|Thu, 30 Mar 2017||#61|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
A K DIALOGUE IN BOMBAY (1971) on:
ENERGY, ENTROPY AND LIFE(experientially friendly edited )
Questioner D: The other day we discussed God. We also discussed
Krishnamurti: One can see quite simply, that that which is
D: Unfortunately, the movement of entropic energy, dominates the world of today. How do we get out of its grip?
P: This is a very important point. If there is a (possibility to activate in ourselves that ?) movement of energy which does not dissipate itself, which does not end, decay, then from the point of view of the scientist as well as man, it is probably the answer to all the problems of the world.
Krishnamurti: So are you asking how is (the modern) man who is
D: And what is the nature of that contrary movement?
Krishnamurti: Let us put that question again simply. Man is
P: Chardin says that the next leap forward will come by "a process of seeing" which is the same as the traditional "pashyanti".
Krishnamurti: We will come to that if we can examine the (nature of the ) decaying processes; the energy which is mechanical, which is
A: The biologist's approach is very tentative: whenever he speaks of life-energy, he does not speak with the same precision as the other. There is a (tacit) recognition that the anti-entropic is the unknown, the un-definable. But even after having said this, the "other" is still unknown. So, we can take the movement of life-energy as something
P: I think we are going round in circles. The observable thing is,
Krishnamurti: It is the same thing. Do we accept this that there
F: Individuals may begin and end, but life does not. It keeps creating.
Krishnamurti: There is a movement of energy which is mechanical, which is measurable, which may end, and there is life-energy which you cannot manipulate; it goes on infinitely. We see that in one case there is
F: I do not see the "other" as a fact.
Krishnamurti: All right. (but we can ?) see the movement of (the motivated ?) energy which can reach a height and decline. Is there any other form of energy which can never end, which is not related to the energy which begins, continues and withers away?
D: Is there any form of energy that will not decay?
Krishnamurti: I have got it. In that whole field (of life energy) , there is the energy brought about through resistance, through conflict, through violence, through growth and decay, through the process of time. Now we are asking, is there any other energy which is not of time,
F: Do you mean, it is an energy that does not undergo any transformation?
Krishnamurti: I know the energy of sorrow, the energy of conflict, of hope, of despair; they are within the field of time. And that is the whole of "my consciousness". I am asking, is there an energy which is not
Krishnamurti: And how do I find out? I reject (the concept of ?) God, because (such) 'God' is within the field of time. I reject the super-self, the atman, the brahman, the soul, heaven, for they are all within the field of time. Now I ask, is there energy which is timeless? Yes, Sir. There is.
D: Yes, Sir.
Krishnamurti: How do I find it out (experientially ?) ? ( For starters, the self-) consciousness must empty itself of its (active psychological ?) content. Must it not?
D: The question is: this self- consciousness is my temporal
Krishnamurti: You can throw away the ( psychological) content which time has created which one calls ('my') consciousness. This (active) content has been accumulated through time, which is culture, religion, knowledge. Whether it expands or contracts, the whole movement of (this self-centred ?) consciousness within the field of time. It 'is'
D: I have no other perceptive instrument but this consciousness.
Krishnamurti: I am aware of that. I see consciousness is time
D: This consciousness is (in a state of ?) conflict, friction.
Krishnamurti: We know that. How can my mind look at this
D: That is our question.
Krishnamurti: And if it is not of time, then (this) perception is the life-movement. Perception itself is the life-movement.
A: How can we say perception itself is the life-movement? I do not
Krishnamurti: Can my mind, which is of time, which is (identified with ?) the content of consciousness ('content' being the accumulated impressions, the experience, the knowledge in time) - can my mind disassociate itself from that field? Or is there a (quality of Intelligent ?) perception which is not of time and therefore sees the totality?
P: I would say that I just cannot posit the "other".
A: The moment I posit it, it becomes the God of the Upanishads. All I can say is: I am seeing that all my consciousness is within the field of time, I can remain with it. I am "it".
Krishnamurti: You are "it". Somebody comes along and says
P: May I say something? I see you. I see this room. And I also can see the interiority of my consciousness. There is no more than that. My seeing is concrete.
Krishnamurti: I understand Pupul, here I am sitting in this room. I
P: I do not know...
Krishnamurti: You can put it to yourself: Can the mind see the totality of itself? Can the mind see itself as the field of time - not as an
P: Your statement regarding the (insightful ?) perception of my consciousness as a "movement of " is not (experientially ) valid. If we do not get the 'concreteness' of this 'seeing', we move into the field of the conceptual.
Krishnamurti: Are you saying, that you (expect to ?) perceive (the totality of your) consciousness with the same tactile feel as when you enter this room ? If there is (an insightful ?) perception, there is no time. I look and there is no time.
P: I want to examine 'under microscope' your (holistic) question "Do you see (your) consciousness as the whole content of time?"
Krishnamurti: My mind is the result of ( a long evolution in ?) time - memory, experience, knowledge. My self-consciousness is within the field of time. How can I see that its whole content is within the field of
P: How would you distinguish between the two?
Krishnamurti: One is a formula, a conclusion, a statement, the
P: I find it very difficult. How can there be a perception of an abstraction?
Krishnamurti: When you say 'it is an abstraction', it is a (mental) conclusion.
P: When I say that "my consciousness is the product of
Krishnamurti: Is it a just a statement with verbal meaning, which if I
P: How can it be as concrete as the physical perception of this room ?
Krishnamurti: I will show it to you in a minute. If I see very clearly that (an intellectual ) conclusion is not a fact, because thought has
P: Why is it necessary to make such an absolute statement ?
Krishnamurti. I will show you in a minute. I am enquiring into the
I now ask myself, is there any ( speculative ) movement of thought
P: You see, Sir, these are ( generic ?) words which you use - "the total
Krishnamurti: It is not a question of 'accepting'. By listening (with the "inner ear"?) , by examining, by investigating, you see that this is so. Now, move a step further. Is that "it is so", is it (another subliminal ?) acceptance of an intellectual idea and therefore still within the field of (thought &) time?
P: I will never ask that question to you or to myself.
Krishnamurti: You are not asking that question. I am asking it. You know nothing about it. I just wanted to find out whether the mind that is the result of time, hearing that statement, does it accept it as a (fool proof ?) formula, and therefore remains (stuck ?) in time, or it "sees
P: At this very moment, this instant what are you "aware" of?
Krishnamurti: Is there an (actual) operation of perception without (the knowledgeable interference of ?) thought? What takes place then?
P: I was asking you (personally) "What are you perceiving at this moment?" (Pause)
Krishnamurti: (Makes a gesture brushing one hand over the
A: But when we hear you , the next moment it has become a "memory" (to be meditated upon later ?) .
Krishnamurti: Forgive me, I am not concerned about "you" at all.
P: I'd want to ask a further question. You said that "there is nothing".
Krishnamurti: What do you mean by "movement", before I say
P: From 'here' to 'there' .
Krishnamurti: Measurable, comparable ? The (inner) movement, when it is measurable, is within the field of time. Right? And you are asking me whether in that (state of inner ?) "no-thingness", there is movement? If I say "there is", you will then tell me it is measurable and
P: So, there is a movement in that "no-thingness" ?
Krishnamurti: Which means that this (inner) " movement of no-thingness" is not of time, therefore not measurable. But it has its own (creative activity ?) 'movement' which you cannot possibly understand unless (in the context of meditation ?) you leave the 'movement of time'.
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 01 Apr 2017||#62|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
ANOTHER K DIALOGUE IN BOMBAY (1971)
INTELLIGENCE AND THE (Spatio-temporal ?) CONSCIOUSNESS ( Experientially -friendly edited)
Questioner P: I wanted to ask you Krishnaji, if there is one
Krishnamurti: I think so.
F: There is in you a tiny little touch of something,
P: I would further ask: is there a (holistically perceptive ?) instrument and what is the nature of that instrument which will make this possible? We have examined our minds with a microscope. Now, (if the 'thinker' is not there?) under whose command do the brain cells function? What happens to them if there is no one to direct, to command?
Krishnamurti: I thought "K" explained yesterday that it is
Can we tackle this question differently? Can the totality of the mind, empty itself of everything, of the knowledge of science and language and also of the mechanism of thought that functions all the time? Can the mind empty itself of all that? I do not know if I am making myself clear. Can the mind empty itself not only at the conscious level but at the
B: The question then would be "emptiness"?
Krishnamurti: Let us see. Can the mind empty the whole
P: Are they two movements?
Krishnamurti: That is why I said that movement can operate
F: My answer to that is the roots of (this inner) 'misery' are not known to me. The promptings which create this 'misery', I do not know.
Krishnamurti: We began with the superficial layers. Now we
P: Surely we are not positing a (split ?) consciousness where
Krishnamurti: Of course not.
P: But the moment you speak of a place where thought
F: When you said that thought 'is' consciousness, I would
Krishnamurti: So we have to (make another detour and ?) go into the question of what is this consciousness.
B: You have often used the word "intelligence" in a different way. That word is the key, if we know what it is.
F: Intelligence is different from consciousness. We must
P: So, according to you, what is "consciousness"?
Krishnamurti: There is a waking (self-conscious ?) consciousness, there is a hidden consciousness; (in short) a consciousness of
P: I would say, Krishnaji, that there is an (area of our) consciousness in which (the self-centred process of ?) thought operates, then there is another (area of ) consciousness where 'attention' is and where there is seeing; and a (still deeper part of our ?) consciousness which is
Krishnamurti: The operation of memory as thought, as (spatio- temporal) action; then attention, a state of attention where there is no thinker...
P: ...and a state of deep sleep when you are not aware of thought, nor of attention.
Krishnamurti: A state in which there is neither attention nor
P: Half awake, half asleep.
Krishnamurti: So, all this is (contained in) what you would call "consciousness". Right?
P: Plus the fact that in all these states whether consciously or unconsciously, the sensory perceptions are in operation.
Krishnamurti: Can we start this way? I am just being tentative -
P: May I ask you a (personal) question? Would you
Krishnamurti: That is not the point.We will (probably ?) come to that presently. Let us begin very simply. When are you actually "conscious"?
P: You mean there is no 'photographic' consciousness ?
Krishnamurti: But 'you' are seeing it. Your mind is registering it.
B: What is the nature of the 'unconscious'?
Krishnamurti: It is still the same. Only it is (happening at the ) the deeper layers.
B: Why are we unconscious of these deeper layers?
Krishnamurti: Because superficially we are ( pretending to be ?) very active all the time.
B: So the density of the superficial layers prevents our being
B: Is it possible to 'integrate' these various layers?
P: What is the relationship of thought to consciousness?
Krishnamurti: I do not understand this question because ( the self-centred process of ?) thought is (generating and controlling this ?) consciousness.
P: Isn't there anything else (within our consciousness besides this self-centred) thought?
Krishnamurti: Why do you put that question?
P: Because you were speaking of a region where thought has a legitimate place and a region where thought has no legitimate place - and yet... you say thought 'is' consciousness.
Krishnamurti: Slowly. When the superficial consciousness is making a lot of noise, (your) consciousness 'is' thought - pain, conflict,
P: Then... what is the rest?
A. All this is our consciousness. Thought comes into operation
Krishnamurti: That is right. All that we have described, memory, everything, is our "consciousness". Now (the self-centred ) thought comes into operation when 'I' am getting interested in a part of this. The 'scientist' is interested in (studying) the material phenomena, the 'psychologist' in his area, because each has limited the field of investigation. Then ( the objective capacity of ?) thought comes as a systematizer.
F. Is this thought the (result of a ) non-"self-consciousness"?
Krishnamurti: When "P" asks what is the relationship between
Krishnamurti: Because thought is not something separate from all this.
P: Is thought just a part of it, or is thought all there is to our consciousness ?
Krishnamurti. Go slow. I do not want to say something which is
P: I won't accept this so easily because in everything "K" says
A: We are trying to ask: is there in our consciousness a 'space'
P: Quite right.
Krishnamurti: I am not at all sure. I do not say you are not right.
A: I say there is a "space" in our consciousness which is not thought
Krishnamurti: I do not think in ( the perimeter of the self-centred ?) consciousness there is any (place for free inner?) space.
P: When I perceive you and listen to the whole thing operating, there is no movement of thought, but I am (feeling) totally conscious. I cannot say -
Krishnamurti: Why do you call that 'consciousness'? "A" says there is 'space' in consciousness. We have to answer that question first.
A: I may be using the wrong word.
Krishnamurti: You have used the right word. But we do not see
A: In one sense, even if held within a circle or a square it is (some kind of ?) space.
Krishnamurti: ( Consciusness-wise ?) where there is a border there is no (free inner ?) space. "Space" in the sense in which we use the word does not exist in ( a self-centred ?) consciousness. Now what is the next
P: If thought is (the dominant factor in our ?) consciousness, is thought not related to seeing as consciousness?
Krishnamurti: Put the question this way. Is there a state of mind
P: You have left us far behind now....
Krishnamurti: I want to go slowly. Thought 'is' consciousness, and so are the (sensory) seeing, learning, hearing, and memorizing and reacting to that memory is part of all this ('man-made' consciousness ?)
P: Agreed, when any one of these is operating, there is no "other". Then, what you say is understandable. Then there is no duality. Now we
Krishnamurti: It is the (self-) focalizing of consciousness. It is not the whole of consciousness. (Eg:) I say a few words in French or Italian; at that moment there is just that. When thought is operating in that specific field, there is no (egotistic ?) duality. When thought compares that particular operation to another then there is ( the 'thinker vs thought') duality. Right? If I say "how marvellous that lamp is", it (the focalisation of my consciousness ?) is finished. But when (the self-centred process of?) thought ( jumps in and ?) says "I wish I had it in my room", then there is duality. See what has been found ? That when there is
P: This (choiceless thinking?) is very difficult (to achieve ?) - since ( the self-centred ?) thought is (dominated by the personal ?) motives.
Krishnamurti: I have a memory of that sunset - I see that sunset. It is recorded at that moment, it is finished. But thought comes along and says....
P: I am saying "thought is motive", because thought is verbal, and the words are (psychologically) loaded...
Krishnamurti: There is memory of that sunset, then thought
D: But...when you look at that sunset, motive is irrelevant.
P: Sunset is an impersonal thing, let us not take that. Suppose that I am
Krishnamurti: Jealousy is ( already containing ?) the factor of duality - my wife looks at another man, and I feel jealous because I (assume that I ?) possess her, she is mine. But if I observe, if I am
P: I understand that.
Krishnamurti: So, there is duality (in our everyday thinking ?) only when there is the (sublimial ?) operation of (personal ?) motive, measurement, comparison. However, in the observation of a
P: We have somehow moved away.
Krishnamurti: I will come back, which is, ( the spatio-temporal ?) consciousness is perception, hearing, seeing, listening, learning and the memory (processing ?) of all that and the responding according to that memory. All that is (our everyday) consciousness, whether or not (self-) focalized. In that consciousness there is (a subliminal process of continuity ?) time; time which creates (its own self-enclosed mental) space. Let us stop there.
A: There is another (subliminal) factor which I would like to have included: the perceptions and experiences of the whole world are "syphoning" into my consciousness. How can we ignore all
Krishnamurti: The whole of this field of (human) consciousness is a movement of contraction and expansion, a movement of information, knowledge, registration of knowledge, (personal & collective) motivation, all that is happening in (our global )environment, is part of me: I am the environment and the environment is the me. In that whole
A: In this wide canvas we see (how the "streaming" of collective ?) thought is syphoning into this focus which we call consciousness.
Krishnamurti: All that is ( our spatio-temporal ?) consciousness. This consciousness creates (conflicts &) mischief by saying, "I like", "I do not like", part of this (subliminal) movement over which I have no control at all.
A: But isn't the real problem our (personal) 'identification' which gives this weightage to the "I like" and "I don't like", that it builds around it ?
Krishnamurti: Here I am born in India, with all the (cultural)
A: Something more: our entire historical and the pre-historical past. If
Krishnamurti: Wait, Sir, I am all that, the past and the present
A: It is wider; it includes America, the whole world -
Krishnamurti: But (the personal) choice arises when you say you are a Hindu and I am a Muslim; there is a (self-) focalization through
P: Let us come back to what we were saying: we said seeing is
Krishnamurti: Plus all the (collective cultural) heritage which "A" brought in is also consciousness, past, ancient, present and all that.
P: You have been stating (generically ?) that it is legitimate for thought to operate in fields where knowledge is necessary and when it
Krishnamurti: Stick to that question for the moment. Thought
P: The "other" is not... what?
Krishnamurti: It is not (in the area of ?) thought.
P: But is it (an integral part of our ?) consciousness? I will open it out a little more. The sensory perceptions operate. Seeing, listening operates, therefore why do you say the 'other' is not (of this) consciousness?
Krishnamurti: I am saying "consciousness" in the sense that there
P: Why should there be conflict in our consciousness when thought is not operating?
Krishnamurti: There is no conflict at all there...
P: Then what is it that operates "there"?
Krishnamurti: Is Intelligence ( related to this spatio-temporal ?) consciousness? Intelligence is not (part of this) consciousness.
P: Now we come to a stage where we are just listening...
Krishnamurti: The whole content of (our spatio-temporal) consciousness is the whole human heritage and I am all that. And this
D: The language of this Intelligence must be different from the language of thought ?
Krishnamurti: Intelligence has no language, but it can use
P: It may not be 'personal' but... is it focalized?
Krishnamurti: No, it (only ?) appears to focalize.
P: When it moves, doesn't it need to focalize?
Krishnamurti: Of course, it must, but it is never (remaining ?) in focalization.
P: It is never "held" (in a mental structure ?) ?
Krishnamurti: It is like (trying to ) hold the Sea in your fists: ( whatever you hold) is part of the Sea, but it is not the ( whole) Sea.
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 02 Apr 2017||#63|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
A K DIALOGUE ON 'RIGHT COMMUNICATION' (BOMBAY 1971)
Questioner A: Sir, we have been listening to you with all the
P: Acyutji is right. In examining what Krishnaji calls "listening and seeing", which are the functional aspect of his teaching, it would be possible to discover the nature of communication. We have not yet tried to figure out whether communication is a process, or rather an instantaneous light.
KRISHNAMURTI: Can we begin with the verbal level, and work from there?
P: This question involves not only the communication between the 'speaker' and ourselves, but also the nature of the instrument which enables us to grasp and apprehend.
KRISHNAMURTI: Do you want us to start from there slowly? There is a verbal communication in which each of us understands the meaning of the word. In such a communication, the word is (the common?) meaning, and this meaning can be understood by me and by you. This is verbal communication. Then communication also means listening not only to the (verbal) meaning of the word, but also to the intention of the speaker at the moment when he uses it. Otherwise, the communication is broken. When we use a word, it must have a quality of 'directness' that does not allow any ambiguity, and it must also include the real need to communicate something. This need must be accompanied by affection, respect- the feeling that it is your understanding that matters, that it is not that I am superior and inferior to you. And, in this use of speech, there must be the 'contact of the intention' transmitted by the very quality of the voice. This means that each of us, at the same moment, at the same level, and with the same intensity, must understand the words; There must be contact with the intention, and only in this case does an (authentic) communication exists.
A: Yes, this is a fact. Earlier, when you spoke, we built so many obstacles inside! All this is now over. There are no more (conscious ?) barriers.
KRISHNAMURTI: What is important in a (transformational ?) communication is not so much the words, although the words and their meaning are necessary, but also to meet at the same moment, at the same level and with the same intensity.
A: Isn't it also important (in the context of meditation ?) to 'communicate with yourself'. What does communication mean in this regard?
K: Can we communicate with ourselves?
A: Yes. It is about becoming coherent with oneself.
K: In general, "communication" means what happens between two or more persons.
A: But it's not necessarily between two people. It can be a person and a book. All this is involved when talking about communication with oneself.
K: I do not think we can 'communicate with ourselves'.
A: Sir, in Sanskrit, they use the word "swasamvada" to indicate this "communication with oneself".
K: That's one thing I question.
K: I do not think you (really ?) 'communicate with yourself'. Simply, you observe what happens. The moment you use the word communication there is (a subtle implication of ?) duality - duality in the sense that there is the 'you' and the 'book', the 'you' and (your inner ?) 'self'.
A: You also said that there must be a certain sense of relationship , even in observation. I wonder if that's not also a valid point.
F: But in communication, the part that counts most is the message.
KRISHNAMURTI: No, I can say something, and if you are not in relationship with me, you will distort what I said. You will distort the message. So the important thing is not the message, but why, on certain levels, some messages seem to be communicated to some people and not to others.
D: Why is not the message you want to communicate received by the other person?
K: We are talking about the quality of communication, not of its content. If this quality is absent, you can not communicate (deeper than the verbal level ?) .
A: There is communication by the word and communication by the meaning , and there is also communication beyond the words and beyond the meaning.
F: The human race has created certain instruments that enable it to grasp messages through word and meaning, but we have no instrument to grasp or to come into contact with what is Beyond words and meaning. After all, radio and television have 'receiver' instruments. Do we have specific receiving instruments?
D: The problem of communication arises only when the message is distorted or incomplete.
K: It is also in the direction (personal spin ?) . You say something to me, and I distort it.
F: No. You say something to me, I listen with the instrument that I have, and my understanding is done according to its quality. There is no question of deforming. We can see that the reception of what you have to say always takes place for us on a lower wavelength. This is not (necessarily) a distortion. What you are saying, quite simply, does not seem to penetrate (through the 'ego' shield ) . It has nothing to do with the message.
P: Either our perceptive instruments have not been properly tuned , or they are not there. Krishnaji, you can say what you want, but until the instruments are there, the message will not be transmitted.
P: The question is whether the instruments have been tuned accurately, or whether new instruments have to be created. That is the essential point.
K: A. said that when (cca in 1947) we began to come into contact with each other, there was some resistance, some intellectual objection to what was being said, and he asserts that now he put all this aside and is listening. Why should there be a (mental) resistance in the beginning?
A: We met after a lapse of nine to ten years. There was ( the cultural ) conditioning - social, political, ideological; but there was (a sincere) effort to understand you, given this conditioning.
K: P. asked whether it was necessary to 'tune in' the instrument.
P: Take a child. Keep it away, carefully, from any conditioning; it will nevertheless continue to react because it is the instrument of a (genetic) inheritance. The instruments I have are working in a particular way. And they themselves are incapable of being "receivers" in any other way than the way already known.
K: And, therefore, what is the question? Is it to (integrate) these same instruments, to make them acute, vulnerable, sensitive? Or is it a question of seeing new instruments being born?
D: May I say that the only ( perceptive?) 'instruments' we have are our eyes and ears; do they prevent us from understanding?
P: The (cultural) history of man has perfected the instruments. But they are trained to act only in specialized channels . The functioning of our sensory perception is compartmentalized. So, I'm asking you if these are the same instruments to be used?
B: A. referred to two things: he spoke of a stage where there was ( an intellectual) resistance and then of another stage where there was none, but the instruments remained the same.
A: In the use of his perceptive instruments man has no choice. What can be (worked out ) is their imperfect use.
P: It may be an imperfect use, or a completely new instrument is needed. Let's ask Krishnaji. Let's ask him the (100 $) question. Are you saying that it is always the same instrument, or is it a new instrument? If I would have really received what was to be communicated , I would not be questioning. I would not be sitting here. But the fact that I did not receive it means that the instruments that I have have failed.
A: What I would like to point out is that there is a certain degree of communication; but when we come to ( apply ?) it, it remains at the verbal level.
P: In listening to Krishnaji, many things have been communicated. Our perceptive instruments are capable of receiving. But I am sure, however, that the necessary event did not occur. Despite the flexibility of our consciousness, the faculty of receiving, the faculty of all our sensory & mental instruments to act together, despite the understanding of the problem of 'time', in spite of all this, the "explosion" (in consciousness ?) did not take place.
A: Can we speak in an impersonal area, and understand objectively what is the problem of communication? Can we use the brain, which is our instrument, so that it does not create obstacles at any level?
K: What's the problem?
P: Here is already a period of time (of 25 years) that you see us. Do you believe we are able to "communicate" with you?
K: Up to a point, quite obviously.
P: And at that point, what is the obstacle? What is the catch?
K: Obviously, all communication goes (only up) to a certain point. Communication implies that I say something to you, that you listen to me, and that you agree or disagree. In other words, you and I have a common problem. We discuss it, and we can discuss it only if we see this problem as a whole, in its entirety, and if sharing the meaning, the words, the description, between you and me, are granted; We then say that "we have understood each other". The next point is this: I want to tell you something (to which) you resist. It may be that I tell you something incorrect, and you have the right to resist. Or I'm telling you something that's true, "mathematically" true, and you're telling me that's not true because you have your own judgments, your opinions. At this point, our communication stops. I want to tell you something, speaking as between two human beings, and not like me a guru, and you a disciple. I will express it as best I can by my words, but what I (really) want to tell you is not the word, nor even the (intellectual) meaning of the word. I want to tell you something that can only be described in part, and the rest of the meaning can not be described. You take the part I have described, but not the other. And, therefore, there is no (total) communication. You are satisfied with the explanations, and say "that is good enough for me" . I'd want to tell you something that I feel very strongly and that I feel I need to communicate. I give a description of it, but you refuse to enter it, and our communication ends. Verbally, we understand, but the "other" (deeper quality ?) can not be communicated.
A: There is no refusal on our part, but only incapacity.
K: I doubt it. Listen to what I said. I use words that you understand. You listen to the meaning, the word, the description, the explanation. But that does not cover the whole thing I want to convey to you. First of all, you refused to go beyond that. You refused it , not even knowing what it was. You had the feeling that what could not be put into words did not (really) exist. The word and description do not interest me. I want to tell you something now. How will I communicate something that is not the word, not the meaning, not the description, and yet (for me ?) is just as real as speech and contains as much meaning ? The words, the explanations are not 'the' thing itself. And that is our problem. Now what is happening in you and in me? Let's talk about it. I use the word; The description continues in the context of the words. My words include your (subliminal ?) feeling that there is a threat to your (self) image. Then, the (self-identified ?) image intervenes and says: "Stop", and our communication comes to a stop. It's just an assumption I'm making.
P: What happens, Krishnaji, is that we can follow you, we can advance with you, penetrate into ourselves to the point where thought stops, to the point where there is an end of thought. But at this point, when thought ends, there is a total inability to move in this new field.
K: I'm coming to this. Hold on your idea. I would like to finish with this. I ask myself consciously or unconsciously: "Where does he lead me? Perhaps there is a threat to my (identitary ?) security, a threat to destroy my (self) "image". Therefore, I do not want to move. I say that the description is enough for me. I agree and stop. The (self-protective ?) image is so important that I am satisfied with verbal comprehension.
P: If you were to ask me, or if I asked myself a question that implies the destruction of my (self-) image, ( I guess ) there would be (some) resistance.
K: You follow to a certain point, and there you stop. All of you do this to varying degrees. Why ? Why do you stop there? (Pause) I think I know.
A: In our relationship where the problem of communication was contemplated, it was clear that we must never accept what we do not have a real understanding of. The mind has an ability to make beliefs, to make what it has in life to believe. I am now trying to express the barrier that my mind presents. I tell myself that I have to accept only what I understood, nothing else.
K: You accept the word, the meaning, the description, the explanation, the analysis. You go that far. Now I tell you, just as between two human beings, that I want to communicate to you something that is beyond the verbal level and you don't move further. And I wonder why. Either you do not consciously want to understand what I want to convey beyond words, because ( some radical) understanding could upset you; or you resist because all your cultural heritage, all your education tells you, "Do not get close to it, do not touch it".
A: But it is not so.
K: I'm just questioning. In general, this is what happens. You listen to words, meaning, description, analysis, and you stop there, because the (vital) need to ask this question does not arise. If we ask the question, it is a disaster.
P: If I ask this question, everything rushes to protect the image. Whilst if I advance, which I observe step by step, there is a fluidity which dissolves the (self) image.
KRISHNAMURTI: Yes, dissolve the (self-protective) 'image' , but only when you and I propose to communicate about something that is more than words, right? Few people are (really interested in ?) going beyond this point. There are few who are willing to break their opinions, conclusions, and images. Speaking together, I discover the image, you illuminate it, and I see. To see it is to put an end to it. There is therefore the word, meaning, description, analysis, "seeing" - and...no (self) image. This is true communication. The difficulty is when we penetrate the non-verbal (levels) . What quality is necessary for both of us to understand something that is not the word? This means looking, not being caught in the trap of description, explanation, meaning, words.
P: But see what you have just done! You bring us to a certain point by analysis, thought, language. You sharpen the intelligence, you rarefy the atmosphere. But you never go further, so that nothing remains, no description that you can give that allows to fill this void.
KRISHNAMURTI: Listen. To communicate in this way, that is, by the word. Meaning, description, analysis, this whole and something more, the mind must not be caught in the trap of the word, meaning, description and analysis. It must not be trapped (in the known?) . It must remain moving, fluid. But (for lack of anything else ?) you cling to the words, meaning, description, analysis, all these are processes of thought, of memory. And now you come by and tell me something that does not belong to the domain of words. And I'm just moving according to thought. I move with the thought, okay? Communication is verbal, and it is not. So the meaning, the description and the analysis, all this must be present, and the mind must be so ... I do not know what word to use ... must be such that you and I see the same thing, at the same moment, at the same level, with the same intensity. Otherwise our communication is purely verbal.
P: And now we are at the crucial point.
K: Let's move slowly. It is with great care that we have reached this point.
P: This movement in (the empty inner ?) space, is it a question for me to feel the movement of space as it is in you?
K: Please, simple words, simple words!
P: Is it a matter of 'getting in touch' with this movement of emptiness that you communicate (non-verbally ?) ?
K: Wait, wait! I do not communicate anything at all. I can communicate only "this" and not "that". And consequently there is no communication "there". There is communication only "here".
A: You say that we've gone beyond the word. The meaning, the description, but that through all we still hold the thought by the hand. "This"( inner emptyness ?) is something that our thinking can not stand.
K: Please, look at what's going on between you, A. and P. Both of you have a meaning, a word. A description, an analysis. You came to a conclusion, but she did not come to a conclusion, so the communication stopped. As soon as you reach a conclusion and the other does not, the communication is over.
P: Krishnaji says that he communicates by means of speech up to a certain point. Then he says that there is a communication for which no words can be found; but how? Again, I speak in my own way. I say that to the point where the mind becomes fluid, rarefied, communication through speech is possible because there is a point of reference. At the next moment I ask him whether this movement in space should contact or be contacted by the Krishnaji movement in his silence, or is it not even then a problem between Krishnaji and me ?
K: That's not a (real) problem at all. There are not "two people". What you said is very simple. Have you got it ? Two things can happen: words, meaning, description, analysis and (reaching a final) conclusion; Or words, meaning, description, analysis, but no conclusion. The man who has reached a conclusion stops there, can no longer communicate with the man who has no conclusion. They can not meet. They may continue to argue interminably, but these two can not meet.
F: I would like to ask a question. Is there something we can call "co-experience", a common state?
K: As long as there is ( the personal ?) experimentation, there is no "co-experience".
F: I speak of communication. Communication involves two parts or the 'two'.
K: Up to a point.
F: And co-experience?
K: When you and I (fully ?) experience a sunset, or a sexual phenomenon, there are no more "two".
F: But the perceptive instruments are two.
K: Of course. But we have not yet gone beyond the examination of the fact that we come to a conclusion. Take more time to examine the one that leads to a conclusion.
F: I also see that there is a threat to my (self-) image.
K: I am committed to a certain activity and I translate what you say according to my activity. I say that I understood you, but what I understood, I will translate it in the terms of (my prioritary ?) activity. I am "committed" .
P: If there is a frontal attack on my self- image and you ask me: "Do you have an image? I will reply: "Of course I have an image. But it is a purely peripheral thing. There could be a denudation, the destruction of the image, without it being confronted. You can strip, expose the image, but do not ask me a (frontal) question about it.
K: I want to go a little deeper into the "making of the (self-) image".
P: Each movement of thought adds to the image, and each negation is a denudation of the image.
D: The motives which have contributed to the construction of this image come from the fact that we are bound to a certain mode of activity, and as long as the mind refuses to renounce it, we render all communication impossible.
P: For me, this approach to the question is totally false. I say that if you are going to let yourself be locked in the effort to free yourself from the image, you will never be delivered from it.
K: Pupul , you're right.
P: You said that if there is a (self-) image and a conclusion, the communication does not subsist, but we still must face this fact.
K: What happens all the time, consciously or unconsciously, is that I am already committed to ( a certain course of action ?) , or that I am on the eve of committing myself. Thus, one communicates only to a certain point, not beyond. This is what happens constantly.
P: The (self-) image is made of many small things. The image is "what is". For twenty-two years I've been trying to get rid of it, and now I'm thinking of leaving it alone. I have to find the movement, to realize if what is now static can be freed - and ( if lucky ?) an action will happen on its own.
A: But all those millions of years of the past, how to tackle it?
F: Can two brains with different personal histories, experiences, feel the same at the same level? How is it possible ?
K: Your way of asking the question is false.
P: I can not break an 'image' that it took millions of years to build. But can I break the perceptive instrument, give it flexibility and mobility? That is the question.
A: We must take another point into account. There are some (inherited ?) 'aggregates', and they can be eliminated when exposed in the light of communication. That kind of thing happens effortlessly.
P: All of us who have participated in these dialogues can understand up to the point where the (time-continuity of the self-centred ?) thought ends. I am sure that what must happen must happen there.
K: Let's ask the same question in a different way. Is there an opportunity to communicate, or to experience something that is not verbal? All that is involved in "(personal ?) experiencing" is wrong.
P: Let me understand this sentence. It seems like a very important statement to say that "(personally ?) experiencing something is totally wrong".
K: The 'conclusion' or the 'idea' that an (inner) state can be "experienced" by two (egotistic ?) people is false. That can never happen.
A: That's true.
K: That it can never be experienced, what does that mean? Any man who says, "I" have experienced" has not "experienced" anything at all. You see how extraordinarily subtle it is ?)
P: This highlights the extent to which man is caught in the "wanting more" trap.
K: When you and I (really ?) watch a sunset, it's only "the sunset". It is the same with two people who are at the height of anger. So there are not two people. ( At that very moment ?) they do not (have the time to ?) say, "We are (gathered here to ?) experience anger".
F: But what about the recording that continues in the brain? In the present, this memory is not.
K: But it acts in the present.
QUESTION OF F: But at that moment, the memory is not yet created.
KRISHNAMURTI: Do not make a theory. Watch it: You and I are watching the sunset. When it is there, before us, both of us see it, both are silent, because it is a splendor. 'We' do not (purposefully ?) stop any (mental) movement. All movement stops. Then, there are not two (self-conscious ?) people there.
F: But are there not two separate self-consciousnesses ?
K: ( If) both of us, we feel this "sunset moment" in its fullness - you and I are not talking about "having this experience" at that moment.
P: I would like to ask you a question, sir, now, because I feel it is important that your mind also be opened to us. You have led us through the verbal state. Your mind, at that moment, was recording, and then, at one point, the "verbal phase" stopped.
K : In other words, you and I did not ( bother to ?) form any (self-) image.
P: Yes. But at that time did you have a recording of what was happening?
KRISHNAMURTI: I'm not following you very well.
P: You moved in thought. You have gone through the entire process of communication through the word, meaning, and analysis. Then came the moment of flexibility, and the analysis ended. Before the analysis resumed, there was a (silent) interval . Did your brain record anything during this interval ?
P: Is there no part of your brain cells that traces the impact of this state of inner emptiness ?
K: I wonder what you're talking about. I said no.
D: Is it because always, you "are" (always living ?) in this interval?
K: But what are you trying to say?
P: How do you know that there was no recording of the "silent experience"?
KRISHNAMURTI: That's the next question. First, there is seeing , then the question: when one experiences the most trivial or the biggest thing , is there no recording in the form of thought, memory ? Do you understand ? There is the word, the meaning, the description, the analysis. This is a necessary process. What is unnecessary, which does not need to be there , is the "conclusion". It disappears. And then we ask: can the experience of what is "non-verbal" be translated into thought, description, analysis, meaning or word?
A: This is the reverse process.
K: Look at its subtlety. We started by talking about communication. Then there was an end of thought. Then it goes through the reverse process. Am I right ? (Pause) And now, the next point is this: do the brain cells (have to ?) record this state which, from then on, becomes (personal) memory, which, in turn, affirms: "I had this experience"? - You follow? Is this seeing- perception - listening to something that is not verbal and can not be (sensorily ?) experienced, recorded in the brain cells?
A: No ?
K: Obviously not. See what happens ? The brain records all the noises, it records all impressions, everything being subject to recording. The brain is fully accustomed to this process. He accepts it, and it is a healthy, normal, rational state. Right? And then it said, "A strange phenomenon happened, I recorded it. Obviously, I experienced it, since it was recorded and memorized." You see what's going on?
A: No, I do not understand.
D: As soon as one says this, it (the 'peculiar ' experience) ceases to exist ?
KRISHNAMURTI: One minute. Is it possible that all 'experience', except the experience of surviving, not to be registered ? I know I'm asking an absurd question. I am very aware of what I am asking
F: You have introduced the word "survival" ...
K: Why should I retain your insult or your flattery? Why do I have to record it? For if I do, there is aversion and preference.
F: But how can I eliminate it?
K: ( The nature of inner ?) freedom is to be free from all this ('psychological' ) burden of insults, regrets, joys, fears, torments.
A: Can I ask you a question? Is it possible for me to live in a routine that would not record?
A: So, living in a (self-continuity ) routine, there will be registration. So, I can not do anything to prevent it.
K: If you see (the psychological risks ?) of that, there is an (awakened) state of intelligence that refuses to "record" (this stuff) . This (intelligence of the ?) "active present" can help us here (and now) not in the past or the future.
P: So, when there is a "complete attention", not only is there no recording, but on the contrary there is erasure (of the old files ?) .
KRISHNAMURTI: This is good enough: if the brain cells realize that there is no need for them to carry all the burden, all the (pettiness of our personal ?) daily incidents.
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 04 Apr 2017||#64|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
An (experientially friendly edited) K DIALOGUE IN BOMBAY (1971)
'BIOLOGICAL SURVIVAL AND THE TIME-FREE ACTION OF INTELLIGENCE'
Questioner P: There was something which Krishnaji said in his talk
Krishnamurti: We know both 'biological' and 'psychological'
P: Apart from the biological and psychological, isn't there
Krishnamurti: As far as we know (it now) these are the only two factors
F: Is there not a 'psychological' survival, apart from the physical?
Krishnamurti: Which means the survival of the 'psyche' (of a self-consciousness ?) that is the result of (our cultural ?) environment, of heritage. Last evening when we used the word "consciousness", we said the whole of this (self-) consciousness is (generated by its ?) content. The (active) content of this consciousness is conflict, pain; the whole of that is (displayed as 'self- ?) consciousness'.
D: You said also that Intelligence is more than this consciousness.
Krishnamurti: We said that in understanding the 'fact' of (this self-centred) 'consciousness' and the going beyond it, is Intelligence. You cannot come to that ( Compassionate ?) Intelligence if this ( time-bound ?) consciousness is in ( a state of inner) conflict.
P: You implied yesterday that there was a necessity to 'empy' it so that nothing existed but biological survival.
Krishnamurti: Can you not empty this 'psychological' content of consciousness ? In this emptying , that Intelligence is in operation. Then, there is the biological survival and that 'intelligence' - there is no other.
P: What is that quality?
Krishnamurti: What did "K" say yesterday?
P: He said that (state of inner) "silence" sees
Krishnamurti: Perfectly true. Now what is this "silence"? What is the
D: I'd say there is something else.
Krishnamurti: We will have to find it out (experientially ?) . Merely to posit that there is something else has no (practical) meaning.
D: But you said 'when all other aspects of the human being have ended' ....
Krishnamurti: When (our inner ) conflict, misery, pain have ended......
P: As also the fantasy, the wonder, the imagination; that which has
Krishnamurti: "K" said both the outer and the inner...
P: ... are the same movement. Then when you say all this is to be
Krishnamurti: We have said intelligence is beyond (our spatio-temporal ?) consciousness and when the mind is stripped of its 'psychological' elements (attachments ?) , in the very stripping there is the uncovering of this Intelligence. Or ( that Compassionate ?) Intelligence comes into being in the very 'stripping'.
P: Do you mean to say there is (automatically this ?) intelligence which manifests itself in the very emptying ?
Krishnamurti: The mind that really wants to be free from (its daily ?) struggle and from its 'back-chattering', asks: can I strip "myself" of all (my ego-centric?) content ? That is all. (Pause.) And in that, (a quality of non-personal & compassionate ?) Intelligence comes to be.
P: Is this (psychological ?) 'emptying' an endless process?
Krishnamurti: Certainly not. Because then I am caught in the
P: You mean, once it is done, it is "done" (for good ) ?
Krishnamurti: Let us go slowly. You must first understand this 'fact'
P: But the 'emptying' of it, does it take time or is it free of time? Is
Krishnamurti: Is that your question? The piecemeal and the
P: What is it actually that one 'strips'? Or what is it that one perceives? Or is there dissolution of the thought which emerges?
D: If all these go what remains?
B: Only awareness remains. Is this 'complete awareness' the whole?
Krishnamurti: She says 'Yes'. ( But...) what is the question?
P: Is the awareness of a particular aspect of ( my self-) consciousness - such as jealousy - is the awareness of that one thing, revealing the totality of all (my) consciousness?
Krishnamurti: If you mean aware of all the implications
P: So at any point this is possible?
Krishnamurti: Of course.
P: Yes, because that is the (experiential ?) "door"; the door of dissolution.
Krishnamurti: Let us again begin slowly because I want to
D: The (traditional ) yogic position is that nature is (like ?) a flowing river. In that flow, man's organism comes into being. As soon as it comes into being, it has also the capacity to choose and the moment it chooses,
Krishnamurti: Right sir, that is one point. But "P"s question was, is
P: Is there an end to this 'emptying' ...
Krishnamurti: ...or is it a constant ( Sysiphic ?) process?
P: And the second related question was: where there is (the awakening of ?) Intelligence is there (still need for any further psychological?) stripping?
Krishnamurti: Let us start with the first question which ( for a beginner's purpose ?) is 'good enough'. What do you say? Discuss it.
P: It is one of those extra-ordinary questions where you can neither say "Yes" nor "No".
D: It hangs on 'time' or 'no time'. If it is invited, it is 'time'.
P: If you say it is not a question of time then five minutes later it will emerge again. So this question cannot be answered (conclusively).
Krishnamurti: I am not sure. My (self-) consciousness is a process of time. Now I am asking: that consciousness, can it go beyond this? Can
Now is there in this awareness any (personal) choice, justification, or condemnation? Or is there the (purposeful action of the ?) 'observer', the 'chooser'? And if there is, is that (a non-personal ?) awareness? So is
Not a 'continuous' (or 'permanent' ?) state of awareness in which the observer is absent, which again is a fallacious statement.
A: The ( traditional ?) word is "swarupa shunyata". The observer becomes 'empty' ('as nothing' ?) .
Krishnamurti: Now is that (quality of non-personal ?) awareness to be 'cultivated' (perfected ?) which implies time? How does this (choice-free ?) awareness come into being in which there is no 'observer'?
It is a (direct ) observation in which there is no observer.
D: It is free of ( my self-?) consciousness.
P: I'd like to ask you two things. Does it come about when I ask the
Krishnamurti: No. The moment you 'try', you are in time.
P: But where is the 'observer'? We are taking for granted that
Krishnamurti: Let us begin slowly. One sees what (this spatio-temporal ?) consciousness is. Any movement within that field, any movement is still a process of time. It may try 'to be' or 'not to be', it may try to 'go beyond' itself, or invent something beyond consciousness,
P: What is the (active) element in me which seems to me the most potent and powerful: It is the sense of the "I".
Krishnamurti: Which is the (result of the ?) "past".
P: I will try not to use your language. Can there be a perception of the "I"?
F: That is a wrong question. The "I" is nothing but ( the impersonation of ?) an insatiable hunger for experience.
Krishnamurti: Pupul began by asking "who am I?" Is that the
P: It seems so. And then I say let me see the "I", let me find it,
Krishnamurti: So you are asking, is this central factor
P: That comes later. First of all, I see whether it is tactable.
Krishnamurti: When I have asked the question, "who am I?",
P: I do not ask that ( trick ?) question. I have asked that question over and over again. I have discussed awareness endlessly. I leave it,
Krishnamurti: We see that.
P: And I find this ( 'I') is not something which can be touched,
Krishnamurti: I thought (assumed ?) we had done all this.
F: I say all this 'is' (part of) awareness.
Krishnamurti: Let us be simple. When I ask "who am I?", who
P: The very fact that it is not within the field of the senses......
Krishnamurti: Is it not also within the field of the senses? We jump too quickly. Is (our inner) perceiving a visual perception or something else?
P: I want to put aside (the authority of ?) everything Krishnaji has said and I find that the very enquiry, that the very investigation into the ( reality or non-reality of the ?) "I" creates inner light, intelligence.
Krishnamurti: You are saying, the very enquiry brings about
P: And in the enquiry one can only use certain (readily available ?) instruments which are our senses - the seeing, listening, feeling - and the field of the without and the field of the within is
Krishnamurti: ( The self-centred ?) thought does not exist by itself. It exists in observing our relationship - (for instance in observing this ?) lamp. But, is (our inner) perception partial? I have investigated through the senses, the senses creating the "I", investigating the "I". This activity brings a lightness, clarity. Not the entire clarity, but some clarity.
P: I will not use the word 'some clarity', but clarity.
Krishnamurti: It brings clarity. Is that clarity expandable?
P: The nature of our seeing is depending on the power of the eye.
Krishnamurti: We said perception is not only visual but also
P: What is the nature of this 'non-visual' seeing?
Krishnamurti: It is 'non-visual', which is 'non-thinkable'. It does
P: This is not such a difficult thing. I see there is such
Krishnamurti: Wait. We are talking of a perception which is non-visual which is not (measuable in terms of ?) 'deep' or 'shallow'. Shallow perception or deep perception comes only when thought interferes.
P: Now in that (direct inner perception ?) is there partial stripping or total stripping?
Krishnamurti: When there is ( this quality of ?) non-verbal perception, what are you asking further?
F: We are asking is there a "perception" in which ( the psychological ?) stripping is not necessary?
Krishnamurti: There is no such thing as an everlasting perception.
P: Is it identical with what you call Intelligence?
Krishnamurti: I do not know. Why are you asking that?
P: Because it is timeless.
Krishnamurti: Why do you ask? A perception which is non-verbal, isn't it also (free of ?) time, (free of ?) thought? If you have answered this question you have answered that. Is there perception that is non-verbal and therefore not pertaining to (the self-centred ?) thought? A
P: I say that (any direct) perception which is not linked with thought,
Krishnamurti: That is obvious.
D: It cannot be.
Krishnamurti: This "I" - is it (the projection of our ?) consciousness?
D: It is not permanent.
Krishnamurti: ( This self-centred ?) consciousness is (our racial & cultural ?) heritage. Of course it is.
F: Aren't we are mixing the 'concept' of consciousness, with the
Krishnamurti: This is very clear (experientially) . "I" is (the self-focalisation of ?) that consciousness.
P: The "I" has a great reality for me till I ( begin to ?) investigate it.
Krishnamurti: Of course. But after (exposing & ?) looking, observing , I (finally ?) see that I "am" (the self-focussing of ?) the whole of this consciousness (of mankind) . This is not ( an opportunistic ? ) verbal statement. I "am" all that. I "am" the heritage. Now, ( the 100 $ question is:) is this "I" touchable, observable? Can it be felt ? Is it the result of (all our human) heritage?
F: It is the inherited.
Krishnamurti: And then she asks who is that "I"? Is that "I" part
F: So, the "I" is just the (processing ?) centre of our (sensory) perceptions ?
Krishnamurti: In the whole field of our (inherited) consciousness the "I" is the centre.
P: I want to put aside everything and tackle it in a new way. I
Krishnamurti: Full stop.
P: Now, this inner clarity is not eternal.....
Krishnamurti: But it can 'pick it up' again.
P: What would you say?
P: But if I am alert to see that I am not perceiving so clearly, I will
Krishnamurti: Let us be simple about this. There is ( a time-free?) perception. In that perception there is no question of duration. The next minute there is no (more) clear perception. It is muddled. ( If ?) there is (an earnest ?) investigation of ( the cause of ?) this 'pollution' (one is back to inner) clarity. Right? And again perception; move again (through inattention ?) cover and uncover - and this is going on (the process is self-sustained ? ).
P: A very interesting thing takes place. The very nature of this
Krishnamurti: ( So, to recap:) Attention and inattention. Then be aware of inattention which becomes attention. This (timeless inner) "balancing" is going on all the time.
P: I observe that attention has its own action on inattention.
Krishnamurti: Does that action on inattention wipe away (the root-causes of ?) inattention so that inattention does not come again?
P: Further than that, I'd say the nature of this (self-sustained ?) "attention" is such that it operates on the brain
Krishnamurti: Let us begin again (back to the 'experiential square one' ?) Awareness - if there is (a personal preference or ?) choice in that awareness we are back again in ( the 'known') consciousness.
( In a nutshell:) There is attention, and then inattention. In inattention there is ( an accumulation of inner ?) confusion, misery, and all the
P: Is it not really that 'you' can do nothing about it?
Krishnamurti: I agree "P; but... hold on a minute.
( Grand Recap:) There is attention and there is inattention. In (that inner state of ?) ' inattention' everything is confusion. But, why
When there is attention, thought as (the mechanical response of the memory does not (have the 'time' to ?) operate. There is no ("thinker-) thinking" process in attention. There is only attention. I am only becoming aware that I have been inattentive when my action produces discomfort, misery and/or danger. Then as that (tiny instant, or days, months & years of ?) inattention has left a (psychological engramming ) mark on the brain, I am now concerned with the (global ?) misery which that (long lapse of ?) inattention has brought about.
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 05 Apr 2017||#65|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
A K DIALOGUE IN BOMBAY (1971) ON:
THE FLAME OF NON-DUALISTIC PERCEPTION(experientially -friendly -edited)
Questioner P: We have talked several times, and so far the
Krishnamurti: I am glad you have raised that.
P: I use the words mind and heart, because these are the two focal points
Krishnamurti: Let us begin ('scientifically' ?). What do you mean by 'movement'?
P: Any kind of emotional responses like love, affection, goodwill, compassion, seems to move from a focal point which we identify as the 'region of the heart'.
Krishnamurti: Which is the (emotion charged ?) response of the nerves, the heart, the brain, the whole psychosomatic organism. Now, is the
P: ...as evil, cruelty, vanity. But there is also a purely intellectual
Krishnamurti: Is the 'technological' movement different from the
D: So there is the movement of the 'coordinator' apart from the
Krishnamurti: Now we have the fourth movement - the
(In a nutshell ?) Our psychosomatic organism has got dozens of contradictions ( conflicts of interest ), there are simultaneous and contradictory movements, and there is the 'coordinator'
F: Is there not a selective mechanism, which picks up and calls
Krishnamurti: Coordinator, selecter, call it what you will, they are all in contradiction with each other.
F: Why do you say they are in contradiction ? Is it because each one
P: At any given point (in time) if one is (dominating) , the other is not.
F: Then there cannot be an actual contradiction.
Krishnamurti: When one is (active) , the other is not. But the 'coordinator' weighs these two - I want this and I do not want that.
F: That is the whole movement of our daily life.
Krishnamurti: Contradiction is not when one ( compartment) is (active) , and the other is not, but when the "coordinator" says I would rather not have this but have that; then begins the contradiction, the opposition as (personal) choice.
A: The question is, is the movement of the heart distinct from that of the
Krishnamurti: You were asking, are there two movements with their subdivisions; are they (moving in ) parallel?
P: Parallel means that they never meet.
Krishnamurti: We know only these two movements the
How do you investigate this question? I can only investigate it from fact to fact. I see the fact of perception. I see the fact of the movement
P: That is so, Sir, and I am saying this very very hesitantly.
Krishnamurti: Let us stick to one thing. Just what is the factor in
A: As far as my (inner) experience goes, when the verbal movement
P: In the ( Hindu spiritual) tradition there is a word called "Rasa" . Rasa is essence, it is that which fills, that which permeates.
D: It is emotion.
P: It is much more; rasa is (the spiritual ?) essence.
Krishnamurti: Keep to that word 'essence', perfume. Now what happens? In observing (non-dualistically ) the whole movement of thought, in observing the content of consciousness, the 'essence' comes out of it. And in observing the movement of the heart, in that perception, there is the essence. The 'essence' is the same whether it is (derived from) this or (from) that. It is the essence of all the flowers that makes the perfume.
F: But in the context of what we were talking here what do you mean by 'essence'?
Krishnamurti: Just look. We have observed the movement
P: The great masters of (Hindu) Alchemy were called "rasa-siddhas" -those who are established in "rasa", that is, those who have
Krishnamurti: During these days and before, one has watched
P: So that (integrated) energy which is attention, though it is operating on matter, the essence is unrelated to both.
Krishnamurti: Let us begin again slowly with 'essence'. Is it
F: Even grammatically does not sound quite all right....
Krishnamurti: Look, Sir, the other day I saw they were taking
F: It is realized because of the heat.
Krishnamurti: (The ) heat (energy ) of (direct) perception produces the essence. So is that essence related to (the fragmentary ?) consciousness? Obviously not. So the whole point in this is the flame of perception and the flame of perception 'is' the essence.
D: It creates the essence and it is the essence.
Krishnamurti: (Or, in short ?) it 'is' the essence.
P: Is (direct ) perception part of the moment of Creation?
Krishnamurti: I do not know what you mean by "creation".
P: Bringing into our being something which was not there ?
Krishnamurti: I ask of you what is meant by creation? I do not
P: Creation must be bringing into being the new, not the old.
Krishnamurti: Therefore let us be clear. Bringing into being
P: If creation is something entirely new which is unrelated to
Krishnamurti: What I want to get at is: the man who
D: It creates a new perception.
Krishnamurti: No. There is no (creating a ) new perception. The flame "is" the perception. The flame is flame all the time. One moment pure flame of perception, then forgotten, and again pure flame of perception, then forgotten. Each time the (light of the ?) 'flame' is new.
D: The energy of this perception touches matter, and there is an explosion and there is mutation. Now that which emerges out of it, you cannot postulate. It is like the discovery of the jet engine.
Krishnamurti: Let us put it this way. In that essence when there
P: I want to ask one more question. The manifestation of
Krishnamurti: There is ( a mutational ?) action.
A: Up to ( the distilling effect of direct ) perception we go with you.
Krishnamurti: No, Sir. You have gone further. There is a
P: That itself is creation. Creation is not something apart from
Krishnamurti: The very expression of that ( timeless) essence is Creation in action, not new action or old action. The essence 'is' expression.
P: Then is (such direct ?) perception also action?
Krishnamurti: Of course. See the beauty of it ? Forget ( spatio-temporal ?) action. See what has taken place in you. Perception without any (verbal ) qualifications is a "flame". It distils whatever it perceives. Whatever it perceives it distils because it is the flame.
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 09 Apr 2017||#66|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
A K DIALOGUE ON ACTION IN ATTENTION (exp-friendly edited)
K: I wonder what we mean by 'action' (in the inner sense?) .
P: Can there be always an action 'now'?
K: I want to find out, Pupul, whether there is an action (an active dimension of being?) which is continuous (self-sustained ?) and, therefore, always a movement without any causation. I am exploring, just move with me.
P: Our action is always related to something. That is the movement of ( spatio-temporal ?) action?
M: It is the (personal ) motivation that matters in most of our actions .
K: Motivation is part of action. I want something and I get it. I
P: In attention there is this kind of (non-causal) movement. The question is: In this state of attention now, which has
K: I want to get at something much deeper. What is the action
Now, I ask myself: Is there any other (dimension of human ?) action which does not belong to this (ego-centric) consciousness with its frustration, failures, sorrows, misery, confusion? Is there any action which is not of time? I want to find out if there is an action which is without friction, an action which is non-contradictory, which does not bring conflict.
A: You would not be here if the motive was not there.
K: This does not mean that this action follows a set pattern. Following a pattern is a mere mechanical repetition and (eventually ?) leads to a complete destruction of the brain. I want to find out an action which is not repetitive, which is not (generating ?) conflict, which
M: To live means to act on (the existing cultural ) environment.
K: Therefore, I don't (have to ?) depend on (this ?) environment. I want to live a life without conflict, which means life is action. And I see that life always has conflict in it. "Conflict" means imitation,
P: We appear to be totally blocked here. You say something and
K: I said I am going to investigate.
P: How will you 'investigate' this?
K: (By negating what is false ?): I see - not as an idea, but as a fact - that any action with a (hidden 'psychological' ?) motive must inevitably bring about a contradiction. So, I say, is there in my mind any contradiction ? Paying attention, I see that an action based on a 'belief' is contradictory. So, I say to myself: Is there such a (hidden root assumption or ?) 'belief' which is living, acting and therefore contradictory? If there is, I go after that belief and "wipe it out".
P: How are you doing that ?
K: In that (non-dualistic quality of ?) attention, (aka:) "observation", that 'belief' ends in me. In that attention, I see that any form of conformity
A: Would you say that such "attention" itself is action?
K: That is it. Therefore, attention is ( intelligent & compassionate ?) perception (integrated in daily ?) action and therefore in that there is no conflict. It is 'infinite' (inexhaustible ?) The action (based on ?) a belief is wastage of energy. Action in attention is producing its own energy and it is endless.
(In a nutshell ?) The human brain has functioned always in
M: You seem to say that attention calls for (an inner integration of ?) energy and then that energy directs.
K: Attention is action. (Left for homework:) We also said, consciousness is its content...
P: In that state of (integrated ?) attention, do the brain cells themselves undergo change?
M: Biologically speaking, every cell is individual, able to recharge
K: I think so. But I would like to start from a different point: the
P: Freedom from the known is also within the brain cells. The
K: Therefore, there is a definite (qualitative inner ?) transformation coming into being (taking place ?)
M: If the brain is cleared of its 'engrams', that is a physical
K: This is so (even ?) logically, in the sense that as long as the mind is
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 11 Apr 2017||#67|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
A K DIALOGUE ON
REGISTRATION, THE MOMENTUM OF MILLENNIA'
P: Krishnaji, you have spoken about holding the quality of anger,
K: What does it mean to hold the feeling of anger, whatever `is',
P: And is there anything without the word?
K: Go on.
FW: Is there fear when there is not the word 'fear'? And what is
A: Clarity for us is clsely related to naming. When we want to probe into a strong feeling, a disturbance, we want to know precisely what it is, we don't want any self-deception. Invariably, before we have been able to grasp it completely, we have named it. So, naming is both our instrument of clarity and the cause of confusion.
K: Is the word different from the fact, from 'what is'? Is the
So, we are trying to find out if the word 'fear' is different from the actuality. Does the actuality represent the word and without the word is there the actuality?
S: What is the 'feeling of fear' without the word?
K: Let us go very very slowly. I want to make this perfectly
R: The word (the verbal recognition is part of the process of ?) thought.
K: The word is the medium through which thought expresses
A: I raise one difficulty: we perceive with the senses. That
K: I am not quite sure, Achyutji. Pupulji is asking, what is the
P: If I may say so, there are many things in our consciousness which arise prior to the word.
K: Can you observe something without the word? (without verbal recognition ?) Can you observe me, the (physical) form, for the moment without the word?
K: You can. So, you have removed the (psychologially loaded ?) word 'K' and you are observing the form.
P: We are "observing". The moment you say 'I am observing the form',
K: Of course, you are observing (in a wider sense). (Now in observing the psychological field suppose ?) there is (a reaction of ?) fear. I want to find out whether (its verbal recognition ?) has created that fear. Ten years ago I was afraid, that fear is registered in my brain associated with
R: Yes. Sustains it.
K: It holds it. Now, I am asking whether without naming it
FW: I have (the memory of having) been afraid before, so I know that feeling. So, as it comes again, I just...recognize it.
K: But if you don't 'recognize' it, what is the state? If there is no recognition, no verbal movement, would that reaction of fear ( be the same ?) ?
P: There is still an emotional disturbance. If I may say so, fear is not such a simple thing that you can say "if there is no naming of it, fear is not"...
K: Of course, there is a lot of complexity involved in it.
P: There are profoundly deep fears. Psychologically something happens even before naming takes place. If we would accept your position that only the word creates fear, that means there is no (emotional) content to fear at all.
K: I don't say that. But if that process of (verbal) recognition didn't exist, if that is at all possible, then, what is (involved in the direct observation of ?) fear? If there is no process of registration, recording, which is memory in operation, what is the thing called fear?
P: Remove the word 'fear', and see what remains. Any word I would
K: I am attacking it quite differently. You insult me because I
S: I don't understand this. That is a totally different process from observing fear.
K: It is ( holistically speaking ?) exactly the same thing. The fear arises because I am afraid of ( the consequences of something improperly done in ?) the past. The past (misdeed ?) is registered and (the verbal triggering of the memory of ) that incident in the past awakens the sense of fear. Is it possible to observe the new feeling, whatever it is, without
Rad: There is a feeling of (non-verbal) recognition even before you actually call it 'fear'.
K: Look: you insult me (and /or ) I insult you back. What takes place? You register it, don't you?
Rad: I register it and that itself creates (its own ?) momentum.
K: Therefore, can that (psychological ?) 'momentum' stopped?
FW: What do you mean by 'registering'?
K: Our brain is (functioning like ?) a tape recorder. It is registering all the time, there is a recording of likes and dislikes, pleasures and pains. I
FW: That means not to form any 'image' of it right away.
K: No, no. Just don't introduce the (existing self-) image for the moment. That becomes yet more complex. Can you recognize the (insulting ?) word but not register it?
P: The brain is a live thing. It has to register. Registration is one
K: That is what I am talking about.
P: Does that mean the (momentum of 'psychological time' in the ?) brain cells does come to a stop?
K: If there is no possibility of stopping (the psychological ?) registration, then the brain becomes mechanical.
A: You are oversimplifying the matter. Actually, our state of receiving anything is without our (conscious) knowing that there is a preference or an aversion, and fear is (part of) that cycle. It arises from the past, and is not directly related to what I perceive now. But it is (part of ) that ('observer' entity) which perceives.
K: As long as the brain is (indiscriminately ?) registering (and remembering ?) all the time, it is moving ( within the 'field of the known') from 'knowledge' to 'knowledge'. Now, I am challenging the ('psychological' usage of the naming?) word . I see ( that living in the area of ?) 'knowledge' is limited, fragmented and so on and I am asking
GM: Can the brain answer this question?
K: I think it can, in the sense the (open minded ?) brain can become aware of its own registering process.
P: There are certain fears which you can deal with in that way.
K: That 'cry of millennia' is fear. The brain has also been registering (it) for millennia. Therefore, the human brain has become mechanistic. I say: Can the (momentum of this ?) mechanistic process stop? If it cannot be stopped it (the human brain) becomes merely a (programmable thinking ?) machine, which it is (already ?).
Par: May I ask you a (still 'simpler' ?) question? Why do we register at all?
K: For safety, security, protection, certainty. The "registration" is
P: Isn't the ( evolution of the human) brain itself involved? It has evolved through registration.
K: It has evolved through (constantly acquiring, processing and optimising its experience in terms of ?) knowledge, which is (all encapsulated in the generic term ?) "registration".
P: So, what is it from within itself which says 'stop'?
K: Someone comes along and says: "Look, through countless millennia
P: Is this related to the quality of our 'listening'?
K: Yes, there is. That's it.
P: So, that ( quality of inner ?) 'listening' ends, or "silences" this (whole momentum of ?) registration ?
K: That is it. Find out if that (sub-conscious ?) momentum which has
FW: May I ask you a (practical ) question? Can the brain stop it by itself?
K: We are going to find out (or not ?) but first, "listen" to the question.
S: In the whole of "my consciousness", is there only this registration ( & remembering ?) process going on?
K: Of course.
S: Then, what is it left there that can observe that registering?
K: We also know (moments of ?) silence, like the (intervals of ?) silence that is between two noises...
S: Isn't that 'silence' which I experience also registered?
S: You can't use the word 'registering' for silence.
K: As long as there is this (self-centred ?) registration process going on, it is mechanical. ( The 1000 $ question is therefore ?) Is there a ( quality of inner ?) "silence" which is non-mechanistic? A silence
S: But one knows this "non-mechanistic silence" sometimes.
K: Not 'sometimes'....
Raj: Sir, is it possible for a non-mechanistic silence to come ( naturally into being ?) ?
K: No, no. I am not interested in that (approach) . I am asking something
Raj: I think this movement can be stopped only if you don't 'hang on' to it.
K: No, ( but rather by the insight that ?) the momentum "is" you. You are not different from the momentum. You don't (seem to ?) realise that you are this vast momentum, this river of tradition, of racial prejudices, the collective drive, the 'individual' assertions. There is no (open ) future if this current is going on. You may call it a 'future', but it is only the same thing modified. There is no (authentic ?) future. I wonder if you see this.
P: The question arises: Can my consciousness with its own content, which is 'darkness'...
K:... end ? Can the brain (put on ?) hold this momentum (of psychological time ?)? If this (perception ) is not another idea, a conclusion, then the brain is directly in contact with ( that inner ?) momentum. And therefore, it (the brain ) can say: 'All
P: Can we ever see that?
K: ( Back to the experiential 'square one' ?) I call you "a fool". Must you register it ?
P: If these eyes and ears of mine are still and do listen, there is no registration. There is a listening but no (psychological) registration.
K: So, what are you seeing then ?
P: .Obviously, if my listening is directed to the (verbal meaning of the ?) words, I register, and this very movement outward throws it
K: So, you are saying that if there is a "quietness" in this listening, there is no (need for any psychological ?) registration, but... most of us are not quiet.
P: We can't still answer that (holistic ?) question of yours: Why should one register? The way you put it, you are suggesting we have two alternatives: it is either to register or not to register.
K: No. You are (the brain is?) registering all the time.
P: There is a registration all the time. So, as long as my senses are
K: I want to find out whether this vast (psychological ?) "Stream of the Past" can come to a (natural ?) ending. That is all my question.
P: There has to be an (experiential) way to end it.
K: How can it (come to an) end?
P: So, we have to move from that (impossible question ?) to the ( intimate functioning of the ?) brain cells - to the actual (process of ) registration.
K: So, the brain cells are (constantly) 'registering'. Those brain cells have found in that (traditional) momentum their only safety. So, in that momentum, the (traditional ?) brain has found a tremendous (sense of 'psychological & physical') security. Right?
P: Please listen to me. ( The observable fact ?) is only one movement which is, the movement of the 'past', touching the 'present'
K: The (active memory of the ?) past meeting the present, moving on, modifying - we have gone into that. The brain is conditioned to think that as long as that "(time-) stream" exists, it is perfectly safe. Now, how are those same brain cells to be shown that the momentum of the past in which they have (traditinally) found enormous security and well-being is the most 'dangerous' movement? To point out to that brain the (psychological ?) "danger" of (indulging in ?) this 'momentum' is all that matters. The moment it sees the actual danger, it will end it (effortlessly ?) . Do you "see the danger" of this movement? Not
P: Are your brain cells saying that this movement is dangerous?
K: My brain is using these words to 'inform you' of the danger, but
The human brain has been conditioned to "carry on" ( and make the best of whatever comes?) because in that there is (the perfect illusion of a ?) complete safety, in meeting the present, learning from it,
Raj: How comes that I don't see the danger of the momentum as actually as you see it.
K: Why, sir? Are you living with the ( verbal) description of the momentum or living with the momentum itself which "is" (an integral part of ?) you? You understand my question ? Is that 'momentum' different from you?
Raj: No, sir.
K: So, you "are" the momentum? So, you are "watching yourself"?
Raj: Yes. But this does not happen very often...
K:Are you aware without any (personal ?) choice that you "are" the momentum, not 'sometimes'? You can't say: I only see the precipice occasionally" !
( To recap:) Fear is not the word, but without its (verbal recognition ?) would that (thought created ?) 'fear' exist?
P: I still want to get the thing clear. Is it possible to 'hold' a quality of feeling without the word, whether it is 'hatred', 'anger' or
K: Of course, you can 'hold' the feeling of anger, fear, without
P: But what do you actually 'do'?
K: When fear arises from whatever cause, remain with it,
P: What is it then?
K: It is no longer the same thing which I have associated with the past
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 12 Apr 2017||#68|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
A K DIALOGUE ON 'THE BRAIN CELLS AND THE HOLISTIC STATE'
DS: I wonder if we could discuss the question of the psychological 'momentum' (leading to ?) the creation of the 'thinker' and which ultimately produces the identification with the 'thinker'? The fact is that we are faced everyday with this momentum, this movement. Could we examine that?
K: Is there (in us ?) an energy which is endless, without a beginning and without an end? Or is there just an energy which is mechanical which always has a motive? And is there an energy in relationship?
P: Dr Shainberg asked what is the momentum that gives the psychological identification with 'thinker' .
K: Let us keep to that. What is the drive, the force behind all our action? Is it mechanical? Or is there an energy, a force, a drive, a momentum which has no friction? Is that what we are discussing?
DS: Let us stay out of the 'fantasy' realm for a while and
K: You are asking what is the momentum behind desire. I desire
DS: Is it that 'you' desire a car or does the car come up as a desire and then creates the 'I'? Is the 'I' created by (this momentum of thought sustained ?) desire?
K: If I didn't actually see the car, didn't feel it, didn't touch it, I
P: Sir, is it only the object which creates desire?
K: It may be a physical object, or a non-physical object, a belief, an idea, anything.
P: It is desire that keeps the world going. Can we take desire back to its roots?
K: What is the momentum behind any desire? Let us begin with what is behind my being here? I have come here to find out what you are talking
DS: To me it is relief from what I am (inwardly stuck with ?) .
P: Which is identical with a sense of (self-) becoming.
K: Becoming? What is behind becoming?
DS: To (inwardly) get somewhere different from where I am ?
K: What is behind that (thought sustained desire) energy that is making you do that? Is it (the expectation of a ?) reward? All our structure of psychological movement is based on reward
DS: Yes. That is part of it. That is at the level of thought.
K: Not only at the level of thought. If I am hungry, my reward is food. If I do something wrong, my reward is punishment. Reward
P: Reward and punishment to whom?
K: I have not yet come to that. The problem is, what is
Singh: Sir, where is all this process going on? Is it in the brain? Where do I find this 'pleasure - pain' need?
K: Both at the biological level and the psychological.
Singh: If it is the brain, then there is definitely something,
K: I don't quite follow what you are saying.
Singh: That there are some responses in the brain which are "in between" reward and punishment.
K: You mean there is a gap between reward and punishment?
GM: You mean there is a state which is neither reward nor
Singh: Yes. Where one merges into another.
P: How does this answer the question about the nature of this force which brings (the 'experiencer' or the 'thinker') into being and then keeps it going?
DS: That is the question. Where is (originating) this momentum of reward and punishment?
K: Are you asking, what is it that is pushing one in the direction
DS: But then, what is your state of being when you are aware that
K: It is very simple, isn't it? There is hunger, food is given, and
Par: At what point does one go from the physiological
K: Sir, it may be that the (mental attitude picked up from the ?) physiological movement has entered into the 'psychological' (field of activity ?) and carries on. Is this so?
P: It is not a matter of choice. It is so from the moment I am born. Both types of "wants" begin. Therefore, I am asking, what is the source of both beginnings, the physiological and psychological? Both are structured in a (psycho-somatic) 'momentum' which then propels. That structure within one, the coming together of a number of
K: I don't think it is the 'I'.
P: Why do you say that?
K: I think it is an endless (momentum of personal ) dissatisfaction, the endless insufficiency.
P: Can there be (this sense of ?) insufficiency without the one who feels it?
K: I don't (want to ?) posit the 'I'. There is this continuous (sense of inner ) insufficiency. The more intelligent I am, the more awake I am, the more dissatisfaction there is. Then, what takes place?
S: So, you are implying that there is an ( energy ?) matrix which in its very momentum (for self-fulfilment ?) can act.
K: (For starters ?) I don't know (anything about ?) the matrix. I don't know about the (nature of the ?) 'I'. All that I am pointing out is the one factor that there is physiological insufficiency which has entered into the field of psychological insufficiency and that goes on endlessly.
DS: An endless sense of 'incompletion' ?
K: (Self-) insufficiency. Keep to that word.
A: I suggest at this point that we may cut out the 'physiological'
K: I am purposely insisting on that..It may be from the (over-) flowing
Par: What do we exactly mean by 'spilling over'? One is a fact, the other is not.
K: Therefore, there is only 'physiological' insufficiency...
P: How can you say that? There is both physiological as well as psychological insufficiency.
K: Look, Pupulji, I feel hungry. It has been satisfied. I feel sexual, that is being satisfied. And then I say: 'That is not good enough, I must have something more.'
P: The desire for 'more' is the momentum, isn't it?
K: No, the 'more' is the brain (constantly ?) seeking satisfaction.
P: Why should the brain seek satisfaction?
K: Because it needs stability; it needs security. Therefore, it
Q: Sir, the very nature of this insufficiency at a physiological
K: Must continue? Examine yourself. It is very simple. You are
A: Sir, I want to draw your attention that between the physiological insufficiency and its recurrence, there is always a gap, whereas where psychological insufficiency is concerned, we begin a (thought -desire ?) cycle in which we do not know any gap.
K: Forget the gap sir. Isn't the whole of the movement the
DS: I think what is coming out of this model of the
K: The whole 'momentum of seeking satisfaction' is captured by
DS: Then it is there that the 'I' becomes manifest (as the entity in control ?)
K: That's it. That is what I mean. "I" am seeking satisfaction, not 'satisfaction is being sought'. Actually it should be the other way: "satisfaction is being sought".
DS: Satisfaction being sought creates the 'I'.
K: So the momentum is the urge to be satisfied.
P: I will ask you a question: isn't the sense of the 'I' inherent in the brain cells which have inherited (some personal experience and ?) knowledge?
K: I question that.
P: I am asking you, sir: listen to the question. The knowledge of
S: Pupulji, are you then equating the whole of the past with the
P: Of course, the whole of the past. I am asking whether the 'I'
K: You are asking, is there the 'I', the 'me' the ego, identifying
P: Not 'identifying itself'. But 'I' as (the impersonation of all man's ?) past. The 'I' sense is the whole of that.
K: Wait. Does the brain contain the (collective memory of the ?) 'I'? I would say tentatively, investigating, there is no 'I' at all but
P: Is the whole racial memory of man fictitious?
K: No. But the moment you say "I" am that past, that (self-identification ?) is fictitious.
S: Is the (whole memory of the ) past itself saying that "I am the past", or a part of the past saying that "it" is the past?
K: You see you are raising a question which is (holistically ?) really very interesting: There is the whole past of mankind , millennia of human endeavour, human suffering, human misery, confusion, millions of years. There is only that movement that current, there is only that vast river - not 'I' and the vast river.
P: I would like to put it this way: When this "vast river of the past" comes to the surface (of our consciousness) , it gets (self-) identified as the 'I'.
Chorus: I don't think so.
K: Pupulji, the 'I' may merely be a means of communication.
P: Is it as simple as that?
K: No, I am just stating (a fine holistic point ?) . It is not as simple as that.
S: Sir, at one point you said the manifestation of the stream is
K: That is not the point. That vast stream (of man's consciousness ?) manifests itself in a human being; the father gives to me a form and then I say 'I', which is the (personal identification with the physical) form, the name, the (cultural ?) environment, but that stream "is" me. There is this vast stream which is obvious.
A: I am saying that we are identifying ourselves with the stream. The (conscious ?) identification is done post facto, whereas it really starts with the momentum.
P: You see, the (holistic) way Krishnaji puts it does not really lead to the (actual) depth of oneself. The depth of oneself says,'I want to become, I will be ('someone') '. That depth (of self-becoming) springs from our whole racial unconscious.
K: Can I ask, why is the 'I' there? Why do you say "I" want ?
P: Still by saying that, you don't eliminate the 'I'.
K: No, you do eliminate that 'I'. But in what manner do you observe this stream (of collective self-interest) ? Do you observe it as an 'I'
P: What one does in observing is a different issue. We were
K: I want to question whether the 'I' exists at all. It may be
FW: Isn't there an imprint of the 'I' in the brain matter? Isn't
K: No, I question it.
FW: But the imprint is there. The question is: If it isn't an
K: The whole momentum, this vast stream is (manifesting itself ?) in the brain. After all, why should there be the 'I' at all in that?
P: Talking of the 'actual', it is there.
K: It is there only verbally (mentally ?) .
DS: It is actually there. In the sense that if you and I are together,
K: Sir, when are you (self-) conscious of the 'I'?
DS: Only in my relationship. When I want something, when I identify myself with something, or... when I look at myself in the mirror.
K: At the moment of (directly) experiencing something, there is no 'I' ( no self-consciousness ?) .
P: All right, at that very moment there is no 'I'. We agree with you. But then the 'I' emerges a second later.
K: How? Look, let's go into it slowly. At the moment of (a real conflict or ?) crisis there is no 'I'. Then, later, comes the (personal ?) thought
P: So, what has happened there? Is the 'I' (self-consciousness ?) a concentration of energy?
P: The (total psychical ?) energy that dissipates?
K: It is the energy that dissipates, yes. It is a (non-personal ?) energy that is being misused.
P: The 'I' itself is a concentration of energy that dissipates. As the body wears out, the (temporal) 'I' has the same nature, it gets old, it gets stale.
K: Pupul, at the moment of crisis, there is no 'I'. Now is there a living at the height of that crisis, all the time? A crisis demands your total energy. Crisis of any kind brings about the influx of all energy. At that second, there is no 'I'. Now, I am asking: 'Is it possible to live at that height all the time?'
DS: Why are you asking that?
K: If you don't live that way, you will have all kinds of other (time-binding ?) activities which will destroy that ( inner sense of wholeness ?) . My point is this: the moment thought comes in, it brings
DS: Not necessarily...
P: We could say it is so. But still that does not answer the question as to why the 'I' has become so powerful. You have still not answered the question even though at the moment of crisis, the 'I' is not, the whole past is not.
K: That is the (experiential 'chek ?) point'. At the moment of crisis, there is nothing (no self-consciousness )
P: Then why are you saying 'no' to the idea of the 'I' being the (impersonation or ?) mirror of the whole racial past?
K: I am saying 'no' because it may be merely a way of
P: Is the 'I' structure as simple as that?
K: I think it is extraordinarily 'simple'. But what is much more interesting (experientiall) and much more demanding, is that whenever ( the time-binding process of ?) thought comes into being,
FW: You said the moment thought comes in, there is dissipation
K: Thought is (the response of our self-centred) memory, experience, all that.
DS: When you say 'dissipation of energy', I immediately see myself taking up the (righteous ?) position of the 'observer' and say 'that is bad'. What I am suggesting is that you can be "neutrally aware" (and take life as it comes ?) . There is a crisis and a dissipation, a crisis and a dissipation. That is the flow of existence.
P: K's point is, there is that, but the "transformation" of which we are
DS: I question whether there is any such thing as a "breaking out"
DS: Then why ask the question?
K: I am asking that question purposely because thought interferes.
DS: Not all the time.
K: All the time! Question it (for homework ?) , sir.
A: There is the crisis. Then, there is dissipation and then identification.
P: At the moment of such a crisis, many things happen. You talk of a
K: You see Pupul "holistic" implies a very sane mind and body, a
P: What is the relationship of the 'holistic' and the 'non-holistic' to
K: To be quite clear that we understand the meaning of that word
P: Sir, the 'holistic' quality is held in the brain cells. That is, it throws up
DS: Can I go into that? I think if there were something in what
K: Sir, her question is very simple. Our brain cells now contain
DS: I would put it differently: 'What takes place in
K: I am going to answer that question. The holistic brain still
P: After going through all this, we have come to this fine holistic point.
K: Yes. A marvellous point. Stick to it.
P: What is then its place in the structure of the human brain and mind?
K: We know only the non-holistic way of living, keep to that.
We live a non-holistic way of life, a fragmentary life, a broken
P: But I have asked another question, and you have still not
K: I am coming to that. That is a very difficult question to
Q: Not always, sir, that is what we are investigating. Whether
K: No, it can never be totality, because it comes and goes.
DS: I wonder whether the (average human) brain can ask it.
K: I am asking it. Therefore, if one brain asks it, the other brain
DS: Could you say anything about how you can ask the
K: It can be asked because the brain has realized for itself the game it
DS: That is what I am having trouble with - where that question
K: The brain which says: 'I see very clearly the waste of energy'.
P: The very fact of your saying that the brain is 'seeing through'
K: ...is the 'ending' of it.
P: Is that holistic?
K: The 'ending' of it, that is holistic.
P: So, the ending is in the very seeing of its fragmentation.
DS: Is that holistic?
K: That is holistic. But she asked a much more complex
( Re-re-recap:) My concern is with one's life, actual, daily, fragmentary,
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 13 Apr 2017||#69|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
A K DIALOGUE ON "THE TIMELESS INNER ENERGY" (experientially friendly edited)
P: (For starters ?) could we discuss this chief blockage to self-understanding: the (imponderable ?) factor of self-centred activity?
K: When you talk about 'self-centredness', a 'centre' implies a 'periphery'. Can we say, where there is a centre there is a (self-protective ?) boundary and all action must be within the circle of centre and periphery? That is self-centred activity.
P: What are the 'boundaries' of the self ?
K: As long as there is a centre, there is a periphery, but that boundary (of the self-consciousness ?) can be stretched.
P: Does that mean that there is no limit to this 'stretching'?
K: From the centre 'you' can stretch ( outwardly ) as far as you like, through social service, democratic or electorate dictatorship and tyranny, everything is within that area.
A: The point is, sir, is any action possible which does not nourish this 'centre' ?
K: Or, can there be no (self-identification with the ?) centre?
A: Sir, that cannot be said from our position because we start
K: The point is this: the energy that is expanded within the
VA: To realize this self (identification ?) in ourselves would be the first (experiential ) problem.
K: That is the problem, sir. We are selfish entities (dominated by self-interest ?) . We are self-centred human beings, we think about ourselves, our worries, our family - we are (identified with ?) the centre. We can move this centre (of self-interest ) into social work, to political work, but it is still the same centre operating.
P: That is a little more subtle to see, because you can concern
K: You may think so. But it is 'I' who work for the poor, but I am
P: Sir, I want some clarification. It is not the "work for the poor"
K: No. It is the identification of myself with the (work for the ) poor, my
Apa: I think the question that Pupulji asked was whether this
P: It is really like this: we have done (almost ?) everything to understand
K: Because we are making an (experiential ?) mistake. We don't
P: Sir, if it is the (natural survival oriented ?) action of our brain cells to constantly throw out these ripples in which they get caught, which is in a sense self-centred existence, then...
K: No, Pupul, the brain needs two things: security and a sense of permanency.
P: And...both are provided by the 'self' ( but...with mixed results ?) .
K: That is why it has become very important.
Apa: Sir, the brain is a mechanical, a physical entity in its habit
K: Is there an action, a movement which is not self-centred?
P: We know states, for instance, when it appears as if the self is
Apa: Now, sir, what is that energy; is it attention, is it silence, is it exterior, is it interior?
K: Our brain is 'programmed' to function ( in the safe area ?) from the centre to the periphery and from the circumference to the centre, this back-and-forth movement. Is it possible to 'break' that momentum of the
P: Is there an energy which will, without 'my' volition, wipe out
K: Can this (self-centred ) 'momentum' of the brain, which
Apa: And de-condition itself ?
K: The moment it stops, you have 'broken' it. Now, is there an
P: Is it possible to investigate that energy?
K: We are going to. Is there (in us ?) an energy which is not (coming) from the centre, an energy which is without a cause, an energy which is
Q: Yes. It stops the movement for a while, but then it starts again
K: Sir, the moment you say you want (the inner comfort of ?) it again, you are back in the centre.
Q: Is it because I want to bring about a 'permanent' stopping ?
K: That is ( a subliminal form of ?) greed. If I see the truth of the fact, the moment there is the cessation of this movement (back & forth, within the field of the known ?) , the thing is over. ( However ?) it is not a 'continuous' stoppage. When you want it to be 'continuous', it is another (projection of the 'thought -) time' movement.
Apa: The (insightful ?) 'seeing' then is without movement.
K: Seeing the whole movement of the centre to the
Apa: But this "seeing" is without any centre.
K: Of course.
Q: So, sir, that seeing is on a different dimension altogether.
K: You "see". There is ( an insighful ?) perception when you are aware without any choice. Just be (non-personally ?) aware of this movement. The 'programme' stops.
Now, Pupul's question is: Is there an (inner source of intelligent ?) energy which is non-mechanical, which has no causation, and therefore an energy that is constantly renewing itself?
VA: That is the "energy of death".
K: What do you mean, sir? Death in the sense of "ending"?
VA: A total ending.
K: You mean a total ending of the periphery ?
VA: Of what I know as 'myself'.
K: Just listen. You said something. The total ending of this
VA: It is causeless, sir. It comes, like the blood in the body.
K: But, is that a theory or an actuality?
VA: An actuality.
K: Which means what? That now there is no 'centre' from which you
VA: During the period when that energy is there. There is a sense of 'timelessness' at that time.
K: Yes, sir. Then, what takes place?
VA: Then again (the self-centred) thought comes back (and takes control ) .
K: And you are back again (in the safe area ?) from the centre to the periphery ?
VA: One is afraid of that 'particular thing' happening again because it is like a "total death".
K: It has happened without your invitation.
K: Now, you are 'inviting it'.
VA: I don't know whether I am inviting it or whether I am afraid of it.
K: Afraid or inviting, whatever it is, it is still within the (self-centred ?) field. That is all.
The other question is what Pupulji raised (in private ?) about an "endless journey". You (actually) want to discuss "kundalini"?
P: Yes, sir.
K: First of all, would you forget everything you have heard about
Q: We just want to know whether there is such an energy that can
K: So long as the self-centred activity exists, 'you' (the 'self'-centred consciousness ?) cannot touch it. That is why I object to any (public ?) discussion on kundalini or whatever "that" energy is, because we have not done the "spade work" - we don't live a life of correctness and we just want to add something new to it, while carrying on with our mischief.
VA: Even after awakening kundalini, self-centred activity
K: I question whether the kundalini is awakened. I don't know
P: But do you know of such an 'energy' when self-centred activity ends?
K: Are you saying the ending of this movement from the centre
P: I don't say that.
K: I am saying that. So, can we put the 'kundalini energy' in its right place? A number of people ( claim to have had ?) the experience of what they call 'kundalini' (but) I question whether it is the actual reality or some kind of physiological activity which is then attributed to kundalini. You live an 'immoral' life in the sense of a life of vanity, ($$$ and ?) sex, etc. and then you say that your kundalini is awakened. But your daily life, which is (still) a self-centred life, continues.
P: Sir, (traditionally) the awakening of kundalini is linked to certain psychic centres located at certain (chakras) of the body. The first question I would like to ask is whether that is so?
A: Before we go into that, sir, I feel that unless the person's heart is cleansed of hate, and his thirst to (dominate and ?) harm is completely transmuted, this energy can do nothing but more mischief.
K: Pupulji is asking about (the validity of ?) the standard acceptance of the power of this energy going through various centres and the releasing of energy and so on.
A: There is in the Indian (spiritual) tradition a word which I think is very valuable: 'adhikar' - which means that the (truth seeker ?) person must cleanse himself sufficiently before he can pose this question to himself.
K: Are you saying that Pupulji's question is not valid unless there is a stoppage of this (mental) movement from the centre to the circumference and from the circumference to the centre ?
A: I think so. The word 'adhikar' used by the Hindus and the word 'sheela' used by the Buddhists really mean the same thing.
P: I take it that when one asks the question, there is a depth of
K: Unless your daily life is completely a non - 'self-centred'
P: Why has this (kudalini) question awakened so many ripples? Most
K: Is that understood? Psychic experience must be totally put
P: The real problem is to what extent is (the quality of ?) your life totally
Q: Sir, taking for granted that one is leading a holistic life, is there something like kundalini?
K: Sir, are you living a holistic life?
K: Therefore, don't that question.
P: I was just asking Krishnaji whether there is an energy which,
K: I would put it the other (roundabout ?) way. Unless the self-centred
P: So....as it does not seem possible to proceed further with this (kundalini) discussion, may I put another question? What is
K: Are you cultivating the soil of the brain, of the mind, in order
P: I understand your question. I can neither say 'yes' nor 'no'
K: Then, prepare, work at it. We live an (inner ?) life of contradiction, conflict, misery. I want to find out if it can end (my ?) sorrow, the whole of human sorrow and enquire into the nature of compassion.
S: So, why were you asking this question, "why do you want to cultivate the soil?"
K: As long as you have (personal ?) motive to 'cultivate that soil' in
S: What is our 'motive', sir? It is (to leave our inner) prison. To see the whole prison and ask whether there is any other way out of this, is
K: No, you haven't 'listened'. I live an (inner) life of (endless effort) misery, confusion. That is my basic feeling and can that end? There is no
S: Here there is no motive. But you are also asking a further question.
K: No. I don't have further questions, only that first question.
P: So, you're saying that I am (living inwardly in a state of ?) conflict, I am suffering and I see that a life of conflict and suffering has no end.
K: That is all. If it cannot end, then wanting to awaken the 'other' in order to wipe this out is a 'wrong' process. It is asking an 'outside agency' to come and clear up your (inner) house.
You are asking, Pupul, is there an ('inner) soil' that has to be prepared, not in order to receive 'That' ? Work at that, clean the (inner) house so completely that there isn't the shadow of escape. Then, we can ask, what is the ( "endless journey "?) state we are all talking about.
Is there such an energy which is non-mechanistic, which is endlessly renewing itself? I say there is. Most definitely. But it is not what you call 'kundalini'. The body must be sensitive. If you are working, clearing up the (inner) house, the body becomes very sensitive. The body then has its own (natural) intelligence, therefore becomes extraordinarily sensitive, not to its desires, but it becomes sensitive per se.
And K comes along and says 'yes', there is such a thing. There is an energy which is renewing itself all the time, which is not mechanistic,
P: That means, sir, that to the person who enquires ( seriously), it is the ending of suffering which is essential ?
K: The only job. Nothing else. 'It' ( The 'Other' ?) is the most sacred thing, therefore 'you' can't invite it. (And you are all inviting it...)
( For homework:) 'Clearing the house' demands a tremendous (inner) discipline, it demands a tremendous attention. When you give your
P: And the nature of that is the transformation of the human mind.
K: ( In a nutshell :) We are (inwardly) 'programmed' by centuries of ( cultural & environmental ?) conditioning. When there is the stopping of ( this 'self-interest' based programme ?) , there is an ( opportunity of ?) "ending" of it. (If you pull the plug out of the computer, it can't function any more) . When this (cyclic) mental 'movement' from the centre to the periphery (& back) stops, (the thought-projected ?) 'time' stops. When there is no 'movement of selfishness', there is ( the 'awakening' of ?) a totally different kind of (timeless) 'movement'.
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 14 Apr 2017||#70|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
WHY IS YOUR TEACHING SO DIFFICULT TO LIVE ? ( experientially friendly edited)
Krishnamurti: I think this is a misunderstanding.
Renée Weber: Let's hope so.
Krishnamurti: If, in order to be able to teach, one must first have attained perfection - no matter what the term is used - and have freed oneself from certain states of mind, then the situation would be impossible, would it not?
Renée Weber: Yes.
Krishnamurti: In this case, the student, the one to whom your teaching is addressed, will feel lost. But can't the educator say, " We both have various forms of conditioning, let's talk about it and see if we can free ourselves from it "? It is thus possible to break the conditioning.
Renée Weber: But don' t you think that the educator should at least understand this process better than the student does?
Krishnamurti: He may have read more about it, have studied a little more.
Renee Weber: But he does not know better than the student how to do it.
Krishnamurti: Thus, through this communication with the pupil, or with himself, the educator realizes that he is both the teacher and the pupil. Rather than learning first and transmit later, the teacher teaches the student and at the same time that he learns from him.
Renée Weber: What you are saying is that he is not an oracle with a peremptory message. If it is open, it teaches and learns at the same time.
Krishnamurti: That's right, an authentic educator does not just say, "I know, and I will tell you what I know. "
Renée Weber: Which means that among other flaws, this person must be devoid of pride, I suppose.
Krishnamurti: These are obvious things. Suppose that I am teaching and that I am full of arrogance, vanity, ambition and all that follows - in short, all the usual stupidities that exist among human beings. Speaking with the student, or someone else, I learn - I learn that I am arrogant and that the student is also arrogant in his own way; We are beginning to discuss it. And a discussion like that, if one is honest and truly ready to self-criticism, to self-awareness, opens up vast prospects.
Renée Weber: In your opinion can this process really work between the teacher and the student even if neither is perfect?
Krishnamurti: If it is possible to establish an authentic relationship in which there is an open and free dialogue is established, oriented towards self-criticism, on the awareness of what we are, a dialogue punctuated by questions, doubts, (self-) questioning , then we both learn to share our points of view, our difficulties. And in this way, if we really (would ?) want to get to the bottom of things, we help ourselves and help each other.
Renee Weber: Let's suppose - even if it does not necessarily reflect my feeling - suppose we say: "But there is a problem, because the student may feel that the teacher knows very little more than he does - and this can undermine his confidence. "
Krishnamurti: I would reply to the student: "Listen, I studied a little more than you. I have studied, for example, various Indian philosophies, Buddhists, I know a little more than you do about it. "
Renée Weber: Exactly. .
Krishnamurti: That does not mean I'm 'extraordinary'.
Renée Weber: So you feel that if the teacher, in all honesty ...
Krishnamurti: His function is to be honest.
Renée Weber: ... honestly explains his strong points and weak points: "I know more than you, but I do not know everything"
Krishnamurti: Suppose, for example, that the topic of discussion is Buddhism, or Aristotle, or Plato - say Plato. You studied the subject more than I did. I have not studied Plato at all, but you did . You say, "I know a little more than you do about this, of course, otherwise I would not be (hired as ?) your teacher. "
Renee Weber: Exactly, otherwise I would not teach, it would not be honest.
Krishnamurti: And I, who have not read Plato, neither Aristotle nor any of these philosophers, would say: "I am willing to study things in depth, not from a specific Buddhist, Platonic or Aristotelian or other point of view, but as a human being in the face of another human being. Let's talk about such questions as: what is life? What is the purpose of existence? Is there justice in this world? Why are we here? " And so on.
Renée Weber: I think that makes it much clearer, because in that case, adults who are both attentive and capable of self-criticism would feel able to teach. Whereas if one must be perfection incarnate, who could be a candidate?
Krishnamurti: But very few people are (willing or ?) able to question themselves, to be honest with themselves, to be aware of the nature of their thoughts , etc. I think we have to be fundamentally honest in all these things.
Renée Weber: How do you explain that some people are capable of doing this, and others do not? ( Inwardly ?) honest people are so rare, you say. Why ?
Krishnamurti: It's a fact (of life): some are serious, some not.
Renée Weber: What qualities do you have to be truly honest with yourself?
Krishnamurti: Not being afraid to discover what you (actually) are, to be able to say simply: this is what I am - I am a bunch of words, a lot of ideas borrowed from others, I am incapable of thinking for myself, I keep quoting others, I depend on the environmental pressures exerted on me, of this and that ... If one is not conscious of oneself, critical of oneself, one ends up being ...
Renée Weber: At least have enough lucidity and courage to say it.
Krishnamurti: I do not like the term "courage".
Renée Weber: Which term would you use?
Krishnamurti: Any really serious man, who really wants to explore this area, feels no fear (for his personal future ?) ; he will say, "Well, if I have to lose my job, I lose it and ( do something else ?) do not talk about it anymore.
Renee Weber: But even outside of any outside sanction, as in the case of work, do you not think that in general, one has the feeling or the fear, if one looks at the opposite, to see the situation worsen, including for oneself, rather than seeing it improve? That is what we fear.
Krishnamurti: There is a fear of (one's ?) increased uncertainty.
Renée Weber: That's it, and that's why ...
Krishnamurti: We have to face this uncertainty, rather than say, "Even greater uncertainty, even more serious problems are on the horizon, so better do nothing "- which in reality amounts to leading a 'meaningless' existence.
Renée Weber: You would probably say that it is a matter of escaping and hiding.
Krishnamurti: Yes, we hide partly.
Renée Weber: Some people might also have the argument - I've heard this before - that this "other thing" is going to disintegrate me and alter my mental health.
Krishnamurti: What you call mental health is perhaps madness. What is happening today in the world is pure madness. If you want to participate in all this madness, go there, take your place among the fools. But suppose you refuse to lose your reason, in which case you say, "Sorry, I refuse to follow this current".
Renée Weber: This raises a second question, which comes up again and again; It is related to the previous but more extensive. What disturbs people, including me, and leaves them perplexed, here as in India, is this state of which you speak, and which seems to be a certain state of integration, of mental equilibrium, whatever the term , You even use that of "light" -; And we are a number to say, "Yes, to have tasted it from time to time, I have a modest notion of this state.
Krishnamurti: Most people say that.
Renée Weber: Exactly. They also say that then this state seems to disappear, to run away, to dilute.
Krishnamurti: It's disappearing.
Renee Weber: You've always said that if this state were ever to disappear, it was because we never had the real experience, because it is not the kind of thing that can appear and then disappear. Could you clarify that? Because this question constantly plunges people into confusion, even into distress.
Krishnamurti: What's the problem? I experienced a great clarity of mind, or the feeling of a fullness, of a holistic existence. This experience may have lasted a day, or a week, but it faded. And I remember it, it left an (emotional ?) imprint, and I would like to find it back. I would like it to be part of my daily existence, or I would like to live it permanently, to make sure that it is always present by my side. The question, therefore, is this: is this state, that 'thing' which occurs so rarely in a man's life, came naturally, (in a leisurely moment) when you had no problems, and so on. - then it came (spontaneously) . And now it is gone, and you are back in your old state of mind, and you'd want it to come back. You want to know if it would not be possible to enjoy it's presence permanently.
Renée Weber: Yes, but in its presence, we feel better to get through, to find intelligent solutions to everything.
Krishnamurti: Yes, you have experienced a state of mind that was born spontaneously, without solicitation; It is when you did not think of yourself that it has arisen.
Renée Weber: Yes, suddenly, we feel 'whole'.
Krishnamurti: It is happening when you are not continually preoccupied with yourself. And then you say: "In that state, I saw everything with great clarity.
Renee Weber: Exactly.
Krishnamurti: No problem was unsolvable, nothing could resist you, hinder you, nothing. So what should I do ?
Renée Weber: Precisely.
Krishnamurti: In fact, the question is this: this state of mind - whatever name we call it - arose when the 'self' (consciousness ?) was absent - that is, when our ego, our personality, our problems, our chaos, our ambitions, greed, etc., were temporarily suspended. It was then that this state arose.
Renee Weber: You said the 'ego' was temporarily suspended. Does that mean he's just gone in the background , he's no longer in front of the stage? Or has it simply dissolved?
Krishnamurti: No, of course not. If it dissolved, the rest would not (continue) .
Renée Weber: That's right; So, in a way, this state was provoked ...
Krishnamurti: No, it has 'happened' . You go down an alley lined with a multitude of trees, and before so much beauty, you suddenly exclaim: "What a sight ! At that moment, the ego, with all its little problems, is no more.
Renée Weber: I see.
Krishnamurti: The "I" (the self-consciousness ?) , with all its pleasures, its joys, and all the rest. But when this state (of Grace ?) ceases, you are back to your old self. The question, then, is whether it is possible to free oneself from the ego and not to ask how it is necessary to regain that state of mind or to live it permanently or to retain it through a meditation system - a practices that only strengthen the (subliminal aspects of the ?) ego.
Renée Weber: All right. But may we return for a moment to that (exceptional) state of mind. In that state I was totally 'present' at ...
Krishnamurti: No, not 'you' - that's out of the question.
Renée Weber: What would you say, in that case?
Krishnamurti: I would say that this (extra-ordinary ?) state of mind has aroused such an (integrated ?) sensation that you could perceive everything very clearly.
Renée Weber: Yes.
Krishnamurti: All your 'problems' - everything was clearly perceived.
Renée Weber: Yes. The usual hindrances, the endless obstacles were no longer there to bar the way, the way was free. But this state, what causes it to be born, and what makes it disappear again?
Krishnamurti: What makes it occur? ( Theoretically ?) it is very simple: when the "I" is not, 'It' is there.
Renée Weber: But what is the 'trigger'? Why is there no more 'ego' suddenly?
Krishnamurti: Because you do not (continue to ?) worry about your problems; You look at these orange trees, you contemplate the beauty of these flowers. And for a second, 'you' (and 'your' problems ?) are no more.
Renée Weber: And the second after, you're back.
Krishnamurti: Then you say, " My God, if only I could recover this state!" Without realizing that it is precisely this demand (for its permanency) that ...
Renée Weber: ... is an obstacle.
Krishnamurti: Not only does it hinder this state, but it also strengthens the 'ego'.
Renée Weber: Because it is from 'me' that the demand comes.
Krishnamurti: Of course. We fall back on the old resistance. That is why I said that in this area you need a great deal of simple humility, honesty, rather than the (egotistic ?) arrogance of knowledge. The two things are incompatible
Renée Weber: But in your opinion, even if we only glimpse of 'this thing', is it useful or not?
Krishnamurti: We have to be very cautious here. What do you mean by 'this thing'? For it is not something 'mysterious', occult, which would be obtained with great efforts of false meditation or other practices of the same kind.
Renée Weber: That's not what I meant; 'this thing' ...
Krishnamurti: I would rather say: 'this state'.
Renee Weber: We can have a glimpse of this state, yes.
Krishnamurti: I say that this state is not something 'mysterious', and that it is by no means necessary to go through a multiplicity of processes.
Renée Weber: I understand, but you have to admit the rarity of this state.
Krishnamurti: But this is because human beings are concerned with themselves ( with their self-interest ?) in various ways.
Renée Weber: Yes, subtly or blatantly.
Krishnamurti: Yes, and the more subtle the way, the more difficult it is to detect it, but it always comes down to the same thing .
Renee Weber: Okay, let's just say that if we see this 'state of being' ...
Krishnamurti: It's not a 'state of being'.
Renée Weber: ... this mode of operation? How would you call it ?
Krishnamurti: A state in which the 'self' (consciousness ?) is absent. The 'ego' signifies time, the ego signifies (a survivalistic ?) evolution, the ego signifies all this (indiscriminate ?) accumulation of memories, problems, and all those terrible ('territorial' ?) things through which the ego manifests itself: power, social status, dependence on others. When all this (temporal consciousness ?) ceases, even for only a second, this "other thing" is ( or...is not ?) . This "other thing" is nothing (really ?) "extraordinary".
Renée Weber: It has nothing exotic or romantic ?
Renee Weber: Yes, but the question that keeps coming back, and it reappeared, remember, in India, Madras. All your friends assembled there asked, this question: why is this state, if it manifested itself, only "fluctuating" (coming and going) ? Why is it, for some (like you ?) , part of their everyday life even, while others only occasionally catch a glimpse of it, sporadically?
Krishnamurti: It is very "simple" (to explain verbally ?) . The (mind of the ?) one in whom this state 'remains' is devoid of 'selfishness'. But it seems that this 'state of mind' when the ego is rather disregarded (by the average self-centred mind?)
Renée Weber: What does that (state non-selfishness ?) mean?
Krishnamurti: Not being selfish - with all these complexities.
Renée Weber: You do not necessarily mean that you have to be 'altruistic'? That is not at all what you mean ?
Krishnamurti: Not to strive (inwardly) to become anything.
Renée Weber: All right. But "not being selfish", what does that mean? The (average) man in the street would say, "I'm me, I have to make my own decisions, I have to ..."
Krishnamurti: What does it mean to be "selfish"? This means being interested in oneself through different, more or less coarse, subtle or refined biases, concealing oneself under the generous mask of helping others, or behind the name of a guru. Blatant cases abound, there is nothing to look around.
Renée Weber: I understand. If you start with what you're describing ...
Krishnamurti: It's not a description, it's a reality.
Renée Weber: All right. If you were told: and those who are not 'intellectuals' or 'adepts of meditation', those who are simple people who think very little of themselves ...? But (then...) it does not apply to them either.
Krishnamurti: No, of course. In the first place, the 'faculty' of (self-centred ?) thought is common to all mankind, shared by all. It belongs both to leading scientists and to the poorest, least educated, least sophisticated human being - it is therefore the 'common ground' of all human beings.
Renée Weber: Yes....
Krishnamurti: It is the common ground of all human beings, so it is not my individual thought. Thought is common to us all - you, me, such or such. But we decreed it as 'my' thought.
Renée Weber: Do you feel that it is a collective process that is shared?
Krishnamurti: It is not "collective", but simply shared. I do not have to live it as collective or non-collective, it is so. The sun is shared by all human beings. It's not 'my' sun.
Renée Weber: The situation is analogous for the human thinking?
Krishnamurti: Of course.
Renee Weber: One could retort: "I am the only one who knows my thoughts, and I do not know your thoughts".
Krishnamurti: No, it is the faculty, the process of thought that is involved.
Renée Weber: But the process of thought and its (particular) result are two different things.
Krishnamurti: Obviously. The ( particular ) expression of (our self- centred ?) thought can vary, the scientist will express his in the most scientifically complex way, and the poor villager, the poor uneducated man, will say, "I want that (piece of bread ?) ". But thought is common to us all.
Renée Weber: As a function, yes.
Krishnamurti: And you can express it differently because you have read Plato, unlike me (who did not) . I shall therefore express it in simpler terms.
Renée Weber: But we had not finished talking about the role of selfishness in most people ...
Krishnamurti: So when I say it's 'my' thought and not 'yours', I know that the expression of thought is diverse - okay? You are a Platonist, not me, or you are a Buddhist, not me, and if you are a Christian, you express your thoughts by using a certain ...
Renée Weber: ... system of symbols.
Krishnamurti: ... to symbols, to a jargon, and so on. For you, the Saviour is important, for me it is not, I do not believe in any of this. Your (thinking) expression and mine therefore differ, and we believe that these different expressions confer an 'individuality'...
Renée Weber: I understand.
Krishnamurti: But it does not. Thought is common to all, it belongs neither to 'you' nor to 'me'.
Renee Weber: According to you, then, the essential thing is the activity of thought, which is shared, and not in the (personalised ?) results or the content of thought.
Krishnamurti: That's right.
Renée Weber: While we are focussed on the result and the content.
Krishnamurti: I paint, I'm an artist. My status as an 'artist' makes me feel superior to others, better than others, and so on. I never realize that my (self-centred ?) thinking is the same as yours, because my way of expressing it - on the canvas - is different from yours. It makes me 'feel different'. You do not know how to paint, but I know.
Renée Weber: I see.
Krishnamurti: But you also may believe in something else.
Renee Weber: Let us suppose - this is only an example, that I think that those who believe in something are credulous and stupid, and that my superiority is in believing in nothing.
Krishnamurti: As soon as you identify with your 'superiority', the 'you' enters the scene (and...stays ?) .
Renée Weber: Well, let's say, I'm a modern person , I do not believe in anything.
Krishnamurti: The moment you 'identify' (yourself) with that (image) , it's the same thing. So this 'selfishness' is so extraordinarily skilful in its own way, it can conceal itself behind the most brutal things as well as under the most subtle forms of expression, constantly refining the ego, making it more and more (sophisticately ?) egocentric .
Renée Weber: The most egocentric of all being the 'disinterested' ego. For he is (totally ) deceiving himself.
Krishnamurti: That's right. That is why I said that one needed a deep sense of (inner) humility and honesty, and not to 'double talk' on any subject whatsoever. When one truly wants to live in this way, one leads a scrupulously honest existence, and if one is so honest one is 'naturally aware' while remaining humble. Then ( thinking in terms of 'spiritual ?) evolution' becomes superfluous.
Renée Weber: What is the relationship between self-confidence, or lack of it, and that absolute honesty with respect to oneself?
Krishnamurti: Why should we have 'self-confidence' ?
Renee Weber: Let's say rather: 'having trust in on's own lucidity of conscience'.
Krishnamurti: Why is this 'trust' necessary?
Renée Weber: Can I give you an obvious answer? I believe that those who are not overly egocentric, they are always in uncertainty, in a constantly worry.
Krishnamurti: Most (egocentric ?) people are 'neurotic'.
Renée Weber: I am of your opinion, it is ( a condition) very widespread.
Krishnamurti: We must understand very clear about what 'disinterestedness' or 'openness' means for us. These words can not be used lightly. We have more or less defined what the nature of the 'ego' is. It creates (its ) 'gods' and venerates its 'gods'. This is yet another form of egocentrism.
Renée Weber: But would you say the same thing about everything man creates: would art then be a form of egocentrism?
Krishnamurti: As soon as I identify (myself) with the form of expression that I have created which I describe as marvelous, or from which I profit, etc., it is a movement of the ego.
Let us therefore live (for a change ?) without identifying ourselves with anything - neither with our experiences, nor with our knowledge, nor with our creations, that their expression passes through the intermediary of the hand or the mind. This is why this "other thing" is so rarely encountered.
Renée Weber: Do you think it's within anyone's reach?
Krishnamurti: I hope so.
Renée Weber: In my opinion, this is undoubtedly a very difficult thing to understand for the majority of people.
Krishnamurti: Because they do not put it into practice.
Renée Weber: Some would like to. But...why don't they do it?
Krishnamurti: No, they do not really want to, they (would rather ?) do what they like. If we really "want to do" something, we (can ?) do it.
Renée Weber: It's a difficult process to follow. In fact, most of those who are seriously interested in these issue
Krishnamurti: But they do not 'really' want to.
Renée Weber: ... yet they spend long years trying .
Krishnamurti: No, you can't 'try' this. It is like a (violent) man trying to be 'non-violent'
RW: But you were saying that they "don't want to"..
K: Of course; they wanted to go to the Moon and they did it. That also requires a great deal of energy, coordination, cooperation, efficiency. Now, if you (would ?) apply all that to yourself and say "Look, I really want this thing- to live a life without any conflict...of course you can 'do it' (for starters on an instant by instant basis ?) .
RW: You see, it sounds "sooooo simple" and people have heard you say that and they have (honestly) 'tried' and...it doesn't happen !
K: You can't 'try' it ! You don't try to put your hand in the fire !
RW: Is it really so similar ?
K: It is ( once you see the danger of 'fire' ?) You realise that this 'selfish' and complex way of living creates problem after problem. When I realise that this 'egotistic) way of living is meaningless and that it's basis is a deep unexplored selfishness and say: Do I really want to live that way ? ( Most people do want to live that way because it is easiest way to 'run with the (winner's ?) pack' )
RW: All right, suppose you are at that point, what is your next step ?
K: Then I may be a Professor , or ...a cook, anything I'll carry on ...
RW: But what has changed ?
K: What has changed is my whole way of looking at life.
RW: You're saying that there's not necessarily a change from an external point of view, but it is how I relate myself to everything, there is a (qualitative ?) change in how I view the world. So, what do I do next ?
K: It is not what you 'do' next. It is 'what you don't need to do'
RW: All right, what we don't need to do ?
K: What you don't need to do is not to make an 'effort'. ( Making a psychological ?) effort means (giving continuity to the egotistic ?) achievement. I am out of that current of (self-interest ?)
RW: So, what other stuff can I let go ?
K: Attachment - and that implies a tremendous lot -the implications of it.
RW: And they tie up the (inner) energy.
K : Yes, for instance I may get attached to (my) knowledge...
RW: Are you saying that attachment takes the ( inner energy) and constricts it ?
K: No, but that 'attachment' is a (subliminal) form of selfishess .
RW: I put a part of 'me' there ?
K : Not just a part. That 'is' me. Being attached to my family, to my knowledge, my experience , all these are expressions of 'me'
RW: You are really saying that 'I' am (my self consciousness is ? built up of all these things . That this is how the (temporal ?) 'me' comes into being ?
K: Of course, attachment is (creating the ?) 'me'
RW: Yes, so 'attachment' is the first thing to let go.
K: Of course, if ou are un-attached there is freedom, there is no fear...
RW: You make it sound so simple and logical and even so 'simple', yet we agree that it is not easy. So, why is it (experientially) so...difficult ?
K: I wouldn't call it 'easy'. It is complex...
RW: Why it is so difficult to live that way ?
K : With (all due) respect you are putting the question wrongly...
RW: So, you are turning the quastion around: you are saying that 'this' is the difficult way to live ?
K: This is the most 'impractical' way . So, why do people want to live this way ?
RW: Yes, we got used to it, so it seems easier...
K: And living that way you don't have to 'think' (about the deeper meaning of existence) . ( On the other hand ?) our minds are so complicated, so 'clever', so cunning...
RW: But still, the 'other' way is it so simple ?
K: No, it's not
RW: So you are basically saying that (the letting go the 'self'-attachments and self -identifying ?) is so...'simple' that we are missing it ?
K: Of course, that's the beginning of ('doing ?) it' !
RW: So that takes years of overcoming our past conditioning ?
RW: How can that process be 'simple' ?
K: Conditioning 'is' the (temporal ?) movement of thought. So to be aware of this 'movement' , not to say 'how am I to step out of it ?'
RW: Krishnaji, I would ask you something (point blank). It is a question that comes up often and I ask it with real sincere respect: " Why is it so clear to (this) one person and however hard he tries to explain it and clarify it to others , the others...can't 'do it' ? Are you really saying that it can be done by everybody ?
K: I say: If one can do it, eveybody can (eventually ?) do it .
RW: But that's exactly what is being 'questioned' . If that were so (elementary ?) , woudn't everybody 'do it ' ?
K : Please listen: first of all we are so heavily conditioned . Now, if (on top of this ?) I am also ambitious to become the 'Principal' or become the President of that contry, do you think that I will give that (bird in hand ?) for something that sounds...
RW: ...so vague ?
K: Not 'vague' but very clearly (and uncompromising ) '?. So I prefer to be the 'Principal' or the 'President' (of...whatever I can get ?) .
RW: On the other hand, that will give me a (solid ?) guarantee 'happiness' ?
K: Because here...there's no 'guarantee'.
RW: OK, so I have to let go all that and...'jump into the Unknown'...
K: Ah, no, ( just to see ) that ( the other option?) is 'false'! Therefore, 'Leave it!'
RW: But...with no guarantee.
K Of course !
RW: I agree, that's the wrong model and people are afraid they'll "fall between the cracks " and have nothing... So, you have answered the question really: If people were completely serious about it, they could do it too.
K: It is so 'simple' . It is like a man who says " Look, you don't know how to swim. I'll help you to lean to swim but...If you won't enter the water, if you are (subliminally ?) frightened already, you won't move "
RW: You're saying that it is so "simple"... but even the simple farmer who has not cluttered up his intellect with ideals and concepts ...cannot do it either .
K : Of course that he is 'dull' - the opposite of the other ( smarter guys ?)
RW: A good mind which is not cluttered with concepts.
K:( Not to mention that ?) As long as I am comparing myself (with the clever people ?) I am caught in that (self-made ?) trap. Personally I've never compared (myself ?) If there is no feeling of ( self-centred ) comparison. That's a different way of living!
RW: That's very interesting. Thank you very much.
This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 15 Apr 2017.
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 15 Apr 2017||#71|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
A K DIALOGUE ON :
SELF-KNOWLEDGE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE K TEACHING'( text 'experientially -friendly' edited )
P: What is the relationship between your 'teaching' and the actual
K: What is the relationship between (K's ) words and
P: When K talks about the holistic approach, that is the words. Then there is the actual process of self-knowing ( taking place in ourselves) and what is revealed in this self-knowing. What is the relationship of K's words ( insights ?) to our own self-knowing?
K: I don't quite catch this.
P: For instance, you say there is 'no psychological or spiritual
K: I understand. ( The statement ) 'No authority' - is it (accepted as ?) an idea and then one pursues that idea? Is it 'self'-revealing, or is it merely a (convenient ?) conclusion, a slogan?
A: There is also another side: does it become a 'commandment' to which one tries the nearest (experiential) approximation?
K: Yes, that's right.
P: That which is revealed (inardly) in the process of self-knowing is not knowable through the words (of another) . One hears you
K: Neither in the words nor in the self-revealing. It is completely
P: Can we discuss that?
K: I listen to K and he says that without knowing oneself
P: Now, are the words of K necessary to self-discovery?
K: Suppose I come to a (K) talk or read a book because I am interested in self-knowing and I pursue that. And when I hear K talking about 'no authority', what is the state of my mind when I hear those words? Is it one of accepting it (as a good idea) or (the truth of it ) is it seen as a fact?
P: How does it become a 'fact'? Does it become a fact through
K: This microphone is an (objective) fact. It is not because I say it is the microphone.
P: But when you say ' no spiritual authority' it is not a (perceivable) 'fact' in the same sense as this microphone.
D: One talks either through the mental process or one talks
K: Why do you say that?
D: It is a difficult question, but the source of his words lies much deeper than the words we commnly use.
K: I understand, sir. I can say superficially, 'I love you', or I
D: I will go a little further. They really convey a deep feeling which is indefinable, which we may call 'love' - but I do not know the exact word for it.
K: You may not know the word, yet I may hold your hand, I may make a gesture. Is that what you are trying to convey, Pupul?
P: One of our (experiential) difficulties, in understanding ourselves and going beyond, is that one takes your words, either the spoken words or the written words, and they become an abstraction to which one approximates.
K: What am I to say to that?
P: Sir, I think first of all we should investigate (the nature of this ) self-knowing. We have not done it for a very long time.
K: Let us do that. 'Self-knowing' was being spoken about,
Now, let's proceed (with a simple example) I observe myself being jealous. The instinctual response to jealousy is 'rationalization' (to tackle it rationally ?) . In the process of 'rationalization' I have forgotten, or put aside, jealousy. So 'I' ( the controller ?) am caught in rationalization, in words, in the capacity to examine and then to suppress. Then arises the desire to run away from it. I examine that desire to escape (from the resulting inner conflict ?) . It is an escape into what?
P: Into... 'meditation' ?
K: Of course, that is the easier trick . So, I say, is that (an authentic ?) meditation? It is not meditation, if it is an escape. So, (eventually ?) I go back and examine my jealousy: why am I jealous? because I am attached, because I think I am important and so on. This whole process is ( or... could be a self-?) revelation. Then I come to the ( non-duality "check- ?) point": Is the 'observer' (entity) ,
P: You said, 'Obviously he is not'. Could you go into that ?
K: The 'observer' is the ( all controlling memory of the ?) past; the remembrance, the experience, the knowledge stored up in memory. The past is the 'observer' , the "I" which observes the present (reaction) which is my jealousy. And I use the word 'jealousy' for that feeling because I recognize it as having happened in the past. It is a remembrance of jealousy through the word (naming ?) which is part of the past. So, can one observe (a) without the word and (b) without the observer which is the past? Does the word (jealousy?) bring that feeling or is there feeling without the word? All this is part of self-knowledge.
P: How does one observe without the word?
K: Without the observer, without a remembrance. That is very
P: How does one actually tackle the problem of the 'observer'?
A: May I say that in the watching of the 'observer', there is also
K: That is his conditioning. That is the whole
A: That condemnation is the barrier (to self-knowing) .
K: That is what Pupul is asking. She says: How do I observe the
Par: In asking such a question, another 'observer' is created.
K: No, the question is, what is the 'observer'? - who is the 'observer'?
P: Does one observe the 'observer'?
K: I am coming to that: you dou do not observe the 'observer'. You only observe 'what is' and the (controlling ?) interference of the observer.
( To reap:) At the moment of (the actual jealousy ) feeling there is neither the observer nor the observed, there is only that state. Then the
FW: At the moment when the observer exists, is there a
K: At the moment of ( a spontaneous reaction of ?) violence there is nothing. There is neither 'you'- the
P: So, therefore, the observer manifests itself only in terms of escaping from the present.
K: Escapes, or rationalizations.
D: Or interference.
K: Any form of (controlling) interference with the present is the action of the 'observer'. (Don't accept this. Tear it to pieces, find out !)
Your experiences, your inclinations and motives, all that is the (controlling activity ?) of the past, which is ( reducing everything in terms of your previous ?) knowledge. So whenever the past interferes with the present; the 'observer' comes into operation. If there is no such interference (in the process of self-knowing ?) there is no observer, there is only (pure) observation without the word, without the recollection and association of the past. There is nothing, only observation.
FW: In that way is the observation of the 'observer' possible?
K: When you see that, when you have an insight into that, then there is no observer, there is only observation. So can I observe the (acceptance of any 'spiritual' ) authority, which is in the demand from another for
P: What is more important? Is it the observation of every movement
S: Can I put it this way? For instance, the observation of a (psychological) hurt is something which I can do as part of self-knowing. But where do I create authority? When Krishnaji says:
K: I observe the (psychological) hurt and all the consequences of the hurt, how that hurt has come into being and so on. and in my mind I hear K saying, once you see that in its entirety, holistically, then it is over, you will never be (or feel ?) hurt. He has said that.
S: It is there in my consciousness.
K: What is in your consciousness? The words?
S: Apart from the words, the state (of not being hurt ?) which he communicated when he uttered that, because when K is talking, he seems to indicate a 'state' beyond the words.
K: Sunanda, look: I know I am hurt. By listening to
S: Obviously the fact is there, you have come into my life and I
K: Then the question arises; K says once you see it fully,
S: Authority is there because it affirms a state which I would
K: Then examine that state which is (spiritual ?) ambition, which is ( a form of ?) desire. ( To recap:) I am hurt. I am aware of the image
S: Up to a point there is a movement with you. So long as I am moving with you, there is a ( 'learning') relationship.
K: The moment I break that (learning ?) relationship, then begins my
S: This has not happened...
K: I will tell you why. Because you have not 'listened'.
S: You mean to say that I have not listened for twenty years?
K: It doesn't matter. One day is good enough. You have not
R: Or no (personal ?) expectations ?
K: Nothing, just "listening". (If so) it is like two rivers
K: Of course.
P: In a moment of ( a major personal ?) crisis there is an intensity of energy and to remain with it totally, the only action is the refusal to move away from it. Or, if sorrow arises and it fills you; what is the action that will enable it to flower without dissipation?
K: Are you filled with that energy which is called 'sorrow'
R: I think there is always a (dualistic) loophole because there is a (subliminal) fear of anything filling one's whole being. I think that fear is there.
K: So, sorrow has not filled your being. That is a fact. So you (have to) pursue not sorrow but fear. The fear of what might happen, etc. So you go into that, you forget about sorrow and go into that.
D: The use of the word 'holistic' implies actuality. Actuality
K: Sir, the meaning of the word 'holistic' means healthy, physically healthy. Then it means sanity, mentally and physically and from that arises "holy". When you have very good health and when the brain
S: This is where our (experiential) dilemma comes in. You said: pursue the fragment. But unless one sees the fragment holistically...
K: Do not bother about (seeing it) 'holistically'.
S: Then, how does one observe the fragment? Then, what is the
K: I am doing it (by starting from ?) "I do not know". The fact is that I work, live, act in fragments, in myself and I know
FW: This brings us to the initial question: What is the meaning
K: No, all I know is the fact that I am hurt - because I have a (self-protecting) image about myself. Have I discovered that
S: One knows that the image exists.
K: All right. If the image exists, I am concerned with (understanding) the image -making mechanism , not how to get rid of the image, not how to look at the image 'holistically'. I know nothing about it.
S: That is very clear. But how does one 'hold the hurt totally'? Isn't that your own statement ?
K: Of course. But throw it out.
S: Then there is no problem because one observes certain
A: The discussion started on the very crucial question of ( subliminally accepting the teachings' ?) authority. The point is that if we make an (guiding) 'authority' of what you have said (during all those years ?) , then that is becoming barrier.
K: Obviously. There is something very interesting which comes
P: Since you have just used this word 'insight'. What is the actual meaning of that word?
K: To have insight into something is to grasp the (truth about that ?) thing instantly; (which implies ?) to listen carefully. You see, you do not (really ?) 'listen', that is my point. In your learning there is an accumulation of information, knowledge and then you act according to that knowledge, skilfully or...less skilfully. So your accumulated knowledge becomes the (conditioning) 'authority' and you will never ascend anywhere through that process; it is mechanical. If you see that, that is (a total) insight. Therefore, you are acting not from knowledge; but by seeing the (time-bining ?) implications of knowledge and authority. Your ( inner & outer ?) action is totally different.
So ( to wrap it up ?) where are we? Self-knowledge and the word of K. If there is a 'movement together' (in 'listening' ?) , then it is very simple. You 'move'.
P: But aren't both the words of K and the movement with these words essential? Can the revelation be without the word?
K: All right. When K says: 'Be a light to yourself ", it does not mean
S: Would you say that in a single ( self-centred ?) thought is the essence of the self?
K: I will say 'yes'. You see, ( the egocentric ?) thought is fear, thought is
( To recap:) It is most interesting to 'know yourself' because (in) yourself may be (enfolded) the global ( Intelligence of the ?) Universe. I also want to know myself because I see very clearly that if I do not really know myself, whatever I say is corrupt, my action is corrupt action and I do not want to live a corrupt life.
( In a nutshell:) To "be a light to oneself" means being holistic. Anything that is not holistic is corruption. A holistic mind will not deal with corruption.
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 17 Apr 2017||#72|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
'HOW DEEP CAN ONE TRAVEL (INWARDLY) ?'
( a reader-friendly edited K dialogue with Pupul Jayakar)
P: Is there in the human mind, in the human brain, a 'within of things? Are there vast, immeasurable spaces that lie in the 'within' of nature?
K: Are you asking whether within the human brain—I would like to use ‘mind’ as separate from ‘brain’—whether there is or there can be a space without end, a movement that is not of time, a movement that is eternal?
P: How do you proceed into this? You started by drawing a distinction between the brain and mind. Would you elaborate?
K: The brain is conditioned. That conditioning is brought about by knowledge, memory, experience. So to discover something new there has to be a (silent interval) even temporarily, when thought is not in movement, when it is in abeyance.
P: The brain is a material thing, it has its own (natural ) activity.
K: Yes, the activity of the 'brain' - of that part of the brain being commonly used- is conditioned by ( the time-binding process of ) thought - which is always limited and conditioned to (accept life as ? conflict. 'Mind' is a totally different dimension ( of our consciousness ?) that has no contact with (this ego-centric ?) thought.
P: So, you are postulating a state (of intelligent consciousness ?) outside the realm of thought?
K: That’s it. That is outside the realm of (matter and ) time
P: As time and thought seem to be the essential core of this problem, perhaps if we could go into the flow of time, we could discover at what instant an ‘interception’ of this movement from the past.
K: The memories of our past (moving through the ) present into the future is a movement of "time & thought". How does one have contact with the fact that "I" am a whole series of memories, which is time—thought?”
K: It is an actuality.
P: Out of that is born a certain 'nostalgia' of leaving you, which is emotional, psychological, which covers up the (objective) fact. What has to be contacted, surely, is not the fact that I am going away, but the pain of my leaving.
K: Is this (psychological) pain separate from 'you' who feel it?
P: It may not be separate. But how do I intercept it? This '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 fact that the 'present' is the whole movement of time and thought. Can one see the truth of that? Can one have insight, perception into the fact, that the "now" is all time and thought?
P: Does that perception emanate from the brain?
K: This perception is an insight that has nothing to do with time and thought.
P: Does it arise within the brain?
K: Is it (arising) within the sphere of the brain, or is there an insight that comes when there is freedom from conditioning? This "insight", this (action of the ?) mind, is supreme intelligence.
P: I don’t follow.
K: The brain is conditioned by (its routine pattens of ?) time and thought. So long as conditioning exists, ( a total ?) insight is not possible. You may have an occasional insight, but this total insight we speak about is the comprehension of totality, a perception of completeness. Right? This insight is not bound by "time & thought" (by the spatio-temporal thinking ?) . That insight is part of that brain which is (open to ?) a different dimension.
P: Without (an inwardly perceprive ?) 'sight' there obviously cannot be any 'insight'. The literal meaning of the word ‘insight’ is the "seeing into".
K: "Seeing" (in the sense of) comprehending the totality, the vastness of something. Such "insight" is possible only with the cessation of "thought and time" ( of the self-centred thinking creating its own continuity in time ?) . ( The controlling activities of ?) "Thought and time" are limited. Therefore in such limitation there cannot be (any major) "insight".
P: Which comes first? I cannot start with 'insight'. I can only start with observation.
K: You can only start by 'seeing' that the 'psychological' ( thinking in terms of ?) time is always limited, and so whatever it does will be limited. The (ego-centric) process of 'time and thought' have brought havoc in the world. You can see that. The question is,: Can that (ego-centric ?) limitation ever end? Or is man to live forever in that condition?
P: What takes place inwardly when you hear an (absolute ?) statement like this: that "time & thought" are limited? ( If one would take it personally) it is like telling me, "Pupul is ( inwardly just ?) a bundle (of memories ?) consisting of the personal & collective ) past, of time and thought.”
K: The self-consciousness is part of the 'psyche', and whatever it does is limited (to the 'spatio-temporal' dimension of reality ?) .
P: And what exactly is wrong with that?
K: Nothing - if you want to live in ( an inner state of ?) perpetual conflict .
P: Then, what is the nature of ending (the psychological time ) you speak about?
K: What is 'ending'?
P: To see that the (thought & time) flow ceases to flow ?
K: Yes, to see that "time & thought" ceases "psychologically"
P: There is a 'point of perception' - in what (dimension of ?) "time-space" do I see it?
K: Look, Pupul, let us be "simple". In the outer world (the ego-centric process of ) "time & thought" has divided the world. Can’t you see the simple fact of that?
P: No, Sir. I don’t see the (inwardness of this ?) fact. If I would see it I would stop "time and thought". If it is such a 'simple' thing—but it is not. It has such devious ways (to create its own continuity in time ?) .
K: Can't you have an insight that the (ego-centric) movement of 'thought and time', at whatever level, in whatever area, is a realm of endless conflict?
P: You can see it clearly in the world (out-there) .
K: If you do see it happening outwardly, then you can also see it inwardly that the ( inner activity of your ?) psyche is (geared to ?) time and thought. In fact, the (inner component of this ?) divisive movement has created the outer divisive facts. ( Eg: ) the (identitary inner) feeling that "I am a Hindu", that I feel secure in belonging to something (greater) this is the factor of division and conflict.
P: All this ( process of time-binding identification) can end. One can see it as a movement of time & thought, but within it all, there is still a sense of ‘I exist.’ That is essentially the problem. Why don’t I see it?
K: Because we have (traditionally) thought of the "psyche" (of the 'Self') as other than the conditioned state. I have thought that deeper down there is something in my (mind or) brain, which is "timeless", and that if I could reach "that" everything would be solved. That is part of my cultural conditioning: I feel that God, the Highest Principle, will protect me.
P: ( If this is true , then ?) what is the nature of the Ground from which a total "insight" springs?
K: (Such an) Insight can only take place when there is freedom from (the psychological process of ?) "time and thought"
P: Then...this looks like an unending process (or...being put on a loop ?) .
K: No, it is not. To (inwardly) 'live in peace' is to flower, to understand the extraordinary world of Peace. ( And such inner ?) Peace cannot be brought about by ( the constant 'movement forward' of ego-centric ?) thought.
P: Is it the (totality of the ) brain that listens to what you say?
K: Yes. Then watch what happens.
P: It is quiet. It is not rattling, it is quiet.
K: So, when it is "quiet and listens", then there is insight. I don’t have to explain in ten different ways the limitations of thought.
P: Is there anything further?
K: Oh, yes, there is. The present is the (timeless ?) ‘now.’ In that the whole movement of time-thought, the whole structure of time-thought ends. The ‘now’ then has a totally different meaning.
P: When you say this (sense of inner emptiness or ?) "no-thingness" contains everything, does it mean the whole racial environmental—nature—cosmos?
K; Yes, yes. Do you see the fact that (deep down ?) there is nothing? The 'self'- consciousness is a bundle of memories; memories that are ( constantly refreshed but technically ?) 'dead'. They function, but they arise from (the memory of ) a past that is over. If one has an insight into that ('time' creating process ?) it ends. Then I see that in the ‘now’ there is ‘no-thing.’
P: So, it is possible to 'listen' only when the mind itself is totally still...
K: We won’t speak of the "mind", but when the brain is absolutely quiet, therefore there is no (mental reverberations ?) sound made by the words. This is real listening. The words only (inform ) you of what I want to convey. It is very interesting to enquire into sound. Pure sound can only exist when there is inner space and silence. Otherwise it is just 'noise'.
Can we come back to our initial question? All our education, knowledge, is a movement in ( personal and collective ?) becoming, psychologically as well as outwardly. So long as that movement exists (inwardly) , there is fear of ('not becoming' anything or ?) being 'as nothing'. But when one sees the illusion of becoming, that (self-) becoming is an endless ( karmic chain of ) time, thought, and conflict, there is an (inner opportunity of inwardly) "ending" that. An ending of the movement of the psyche which is time-thought. The ending of that is to "be nothing".
(But we are genetically & culturally ?) conditioned to be frightened of "being nothing". Do I see that ( psychologically speaking ?) I am nothing but a "walking illusion", nothing but "dead" memories? So can I be free of this (self-recycling process of ) memory as "time-thought" and see the fact that as long as there is this movement of (self-centred) becoming, there must be an endless (self-destructive accumulation of) conflict, pain?
( Back to our "real" ?) life, when "I" suffer or there is ( a dark cloud of ?) fear, it is the only thing "I" know. But I don’t see that they are all petty little things. So, if you could put it into your own words, what is your response. What is the perfume of all this?
P: Anything I say would sound totally inadequate. Because as you were speaking, there was immensity...
K: Yes. I could feel the tension of that. But...is it temporary? Is it for a moment, then gone?
P: No. One has moved away from that, but the one thing one realizes is that the most difficult thing in the world is to be totally simple.
K: Yes. If one were really simple (inwardly) , from that one could understand the whole complexity of life. But we have trained our brains to see the (ever increasing) complexity, and try to find an (optimising) answer to the complexity. But we don’t see the extraordinary 'simplicity' of inner facts.
P: But after all, in the Indian tradition the Buddha also said man must deny the whole thing.
K: Why have they not pursued that? Not by denying the ( real ?) world, but by the total negation of the ‘me.’
P: The true 'renunciation' is the negation of the ‘me' ; basically, renunciation is never in the outer.
K: Renunciation is in the within. But I think we are caught in a net of (nice sounding ?) words, we do not live in 'actualities'. I suffer, and the way to end that is not to escape into illusion. Why have human beings not faced this (inner) fact and changed the fact? Is it because we are ( safely indulging in ?) ideas, ideals—unrealities? ( Inwardly) We are the "living 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.’
P: This is really what you mean by "the ending of time", isn’t it?
K: Yes. The ending of "time-thought", that is, to listen without sound. To listen to the Universe without sound.
A doctor in New York said the fundamental issue is whether the brain cells, which have been conditioned for centuries, could bring about a mutation? I said it is possible only through 'listening'. But no one is willing to listen in its entirety. If man really said, ‘I must live peacefully,’ then ( for him ?) there is (an instant ?) peace in the world. But he doesn’t ( really ?) want to live in peace. He is ( enjoying the wordly rewards of being ?) ambitious, arrogant, petty. So we have reduced the vastness of all this to some petty reactions. Do you realize that, Pupul? We have such petty lives—from the highest to lowest...
( In a nutshell ?) You tell me 'time and thought' (the 'ego-centric' process of becoming ?) are the whole inner movement of man’s life. You have communicated a simple 'fact'. Can I listen to it without the sound of the words? Then I have captured the depths of that statement, and I can’t lose it. I have listened to it in its entirety. It has conveyed the fact that "it is so" and what is so, is absolute(ly true) always.
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 19 Apr 2017||#73|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
A K DIALOGUE ON ( DEALING INTELLIGENTLY WITH)
THE FACTORS OF INNER DETERIORATION ('experientially friendly' edited )
P: Could we discuss the problems of (our inner) deterioration? Why is it that the mechanism of the brain has an inbuilt tendency to deteriorate with age, an ebbing away of energy? At the end of life, there is the death of the body and the death of the brain. If, as you often said, the brain cells contain ( the temporal ?) consciousness, then, is it not inevitable that the cells of the human the brain, will also deteriorate?
K: Is it a deterioration of ( our total ) energy or a deterioration of the brain cells in their capacity to produce energy? Let us first put the question clearly.
B: When we say that the brain deteriorates, the assumption is
K: The question is: Why does the brain not keep its quality of
S: Is it that we are born with a certain ( aging ?) conditioning? Is that the
K: Is it a matter of (genetically programmed ?) conditioning and the 'breaking through' of that conditioning which frees energy and therefore enables the mind to go on indefinitely; or has the deterioration to do with a mind that functions in 'decisions'?
S: What do you mean by 'functioning in decisions'?
K: A mind that operates through ( personal ?) choice and will. When one's decisions are not based on (inner) clarity, not on the observation of the total field (of existence) , but according to (the personal) satisfaction and enjoyment, which are fragments of that field. And one continues to live in that fragmentation. That is one of the factors of deterioration. (Eg:) My choice to become a (highly paid ?) 'scientist' may be based on the family influence, or my own desire to achieve success in a certain direction. These many considerations being about the choice of a particular profession, and that choice and the actions resulting from that choice, is one of the factors of ( inner) deterioration. The brain cells do not function totally but only in one direction.
P: Let us explore that. The brain cells themselves have an
K: We are trying to find out what are the factors of
P: One can think of twenty factors - like conflict, for instance.
K: Let us not take too many. A pursuit which has the motive of self- fulfilment or the desire to achieve, that action must create conflict. So, conflict is perhaps the major factor of deterioration. ( Eg:) If I decide to be a bachelor because I think that to attain God, Truth, Enlightenment, I must remain celibate. That decision obviously brings about a conflict in
P: And yet they are the two instruments of action we have.
K: That's right. All our life is based on these two factors: ( personal) choice and the ( calculated ?) action of will in the pursuit of satisfaction.
Now, if you see that, then the question is, Is there an
P: But how about the other factors - like our inherited (conditioning) ?
K: If I have inherited a dull, stupid mind, I can go to various temples and churches but my brain cells themselves have been affected.
P: Then there are the shocks...the action of life itself.
K: Why should life itself produce a shock?
P: It happens (even to the best of us ?)
K: Are you using the word 'shock' psychologically or physically?
P: It is a physical shock, it is neurological shock, the coming
K: All right. Let us take "shock" - the physical, psychological, emotional
S: No, but the way we respond to the shock is.
K: My brother is dead. It is a tremendous shock because we have lived together, played together. The shock of it does paralyse the mind for the time being. How the mind comes out of it is the important factor. Does it come out with a wound , or does it come out without a single hurt?
S: I may not know it consciously - I may say verbally that I have worked it out. But how do I know that there is not a trace of hurt?
D: Could it be that in the case of such a shock there is an ending of the ( safe continuity ?) patterns of my mind and the very seeing of that is the ending of it?
K: That is all implied. Now, I am asking whether that shock has left a (psychological ?) mark or hurt, or not. If it has not , then the mind comes out of it totally refreshed, totally new.
P: If it is hurt deeply, profoundly, does it mean that there is no
K: We are going to go into that, Pupulji. The shock is (authentic) because I have suddenly been 'thrown out on the street', metaphorically
P: The depths of the unconscious are ( eventually ) 'thrown up'.
K: What is being thrown up?
P: Pain ?
K: Pain, of which you have not been aware and the (latest ?) shock reveals the ( memory of that forgotten ?) pain. Now, was the cause of pain there?
P: The cause of pain was there. The shock comes and makes me aware of that pain.
K: ( The memory of that ?) is one of the factors. My brother is dead,
Now, can't I look at that 'loneliness' before the shock comes,? Can I,
M: What makes you prepare yourself?
K: I don't 'prepare' (for that) . I watch life. I watch what are the
P: Sir, all these (obvious ) things one has done (for homework) . One has observed, one has gone into the problems of attachment. But a major shock seems to touch the depths of my being which I have
K: If you have (really) went through loneliness, attachment, fear, then what takes place? When shock comes, the shock of ( someone's ) death, what takes place? Are you getting hurt?
P: That's what I would like to enlarge upon. It seems to bring
K: Which means what? You have not resolved the pain of ( your self-isolating) loneliness. I am taking that as an example.
P: Is it a matter of "resolving" the pain of attachment or is it a complete comprehension of whatever "is", an awakening to the total process of pain?
K: We will use the ( generic term) 'suffering' to cover the inner sense loneliness, attachment, dependence, conflict. We (will also include in it ) the hidden and the observable totality of human suffering - the pain of a villager, the pain and sorrow of a woman who has lost her husband, the sorrow of the man living always in poverty; and also the ( aggressive & arrogant ?) pain of a man who is ambitious, frustrated - all that is "suffering" - and the shock brings up (exposes ?) all that pain, not only yours, to the surface.
Then, what takes place? I don't know how to deal with (the inner darkness of ?) it. I cry, I pray, I do everything, trying to get out
P: Because the deeper roots of pain have never been (exposed and ?) revealed ?
K: Seeing that beggar on the road, or the villager endlessly working in sorrow, why has that not touched the human mind? Why should ( only a personal ?) shock touch it?
P: Is there a 'why'?
K: Why doesn't the seeing of that beggar move me and the whole of society? Why do I cry only when my ( own brother or ?) son dies?
B: Our ( deeper ?) mind is ( safely ?) asleep (in its daily routines ?). The shock wakes it up.
K: That's it. The shock wakes it up and we are awakened to
P: No, sir, when you make a statement like that, I am awakened
K: Now, what do you 'do' with this pain? What takes place?
P: I am in a position of "stand still"...
K: You 'are' (not separated from ?) that pain. It is "your baby" ; I am
B: Is there not a transformation of this pain into "wakefulness"?
K: That is what I want to find out.
B: When there is an unintelligent operation of the brain,
K: What shall I do with it?
M: The (compassionate) understanding by which the beggar's pain and another's pain becomes your own pain is unavailable to us. Not everybody can see the beggar's pain as his own pain.
K: I am not concerned whether everybody sees it or not. Many people do not see (such) things. You heard that beggar singing last night. It was a terrible thing. The fact is there - the pain, the suffering. What will you do? (...)
( A brief recap:) You asked what are the factors of deterioration of the brain cells and the mind. We said one of the major factors is 'conflict'.
P: Or...the deterioration will be accelerated.
K: That's an obvious fact. What shall the human mind do?
SWS: By asking this, the mind tries to become something other
K: If it is (caught ?) in pain, how can it act?
S: How can it become something else? Becoming is another
Q: There must be some way to let that pain go ?
K: All you are (subliminally ?) concerned with is to 'make it go'. Why should it go? There is no way out, is that it?
SWS: Then...you have to live with it.
K: How do you live with something which is ( the inner darkness of ?)
Rad: When I stop 'doing' anything about it.
K: Are you 'doing' it or are you just saying it as a theory? What
B: One should try to watch it ?
K: Watch what, sir? Is my suffering different from the watcher? Is it?
M: We cannot say just : "I am pain, I have to live with pain". This is endless (& hopeless ?) . We must cease to suffer. Now, what is the secret of it? You tell us.
K: It is absurd to say that we must endure this pain. On the contrary, knowing that (this 'invisible' inner ?) pain is one of the major factors of deterioration, how does it come to an end? Sir, at the ending of pain, the mind becomes extraordinarily (com)passionate; it is not just a dull, painless mind. You want the secret of it?
M: Do you know the secret?
K: I will tell you. Let us approach it in a different (roundabout ?) way. Is it possible for a mind never to be hurt? ( Our standardising) "education" hurts us, the family hurts us, society hurts us. How can an (intelligent human ?) mind, living in a world in which there is ( a lot of opportunity for being) hurt, never be hurt?' I am showing you the (experiential ?) "secret": What takes place when the observer 'is' the observed ?
SWS: There should be a (pure) observation without the centre ?
K: (Such) observation without the 'centre' (of self-interest ?) means there is only that thing which you call 'pain'. There is no (self-conscious ?) 'entity' that says "I must go beyond that pain".
M: The feeling (of personal pain ?) changes ?
K: Sir, this is a (notoriously ?) difficult thing because we are always looking at pain from the (safe bubble of the ?) 'centre' who says: 'I must do something about that pain' , but when the centre 'is' pain, what is
The word Compassion means 'passion for all ' and how does that come? When suffering is not (around?) , the 'Other' is. Does this mean
M: So...the knowledge that there is pain is ( sublimated into )compassion ?
K: Forgive me. I never said 'become compassionate'. We are
Can you ( for homework:) "live with it" (mindfully ?) in the sense of not escaping from it? What takes place then ? The mind is (naturally becoming ?) very clear, very sharp. The ( inner energy caught in ?) suffering being transformed into "passion" is something enormously (significant?) From that arises an (innocent) mind that can never be
|Back to Top|
|1 day ago||#74|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
What Is Meditation?
K in dialogue with Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche ( 'very precious') Tibetan Buddhist
Krishnamurti: You know, sir, in all the organized religions, with their dogmas, beliefs, traditions, the person and the personal experience have played a great part. The person has become extraordinarily important, not the teachings, their reality, but the person. Human beings throughout the world have emphasized the 'personality' of the teacher. The (image of that) person represents to them tradition, authority, a (safe) way of life, through him they hope to attain or reach enlightenment or heaven or whatever. And most people seek personal expenence and that in itself has very little validity, because it may be merely a projection of one's own intentions, fears and hopes. So the 'personal' experience has very little validity in (serious ?) religious matters. It has really no value at all where Truth is concerned
Now, to negate the 'personal' (aspects of the ?) experience is to negate the 'me', because the 'me' is the very essence of all experience, which is the past; and when religious people go on missions or come over to the West from India or elsewhere, they are really doing propaganda and that has no value with regard to truth, because then it becomes a (convenient commercial ?) lie.
So if one puts aside completely all the experiences of human beings and their systems, their practices, their rituals, their dogmas, their concepts - that is, if one can actually 'do it', not theoretically but actually wipe it all out - then what is the quality of the mind that is no longer held in the matrix of (the desire to ?) experience? Because truth is not something 'you' experience, truth is not something towards which you gradually progress; you don't come to it through infinite days of practice, sacrifice, control, discipline. What you have then in the ‘personal experience' is the division between the “me', the person, and the 'thing' that you experience, and though you may try to identify yourself with that experience, with that thing, there is still (a subliminal?) division.
Seeing all this, how the organized religions have really destroyed ( the living spirit of ?) truth, giving human beings some absurd myths to make them behave, if one can put aff that aside, what place has meditation in all this? What place has a guide, a guru, a saviour, a priest?
Recently I saw somebody from India preaching 'transcendental meditation'; you attend his class and practise every day and the idea is you will have greater energy and ultimately reach some kind of 'transcendental' experience, it is really — if can’t put it too strongly — it is really a great calamity when such things happen to people. When they come from India, from China or Japan to teach people 'meditation', they are actually doing ( a subtle form of ?) propaganda. And is meditation a thing that you practise daily, which means
What, first of all, is traditional meditation? — whether it be Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Tibetan or Zen, you know all the varieties of meditation and their schools. For me, all that is not meditation at all. Then what is Meditation? Perhaps we could discuss that?
Chôgyam Trungpa; Yes, I think so.
K; Why should one make meditation into a problem? We human beings have enough problems, both physically and psychologically, why add yet another one with meditation? And is meditation a way of escaping from one’s problems, an avoiding of what actually is, and therefore no meditation at all? Or is meditation the understanding of the problem of living? Not avoiding but understanding daily living with all its problems. If that is not understood, if that is not put in order, can go and sit in a comer and follow somebody who teaches me transcendental or some nonsensical meditation and it will have no meaning at all.
So what is it to you to meditate, what does it mean? I hope I have not made it too difficult for you to answer because I deny all that kind of meditation, the practice of constantly repeating a word, as they do in India, in Tibet, as they do all over the world, "Ave Maria" or some other words, repeat, repeat, repeat, it means - nothing. You make the mind more absurd and grotesque than it is.
So if we may, together, inquire into this question. Is it because there is a long established tradition that you must meditate, and therefore we 'meditate'? When I was a small boy I vaguely remember that being a Brahmin we went through a certain ceremony, we were told to sit quietly, close our eyes, meditate, think about something or other - the whole thing was set going. So if we could together examine and share what is meditation, what the implications of it are, why one should meditate at all. Because if you make meditation into another problem, then for Gods sake avoid it! So could we together go into this? Seeing the traditional approaches, and seeing their absurdity. Because unless the human being becomes a light to himself, nothing matters: if you depend on somebody else then you are in a state of perpetual anxiety. So could we examine this traditionally first. Why should one meditate?
CT: Don’t you think that meditation happens as part of the living situation of a man?
K: Sir, a human being has innumerable problems. He must solve those first, mustn’t he? He must bring order in the (inner) house in which he lives, the house that is the ‘me’ - my thoughts, my feelings, my anxieties, my guilt, my sorrow - I must bring order there. Without that order how can I proceed further?
CT: The problem is that if, while trying to solve the problem, you are looking for order, then doesn’t it seem to be looking for further chaos?
K: So I do not look for order. I inquire into disorder and I want to know why there is disorder, I do not want to find order, then I have all the gurus and all the gang coming in! I don’t want order, I only want to find out why in one’s life there is such chaos and disorder. A human being must find out (for himself) , not ask someone else to tell him if there is disorder.
CT: Well, you can’t find it out intellectually.
K: Intellect is part of the whole (mental) structure, you can’t deny the intellect.
CT: But you can’t use intellect to solve non-intellectual problems.
K: No, you can’t solve these problems at any level except totally.
CT: Quite, yes.
K: That is, sir, to solve the human problem of disorder, does this need 'meditation' — in the ordinary accepted sense of the word?
CT: I wouldn’t say in the ordinary, conventional sense of meditation, but meditation in the extraordinary sense.
K: What do you mean by that, if I may ask?
CT: The extraordinary sense of meditation is to see the disorder as part of the direction.
K: To see disorder...
CT: To see disorder as order, if you like.
K: Ah, no. To see disorder.
CT: Well, if you see disorder then it becomes order.
K: First I must see it.
CT: See it clearly.
K: So that depends, then, on how you observe disorder.
CT: Not trying to solve it.
K: Of course not. Because if you try to solve it, you solve it according to a set pattern which is the outcome of your disorder, the opposite of your disorder. If you try to solve the disorder it is always according to a preconceived idea of order. That is, the Christian order, Hindu order, whatever order, socialist order, communist order. Whereas if you observe it entirely, what is disorder? Then, there is no duality in that.
CT: Yes, I see.
K: How is one to observe this total disorder, in which human beings live? The disorder you see on television, the commercials, the hectic violence, the absurdities. Human existence is a total disorder - killing, violence and at the same time talking about peace. So we come to the question: what is observation of disorder? Do you see it from the ‘me’ as separate from the thing that is disorder?
CT: That is already disorder.
K: Isn’t it! So do I look at disorder with the eyes of my prejudices, my opinions, my conclusions, my concepts, the propaganda of a thousand years - which is the ‘me’. Or do I look at disorder without the ‘me’? Is that possible? That is 'meditation'. You follow, sir? Not all the rubbish they talk about. To observe without division, to observe without the ‘me’, who is the very essence of the past, the ‘me’ that says, I should, should not, I must, I must not’. The ‘me’ that says, ‘I must achieve, I must gain God’, or whatever it is. So can there be an observation without the ‘me? You see, if that question is put to an 'orthodox' (traditional) meditator he will say, ‘there can’t, because the ‘me’ is there. So I must get rid of the ’me’. To get rid of the ‘me’ I must practise.’ Which means (that in the meanwhile) am emphasizing the ‘me’! Through practice I hope to deny practice, through practice I hope to eradicate the result of that practice, which is still the ‘me’, so I am caught in a vicious circle.
So the traditional approach, as one has observed it in the world, emphasizes the ’me’ in a very subtle but strengthening way - the ‘me’ that is going to sit next to God - which is an absurdity! The ‘me’ that is going to experience Nirvana or Moksha or heaven, enlightenment - it means nothing. So we see the 'orthodox' approach (of meditation) is really holding the human being in the prison of the past, giving him importance through his personal experience. Reality isn’t a ‘personal’ experience. You can’t personally experience the vastness of the sea, it is there for you to look, it isn’t your sea.
CT: I wouldn’t even say 'observe'.
K: To observe ‘what is’.
CT: Well, when 'you' observe then... 'you' are judging.
K: No, that is not what I mean. You can observe through criticism, through evaluation. That’s partial. To observe totally, in that there is no evaluation (measurement ?) at all.
CT: A total observation. Then there is no 'observer'.
K: Therefore what is meditation then?
CT: That is meditation.
K: That is meditation. So in observing disorder, which is essentially ( an act of ?) meditation, in that observation there is order, not the 'order' which the intellect creates. So meditation is not a personal search for personal experience. Meditation is not the search for some transcendental experience that will give you great energy to become more mischievous. Meditation is not 'personal' achievement, 'you' sitting next to God.
So the next question is: can the mind observe without time and without memory, which are the material of the mind?
CT: I don’t see any particular importance in laying emphasis on the stillness of the mind because if one is able to see the non- dualistic way of looking at situations then you have further energy that will flow out.
K: You can only have further energy to flow, greater energy, when the mind is quiet.
CT: But to put the emphasis on stillness ...
K: No, we said, observe disorder, without the ‘me’, without its memories, its structure of time, then in that quality there is a 'quietness' of the mind which is observing. That stillness is not an acquired, practised thing, it comes naturally when you have order.
You see, sir, all one can do is to 'point out' and help the person to go to the (inner) 'door', but it is for him to open that door, you can’t do any more than that. This whole idea of wanting to help people means, you know, you become a 'do-gooder'. And a 'do-gooder' is not a religious man at all. Shall we go on with this?
CT: I think so. There is a further thing that can be clarified, when you put emphasis on absolute (inner) peace.
K: Ah! I said, sir, complete order is complete quietness of the mind. Quietness of the mind is the most active mind.
CT: That’s what I wanted you to say,
K: It’s the most dynamic thing, it Isn't just a dead thing.
CT: People could misunderstand...
K: Because they are used only to practice which will help them to become-that is death. But a mind that has gone, inquired into all this in this way, becomes extraordinarily active and therefore quiet
CT: That’s what I mean, yes.
K: It’s like a great dynamo.
K: The greater the speed the more the vitality. Of course, man is seeking more energy, he wants more energy, to go to the moon, to go and live under the sea. He is striving for more and more and more. But I think this 'search for more' does lead to disorder . The consumer society is a disorderly society. (The other day I saw some paper tissue, Kleenex, which was beautifully decorated!)
So our question is: does the observation of disorder bring order? That is really a very important point because for most of us ( some) effort is demanded to bring about order. Human beings are used to effort, to struggling, fighting, suppressing, forcing themselves. Now all that (attitude) has led to disorder, socially, outwardly and inwardly.
The difficulty with (the modern ?) human beings is that they have never observed a tree, a bird, without division. Since they have never observed a tree or a bird totally they can’t observe themselves totally. One can’t see the (truth regarding the ?) total disorder in which one lives, there is always an idea that somewhere there is a part of 'me' that is order which is looking at disorder. So they invent the idea of a 'Higher Self', which will bring about order in disorder - "God is in you" and pray to that God, he will bring about this order. Always there is this effort (of self-becoming) . What we are saying is that where there is the 'me’ there must be disorder. And if I look at the world through the 'me’ - to the world outside or the world inside, there is not only ( a sense of) division, but that (sense of one's ) division creates chaos and disorder in the world. Now to observe all that totally, in which there is no division, such observation 'is' meditation. And for that you don’t have to practise, all that you have to do is to be aware of what exactly is going on inside and outside, just to "be aware" (non-dualistically ?) .
This post was last updated by John Raica 1 day ago.
|Back to Top|