomes alone, he is 'all-one'. That (inwardly integrated?) 'all-oneness' is not isolation and therefore it is a form of supreme intelligence.

B: Yes, but could we go a little further about it not being isolation, because at first when you say 'alone', the feeling that I am here, entirely apart (from anybody else?)

K: I thought we dealt with that fairly (academically?) thoroughly the other day : after all when one realizes the appalling state of the world, and oneself, the disorder, the confusion, the misery and all the rest of it, and when one says there must be a total change, a total transformation, he has already begun (or, not?) to move away from all that.

S: Right. But here he is altogether, being together.

K: Identifying oneself with the group, and remain with the group, what does it mean? Apart from all that superficiality, what is involved in it? The group 'is' me and I 'am' the ( impersonating the collective consciousness of the ) group.

B: Well, I think you could say like Descartes ''I think, therefore I am''. You say I am in the group, therefore I am. You see if I am not in the group where am I? In other words, I have no being at all. That is really the condition of the primitive tribe, for most of the members anyway. And there is something deep there because I feel that my very existence, my being psychologically, is implied in being first in the group. The group has made me, everything about me has come from the group. I say I am nothing without the group.

K: Yes, quite right. I 'am' the (collective consciousness of the ) group, in fact.

B: The more striking thing that happens when a person is taken out of the group is that he feels lost, you see. In other words, all the other stuff seems unimportant because he doesn't know ( who & ) where he is. And therefore you see that might be the greatest punishment that the group could make, to banish him.

K: I think that is where it is, that fear of being alone. Alone is translated as being isolated from all this.

B: But you are implying that if you (inwardly) genuinely alone, then you are not isolated from the ( holistic consciousness of the ) universe.

K: Absolutely. On the contrary.

B: And therefore we have to be free from treating the group as if it were the universal support of my being, or something.

S: Right, right. Now what is being said is that by the localised identification that I am the group, that me, that false security is dropped, then one is opened up to the participation in...

K: No, there is no question of participation; you 'are' the universe.

S: You are That.

B: You see as a child I felt that, I was in a certain town, and I felt that was the whole universe, then I heard of another town beyond that which felt almost beyond the universe. That must be the ultimate limit of all reality, you see. So that the idea of going beyond that would not have occurred to me. (Laughter) And I think that is the way that the group is treated, you see. We know abstractly it is not so but the (inward) feeling you have, it is like the little child.

K: Therefore is it that human beings love, or hold on to their own misery, confusion, and all the rest of it because they don't ( want to ) know (of) anything else?

B: Yes.

K: The known is so far, then the unknown. Now to be all-one implies, doesn't it, to step out of the stream of this utter ( selfishness & ) confusion, disorder, sorrow and despair, hope, travail, all that, to step out of all that. And if you want to go much deeper into that: to be (inwardly) all-one implies, doesn't it, not to carry the burden of tradition with you at all.

B: Tradition being ( carried by ) the ( collective consciousness of the?) group, then. Knowledge is basically collective, it is collected by everybody.

K: So to be all-one implies ( an inner sense of) total freedom. And when there is that great freedom it (one's mind ?) is ( integrated with the Universal Intelligence of ? ) the universe.

B: Could we go into that further because to a person who hasn't seen (the inward truth of) this, you know, it doesn't look obvious.

S: I think David is right there. To a person, to most people, I think, and I have tested this out recently, that the idea, or even the deep feeling, that you are the universe, that you don't have to do anything, that seems to be so...

K: Ah, sir, that is ( potentially?) a most dangerous (slippery ?) thing. When you are unhappy, miserable, anxious, greedy, envious, all that, how can you say you are the universe? Universe implies total order.

B: Yes, the word 'cosmos' in Greek meant 'order'.

K: Order, of course.

B: And 'chaos' was the opposite, you see.

K: Chaos is what we live with. How can I think I have (already the ) universal order in me? That is the good old trick of the mind which says, disorder is out there, but inside you there is perfect order, old boy. That is a concept which thought has put there and it gives me a certain hope, and therefore it has no reality. What has actual reality is my (ongoing state of inner) confusion.
So I must start with (seeing the inward truth of?) the 'fact' of what I am. Which is I am in a chaos.

S: I belong to a group.

K: Chaos; chaos is in the group (consciousness?) They have political leaders, religious, you follow, the whole thing is a chaos. So to move away from that into Cosmos, which is (the sense of) 'total order' means not that I am alone, there is a total order which is not associated with disorder, chaos. That is 'all-one'.

B: Well can we go ( speculatively?) into that. Suppose several people are doing that, in that state, moving into Order out of the chaos of society. Now then, are they all feeling alone?

K: No, they don't feel alone there. There is only ( the holistic sense of) cosmic (order) , not 'you', 'Dr Bohm', 'Dr Shainberg' and 'me'.

B: Therefore we are still all-one.

K: Which is, order is all-one.

B: Because I looked up the word 'alone' in the dictionary; basically it is 'all one'. In other words there is no inward fragmentation.

K: Therefore there is no three; and that is marvellous, sir.

S: But you 'jumped away' there. We actually have got ( a state of inner) chaos and confusion. That is what we have got.

K: So, as we said, to move away from that most people are afraid, which is to have total order. Alone, as he pointed out, is all-one. Therefore there is no fragmentation, then there is Cosmos.

S: Right. But most people are in confusion and chaos. That is all they know.

K: So how do you move away from that? That is the whole (64,000 $ experiential ?) question.

S: That is the question. Here we are in chaos and confusion, we are not over there.

K: No, because you may be frightened of the idea of being alone.

S: How can you be frightened of an idea?

K: Aren't you frightened of ( whet might happen to you) tomorrow? Which is an idea.

S: OK. That is a (self-projected) idea.

K: So they are frightened of an idea which they have projected, which says, my god, I am alone, which means I have nobody to rely on.

B: But you have said to a certain extent it is genuinely so. You are not being supported by society and all that. You do have a certain genuine danger because you have withdrawn from the nub of society.

S: Now let me say that most people are let's say unaware or don't know anything about this (inwardly integrated state of being ) 'all- one'.

K: Therefore they say, "I would rather stay where I am, in my little pond, rather than face total isolation". And that may be one of the reasons that human beings don't radically change.

B: That's like this primitive tribe: the worst punishment is to be banished, you see, or isolated.

S: You don't have to go to a primitive tribe: I see people and talk to people all the time; patients come to me and say, "Look, Saturday came, I couldn't stand to be alone, I called up fifty people looking for somebody to be with."

B: Yes, that is much the same. But I think it comes in a more simple and pure form there, when people just frankly admit it and they know that is the case, you see.

K: So that may be one of the reasons why human beings don't (really want to ) change (their psychological condition?) . The other is we are so heavily conditioned to accept things as they are. We don't say to ourselves, "Why should I live this way?"

B: Well, that is important - we are conditioned to believe that is all that is possible, you see. But this word 'all' is one of the traps. If you say "this is all that can be", then what can you do?

K: Nothing, nothing.
B: You see that is the (limitation of the ) use of language. You see this way of using language may be changed, you see.

K: Quite right, sir. When you say, "This is all I ( need to) know", you have already stopped (learning?) .

B: Because what does the word 'all' does is that it closes.

K: It closes it.

B: Not only that it turns the idea into a 'reality' because apparently it gives that sense of reality to the idea, because if you say that is all there is, then that has to be real, do you see? You get me?

K: So ( to recap:) shall we say human beings don't radically transform themselves,(a) because they are (subliminally?) frightened of being isolated from the group, banished from the group. And (b) because traditionally we are so conditioned that we would rather accept things as they are; our misery, our chaos, all the rest of it, and not say, "For god's sake, let me change this".

B: So, we have to get out of this conviction that the way things are is all that can be, you see.

K: Yes, that's right. You see all the religions have pointed this out by saying there is another world: aspire to that. This is a transient world, it doesn't matter, live as best as you can in your sorrow, but hand over your sorrow to Jesus, or Christ, or somebody, and then you will be perfectly happy in the next world. So... what will make human beings (to inwardly) change radically?

S: I don't know...

K: May I ask you a ( personal) question? Why don't you change? What is preventing you?

S: Oh, it's a tough question! I suppose the answer would be that - I don't have any answer!

K: Because you have never asked yourself that question. Right?

S: Not radically.

K: Here we are asking the 'basic' (essential?) questions.

S: Right, but I don't really know the answer to the question.

K: Now sir, move away from (the personal aspect of) that, sir. Is because all our ( mental?) structure, as that of our whole society, all religions, all culture, is based on thought, and thought says, "I can't do this, therefore an outside agency is necessary to change me"? Whether the outside agency is the environment, the ( spiritual) leader, or 'God'. ( Hint : this) 'God' is your own ( but 1000 times larger?) projection of yourself, obviously. And even if you believe in God, you are still the same.

S: That's right....

K: So is it that thought doesn't see its own (dualistic?) limit? And realize it cannot change itself? Realize it !

B: Well, I think that something more subtle happens: somehow thought loses track of its doings and it doesn't see that itself is behind all this.

K: Of course. We said that thought has produced all this (inward) chaos.

B: But thought doesn't really 'see', you know, it sees abstractly. But I think you see it 'in the bones'.

S: What thought does in fact is that it communicates it through gradual change

K: That is all invention of thought.

S: Yes, but that is where I think the hook is.

K: Please sir, just listen : Thought has put this (reality ) world together.
Technologically as well as psychologically. And the technological world is all right, we won't even discuss that. But psychologically thought has built all ( a virtual image of) this world in me and outside me - the churches, society and so on. And does thought realize it has made this mess, this chaos?

B: I would say that it doesn't. It tends to look on this chaos as independently existent, do you see.

K: But it is its (double?) bogey!

B: It is, but it is very hard for it to see that. You see we were discussing at the end of the hour yesterday this question of how thought gives a sense of reality. You see we were saying that technology deals with something that thought made but it is actually an independent reality once it is made. But you could say that thought also creates a ( virtual) reality which it calls independent but isn't, you see. I thought of a good example, that is: the ( multi-national) Corporation, you see the people working for the Corporation, it makes money, it loses money, they strike against the Corporation and so on. But actually you could say, where is the Corporation? It is not in the buildings because if all the buildings all burnt down the Corporation would still exist, as long as people think it exists.

S: Right. And it pays taxes, the Corporation pays taxes, not the individuals.

K: So, does thought realize, see, aware that it has created this chaos?

S: No.

K: But you, sir, do you realize it?

S: I realize that...

K: Not 'you' (the self-identified thinker?) but does thought (the thinking brain?) ? You see! I have asked you a different question: does thought, which is does your thinking realize that the chaos it has created?

B: You see, thinking always tends to attribute the chaos to something else; either to something outside, or to a 'me' who is inside. I mean at most I would say that I have done it, but then the same thinking is saying that I am doing the thinking. I was going to say that our thinking has invented a sort of a ( virtual) Corporation who is supposed to be responsible for thinking. We could call it 'Thinking Inc.'! And you see, this Corporation is supposed to be thinking. So we we give credit for thought to this ( virtual?) Corporation called 'me'.

K: Thought has created the (temporal?) 'me'.

B: But also thought has said that (the thinking ) 'me' is not just ( another thread of) thought, but in reality it 'is'.

K: Of course, of course....

B: You see thought treats the (virtual 'me') Corporation as if it were there, just standing like the buildings. So it is important to keep clear whether it is a reality that is dependent on this whole thought movement, or whether it stands independent. Thought is treating the 'me' (the 'thinker' mental entity?) as an independent reality.

K: To me thought has created the 'me'. And so the me is not separate from thought. It is ( the self-identified core of) the structure of thought.
Now: does your thought (the thinking brain?) realize this?

S: I would say, that in flashes it does.

K: No, not (just) in flashes. You don't see this table in a flash, it is always there. We asked a question yesterday, we stopped there: does thought see itself in ( its self-centred ?) movement? This (self-projected) movement (of one's past memoriy) has created the 'me', created the chaos, created the division, created the conflict, jealousy, anxiety, fear and all that.

S: Right. Now yesterday we came to a moment where we said 'thought stops'.
What I am trying to get at is what is the actuality of ( what happens when ) thought is seeing itself.

K: You want me to describe it?

S: No, no, I don't want you to describe it. I mean what is the actuality that thought 'sees' ? Because it seems that thought sees and then it forgets.

K: I was asking a very ( holistically?) simple question. Don't complicate it. Does thought see the ( inward & outward ) chaos it has created? That's all. Which means, is thought aware of itself as a ( global) movement? Not 'I' (the observer?) am aware of my thought. The 'I' has been created by thought.

B: I think the question that is relevant here is: why does thought keep on going? You see how does it sustain itself? Because as long as it sustains itself it does produce something like an independent reality, an illusion of one. Which is to say, like General Motors says, "I am the Corporation which is producing automobiles". What is sustaining this whole thing, at this very moment, was the question I was trying to get at.

S: Yes, that's the question.

B: In other words, say we have a certain insight, but something happens to sustain the old process nevertheless right now.

K: That's right. Dr Bohm asks a very good question which we haven't answered : why does thought move?

B: When it is irrelevant to moving.

K: Why is it always moving?

S; That's right.

K: So what is ( the basis of) this movement? Movement is ( its self-projection in?) time. Right?

S: That's a little too quick. ''Movement is time''....
K: Obviously, ( physically) from here to there (or from 'now' to 'tomorrow'?) And also psychologically from 'I am this' to 'I must be that'.

S: Right. But thought is not necessarily only all that.

K: Thought is the ( memory's virtual ?) movement. We are examining ( this self-centred mental) movement, which is thought. Look: if thought stopped there is no movement.

S: Yes, I know, but this has to be made very clear.

B: I think there is an (intermediary?) step that might help : To ask myself what is it that makes me go on thinking or talking. In other words, I often can watch people and see they 'stuck are in a hole' just because they keep on talking: if they would stop talking their whole problem would vanish. I mean it is just this flow of words, because what they say then comes out as if it were reality in them, and then they say, yrs, that is my problem, it is real, and I have got to think about it some more. Suppose I say, 'Well, I have got a problem, I am suffering'. I think that and therefore I have a sense I am real. I am thinking of my suffering but in that it is implicit that it is 'I' who is there, and that my suffering is real because 'I' am real.

S: Right....

B: And then comes the next thought, which is: since that is real I must think about it some more.

S: Right. It feeds on itself.
B: Yes. And then one of the things I must think about is that I am suffering. And I am compelled to keep on thinking that thought all the time. Do you see? And ( surreptitiously) maintaining myself in existence. Do you see what I am driving at? That there is a (thinker-thought) feedback.

K: Which means that as thought is movement, which is time, as there is no movement I am dead!

B: Yes, if that movement stops, then the sense that 'I' am there being real must go, because that sense that I am real is the result of thinking.

K: Do you 'see' this is extraordinary.

S: Of course it is.

K: No, no, in actuality, not in theory. One realizes thought as ( a self-sustained mental ?) movement. Right?

S: Right.

K: There is not, "' I' realize thought as a movement", but thought itself realizes it is a (mental) movement (along a self-projected time-line?) . It is in movement.

B: And in this movement it creates a (virtual) image of 'me' that is supposed to be moving.

K: Yes, yes. Now when that ( time-thought) movement stops there is no 'me'. The 'me' is the ( creator of) time, it is put together by ( mankind's ego-centric evolution in) time, which is ( the identitary product of) thought.

S: Right....

K: So do you realize the truth of it? Not the verbal logical truth, logical statement, but the truth of such an amazing thing? If yes, there is a (holistically friendly ?) action entirely different from that. The action of thought as movement brings about a fragmentary action, a contradictory action. When the movement as thought comes to an end there is a total action.

B: But this doesn't mean that thought is permanently gone.

K: No, no.

S: It can still be a movement in its proper place. In its fitting order. Right and proper. I mean the human brain can still do that thing.

K: So why is as a human being afraid of all this? Unconsciously, deeply, he must realize the (possible) ending of 'me' - a most frightening thing: my knowledge, my books, my wife - the ending of all which thought has put together (for psychological purposes ?) . And you are asking me to end all that ?

B: I mean, can't you say it is the ending of everything I know ? Because everything that I know is in there.

K: Absolutely. So you see really the human being is frightened of his (psychological) death - not the biological death.

S: To die now....

K: Death of all this ( self-centred psychological package?) coming to an end. But when thought realizes itself as ( a survival-oriented mental) movement and sees that this movement has created the me, the divisions, the quarrels, the political - the follow - the whole structure of the chaotic world, when (the self-centred process of) thought ''sees the truth of it'', it ends. Then there is ( born an unversally intelligent order ) Cosmos. Now you listen to this: how do you 'receive' it?

S: Do you want me to answer?

K: No. How do you 'receive' it? How does the public, who listens to all this, say what is he trying to tell me ?

S: How?

K: He says I am not telling you anything (about how to meditate?) . He says listen to what I am saying and find out for yourself whether thought as movement (can come to an end?) , in that movement it has created all this, both the technological world which is useful, which is necessary, and this chaotic ( psychological) world.

S: Right...

K: What takes place in you when you listen to it?

S: There is an (irrational?) panic about the ( ego's?) death, a sort of fear of the death. There is a sense of seeing and then there is a fear of that death.

K: Which means you have listened to the words, the words have awakened the fear. But not the (inward ) actuality of the fact.

S: I think that is a little unfair. They awaken the actuality of the fact, and then there seems to be a very quick mental process. There is an actuality of the fact and there seems to be a silence, a moment of great clarity that gives way to a kind of feeling in the pit of the stomach where things are dropping out and then there is a kind of...

K: Withholding ?

S: ...withholding, right. I think there is a whole movement there.

K: So you are describing humanity.

S: Yes and no ; I am describing what is happening in me.

K: You 'are' (part of the collective consciousness of) humanity. You are the viewer, the people who are listening.

S: That's right. So there is a sense of ''what will happen to me tomorrow ?''.
That is this irrational fear.

K: When thought realizes that as ( a self-centred) movement it has created all this total chaos, not just patchy, but complete disorder, when it realizes that, what takes place, actually? Listen to it carefully: there is no fear (of its ending) . Fear is ( created by ) the idea brought about by an abstraction. You understand? You have made a ( mental) image of thought's ending, and are frightened of that ending.

S: You are right. There's no fear, and then ?

K: There is no fear when the ( direct perception of that) actuality takes place.

S: That's right. When the actuality takes place there is silence.

K: With the fact there is no fear.

B: But then, as soon as the thought comes in...

K: Then it is no longer a fact. (Therefore) you don't 't remain with the ( inward truth of the ) fact.

B: Well that is the same as to say that you 'keep on thinking'. I mean as soon as you bring thought in that is an imagination which is felt to be real, but it is not so.

K: We have discovered something extraordinary: when you are ( directly) faced with 'facts' there is no fear.

B: So all fear is created by thought, is that it?

K: That's right. All thought is ( generating ) fear, all thought is sorrow.

B: Except the kind of thought that arises with the fact alone.

S: It seems to me that we have discovered something quite important right here, and that is at the actual seeing, then the instant of attention is at its peak.

K: Something new takes place, sir.

S: Yes … ?

K: Something totally that you have never looked at, it has never been understood or experienced. There is a totally different thing happens.

B: But isn't it important that we acknowledge this in our thought, I mean in our language?

K: Yes.

B: As we are doing now. In other words, that if it happened and we didn't acknowledge it then we are liable to fall back.

K: (To recap :) What ( K) is saying is very simple. He is saying, does this ( insightful perception of the ) 'fact' take place ? If yes, can you remain with that, can thought not 'move in' (interfere) but remain (passively ?) only with that fact. Sir, it is like saying: remain totally with sorrow, not move away, just totally remain with that thing, with the (inward truth of the ) fact. Then you have a ( newly born quality of intelligent ? ) energy which is extra-ordinary.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #35
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

5TH ( 'experientially-friendly' edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG on the 'HOLISTIC TRANSFORMATION OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF MAN'

Krishnamurti: Talking why most human beings don't (have any intention to) change (inwardly) and why they accept these intolerable conditions of the (time-bound) human psyche, I think we ought to approach the same thing from a different angle: ( of psychological hurts ?) and who who has invented the dualistic concept of the 'unconscious'?

S: Well, the history of thinking about the 'unconscious' is a long convoluted process. I think it began...

K: May we ask (you a personal question?) are you aware of your unconscious? Do you know if you have an unconscious that is operating differently, or trying to give you hints, you know, all that, are you aware of all that?

S: I look at it a little differently: it is an aspect of myself of which I am aware incompletely. Now, it uses symbols and different modes of telling, of understanding, in other words a dream where I am discovering a ( professional) jealousy that I wasn't aware of.

K: Do you also give importance, Dr Bohm, to the (general) feeling that there is such a thing as the unconscious ?

Bohm: Well, I think we can say that there are some things ( in our total consciousness?) whose origin we are not aware of. You see, we react, we use words in an habitual way.

K: I am going to question all that because I am not sure...

S: You are not questioning that we have dreams?

K: No. But I wanted to ask the experts, if there is such a thing as the unconscious. For me somehow I don't think it has played any important part in my life at all.

S: Well, it depends on what you mean by the 'unconscious'

K: I will tell you what I mean. Something hidden that I have to go after consciously or unconsciously, you know, go after and discover, unearth it, explore it and expose it. See the hidden motives, see the hidden intentions.

B: Well, could we make it clear? There are some things people do where you can see they are not aware of what they are doing, but also some things of the nature of thought. For example, somebody makes a slip of the tongue which expresses his (hidden) will.

K: I mean, the collective unconscious, the racial unconscious. And what I am trying to find out is why we have divided it, the conscious and the unconscious. Isn't it one unitary total process, moving? Not hidden, not concealed but moving as a whole current (of thought & time) . And these clever brainy birds come along and split it up and say there is the unconscious and the conscious, the hidden, the incomplete, the storehouse of racial memories, family memories and all that.

S: The reason that happened, is the fact that Freud and Jung and these (psy) people that were seeing mental patients, people who had already fragmented off this movement which you are talking about.

K: That's what I want to get at. Is it due to a ( mentality?) that divides everything, that says, there is the unconscious, conscious? It is a process of fragmentation also.

B: Well, wouldn't you say that certain material is made, even Freud has said it, that certain material is made 'unconscious' by the brain because it is too (potentially) disturbing ?

K: That is what I want to get at.

B: But would one say that the brain itself is on purpose in some sense holding it separate to avoid facing it?

K: Yes, avoid facing the fact.

B: Yes. So that it is not really separate from ( man's everyday) consciousness.

K: That is what I want to get at.

B: To say there are two layers, for example, the deep unconscious and the surface consciousness, that structure is implied. But this other notion is to say that certain material is simply avoided.

K: I don't want to think about somebody because he has hurt me. That is not the unconscious, it's I don't want to think about him.

B: But there is a kind of paradoxical situation arise, because eventually you would become so good at it that you don't realize you are doing it. I mean that seems to happen, you see. People become so proficient at avoiding these things that they cease to realize they are doing it.

S: That is right. I think this is what happens. That these kinds of things, the hurts, the wounds remain and we forget that we have forgotten.

K: Do you feel that you have been hurt in the past ?

S: Yes.

K: And wanting to avoid it you withdraw, isolate, the whole cause being the image of yourself being hurt and withdrawing, and all that - do you feel that when you are hurt?

S: Yes, I feel there is definitely a move not to be hurt, not to have that image, not to have that whole thing changed because if it is changed it seems to catapult into that same experience that was creating the hurt.

K: Is it possile that the 'psychological' brain can have a shock but not carry over the memory of that hurt? Can this psychological (personal part of the ?) brain never be hurt under any circumstances? You know, family life, husband, wife, bad friends, so-called enemies, all that is going on around you and never get hurt? Because apparently this is one of the major wounds in human existence, to get hurt; the more sensitive you are, the more aware, you get more and more hurt, more and more withdrawn. Is this inevitable?

S: I don't think it is inevitable, but... it happens frequently, I mean more often than not. And it seems to happen when there is that a (personal) attachment is formed and then the loss of the attachment. You become important to me, I like you, or I am getting involved with you, then it becomes important to me that you don't do anything that disturbs that image.

K: That is, in that relationship between two people the picture that we have of each other, the image, that is the cause of hurt.

B: Well, it also goes the other way: that we hold those images because of hurt, I mean.

K: Of course, of course. Now is this ( pdychological) wound in the 'unconscious' - is it really hidden?

S: Well, I think you are being a little simplistic about that, because what is hidden is the fact that I have had the event happening many times, it happened with my mother, it happened with my friends, it happened in school, where I cared about somebody and then the image - it's like you form the attachment and then the hurt.

K: I am not at all sure through attachment it comes.

S: May be it is not attachment but there is something there that happens. What happens is that I form a relationship with you where an image becomes important? What you do to me becomes important.

K: You have an image about yourself.

S: That's right. And I like you because you are confirming my image?

K: Apart from your like and dislike you have created an image about yourself. I come along and put a pin in that image.

B: The hurt will be greater if you first come along and be very friendly to me and confirm the image, and then suddenly you put a pin in me. But even somebody who didn't confirm it, if he puts the pin in properly he can produce that hurt.

S: That's right. But why did I have the image to begin with? That is 'unconscious'.

K: Is it (really?) unconscious? Or it is so obvious (hidden in plain sight?) that we don't look at it ? I question whether it is hidden at all; it is so blatantly obvious.

S: I tell you, I don't feel all the parts of (this self-protecting) are so obvious.

B: I think we hide this thing that is obvious by saying it is 'unimportant', so that we don't notice it.

S: Yes, we don't notice it, but I ask myself what is it that kind of generates this image, what is that hurt?

K: Ah, we will come to that. We are enquiring, aren't we, into the whole structure of human consciousness. We have broken it up into the hidden and the open, but may be the fragmented (self-centred) mind is doing that, and therefore strengthening the division which grows greater and greater and greater. ( But for starters?) most people have an image about themselves, practically everybody.

S: Right. Practically everybody.

K: It is that image that gets hurt. And that image is you, and you say, "Well, I am hurt".

B: You see, if I have a pleasant self image, then I attribute the pleasure to me and say, that's real. When somebody hurts me then the pain is attributed to me and I say, that's real too. It seems that if you have an image that can give you pleasure then it must be able to give you pain.

K: Pain, yes.

B: There is no way out of that.

S: Well, the image seems to be self perpetuating, like you were saying.

B: I think people hope that ( perfecting?) the (self-) image will give them pleasure, but the very mechanism that makes pleasure possible makes pain possible because you see the pleasure comes if I say, "I think I am good", and that I is also sensed to be real, which makes that goodness real; but then if somebody comes along and says, "You are no good, you are stupid", and so on then that too is real, and therefore very significant. I mean it makes it hurt. Right?

K: The ( subliminal identification with a self-protective ?) image brings both pleasure and pain. To put it very, very simply.

B: But I think that if you make this self image and you get what is implied in that; that is to say everything depends on having the self image right, you see. In other words the ( psychological) value of everything depends on this self image being right. So if somebody, you know, shows it's wrong, therefore everything, you know, is no good, everything is wrong.

K: But we are always giving new shape to this (self-) image.

B: I think that this image means everything, so this gives it tremendous power. : The entire personality is directed to the achievement of this image. Everything else takes second place.

K: Are you aware of this?

S: Yes, I am aware of it.

K: What is the beginning of this?

S: Well...

K: Please, just let me summarize first. Every human being practically has an image of themself, of which he is (generally) unconscious, or not aware.

B: I think one feels one's whole life depends on the ( validity of this) image.

K: Yes, that's right. The next question is: how does it come into being?

S: Well, I think it comes into being when as children there is this hurt and there is the feeling that there is no other way in which this hurt can be assuaged. Really it works in the family in some way. You are my father and I understand through my watching you that if I am smart you will like me. Right?

K: It is all very simple. But I am asking: the beginning of it? The origin of making images about oneself.

B: Suppose there were a child who didn't make an image of himself so he didn't depend on that image for everything. You see the child you talk about depended on the image that his father loves him. And therefore everything goes when his father doesn't love him, everything has gone. Right?

S: But let's look at it a little more pragmatically: here is the child and he is actually hurt.

B: Well wait, he can't be hurt without the image.

K: It is like putting a pin into the air.

S: Now wait a second, I am not going to let you guys get away with this! Here you have got this child, very vulnerable in the sense that he needs physiological support. He has enormous psycholgical tensions.

K: Sir, agreed to all that. Such a child has a (self-protective) image.

S: Maybe he is simply not being biologically supported.

B: Well, he may make an image of the fact that he is not biologically supported. You see you have to get the difference between the actual fact that happens biologically and what he thinks of it. I have seen a child sometimes really going to pieces but because that sense of insecurity from his mother was gone. It seemed as if everything had gone. Right? And he was totally disorganized and screaming, but he dropped only about this far, you see. But the point is he had ( subliminally ?) made an image of the kind of security he was going to get from his mother. Right?

S: That is the way the nervous systems works.

B: Well, that is the question, is it necessary to work that way? Or is this the result of an (immemorial cultural?) conditioning?

S: Yes, I would say yes.

K: This is an important question. Because whether in America or in this (insulary) country, children are running away from their parents, thousands are running away. The parents seem to have no control over them. They don't obey, they don't listen, they don't - you follow? They are going wild. And the parents feel terribly hurt. I saw on the TV what is happening in America. And the woman was in tears - you follow? She said, "I am his mother, he doesn't treat me as a mother, he just orders me, give me a bottle of milk", and all the rest of it. And he has run away half a dozen times. And this is growing, this separation between the parents and the children is growing all over the world. They have no relationship between themselves, between each other. So what is the cause of all this, apart from sociological, economic pressures and all that, which makes the mother go and work and leave the child alone, and he plays, you know, all that, we take that for granted, but much deeper than that? Is it the parents have an image about themselves and the parents insist in creating a (similar) image in the children and the child refuses to have that image but he has his own image. So the battle is on.

S: Well, what I am trying to get; what is in that initial relationship? What is the initial relationship between child...

K: I doubt if they have any ( authentic) relations. That is what I am trying to get at.

S: I agree with you. There is something wrong with the relationship. They have a relationship but it is a wrong relationship.

K: Look: young people get married, or not. They have a child by mistake, or intentionally they have a child. The young people, they are children themselves, they haven't understood the universe, Cosmos or chaos, they just have this child. And they play with it for a year or two and then say, "For god's sake, I am fed up with this child", and look elsewhere. And the child feels left, lost.

S: That's right.

K: And he needs security, from the beginning he needs (the sense of an authentic ) security, which the parents are incapable of giving, psychological security, the sense of "you are my child, I love you, I'll look after you, I'll see that throughout life you will behave properly, care". They haven't got that feeling. They are bored with it after a couple of years.

S: That's right.

K: Is it that they have no relationship right from the beginning, neither the husband, nor the wife, boy or girl? It is only a pleasure-based relationship; in accepting that, they won't accept the pain principle involved with the pleasure principle. What I am trying to see is that there is actually no authentic relationship at all, except biological, sexual, sensual relationship.

S: Now we will have to understand their actual relationship. But I think that most parents have a ( blood ?) relationship with their child.

B: Wouldn't you say it is the ( self-centred) image that is related? You see, suppose the parent and child have images of each other, and the relationship is governed by those images, the question is whether that is actually a relationship or not, or whether it is some sort of fantasy of relationship.

K: Sir, you have children. Have you any ( authentic) relationship with them in the real sense of that word ?

S: In the real sense, yes.

K: That means you have no 'image' about yourself and you are not imposing an image on them ?

S: That's right.

K: And the society is not ( surreptitiously) imposing an image on them ?

S: There are moments like that.

K: That is not good enough.

B: If it is for moments, it is not ( 100%) so. It is like saying a person who is hurt has moments when he is not hurt, but the hurt is sitting there waiting to explode when something happens. You see. So he can't go very far. It is like somebody who is tied to a rope, and as soon as he reaches the limits of that rope he is stuck.

S: That is right...

B: So you could say, I am related as long as certain things are all right, but then beyond that point it just sort of blows up. You see what I am driving at? That ( self-image) mechanism is inside there, buried, so it dominates it potentially.

S: That does seem to be what happens, in fact, that there is a reverberation in which there is a 'yank-back'.

B: Either I come to the end of the cord, or else something yanks the cord and then - but the person who is on the cord is really not free ever.

S: Well, I think that is true.

B: You see in the same sense the person who has the ( self-) image is not really related ever, you see ?

K: Yes, that is just the whole point. You can play with it verbally, but the actual is you have no authentic relationship.

S: You have no relationship as long as it is the image ?

K: As long as you have an image about yourself you have no relationship with another. This is a tremendous revelation (to be integrated?) . You follow? It is not just an intellectual statement.

S: Yes. You can say you have a (good) relationship with somebody but it will go just so far.

B: But then really the image controls it all the time because you see the image is the dominant factor. If you once pass that point, no matter what happens, the ( safety features of that self-protective) image takes over.

K: So, the image gets hurt. And because you have an image about yourself you are bound to ( subliminally) create an image in the child. And ( the collective mentality of) society is doing this to all of us.

B: So you say the child is picking up an image just naturally, as it were, quietly and then suddenly it gets hurt. But this psychological hurt has been prepared and preceded by this steady process of building an image.

S: That's right....
B: You see if the steady process of building an image didn't occur then there would be no basis, no structure to get hurt. In other words, the pain is due entirely to some psychological factor, some thought which is attributed to me in saying, "I am suffering this pain". Whereas I was previously enjoying the pleasure of saying, "My father loves me, I am doing what he wants." Now comes the pain: "I am not doing what he wants, he doesn't love me".

S: But what about the initial hurts?

B: I think we have gone beyond that point.

S: I don't think we touched on the biological situation of the baby child feeling neglected.

B: Well if the child is neglected, he must pick up an image in that very process.

K: Of course. Once you see the reality that as long as the parents have an image about themselves they are bound to give that image to the child, an image.

B: It is their own images that make the parents neglect the child.

S: Well you are right there. There is no question as long as the parent is an image-maker and has an image, then he can't 'see' the ( actual needs of the ) child.

K: And therefore gives an image to the child.

S: Right. He will condition the child to be into something.

B: Yes. And at first perhaps through pleasure he will get hurt. But if he begins by neglecting him, you see the process of neglect is also the result of an image and he must communicate an image to the child as he neglects the child.

S: Which is neglect.

K: That's right. And also the ( self-centred) parents are bound to neglect the child if they have an image about themselves. It is inevitable. But at the same time society is doing this to every human being. ( From the next door neighbours to) churches, schools & religions, every culture around us is creating this (strongly recommended self-) image.

S: That is right.

K: And ( the psychological identification with?) that image gets hurt, and all the rest of it. Now, the next question is: is one aware of all this (image making process?) , which is part of our ( peronal & collective?) consciousness?
One of (its active ) contents is the image making, or may be the major machinery that is operating, the major dynamo, the major movement. Being hurt, which every human being is, can that hurt be healed and never be hurt again? That is, can a human mind put away the image completely and never be hurt ? And therefore (if this dropping is doable?) in consciousness a great part of it is empty, it has no (psychologically active egotistic ) content.

S: Can it? I really don't know the answer to that.

K: Who is the image maker? What is the (mental) machinery or the process that is making images? I may get rid of one ( uncomfortable self-) image and take on another: I am a Catholic, I am a Protestant, I am a Hindu, I am a Zen monk, I am this, I am that. You follow? They are all images.

S: That's right. We have got a lot of images. I know about image making and I see it. And I see it even when you are talking about it. I can see it there and the feeling is one of, it is like a map, you know, you know where you are at because if I don't make this image I will make another.

K: Is it possible to stop (thought's image-making?) machinery that is producing & updating these images? And what is ( behind this psychological ) machinery? Is it (the survivalistic desire of) wanting to be somebody?

S: Yes. It is wanting to be somebody, or wanting to handle the feeling that if I don't have it, I don't know where I am at.

K: Being at a loss?

S: Yes.

K: You follow? The feeling that you are at a loss, not to rely on anything, not to have any support, breeds more disorder. You follow?

B: Well, that is one of the images because communicated to it as a child to say that if you don't have a (knowledgeable?) image of yourself you don't know what to do at all. You don't know what your parents are going to do if you start acting without an image. I mean you may do something and they may just simply be horrified.

K: The ( self-) image is the ( identitary?) product of thought. It may go through various forms of pressures and all the rest of it, a great deal of conveyor belt, and at the end produces an image.

S: I agree with you there, yes. It is definitely the product of ( our self-centred) thought and that thought seems to be like, you know, the immediate action of knowing where you are at; or in trying to know where you are at.

K: Can the machinery stop? Can thought which produces these images, which destroys all relationship, and therefore no (authentic) love, just sentiment, romantic, fanciful emotionalism.

S: Right....

K: As it is now there is no ( authentic) love ( selless empathy) in the world. There is no sense of real caring for somebody.

S: That is true. People don't.

K: The more affluent the worse it becomes. Not that the poor have this either - they are after filling their stomachs, and clothes and work, work, work.

B: But still they have got lots of images.

K: Of course. I said both the rich and the poor have these images, whoever it is.

S: Right.
K: And so are are the people who are directing the world. Right? Who say, this must... you follow? They are the ordering of the universe. So I ask myself, can this image making stop: stop, not occasionally, stop it. Because I don't know what love means, I don't know how to care for somebody. And I think that is what is happening in the world because children are really lost souls, lost human beings, I have met so many, hundreds of them now, all over the world. They are really a lost generation, as the older people were a lost generation. So what is a ( holistically minded) human being to do? What is the right action in relationship? Can there be right action in relationship as long as you have an image? Sir, this is a tremendous (challenge?) , you follow.

S: It seemed to me you made a jump there. You said all we know is images, and image making. That is all we know.

K: But we have never said, can it (thought's image making mechanism ) stop.

S: We have never said, can it stop. That is right.

K: We have never said, for god's sake, if it doesn't stop we are going to destroy each other.

B: You see, the notion that we might stop is something that we didn't know before. You see, in other words...

K: ...it becomes another pieces of knowledge.

B: But when you say this is all we know I feel that a block comes in. If you say, it is all we know, then it can never stop.

S: Well, what do we do with that question, can it stop? I mean there we are, we have got this question.

K: I put that question to you. Do you 'listen' to it?

S: I listen to it. Right.

K: Ah, do you?

S: It ( thought's image making) stops.

K: No, no. I am not interested in whether it stops. Do you listen to this statement, ''can it stop?'' If that doesn't stop, you are going to have such a chaotic world - you follow? I see this, not as an abstraction, but as an actuality, as that flower.

S: Right...

K: And as a human being, what am I to do? Because I personally I have no image about myself: a mental conclusion, a concept, an ideal, all these are images. I have none. And I say to myself, what can I do ( educationally?) when everybody around me is building images, and so destroying this lovely earth where we are meant to live happily, you know, in human relationship, and look at the heavens and be happy about it. What is the right action for a man who has an image?

S: Let me turn it back. What happens I ask you: can it stop?

K: I say, of course. It is very simple to me. Of course it can stop. But you don't ask me the next question: how do you do it? How does it come about?

S: No, I just want to listen for a minute to your "Yes, of course". OK, Now, how do you think it (thought's image making mechanism?) can be stopped ?

K: I say it can: definitely. To me this is tremendously important.

S: Well I think we all agree that it is tremendously important, but 'how'?

K: Not 'how'. Then you enter into the question of (meditation) systems, mechanical process, which is part of our image making. If I tell you how, then you say, tell me the system, the method, and I'll do it every day and I'll get a new ( spirtually upgraded?) image.

S: Yes....
K: It is a fact that as long as there are (self-identified ? ) images there is not going to be peace in the world, no love in the world. I see it as a fact. Right? I remain (abide?) with the fact. You follow? As we said if one remains ( meditatively with the truth of ) the fact there is a ( qualitative inward ) transformation. Which is, not to let thought begin to interfere with the fact.

B: When you say, ''remain with the ( inward truth of the ) fact'', one of the ( mental) images that may come in that it is impossible, it can never be done.

K: Yes, that is another image.

B: In other words the mind should stay with that fact with no (mental) comment whatsoever.

S: Well, the thing that comes through to me when you say 'remain with the fact', you are really calling for an action right there. To really remain with it is that the action or perception is there.

K: Sir, why do you make it so much? It is on you. You are involved in it.

S: To really see it. You know how that feels? It feels like something carries forward because we are always running away.

K: So our ( time-bound?) consciousness, sir, is ( driven by) this image (making mechanism?) : conclusions, ideas, all that. Filling, filling and that is the essence of the ( self-) image. If there is no image making then what is one's consciousness? That is ( becoming ) quite a different thing.

B: Do you think we could discuss that next time?

K: Tomorrow.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #36
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

6TH ('experientially-friendly' edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG ON THE HOLISTIC TRANSFORMATION OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS (1976)

K: As a (thoughtful ?) viewer, totally outside, listening to you for the first time, I would say, "Look how does it touch my life? It is all (looking) so vague and uncertain and it needs a great deal of (experiential) thinking, which I am unwilling to do". You follow? "So please tell me in a few words, or at length, what am I to do with my real life. Could we bring it down to brass tacks, as it were, where I can grapple with it as an ordinary human being?

B: Well, could we consider as a starting point ( man's psychological) problems arising in daily relationship ?

K: That is the essence, isn't it. I was going to begin with that. You see my relationship with human beings is in the office, in the factory, the constant ( survivalistic) battle, battle, battle all my life. Insulted, wounded, hurt, everything is going on in me and around me.

B: Yes, there is an (existential?) disappointment.

K: Continual disappointment, continual hope, desire to be more successful, more money, more, more, more of everything. Now how am I to (qualitatively) change my (everyday?) relationships? If we could consider again this point which isreally very important, which is not to have an (self-identified) 'image' at all.

B: Yes. But as we were discussing yesterday, we tend to be related almost always through the 'image'. I have already an ( idealised) image of myself and of you as you should be in relation to me. And then that ( psychological image ) gets disappointed and hurt and so on.

K: But how am I to break it down? I see very well I have got (fully identified with this self- protective mental ?) image which has been culturally put together, constructed through generations. And (assuming that I?) am a fairly intelligent person , how am I to break it down (and do I really want to do this?) ?

B: Well the (experiential) point that I have got to be aware ( in real time ) of that 'image', to watch it as it moves.

K: So I have to watch it (non-personally) all the time, in fact. Now am I capable of it? Have I got the energy because my wife wants sex, I don't want it, or I enjoy sex, I go through all kinds of miseries, and at the end of the day I crawl into bed. And you say I must have ( gather all my intelligent ?) energy. Therefore I am willing to give up certain wastages of energy.

B: What kind of wastage?

K: Drink. Smoke, useless chatter.

B: That would be just the beginning, anyway.

K: That would be the beginning. So I must, as a (holistically minded?) human being, I must realize the greatest importance is to have right relationship.

B: Yes, but could you say what happens when we don't have it ?

K: Oh, if I don't have it, of course. I create such havoc around me. So by putting aside ( bad habits such as smoke?) drink, pubs and you know the endless chatter about this or that, will I gather that ( intelligent mind ) energy which will help me to face the (self-protective) image which I have?

Shainberg: Well, let me just stop you here. Suppose that my real image is that I can't do it for myself.

K: That is one of our favourite (cultural) conditionings, that I can't do it myself therefore I must go to somebody to help me.

S: That's right. May be you (the certified psy?) can do it for me.

K: I think we don't actually realize the utter importance of having a right relationship( both with people & with the Universe?) . Having a mutual

relationship which is easy quiet, full, rich, happy, the beauty of it, the harmony of it. We don't realize (the existential) importance of) that.

B: I think it should be very clear that nobody can do it for me. You see whatever somebody else does it won't affect my relationship.

S: Can we say that right relationship begins with the realization that I have to do something for myself in this regard ? The human responsibility I have for myself.

K: Because you 'are' (an integral part of the consciousness of the) world. And the world 'is' you. You can't shirk that (inward fact) .

B: Perhaps we could discuss that a bit because it may seem strange to the casual viewer, for someone to say, "You are the world".

K: All that you are thinking, is the result of the culture, the climate, the food, the environment, the economic conditions, your grandparents, you 'are' the (compounded?) result of all that.

S: I think you can see that (even if only intellectually?) .

B: So, that's what you mean by saying 'you are the world' ?

K: Of course, of course. This is a fact. You go to India, you see the same suffering, the same anxiety, and you come to Europe, to America, it, in essence, is the same.

B: Each person has the same basic structure of suffering and confusion, and self-deception and so on. Therefore if I say, I am the world, I mean that there is an universal (psychological) structure and it is part of me and I am part of that.

K: Part of that, quite. So now let's proceed from that : you cannot have (an authentic?) relationship if you have a (self-protective ?) image about yourself, or if you create a ('trump-like'?) pleasurable image and stick to that. (as a holistic 'rule of thumb:) Moreover, any form of image you have about another, or about yourself prevents the beauty of relationship.

B: Yes. Even the (mental) image that I am secure in such and such a situation, for example, and not secure in a different situation, that prevents relationship. Because I will I demand of the other person that he put me in the situation that I think is secure, and he may not want to do it. Or I may say that I have ( a righteous self-) image of what is just and right. So in other words it is not that it is personally so but I would say that would be the right way for everybody to behave.

S: Right. Now, I think we have to be very specific about this. (self-identified image ?) Each little piece of this ( coming with) is with its own energy.

K: So, you ( the holistically responsible person?) come along and tell me: look, relationship is the greatest thing - what will make a human being listen to ( the inward truth of) this, even seriously for two minutes?

S: Right...

K: The big experts on psychology, or whatever it is, they won't take time to listen to it. They have got their plans, their pictures, their images, you follow, they are surrounded by all this. So to whom are we talking to?

B: Well to whoever is able to listen.

K: That means somebody who is somewhat serious.

B: Yes...

K: So let's move from there. We say as long as you have an image, pleasant or unpleasant, created, etc., etc., put together by thought and so on, there is no right relationship. That is an obvious fact.

B: Yes, and life ceases to have any value without right relationship.

K: Yes, but as of now my consciousness is filled with these images.

S: Right.

K: Right? And the images make my (ego-centric ?) consciousness. Now you are asking me to have no images at all. That means no (self-centred) consciousness, as I know it now. Right sir?

B: Yes, could we say anyway that the major part of consciousness is the self image? We are mostly occupied with (optimising the survival of this ) self image.

S: What more can we say about the self image and the whole way it generates itself?

B: Well, I think we discussed that before, that it gets caught on thinking of the self as real, and that is always implicit, you know, to say that for example the image may be that I am suffering in a certain way, and you see I must get rid of this suffering. You see there is always the implicit meaning in that that I am there, real, and therefore I must keep on thinking about this reality. And it gets caught in that feedback we were talking about. You see the thought feeds back and builds up.

S: Builds up more images.

B: More images, yes.

S: So that is (creating ) the (self-) consciousness.

K: The content of my (self-centred) consciousness is a vast series of images, interrelated, not separated, but interrelated.

B: But they are all centred on the 'self'.

K: On the self, of course. The self is the centre.

B: Yes, because they are all created for the self in order to make the self right, you know, correct. And the self is regarded as all important.

K: Yes.

B: That gives it tremendous energy.

K: Now what I am getting at is: you are asking me, who am fairly serious, fairly intelligent, as an ordinary human being, you are asking me to (meditatively) empty that consciousness (of its psychological content?) .

S: Right. I am asking you to stop this constant image making (& upgrading?) .

K: Not only the image making, the images that I have, and prevent further image making. Both are involved. (To recap:) You are asking me, ( providing I really?) want to understand ( what you are talking about?) you because I really want to live a different way of living because I see it is necessary to be free of the 'self', which is the maker of images, and to prevent further image making.

S: Right...

K: And I say, please tell me how to do it. And you tell me, the moment when you ask me how to do it, you have already built an (authoritarian) image, the system, the method. So you tell me, don't ever ask 'how to do it', because the 'how' involves the (same old ) 'me' doing it.Therefore I am creating another picture.

B: So that shows the way you 'slip' into it, because you ask 'how to do it', the word 'me' is not there but it is there implicitly. It usually slips in because it is there implicitly and not explicitly. That is the (mental) trick, I mean.

K: So now you stop me ( from asking 'how' ) and say, proceed from there. How am I to free this consciousness, even a corner of it, a limited part of it, what is the action that will do it? I want to discuss it with you. Don't tell me how to do it. I have understood. I have understood, I will never again ask, how to do it. The 'how', as he explained, implies implicitly the me wanting to do it, and therefore the me is the factor of the image maker. Then I say to you, I realize this, what am I to do?
S: Do you realize it?

K: Yes. I know I am making images all the time. I am very well aware of it. My wife calls me an idiot; already registered in the brain, thought takes it over, it becomes the image which I have about myself and is hurt. So of this process I know, I am very well aware of this.
One can see that every flattery, and every insult is registered (personally?) in the brain. And thought then takes it over as (psychologically sensitive?) memory and creates an image, and the image gets hurt. So the image 'is' (responsible for the ) the hurt because the image is the pleasure and with the new content, you know, of insult, when the content is flattery the image is pleasure, and when the content is insult the image is hurt.

S: That's right...

K: So Dr Bohm, what is one to do (for meditation homework?) ? There are two things involved in it: one to prevent further hurts and to be free of all the hurts that I have had.

B: But they are both built on the same principle.

K: How am I, a fairly intelligent man, who has read a great deal - an ordinary man I am talking about - I have discussed this and I see how extraordinarily ( psychological?) important all this is. And I say, I realize that the two sides are the same coin. The brain registers the ( psychological) hurt and the whole thing begins. Now how am I to end that? Not the 'how', asking for the ( fail-safe ) method, don't tell me what to do. I won't accept it because it means nothing to me.

B: Well, if you take the hurt that is to come, my brain is already set up in order to respond with an image.

K: So, you are telling me, don't divide the past hurt or the future hurts because the image is the same.

B: Yes. The process is the same.It really doesn't matter because I may just be reminded of the past hurt, that is the same as somebody else insulting me.

K: Yes, yes. So you are saying to me, don't divide the past or the future hurt; there is only (a self-protective process of ) hurt; there is only pleasure: so look at that. Look at the image, not in terms of the past hurts and the future hurts, but just look at that image which is both the past and the future.

B: So, we are saying look at the ( self-identified?) image, not at its particular content but at its general structure.

K: Now then my next question is: how am I to look at it (objectively ?) ? Because I have already an image, with which I am (instinctively?) going to look. May we proceed now? Is the 'observer' different from 'that which he is observing' (inwardly) ?

B: ...that is the (holistic solution of this whole ?) question, yes. You could say that is the root of the power of the image.

K: You see, sir, what happens? If there is an (actual ?) difference between the observer and the observed there is that interval of time in which other activities go on ?

B: Well, yes, in which the brain sort of eases itself into something more pleasant.

K: And where there is this (subliminal) division (btw the all controlling 'observer' and the thing observed) there is conflict. So you are telling me to observe in a different way, to learn this art of (non-dualistic) observing, which is ( being constantly aware that?) that the observer 'is' ( not separate from the inward things which are being ? ) observed.

B: Yes, but I think we could look first at our whole tradition, our whole conditioning, which is the (self-identified) 'observer' is different from the observed. Because that is what everybody feels.

K: Yes, a (virtual) reality sustained by thought.

B: And the self is (acting in safe mode as a separate?) 'observer', which seems to be a reality which is independent of thought .

K: But it is the product of thought.

B: Yes, but that is ( a wide-spread) confusion.

K: Yes, quite, quite, quite. Are you telling me that the observer is the result of the past? My memories, my experiences, all the rest of it, the past.

B: Yes, but I think if we think of the (hapless?) viewer, he might find it a little hard to follow that, if he hasn't gone into it.

K: It's fairly simple.

S: What do you mean?

K: Don't you live in the past? Your (psychological) life is (made of) )ast memories, past experiences. And from the past you project the future.
I hope it will be better, hope that I will be good, I will be different. It's always ( a time-binding movement of thought) from the past to the future.

S: That's right. That's how it is lived.

K: Now I want to see, that ( active memory of the ) past is the me, of course.

B: But it does look as if it is something independent, just that you are looking at.

K: Is it really independent?

B: It isn't but to see that may ( may require some serious meditation)
At the first sight, it looks as if the 'me' is ( mentally present) here looking at the past.

K: Yes, of course, quite. The me is in a ( water-tight ?) jar. But (the bottom line is that?) the me is the product of the past.

S: Right. I can see ( intellectually?) that I am the product of the past. I can see that.

K: How do you see it?

B: Intellectually.

K: Then you don't ( actually?) see it. Why isn't there an immediacy of perception of a imeless?) truth which is, that (ppsychologically-speaking?à you 'are' the (product of the ) past?

S: Because thought's (self-) projection in time comes in. I have an image of myself at three, I have an image of myself at ten and I have an image of myself at seventeen, and I say that they followed in sequence in time, and I see myself having developed over time. I am different now than I was five years ago.

K: Are you?

S: I am telling you that is how I have got that image. That (self-) image is of a developmental sequence in time. And I exist as a storehouse of memories of a bunch accumulated incidents.

K: That is, ( thought & ) time has produced that.

S: I see that.

K: What is this 'time'?

S: I have just described it to you. Time is (generated by) a (mental) movement in...

K: It is a (thought projected ) movement. The movement from the past.

S: That's right. I have moved from the time I was three, then from three to ten, seventeen.

K: Now, is that movement an 'actuality'?

S: What do you mean by 'actuality'?

B: ... or is it just a (thought created mental ) image? The whole point about thought's images ( mental representations?) , is that it imitates an actual fact - you get the feeling that it is real. In other words, 'I' feel that I am really there, looking at my own past, all the implications of how I have developed in time are correct ?

S: Not really . I can see the incorrectness of my memory which constructs 'me' ( the self-consciousness?) in time. I mean obviously I was much more at three than I can remember, I was more at ten than I can remember, and there was much more going on obviously in actuality at seventeen than I have in my memory.

B: Yes, but the 'me' who is here now is looking ( retrospectively?) at all that.

S: That's right.

B: But is he ( actually) there and is he ( really) looking? That is the question.

S: What is an actuality is this mental image of a developmental sequence.

B: And the me who is looking at it?

S: And the me who is looking at it, that's right.

B: You see, that is one of the things we 'slip up' on, because when we say, there is objectively a developmental sequence it is ( subliminally) implying a 'me' who is looking at it, like I am looking at the ( growth of a ) plant.
S: Right...
B: But it may be that the me who is looking at it is ( also?) a (stronger mental ) image as is his 'developmental sequence'.
S: Right.So, you are saying then that this image of me is...

K: ...is a non-reality, is has no reality.

B: Well, the only reality is that it is ( a dualistic process of ) thought. It is not a reality independent of thinking.

K: So we must go back to (square one & ?) find out what is 'reality'.

S: Right...

K: Reality, we said, is everything that (man's self-centred) thinking has put together: the table, the illusions, the churches, the nations, everything that thought has contrived, put together, is reality. However, ( the world of) nature is not put together by thought, but it is ( nervertheless ) a reality.

B: It is a reality independent of thought. But you see, is the me, who is looking, an objective reality that is independent of thought like nature?

K: That is the whole point. Have you understood?

S: Yes, I am beginning to see. Let me ask you a question: is there any difference for you between the perception of this and your perception of the me?

K: This is real: me is not real.

S: Me is not real, what is your perception of the 'self' image?

K: If I have no ( self-protective mental ) image, where is the 'me'?

S: But I have an image of me.

B: Well, could I put it another way? Suppose you are watching a conjuring trick and you perceive a woman being sawn in half, you see. And then when you see the actual trick you say, what is your perception of this woman who is being sawn in half. I am trying to say that as long as you don't see through the trick, what you see is apparently real : somebody being actually cut in half. But you have missed certain ( hidden) points and when you see these (hidden) points that you have missed you don't see anybody being cut in half. You just see it as a ( cheap ?) trick.

S: Right. So I have missed the essence of it.

K: Sir, just let's keep it (experientially) simple. We said we have ( self-identified mental) images; and you tell me to look at it, to be aware of it, to perceive the image. Is the perceiver different from the perceived? That is all my question is. If he is ( considering itself) different then the whole process of ( his psychological) conflict will go on endlessly. And if there is no division between the observer is the observed, then the ( nature of the ) whole problem changes.

S: Right.

K: Right? So ( for further home study?) is the observer different from the observed? Obviously not. So can one look at this ( self-identified mental) image without the observer? And is there an image (left) when there is no observer? Because ( for obscure reasons?) the observer makes the ( mental) image, because the 'observer' is the ( safety provider for the whole ?) movement of thought.

B: But then, we shouldn't call it the 'observer' then because it is not actually looking. I think ( the choice of experiential) language is confusing.

K: The ( 'holistic'?) language, yes...

B: Because if you say it is an 'observer', that implies that something is looking, but what you are really meaning is that thought is moving (on its own ) and creating an (virtual self-) image as if it were looking but nothing is being seen.

K: Yes...

B: Therefore there is no ( actual) 'observer'.

K: Quite right. Or, to put it in a ( roundabout?) way: is there a 'thinker' without thought?

B: No.

K: Exactly. Or, if there is no ( self-identified) 'experiencer' is there a (personal?) experience?
So ( to recap:) you (K) have asked me to look at my images, and you said to actually look at it, is a very serious and very penetrating ( meditative) demand. You say, if there is no (all controlling) 'thinker' there is no ( self-centred activity of?) thought. So you have shown me something enormously significant.

S: As you said, the whole question changes completely.

K: Completely. I have no (self-identified mental) image.

S: It feels completely different. It's like then there is an (inner space of) silence...

K: So, as my consciousness 'is' (an integral part of ) the consciousness of the world - ( presently) filled with all the 'things' of thought, sorrow, fear, pleasure, despair, anxiety, attachment, detachment, hope, it is ( trapped in?) a turmoil of confusion, there is a (subliminal) sense of a deep (existential) agony involved in it all. And in that state you cannot have any ( authentic) relationship with any human being.

S: Right.

K: So you ( K) say to me: to have the greatest and the most responsible relationship is to have no ( self-protective?) image.

S: That is to be responsive to 'all that is'. I mean it means to be ( inwardly) responsive and to open it up (Pandora's Box ?) .

K: Now the next question is: is ( the identification with?) this self- image deep, hidden? Are there hidden imageswhich I can't get hold of? Are they in the cave, in the underground, somewhere hidden, which all the (psy) experts have told me there are there are dozens of underground images. And how am I to unearth them, expose them, out? You see you have put me, the ordinary (time-bound) man, into a terrible position.

S: You don't have to 'unearth' them if all that ( we have discussed ) is clear to you .. Once it is clear to you that the observer 'is' the observed...

K: Therefore you are saying there is no unconscious. You, the psy who talk endlessly about unconscious with your patients !

S: I don't.

K: Therefore you say there is no 'unconscious'?

S: Right.

K: I agree with you! The moment when you see the observer 'is' (undivided from) the observed, and that the observer is the maker of images, it is finished.

S: Finished. If you really 'see' (the inward truth of?) that.

K: That's it. So the ( fragmented) consciousness which I know, in which we have lived (for ages?) , has undergone a tremendous transformation: has it? Has it to you?

S: Mm...

K: And if I may ask Dr Bohm, & all of us, realizing that the observer 'is' the observed, and therefore the 'image making (mechanism) is no longer in existence, and so the content of consciousness, which makes up consciousness, is not as we know it. Right? What then?

S: I don't know...

K: I am asking this ( challenging) question because it involves ( lots of homework?) meditation. I am asking this question because all religious people, the really serious ones, ( will eventually?) have to go into this question : what happens when there is no movement of ( self-centred) thought, which is (directly responsible for?) the image making, what then takes place? When ( thought's projection of 'psychological) time' ends, then what is there? Because you have led me (only) up to this point. I hear you and I say, "By Jove, this is something extraordinary these people are saying. They say the moment when there is no image maker, the ( psychological ? ) 'content' of one's consciousness undergoes such a radical transformation and ( the ego-centric mental activity of) thought comes to an end, except when objective thinking absolutely has its place (when dealing with technological & scientific ) knowledge and all the rest of it." So ( to make a long story short?) when ( the psychological continuity of) thought comes to an end, time has a stop. What then? Is that ( the psychological counterpart of ?) death?

S: It is actually the death of the 'self' (-centred mental entity) .

K: No, sir. ( Meditation-wise?) it is much more than that. When ( the egotistic activity of ) thought stops, there is a complete (inward ?) transformation in one's consciousness because there is no anxiety, there is no fear, there is no pursuit of pleasure, there is none of the ( psychologically motivated?) 'things' that create turmoil, division . And what comes into being, or what happens then (inwardly) ? Not as a ('personal') experience because that is out. But what takes place in that (silent mind ) ? I'll have to find it out (for optional meditation homework?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #37
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

7TH ('experientially-friendly' edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG ON THE HOLISTIC TRANSFORMATION OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF MANKIND (1976)

K: After ( our discussion) this morning you have left me (with a ) completely empty (but meditatively open ?) mind , without any (psychological ?) ?) image. So where am I ?

S: Hm-m... ?

K: You see, as a (holistically minded ?) outsider who has actually listened to all this, I have been left as with a sense of ( facing) a 'blank wall'. Have I solved the problem of sorrow, do I know what it means to love? Do I understand what is compassion? Do I have this sense of astonishing energy which is compassion, the end of my sorrow, do I know what it means to (have) love (for) a human being? And you haven't shown me what ( the psychological significance of?) death is. So there are all these things we should cover before we have finished this evening - a lot of ground to cover.

B: Could we begin on the question of death ? Essentially what you said this morning when we had come to the ( experientially critical) point where we see that the observer 'is' the observed then that is (the psychological counterpart of physical ? ) death ?

K: Yes.

B: Now, this raises a deeper question : if the self is nothing but a ( composite mental) image, then what is it that dies? You see if the (psychological) self- image 'dies', is there something real that dies?

K: : I was trying to point out that if there is no ( self) image at all in my consciousness, there is ( a psychological counterpart of?) death.

B: Well that's the point exactly. What is it that has 'died'? You see death implies that something which was actually alive has died.

K: The (pack of self-identified ) images have died, the 'me' is dead.

B: But is that a genuine death ? More deeply is there something that has to die? You see, I'm trying to say, something real. In other words, if the living organism dies, I see that, up to a point. Something real has died, but when the 'self' (identified consciousness?) dies... ?

K: Ah, but so far I have accepted the 'self' has been an astonishingly real thing. You come along and tell me that that image is fictitious, and I understand it, and I'm a little frightened that when that dies, when there is no (self-identified ) 'image', there is a (psychological) ending of something.

B. Yes, but what exactly is it that 'ends'? Is it something real that ends? You see, you could say an ending of a (mental) image, ther's nothing much that ends if it's only an image.

K: Yes, that's what I want to get at...

B: Or is there something deeper that 'dies'?

K: I would say it is not only the self-image which is dead, but something much deeper than that.

B But it's still not the death of the organism, you see.

K: Still not the death of organism, because the physical organism will go on, up till it's diseased, old age, senility and so on. But here ( in the psychological field) it is like a very shallow pool. You have taken away a little water and there is nothing but mud left behind. That is nothing. So is there something much more deep regarding the psychological meaning of death ?

S: You mean, does ( the psychological) death have a meaning beyond the death of the ( self-identified ) image?

K: Of course, that's what we are asking.

B Is there something about (the fact of) death that is bigger than the death of the ( self-) image?

K: Obviously. It must be.

B: Will this wider meaning include the death of the organism ?

K: Yes. I mean the physical organism might go on, but eventually it will come to an end.

B: If we were to see what death means as a whole, universally, then we would also see what the death of the organism means, right? But is there some meaning also to the death of the self image, the same meaning?

K: I should say, that's only a very small part.

B: But then one could think there might be a process or a structure beyond the self-image that might die, that creates the self-image.

K: Yes, that is thought.

B: So, are you discussing the death of thought?

K: Yes, but that's is also again superficial.

B: But is there something beyond thought itself that should...

K: Just look. The ( self-identified) image dies, that's fairly simple (to grasp but) it is a very shallow affair. Then there's the ending of (the time-binding continuity of) thought, which is the 'ending of thought'.

B: Right. So, you would say thought is deeper than the ( self-) image but still not very deep.

K: Not very deep. So we have removed the maker of the image and the image itself. Now, is there something more?

B: In what sense ? Something more that exists or something more that has to die ? I mean your ( sybillinic?) question is not clear when you say, "Is there something more?"

K: Is that all ( regarding the holistic significance of) death?

B: I see. Is that all that death is.

S: Is there a (transcendental?) meaning that's bigger?

K: Death must have something enormously significant for the whole of (one's) life.

B: Yes, but thinking of the viewer, in the way we live now, (the transition of) death is at the end and you just try to forget about it, you know, and try to make it unobtrusive, and so on.

K: But as you have pointed out, my life has been ( entangled in) a constant conflict, anxiety, all the rest of it.

B: Right.

K: That's been all my (temporal) life. I have come to the limits of the known, and therefore death is the (transition into the) Unknown. So I am afraid of that. And we come along and say, look death is partly the ending of the image nd of the maker of the image, but death must have much more, greater significance, than merely this empty saucer.

B: Well, if you could make more clear why it must have...

K: Is life just a shallow empty pool? With mud at the end of it?

S: Well, why would you assume that it's anything else?

B: I mean, even if it's something else, we have to ask why is it that death is the key to understanding that ?

K: Because it's the ending of everything ( one 'knows') . Of all my concepts, images - end of all the memories.

B: But that's in the ending of thought, right?

K: Ending of thought. And also it means, ending of ( thought's projected continuity in) time. ( The 'psychological' thread of) time coming to a stop totally. And there is no ( thought projected) 'future' in the sense of past meeting the present and carrying on.

B: 'Psychologically' speaking ?

K: Yes, the 'psychological' ending of everything.

B: Right. But when the physical organism dies then everything ends with that organism?

K: But wait a minute. If I don't end the (self-identified) image, the ( collective) stream(ing ) of image-making still goes on.

B: Well again it's not too clear 'where' it goes on...

K: It manifests itself in other people. That is: the physical organism dies, and at the last moment I'm still ( subliminally identified ) with the image I have.

B: Yes, what happens to that?

K: That's what I'm saying. That (self-identified) image has its continuity with the ( stream of the) rest of the images - your image, my image. Your image is not different from mine. It may have a little bit more colour, but essentially the image, my image 'is' ( not different from?) your image. So there is this constant flow of ( collective) image-making.

B: But where does it take place?

K: It is ( constantly active up ?) there, and it 'manifests' itself in people.

B: So you feel that in some ways it's something more 'universal' ?

K: Yes, much more universal.

B: That's rather strange to think of .So, in other words, you're saying the (self-) image does not originate only in one brain, but in some sense it is universal ?

K: Universal. Quite right.

B: So, you're not only saying that it's just the ( compounded?) sum of the effects of all the brains, but are you implying something more?

K: Is the effect of all the brains, and it manifests itself in ( ordinary) people, as they're born; genes and all the rest of it.

B: Yes...

K: Now. Is that all (to the meaning of death ?) Or does (the psychological) 'death' bring about this sense of an enormous, endless (intelligent ) energy which has no beginning and no end?
( To recap:) I have got rid of my images and the image-maker ; it is ( meditation-wise?) very simple, it can be stopped, but I haven't touched the much deeper things - life must have an infinite depth.

B: You mean that's death opens that up ?

K: Death opens that up.

B: But is there something real which is blocking that from realizing itself?

K: Yes, ( the temporal mind ) is blocking itself through ( its protective self ) image and thought's image making

S: Yes, that's what's blocking the greater (vision) .

B: Yes.

K: Wait, wait, there are still other blocks, deeper blocks.

B: That's what I was trying to get at. That there are deeper blocks that are real. And they really have to 'die' (be dissolved?) ?

K: That's just it.

S: Would that be ( the karmic effects of the collective ) stream that you're talking about, that's there?

K: There is a Stream of Sorrow, isn't there?

B: So, is this 'Stream of Sorrow' deeper than (thought's image making?) ?

K: Yes.

B: Well, that's important to ( be ended) then.

K: It is. But be careful, it is a very serious thing.

B: I mean, would you say sorrow and suffering are essential the same or just different words?

K: Oh, (just) different words...

B: All right, just to clear it up.

S: So, deeper than thought's image-making is the Stream of Collective Sorrow

K: Isn't it? Man has lived with sorrow for a million years.

B: Well, then could we say a little more about what is this 'sorrow'. It's more than pain you see.

K: Oh, much more than pain; much more than loss; much more than losing my son and my parent or this or that.n It's much deeper than that.

B: Right. Right. It goes beyond the self-image, beyond thought and beyond what we would ordinarily call 'feeling'.

K: Oh, of course. Now can that ( Collective Stream of Sorrow ?) end?

S: Well, are you saying that this Stream of Sorrow, is a different stream from the Stream of image-making? Are there two different streams, or..?

K: No, it's part of the same stream (of human consciousness ) but ( a current that is) much deeper.

B: Are you saying, then, that the image-making is on the surface of this Stream. (of human Consciousness)

K: That's all. But I want to penetrate ( immerse meditatively still ?) deeper .

B: Well, could you say we've understood the waves on the surface of this Stream which ( on the surface) we call 'image making', so whatever (the deeper ) disturbances and sorrow, they come out on the surface as image-making.

K: That's right.

S: So now we have got to go deep sea diving ?

K: River diving.

B: But what really is this 'stream of sorrow'? Is it not merely that the sum of all the sorrow of different people (accumulated through eons of time ) ?

K: No, no...Could we put it this ( experientially-friendly way – (just ending) the surface waves on the river doesn't bring (into one's life the Intelligence of) Compassion. Then, what will? Since, without ( this universal Intelligence of ) compassion human beings are destroying themselves. So, does compassion come with the ending of sorrow which is not ( just the personal) sorrow created by ( one's self-centred) thought.

B: So, let's say in ( the 'known' field of) thought you have mainly the sorrow for the (mishaps of the ) self – right?

K: Yes, sorrow for the 'self'.

B: Which is self-pity, and then there's a deeper sorrow which is universal, not merely the total sum but rather something universal.

K: That's right.

S: Can we spell that out, go into it?

K: Aren't you aware of a much deeper sorrow than the sorrow of thought, self pity, the sorrow of the image ?

B: Well, does this sorrow have an (deeper existential) content? I mean to say it's sorrow for the fact that man is in this state of affairs which he can't get out of.

K: That's partly it. That means the 'sorrow of ignorance'.

B: Yes. That man is ignorant (of what is going on inwardly) and cannot get out of it.

K: Cannot get out - you follow? And the ( holistic) perception of that sorrow is (awakening the universal intelligence of) compassion.

B: Right, so, the non perception of it is ( man's existential) sorrow then.

K: Yes, yes. Are we saying the same thing? Say for instance, you see me in ignorance.

B: I see the whole of mankind in ignorance.

K: And after living for millennia, they are still ignorant - ignorant in the sense we are talking that is, the maker of the ( egocentric) 'image' and all that.

B: Now, if my mind is really good & clear, that (global perception) should have a deep effect on me? Right?

S: What would have a deep effect?

B: To see this tremendous ignorance, this tremendous destruction.

K: We are getting at it.

B: Right. But then if I don't fully perceive, if I start to escape the (human responsability of this) perception of it, then I'm in it too?

K: Yes, you are in it too.

B: But the feeling of that universal sorrow is still something that I can feel, I mean, is that what you mean to say?

K: Yes.

B: Although I am not very perceptive as to what it means (experientially ) .

K: ( For starters ) You can feel the sorrow of ( self-centred) thought.

B: But I can somehow be aware of the universal sorrow ?

K: Yes. You can feel the orrow of ( the inner condition of a ) man living like this.

B: Is that the essence of it?

K: I'm just moving into it.

B: Is there more to it?

K: Oh, much more to it.

B: Well, then perhaps we should try to bring that out.

K: I live the ordinary life: ( a strongly identified self-) image, sorrow, fear, anxiety, all that. I have the sorrow of self-pity, all that. And you who are 'enlightened' , look at me - aren't you full of sorrow for me? Which is compassion.

B: I would say that is a kind of (a compassionate & intelligent) energy which is tremendously aroused because of (seeing) this ( sad existential ) situation.
But that, what do you call it, sorrow, or you'd call it compassion ?

K: Compassion, which is the outcome of ( a holistic perception of) sorrow.

B: But has the 'enlightened' person first felt sorrow and then ( felt the inward awakening of ?) compassion?

K: No. You see, sir, you are saying that one must have (some experience of) sorrow first (in order ) to have compassion.

B: I'm not saying it, just exploring it.

K: Yes, we are exploring. Through sorrow you come to compassion ?

B: That's what you seem to be saying.

K: Yes, but does it implies that I must go through all the horrors of mankind in order to...

B: But let's say that the 'enlightened' man, sees this sorrow, sees this destruction, you know - sees this - and he feels something, he senses something which is a tremendous energy which we call compassion. Now can he really understand these people who are ( struggling in the stream of) sorrow when he is not himself in sorrow ?

K: That's right.

B: So, he just feels a tremendous energy to do something.

K: Yes. The tremendous energy of ( Universal) Compassion.

B: Feeling compassion for them ?

K: Compassion.

S: Would you then say that the 'enlightened' man perceives or is aware of the conflict, of the awkwardness, the blundering, the loss of life...

K: Doctor Shainberg just listen : suppose you have been through all this- (egocentric) images, thought, the sorrow of thought, the fears, anxiety, and you say. I have understood that. It's over in me. But you have left very little: you have energy, but it is a very shallow business.

S: Right...

K: And is ( the wholeness of) life so shallow as all that? Or has it an immense depth?

B: Has inwardness..?

K: A great inwardness. And to find that out don't you have to die to everything ( you have psychologically?) 'known'?

B: Yes, but how does this relate to sorrow at the same time?

K: I am coming to that. You might feel I am ignorant, my anxieties, all the rest of it. You are beyond it, you are on 'the other side of the Stream' as it were. Don't you have compassion?

S: Yes, yes, I do.

K: Isn't that the result of ending the universal sorrow.

B: So, you're talking about a person who was is in sorrow to begin with. And in him this universal sorrow ends. Is that what you're saying?

K: No, it is more than that.

B: Then we'll have to go slowly, because if you say the ending of universal sorrow the thing that is puzzling is to say it still exists, you see.

K: What?

B: You see if the universal sorrow ends, then it's all gone ?
K: Ah! It's still there.

B: It's still there. So in some ( individualised ) sense the universal sorrow ends but in another sense it persists ?

K: Yes. Yes, that's right.

B: But if you have an insight into the essence of sorrow – of the universal sorrow - then in that sense ( for that individual) sorrow ends in that insight. Is that what you mean? Although you know it still goes on.

K: Yes, yes, although it still goes on.

S: I think I understood that one, but my question comes before: which is that here is 'me' & thought's 'image-making' has died. Right, that's the waves. Now, I come into the universal sorrow ?

K: You've lost the sorrow of thought.

S: Right. The sorrow of thought has gone, but there's a deeper sorrow ?

K: Are you assuming that there is a deeper sorrow?

S: I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.

K: I am saying, is there a compassion which is not related to thought, or is that compassion born of sorrow?

S: Born of sorrow?

K: Born in the sense when the sorrow ends there is ( the birth of Universal ?) compassion.

S: OK. That makes it a little clearer. When the sorrow of thought...

K: Not ( just ) the 'personal' sorrow! Is there not a deeper sorrow than the sorrow of thought?

S: David was just saying there's the sorrow ( of mankind's collective) ignorance is deeper than the sorrow thought. The sorrow for the universal calamity of mankind trapped in this sorrow; the sorrow of a continual repetition of wars and history and poverty and people mistreating each other, that's a deeper sorrow.

K: I understand all that.

S: That's deeper than the sorrow of thought.

K: Can we ask this ( holistic ?) question: what is compassion which is ( the intelligence of Universal?) Love . What is ( the source of this) compassion? Can a man who is in sorrow, thought, image, can he have that? He can't. Absolutely he cannot. Right?

B: Yes.

K: Then how does that come into being? Without That man's life has no (truly universal) meaning. You have left me without that. So if all that you have taken away from me is superficial sorrow, thought and image, and I feel there's something much more (to come?) .

B: You see, when we haveseen thought producing sorrow and self pity, but also the realization of the sorrow of mankind and could you say that the energy which is deeper is being in some way..

K: Moved (on?) .

B: But you see, first of all in this sorrow energy is caught up in whirlpools.

K: Yes, that's right, in small fields.

B: It's deeper than thought but there is some sort of very deep disturbance of the ( life-sustaining) energy which we call deep sorrow.

K: Deep sorrow.

B: Ultimately it's origin is the blockage of thought ( functioning within the field of the known?) , isn't it?

K: Yes, yes. That is the deep sorrow of mankind (accumulated) for centuries upon centuries - a vast reservoir of sorrow.

B: It's sort of moving around in, in some way that's disorderly and preventing clarity and so on. I mean perpetuating ignorance.

K: Perpetuating ignorance, right.

B: So, that's ( the karmic causation of) it. Because, if it were not for that then man's natural capacity to learn would solve all these problems.

K: That's right. But... unless you three or show me, or ( help me) have an insight into something much greater, I say, "Yes that's very nice", and I go off ( back into the Stream) - you follow?

B: Yes...

K: So, what we're trying to do, as far as I can see, is to penetrate into something (Universally Intelligent & Compassionate) beyond death.

B: Beyond death... ?

K: Death we say's not only the ending of the organism, but the ending of all the ( psychologically active) content of the consciousness which we know as it is now.

B: Is it also the ending of sorrow?

K: Ending of sorrow of that kind, of the superficial kind. That's clear.

B: Yes.

K: But the man who has listened to all that says, that isn't good enough, you haven't given me the flower, the perfume. You've just given me the ashes of it. And, now, we three are trying to find out that which is beyond the ashes.

B: Right. You mean 'that' ( dimension of consciousness?) which is beyond death?

K: Absolutely!

B: I mean, would you say that is 'eternal' or..?

K: I don't want to use this ( banalised?) word.

B: That 'something' which is beyond time ?

K: Beyond time. Therefore, there is 'something' (to be inwardly awakened) beyond this superficial death, an (inner) movement that has no beginning and no ending.

B: But it is a movement?

K: It's a movement, but not in (terms of material) time.

S: What is the difference between a movement in time and a movement out of time?

K: That ( inward Spring) which is constantly renewing, constantly - 'new' isn't the word - constantly fresh, flowering, endlessly flowering, that is timeless.

B: Well I think we can see the point.

S: I think we get that. The feel of renewal in creation and in coming and going without transition, without duration, without linearity, that has...

K: You see, let me ( recap it?) in a different way. Being a fairly intelligent man, who has read various books, tried various meditations - at one glance I have an insight into all that (thought-time process?) , at one glance it is finished, I won't touch it! There an (authentic) meditation must take place to delve, to have an insight, into something which the human mind has never touched before.

B: Right. I mean even if you do touch it, then it doesn't mean the next time it will be 'known'.

K: Ah! It can never be 'known' in the (knowledgeable?) sense..

B: It can never be 'known', it's always new in some sense.

K: Yes it's always new. It is not an ( upgraded projection of) memory stored up and altered, changed and call it 'new'. It has never been old. I don't know if I can put it that way.

B: I think I understand that, you see. Could you say a ( newly born ) mind that has never known sorrow ?

K: Yes.

B: Now, to say that it might seem puzzling at first but it's a moving out from the state which has known sorrow into to a state which has not know sorrow.

K: Not yet, that's quite right.

B: In other words, there's no 'you'.

K: That's right. That's right.

S: Right. Isn't there a different kind of ( meditative) action.

K: To penetrate deeper into this, the ( meditating) mind must be completely silent. Otherwise you are projecting something into it.

B: Right.

K: An absolute silence which is not brought about through will (power) .
Now, in that silence there is the sense of something beyond all time, all death, all thought. A mind which is (as) nothing! And therefore empty. And therefore with a tremendous ( inflow of an universally intelligent ?) energy.

B: Is this also the source of compassion?

K: That's right. This energy 'is' ( the timeless intelligence of?) Compassion And beyond that there is something more.

B: What could it be that's 'more'?

K: Sir, let's approach it differently. Everything thought has created is not sacred, is not holy.

B: That ( Ground of All Being) which is sacred is without limit.

K: That's it. So, there is something beyond compassion which is 'sacred'.

B: Well then, what is our relation to the 'sacred' ?

K: To the man who is ignorant there is no relationship. Right? To the man who has removed the self-protecting ) image, all that, who is free of the image and the image-maker, it has no ( existential) meaning yet. Right?
It has meaning only when (the meditating mind) goes beyond everything, beyond – it dies to everything. 'Dying' (in real time) means, in the sense, never for a single second accumulating anything 'psychologically'.

S: Would you say that is there ever a relationship to the sacred or is the sacred..?

K: No, he was asking what is the relationship between that which is sacred, holy, and the world of reality.

B: Yes, well, it's implicit anyway.

K: We talked about this question some time ago, which is: That may have a relationship with this, but the relationship comes through insight, intelligence and compassion.

S: What is this relationship?

K: ( For instance?) you have had an insight into the ( self-identified) image. You have had an insight into the movement of thought, moment of thought which is self-pity, creates sorrow, and all that. You have had a real insight into it. Now, isn't that insight intelligence? Now move with that intelligence, which is not yours or mine, intelligence of that insight. Now, move a step further into it. Have an insight into sorrow, which is not the sorrow of thought, and all that, the enormous sorrow of mankind, of ignorance, you follow, and out of that insight compassion. Now, insight into compassion: is compassion the end of all life, end of all death? It seems so because you have thrown away, mind has thrown away all the burden which man has imposed upon himself. Right? So we have that tremendous feeling, a tremendous thing inside you. Now, that Compassion - delve into it. And there is something sacred, untouched by man - man in the sense, untouched by his mind, by his cravings, by his demands, by his prayers, by his everlasting chicanery, tricks. And that may be the 'Origin of Everything' - which man has misused.

B: Would you say it's the origin of all matter, all nature ?

K: Of everything, of all matter, of all nature.

B: Of all mankind ?

K: That's right. I'll stick by it! So, at the end of these seven dialogues, what have you, what has the viewer got? What has he captured? Has his bowl been filled ?

S: Filled with the 'sacred'.

K: He has come to you wanting to find out how to transform my (inner) life, because I feel it is absolutely necessary. Have I got anything out of all this? Have you given me the perfume of 'that' thing?

S: Can I give you the perfume?

K: Or, yes sir, you can share it with me. Have you, have you two shared this thing with this ( nowhere?) man? If not, then what, what? A clever dialogue, that we have fed up. So, you can only share It when you are really hungry, burning with hunger. Otherwise you share words. So I have come to the point, we have come to the point when we see life has an extraordinary meaning.

B: Well, let's say it has a meaning far beyond what we usually think of.
But would you say the (sense of the ) Sacred is also ( becoming part of man's inner ) life?

K: Yes, that what I was getting at. Life is sacred. So, we mustn't waste it because our life is so short. You follow?

B: You mean you feel that each of our lives has a part to play in this sacred that you talk about. And to use it rightly has a tremendous ( existential) significance.

K: Yes. Quite right. All these dialogues have been (knowingly or not ?) a process of ( live?) Meditation. Not a clever argument. A real penetrating meditation which brings ( the perceptive quality of) insight into everything that's been said.

B: I should say that we have been doing that.

K: I think that we have been doing that.

S: But has it actually been a Meditation?

K: In sharing the truth of every statement, in seeing the falseness of every statement, or in seeing the truth in the false. Seeing it all, therefore we are in a state of Meditation. And whatever we say must then lead to this ultimate (Sacred ) thing. Then there is only ( the Living Presence of?) That.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #38
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

Can we discuss the relation between Krishnamurti's teaching and Truth?

( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K small group dialogue, Ojai 1977)

KRISHNAMURTI: Is it the expression of truth? The 'speaker' is either talking out of the silence of truth, or he is talking out of the ( mental) noise of an illusion which he considers to be the truth.

Q: There could be a ( subtle mental) confusion between the word (the verbal expression ) and ( the actual perception of ?) Truth.

K: The 'word' (the verbal expression) is ( obviously?) not the (living spirit of?) truth. So, either he is talking out of the 'silence of truth' or out of the noise of illusion.

Q: One does feel that K is speaking out of the silence of truth , but ( for the average listener?) there is a greater possibility for K's words to be taken as (the ultimate expression of ?) truth.

K: What is the criterion, the measure that you apply so you can say: "Yes, that is it." Or you (honestly acknowledge that you?) don't know but you are examining, investigating by watching (within yourself) the truth of what he is saying. I am going to listen to what he is saying and see ( within myself) if it is true (or not ?)

Q: But what sees it as 'true'?

K: Say, one is fairly alive to (these inward) things. My ( whole ) life is concerned with this problem and I want to know the ( ultimate?) truth of this matter. Is he speaking out of ( the well-rounded memory of his past ?) experience & knowledge, or not out of any of these things?
I don't know how you would find out, but I'll tell you what I would do (if I were in your shoes?) . I would put his (very charismatic & dynamic ?) personality, his ( open or subliminal psychical ?) influence completely aside. I would just listen to him (non-verbally) and being 'sceptical' - in the sense that I don't accept everything that is being said (unless they are seen as facts?) .

P: But this is not just 'doubting'. It is a ( total) negation.

K: I would rather use the word 'doubt', in the sense of questioning. So, I would put aside all (K's ) personal reputation, charm, looks, this and that - I am not going to 'accept' or 'reject', but I am going to 'listen' very carefully to what he has to say. And if I am not comparing, judging or evaluating I can find out ( for myself?) whether what he is saying is the truth. Now am I capable of ( transpersonally?) listening to what he is saying with complete abandonment of ( my knowledgeable memories of ) the past? Then I am listening out of silence.
So, I have answered ( this question ) for myself, but...how would you answer it?

Q: I think that first of all you can become sensitive to what is 'false'. In other words, to see if there is ( in what K is saying) something false, or something incoherent.

K: If I were a (total?) stranger I might say: You have listened to this man for a long time, how do you know he is telling the truth? How do you know anything about it?

Q: I could say that I have looked at ( the inward validity of) 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: The ( gist of the ) question is: 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 à change in oneself. It may not be a total revolution, but there is a change.

K: That can (also) happen when you go for a walk and look at the mountains and are quiet, and when you come back to your home certain things (within yourself) have taken place.

Q: I have listened to scores of people and I listen to K. It is totally different - there is a 'ring of truth' in it.

Q(1): I think that for 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, whether it is really '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 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 ( quality of inner) silence which is not the word, which is not imagined or induced? Is there such a silence, and is it possible to speak out of that silence?

Q: The question was whether the words are coming from ( a direct insightful?) perception, from an ( inwardly open ) 'silence', or from the memory. As we used to say: like the drum which vibrates to the emptiness within.

K: Yes. Are you satisfied by this answer?

Q: Not really....The very words you are using deny the possibility of being satisfied and to work at it intellectually. It is ( an experiential challenge?) that has nothing to do with those things.

K: Look, suppose I love you and trust you. There is a relationship of trust, confidence, affection, love; like a man and a woman when they are married, they trust each other. Now is that possible here?

Q: Can we say that Truth is ( to be found ) in the ( loving quality of) silence out of which the Teachings come?

K: But I want to know how this 'silence' comes! I might have worked to have a silent mind for years, conditioned it, kept it in a cage, and then say, "Marvellous, I am silent". That is a ( very realistic ?) danger.

Q: Are we saying that perception has to be pure and in the 'realm of silence '- the real realm of silence, not a fantasy - in order to be able to even come close to 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: The other day when that man said you may be caught in a groove, and you looked at it first, what happened then?

K: I looked at it in several different ways and I don't think I am caught in a groove, but yet I might be. So after examining it very carefully, I left it. Something takes place when you leave it alone after an examination, something new comes into it.

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: How do you in your heart of hearts, as a human being, know that he is speaking the truth? I want to 'feel' (the truth of) it. Dr Bohm has known Krishnamurti for several years. He has a good, trained mind so I go to him and ask him.

Q: I think I could say to him that when we did discuss these things it was from the emptiness, and that I felt it was a direct perception

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 perception has not blinded you and with that perception goes logic also.

Q: Yes, logic and fact.

K: So perception first, then logic. Not first logic, then perception.

Q: Yes. That is what it always has to be.

K: So I have learned from talking to him that this is a very 'dangerous' (slippery?) thing. He has said you can only understand whether Krishnamurti is speaking the truth if you are really prepared to walk on the razor's edge path. Are you prepared to do that when one's whole being says "Be secure" ? Can the ( holistically friendly) mind - which has been conditioned for centuries to be ( 200%) secure - abandon this (fail-safe attitude?) , and say, "( Meditation-wise?) I will ( be inwardly ready to ?) walk into 'danger' (very slippery zone) "?

Q: In principle that is the way all new discovery in science works. But the word ( psychological) '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 ( potential ) dangers (of self-delusion?) I have found ( experientially?) the truth of what Krishnamurti is saying. ( Hint:) There is no ( psychological) safety in this. Whereas all the others give me ( a very realistic illusion of protection & ) safety.

Q: What you have just described is actually the (authentic) scientific approach. They say every statement must be in danger of being false; it has been put that way.

K: That is perfectly right. So (to recap :) A man comes from Seattle and is told (by the K-correct host?) : "I have found that what he( K) says is the truth because I have had an (insightful) perception and that perception stands (even when examined) logically". (However) in that ( insightful) perception I see that ( the inner terrain ) where I walk is full of ( psychological ) dangers. Therefore I have to be tremendously aware. This 'danger' (of self-delusion) always exists when there is no (mental guarantee of ) security. And the gurus, the priests; all offer ( the very realistic illusion of everlasting ?) security.
Are we saying (as a holistic conclusion?) that a direct perception ( of the truth or falseness of anything also known as ?) 'insight' and the working out of it demands a great capacity to think clearly? But ( conversely?) the capacity to think clearly will not ( necessarily) bring about insight.

Q: Then what does the logical thinking it do exactly?

K: It sharpens the mind. Logic makes the (temporal) mind sharp, clear, objective and sane, but... it won't give you the 'other'. Your question ( for homework meditation?) is: How does the 'other' ( holistically friendly perception) come about?

Q: If the ( insight-based) perception is a real perception and so the 'truth', why does it then need the discipline of logic to examine it?

K: We said that ( the insightful) perception 'works out logically' (afterwards?) . It does not need ( the scaffold of?) logic. But whatever it does is reasonable, logical, sane, objective.

Q: It is like saying that if you see what is in this room correctly, you will not find anything illogical in what you see.

K: All right. Will the ( 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 think ( one's inward?) perception can reach the stage at which it is continually keeping the field clear.

K: At a certain moment I have ( a timeless flash of insightful ?) perception. But ( unfortunately?) during the ( time gap or ) interval between the perceptions there is a lot of ( psychological) 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 perception keep the field clear?

Q: Can one make a difference between insight and ( holistic) perception?

K: Take those two words as synonymous We are asking: Is perception from time to time, with ( inherent ) intervals (of inattention?) . During those intervals a lot of ( personal & collective 'psycho-) debris' collects and therefore the field (of one's inward house) has to be swept again. Or does perception in itself bring about ( a timeless state of) tremendous clarity in which there is no (further accumulation of psycho-) debris?

Q: Are you saying that once it happens it will be there 'for ever'?

K: Don't use the ( time-binding) words "forever " or "never again". Keep to the ( suggested homework meditation ?) question; Once ( an insightful) perception has taken place, can the ( holistically awakened?) mind ( refuse to?) collect further ( psycho-) debris & confusion? It is only when that perception becomes darkened by the debris, that the (time-binding) process of ( trying to) get rid of them begins. But if there is ( a time-free enlightened) perception, why should there be a gathering ( of 'psycho-debris') ?

Q: There are a lot of 'difficult' ( sensitive ?) points involved in this ( holistic ?) question ...(to be continued)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #39
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

DEMANDING THE ESSENCE OF GOODNESS

( An 'experientially-friendly' edited continuation of the previous K SMALL GROUP DIALOGUE 1977)

KRISHNAMURTI: We were discussing how one can know what Krishnamurti is saying is true and Dr Bohm said that when one has an insight, a direct perception into ( the truth of?) what is being said, having that insight you can work it out logically to show that the perception is true.
And (we ended the discussion with an open question : ) is that perception brief, only to be had at intervals and therefore gathering a lot of ( psycho-) debris or is one perception enough? Does it 'open the door' (the inward door of Perception?) so that there is (the inward clarity of ) insight all the time?

Q: You also said that the mind tries to find security in all this.

K: The ( temporal?) mind has always been seeking security and when that security is threatened it tries to find security in insight, in direct perception.

Q: In (rather in) the illusion of insight ?

K: Yes, it makes the ( assumption of having total) insight into ( an instrument of psychological) security. The next question is: Must there be a constant breaking of perception? That is, one day one sees very clearly, one has direct perception, then that fades away and there is confusion. Or is there no further confusion after these deep insights?

Q: Are you saying this perception is whole?

K: Yes, if the perception is complete, whole, then there is no confusion at any time. Or (optionally?) one may deceive oneself that it is whole and act upon it, which brings confusion.

Q: There is also a possible danger that one has a genuine perception, an insight, and out of that comes a certain action. But then one could fall into making whatever that action was into a (fool-proof?)formula and stop having the insight.

K: That is what generally happens.

Q: I am trying to find out what we are driving at. Perhaps you are saying that there may be an insight which never goes back into confusion. But we are not saying there is one.

K: Yes, that's right. Now would you say, when there is a 'complete perception' - not an illusory perception - there is no confusion at all.

Q: Are we seeing this as an insight now? - that when there is an insight of that kind there is no further confusion? But we may deceive ourselves nevertheless.

K: Yes. Therefore we must be watchful. (Suppose ) you have a deep insight, complete, whole. Someone comes along and says: "Look, you are deceiving yourself". Do you instantly say, "No, I am not deceiving myself because my perception was complete"? Or do you listen and look at it all afresh? It doesn't mean that you are denying the complete perception, you are again watching if it is real or illusory.

Q: That is not necessarily an intellectual process?

K: No, no. I would say both. It is intellectual as well as non-verbal.

Q: Is ( the potential for a totally insightful ) perception something that is always there and it is only that we...

K: That leads to 'dangerous' (very slippery?) ground. The Hindus say that God is always there inside you - the abiding deep divinity, or soul, or Atman, and it is covered up. Remove the confusion, the debris and it is found inside. Most people 'believe' that. I think that is a ( thought-projected ?) 'conclusion'. You conclude that there is something (of a ) divine (nature) inside, a Soul, the Atman or whatever you like to call it. But, (experientially-wise?) from a conclusion you can never have a total, complete perception.

Q: But this leads to another problem, because if you deny that, then what makes one step out of the Stream (of collective time-thought?) ? Does it mean that the stepping out is for certain individuals only?

K: When you say "certain individuals" I think you are putting the ( 'holistically?) wrong' question, aren't you?

Q: Then, the possibility exists for everyone ?

K: Yes, the possibility exists for 'human beings' ( for the human consciousness ?) .

Q: Then there is ( already) some ( time-free intelligent?) energy which...

K: Which is ( located ) outside of them or which is in them.

Q: Yes. We really don't know.

K: Therefore don't come to any conclusion. If from a conclusion you think you perceive, then that perception is conditioned (by one's wishful thinking) , therefore it is not whole .

Q: Does that mean that there would not be the possibility of a deepening of perception?

K: You can't 'deepen' insight. You perceive the whole (truth?) - that's all.

Q : You mentioned ( the necessity of a ) watchfulness even after ( a totlly insightful) 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: I wanted to examine it. Don't say it could, or could not.

Q: I was going to ask: to be caught in a (mental) habit after a perception, could that not ever happen again, at certain levels?

K: There is partial perception and total perception - let's divide it into those two. When there is total perception there is no further ( psychological?) confusion.

Q: You don't get caught in habit?

K: There is no further confusion. Because ( you see that ) it 'is' so.

Q: What if something happens to the brain physically?

K: Of course, ( we are imlicitly) assuming that the whole (psychosomatic) organism is healthy. If there is an accident, your brain suffers concussion and something is injured, then it is finished ('game over'?)

Q: But it still means that it is "here". You are not tapping it from "out there". That ( timeless source of intelligent?) energy is within you, isn't it?

K: One has to ( take an experiential detour and) go into this question of what is perception. How do you come to it? You cannot have perception if your daily life is in disorder, confused, contradictory. That is obvious. Can I have ( a transcendental ?) perception if I am 'attached' ( 100% identified with?) to my position, to my wife, to my property?
So (in a holistic nutshell ) we are saying that a total ( insightful) perception can only take place when in your daily life there is no confusion (no psychological conflicts of interests?)

Q: Can we look more closely into that, because a total perception can take place in spite of all that (inner confusion?) and wipe it away?

K: If (mind's perceptive) 'windows' are not clean my view is confused.
(for instance ) if I am in (a condition of psychological) fear my perception will be very partial. That is a fact.

Q: But don't you need ( an insightful) perception to end fear?

K: In investigating, observing, going into fear, understanding it profoundly, in delving into it I have 'perception'.

Q: Are you implying that there are certain things you can do which will make for perceptions?

K: I realize I am distorting perception through ( my personal) fears.

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 ( unconsciously?) distorting?

K: Wait, just listen. I am afraid and ( afterwards?) I can see that my fear has made me do something which is a distortion. That means that you become ( inwardly ) aware of the fact that there is fear. And you observe also what that fear has done. And ( in your 'meditation homework' ?) you look more and more into it. In looking very deeply into it you have an insight.

Q: What you are saying implies that this confusion due to fear is not complete, that it is always open to mankind to have insight.

K: To one who is investigating, who is observing.

Q: If you try to investigate something else while you are afraid you get lost in fear. But it is still open to you to investigate fear.

K: Yes, quite right. (Another quick example:) 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 become (responsibly) 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 an 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.

K: One has that capacity (to observe) without any choosing – jost being aware (of what is going on) . And ( eventually?) you see what fear does. In looking at it more extensively, deeply, widely, suddenly you have an insight into the whole structure of ( the thought-generated) fear.

Q: But there is still the question: in that moment of fear, I 'am' fear.

K: How you observe 'fear' matters - whether you observe it as an ( independent?) 'observer', or the observer 'is' (immersed in?) that. You perceive the observer is ( not separate from ) the observed but in this action there is distortion, confusion. And you examine that confusion, which is born of fear and in the very process of examination you have an insight. Do it (for homework?) and you will see it – (providing that ) you don't 'limit' yourself by saying, "I am too frightened, I can't look" & you run away from ( facing) it.
That is, ( a totally insightful) perception can only take place when there is no division between the 'observer' and the 'observed'. Perception can only take place in the very act of exploring: to explore implies there is no division between the observer and the observed. Therefore you are 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: Suppose you have not gone through all this, but you see (the totality of) it instantly. Because you see it instantly your capacity to reason explains all this. Another listens and says, "I'd like to get that, I don't have to go through that whole process."

Q: Are you saying that all we have been discussing just now is merely a pointer to something else? Are you saying there is a short cut?

K: Must you go through ( examining sequentially) fear, jealousy, anxiety, attachment? Or can you clear the whole thing instantly? Must one go through all this process? First put the question and see what comes out of it.
Is it possible through investigating, through awareness and discovering that the observer is the observed and that there is no division, in the very process of investigation - in which we are observing without the 'observer' and see the totality of it - to free all the rest? ( Experiential Hint:) I think that is the only way.

Q: Is it possible not to have ( to examine) certain fears, jealousy, attachment?

K: But (still) there may be deeper layers. You may not be totally conscious of them, you may not be totally aware of the deeper fears, etc. You may say, superficially I am all right, I have none of these things.

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 involvement with the fear?

K: With fear, sorrow, jealousy, attachment, you go through all that, step by step. Or can an (inwardly awakened?) human being see the whole thing at a glance? And that very glance is the investigation and the complete, total perception.

Q: Which is what you mean when you say ''the first step is the last'' ?

K: Yes, a totally (illuminating?) perception.

Q: Then what would one's responsibility be towards someone who is (entangled in his personal) in sorrow?

K: The response to that human being is the ( intelligent?) response of compassion. That's all. Nothing else.

Q: For instance, if you see an injured bird it is very easy to deal with that because it really doesn't require very much of you. But when you come in contact with a human being, he has a much more complex set of needs.

K: What can you do actually? Somebody comes to you and says, "I am in deep sorrow". Do you talk to him out of compassion, or out of your own particular experience of sorrow which has (already ) conditioned you, and you answer him according to your conditioning? Because a man who is suffering wants some sort of solace, someone on whose lap he can put his head. So what he is seeking is comfort and avoidance of this terrible pain. Will you offer him any of those escapes? Whatever comes out of ( the universal Intelligence of) compassion will help him.

Q: Are you saying that the energy of Compassion itself may be of help?

K: That's right; that's all.

Q: But many such wounded spirits will come to the Centre here and I think 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 ( intelligently?) compassionate.

Q: You are saying that total compassion is the highest intelligence?

K: Of course. If there is compassion, that compassion has its own intelligence and that intelligence acts. But if you have no compassion and no intelligence, then your conditioning makes you reply whatever he wants. I think that is fairly simple. To go back to the other question: Must a human being go through the whole process? Has no human being said, "I won't go through all this. So something does take place when reject the whole thing.

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 'freak'.

K: You can say he is a 'freak' but it doesn't answer the question. If somebody says to you, "I have never been through all this", what do you do? Do you say he is a freak? Or would you say: "How extraordinary, is he telling the truth? Has he deceived himself"? You discuss with him. Then your question is: "How does it happen?" You are a human being, he is a human being: you want to find out.

Q: You ask: "In what way are we different?" He is a human being that has never been through all that, and yet he points out.

K: No, he has never been through it, but don't you ( stop to ) ask that question: "How does it happen, must I go through all this?" Do you ask that?

Q: Krishnaji, you are taking two widely separate things. One is the uncontaminated person, who never had to go through the process because 'he was never in the soup'.

K: Leave out why he didn't go through it (or...see the K bios?)

Q: But most other people, apparently, are in some form of ( psychological) contamination, it may be fear, or something else. Therefore the person who has already got this sickness - let's call it that - says "This man has never been sick for a day in his life." What good is it to examine that, because one is already sick in some form.

K: Can we put the whole thing differently? Do you seek ( the spiritual?) excellence, not excellence for instance in a building, but the essence of excellence? Then everything falls away, and the essence (of the demand for excellence?) would meet all this. I wonder if I am conveying something? Listen carefully first. That very demand for excellence - 'how' you demand it - brings ( into manifestation) the essence of it. You demand it passionately. You demand the highest intelligence, the highest excellence, the essence of it...

Q: Where does this demand come from?

K: Demand it! There may be a (personal) motive, but the very ( passion of the) demand washes it all away. I wonder if I am conveying anything?

Q: You are saying: Demand this ( holistic) 'excellence' – of which we don't know .

K: I don't know what is beyond it, but ( for starters ) I want to be morally excellent.

Q: Does that mean ''goodness''?

K: I demand the ''excellence of goodness'', I demand the excellent flower of goodness. In that very demand there is a ( transcendental) demand for the essence.

Q: Does ( the holistic ) perception come from this demand?

K: Yes, that's right.

Q: Could you go into what you call this 'demand'?

K: It is not a demand which means asking, a demand that means imploring, wanting - cut out all those.

Q: It doesn't mean those?

K: No, no.

Q: But then... you are back to prayer !

K: Oh, no. Leave out all that.

Q: You are really saying that the impossible is possible to the average intelligent human being?

K: We are saying that, yes. Which is not a conclusion, which is not a hope. I say it is possible for the average human being, who is fairly clean, who is fairly decent, fairly kind, who is not a ( psychologically settled?) bourgeois.
K says to you: "Please listen first, don't bring in all the (intellectual) objections. Just listen to what he is saying : that what is important in life is the supreme excellence which has its own essence." That's all. And to 'demand' it, it does not mean begging or praying, getting something from somebody.

Q: The point is, we find we may confuse this demand with desire.

K: Would the word "passion" be suitable? There is this passion for excellence.
Burning passion - not for something. The Christians have ( had?) passion for missionary work - that passion is born of the love of Jesus. That again is very narrow. So, 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 dream, it is not a vision; but it is nevertheless some perception of this excellence.

K: All those (time-binding ?) passions feed the ego, feed the me, make me important, consciously or unconsciously. We are cutting out all that. There is a young boy who has a passion to grow up into an extraordinary human being, into something original.

Q: He sees that it is possible and therefore he has the passion.

K: Yes, that's right. It is possible. Is that what is missing in most human beings? This passion who demands the supreme excellence, not in what he writes in his books, but the ( holistic) feeling of it. That may shatter everything else. Again, that human being didn't demand it. He says: "I never even asked for it."

Q: Perhaps that we are conditioned to ( the inner comforts of) mediocrity.

K: Yes, of course. Mediocrity is lack of great passion.

K: So does 'total insight' bring this passion? Total insight 'is' the passion.
Total insight is the flame of passion which wipes away all confusion. It burns away everything else. Don't you then act as a magnet? The bees go towards the nectar. In the same way don't you act as a magnet when you are passionate to create? Is it that there is this lack of ( inner) fire? That may be the thing that is missing. If there is something missing I would ask for it.
(Hint) There is no relationship from the conditioned (mind) to the unconditioned (one) . But the unconditioned (mind) has a relationship to the other. When ''the world is me and I am the world'', there is no 'me'. Can that state, that quality operate in all directions? It must operate in all directions. When you say, "I am the world and the world is me", and there is no me, there is no (self-centred) conditioning.
I am the essence of the world. When there is a deep perception of that, not intellectual, but profound, there is no 'you' or 'me'.

Q: But there is still another question. Is the unconditioned mind also a product of all this? Then we come to a contradiction.

K: No, there is no contradiction. Without using the word "I" it can be said: the result of the world is this. The result of the world is that also. We are two human beings, which means the result has created the 'I' and the 'you'. When there is an insight into the result there is no "result". Therefore 'you' and 'I' don't exist. That is an actual fact for a man who says, "I am not the result (of time?) ". You see what it means? There is no causation in the mind and therefore there is no effect. Therefore it is whole, and any action born of it is causeless and without effect.

Q: You have to make that clear, in the sense that you still use cause and effect concerning ordinary, mechanical things...

K: Quite. This human being, X, is a result. And Y is a result. X says I see this and investigates, goes into it and he has an insight. In that insight the two results cease. Therefore in that state there is no cause.

Q: There is no cause and no effect although it may leave a residue in the mind.

K: Let's go into it. In that state there is no result, no cause, no effect. That mind acts out of Compassion. Therefore there is no ( expectation of a ) result.
Compassion has no result. A is suffering, he says to X, "Please help me to get out of my suffering." If X really has compassion his words have no 'result'.

Q: Something happens, but there is no result ?

K: That's it.

Q: But I think people generally are seeking a result.

K: Yes. Let's put it another way. Does compassion have a result? When your compassion has a cause then you are no longer compassionate.

Q: But Compassion also acts.

K: Compassion is compassion, it doesn't 'act' (in time?) . If it acts because there is a cause and an effect, then it is not compassion: it wants a result.
(To recap) When I say 'me', 'you' also exist: both of us are there. The you and the I are the results of man's misery, of selfishness, and so on - it is a result. When one looks into the ( temporal) result, goes into it very, very deeply, the insight brings about a quality in which 'you' and 'I' - who are the results (of time) - don't exist - there is no you and no me. Therefore there is no result - which means compassion. The person upon whom that compassion acts wants a result. We say, "Sorry, there is no (temporal) result." But the man who suffers says, "Help me to get out of this", or, "Help me to bring back my son, my wife", or whatever it is. He is demanding a result. This ( 'compassion') thing has no result. The result is the world.

Q: But does compassion affect the (total) consciousness of man?

K: Yes. It affects the deep layers of consciousness. To the man who sees this deeply with a profound insight, there is no 'you' or 'I'. Therefore that profound insight is ( the timeless action of) compassion - which is Intelligence. And the ( Mind's) Intelligence says: If you want a ( specific temporal) result I can't give it to you, I am not the product of a result. Compassion says: This state is not a result, therefore there is no cause.

Q: Does that mean there is no time either?

K: No cause, no result, no time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Aug 2019 #40
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

Brain's temporal consciousness & the Consciousness of the Universal Mind

( an experientially-friendly edited K Dialogue, cca 1973 )

P: Shall we discuss (experientially?) the nature of human consciousness and its relationship to the brain cells? Is there something which gives them separate identities?

K: That's a good question. You begin.

P: The traditional Hindu concept of 'Consciousness' would
include 'that' which lies beyond the horizon.

A: Quite correct. The brain is only a conglomeration of cells, a
forest of cells and yet each cell is dependent on the other although
in fact every brain cell can act by itself. So we may ask: Is
there a co-ordinating factor? Is the brain merely a result? Does
consciousness come first and then the brain, or does the brain come
first and then consciousness?

K: Let us start from the beginning: What is generally meant by
'consciousness'? What does it mean 'to be conscious of? One is conscious, for instance, of this microphone. I am conscious of it and then I use the word 'microphone'. So, when
you are becoming conscious of something, (the process of recognising & ) naming begins; ( followed by personal reactions of) like and dislike. So ( on the physical level) 'consciousness', means to be aware of, to be cognizant of sensation, cognition, contact.

A: I feel that consciousness is prior to sensation. It is an (intelligent energy ) field and at any one time I am aware of some part of it through
( my physical) sensations; I feel ( the total human) Consciousness is much more vast, but I am aware of only a part of a very wide thing. That whole field is not in my awareness. So, I do not want to restrict consciousness to something that exists at any given moment. My awareness may not be extensive, but consciousness can be seen to be much more vast.

K: So, what is the relationship between that consciousness and the
brain's cells?

P: When K says that the content of one's consciousness 'is' ( displayed in one's) consciousness, it would imply that the content of the brain cells is ( generating its own) consciousness.
If there is a field which is outside the brain cells and which is also consciousness, then you have to say all that is Consciousness.

K: Is that clear? I have said ''the content of consciousness is
consciousness''.

A: This a ( holistic) statement irrespective of the perceiver. It is
a statement about consciousness, not your consciousness, or my
consciousness.

K: That is right. Therefore what is outside the field of (the temporal)
consciousness is not ( generated by) its content.

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

A: Basically, the source of existence is a vast incomprehensible
energy which they call 'Chaitanya' the source (of all consciousness) . They say that there is this (timeless) Source of (Intelligent ) Energy, which they speak of as 'Chit'. The Buddhist position refuses to say a word about it. The Buddhist will say: 'Don't talk about it; any talk about it will be speculative and speculative processes are not meant for actual
practice.'

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

A: We have immediately come upon something.

K: Right, sir, that's a good point.

A: The Vedantins will say that the Source which you refer to
as 'ignorance' is of the same nature as Sat, Chit and Anand. It is
constantly renewing itself, it is constantly 'coming into being'; and
the entire process of birth, death, decay is a movement in it. I feel
that a man who does not accept the Buddhist position, will not
immediately accept what you say, that the beginning is ignorance
and that it is a self-sustaining process. You cannot trace the
beginning, but it can be brought to an end.

K: We (K) simply say that ignorance has no beginning; one can see
it in oneself, see it within one's consciousness, within that field.

P: The scientific position is: whereas the brain cells and their operation are measurable, ( man's ) consciousness is not measurable and therefore the two are not synonymous.

K: Wait a minute. What you are saying is that the brain cells
and their movement are measurable, but consciousness (aka : Mind) is not measurable.

A: May I suggest something? Consciousness is 'immeasurable' in the sense that there is no (physical) instrument to which it
can be related. Consciousness is something about which one cannot
say that it is measurable or immeasurable. Therefore, consciousness is something about which one cannot make any statement.

K: That is right. Consciousness is not measurable. But what Pupul
is asking is: Is there outside ( the self-centred) consciousness as we know it, a ( time-free?) state which is not pertinent to this consciousness?

P: Is there a state which is not knowable, not available, within the (memory of the brain cells?

K: Have you got it Achyutji? Not 'knowable', in the sense, not
'recognizable' (by brain's recorded memory?) ; something totally new.

A: I am coming to that. I say that ( the self-centred) consciousness as we know it is the ( compounded) source of all the recent memories and all the memories mankind has had. The brain cells will recognize everything that comes out of its racial memories; everything that comes out of that which has been known.

P: The millions of years of ( living trapped within the sphere of ?) the known.

K: Keep it very simple. We said the known is (generating its own)
consciousness - the content of consciousness 'is' the known. Now, is
there something outside this, something which is not 'known', something
totally new which does not already exist in the (memory of the ) brain cells? And if it is outside the ( field of the?) known, is it 'recognizable'? - (Clue:) if it is recognizable its (residual memory?) is still in the field of the known.
( Now, the good news is that) it is (experientially ) available only when the ( time-inding) recognizing and experiencing process (of thought?) comes to an end.
(To make a very long story short ) Outside the brain, is there anything else? I say there is. ( But the meditation-related difficulty is that) every (mental) process of recognition & experience, is always within the field of the known and any movement of the brain cells moving away from the known, trying to investigate into the 'other' (dimension of consciousness?) is still the known.

M: Then...how do you know that there is 'something'?

K: You cannot 'know' it.But there is a ( meditating?) state where the mind does not recognize anything - a ( blissful?) state in which recognition and experience, which are the movement of the known, totally come to an end.

A: In what way is it differentiated from thought's process of
recognition & experiencing?

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

P: When you say that the processes of recognition come to an end, and yet it is a living state, is there a sense of existence, of being?

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

A: How is it different from the state of deep sleep, where the same processes of recognition and recording are for the time being put in total abeyance.

K: That is quite a different thing.

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

K: The senses are in abeyance.

P: Are they not operating?

K: In that state, there is (some) action of the senses, but it does not affect That. To be quite clear : when the ( previously known) content of (one's) consciousness with its experiences & demands has completely come to an end, then only does the 'other' (timeless?) quality come into being. (Hint : ) The ( meditating?) mind cannot come to that through ( a personal?) motive. Motive is the known. When that ( time-bound?) mind comes to an end, then the 'other thing' is there.

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

K: Of course, the physical senses are in operation. Recognition is in operation normally. The 'other' is there.

A: Even trying to translate what you are saying is preventing
one from getting at it because that would immediately be duality.
When you say something, any movement in the mind is again
preventing one from it.

K: Achyutji, what are you trying to get at?

A: I am pointing out the difficulty that arises in (any transcendental) communication. I think ( a verbal) communication about the 'other' is not possible. So, I am trying to understand the state of the mind of the man who talks to me. On what basis does he tell me that there is something?

K: The basis for that is: when there is no ( mental) movement of
recognition, of experiencing, of motive, ( a natural) 'freedom from the known' takes place.

M: That is pure cognition without recognition.

K: You are translating it differently. This movement has come
to an end for the time being; that is all.

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

K: Let us begin again. The brain functions within the field of
the known; in that ( physical) functioning there is recognition. But when your mind is completely still, there is no knowing that your mind is still. The (inward) stillness of which we are talking about is non-recognizable, non-experienceable. Something (timeless ) comes out of it. It is (freely available ) there for the man who understands the ( serious limitations of the ) known. ( For K) it is there and it never leaves; and though he communicates it, he feels that it is never gone, it is there.
M: But who communicates? You talked to me just now.

K: Just now? The brain cells have acquired the knowledge of
the language. It is the brain cells that are communicating.

M: The brain contains its own 'observer'.

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

M: Now what is the relationship between 'that' and 'this'?

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

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

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

M: That you have inherited it through some good karma or somebody has given it to you.

K: Is it by chance that this ( miraculous?) event can happen to us, is it an exception? (And even if for K) it is a miracle, can it happen to you?

M: But then, what can we do?

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

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

K: I will tell you the two meanings of nothing: the one refers to (self's inborn?) desire to experience 'That', to recognize 'That' and yet to do
nothing about 'That'. The other meaning of doing nothing, it is to ( passively ) see or become aware, not theoretically but actually, of the
known.

M: You say, 'Do nothing, just observe (in the freedom from the known) .'

K: Put it that way if you want.

M: It brings down the 'enlightenment' to action.

K: You must touch this thing, very very lightly. You must touch it very lightly - food, talk - and as the body and the senses become very light the days and nights move easily. You ( come to ) see that there is a 'dying' ( of thought?) every minute. Have I answered, or very nearly answered, the question?

P: You have not answered specifically.

K: To put the whole thing differently: We will call 'That', for
the moment, infinite energy ( of the Universal Mind ?) while thought's energy is created by strife and conflict - it is entirely ( qualitatively) different from 'That'. When there is no inner
conflict at all, That infinite ( Mind) energy is always renewing itself. The energy that peters out is what we know. So, what is the relationship of the ( thought-generated?) energy that peters out to 'That'? There is none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 #41
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

Insights into the nature of thought

(A 'reader friendly' edited K-Bohm Dialogue, cca 1975) )

Bohm: I had a letter from David Shainberg , and he raised one question : “ If thought is fragmented , inherently fragmented and yet thought has to be consciously aware of its own fragmentation, then how could we ask this question whether the thought which is aware of its own fragmentation, is also fragmented?"

Krishnamurti: Sir, start with this: Why is thought limited
broken up?

B: Well one point about thought is, that it may be a combination, beginning as a reaction and becoming a reflection, now thought on the basis of memory,
creates a certain imitation of certain things that happen independently of thought. For example it may imitate in your imagination a feeling, or a sound, or something else. Now, it is not possible in a reflection to captures the whole of what is reflected as there is always an abstraction

K. Yes, there is always an 'abstraction', I see that

B: Abstraction actually means 'to take out'.

K: But you haven’t answered my question yet : why is it 'fragmented'?

B: Any abstraction is bound to be a part, to be a fragment...

K: So, your're saying thought reflects (on the content of ) memory and therefore as it reflects it is creating an abstraction.

B: It doesn’t reflect all.

K: All, therefore it is fragmentary.

B: Yes, see it likes somethings to reflect upon, while others are not reflected.

K: Would you put the question this way : “Can thought see the whole?”

B: Well, does thought 'see', that's another question that David Shainberg raised, does thought actually see anything (directly) ? : We discussed the other time in Brockwood that thought can be consciously aware of something, let's say there is an awareness which involves perception, but everything we’re aware of may go on into memory, is that right?

K: Yes

B: So, as I see it 'conscious awareness' is an awareness recorded in memory and then reflected, right.

K: So ( the activity of) memory is fragmented.

B: Memory is inherently fragmented because it 'selects' something ( it makes a personal choice while discarding other elements)

K: Yes. that's it, memory is fragmented therefore its ( post-facto?) reflection as thought, is fragmented.

B: Its not the whole experience, so the essences may be left out.

K: Now, let's dig deeper into it. Why is thought fragmented?

B: Partly because its an abstraction as you’ve just said. I think there is another possible reason : , in some sense thought is not fully aware of its own operation. Perhaps we can the brain has no inside ( awareness) to tell itself it is thinking.

K: Quite...

B: You see if you move your hand there is a sense organ that tells you that it is moving.
if you move your head, the image moves but it is corrected so that the world doesn’t spin unless something is wrong with your balance. On the other hand there are no such sense organs in the brain. You see, if you do an operation on the brain once you pass through the skull, there is no ( brain) sensation- people may be conscious while they are operated, but does not disturb them. And now, so lets say thought is recorded, its held in memory, in the cells of the brain, and the cells of the brain react to produce some image, an imitation. And while they first react, there is no sensation that they are reacting, see a little
later they may sense the result of the reaction.

K: Yes yes, that's it !

B:: But then, when thought becomes conscious of that result it may not realise that it has produced that result. And therefore it will atribute to that result an independent existence.

K: So, thought is a reflection of memory, that's one point. The brain has no (internal) feeling apart for the sensory organs of the body, and therefore the brain ( indiscriminately) stores up memory, and memory is partial, and therefore thought is partial.

B: Yes and also thought is not fully aware of itself.

K: Now, is all that the complete answer?

B: Well I don’t know.

K: I don’t know we’re investigating (experientially?) .

B: But to finish what I was saying, that there is an inherent fragmentation
here, because thought not being aware of itself, and then suddenly becoming aware of
its result further down the line, it attributes that to something which is independent, and
also it fragments ( splits?) itself because one part of thought has produced this result and another part of thought comes along and says ''this is something else''.

K: its like this, quite.

B: And therefore, thought has broken up into two parts which are contradicting each other.

K: Yes, but I think there is something more involved. Why is thought fragmented? You can
see what thought has done, all what it has reflected upon, what it has thought about,
what it has put together are all ( isolated) fragments.

B: Well, also if we reflect upon our personal experience we can see the fragmentary nature of the activity of thought.

K: Yes. Is there any deeper reason for why is thought fragmented? I was thinking about the other day walking, why is it fragmentary? What is
the nature of thought? What is actually the substance of thought? Ins't it a
material process, a biochemical process...?

B: Well, I would say yes...

K: Alright, if it is chemical material process, why should it be fragmented? Isn't ( the thought assisted?) perception a fragmentary process?

B: Well why should it be fragmentary?

K: If the perception is ( controlled by) the activity of thought, then ( this knowledge assisted) perception cannot see the whole.

B: Yes, but thought contains some kind of 'imitation of perception', you see which we call reflection.

K: Yes, so thought imagines it that perceives ( & knows all that matters) .

B: It contains, yes...

K: It supposes (assumes that ) it sees (the totality?) .

B: It produces a certain ( virtual) result (the 'observer'?) which supposes that it 'sees'.

K: But yet, why is it broken up? I understand all these, but there must be a deeper thing, isn’t there? Isn't thought always seeking a result?

B: Well it may be ( openly or subliminally?) seeking a result.

K: An 'end' to be achieved, to be gained, something which can fulfil itself
in and feel satisfied...Why has mankind given such terrific importance to thought?

B: Well yesterday, you pointed out the issue of (preserving his physical) security. I mean, security not only in the sense of psychological security, but also of material security.

K: Yes. But thought in itself is not secure

B: Well thought cannot be secure – it is a mirrored reflection..

K: Therefore as it cannot be secure in itself, and seek security outside.

B: But, why does it seek security, you see?

K: Oh, because in itself it is fragmentary.

B: Yes but, it is not well explained why something which is fragmentary should seek security ; we'll have to go more slowly...

K: Go slowly, yes. Why does thought seek security? Because thought is constantly changing. Constantly moving.

B: Well nature is always moving too.

K: Ah , but, nature is different.

B: I know, but we have to see the difference – why nature doesn’t seek (temporal) security as far as we can tell.

K: Nature doesn’t, but why does thought seek security? Is it because in itself it is uncertain, insecure, in itself is in a constant ( self-preserving) movement.

B: But that doesn’t explain why its not satisfied to just be that.

K: Why, because it sees its own perishable nature.

B: But why should it want to be imperishable ?

K: Because that which is imperishable (in time) gives it security.

B: So if thought were content just to say 'I’m impermanent', then it would be like nature. It would say : well I’m here today, and tomorrow I'll be something different, right ?

K: Ah, but, it am not satisfied with that.

B: Well why not?

K: Is it because there is ( a subliminal identification?) or 'attachment'?

B: But then, , what is there ( identification & ) attachment, you see? I mean, why should thought 'attach itself' to anything? Why shouldn’t it say ''well I’m just (transient) thought'' I’m just a reflection...

K: But your're giving to thought, a considerable (objective) intelligence if you say ''I’m like nature I just come & go in a constant (state of) flux, you follow.

B: So, now your saying thought is (essentially) mechanical and thats why its doing this, but then we have to see why the mechanical process should necessarily seek security? I mean a machinery doesn’t seek anything in particular, you see, we can set up (program) the machinery and it just goes on ( until it breaks?) , you see.

K: Of course, as long as there is ( a supply of) energy it goes on working.

B: And then it breaks down and that's the end of it.

K: And that's the end of it. Quite, So, why does thought seek security?

B: Why should any (living?) mechanism want to be secure?

K: But does thought realise that it is mechanical ?

B: No, but you see, now then comes the point that thought has made a mistake, you see,
something incorrect, in its (core) content, which is, thought does not know it is mechanical ; thought even thinks that it is not mechanical...

K: Now wait a minute, lets come back (to our own thinking process?) . Do I think I’m mechanical?

B: I think in general thought does not think its mechanical, but the other thing is,
does it definitely think it is not mechanical, do you see, that it is beyond the mechanism, does it think it is intelligent in other words.

K: Sir, a mechanical thing doesn’t get hurt (psychologically) . It just functions.
It may stop working, that doesn’t mean it is hurt.

B: No...

K: Whereas thought gets hurt.

B: And thought has the factor of pleasure, pain and all the rest of it.

K: It gets hurt, lets stick to one thing. It gets hurt. Why does it get hurt? Because of the
(getting identified with its self-protective ) 'image' and all the rest of it. It has created the a (socially respectable self-) image and in ( preserving its temporal) continuity it is seeking security, isn’t it.

B: Yes but it's not clear why it ever began to seek that kind of security, you see.
If it began as a ( survival oriented mental ) mechanism there was no reason.

K: Ah, but it never realised that it was mechanical.
B: Yes alright, but a mechanism doesn’t know that it is mechanical either, you see ?
I mean like a tape recorder just functions mechanically, you see, it doesn’t want to be hurt you know.

K: Quite, rather interesting. Why does thought not realise that it is mechanical?

B: Yes...

K: Why does it suppose that it's something different from a machine?

B: Yes, it may in some sense suppose it (the animal brain) has (a certain native ) intelligence, and it is feeling and that it is a living thing, rather than 'mechanical'.

K: Mechanical, I think that's the root of it isn’t it ? It 'thinks' it is a s living (entity)
and therefore it attributes to itself, the quality of non-mechanical (temporal) existence.

B: Now , if you can imagine that a computer has been programmed, say to… with the
information that it was living.

K: Yes, it would say that 'I’m living'.

B: And then it might try to react, respond accordingly, but why thought doesn’t do that ?

K: Thought is clever, ah, giving itself qualities, which it basically has not.

DB : To some extent you did not consider David’s question, you were saying that
thought somehow can realises it's mechanical, which would imply that it had some (native animal) intelligence, you see.

K: Now let's see, does thought realise that it is mechanical, or ( an insightful inward ) perception sees that it is mechanical?

B: All right, but then that would seem to be a change from what you said the other
day.

K: I’m just investigating.

B: I understand, if we say there is ( an insightful) perception which sees the mechanical fragmentary nature of thought, I could say that any (thinking) machine is in some sense
fragmentary, its not alive... It's made of parts which are put together and so on, now, if there is a perception which admits it is, that thought is mechanical, then that means that ( some superior ?) intelligence is (involved ) in the (insightful) perception.

K: Are we saying, sir, lets get this clear, that thought ( the natural thinking of the animal brain?) has in itself the quality of (universal) intelligence, perception, and therefore it perceives itself mechanical.

B: Yes, that would seem strange...

K: Or, there is ( a flash of insightful) perception and that perception says thought is mechanical.

B: Yes, and we can call that 'truth', isn't it ?

K: Yes, um, there are two things involved, isn’t there ? Either the thought in itself has the sense of perception, sense of intelligence and therefore realises it is mechanical.
Or, there is a (direct inward) perception, which is, (seeing the ) truth. And that perception says thought is mechanical.

B: Yes. Now the first idea seems to be a contradiction.

K: Yes, but does this answer ( experientially our question ) why thought is fragmentary?

B: Well, if thought is mechanical then, it would have to be fragmentary.

K: Can thought realise that it is mechanical?

B: Well that's the question. But its not clear, you see. The other time you were saying
there would be a choiceless awareness of the nature of thought and thought would then come to realise.

K: I want to go back to something else : the 'things' that contains (the self-centred) consciousness, are put together there by thought. In fact all the content of that consciousness is the product of thought, (or in a holistic nutshell) consciousness 'is' thought.

B; Yes, it's the whole process.

K: Does thought see all this, or there is a pure (insightful) perception
without thought which then says (sees nonverbally that?) thought is mechanical.

B: We were discussing also the other day that when there is a perception of truth...

K: ...action takes place.

B: Action takes place, and thought becomes aware of that action.

K: Yes, thats right, thats right. Lets get at it.

B: But in becoming aware of that action, is thought still mechanical ?

K: No, thought then is not mechanical.

B; You’d have to say then that thought changes its (mechanistic) nature.

K: Its nature, yes.

B: Well thats the point we have to get hold of : to say thought does not have a fixed nature, is that the point?

K: Yes sir.

B: Because much of our discussion if you use one tends to imply that the word 'thought'
has a fixed nature, but now thought (brain's thinking process) can change.

K: Yes thought does change.

B: But I mean can it change fundamentally ?

K: Lets get at it. I’m beginning to see something. We both begin to see something. We
say that total perception is (revealing the innermost) truth, and that perception operates in the field of reality, and therefore...

B: Well, we didn’t say that the perception of truth operates directly in the field of
reality, we said the other day, it operates in 'actuality'.

K: Wait a minute, there is (an insightful) perception which is (revealing the whole ) truth, but that can only act in ( the field of) that which is 'actual'

B: Yes...

K: Actual (involving?) care, isn’t it? While the action, in the field of reality, isn’t.
Look sir, put it on the other way : (suppose that) I perceive something totally, which is not the act of thought.

B: Yes, that is a direct act.

K: Yes, that is a direct perception, then that 'perception' (itself) acts.

B: Acts directly ?

K: Directly.

B: Without ( the distorting intervention of) thought ?

K: Thats what I want to find out.

B: Well, it begins without thought, and that perception acts directly, as we said in the perception of a physical danger

K: Yes of danger

B: And it acts immediately without thought. But then thought may become aware of the act

K: Thought then becomes aware of the act and translates it into words...

B: And into further mental structures.

K: Right, were getting at it slowly, that is , there is a total perception which is truth, that
perception acts, acts in the field of reality, but that action is not the product of thought..

B: Yes.

K: But because this is an acton of the whole (natural intelligence of the brain?) , thought has undergone a ( qualitative?) change.

B: Alright, now we have it : if there is an action in the (context of the) whole (of the Greater Mind ?) , thought is ( becoming an integrated) part of the whole, thought is contained within the whole, and therefore it is changed, is that what you're saying ?

K: No, no... I must go back, when it sees the whole, that's the (liberating action of ?) truth.

B: So, thought's (perception of the ) whole is (qualitatively) different.

K: Because that perception is not fragmented.

B: No, no it's one whole,

K: One whole, yes, and it acts. But that action it's not put together by thought ; so then what is the relationship of thought to that action?

B: Well, there are several points, you see, one thing is to say that thought is a material process, based on ( material experience of ) the brain cells. Now, the action of (the insight-based ) perception will somehow act on the brain cells won’t it?

K: That's the point, it does.

B: Therefore thought must be different ?

K: Different, quite right. When there is total perception and action it must affect the (traditional functioning of the ) brain cells.

B: Right, and in affecting the brain cells it may change the nature of thought ?

K: It is like a shock, do you follow ? It's something totally new to the brain.

B: Yes. And therefore that perception as being total, penetrates the physical structure of
the brain ?

K: Let's be simple about it, if you see, that division, or fragmentation is tremendous danger, doesn’t it affect your whole way of thinking?

B: Yes, but I think that brings us to the next question, that thought has developed a (self-protecting) a way of preventing this 'affect' from taking place.

K: That's it. That’s what I’m wanting to get at : thought resists.

B: But you see, a thinking machine would not resist....

K: No, because ( thought' s resistence) it's ( a self-protective) habit. It remains in that groove, and ( the insightful ) perceptioncomes along and shakes that.

B: Yes and then thought tries to stabilises itself - it holds to a fixed point.

K: To greed or to whatever it is.

B: If we look at it this way, that thought hasn’t got a fixed nature, it may be mechanical, or it may be intelligent and err…

K: No I wouldn’t give that word 'intelligence' to thought, for the moment.

B: But we were saying before, that thought may not have a fixed nature and needn’t be mechanical.

K: ( The self-identified ) thought is mechanical, functions in ( self-projected temporal) grooves, it lives in ( comfort zone of ) habits, memories...

B; Yes...

K: And a total perception does affect this whole structure…..

B: Yes that's right, but after, as a result of this (insightful) perception, thought is different, right ?

K: Yes, thought is thought different because...

B: ... the perception has penetrated the physical structure of thought and made it
different.

K: That's right

B: Now, you don’t want to say it's intelligent but let us say that if thought were just a machine, it would not cause trouble, but for some odd reason thought its trying to do more than behave like a machine

(to be continued...)

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 12 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 #42
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

(...)K: Yes, thought is trying to do more than a ( pre-programmed thinking) machine.

B; And now, if we could look at it again, if there’s ( an insightful) perception and
awareness and this may be recorded in ( the experiential memory of ) thought, there are two things, one is, if perception affects the physical structure
of the brain, and this affect is somehow recoded in the content of memory and the memory takes...

K: Thats right, memory takes charge...

B: Yes it holds it, and now, you see, any such recording, is a kind of (virtual) 'imitation', you see, every recording (thinking) machine is a kind of imitation you see, it's not mainly that thought is mechanical, but it contains a process of imitation, to record information you see,
like a tape recorder records some sort of 'imitation' like the structure of sound in a magnetic form, which again is recreated as sound as imitating the original sound.
Now you see thought has the capacity to imitate (simulate) whatever happens, because of this recording, right ?

K: Yes that's right. Just a minute sir, I want to go back a little bit. Suppose that you
perceive totally something -like this total perception of greed, let's take this for the
moment, and because of that total perception, your activity is non-mechanical - the mechanical being the pursuing of greed as thought.

B: But isn’t there another part of thought which is mechanical, which is necessary, you
see for example, the practical information contained by thought ?

K: I’m just coming, wait a minute. You perceive totally, the nature and the structure
of greed and because you perceive it there is the 'ending' of it.

B: Hmm..

K: What place has thought then?

B: Well it still has a mechanical place.

K: But you're finished (with greed ?) - you're not greedy anymore. That (survivalistic) reaction, that 'momentum', that mechanical (thiking habit) is over, Then, what place has thought?

B: Well thought has some place – like if you want to find your way home ?

K: I use it when I need a ( fashionable new) coat, I get it, but theres no greed involved.

B: So thought has not identified itself with (the momentum of) greed, so you have a thought which is rational.

K: I don’t quite follow.

B: Well you see greed is a form of irrational thought.

K: Yes greed is irrational.

B: But now there’s rational thinking, for example if you want to figure out something, you
know....

K: But when you perceived the totally of greed, something has also happened to you.

B: Yes. Are you saying there is no more thought?

K: But (in the 'psychological' field) thought is not necessary.

B: Well how do you find your way home? How do you use (your practical) memory?

K: ( Inwardly) I’m no longer greedy.

B: Right..

K: I’ve no need for thought in the field of (inward ) perception and therefore thought doesn’t enter into it at all.

B: Not into perception, but it still has its place apparently. For example if you want to know the way from here to where ever you want to go…

K: No... I’m taking of greed, greed.

B: Yes, it has no place in (dealing with) greed. Where there is a total (insightful) perception thought has no place

B: In that perception ?

K: No, only in that perception, thought doesn’t exist any more with regard to that.
You perceive that all belief is irrational , there is a perception of this total structure of
belief, and its out. Belief has no place in your thought, in your brain, so why do you
want thought there?

B: I’ll not say I want it, but I say there is a tendency that thought may interfere...

K: No it wont, if I perceive the total (time-binding) nature of belief, then its over. Then
where does thought come into that (psychological structure) which ( mankind's survival oriented) thought has created? I wonder if I am
conveying something to you. Look sir, I perceive, for the moment I am using that, I
perceive totally the nature of belief, with (its subliminal) fear, all the rest of it involved, and because there is total perception, 'belief' as such doesn’t exist in my thought, in my brain, nothing ! - so, where does thought come into it ?

B: Well not at that part.

K: It's finished ; so thought has no place when there’s a totally (insightful) perception, Same thing with greed, same thing with fear, while thought operates only when there’s a necessity for ( the proverbial?) 'food, clothes, shelter'. What do you say to that?

B: Yes, well that, that may be right... But let's look at what we started with , which was to understand why thought has done what it has done. You see, in other words, when there is a total perception then there's no place for thought. You just 'see' now. But when we come to practical affairs you could say that we don’t have a total
perception ( of what was actually going on) we depend on information which has been accumulated, and so on, right, and therefore we need thought.

K: There, yes. I need it to build a house, I need to…

B: So, you depend on the (previously) accumulated information, you see, you cannot dir
ectly 'perceive' how to build a house, right ? But for psychological matters...

K: That's it, that's it. Psychologically when there is total perception, thought doesn’t enter
into the psychological process.

B: Yes, it has no place in the psychological domain . Now, I’d like to come back to answer
the question raised by David Shainberg, which is: “Why has thought gone wrong, why has it done all these strange, why has it pushed itself where it has no place”?

K: Could we say that thought creates (very realistic?) illusions?

B: Why would it want to do this ? But even more deeply what makes (thoght's illusion making process ) happen, you see?

K: Because ( the self-identified) thought has taken the place of ( direct) perception.

B: Why should thought assume that it see the whole, or even that it sees anything?

K: Rather interesting….. does it happen sir that ( the direct) perception having no movement of thought as time and so on, such an ( inwardly transparent ? ) mind uses thought only where necessary and other wise it's empty ?

B: I wonder if we could put it differently, such a mind when it uses thought, it realises that
this is just thought, it never supposes it is not thought, is that right?

K: Yes, that's right, that's right, that it is thought and nothing else

B: The (psychological) danger is that there is a mind in which it does not realise that this is
( just) thought you see, suppose there is an experience of joy and enjoyment, but slightly later there comes thought which 'imitates' (revive?) it by remembering it, and then, it's a very subtle imitation, and therefore it treats it as the same (experience) , you see what I
mean, therefore it begins to get caught in is own pleasure which it mistakes it for joy and
enjoyment.

K: Quite.

B: Now after a while, when it becomes a habit and when the pleasure is
not there there's a reaction of ( frustration ) fear and so on, and all this psychological trouble starts. So at some (obscure?) stage , you see there is this mechanical process which thought does not acknowledge, not knowing that it is mechanical.

K: Yes, would you say also, that man never realised until recently, that
thought is a physical and bio-chemical process and therefore it (has blindly) assumed a tremendous importance?

B: Well, in general that's s certainly true, it's only recently that science has shown the physio-chemical properties of thought. Now, if we go back to the past, would you say, that nobody, or perhaps some people understood this, but in general most people did not.

K: Did not. Take the so called Saviours & all the 'saints' (holy people) function on thought.

B: Well what about the Buddha?

K: Again according to the tradition, there’s the 'eight fold noble path', there’s 'right thinking'...

B: Ah, but he may have meant thinking non- mechanically…

K: That's just it, you can’t take (the example of) anybody in the past.

B: Why, because we can’t be sure?

K: Can't be sure of what they meant.

B: That was interpreted and so on and we can’t ask him what he meant.

K: Laughing… No. Is that the reason, because ( the self-centred ) thought said I’m the
only important thing.

B: Yes but how did it come to say that, you see?

K: Because there was no ( direct inward ) perception.

B: No but, why wasn’t there?

K: Man didn’t realise or thought wasn’t told that it was just a physio-chemical process.

B: Yes, well thought does not know it's a material process therefore thought when thought mistook itself for the actual intelligence. But suppose when there's enjoyment, but thought creates from memory a (very realistic) imitation of all that

K: But it didn’t think it was imitating

B: No, that's what I’m trying to say, it didn’t know it was imitating.

K: That's just it.

B: Perhaps was too subtle for thought to realise it was just an imitation.

K: That's it, and also because thought from the beginning said I’m the only 'god'.

B: I wonder if that come a little later, you see ? The first thought mistook itself was for joy and intelligence , goodness and so on

K: Yes, yes

B: Then it realised its impermanence and then it took the idea that there is a (timeless) self, which is always there, which produces thought, and truth, and perception and so on, you see that, you see ? You can give as examples, enjoying the sunset and there
may be a small accompaniment of thought, you know, which is harmless in itself.

K: Yes, it flutters round, quite...

B: Flutters round, but now by habit, by repetition , it getstronger, and it becomes comparable in intensity to the original experience , and then thought does
not see this as an imitation and it treats it as the genuine (as the real thing)

K: Are we saying sir, that man has never been told or realised, that thought is just a physio chemical (process in the brain?) ?

B: That is not enough, because science has been saying long ago that thought is
physical and mechanical, but that in itself hasn’t changed anything.

K: No, no, but if you perceive that…

B: Yes, but it was not enough for science to know that thought is a just a (physio-chemical) mechanical process...

K: That's right, so (man's socio-cultural) conditioning and the ( inertial forces of?) habit has been thought is the primary thing in life.

B: Yes, even when it was called 'non thought' it was still ( a self-sublimated) thought, you see. There was some indication that, thought created 'imitations' of the primary thing in life
and then it said that's the primary thing.

K: That's right, yes.

B: So, thought never knew that it was just a mechanical process and therefore never had any reason to suspect that what it created was not the primary thing in life, because even if it could see itself creating it, it would not know there was anything wrong with it.

K: Quite, quite. So what are we saying now?

B: Thought never realised it was limited. Thought never realised that which it created
was a chemical and physical thing. Is that what we are saying?

K: Part of it, and we are saying also, where there is a total perception, a change in thought
takes place.

B: Right, and what happens to thought then ?

K: Thought doesn’t interfere, there is no ( self-identified) psychological entity which thought can use.

B: Let's tryto clear this up a little bit. Lets say there is a new invention.
you see, now, which we discussed before, and something new comes into ( the field of) thought and into the field of reality, but we say that might be ( originating as ) a perception
And because of that perception thought is functioning differently, it remains mechanical but different.

K: Yes, that's exactly what we are saying.

B: Yes, but it just changes the order of its operation through that perception

K: Yes.

B: Therefore the creativity is not in the (process of) thought itself, but in the ( insightful) perception.

K: Lets get it clear, thought has created the 'me' (aka : the 'thinker'?) and this 'me' has become independent of thought, apparently.

B: Well apparently. Yes.

K: And the 'me' being still part of the thought, is the (core of the) psychological structure, while (the totally insightful) perception can only take place when there is no 'me'.

B: Well we could try to go into that to make it more clear. You see the me, this imaginary structure, we know well it's 'real', as the 'me' involves some sort of 'centre' doesn’t it ?
This ( self-identified) centre (of self-interest?) is a very old form of thought, its one of the most fundamental forms, right it probably goes all the way to the behaviour of the animals, most probably.

K: Yes sir, the family centre and so on

B: Yes, also the geometric centre, when people use the centre with the rays emanating
out, it's a very powerful symbol, you see the sun with its rays, it had a tremendous effect.
So the concept of a centre has a tremendous affect on thought, you see.

K: Yes sir...

B: And this centre has the meaning of totality, you see, one point touches everything, In
other words the centre is a symbol of the contact with the whole, you see, and I think
that's how the self is considered in thought. It perceives , the self is perceiving
everything. The self is determining everything...

K: So there is a centre, and is this centre independent of thought?

B: Well I would seem, the centre 'is' thought, its a basic structure in thought, we think in
terms of the centre, you see ? In physics for example each atom is a 'centre'.

K: Thats why thought is fragmented.

B: Because we think through the centre ?

K: We think through the centre. Ah, we're ( finally?) getting at it.

B: Well lets get it more clear, you see lets say one of the basic theories of physics is to
think that the world is made of atoms, each atom is a centre, a force which connects to
all the other atoms, right and of course the opposite view is that theres a continuous
field, you see and no centre, those are the two views studied and as pursued in two
different forms. Now, if you think through the centre there is going to
be fragmentation. You say the atomic view is fragmentary, then ?

K: Must be, you see sir, what were getting at, the basic reason of fragmentation is that
we function from a 'centre' (of self-interest?) .

B: Yes, we must think in terms of centres because the sun is at the centre to the solar system. But psychologically we also function from a centre. You see, physically
we are forced to function from a centre, because the body is the centre of our field of sensory perception. But psychologically we form an imitation of that, we have the thought at the centre which is probably I think Yung called it an 'archetype', it may be millions of years old, going back to the animals.

K: Yes, to the animals quite....

B; Now that form is useful physically, but then it was extended psychologically, to
think...

K: That's right, that's why thought is fragmentary

B: Well is there a thought which does not function from the centre? It always has to.

K: Has to. Cause thought is ( originating) from a centre of memory.

B: Well lets explore why does thought have to be from a centre, you see, why couldn’t
there be a memory without a centre.

K: How can there be, just memory like a computer?

B: Why couldn’t there be like…

K: If it was, but here there is the 'psychological' centre (the 'thinker' entity )

B: Its not clear to me why there cannot be just memory, you see, just as
information. You see, its not clear yet to me, why thought had to form a centre you see, we psychologically and why did it have to give this (identitary?) centre such importance?

K: Because thought never aknowledged to itself that its mechanical.

B: Thought was unable to acknowledge that it's mechanical and now why does that call for a centre?

K: But thought has created this centre (for its own temporal continuity) .

B: Yes, but the centre was there just for practical purposes any way, but thought used that idea, psychologically for itself, now, why was it doing that?

K: Because for very simple reasons : thought said I can't be mechanical I must be
something much more.

B: How does the centre make it 'more' then?

K: Because that gives itself a (sense of temporal) permanency, as the 'me'

B: Well we should make that more clear why this (self-identified) centre gives thought a sense of permanency.

K: Why? Thought has created this microphone, that is apparently permanent,
relatively, and in here thought created the 'me' as a permanent entity.

B: Yes, but why did it pick up the centre to be permanent?

K: Perhaps it picked it up because cause the Sun is the centre of the universe, and if there is such a centre, as you said, it joins everything (keeps everything together) ,

B: Yes joins everything and gives it a sense of unity.

K: Unity, the family and so on and so on, but (inwardly) that centre becomes totally unnecessary when there is a complete (insightful) perception.

B: But it is necessary, when there is not such complete perception.

K: That's what's happening. It is not 'necessary' but that's what's happening in the world...

B: ( To recap:) Not being able to realise it is mechanical, thought began
to create its own products and seeing their instability, knowing their
impermanence, it tried to establish something permanent and it found the 'centre' useful
for trying to do that, because this 'centre' made a connection with everything.

K: Yes, that's right...

B: in other words, you see, if it's a 'form' (a mental core) around which everything can be put, hung together, so therefore if everything is falling apart, if left to itself, thought will falll apart, but then it establishes a stable 'centre' which holds it all together ?

K: That' s right, my family, my house, my country...

B: And that's (really) permanent right, so you say I have a permanent centre, in other words
thought has hit on the idea of a permanent centre to hold everything together and in fact
that's what we do all the time to organise (our temporal life) to have a centre around which everything can be organised.

K: That's right, like a company executive...

B: That's what we do all the time to have a permanent centre to hold it all together

K: So when you perceive something totally, the 'centre' is non existent and doesn’t it bring in something, when you perceive something that includes everything?

B: Right, lets go slowly here.

K: Isn’t that the central thing that holds, that (controls &) connects everything?

B: I see it differently : that the act of (direct) perception unites everything. And thought is imitates that by creating (self-conscious mental ? ) 'centre' that ( tries to) unites everything.

K: That's right.

B: And thought attributes the perception to this 'centre'

K: That's right, to the 'observer' and so on..

B: And also the 'thinker' attributes its own origin to that centre and attributes truth
to itself.

K: That's right. Is there sir, an (observer-free ?) perception of greed, of fear, a total perception which includes everything ? So it isn’t just the perception of greed, perception of belief, perception of all these things.

B: Let's say there’s a perception of 'what is', right ? And right now there is this question which we might clear up, because as we said Truth is 'that which is', right?

K: There is only ( a direct, non-dualistic ) perception, not the 'perceiver'.

B: There is no 'perceiver', but only the perception of 'that which is', isn’t it?

K: Yes, and the 'perceiver' is the centre.

B: Well thought attributes to the centre the quality of being a 'perceiver', as well as a
'thinker' or an 'actor'. So, I think that and it might be helpful to see that one of the functions of thought is to attribute and thought can attribute anything to any thing.

K: Yes quite right.

B: Therefore when thought has invented the 'centre', then began to attribute various ( personal?) qualities to that 'centre', such as thinking, feeling , pain or
pleasure, ans it becomes alive. Could we say that suffering also arises there, when pain is attributes to the centre?

K: Of course, as long as there is a 'centre', there must be (personal of) suffering.

B: Because when there no 'centre' the pain is merely physical.

B: But if the memory of pain is attributed to the centre then it becomes real, it becomes
something big.

K: So, (to recap:) we’ve 'seen' something : if there is a total perception, thought has no place in that perception. There is a total perception, and that perception 'is' action.

B: Yes and that will change the quality of thought, by changing the brain cells.

K: And so on, we’ve seen that thought has only a mechanical function.

B: By mechanical you mean more or less, 'not intelligent' ? It’s not creative, it's not intelligent.

K: So why are we giving such tremendous importance to thought?

B: Well, (the self-identified core of ?) thought is giving importance to itself ?

K: Thought is giving to itself tremendous importance, but when (a direct) perception takes place, and thought is seen (for what it actually is:) mechanical.

B: Well when thought acknowledges it is….

K: ...mechanical then there is no problem. Yes, sir, I can see hw the 'centre' it's gone on the wrong track...

B: Well, I think even from the beginning, thought mistook itself for something living and creative, and then it established ( its identification with the 'centre' ) in order to make that permanent. And then what gave it tremendous importance is the combination of the
two. One, that thought mistook itself for something intelligent and higher and then seeing this was impermanent, it naturally wanted to make it permanent,
and therefore it founded the 'centre' as the way to try to do it , because the centre was the
actually the practical way of trying to organise things permanently.

K: Quite right sir, so now we’ve answered why thought is fragmentary.

B: Yes, well let's make it more clear, why is it fragmentary? I mean in a way it's gone
wrong, but we'll have to spell it out ?

K: Because thought created the centre as a permanent entity and that centre forms itself as a unit to whoever put it together.

B: Everything in the whole world, the whole world is is held together by the 'centre',
because if somebody feels the centre goes he feels the the whole world is...

K: Going to pieces, that's right.

B: Now, it's not quite clear why its 'fragmentary' ?.

K: No, because it has separated itself from the thing it has created.

B: Yes, now that's the point, but let's now make that very clear that thought has
attributed to itself a 'centre' which is separate from itself, whereas in fact it 'is' has created the centre and it is the centre.

K: It 'is' the centre.

B: But it thinks of itself, attributes to that centre, the property ( of objective?) thought : I am real and so on, and that is ( creating the whole ) fragmentation.

K: That's the basic thing.

B: And from there follows the necessity for the rest of the fragmentation of life, because in
order to maintain that those two are different, thought must then break up everything to
fit that, do you see.

K: Of course.

B: It only introduces confusion, you see, either it separates things that are not separate
or it puts together things that are different in order to maintain that fiction. that the centre
is separate from thought everything else has to be cut to fit that.

K: To fit that , the whole human existence is cut ( in pieces?) to fit that centre. (to be continued)

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 12 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Aug 2019 #43
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

(...)

B: You see for example, if somebody attributes to the 'centre' the quality of being from
a certain nation, he must then distinguish another nation, not belonging to the centre, he fragments the (whole consciousness of) mankind in order to hold the centre together.

K: Quite right sir, that's very clear now.

B: And therefore the entire world is fragmented, indefinitely shattered into fragments.

K: I want to get to something else to. Is there an (insightful) perception only from time to time, or is there a total perception of the whole ?

B: Well if there’s a total perception (a total insight?) of the whole thing then what would there be left to do inwardly ?

K: That's what I want to find out...

B: Now, this raises the second question that David Shainberg brought in : let us say you
went through - as it were- Columbus discovering America, so that someone else doesn’t have to discover it (the hard way?) . But then what does he do that is creative, that is corresponding to what you did, you see?

K: Now, just a minute, first let me answer this question. “Is ( that insightful) perception whole?

B: A whole, and there's only one perception.

K: ….therefore it has cleared the field (of the 'psychological' debris of time) .

B: The entire field is cleared. Then... what does he do ? Which brings up a question I wanted to ask you for some time : in the Indian book, Tradition and Revolution, you mention towards the end of it, that ( a totally insightful) perception 'distills' ( mind's spiritual?) essence, right, do you remember that?

K: No I don’t remember, sorry, but it doesn’t matter...

B: But I wanted to explore this notion, that if there is there is ( an insightful) perception, total perception being intelligence, out of that came the ( spiritual) essence, distilled like the ( perfume of the ) flowers. Now, is this 'essence' anything like the 'whole'?

K: That's what that is, of course. Now wait a minute, I want to get this clear. Would you say there's is ( a holistic) perception of fear, greed, envy, belief, a total perception of everything that thought has put together including the 'centre'?

B: Well it's 'total', there is a phrase that people sometimes use, essence and
totality, you see, to perceive.

K: Ah ha, to perceive the essence and totality ?

B: Does that seem appropriate ?

K: Um… I’m hesitating on the word 'essence'. Leave the word 'essence' for the moment.
There is no partial traces of greed left , envy and all that, there is total perception. Therefore total perception means ( having an insight into) all the things that thought has put together, and making itself separate, the 'centre'.

B: Well now, we have to talk about total perception, we have to make it more clear, now,
because 'total' may mean all these things, or it may mean something else.

K: To me it means a total perception of thought thought attributing to itself certain qualities, thought creating the centre and giving to that centre certain
attributes, and all the things from that psychological centre.

B: Well that's thought's structure which is universal - not just this thought or that
thought or this problem or that problem or …

K: Its universal, quite, but now is such a perception possible? You tell (convey it to ) me and I see the truth of what your saying, the truth which not mine or yours, it is the truth.

B: Yes, now if you say its the truth, it is 'that which is'.

K: That which is, the actual.

B: Yes, well its both, but I’m trying to get it a little more clear, when we say there is
'truth' and there is 'actuality', now you see, the way we ordinarily use the word, the 'actual',
is really the right way we use the word individual, it would seem to me the word individual, actuality is individual, you see, 'undivided'.

K: Ah yes, quite, individual is (means) undivided, quite.

B: Actuality is 'undivided' but, there is one moment of actuality and there may be another moment of actuality and so on, but now, when we 'see' the essence, when we see the
totality of the universal, then that includes all that, right ?

K: All that, that's right....

B: So that, the (perception of ) truth goes beyond that individual actual fact because it sees what is universal and necessary, the totality of the nature of thought.

K: The totality of the nature of thought, that's it.

B: Right, so that every individual example of thought is in there.

K: That's right, and when thought is seen as merely mechanical.

B: Does thought acknowledge that it is mechanical ?

K: No, no thought doesn’t have to 'acknowledge' it ; it 'is' (mechanical) .

B: So, thought ceases to attribute to itself the non 'mechanical' (character) ?

K: That's right....

K: I think that's what actually took place from the beginning of this (K) boy it (the total clarity of insight?) was there.

B: It was implicit ?

K: Implicit, or whatever you’d like to say,

B: Well alright, perhaps it was implicit in everybody when he’s born but …then it gets the position it takes...

K: No, I question whether it was implicit with everybody

B: Well now lets get this clear, there are two views and we have to get it clarified : one view is, that it is is implicit in everybody, but then the ( survivalistic constraints of) conditioning takes hold in most people, and then it's lost, right ?

K: That's a very 'dangerous' ( statement)

B: Why is it 'dangerous' ?

K: Dangerous, because then you then assume there is something in you, which is unconditioned...

B: But then we can say it may (have been) conditioned by now, you see ?

K: No. From childhood…

B: Yes, well somebody was born (having it) that's the very point ? But that is an assumption,

K: Its an assumption,

B: Alright, and you say that ( assumption) may be 'false' .

K: I think it is false...

B: Alright. So, you are suggesting that the average child is born with some…conditioning, perhaps hereditary ?

K: The genes and the hereditary, and the ( collective mentality of the ) society, it's already there.

B: And then it gets added to ?

K: Added to, encrusted, and it thickens

B: Alright so that's one view which you feel it is wrong ?

K: I wouldn’t accept it, because, that's a (very convenient?) theory

B: Now, let's take the other view : right now you said that this ( K) boy...

K: It sounds personal but it's not...

B: I know, yes, and you were saying last week, right, that there was some 'destiny', some hidden mysterious Order...

K: Something much more, than reincarnation, than what the theosophists said about the Maitreya, the Brahmanical tradition of mustn’t do harm, karma, etc...

B: Yes...

K: I think it's much more, ( or rather?) something else

B: Yes, you say there was 'something else', now of course this idea has also occurred to people in the past, you see there are people who felt that they were, that some
mysterious force was working in them, and they may have been fooling themselves...

K: Absolutely.

B: Like, if you take Alexander the Great, he thought he was a God and many people felt his energy so much, that they were ready to do anything for him

K: But his energy was spent in conquering

B: That's right in conquering, so, it was obviously false

K: False, obviously, Napoleon felt that (too)

B: Yes, Napoleon felt it, and perhaps Hitler felt it...

K: Exactly, Mussolini and Stalin...

B: Yes and I wanted to put it, just to try to make it clear, that that feeling may liberate a tremendous energy either 'falsely' or not.

K: Yes...

B: So, therefore, ( that assumption) has ( an actual) danger in it, which we must recognise, right ?

K: That's right, that's right !

B: But nevertheless you cannot discard that ( possibility ) because this energy may still be necessary in spite of the (potential) 'danger' in it. In other words if we recognise that there is danger in this notion, but it doesn’t prove the notion is false.

K: Oh no, no , of course not....

B: It doesn’t prove its true of false.

K: It may be misused, quite

B: But if we look at it from the other side, when you say that something mysterious happened (to the young K) , which cannot be explained, which is beyond the order of...

K: ...all (rational) explanation

B: It may be that thought cannot grasp it...

K: ( His ) thought did not create a ( self-identified) 'centre'

B: Yes it did not create a centre but thought is ordinarily conditioned to create an (identitary) 'centre' , over the ages

K: Yes, perfectly (true)

B: A person may be born according to you with the tendency to create the centre. But in this case thought did not create the 'centre', is that what you're saying?

K: Yes, that's right...

B: And you cannot say why it did not , beyond this 'mysterious' action ?

K: No, I wouldn’t know...

B: Now in some sense you say the ( K) boy was protected, it's what you said last time...

K: Protected, guarded, 'they' did everything to guard him, first of all...

B: Yes well there was a combination of circumstances which helped, which were conducive to that...

K: Conducive but it still doesn’t explain.

B: It doesn’t explain... Now there are several points that we could go on from there. You see, one point is to say that if man is born conditioned then there is no way out of it, if that's all there is to it, in other words, from this conditioned mind there can be no way out.

K: Quite...

B: Therefore the only way out is if somebody to come into existence who is not conditioned...

K: Yes, proceed, yes...

B: Now if there is such a person, we could say he does not have any 'personal' significance, if you see what I mean ?

K: Yes, yes.

B: Its just part of the universal order.

K: Yes that's right.

B: And if I can give you an example in physics, in order to crystallise something, let's say something is in ( super saturated) solution, that may be cooled far beyond the point
of crystallisation, or solidification, unless there is a small 'nucleus', around which it can crystallise, otherwise it may remain uncrystallised, indefinitely.

K: Yes...

B: But the, that particular nucleus has no special significance other than, it was the place
around which the (process of) crystallisation took place.

K: Quite, absolutely...

B: Now, if you were to argue this for the sake of our discussion, ( could it be) that ( the total consciousness of) mankind has reached a stage where it is ready for a (qualitative) change, right?

K: Yes, that's what 'they' (say?) There must be a catalyst, somebody, a nucleus...

B: A 'nucleus', which is unconditioned ?

K: A nucleus, which is unconditioned

B: That's the idea that occurred to me anyway...

K: Yes quite, quite...

B: I mean whether its true or not we'll have to discuss. Now see, another question arose,
a number of people began to ask it which is, you see, until now, until recently, you have not been talking in these terms, you see, but rather emphasising ( a choiceless?) awareness of the conditioning and so on, and it seems now you are saying, something more ?

K: Yes.

B: And different ; could you say why ?

K: Oh, I wouldn’t know, Sir...

B: I mean, why didn’t you discuss this point before ?

K: See, I am just going back : if there is total perception of the nature of thought and all its activities, and therefore the total perception of the content of consciousness that this content makes the (self-centred) consciousness and this content used to be the centre...

B: Well, I think that the 'centre' is the form around which all these things are placed, you see ?

K: Yes...

B: They are all attributed to the centre.

K: Now, when the centre is not, in ( the occurrence of a ) total perception – a total perception which can only exist when the 'centre' is not, then (the quality of one's) consciousness must be totally different.

B: Alright, now what would you say about its nature then?

K: What would be its nature? See sir, that 'centre' (of animal selfishness) as you pointed out, is ( thought's) factor of unification...

B: What's attempted

K: Napoleon, you follow, the ( egotistic) centre...

B: This is the the way people have always tried to unite.

K: But it hasn’t succeeded never ; now when the centre is not, which is ( occurring in an insightful ) perception of the totality of thought, one's consciousness must be something quite different.

B: But does it still involve thought ? You see the word consciousness would ordinarily involve the idea that it is still thought...

K: There’s no ( self-centred) thinking, can’t be...

B: Well, then why do you still call it 'consciousness' ?

K: I said it must be something totally different. The consciousness which we have is with the centre with all the content, with all the thought, with all that movement, and when there is a total perception of that, that ( self-centred consciousness ) is not.

B: The 'centre' is not, and the whole order (of the Mind?) is different.

K: Different...

B: Yes, and there's something else I was going to ask : you were also mentioning many times that it might involve the brain cells starting to work in a different way?

K: In a different way, I think so...

B: Perhaps different brain cells will work differently....

K: Sir, may we ask what is Compassion? Is the 'centre' capable of Compassion?

B: Well I’d say the 'centre' is not capable of anything real.

K: No, but can the 'centre' attribute it to itself and be 'compassionate'?

B: It certainly can do that, yes.

K: It can ( laughs...) yes, but if there is no attribution at all, then what is compassion? Is this total perception ( an act of) Compassion?

B: Well it includes the feeling for all (that is) .

K: I should think one of the ( holistic) qualities of total perception, is Compassion

B: Hmm... If the 'centre' can only have feelings which are attributed to it, so it would have
compassion for whatever it emphasised with.

K: Of course. I love you but ... I don’t love others.

B: Yes

K: Quite , or I love others but I don’t love you.

B: (laughs) Anyway it would have no understanding and therefore it would have no meaning

K: Very interesting this. Ahh... we have got somewhere

K: How would you convey all this to somebody (attending the Saanen) camp? He’s sentimental, romantic, wanting illusions, myths, fanciful imaginations, problems of sex , of fear, this, and your telling him something, you follow sir, and he won’t even....Here we’ve got the leisure, we want to go into it, we want to find out, because we're totally objective of what one sees….

B: I’d say yes...

K: I think that's where ( the universal intelligence of?) compassion operates.

B: That's why, it's necessary to see if we are considering what your saying yesterday that about the (collective) stream of human thought...

K: Yes...

B: Whatever it is, it is 'universal', it belongs to everybody, so as you may see something going wrong, thought attributes it to somebody else, but whenever something is going wrong, it's going wrong in thought (in the first place?) .

K: Yes that's right...

B: And therefore it's ( going wrong) in ( the minds of) everybody, right ?

K: Yes...

B: There is no such thing as "my" thought, "your" thought, it is ( the stream of collective ) thought ; and it cannot stop in the ordinary communication. The structure of your thought is communicated to me, and if it's the wrong structure, then I’m (caught ) in the wrong structure of thought and then my (thinking) brain, my thought attributes the wrong structure to you, another centre...

K: Quite...

B: This 'centre' is alright, or we’ll try to make it alright, and the other centre is wrong ; so there can be no compassion, then I’m becoming hostile and think that I must fight the other 'centre'...

K: That's right sir.

B: Or that I must resist the other centre, right. this centre is resisting the other centre, (the assumption being that) the 'good' is in this centre, and the 'bad' is in the other centre...

K: (laughs)

B: And therefore there can be no ( action of intelligent?) compassion.

K: Yes sir.

B: But you see, if its all one (collectively shared?) thought process, one Stream, then one cannot attribute this to one particular person and therefore, it seems you understand the nature of that thought and that is Compassion.

K: Exactly. We’re going to talk , to discuss rather, about the 'mystery'? What is the 'mysterious'? Perhaps it's too late now, you see sir, all religions, have made the cathedrals dark, the temples are dark implying that God is ( something) "mysterious".

B: Yes...

K: That there is something so mysterious that you cannot understand, and there have been secret societies, special initiations, you know all that, trying through (sacred) rituals in order to come upon the 'mysterious'. But all that (stuff?) is not mysterious.

B: Well, that is just an imitation

K: An imitation which is done by thought, etc,etc, but if there was no such invention of the 'mysteriousness' created by thought, is there an (actual) Mystery?

B: Well if you say in one sense the mystery is that cannot be explained, or grasped by thought, then…

K: (We have all ) the myths (of mankind) …

B: Well these 'myths' are an attempt to grasp it by thought, by applying thought...

K: And apparently man has lived (for ages ?) with those myths.

B: Yes well again its the same point we were discussing before that thought, is attributing to itself, something 'mysterious'and ultimately it produces something which then says it's not just thought but, the ultimate Mystery.

K: Quite....

B: And people have said that myths were poetic means by which people grasped something true – and maybe if you use this once as a metaphor, then it would be helpful but when you repeat it then it becomes (a half-truth?). Now would it remain true in saying, that (the mysterious?) cannot be grasped in thought ?

K: That's right, but the ( Source of the ) Mystery of it (is still alive ?) We must discuss that some other time.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 12 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Sep 2019 #44
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

An experiential approach to understanding the nature of 'God'

( A 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1981)

Q: Is it possible to inquire (experientially) into the nature of 'God', ( the timeless source of Universal?) Creation, or the Ground of Being?

K: I think it is possible if one's mind can be free from all the traditional acceptance of the word ‘God’ and the implications and the consequences of that word. Can the brain and mind be totally free '( of the known) to investigate the ‘Nameless,’ or the ‘Highest Principle?’

Q: If you were to ask me 'do I believe in God, do I believe in Krishna, Rama, or Shiva ? I would say no. But that is not the final thing. There is a feeling that God goes far beyond all words, that it is an integral part to life itself, the sense that without ‘It’ nothing could exist.

K: Shall we discuss the ( Creative?) Ground from which everything originates? One can only find it out when one is absolutely free (of the 'known'?) , otherwise one cannot. Unfortunately , our consciousness is so crowded with (all forms of highly educated ) self-interest...

Q: Isn't there a possibility of a (meditative) state of being in which any movement of the ( temporal ) mind as 'belief' is negated?

K: But...does one negate it verbally or deeply at the very root of one’s being? Can one honestly say ''I know nothing'' and stop right there?

Q: I can’t say I know that (blissful ?) state of ‘I know nothing'...

K: Then, how does one proceed to negate completely the whole movement of knowledge? Negate everything except the knowledge of driving a car and all technological knowledge? Could one negate the ( self-delusive ) feeling that one 'knows'? Can one negate the knowledge of all that one knows?

Q: One has comprehended the way of negating the rising movement of thought as belief? But the depths, the dormant, the million years that form the matrix of one’s being, how does one touch that?

K: Could we begin (the other way around ?) by enquiring why the human mind has worked, struggled with ( its own psychological) becoming? Becoming not only outwardly, but inwardly. A becoming that is based on knowledge, on constant movement, an uprising movement—the being somebody.

Q: How are these two related? We started with an investigation into the nature of God and now you spoke of 'becoming'.

K: Aren’t they related? My (whole inward) being is essentially based on the feeling that there is in me something enormous, something incredibly immense. That is the matrix of tradition, the common ground on which one stands. Now, as long as that is there, one is not actually free. Can one investigate into that?

Q: Isn't there an inherent movement in every human being towards some 'unknown' (dimension of one's ) being, something that is beyond what one is taught, beyond what one picks up through one’s cultural heritage?

K: Now, ( for optional homework?) can one totally empty all that, the accumulation of a million years? I am speaking of the most deep-rooted, something that is ( hidden in the collective ) unconscious ? I think that if we want to investigate, that must go too...

Q: How is it possible, without the 'unconscious' being exposed, for it to end? How does one experience that which one cannot formulate? That which lies beyond the total particulars of any one person’s knowledge?

K: By having the ( fundamental ) insight that there must be the total negating of all 'things', or of the beginning of all 'things'.

Q: I can comprehend the negation of all that arises in the brain. But the layers of the unconscious, the ground on which one stands, how can one negate that?

K: Man has tried in several ways to find this. He has fasted, he has (meditated earnestly?) , but he was always anchored to something (within the field of the known ?) . Is it possible to be so totally (mentally -wise in?) ‘non-movement’? Otherwise ( any mental ) 'movement' is (the result of one's self-centred thinking constantly projecting its own continuity in ?) time, thought, and all that. (Also, some other ) complicated things are involved in this. Why do we want to find the meaning of God?

Q: There is a part of us which is still seeking (to transcend man's temporal condition?)

K: Yes, that is it. So, we never get to say ‘I don’t know.’ That’s a state of mind that is absolutely motionless. To say ‘I don’t know.’ I think that is one of our ( major experiential) difficulties. We all want to 'know'—which means, to bring God into the field of ( our past) knowledge...

Q: Look Sir, isn’t there in the ear's (sensory) listening and in the eye's (sensory) seeing—in the word itself—the whole content of what 'God' is? Is it not necessary to wipe out this matrix (of mankind's collective knowledge?) ? You used (in the past) a very significant phrase ‘to play around with the deep.’ So you also point to depths which lie beyond the surface arising. Is this depth within the matrix?

K: That is why I am asking, ''why do I want to find out whether there is something beyond all this?'' I wonder what you call 'matrix' (of the known?)

Q: This depth which I cannot bring to the surface, into the daylight of consciousness, of perception, of attention. This depth which does not come within the purview of my physical eyes and ears, but still is there. I know it is there. It is ‘me.’ Not being able to see it, touch it, I have a feeling that perhaps if there is a 'right listening' to the Truth...

K: Is that 'depth' measurable?

Q: No...

K: Then why do you use the word ‘depth’?

Q: I am using the word 'depth' to connote something that is beyond my ( everyday) knowledge—and I can do nothing about it. I do not even have the instruments to reach it.

K: How do you know that there is this 'depth'? Do you know it as a direct experience?

Q: If I say yes, it is a trap. If I say no, it is another trap. What I am saying is that this 'ground' (of man's collective consciousness?) contains the whole history of man. It has great weight and depth. Can’t you feel that depth?

K: I understand, Pupulji, but ( when stripped of its temporal content?) isn't (it also the ) depth of silence? Which means the mind, the brain is utterly still—not something that comes and goes.

Q: How can I answer to that?

K: I think one can—if there is no sense of ( personal) attachment to it. No sense of (past) memory involved in it.

Pupulji, I don’t know what 'God' (really) is and I am not interested in finding out. But what I am concerned with is whether the human mind, the brain, can be totally, completely free from all ( its past) accumulated of knowledge, experience? If it is not, it will function always within its ( good-old) field, expanding or contracting but always within that area (of the known) . It does not matter how much one accumulates, it will still be within that area. And even if the ( temporal) mind says, ‘I must find out', it is still carrying with it the same mental movement... So my ( educational) concern is whether the brain, the mind, can be completely free from all taint of knowledge. To me that is tremendously significant, because if it is not, it will never be out of that area, never.

Q: You speak of any movement of the ( self-centred ) mind ?

K: Yes. Any movement out of that area is still anchored in knowledge and seeks (to acquire further ( & higher ) knowledge ( like ?) about God. So I say my concern is whether the mind, the brain is capable of being completely immovable? When you put a question of that kind either you say, ‘It is not possible’ or ‘It is possible.’ But if you deny the possibility and the impossibility of it, then what is left? Do you follow? Can I have insight, the depth of insight into the movement of knowledge so that the insight stops the movement? Not I who stop the movement nor the brain that stops the movement. That ending of knowledge is ( allowing) the beginning of something else.

So I am concerned only with the ending of knowledge, consciously, deeply. There is this enormous feeling of (all-) oneness, a harmonious unity, and if it is simulated there is no point, then you perpetuate yourself—right?
(In a nutshell:) The ‘me’ is the essence of knowledge; and if I doubt everything man has put together, that is a very cleansing attitude. So we start with the extraordinary feeling of 'not knowing' anything. If we could say, ‘I know nothing,’ in the deepest sense of the word, It is there, 'you' don’t have to do anything.
Let us move from there. Each one of us is totally responsible to answer this question. You have to answer it.

Q: Why should I have to answer it?

K: I will tell you why. You are part of humanity and humanity is asking this question. Every saint, every philosopher, every human being, somewhere in his depths, is asking this question.

Q: May I ask you something? How does one take a question like this and 'leave it' (to gestate ) in (one's total ) consciousness? .
You have a special way of taking a question, asking it, and then, without any movement of the mind, remaining with it.

K: Yes, that would be right...

Q: That is what I want to know. Generally, one asks the question and there is movement of the mind towards it. With you, when such a question is put, there is no movement of the mind towards the question.

K: You are right. Are you asking how to get it?

Q: I know 'I' can’t get it...

K: You are right to ask the question. I come to you and put this question—are you ready to answer or do you 'hold the question' quietly? And out of that very holding without any ( mental) reaction, any response, comes the ( experiential) answer. Unless you understand this, it can lead to a great deal of misunderstanding.

Sirs, computers can be programmed by ten different ( top of the line) professors, with a great deal of knowledge and they can hold tremendous information. Our brains are also trained that way, they have been programmed for thousands of years, and that (old) brain replies immediately to a question. If the brain is not programmed, it is free to watching, looking. Now can our brains be 'not programmed'?

Q : You see, Sir, when such a (difficult experiential) question is normally put, it is like tiny grains of sugar being dropped on the ground—the ants from all over the place come towards it. It is the same with the ( temporal) mind; when such a question is put, a lot of ( knowledge direted ) responses are awakened that gravitate toward the question. Now the question is can the question be put without these ( mental) movements?

K: Without the 'ants', yes. When the brain is not operating (in the field of knowledge and) —is (really) quiet—it has a ( natural) movement of its own. But here we are talking of the brain that is in constant movement, the ( driving) energy of which is (man's self-centred) thought. Is ( the time-binding activity of ) thought the problem? And how will you deal ( experientially?) with this question? Can you 'question' ( the self-centred activities of) thought completely? Don’t answer immediately. Can one have a mind that is capable of not reacting immediately to such a question? Can there be a delaying reaction, perhaps 'holding the question' indefinitely?

Back (to our 'God' related question ) Pupulji. Is there a state ( an inward dimension ?) of ( the human mind that is out of time? Isn' that a state of profound Meditation, in which there is no (trace of personal) achievement, 'not-a- thing'. That may be the ( Creative) Ground, the Origin of All Things, a state in which the ( all-controlling) 'meditator' is not (anywhere around ?)

Q: May I ask, without the 'meditator', can the Ground be?

K: If the 'meditator' is there the Ground is not.

Q: But without the 'meditator', can there be meditation?

K: I speak of a ( ego-free?) meditation without the 'meditator'. So long as 'I' am trying to meditate, Meditation is not. Therefore there is only a mind, that is in a state of meditation.
The ( Cosmic Consciousness of the?) Universe is in a state of Meditation and that is the Ground, that is the Origin of everything. ( However, joining) 'That' is only possible when the ( all controlling entity - the) 'meditator' is not (anywhere around) .

Q : And that is only possible when there are no anchors (in the field of the known) ?

K: Absolutely. In that there is an absolutely freedom from sorrow. That (Cosmic ) state of Meditation has come with the complete ending of the ( temporal ?) 'self'. Beginning may be the eternal ( spiritual) process, an eternal beginning.
(To re-recap:) Is it at all possible for a ( holistically minded) human being to be so completely, utterly free of the (self-identified entity of the ) 'meditator' (aka the 'thinker', or the'observer'?) ? Then there is no ( need to ask the) question whether there is God or no God. Then that Meditation is ( joining ?) the Meditation of the Universe.

(For optional meditation homework?) Is it possible to be so utterly free? I am asking that question. Don’t reply, hold it. Let it operate. In the 'holding' of it, (a lot of intelligent?) energy is being accumulated and that (universal Mind-) energy will act, not 'you' (the self-identified mental entity ?) acting. So, have we understood the 'nature of God'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Sep 2019 #45
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

Understanding experientially the 'psychological' significance of death

( A 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1981)

Q: At the physical level we can all understand birth and death. But it is only the superficial part of the mind that understands. It is therefore imperative for us to understand at depth the meaning of existence, that which is held between birth and death and the fears, the darkness that lie in the ending of anything. How can the human mind look at death with simplicity and observe it for what it is?

K: Are you including in your question the whole process of living, with its confusion, complexities, and the ending of that? Are you concerned to find out what means this long period of struggle, misery, etc., to which we cling? Are you asking a question regarding the whole movement of life and death?

Q: Of course, there is the whole movement of human existence which includes life and death, but if you make the field too wide, we cannot get to the depth of sorrow, of ending. There is such anguish in something that 'is' and 'ceases to be', and the sorrow that lurks behind....

K: Now, what is this ending?

Q: Something that exists, ceases to be eternally...

K: Why do you use the word ‘eternally’?

Q Because there is no 'tomorrow' in this ending ?

K: Now, just a minute. Ending what?

Q: Ending of that which sustains life. Let me be more direct. Now you are her alive (& well) , and there is the tremendous anguish of Krishnaji ceasing to be...

K: Are you speaking of the anguish of Krishnaji ending ? To him it does not matter. There is no fear, no anguish. I have lost that person, he has been dear to me, my companion, and he comes to an end. I think it is really important to understand ( the psychological significance of ) ending, because there is something totally new when there is an ending to everything...
My ( beloved) brother dies, and it is tremendous sorrow. It is as though the whole of existence has been uprooted, a marvelous tree torn down in an instant. But I am asking myself, why does man carry ( the psychological burden of) this sorrow with him?
Simply because he has never understood deeply the ( deeper ) meaning of 'ending', of putting an end to something he (got strongly attached?) . The total ending of it—not the ending of it, to continue it in another direction...

Q: What makes the ( time-bound) mind incapable of ending? What comes in the way?

K: It is (a subliminal) fear, of course. After all death is an ending of what one is clinging to—the knowledge that I have looked after him, cherished him—in that all conflict is involved. Can't one end ( as optional meditation homework) totally, absolutely to the ( psychological) memory of that? That is (the deeper significance of) death.

Q: Is this what you mean by ‘living to enter the house of death’?

K: Yes.

Q: And what does it exactly mean?

K: To invite ( the spiritually redeeming experience ) of ending every day, everything that you have gathered 'psychologically'

Q: All your psychological 'attachments' coming to an end?

K: That is (the spiritual significance of) death.

Q: You seem to reduce it to the ending of a self-projected image, but death is much more than that.

K: There is much more than that. But this mind cannot enter into a totally new dimension if there is a shadow of ( psychological) memory lurking. If the mind has to enter the timeless, the eternal (dimension of Existence?) , it must not have an element of time in it.

Q: Man's inner life is not always so logical or rational...

K: Of course it is not. But in the ending of everything that you have gathered (for psychological reasons) , which is 'time', you understand that which is everlasting, without time. ( At the end of the day?) the mind must be free of time, and therefore there must be ending.

Q: Can there be an experiential exploration into this ending?

K: Oh, yes, there is : deeper down in that great interval between man's birth and dying there is deeper (Stream of psychic) ) continuity. It is like a vast River (of thought & Time) , but if we live only on the surface of this vast river of life, we cannot see the beauty of the depths. The ending of the ( thought's) continuity is the ending of the surface (of the temporal dimension of existence)

Q: So, ( psychologically-wise?) what 'dies' ?

K: ( The personal attachment to all) that I have accumulated, both outwardly and inwardly. A nice house, nice wife and children and my (daily superficial) life gives continuity to that. Can one 'end' that ?

Q: But with the physical death of Krishnamurti, the consciousness of Krishnamurti will also end?

K: The body will end, that is inevitable—disease, accident, and so on. But... what is the 'consciousness' of this (K) person?

Q: Suppose I say, an unending, abounding compassion.

K: I wouldn’t call that 'consciousness'.

Q: How about the 'mind' of Krishnamurti?

K: ( For educational purposes, let's? ) keep to the word ‘consciousness’ : the consciousness of a human being is (undissociable from) its ( psychologically active ) content - the whole movement of thought, the learning of language, beliefs, rituals, dogmas, loneliness, a desperate movement of fear, all that is consciousness. If the movement of ( self-centred) thought ends, the ( self-) consciousness as one knows it is not.

Q; But thought as a ( self-centred) movement in consciousness as we know it does not exist in the mind of Krishnaji. Yet there is a state of being that manifests itself when I am in contact with him.

K: The self-consciousness as we know, is (generated by the ) self-centred movement of thought. It is a movement of time. When thought comes to an end in the psychological world, the (self-) consciousness as we know it is not.

Q: But how about the state of being that manifests itself as Krishnamurti ?

K: Say, for example, that in 'real meditation' you come to a point that is absolute - a most extraordinary state. But it is not yours or mine. It is ( present) there.

Q: Where?

K: It has no place, but first of all, it is not yours or mine.

Q: Now it is clearly manifested in the person of Krishnamurti. Therefore when you say it has no place I cannot accept it...

K: Because you have identified Krishnamurti with That?

Q: But Krishnamurti is (the manifestation of) That.

K: Maybe, but it has nothing to do with Krishnamurti or anybody. It is ( just present) there. Beauty is not yours or mine. It is there, in the tree, in the flower.

Q: But, Sir, the healing and the compassion which is (now manifested through) Krishnamurti is not 'out there'. I am talking of that ( of K's mind?) !

K: But (pointing to his body) this is not Krishnamurti.

Q : ( That Compassionate Mind) is manifested in Krishnamurti and it will cease to be manifested. That is what I am talking about...

K: It may (indeed) manifest (itself) through X. But that which is manifesting does not belong to X. It has nothing to do with X

Q: It may not belong to Krishnamurti. But Krishnamurti and That are inseparable...

K: Yes. But you see, when you identify 'That' with the K person, we are entering into something very delicate.

Q: Take the Buddha (the Enlightened One) —whatever Buddha's consciousness was, it was manifested through him and it has ceased to be...

K: I question that the consciousness of Buddha ceased when he passed away. It was manifested through him, and now you say that it disappeared ?

Q: I have no knowledge to say it disappeared, but it certainly could no longer be contacted.

K: Naturally not. Because he was 'illumined'. Therefore It comes to him. There was no division. When he died his disciples said, ‘He is dead and with his death that whole thing is over.’ I say it is not. That which is 'Good' can never be over. As evil, it still continues in the ( collective consciousness of the ) world. The Good will always exist, as the evil—which is not the 'opposite' of the Good—continues.

Q: You say that a great illumined compassion does not disappear, but can I contact it?

K: Yes, you can contact It ( even ) when that person is not (present anymore) . That is the whole point : (the semi-transparent personality of ? ) Krishnamurti has nothing to do with It.

Q: So, when you say, ‘be a light to yourself,’ is it involved with contacting ‘that’ without (the intermediary of ) a person?

K: Not 'contacting' , but receiving, living it. It is there for you to reach out and receive. ( Except that the activity of) thought, as ( self-centred) consciousness, has to come to an end. Thought is really the enemy of compassion. And to have this flame, it demands not ( personal) sacrifice, but an awakened intelligence which sees the movement of thought and the very awareness ends it. That is what the real meditation is (all about?) .

K: Then, what significance has ( your physical) death?

K: It has no significance, because you are living with death all the time. Because you are ending everything all the time. I don’t think we see the beauty and importance of ( psychological ) ending. We see ( & enjoy, a self-centred temporal ) continuity with its waves of beauty, & superficiality.

Q : As I drive away tomorrow, do I cut myself completely from you?

K: No, but if you make me into an (idealised ) memory, you cut yourself away from that ( presence of?) eternity, with all its compassion...
( Suppose that ) I meet the Buddha. I have listened to him very deeply. In me the whole truth of what he says is abiding, and he goes away. He has told me very carefully, ‘Be a light to yourself.’ I may miss him, but what is really important is that seed of truth which he has planted—by my intense listening, that seed will flower. Otherwise, what is the point of somebody having it? If X has this extraordinary illumination, a sense of immensity, compassion, and all that, if only he has it and he dies, what is the point of it all?

Q: May I ask you one (bonus?) question? What is the reason, then, for his (K's) being?

K: What is the reason for K's existence? To manifest That? Why should there be any reason for the embodiment of That ? Love has no 'reason' : it exists.

So, ( to recap:) man's physical birth and death are ( traditionally considered to be ) far apart and (in between ) all the travail of ( self-centred) continuity is the misery of man. It is when (the psychological tread of this ) continuity 'ends' each day, that we are 'living with death'. That is ( allowing ) a total (spiritual) renewal. That is something which has no ( time-binding ) continuity. That is why it is important to understand the meaning of ending ( one's attachments to) anything totally. Can there be an ending of that which has been experienced and remains lingering in the mind as ( psychological) memory? Can a (holistically minded) human being live without time and knowledge apart from physical knowledge?

Q: Isn’t 'living with ending' the core of this question? That is, when the mind is capable of living with ending, it is capable of living with the ending of time and knowledge.
So, there is this stream of collective knowledge. When I ask, ‘Can I be free of the stream?’ is it not one element of the stream of knowledge asking that question?

K: Of course, of course...

Q: So, the stream of (thought &) knowledge, because it is challenged, responds. The only possible ( experiential) answer is the 'listening' to ( its mechanical) response.

K: A throwing up, a listening, a flowering, and a subsiding... But are you really asking to ( experientially) understand ( the living spirit of) 'Goodness' ? Let us investigate together. Can one see the arising of anger, become aware of that, let it flower and come to (its natural) end? Can't one watch the movement of it, let it flower, and as it flowers it dies?

Q; How does anger arise at all in a mind that is capable of observing?

K: It may be that the mind has not understood the whole movement of violence ?

Q: And how does one observe it : without the 'observer' or with the 'observer'?

K: The ( temporal) mind has ( for obscure survivalistic reasons?) separated itself as the observer and the observed...

Q: So, I can just observe anger arising, watch its manifestations—not interfere with its manifestations—and watch it subside ?

K: Then you can do something about it.

Q: The mind we could call 'awakened', that is what it does ?

K: Only the ( meditating) mind that sees that it can do nothing is ( really) motionless. So, have we, in this dialogue, seen the ( psychological) significance of death?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 #46
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

Uncovering the Source

( A 'reader-frindly' edited K dialogue, cca 1982)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, most of our lives are so futile....and unless one discovers within oneself the capacity to leap out of this futility, one will never be able to have (access to ) a creative spring. You see, when the mind has found this creative spring, whatever be the circumstances, one is able to go beyond them. And that happens when the mind is not dependent on anything, and when it has some inner space and a quality of insightful perception. I have been wondering for the last few months—what is the Ground of the Creative mind ?

K: I wonder what you mean by ‘creative’? A scientist may discover extraordinary things and ( outwardly) call his life creative. But even the greatest scientist may lead (inwardly) a very mediocre life.

PJ: You see, that’s why I did not speak of a creative action, but of a 'Ground', a Mind, a (source of timeless ?) perception, which rests in the creative.

K: I think you should make the question a little more clear.

PJ: You have never answered any questions on the 'Ground' of manifestation - the ‘coming to be’ of anything.

K: Are you asking what is the source of all life—both the manifest and the non-manifest ?

PJ: Yes. I would like to probe into what you have said just now: the manifest, the unmanifest and the pre-manifest... I won’t even use the word 'unmanifest'.

K: After all, we know all about the birth of a baby. We know how it comes into being.

PJ: One may know how it comes into being, but one still does not know the quality of life which pervades it. You see, sir, the 'actual' miracle of birth is very different from the description of birth.

K: Yes.

PJ: But you cannot live through life without going through this ‘coming into existence’.

K: Can we talk about experientially uncovering origin, the beginning, of all life or of all existence is, without having to move further and further back in time but by trying to come upon something which is the beginning of all things? You see, various religious people say, ‘God is the origin of everything’. But ‘God’ is just a (very convenient) word, which doesn’t convey...
( Any mindful?) man has asked what the meaning and the Origin of all this is.

PJ: From where does it arise?

K: That’s what you are asking, isn’t it? What is the Ground from which all this arises?
What is the ( Creative) Source of all existence, all Life, of all action? Now, how do we come to investigate into something that demands an extraordinary (inner) freedom (and the very word freedom means love) and an absolutely non-conditioned mind, if I can use that word? It requires that quality of mind which is both practical and sensitive and which has the quality of great Compassion.

PJ: I can’t start with that.

K: No... But I would like to move (inwardly ? ) with this ( major existential) question.

PJ: Now, if you say that the mind can question only when it is free ( of the known?) and, therefore has ( access to the universal intelligence ? ) Love, what do I do?

K: You can’t do anything. But how do you inquire into something, a question, that man has asked for millions of years? How do you inquire into something that he gave a name to and then was satisfied with? We are not doing that. We are asking, how does a mind inquire (experientially) into something that must be extraordinary, that must have a quality of not only the universal, the cosmic supreme order? How does one’s inquiry begin? Where does it begin? If you inquire with thought, that obviously doesn’t lead very far.

PJ: No. So, how does this inquiry begin? Obviously by being aware of the ongoing disorder within oneself.

K: You see, Pupul, I am after all the 'manifest'. I have been born. I am a human being.

PJ: Yes, but obviously, sir, there can be no other starting point.

K: The world outside, the world inside myself . If I can observe all that without any bias, and if I can see and relate what is happening outside to what is happening inside, then I will see that it is only one movement and not two separate movements. And you are it.

PJ: You see it is easier to say, ‘I am it’ with regard to the interior movement. To see that with regard to an exterior movement is much more difficult. If you tell me that I am all the wars which are taking place in the world, that’s very difficult for me to see.

K: No. Pupul, we are (all) responsible—in the deepest sense of that word—for all the wars that are taking place.

PJ: Yes, but that’s a distant responsibility. How is one totally responsible? By being born?

K: No; but my entire way of living, my entire way of thinking and of acting—as a nationalist, this or that—has contributed to the present state of the world.

PJ: When you take it to that extent, it is impossible for me to feel the reality of it.

K: Let’s leave that for a moment. I have just asked the question. Leave it.

PJ: Yes, let’s proceed to probe into the Ground of all existence which is the ‘is'-ness of life

K: All right. Let’s take for the moment those words—to go, to move or to enter into the whole complex of oneself. Now, I can’t enter into it as an 'observer' coming from the outside, for I 'am' all that.

PJ: Yes, I uncover what I am. And in uncovering what I am, I comprehend that one is uncovering the whole existence of man.

K: Yes.

PJ: So in this journey of uncovering, the superficial things are swept clean. The grosser elements can certainly be eliminated. You see, sir, it is possible to sweep away the more obvious things, but the subtler things may survive in corners which you have not been able to get to.

K: Yes, that’s right. But, let’s go a little more into the 'obvious' things, like hatred. Can one really be free of hatred? To be free of ( resentments & ) hatred must mean something extraordinary. Can one be free of all sense of aggression, all sense of the 'enemy'?

PJ: Isn't hatred different from the quality of aggression ?

K: Aggression is related to hatred, because it’s part of the same movement. An aggressive nation or an aggressive person inevitably hurts another, and that hurt breeds hatred.

PJ: Yes, that’s why I say that there are the grosser things and there are the subtler things. Hatred—anyone who has known hatred—knows that hatred is a very powerful and a very destructive thing. But aggression may, to some extent, be part of one’s nature, part of your make-up as a human being.

K: Yes, ( the instinct ) to survive, and all the rest.

PJ: You may be more assertive than another, that is a more subtle form of aggression. To be assertive is not hatred. That’s why I made the distinction between the grosser things which can be swept clean and the...

K: But let’s move on. You see, Pupul, the very word ‘freedom’, as far as I understand, means ( is intrisically related to) affection, love...

PJ: And a tremendous discipline?

K: You see, the point is this: Does watchfulness, which is ( the inward) awareness, need training? Does it need (self-) discipline? We have to understand the meaning of that word ‘discipline’.

PJ: Sir, without (inward) diligence nothing is possible. So may we discard the word ‘discipline’, and put in the word ‘diligence’?

K: Go slowly. ‘To be diligent’ means to be aware of what you are doing, to be aware of what you are thinking, to be aware of your reactions and from those reactions, to observe the actions taking place. Now, the question is: In that observation, in that awareness, is the action controlled, is the action put into a certain ( known?) framework?
I hold that the very act of learning is ( generating) its own discipline.

PJ: Yes. But how does the act of learning come to be? From where does the need for (inward) observation arise?

K: For a very simple reason, namely, to see whether it’s possible for a human mind to to change itself, and also to change the world which is entering into such a catastrophic area.
But what we started out with was an inquiry into the origin, the ground, of all life.

PJ: Yes.

K: To inquire into that, you have to inquire into yourself, because you are the expression of that. Now, the ‘myself’ is so terribly complex. The self is a living complex; it is a messy, disordered entity. How do we approach a problem that is complex, a problem that is not to be easily diagnosed? Now, how do I comprehend or become aware of the origin of disorder? If I can begin to understand the origin of disorder, I can move more and more deeply into something which may be ( looking like?) total chaos but which is total order. Do you follow what I mean?

PJ: Isn’t it by being as simple as possible?

K: Yes, that’s what I am trying to say.

PJ: And I have certain instruments of inquiry: eyes, ears, the other senses.

K: The question is: Do I look into myself with my (physical) eyes? I can see myself in a mirror with my optic eyes. But I can’t see the complexity of myself with my (inward?) eyes. I must be aware, sensitively, without any choice, of this condition.
Hearing, seeing, feeling are actually sensory responses, right? I see that colour. I hear that noise. I taste something, and so on. All those are sensory responses.

PJ: Yes. But is there not a 'seeing' of a reaction of anger—a 'listening' to a reaction of anger?

K: Do you listen with your ears or do you 'observe' anger (with mind's eye?) ?

PJ: How do you 'observe' anger?

K: When you are angry, you look at the cause and the effect of anger.

PJ: But the word you use is ‘see’. You say that you 'see' the nature of the mind...

K: I understand what you are asking. That is, do we see, do we hear—inwardly—with our eyes, and with our sensory ears?

PJ: You see, sir, if you put it that way, then you never get to the point, because the sensory ear is so used to listening to the outer that it can never comprehend what it is to listen to the within.

K: Would it help if we talked about ( the inward) perception? I hear you make that statement. I’ve understood the words and see the meaning of what you are saying. Right?

PJ: While I am listening to you and seeing you, I am also listening and seeing my own mind, the ground of the mind.

K: Who is listening?

PJ: Take an act where you are totally attentive. What is the state of the mind in that act of being totally attentive?

K: What is the state of action that’s born out of complete attention? I’ll answer it. But to answer that question, one must first understand what we mean by 'complete attention'. ( Such) attention means that there is no centre from which you are attending.

PJ: ‘To attend completely’ is for the ‘I’ not to be there.

K: Yes, that is the 'real thing'. When there is ( pure) attention, there is no ‘I’. It isn’t a state of I am attending, but only a state of mind which is wholly attentive.

PJ: With all the senses ?

K: With all the senses and the whole body.

PJ: The 'whole being' is awake, if I may say so.

K: Yes, you can use that word. So, myself am life and if I am to inquire into what I am, my inquiry has to be correct, accurate, not distorted. It is only then that I may come upon the ground, the beginning of all life. It is only then that the Origin may be uncovered.

PJ: If we start from there, we will find that the ‘I’ is there in the first step.

K: Yes. The first step is to see clearly, to hear clearly.

PJ: But the ‘I’ is there... There’s the 'observer'...

K: ...and the 'observed'. Now, wait a minute, Pupul, do not move away from that. I know that there is this (mental division between) observer and the observed. Now, I am inquiring whether that is actually so. So far I have taken it for granted.

PJ: Obviously, sir, when I first start inquiring, I start with the 'observer'.

K: Yes, I start with the 'observer'.

PJ: Now you have placed that doubt, in my mind and I ask, ‘Is there really an 'observer'?’

K: Is there an 'observer' separate from the 'observed'?

PJ: Having listened to that statement within me, I look for the 'observer'.

K: Yes. Let’s look into this slowly. Because if I understand the 'observer', then perhaps the one see the falseness of the division between the observer and the observed.

PJ: Who will see?

K: The point is not who will see, but the perception of what is true. You see, what is of importance is perception, not 'who' sees.

PJ: So, the (insightful) seeing the truth about the observer is will end the state of division.

K: Yes, that is what I have said a thousand times.

PJ: Yes, for this instant one can see that it is so. But I cannot expect to have an understanding of what you say unless the mind is diligent about being awake. You cannot deny this.

K: No. It has to be diligent; it has to be watchful; it has to be attentive, subtle, hesitant. It has to be all that. I can only inquire into myself through my reactions—the way I think, the way I act, the way I respond to the environment, the way I observe my relationship to another.
PJ: I find that as I first observe myself, my (mental) responses and reactions are rapid, confused, continuous...

K: I know; they are contradictory, and so on.

PJ: But in this very observing, some (free inner) space comes into being.

K: Yes, some space, some order.

PJ: But that’s just the beginning, sir.

K: I know. But I would like to ask you a question, Pupul,. Is it necessary to go through all this? Is it necessary to watch my actions, to watch my reactions, my responses? Is it necessary to observe, diligently, my relationship with another? Must I go through all this? Or...?

PJ: The fact is, sir, one has gone through all this.

K: You may have gone through it because you have accepted that traditional pattern.
That is what we have all done—the thinkers, the sannyasis, the monks, and...

PJ: And.... Krishnamurti ?

K: I’m not sure. I want to discuss this point seriously. We have accepted this pattern of of self-examination, analysis and investigation. We have accepted these reactions, we have paid attention to them. We have watched the ‘self’ and so on. Now, there is something in it which rings a false note—at least to me.

PJ: You mean to say that a person caught in the whole confusion of ( temporal) existence...

K: Pupul, he won’t even listen to all this...

PJ: But There has to be (some free inner?) space in order to listen.

K: Yes.

PJ: How does that space arise?

K: You suffer. Now, you can either say, ‘I must find out’ or you merely say, ‘God exists, and I am comforted by that’.

PJ: But you have just) asked: Is it necessary to go through all this (self-introspection?) ?

K: Yes, for I think that it may not be necessary.

PJ: Then show me how.

K: I’ll show it to you. We shall call, for the moment, your diligent watching of your reactions, the analytical process of inquiry. Now, this analytical, self-investigative process, this constant watching, man has done for thousands of years. Must I go through all this?
Is it necessary, is it imperative, is it essential, that I go through all this?

PJ: No, but are you trying to say that out of the middle of chaos you can leap to a state of total non-chaos?

K: I won’t put it that way...

PJ: Then what are you saying?

K: I am saying, very clearly, that humanity has gone through this (time-binding) process. It has been the pattern of our existence—of course, some have gone through the process more diligently, sacrificing everything, inquiring, analysing, searching, and so on. You do this too, and at the end of it all you may be just a dead entity.

PJ: It may not be so.

K: May not be. You see, Pupul, very few—very, very, few—have got out of it.

PJ: So if it is not necessary, then show me the other way .

K: I’ll show it to you. But first 'step out' of this.

PJ: But look what you are asking. If I can step out of it, the 'other' is already there.

K: Of course. Step out. That’s what I am saying. Don’t take time to go through all this.

PJ: But what exactly is meant by ‘stepping out of it’?

K: I’ll tell you what I mean. I perceive that man has tried this process of introspective observation, diligence and so on, for a million years in different ways, and somehow the mind is not clear at the end of it. I see this very clearly. I see that somehow this movement is very, very shallow. Now, can you 'listen' to ( the inward truth of) that statement—that the whole process is shallow—and actually see the truth of it? If you do, it means that your disordered mind is now quiet; it is listening to find out. Once you 'see' the truth of this, you are out of it. It’s like putting away something utterly meaningless. To put it another way. My mind is disorderly. My life is disorderly. You come along and say, ‘Be diligent; be watchful of your actions, of your thoughts, of your relationship’. You say, ‘Be watchful all the time’. And I say that that’s impossible because my mind won’t allow me to be diligent all the time. It is not diligent; it is negligent, and I struggle between these two.

PJ: But do you mean to say, Krishnaji, that a mind which is not capable of observing...

K: No. I am talking about a mind that’s willing to listen (to the inward truth of all this?) ...

PJ: Do you think an average human mind can be in that state of listening?

K: That’s very simple. I say just listen to a story that I am telling you. You are interested. Your mind is quiet; you are eager to see what the story is about and so on...

PJ: I’m sorry, sir, but it doesn’t happen that way.

K: Wait, I am going to explain what I mean by 'listening'.

PJ: Yes.

K: I mean by ‘listening’ not only the listening with the sensory ear, but the listening with the ear that has no movement. That is really listening - something that is complete. Now, when you listen, completely, without any movement, to a man who comes along and says, ‘Don’t go through all this diligent process, because it is false, because it is superficial’, what takes place? If you hear the ( inward) truth of his statement, what takes place? What actually takes place when you see something really true?

PJ: You are talking of a mind which is already mature. Such a mind, while listening to a statement like this...

K: You see, Pupul, we have made our minds so immature that we are incapable of listening to ( the truth of?) anything.

PJ: But you see, Krishnaji, you start by making things (look) impossible.

K: Of course. To see the truth. See something 'impossible' that you have found. It has a tremendous...

PJ: Where can I find the energy which is needed to deal with such an impossible thing?
Where is that mind?

K: It’s very simple. That which is utterly impossible is non-existent. We like to think everything is possible. I am getting it.

PJ: See what you are getting at, sir. You are saying that it is non-existent. So with a non-existent mind...

K: Look, Pupulji, can we both, you and I, agree that this diligent process has really led nowhere? Can we see that this process has led to various activities—some of which beneficial—but that in this inquiry of going to the very source of things’ it is not the way?

PJ: Yes, obviously. I would accept that.

K: That’s all. If you accept that what has happened to a mind that says that this is too trivial, too superficial? What is the quality of a mind which has been caught in the process of diligent inquiry when it sees that the process which it has been caught in has no deep, fundamental value? This process is time-consuming. The other may have no time at all.

PJ: But, look at the danger of what you are saying. The danger is that I will not be concerned with sweeping the room.

K: No, this very inquiry demands that the mind and the heart—my whole existence—is orderly.

PJ: So, you start with the impossible.

K: (With great energy) Of course, I start with the impossible, Pupul, otherwise... Pupul, what is possible? Man has done everything that’s possible. Man has fasted, sacrificed; man has done everything to find the origin of things. Man has done all that has been possible, and that has led nowhere. That’s what I am saying—possibility has led nowhere. It has led to certain benefits—social, and so on. It has also led to a great deal of misery for mankind. So, this (K) man tells me that this diligent process is time-consuming and, therefore, time-binding. He tells me that as long as I am doing this, I am just scratching the surface. The surface may be the most extraordinary, pleasant and ennobling thing—but it’s just the surface. If you grant—no, not merely grant but actually see, actually feel—in your blood, as it were—that this is false, you will have already stepped out of something that is the ordinary into something that is extraordinary.

PJ: And if I put aside the other ?

K: Which means that the ( time-binding) movement of diligence has stopped—right? Of course. If that is false, it has gone. So what has happened to the mind—the mind that has been caught in diligent inquiry and so on, all of which is time-bound, and has been seen by me to be utterly superficial? What is the state of my mind? It is a totally new mind. And such a mind is necessary to uncover the Origin. Now, such a mind has no bondage to time. This mind has no beyond—it is not becoming something. Would you go as far as to see the fact that such a mind cannot have any kind of dependence, any kind of attachment?

PJ: Yes, that I see. Sir, all that which you have talked about is the movement of becoming.

K: That’s right. All that is the perpetuation of the self in a different form, in a different network of words. You see, if you tell me this, I will want to find the source. And when I start out to uncover the source—which is for me a passion—I will want to find out, I will want to uncover the Origin of all Life. When there is that uncovering of Origins, then my life, my actions—everything is different.
That’s why I see that the understanding of the diligent process is a time-consuming fact which is destructive. It may be necessary in order to learn a technique, but this is not a 'technique' to be learnt.

PJ: Sir, you have a mind of great antiquity —‘antique’ in the sense that it contains the whole of human...

K: You see, Pupul, that’s why it’s important to understand that I 'am' the world.

PJ: No one else would make that kind of statement but you.

K: But one must make it. Otherwise, when you see all the destruction, the brutality, the killing, the wars—every form of violence that has never stopped—where are you? A man who loved couldn’t kill another. I see this process has been going on for thousands and thousands of years—everybody trying to become something. And all the 'diligent' religious workers are 'helping' man to become something—to achieve illumination, to achieve enlightenment. It’s so absurd...

PJ: With you, sir, the whole movement of the dormant has ended.

K: That is, (Laughs) ‘diligence’ has ended. Becoming has ended. Pupul, let us not make this into some elitist understanding. Any person who pays attention, who wants to hear, who is passionate and not just casual about it and who, really, says, ‘I must find the Source of Life’, will 'listen'. He will 'listen'—not to me; he will just 'listen'. It’s in the air.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
1 day ago #47
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 459 posts in this forum Offline

How Far Can One Travel Inwardly?

( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue , cca 1983)

K: Pupul, could we discuss to the limits of thought and travel beyond?

Q: I had recently read of a space rocket that would travel to the outer reaches of the universe and ( at least theoretically?) there would be no end to its journey - no friction, no time, and so no ending. Now, is there in the human mind, in the human brain, a 'within' of things? Are there vast, immeasurable spaces that lie in 'within' (the inward space of) of nature?

K: Are we asking whether within the human brain there is or there can be a space without end, an eternity out of time? Are we we really enquiring whether there is such immensity, whether there is a (living inward) 'movement' that is not of time, a movement that is eternal?

Q: For our ( experiential) enquiry we must first pose the question. What comes out of it will determine whether the question is valid

K: We have posed the question whether the human brain can realize the truth, that there is 'eternity' or 'no eternity'. How do we begin to enquire into this question that has been asked by man for thousands of years? Is man bound to time forever? Or can there be within the brain itself a realization that there is a state of eternity?

Q: You generally start by drawing a distinction between the brain and mind. Would you elaborate?

K: The brain is ( heavily) conditioned (by many millenia of survival oriented existence ?) . That conditioning is brought about by ( indiscriminately acumulating) knowledge, memory & experience. The brain is limited. Now, the 'mind' is a totally different dimension ( of human consciousness?) that has no contact with thought. The (old) brain which has been functioning as an instrument of thought - that part of the brain which has been has been conditioned ( by man's evolution) has no entire communication with the ( wider energy field of the ) 'mind'. When there is no functioning of thought, there is ( a Mind?) communication of a totally different dimension; that can communicate with the brain using thought.

**Q : So, you are postulating a (timeless) state ( of Mind?) outside the realm of thought?

K: That’s it. Outside the realm of ( thought & ) time.**

Q: As 'time' and 'thought' seem to be the essential core of this ( transcendental?) problem, perhaps if we could go into thought's 'flow of time', and see at what instant an 'interception' is possible – in the sense of a direct contact which is amounting to the ending of time. Isn’t thought's 'time' coming from a past immemorial, and projecting itself into a future which is without end?

K: The 'future' is conditioned by the 'past'. So, unless the human brain ceases to be conditioned ( by this 'un-conscious' process)...

Q: ...thought's content will undergo changes, but the (time-projecting ) mechanism of thought will continue endlessly.

K: Now, thought is the chief instrument we have. After thousands of years of friction, wars, that instrument has been made dull. It cannot go beyond its own 'tether'. Thought is limited, it is conditioned and in a perpetual state of conflict.

Q: I had used the word ‘interception’ to signify a contact with thought's movement from the 'past', as the 'yesterday'...

K: As the 'today'...

Q: How do we contact the 'today'?

K: 'Today' is the movement of the past modified (by the ongoing challenges of the present ?) . ( Psychologically-speaking ?) we are a ( dynamic) 'bundle of memories', which is what? Our 'past', 'present', 'future' is a movement of 'time—thought'.
Now, how do you touch this thing? How does one have contact with the (inward truth of the ) fact that I am (impersonating) a whole series of ( personal & collective ) memories, which is ( the compounded result of the 'time—thought' ( mental process ) ?

Q: Let us be concrete. The thought that I go away this afternoon and I will be leaving you is a fact.

K: It is an actuality.

Q: Out of that is born a certain nostalgia of leaving you, which is 'psychological', and which covers up (or puts a personal spin on?) the fact. So, what has to be contacted, surely, is not the fact that I am going away, but the (psychological) 'pain' of my going.

K: The ( compounded ) pain a thousand centuries of loneliness & anxiety. Is that ( pain) separate from 'you' who feel it?

Q: It may not be separate, but how do I touch it? It is only in the ( living) present that I can contact the whole of this edifice.

K: The 'now' contains the past, future, and the (temporal) present.
This present is moving on (creating the 'future' ) .
( In a nutshell:) The ( temporal) present is ( the recycled memory of ) a thousand years of the past being modified, so the 'future' is ( unfolding?) ‘now,’ in the present.

Q: But the (temporal) present is also not static. The moment you try to see it, it is gone. So what is it that you actually observe?

K: The (inward truth of the ) fact that the present is the whole movement of time and thought. Can one have an insight, ( a direct inward?) perception into the fact that the (timeless?) Now 'is' (containing implicitly ?) all the process of 'time and thought'?

Q: Does this (holistic) perception emanate from the brain?

K: Either it emanates from (one's direct) perceiving, or the perception is a (timeless) insight that has nothing to do with time and thought.

Q: But Does it arise within the brain...?

K: …. Or does it arise outside the brain? Is it (occuring) within the ( (knowledgeable?) sphere of the brain, or is there ( a flash of ) insight that comes (spontaneously?) when there is freedom from ( brain's time-binding) conditioning? This 'insight', ( originating in ) the ( Greater?) mind, is the supreme intelligence.

Q: I don’t quite follow...

K: ( To recap:) The brain is conditioned by time and thought. So long as conditioning exists, ( a total) insight is not possible. You may have occasional insights ( authentic intuitions?) , but this ( global) insight we speak about is a perception of completeness. This insight is not bound by ( the mental process of) 'time—thought'. That insight is part of that ( New) brain which is a different dimension.

Q: The word ‘insight’ literally means the seeing into (the inward truth of something) ?

K: The seeing, or comprehending the totality, the vastness of something. Insight is possible only with the cessation of 'thought and time'. Thought and time are limited. Therefore in such limitation there cannot be insight...

Q: To understand what you say, I have to have an open (mind's) ear and a ( mind's) eyes that 'see'. But I cannot start with insight. I can only start with observation.

K: You can only start by seeing that (the process of) thought- time is always limited, and so whatever it does will be limited. Time and thought have brought havoc in the world. You can see that. The question is, Can that limitation ever end? Or is man to live forever in that condition?

Q: When I hear a ( 100% holistic) statement like this: that time & thought are limited? It is like telling me, ''Pupul is a psychological bundle consisting of the (collective memories of the ) past, of time and thought...

K: The (temporal) 'self' is part of the (collective ) psyche, and whatever it does is limited.

Q: And what is wrong with that?

K: Nothing... f you want to live in ( a state of) perpetual conflict.

Q: What is the nature of this ending of the time-thought process that you speak about?

K: To see that 'time and thought' cease psychologically,” said Krishnaji.

Q: There is a point of perception, which is a point of insight. But... in what time-space do I see it?

K: Look, Pupul, let us be simple. 'Time & thought' have divided the world. Can’t you see the fact of that?

Q: No, Sir. I don’t see the fact. The moment I see the fact, I would stop time and thought. If it is such a simple thing—but it is not. It has such devious ways.

K: Can you have an insight that the movement of thought and time, at whatever level, is a realm of endless conflict ?

Q: You can see it outside in the world.

K: If you see it outwardly, then inwardly can you see that the 'psyche' is ( an integral part of the same process of) 'time and thought'. The ( self-) divisive psychological movement has created the outer divisive fact. The feeling that I am a Hindu; I feel secure in the word, in belonging to something, this is the factor of division and conflict.

Q: All this can end. One can see it as a movement of time & thought, but within it all, there is a sense of ‘I exist.’ That is essentially the problem. Why don’t I see it?” I asked.

Q: Because I have thought of my 'psyche' (of my soul?) as other than the conditioned state. I have thought that there is something in me, which is timeless, and if I could reach that everything would be solved. That is part of my cultural conditioning. I feel God, or (Brahman) the Highest Principle, will protect me.

Q: What is the nature of the Ground from which insight springs?

K: ( A total) Insight can only take place when there is freedom from time and thought.

Q: But this is an unending process...

K: No, it is not. To 'live (inwardly) in peace' is to to understand the extraordinary world of peace. This (inner) peace cannot be brought about by thought.

Q: Is it the brain that listens to what you say?

K: Yes. Then watch what happens.

Q: It is not rattling, it is quiet...

K: When it is quiet and listens, then there is ( the inward clarity of) insight. I don’t have to explain in ten different ways the limitations of thought.

Q: Is there anything further?

K: Oh, yes, a great deal more. Is there a listening without the verbal sound? If you want to convey something more than words, then if there is sound in my hearing, I can’t understand the depth of what you are saying.

( To recap) ( In the timeless?) ‘now', the whole structure of time-thought ends. The ‘now’ then has a totally different meaning. ‘Now,’ then, is (being as?) ‘nothing.’ ( This ) no-thing contains all. But we are afraid to be (inwardly as?) nothing.

Q: When you say (that this inner state of 'being as ?) nothing' contains all , does it mean the whole cosmos?

K: Yes, yes. Do you see the fact that (deeply inwardly) there is nothing? The 'self' is a bundle of (personal & collective?) memories that are (lifeless ?) dead. They function, but they arise from a past that is over. If I have insight into that, it the (temporal self?) ends. I see that in the (timeless) ‘now’ there is ‘not-a-thing'...

Q: You said something about listening ( beyond the ) sound ?

K: Yes, it is possible to so listen, when the mind itself is totally still. When the brain is absolutely quiet, therefore there is no (reverberating) sound made by the words. This is the real listening. The words only tell you what I want to convey . I listen to what you say.

Q: The (quiet?) brain has no other action than listening?

K: When the brain is (mentally) active, it is ( generating its own?) noise. But the pure sound can only exist when there is ( free inner) space and silence. Otherwise it is just noise.

Back to your question : all our education (in the field of) knowledge, is a movement in becoming, psychologically as well as outwardly. This becoming is (resulting in) the accumulation of (outward?) knowledge. So long as that (outward) movement exists, there is (inwardly the ) fear of being nothing. But when one sees the ( psychological) illusion of becoming, and that this becoming is an endless (movement in) time, thought, and conflict, there is an ending of that. An ending of the movement of the 'psyche' which is time-thought. The ending of that is to be (inwardly) ‘not-a-thing.’
This ( being inwardly as ) ‘nothing’ then contains the ( non-material Intelligence of the ) whole universe, not my petty little fears, anxieties, sorrows. After all, Pupulji, ( being inwardly as ) ‘nothing’ means the entire world of compassion. Compassion is ‘not-a-hing,’ and therefore that ‘no-thingness’ is supreme intelligence. But (inwardly) we are frightened of being nothing. Do I see that I am nothing but a walking illusion, that I am nothing but dead memories? So can one see the fact that as long as there is this movement of becoming, there must be endless conflict, pain?
(K paused, as he was speaking from great depths)
Astrophysicists are trying to understand the (origins of the material ) universe. But they can only understand it in terms of the material world, in terms of their own limitations. But they cannot understand the immensity of it as a part of the human being; not only out there, but in here. Which means there must be no shadow of time and thought. That is the real meditation. That is what 'Sunya' (the Inner Void?) means in Sanskrit.
We can offer a hundred of clever commentaries, but the actual fact is, ( that inwardly) we are ‘nothing’ except a lot of words.
How do you listen to all this? Do you see the immensity of all this? This implies an ending of the psychological nature of the 'self'.

Q: One realizes that the most difficult thing in the world is to be totally simple (inwardly)

K: Yes. If one were really simple, from that one could understand the whole complexity of life. But we start with complexity and never ( get to) see the simplicity. We have trained our brain to see the complexity, and try to find an answer to the complexity. But we don’t see the extraordinary simplicity of (the true) facts (of life) .

Q: In the Indian tradition, out of sound were born all the elements, “A sound that reverberates and is yet not heard.”

K: That is it. But after all, in the Indian tradition the Buddha said man must deny this whole 'thing'. “Not denying the world, but the total negation of the ‘me.’ ”

Q: Renunciation is the negation of the ‘me'. Basically, renunciation is never in the outer world...

K: Renunciation is in the world within. Don’t be attached even to your loincloth. But I think we are caught in a ( safety?) net of words, we do not live in actualities. Why have human beings not faced the facts and changed the facts? Is it because we are living ( more comfortably?) with ideas & ideals? Actually, we are living with the whole history of mankind. Mankind 'is' me, and the ‘me’ is endless sorrow. And so if you want to end sorrow there has to be an ending of the ‘me.’

Q: It is really the ending of time, isn’t it?

K: Yes. The ending of the 'time-thought' (process) , that is, to listen to the ( Living Presence of the?) Universe without sound.
Q: What is the 'sound' to you, Sir?

K: Sound is the (living vibration of the ) tree.
( For homework just try to ?) listen to the sound of waves, of strong wind, the sound of a person you have lived with for many years, and if you don’t get used to it, then ( purely listening to the) sound has an extraordinary meaning. Then you hear everything afresh.
( Now, inwardly -wise?) You tell me that ( the process of) time and thought are (accaparating) the whole movement of man’s life. You have communicated a simple 'fact'. Can I listen to ( the inward truth of) it without the (mental ?) sound of the words? Then I have captured the depths of that statement, and I can’t lose (the living truth of) it. I have listened to it in its entirety. It has conveyed the 'fact' that it is so and what is so, is absolute always. In the Hebraic tradition it is only the Nameless One who can say ‘I Am,’ and that is ( the true meaning of the Sanscrit expression ) 'Tat Tvam Asi '( Thou Art That)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 47 of 47 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.)