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

K The essential Texts

Displaying posts 61 - 64 of 64 in total
Wed, 06 Jun 2018 #61
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 211 posts in this forum Offline


5TH K SEMINAR MEETING cca 1978 (reader friendly edited )

Krishnamurti: I think we began by asking whether one can be a light to oneself. And that problem was never touched upon. Then from there we went to the question of relationship, what actually is our relationships are with another. And from that observation of our relationships, we talked about fear, fear of losing somebody, not being attached to somebody, and all the misery and confusion that come about. I don't know why you call it broken heart, but it's rather silly. Then we talked about what is the root of fear. And somehow I feel we are not facing the problem (of non-verbal inner observation?) of seeing the fact, the actuality which is (happening) the 'now', whatever our reactions, attachments or fears - can we face them (non-personally?) .
Can we face, for example the problem that we're 'attached' (inwardly dependent to?) to (something or to?) somebody. Attached to some belief, to some experience, or to some person. Can we observe the actual implications, the actuality, of this (conscious or un-conscious ?) 'attachment' ?

One is attached to one's ( life) experience, from which there is a certain (inner safety created by our accumulated ?) knowledge, and holding on to the ( reassuring?) memory of it - holding on, never letting go. Or to some ideal, cling to those ideals; all the politicians, all the priests they all have (high hopes backed by great sounding) 'ideals'. And we all, some of us have ideals too, and we hold onto them, which is a form of attachment, form, other forms of belief, certain routine and so on. And principally in our relationships we are attached to a person. Can we watch, stay with that fact that we are 'attached' (psychologically dependent?) and watch it. And let the attachment, the whole nature of your attachment (unfold and) reveal itself instead of telling 'you must not be attached' and so on. Can the story of attachment be revealed by observing it ? Because from ( holding to it?) arises fear. I might lose (whatever I'm attached to?) . And from that loss, I feel broken-hearted, or wounded, jealous, anxiety, the whole nature of attachment. Can you remain (meditatively & ) watch and let the story involved in that reveal itself?

(Silent pause)

Perhaps that might be very complex and rather difficult (for an in-class exercise?) . Can you watch, observe and remain with whatever is going on, with what is happening (inwardly ) , such as fear. And why is it we find it so difficult to remain with a 'fact'?

Q: Krishnaji, I think one of the difficulties with watching attachment in relationship is that is that our very participation in the relationship obscures the fear, or other (psychological 'facts') as long as the relationship is there, the real facets of it somehow are covered over. I am trying to say that relationship acts like a (psychological) umbrella, under which all ( our daily self-centred) experiences occurs.

K: In that, under that 'umbrella of ( an apparently stable & reliable ?) relationship', isn't there (the shadow of?) attachment?

Q: Yes...

K: Now can one ( contemplatively?) 'stay with that', watch it without any deviation, and let the thing that you are watching tell its story ? Can one do that? So that it reveals everything. Like a flower, when you watch it very, very closely, there it is, you see everything in its detail, the delicacy of the vein, you know, the beauty of the whole thing. In the same way if we could watch this 'burden of attachment' – since it may contain an extraordinary beauty in it, and from that move on. But apparently we can't do it (happily & effortlessly?) Why not?

Q: Because in this process there is (a subliminal interference or?) the destructive element of thought. Because to watch the action one has to feel it, one has to see it working.

K: No, Maria, I'm talking of something else : you watch a flower in the bud, then as it blossoms fully, and then a few days later dies, collapses, vanishes. In the same way, perhaps, if we could watch this sense of 'attachment' (aka : psychological dependence?) , let it flower, without your (all controlling ) thought telling it what it should do.

Q: Then you are using the ( holistic, all-purpose ) word 'thought' in the sense of a (mental) 'censor' coming in ?

K: Yes, the censor coming in - put it that way.

Q: And there is something else, which for want of a better word I'm calling feeling .

K: I have no 'feeling', I have no 'thought', I'm just observing (non-personally?) .

Q: But what you're observing is the movement of that ( personal) 'attachment' or whatever is going on in the mind. Is that thought or not?

K: No...

Q: Krishnaji, I think Mary is raising an important point. If you are actively (or personally?) involved in that attachment, who's going to do the watching? I'm attached, I'm quite clear here, every part of my life is organized around that attachment, now how am I going to watch that? I have been watching attachment but there's always going to be a piece that's going to get away, as long as I am in that (inner condition?) of attachment.

K: All right, sir - let's go into it slowly.

Q: Let me ask Dr Shainberg, can you see that very thing happening? Can you see that involvement, as part of the whole thing you're looking at?

Q: I don't think you can, as long as there is always ingredient, in other words, in many observations it's almost that the urgency of life is absorbed by that attachment. If you stop the attachment, that's a different thing, then that's removed. but as long as the attachment is (active in-) there, I don't think you ever see it (objectively?) , because you're ( personally involved in that) attachement.

K: Are you saying, sir, the ( invisible strings of?) attachment prevents you from observing (objectively its movement) ?

Q: That's it, in simple terms.

K: Dr Shainberg is asking a question which is, when one is attached to somebody, when I'm attached to you, can 'I' be aware of that attachment? Do I actually know that I am attached? Or I discover I'm attached through (its collateral) pain, through jealousy, through anxiety, then I ( may?) realize I am 'attached' (psychologically dependent?) . Right, sir?

Q: I think that your experience of the pain, jealousy, and anger is a reaction, not a real awareness, you're reacting to the loss, the moment that you have lost the ( object of your) attachment.

K: How do I know I'm attached, sir? Let's begin with that. How does one know, that one is 'holding on', having 'put a hook' in somebody, holding on to that. How does one know it?
You may tell me, as a friend, 'Look, be careful, because when you get involved with a tremendous attachment, you're going to pay for it (sooner or later?) .' I don't pay much attention to you, because I like this (enjoying the benefits of my) attachment. There is a sense of ( personal) gratification in that.
How do I know ( experientially?) that it is a real attachment? The actual fact, not the word. I don't know it till ( eventually) something happens in that ( safe & rewarding ?) relationship. I only know when there is some kind of discomfort, some kind of pain, some kind of quivering.

Q: Insecurity?

K: Insecurity. Now it's only then I say, 'I am attached, this is coming from that.'

Q: But Krishnaji, what Dr Shainberg is saying is that what you're seeing is not the ( actual) 'attachment', you're seeing how you are reacting.

K: I've said that - the reaction I have as pain, (is an indication of my) attachment. So can one observe ( objectively?) this whole process , is there an observation of the actual state and the nature of it, instantly? Or must I go through years and years of pain and at last break it  ?
Now, this is a 'fact' : there is the pain (of jealousy) - a reaction of ( one's possessive) attachment. Does one realize all the implications of attachment by observing it (ASAP?) , not letting thought wipe it away or distort it. Just watch it. Is that not possible?

Q: If you look at attachment, you immediately perceive the possibility of pain in it.

K: That's what I'm asking : why is it we can't see the whole implication of attachment instantly, and 'finished'. Where is the ( hidden?) difficulty in this?

Q: Now you are saying that we can see our attachment from its consequences, and therefore we infer the ( actual fact of ) attachment - but you were also saying before that we might see the attachment unfold from the bud.

K: I don't quite follow you, sir.

Q: You said that we see attachment through its consequences - right? But on the other hand, is there the origin of attachment, the bud from which it unfolds - are you suggesting that we see it from the inception?

K: That's what I'm asking. Why can't we see it, the whole nature of it, instantly?

Q: From its inception. From the point of its inception ?

K: From the point of inception, the whole story of it.

Q: In point of fact, though, because we see it from consequences, we don't go to it direct, we go to the solution.

K: Yes, sir, either through its consequences we realize we're attached, or we have instant realization what attachment implies and end, finished. Which is it we do? I wish you would stick to this.

Q: Do we really want to end the attachment, because surely...

K: Sir, wait - wxhy don't we see the nature and the structure of attachment instantly, all its implications ? That's apparent, we can't do it. But what we generally do is consequences, and then realize I'm attached and therefore pain.

Q: And then try to 'fix it up'.

K: Yes.

Q: I think pain is the obstacle in every direction, because surely we became attached in the first instance because we felt here is one person who's not going to hurt me. And then when we feel we've lost that, we're going to be exposed to other hurts, we've got no refuge.

K: Yes, sir, but can you watch your attachment, sir? You or any of us, can we watch our attachment?

Q: Sir, this implies that we have to learn to watch.

K: Do it now, sir. Learning ( the art of watching ?) implies generally , doesn't it, that you have accumulated knowledge and then watch with that knowledge.

Q: Are you going to suggest that there's another kind of ( non-acummulative ?) learning where you 'listen and observe and learn' ( by 'doing it now' ?)

K: Yes. Do you see, sir, what is happening right now? We are dissipating (our capacity for direct observation?) by talk, by words, by explanations, so we're not actually saying, 'Yes, I am attached, let me look at it.'

Q: Krishnaji, when I try to do this, my mind immediately brings an abstraction of what it is, and then I find myself looking at that (mental representation?) so, I'm not looking at the real thing.

K: Is that what you're doing? Or ( your psychological dependence?) is just an idea for you. Is that what you are actually doing and not looking at attachment ?

Q: That's what is happening and perhaps we could go into how can one step out of that ?

K: I don't know. Let's first watch it and then see what happens, whether it continues or whether it stops. Let's first remain with that 'fact' and let the fact tell its whole story. ( For anotherin-class exaple ?) can I watch the (psychological) wounds which I have received from childhood and let the whole thing flower, without 'you' making them flower or denying it, controlling it, loving it, holding onto it. Let that thing flower and see what happens.

Q: It seems a very painful thing to do.

K: It may not ( necessarily) be painful . I said, let it tell its story.

Q: Pain is surely a completely subjective thing, I just feel the pain (rather than the pain telling its story ?) .

K: Pain is the ( time-binding?) consequence, or the ( karmic?) effect of attachment. So when you say it is painful, are you actually watching the thing, or you have just assumed , 'It will be painful'.

Q: Isn't there a ( cause-effect) chain ( involved) in all this, that attachment is arrived at as a defence against another thing - pain or whatever it is- so that there's a series of attachments.

K: Yes, but - please, can you remain with the fact.

Q: Attachment is so many things - we are attached to so many things. I don't know which 'fact' to stay with.

K: I am trying to ask whether the ( contemplative?) mind can remain quietly observing the fact, observing 'what is'.

Q: My curiosity must be greater than my usual defences.

K: You see, you are again talking of what you might do- your curiosity, your effort - you're not ( passively?) observing it.

Q: That's what I meant by being curious, to see, to look, rather than the automatic.

K: That's it - to 'look'.

Q: It was your first question, Krishnaji : why can't we, or why don't we look at a fact ?

K: That's all I'm saying.

Q: We're not any closer, or I'm not any closer to seeing 'why'.

K: I think, sir, we are ( subliminally?) trying to avoid ( facing ) the issue because there is a sense of ( 'personal' ) apprehension about it. What might happen if ?, which prevents you from looking at the fact.

Q: Are we saying that (some unconscious?) fear prevents us from looking at facts then?

K: It may be fear, or it may be that you're not really concerned about watching - you like the state in which you are. You follow? Don't disturb me, for god's sake. I am attached, I am wounded – but don't disturb that because I'm used to it, and I that gives me a certain sense of security. You follow? Don't disturb that security. Is that what is happening (at the unconscious levels?) ?

Q: One problem is, it's very difficult to see the attachment here, in this room. In this room the attachment is sleeping.

K: Throw out attachment, sir, you have something or other, why can't your own feeling of anger, jealousy, whatever it is, just watch it.

Q: It's the same problem, whether its jealousy, or attachment or whatever - you're in the room, you're in a certain state of attention, and the attachments are ( waiting for you) outside, when you go out.

K: You see, you're not watching.

Q: I think one of the problems, Krishnaji, is I don't think we can get at it by going from consequences. It seems that there has to be another kind of 'watching'.

K: There is, but you're not willing to (learn it?) . I think the watching our existing attachment through observing its consequences is absurd, it has no ( holistic) meaning.

Q: That is a (mental ?) deviation in itself.

K: Now please watch. Can you watch the fact, because if we can understand this very seriously and integrally, the thing that we call fear may disintegrate through its own flowering.
Look, sir: (suppose that) one is getting (really) angry. At the very second of anger, there is no (conscious) identification with it at all. A few seconds later the whole business of (the thought-controlling ) identification is starting - I should, or should not control it - all that arises. But in ( a contemplation-friendly ) watching without any movement of thought, in this ( art of inward) 'watching' the surge of anger flowers, blooms, expands, and (eventually?) withers away. This ( art of holistic observation?) is what I want to get at. So that instead of suppressing it, which makes it stronger, by ( lovingly?) watching it, it expands (& dies of natural causes?) and the ( 'violence' ) chapter comes to an end, ( and eventually?) the whole book (of selfish heritage ?) comes to an end.

Q: But on the other hand, we can see that as an abstraction quite easily.

K: What?

Q: The problem, the anger, here and now we can see anger as an 'abstraction' – since we are not (really?) angry.

K: No, I took that as an (in-class ?) example.

Q: Yes, but it's the same for whichever example you take.

K: What are you trying to say, sir?

Q: If we are (really) angry we're actually caught in the reactions of the anger and so on. Here we are not (actually) feeling angry, here we are not feeling attached.

K: Then, would you kindly tell me, what you're all doing here?

Q: Maybe we're not quite meeting or understanding each other.

K: I'm asking, why are you here? Absolute silence

Q: To understand oneself.

K: Comment?

Q: Se 'comprendre soi-meme'.

K: Is that why you're here?

Q: To learn.

K: To learn ? But you're not learning. Learning implies that you listen. Learning implies that you're sufficiently intense, sufficiently eager to find out, learn. But apparently we're not learning from each other, we're just telling each other what each one of us thinks.

Q: So we are attached to what we think.

K: That's all.

Q: And … to what you think.

K: I haven't told you what I think.

Q: Oh yes, you have.

K: I have not. I have not told you what I think.

Q: Oh yes, you have.

K: All right, sir - since you know it, would you kindly tell me what I think. (Laughter)

Q: I know that game. (Laughter)

K: That's a very good question - please think it out, Why are you here ? Have you learnt anything about yourself?

Q: Yes.

K: Learnt what? At a superficial level? You don't have to come here to learn the 'top layer'. So have you learnt about the whole content of yourself ? Now, the whole - can you watch - coming back to the same thing - can you watch the whole content of yourself? Don't throw it away with a lot of words. Can I know myself totally - all my anxieties, fears, sorrows, pain, my psychological wounds, my attachments, my hopes, my fears, my longings, my loneliness, my - you follow? - the whole of it.

Q: It seems so difficult.

K: No, my question, sir - you said you came here to learn about yourself. I say, have you learnt anything? Or have you just scraped the surface and say, yes, I've learnt a little bit. That's not, that's not good enough. So I'm asking in return, can you learn all about yourself, not over the years, the months and days till you die. Can you learn about yourself completely now, as you're sitting here ?

Q: That means we'd have to see the ( psychological?) root of ourselves.

K: I'm asking you, again, can you learn about yourself, which is very complex, intricate, subtle thing, completely.

Q: I can't answer yes or no. Right? I have no means to proceed.

K: No, I've asked a question, sir. Do you want to learn about yourself completely?

Q: My response to that is, how is this possible?

K: If I say yes, what will you do?

Q: I still don't know.

K: So you want to learn whether you can have an insight into the whole nature of it. Right?

Q: Yes.

K: Then you can learn. Right? Is that what you want to do, learn - please listen carefully - learn the whole nature and the structure, which is a movement of yourself. That's why we have come together. Now who is going to teach you? The (K) man sitting here?

Q: No. I have to learn for myself.

K: What do you mean by that? You've said, you can't learn the entirety of yourself from me, from the speaker. One has to learn from oneself. Wait - remain with the question for two seconds. Is that so?

Q: I think the trouble is we are relying on someone else to do the work for us.

K: Yes, you're saying, really, I can't do it by myself, you tell me all about it.

Q: I think that's what happening, yes.

K: Yes, that's it. You want me to do all the work and then you listen to it, and then you may take it home with you or not.

Q: And in that way we make it into an idea.

K: Yes, so, are you depending on me?

Q: Yes, I think we are.

K: Why?

Q: Because we feel we can't do it on our own.

K: Now, why are you depending on me to tell you, to teach you how to observe the totality of yourself? Is it a ( cultural) habit, depending on another? Is it tradition? Is it what you have been educated into - to accept another to help you to understand the totality of yourself?

Q: Sir, it's a state of immaturity - it's a state of being immature.

K: Immature? Yes, if you like to put it that way. But, sir, look, it's very interesting, this, if you go into yourself. Who will teach you?

Q: Krishnaji, I don't think you're being radical enough about it, because what you're really saying is, no one really wants to learn.

K: That's all.

Q: But that's quite a radical statement.

K: Nobody wants to - I was being too polite. Sorry.

Q: I've often heard you say this about 'understanding all about myself', instantly. Now I find with myself that whenever I'm approaching anything I'm approaching it in a very separated way, like I try to find out about relationship, and then I try to find out about attachment or fear. And I would like to ask whether this whole approach is wrong - this whole approach is self-repeating, approaching things one by one, because there are so many things, you know, one can go on and on in this way. Or whether there is a stage where one prepares oneself to learn how to question, learn - you use the word 'art' of questioning, to learn how to approach things, to learn how to see.

K: What are you trying to say, sir?

Q: I'm trying to say, I'm trying to ask you whether before one can see, come to this point where one is looking at everything together...

K: Yes, looking at something holistically, as a whole. Is that what you are trying to say?

Q: I'm asking whether there is something that happens before that, one prepares oneself for that.

K: No, there's no (spare time left for?) 'preparation'. Do I want to learn about myself? Do I want to know, actually, not theoretically, is it my deep committed, irrevocable interest to know myself? Is that it? Is that what you have? Irrevocable, that you are so completely committed.
What is there to learn about myself? Nothing. Right? There's absolutely nothing to learn about myself, because 'myself' is nothing. We have put lots of things on this 'nothing' I have an education, science, philosophy, all the things, you follow? - piled it on, plus what all the things religions have said, which are the most destructive things, what religions have done - they have put all this on me, on this ( 'me' who is) essentially 'nothing'.
What have I to learn about myself? That I don't think straight, that I'm vain, that I'm arrogant, I am proud, I am this - what does it all mean? Words, don't they, memories, ideas. Have ideas any content, except what thought gives to that idea? I wonder if you capture (the truth content behind) all this. No, this is too 'radical', as you said.

Q: Sir, when you say 'nothing', I have the feeling of an empty room.

K: Oh, sir, you follow - you know the ( true ?) meaning of the word 'nothing'? Not-a -thing.

Q: That is why it is so difficult because we are still attached to all these (outward ?) 'things'.

K: That's right. If you ( would really ) understand, sir, the whole of my existence, the whole content of 'me', is put together by thought. And thought is ( the interacive display of) memory. Right? So I am living, I am a whole structure made by memory. And I can't touch it. I can't, there's nothing to say. It is totally unreal, living on memory.

Q: Sir, the interesting question is how I have made the (inner) illusion that 'I am something'. You see, it appears in ordinary life, to each person, he is really something.

K: Yes.

Q: And he creates somehow that illusion.

K: Yes, the illusion created by thought.

Q: Yes.

K: Which is, ''I am something''.

Q: Yes and what?

K: When that ( thought projected) 'thing' is not, I am (inwardly as?) nothing. So, how do we accept this illusion ( of an isolated 'self') about which we must learn. You follow, sir? Spend years, spend money, books – for what? It means one has to reject, psychologically (inwardly) , everything that thought has put together. That's why it's too radical and you (rather) won't, I mean, it sounds nice, it looks, it feels, ''By Jove, there's something in it !'' but one has to ( meditate &?) go into it very, very deeply.
So here we are. We asked the question, why are you all here ?. To learn, about oneself. And what have you learnt anything about yourself, while you're here? That you are jealous, anxious, fearful, have a position which you must maintain, that you have been ( psychologically) wounded (in the past) and cling to that wound, which becomes a totally neurotic existence and all the rest. So, have you learnt anything? Or are we all playing mind-tricks with each other?


Q: So, when we come to learn about the nature of the 'self', we are really learning about the nature of illusion ?

K: I am asking (everyone ?) a question. Why are you here? I know why I'm here : I want to tell you something which is tremendously important (for the total consciousness of mankind?) . K knows exactly what he wants to do. But...are you clear ( about why you came here?) ? Or you've got innumerable ( open or hidden personal?) motives.

Q: Innumerable contradictory (high expectations & other personal ) motives.

K: Yes, that's it – then how can we communicate with each other ?

Q: Krishnaji, I feel that the basic difficulty is that if our learning process is 'twisted' (egocentrically biased?) , and we continue in ( following) this process we won't be able to learn.

K: All right, now can we take up (the question of holistic ) 'learning', go into it completely, what is implied, and actually find out what it means to learn  ?
(For starters:) I'm asking, do you (really?) want to learn and what does it mean, the ( holistic) learning?

Q: How can you learn ( something new) if you are attached ( or tethered in the field of the 'known' ?) ?

K: Forget (this ) attachment for the moment. Do you want to find out the art of (holistic?) learning, what it is & the whole business of it ? Do you want to learn? And if you really want to learn it , what price do you pay for it?

Q: Our ( lodging ? ) reservations.

K: I'm not talking of that kind of 'paying'. What are you willing to pay (psychologically) 'Look, I'll give everything to find out.'

Q: That's a point.

K: Or, you say, 'Sorry, I can't give everything don't ask me 100%. I'll give you 10%'. Is that what we're doing?n I'm asking you. Is there someone who says to me, 'I'll give everything I have to learn, to find out.' Nobody has said that to me, here or in India or anywhere else. (Perhaps one or two have...) But I'm asking you, out of kindness, & respect, what do you pay for something which is unpayable ? So, sir, I'm asking, how much (passion) are you giving for ( learning ) 'stay with the fact'. I'm going back to that one thing, because that's very important : what amount of ( passion ?) energy are you giving to it, to stay with one fact. (For instance) to stay with a falsehood, with a (personal or collective) illusion - not call it an 'illusion' but to stay with the fact that one is (inwardly) caught and living and working for an 'ideal', sacrifice everything you have for that ideal ?
If ( for the meditation homework?) you want to go into the question very deeply, then (it is an act of holistic ?) meditation to remain completely with the (inner) 'facts' - every ( psychological ) reaction being allowed to flower and totally wither away, so that there is no ( ego-centric) psychological, inward reaction to any challenge.

Q: To become totally aware of the inner condition of one's...

K: Yes, sir, to become totally aware of our (ego-centric) conditioning, not bit by bit, but of the whole thing the nationalistic (or tribal consciousness ? ) the superstitions, the beliefs, of your whole sophisticated self-(consciousness) . There's so much to go in.

Q: Implied in staying with the fact, is the 'disillusion' of the illusion, but the illusion itself is trying to survive.

K: Illusion only survives because 'you' are ( either enjoying its materialistic benefits or you are ?) strengthening it by fighting it, by saying I must be free of illusion. But if you ( mindfully look at it & ) say - ' Yes, after all what is an 'illusion'? What's the root meaning of this word, sir?

Q: The ethymological root of this word is 'ludere' - meaning 'to play' or act falsely, to have a 'false play' really.

K: Now I'm asking, what do 'you' call illusion?

Q: A nothingness.

K: Oh no... if you go to church, if you are all Catholic, Protestant, all are Christians here, except a few, do you know the whole of that is vast illusion?

Q: Are we in church now?

K: No, sir, we are saying, those of us who go to church, or have been brought up in the Christian religion, with their symbols, with their saviours, with their Virgin Marys, with their rituals, etc., etc., is that not an ( organised?) illusion? Would you say anything ( the self-centred) thought has created, psychologically, is illusion? Are we living in that illusion (of knowing everything about our inner life?) ? Now,( for homework ?) can you remain with that illusion, let it flower ; just to say, yes, I see that psychologically I am living in illusion (in the illusory inner comfort which my self-centred ) thinking has created - something which is totally unreal.
So (in a nutshell:) anything that thought ( the self-centred thinking) has created 'psychologically' (for its inner safety?) is illusion ( illusory ? ). Can one remain with ( the truth of?) that fact, and not let thought move away from that?
( To recap:) If there is only an ( non-personal) observation of the fact, of the 'happening', don't you remove all conflict? Suppose I am attached (or psychologically dependent ?) , I've seen how my attachment arose, and now I'm just watching the (pleasurable & painful) consequences of being attached to that person - the jealousy, the suffering, the 'broken heart'-ness and all that business. Now in just watching it (affectionately & non-personally?) won't it expand (unfold) ? And therefore wither away? So there is no inner conflict involved . So if I remain ( mindfully) with the 'fact' of my attachment, see how quickly it withers, sir? I wonder if you see this & actually do it.

Q: It's clear what you mean by watching something outside but in a sense it's not so clear what you mean by watching something 'inside'.

K: Dr Bohm is asking, there are two different kinds of watching: watching something outside of you, and watching inside of you. Isn't there a difference? Now how do you watch - please, discuss - how do you watch something inside yourself, inside of yourself?

Q: By remaining with it ?

K: Please understand the question first. It is easy to watch outside- the moon, the trees, the birds, the water, the stray dog or your pet dog, and so on, or your wife, your husband - it's easy to watch. But is it as easy as that to watch what is happening inside? That's an (in class) question - so, try to answer it, find it out.

Q: It's not done with the senses, like when we watch something outside.

K: Why do you discard the senses?

Q: Sir, I pose a thought, and then I feel some reaction, this is the only way I can watch, I can't watch, the whole movement of thought .

K: Look, sir - you've been wounded, haven't you, psychologically? Can you watch that wound?

Q: At that time or now?

K: Now, now, don't...

Q: So I must recreate the wound.

K: No, it is there.

Q; I don't see it.

K: He said, 'I don't see it.' Which means what, it (the psychological wound) is probably there but he doesn't see it. Why? I may have forgotten it, I may not think about it, I may have thought of it and don't know, what to do with it, so I say, 'Keep quiet, old wound - I can't do anything.' So, but it's there. So he says, 'I can't see it.' Why?

Q: You only know that you have the wound if you think about, it or if something prompts you to think about it.

K: So when you don't think about it, it's not there?

Q: It's there, even though you haven't thought about it. It's still there, you still carry it.

K: It's still there, even though you haven't thought about it.

Q: Even though it hasn't come awake.
K: Yes, that's right. The moment you think about it, it becomes alive. If you don't think about it, it is dormant.

Q: Dormant.

K: So it's there. Now, can you see that psychological wound as it is now? This is a common factor, isn't it, sir? Everybody in the world is wounded. Some cling to it and worship it, others say, the thing is dormant, only occasionally it wakes up, and all the rest of it. As it is a common problem, can we all, can each one of us observe that which is common in each one of us. Watch it, I've been, you've been wounded. Is that wound a 'reality' - in the sense, anything that thought has put together is reality ?

Q: Yes, it's real.

K: Yes. So this wound is a reality. Right? Can the mind ( spend some quality time to?) watch this 'reality', and let that wound flower, not control it, suppress it, run away from it, just watching it ?

Q: Are you saying it's possible to be aware of it without thinking about it?

K: So, think about it (awaken it?) and it's there then. Right? Now can you watch that thing and let it come out, you follow? Let the wound tell you all its story, from the first word to the last chapter.

Q: Do we watch that also with the senses?

K: Sir, that brings a very interesting (experiential) question - the 'psychological' state, is it the result of senses at all? That is, have the senses put the thing there, or it ( the 'psyche') lives apart from the senses ?

Q: It is a part of the senses - the psychological state is a part of the (memory of the ) senses.

K: Forget what I said - let's go back to 'how to look at my (inner) wounds'. With a physical wound you can do something about it, but the psychological wound, the more I do something about it or I try to avoid ( or ignore ?) it, the wound survives. Now can I watch that wound, which is not an illusion, because ( my self-identified ) thought has created that wound. So therefore it is a reality. So can I watch the reality of the wound ?

Q: Sir, I can bring that feeling up inside me, I've done that, I've remembered a specific occasion, I've brought it up in me, the feeling how I felt. But you seem to be talking about going a stage further, where you 'read it' from the beginning.

K: Watch it, take time. If you watch, doesn't it grow, flower? Who is very badly hurt here? All right, I'll take it. I'm very badly hurt, I'm not but I'll take that ( example ) - I am very badly hurt, psychologically, I have done all kinds of things to avoid it, suppress it, control it, resist other people hurting me more, built a wall round myself, isolated myself, and hoping thereby nobody will hurt me. But in that isolation there is always fear. This is all the 'flowering', because I'm watching it. I wonder - you follow? It's all the story which is being told by watching the wound, how it arose. It arose because I had a good picture of myself, and that picture has been hurt, the image, the idea of myself has been hurt. And by watching the wound, the wound is telling me the whole thing. Right? So I am giving it freedom to open itself up, you follow, sir? Because of that ( space of inner) freedom, it opens and withers away. So there is no wound. I wonder if you see it.

Q: So the wound is still there because one has inhibited it from flowering.

K: The wound is there, but you have never looked at it. That's what - you've never looked at it, and said, 'Look, old boy, I'm hurt, let me look at this hurt.'

Q: I think you under-estimate the fact that approaching the wound hurts itself.

K: Of course, sir. That's why I talked previously about how do you approach a problem, do you come to it freely or with a prejudice, etc., a conclusion, this must be, this must not be, I must - or do you come to it, you follow, freely. Then the problem is like a wave that breaks down, withers away.

Q: Yes, but Krishnaji, the fact is, I have the feeling you want to stay with the fact, the fact is that when you approach it there is tremendous pain.

K: Is it?

Q: I think it's more than pain.

K: I agree. He's asked a question which is, he says, the very approach awakens fear. That's what Dr Shainberg says. I say, is that so? Or I (might) have a (preconceived) idea that it might cause pain and therefore I'm afraid. You follow, sir? Therefore I'm not approaching it at all.

Q: Isn't that what fear is about, the idea that I will have pain?

K: Yes, that's an idea. Therefore I'm not approaching it.
Sir, look, I want to know, or any religious man wants to know, if there is God. To find out you must come to the problem freely, without any conclusion, your belief, your prejudice, your conditioning. Right?
So ( in our case) your conditioning is the 'god'.

Q: I think you're moving away. Let's stay with this issue of the fear on approaching the wound.

K: Yes, sir.

Q: Let's stay away from God.

K: I brought in God, because that is fairly demonstrable. All right. I am psychologically wounded, if I am. And what is my approach to that wound. What's your approach to the wound that you have, if you have any? Come on, sir, tell me what's your approach?

Q: There is no approach, that's just it. We just run away from it.

K: I'm asking. Running away is your approach?

Q: We think about it.

K: You think about it. That's your approach. How do you think about it?

Q: There's a whole picture of it. But after a while it is a stumbling block and it won't go further.
K: So your approach is that you have a block. That is - keep it there. Your approach is you can't approach it, because you have a wall.

Q: Right.

K: All right. And others?

Q: It seems to have formed already certain conclusions about this problem.

K: So, your approach is with conclusions, another is with ideas, the other is to run away from it. So our approaches are preventing you looking at it. Right? Now if you want to observe the fact that you're wounded can't you approach it freely? To find out you (the whole plot) must come to it with the same curiosity, with the same eagerness, if you read a good book, a novel, then you watch it and see what happens. Because then you may totally eliminate altogether conflict. That means, a very sane mind.

Q: So is it that we are not afraid of the wound itself but of what may happen if ( our familiar) wounds disappear.

K: Partly. Because the wound has given me a sense of ( my inner) identity. You follow? I am somebody with a ( respectable?) wound, but without a wound, I'm nobody.

Q: Can it be said that the wound is caused by - we would like to have a pleasant image...

K: About yourself.

Q: From other people.

K: And yourself. So that pleasant image you have about yourself gets a pin prick. Somebody puts a pin into it. Then you get hurt.

Q: Yes, but I think there is a basic craving and wanting to be accepted by others.

K: Yes, sir, we've got basic craziness, sir. We are basically crazy, quite right, sir. I think we'd better stop, don't you?

Q: Being crazy?

K: You see, sir, it shows that we cannot remain with something and let it tell the whole story. I said, just watch it. Just say, take one fact , that you are influenced by your parents, by the school, by teachers, you are being influenced all around. Can you watch this ( subliminal) influence being a pressure on you? Just watch it.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 08 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Jun 2018 #62
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 211 posts in this forum Offline


 6TH K SEMINAR MEETING cca 1978 (reader friendly edited)

Krishnamurti: Can we now go back to (the art of holistically ?) observing what actually is happening in our relationship with each other ?

Questioner: This morning a few people and myself were thinking over what we were going to talk about. And it came to me ( a major existential three -in- one) question) : What we really are here for ? What we are creating within ourselves ? and What's going to become of us ?

K: What's going to become of you, when you leave here. Is that it?

Q: Well, out of what we have done here and what we have talked about.

K: What you will do with what have you learnt here, what have you found out for yourself ? Do you want to discuss that? Or do you want to go back to being a light to yourself, not to depend ( psychologically) on anybody else. Or are you frightened to open that 'Pandora Box' of relationship ? Please, just tell me which you want to discuss.

Q: Aren't they all related?

K: Maybe.

Q: Could we discuss all of of them?

K: I mean, not 'discuss' (intellectually) but can we remain with the fact, without any deviation, without the interference of all the accumulated memories of the past, which is thought, to observe what is taking place without all the (active memory of the) past - or 'thought'- acting as a ( self-protective?) barrier in observation.
Now can we talk over together this question of ( our everyday) relationship, and if it is possible to be a light to oneself, to be so completely, totally free from all (psychological) influence, both external and inward? Then only it is possible to be free from all ( environmental) pressures, and so discover what it is to be a light to oneself.

Q: Our actual problem is here relationship, obviously.

K: Let's start - do we know exactly what our (actual) relationship is now ? Are we aware of it, it doesn't matter, with my mother, with my father, with one's father, wife, husband, mother, sister - relationship, intimate and not intimate, far and near.

Q: As we pointed out yesterday, we are aware when there's ( some frustration &) pain involved .

K: You are related to somebody, aren't you? Are you aware of what that relationship means, what is involved in it - the reactions & pressures, the whole (complexity of the psychological) interaction between two people - possessivity, domination, attachment, the pain in attachment, the fear, the pleasing another and so on, the whole area of our relationship. Are we aware of it?

Q: It also includes the intrinsic loneliness of life and the desire for a companion.

K: All that's implied. Does each one of us know what exactly our relationship is with each other? Or is it all superficial, casual, or an avoidance of relationship ?

Q: I think it includes everything that you said, including sharing .

K: Yes, all that, but are you aware actually that each one is concerned with his/her own ambitions, vanities, pleasures and the other person also, in a different way. So two separate movements coming occasionally into contact. Is that what our relationships are?

Q: Yes, it seems to be that we are separate.

K: Yes, separate, and coming together occasionally, but sustaining this separation, maintaining it, nourishing it, creating it, driving along these separate paths.

Q: That's just one feature of it, Krishnaji. I think there's another feature, that in many relationships there is also a movement where there is a kind of sinking in, sort of merging where everything becomes one.

K: What do you mean 'merging'?

Q: Where there is no separation, where everything is sort of mixed up, it is joined.

K: Is it, everything is mixed up ? Merging, separating, companionship, no companionship, follow? - it's all a jumble. Would that be correct?

Q: Well, I think we're superficially aware, but we're not deeply aware of all the (psychological) implications.

K: All right, but are we aware that in our relationship there is a great deal of confusion ?

Q: I'm aware of that at some moments but most of the time I'm not aware of it.

K: Now, sir, if our relationship is so mixed up, so unclear, so confused, so, there is never clarity in it. Would we say that?

Q: I think I am clear about certain relationships.

K: I said in all relationships, I may be very clear, in my relationship to my father, but with your boy friend it's mixed up, it is it not as clear as pure water. As I told you, this is really a very serious subject, and we don't want to enter into the complexities of it, the fear of it, what might happen, whether I will lose my wife, husband, all the rest of it.

Q: Sir, I'm afraid we do not understand what it is, 'being aware'.

K: Know, recognize, actually see what is taking place, what is actually happening - not 'all the time' but say, now.

Q: Sir, are we looking at the entire problem of relationship, including the relationship to nature, or to the immediate relationship with our fellow men in certain fairly close...

K: No, Maria, I'm asking you, are you aware of what your relationship is actually? What is happening in that relationship?

Q: To other human beings?

K: Of course, I said that at the beginning.

Q: Are we talking only about our close relationships or...

K: Close, extended, far, near - all that is involved in relationship. What's my relationship when I go to India, or America, and, the whole problem of it.

Q: It seems to me I do see the difficulties and the motives , but still it goes on, it doesn't prevent the difficulties.

K: What is the common factor in our everyday relationship?

Q: Everyone seems to admit that there is at least some ( amount of) confusion.

K: Right, could we start with that, sir ? Does one want to live that way? Suppose one knows one is attached, and also one has seen in that attachment, the dependence, the holding on, great pain, suffering, anxiety, and fear. Knowing that, and continue to live that way, is neurotic. No?

Q: The natural question that comes up is, how can a man and wife be related in any other way?

K: But if in that relationship there is fear, attachment & all that - why don't you drop it?

Q: That's very easily said.

K: Is it? If you see that certain action leads to pain, and you keep on acting in that way, what does it indicate? We're trying to be serious, to find out (the truth of this matter) . You follow?

Q: Isn't this taking us back to what you were saying before, yesterday, Krishnaji, that we are unable to face the fact?

K: That's just what I'm saying - we are unable to face something actual. Why? I mean, if I have great pain and it may be cancerous, I must do something about it.

Q: Krishnaji, one thing that comes in there immediately is the fact that the very relationship itself is attempting to deal with a pain. That the relationship itself is embedded in a protection, is a protection from another (deeper) pain (of loneliness) .

K: Therefore you protect yourself against pain and in protecting yourself against pain you create more pain. What does that mean?

Q: It's no protection at all.

K: Apparently we are not facing this fact. So what do we do? Wait till the calamity takes place? ( the psychological earthquake)?

Q: With the pain always comes the pleasure, and I think that because there's pleasure involved in it, we accept the pain as part of it.

K: I see ; now there is a greater pleasure and not so much fear, ( but, as time goes by ?) the greater pleasure eventually ends up in (sorrow & ) fear. Obviously

Q: Why is it so 'obvious' ?

K: Ask Dr Shainberg, he agreed with me !

Q: I think that the whole idea of creating a relationship in order to protect against the pain (of loneliness) gives a temporary relief from the pain, but then the frustration of that relationship or the stopping of that, gives more pain. In other words, first is the pleasure of relief, then there's the pain of not getting that relief anymore.

K: So you ( eventually ) see that where there is pleasure and the pursuit of pleasure in relationship, it will inevitably end in greater pain. It's so obvious. Because you are giving another great pleasure, he 'holds on' to you, he wants to possess you, he says, 'she's (all?) mine'. And if you both like this thing, one day (or another) it's going to (end anyway )- you follow?
So are you actually aware, know, face the fact of what your actual relationship is now?

Q: What can a person do if he finds he is unwilling to face the problem ?

K: I can't do anything. His own intelligence observing what is happening must show him this.

Q: But Krishnaji, David has raised a good point, because when the drug addict goes down to the corner and takes some heroin, his consciousness is blurred to see what he's done, he's got a kick out of it.

K: All right. Are we in that position of being (totally dependent psychologically) ?

Q: No, sir.

K: Maybe - sir, don't deny it so quickly. Maybe our brains are affected.

Q: I am not.

K: That's one of the most difficult things to say, 'I am not'. I may be.

Q: I think, from what I see of myself, that one can be awake and very clear of certain facets of certain relationships, but realizing the whole (of one's relationship) in a direct way, it's a much harder thing.

K: Sir, how can I comprehend the wholeness of relationship and the real extraordinary beauty of this 'totality of feeling', unless, if I'm not clear at the beginning, of what it actually is now ? You follow? From there I must move. I must go forward in this realization. ( As of now) my relationship is actually this – just face it and see what happens when you face a ( the truth regarding a ) relationship which actually is ( entangled in ) attachment – an face that attachment, without the interference of thought, without any (hidden) motive, without any 'direction'. Then see what takes place.

Q: We agree to face things when they are important enough.

K: That's up to you. As Dr Shainberg pointed out, a man who takes heroin day after day - habituated to it, he's addicted to it, and he says, 'What are you talking about? I want my heroin, everything's all right, give me that.' Are we in that state, because one has lived ( for years) with one's husband, wife, say ''For God's sake, everything is ( going on just ) perfectly here, leave it alone''. And what one is pointing out is that when you face ( the actual truth of) a fact, without the interference and the barrier of thought, the very thing that is being observed undergoes a fundamental change. Why won't you try it ?

Q: Perhaps we like to believe that our particular different, and in that way we kind of 'falsify the evidence'.

K: And we say, 'Yes, it should not be that way,' and just carry on ?

Q: Quite.

K: So I am saying, face the fact of (the self-projected idea ) 'it should not be that way' and look at it.

Q: It seems to me that even here, discussing the fact is not facing it, because we can't go on.

K: That's right, sir. We've come to a (communication ) impasse each time because we are refusing to see, to face the thing. Sir, have you ever watched an ant, or a bee, closely? You must have. You're not telling the bee what it should do, or what the ant should do. Just watching. Can you do the same thing about your reaction in your relationship with another? Just watch it without any interference ?

Q: Is it possible, Krishnaji, is it possible to discuss the point before ( engaging in a particular) relationship. Dr Shainberg said that many relationships are ( boring & ) painful but we get stuck with these relationship because we were trying to cover up another pain, or another inadequacy.

K: So, you are trying to cover up other ( existential) pains? And establish a (convenient?) escape through that relationship?
I'll keep on (with pushing this issue ) till you get bored with me and throw me out. Are you facing the fact of your relationship? ( For example ) what is your actual relationship to the speaker? Do you know it?

Q: Well, I've I've reached a block - I come to a position where I cannot experience it.

K: I haven't made myself clear. You are and here I am, two (serious?) people. Why have you come?

Q: I think there are a couple of reasons for coming. One is there is a sense of sharing in investigating together into how we don't see. That's one. In other words, to tear down together (the shack of the 'known'?) .

K: Just a minute Dr Shainberg, you and I have met for years, talked to each other a great deal etc,. Now what is your relationship with this (K) person?

Q: I have a feeling of working together in some way.

K: I am asking you even before we do something together, what's our relationship?

Q: There are no words for it.

K: Come off it, Doctor, say there's no word for it.

Q: Sir, I sincerely try to answer it for myself. I have come to get something from you.

K: (Fair) enough. You want something from me. Then what is ( the gist of ) my relationship - I'll give you this, and you'll give me that ?

Q: A transaction ?

K: It's a transaction, all right. But.. don't you ask me what is my relationship to you?

Q: Ok, sir, we'll ask that question: what is your relationship to us?

K: Sir, this becomes too serious. Am I facing the fact that when I want something from another, that brings about a great ( subliminal) pain of ( psychological) dependence, which we are unwilling to look at
How can one be a light to oneself if there is any kind of (psychical) dependence? So, which is more important, the light to oneself or your (psychological) dependence? Which is more vital, energising, passionate?

Q: How do you distinguish that from pleasure? We are trying to distinguish which one is going to give me the more pleasure?

K: Yes, put it like that- which is more pleasurable, to be a light to oneself, the implications of that, to be 'a light to oneself' will that give me greater pleasure than the other?

Q: Can I tell until I am ( becoming) a light to myself?

K: Therefore, what will you do ? You want to find out whether 'being a light to oneself' ( the inward implications of it most of us don't understand) will that give me greater strength, greater energy, greater, much more vitality and passion, than my psychological dependence (on K & the Teachings ?) . Will my dependence give me vitality? Deep abiding strength? Or it's going to waste away my ( intelligent life-) energy? So if I think ( subliminally that my ) dependence may be greater pleasure, I will pursue this ( 'follower' mentality ) till I am awakened to it through pain. Then I say, 'My God, I must struggle to be independent,' or ''that (K) person is not right'', I'll go and take another (more 'enlightened' ?) person. But ( my choice for) this person is in the same field as the other , because ( my personal committment to ) that other person is going to cause the same (recurring psychological) problems.
So does my dependence ( on K) give great pleasure?

Q: When one realizes that ( any psychological) dependence is limiting , then it stops.

K: Do you realize the truth (regarding any psychological) dependence, ( or have ) a total insight into dependence ?

Q: I know I'm dependent. I may not see the full extent of it, but I certainly do see that I am dependent on others.

K: All right, don't you see that in this ( temporarily comforting?) dependence, that there is a great (potential?) of ( fear &) pain? Though it may be pleasurable for the time being, in that pleasurable state for the time being, do you see the ( increasing odds of ) pain going on at the same time ?
Then... why don't you drop it ?

Q: We are afraid that (the basis all our current ) relationship will stop when we drop it.

K: If you 'drop' ( the attachment to?) it, there may be a different kind of relationship.

Q: Sir, what on earth do you mean when you say, 'Drop it' ?

K: What do I mean by 'drop it ' - it's very simple, sir. Don't you drop something when it is dangerous, drop, that is, put it aside, avoid it.

Q: What do you mean, 'put it aside'? I don't understand at all.

K: All right. I see ( that any psychological) dependence implies pain. Do I want more ( instability & ) pain involved in this ( inner condition of) dependency? A continuous pain for the next thirty years?

Q: I think this is a confusion of words, Krishnaji. When you say 'can we drop it', we're probably thinking can we should also drop the actual relationship.

K: No.

Q: So, you actually mean to say : Can we drop the dependence ?

K: Yes, in the sense of being (inwardly) free of it. All right. Not dropping our relationship, but being free of (the psychological) dependence (involved in it ) .

Q: What does that mean, 'be free of'? That's the difficulty.

K: Free of, in the sense, if you have a physical pain, you try to get rid of it (ASAP?) , don't you? In the same way, psychologically dependence breeds pain. Do you see that? Can you face ( the timeless truth ) that in ( any psychological) dependence there is ( a real potential of ) pain?

Q: This is what I see.

K: See it, feelt, know it - it is an irrevocable (karmic?) law. Now if you like ( ignoring the karmic ) pain and hold on to ( the temporal benefits of) that attachment, then it's perfectly all right. But if you see it's not worth it, don't you let ( or allow the psychological) dependence wither away ?

Q: I think there's a step missing, here in the sense that a (normal) person may stick to something that is painful if he feels has a real necessity for it.

K: Oh, I see. One needs pain?

Q: Not the pain but one needs the (temporal benefits of the?) dependence that produces the pain.

K: One needs the dependence... ?

Q: One needs something to depend (to rely?) on, that's my point.

K: I understand. Do you need to depend psychologically...

Q: For example a person may be convinced that (s)he is too weak to stand alone.

K: One is 'convinced' that one cannot stand alone, therefore I depend on you. How do you know you can't stand alone?

Q: The common (life) experience seems to indicate that.

K: Has your experience told you that you can't stand alone?

Q: In a sense, yes.

K: Not in a sense - face it. Your (materialistic ?) experience has told you, ''my friend, you can't stand alone.''

Q: It has told me that as I don't live it very intelligently, I am not a light unto myself. So I come to depend on others (inner light?) .

K: As Dr Bohm pointed out, we are afraid to 'stand alone'. And that ( ancestral collective ) fear makes us rely ( psychologically) on another. Right? How do you know or aware or recognize, what tells you that you can't stand alone? Is it our education, our religions, our society, your mother, your father, say, 'You can't, you can't, you can't, you must depend.'

Q: I think all those things have happened.

K: Therefore, what do you do. Don't you test it out? Why should - sir, the churches have said to you, you can't be a light to yourself, you can't be, you must depend on Jesus in the West. Why do you accept that kind of statement ? Why don't you test it out?

Q: Sir, could you deal with the fact of being alone, what happens when you are alone.

K: I'm asking, sir, is it because you are (un-consciously?) afraid ( of what might happen?) when you 'stand alone' (inwardly) , when you don't depend (psychologically?)

Q: We've all 'stood alone' at various times.

K: All right, what happened when you have occasionally 'stood alone', can't you face that fact and see what happens?

Q: But you don't really want to 'stand alone' until you really dislike and are uncomfortable in your dependence.

K: Not until you have pain ? I'm not being personal - but haven't you had enough pain?

Q: Yes.

K: Then why can't you 'stand alone'?

Q: I think I'm learning to stand alone because I don't want any more of that particular pain (of psychological dependency) .

K: I said, face the 'fact' that dependence means pain, look at it. Be in total contact with ( the truth of) that fact. And this (K) person is saying that if you do this, ( the inner) conflict totally ends, completely, in life. You can test it out (for homework?) .
Let's face now the other (inward option) : What does it mean to 'be a light to yourself'? Why is Dr Shainberg, dependent on (psych-) analysis? Why doesn't he throw the whole thing away ( go 'non-profit'?) and say, "Be a light to yourself' I will help you to be completely free from all this (psychological debris) , so that you can 'stand alone' ?" Realising that nobody is going to help you (solve your existential problems), why not wipe away all that and say, 'look !'. Can't you do that (for extra homework) ?
Man has always sought (spiritual) freedom, from the most primitive till now. Inwardly, this 'freedom' means to be (inwardly) alone (all-one ?) , to stand alone. Which means freedom from the known.

Q: So then you stay with what 'fact' ?

K: The (transcending?) 'fact' is, there must be freedom from the 'known'. That's a fact to me. Not to you. The 'known' is all the ( background of the personal & collective?) memory. Now in order to 'be a light to oneself', or to 'stand by oneself', the ( psychological memory of our) past must totally vanish.

Q: So you stay with this (transcending) 'fact' and see its implications, totally.

K: Which means, that what has been registered on the 'tape of the brain', the ( ongoing psychological) registration must end, the past, and no present or future registration must take place. Sir, this is one of the most...

Q: I'm really interested to know what it means (experientially) .

K: You can find out for yourself, not from this ( K) person, how tremendously important it is to 'stand alone' ( 'All-One') , which doesn't mean isolation, which doesn't mean non-cooperation. To stand alone means to live a life without any (psychological) pressures from outside or inside. Find out ( for extra-homework) whether it is possible for a human being, who is the (Consciousness?) representative of all humanity - that's a (trans-personal) fact - the (collective consciousness of the ) entire humanity has said (for ages) 'I must depend' - on my faith in God, on this deity, on that (sacred) Book, etc. So our conditioning is (carrying the burden of) this tremendous dependence. Right?
Now, in being completely free of that ( psychological) conditioning, you're really a whole (human being) , an undivided 'individual'. Now, that means, no external imposition by another (spiritual authority?) seeing the absurdity of it and wiping it out. Then you can ask, is it possible to be a light - not only to yourself, because you are the humanity - but a light to humanity ? (the Light of the World?) Therefore can I be a light 'globally', not for my petty little backyard light ? ( Hint:) My 'backyard light' is just ( a local application of) Electricity which can be switched off and switched on from the main dynamo. But can one come upon something which is the Truth, the irrevocable Truth. Not 'your' truth or 'my' truth, but ( the living spirit of) Truth. can one perceive ( or have free access to?) 'that' thing, if one is not (inwardly) free (of the known?)

So, at the end of this ( rather hectic?) gathering can we at least, say to ourselves, 'I have faced a fact and discovered what actually takes place when I've faced ( holistically that ) one thing' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #63
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 211 posts in this forum Offline

The Brain, the Mind & the creative virtues of inner Emptiness

( a "reader friendly" edited K dialogue with Mrs Pupul Jayakar, 1983)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Is there a 'within' of things, whether of man, of the tree, of nature, which is an inner space without ending, and is it a 'mirror image' of that vastness which exists in the outward (manifested?) world ?

K: You are asking whether there is or there can be a space without end, an eternity outside time within the human brain. For starters I’d like to distinguish between the brain and the mind.

PJ: How do you start inquiring? Do you start by examination or by posing the question? Now, what comes out of it—speculation or examination—depends on how you approach it; but the question has to be posed.

K: We have put the ( fundamental existential?) question: Can the brain ( experientially?) realize the truth as to whether there is eternity or not? Is (the total consciousness of?) mankind forever bound to time, the brain can actually realize ( within) itself a state of '( timeless) eternity' ? This is a question that has been asked for thousands of years and this is what we’re asking too.

PJ: So, you started ( this inquiry) by drawing a distinction between the brain and the mind.
Would you, please, elaborate?

K: First, we are saying that the human brain - at least some part of it- is conditioned. That conditioning is brought about through ( its survival-oriented ) experience. That conditioning is (present both in our?) knowledge and in our ( active?) memory. And as mankind's experience, knowledge and memory are limited, ( the resulting ego-centric?) ) thinking is limited. We have been functioning ( for ages ) with this kind of thinking, but to discover something new, there has to be, at least temporarily, a period when thought ( the self-centred thinking process) is in abeyance.

PJ: What is the 'mind' then?

K: The 'mind' is a wholly different dimension (of human consciousness?) which has no ( interactive?) contact with ( the self-centred) thought. Let me explain. The brain—that part of the brain which has been functioning as an instrument of thought—has been conditioned (by its 'survival-oriented' self-interest?) , and as long as that part of the brain remains in that state there is no entire communication—with the 'mind'. Now, when this (time-binding) conditioning is not (interfering) , then the ( intelligent & compassionate?) 'mind' which is totally on a different dimension, communicates with the brain and acts—using brain's thinking capacity .

PJ: So, you’ve already posited a state (of human consciousness?) which is outside the realm of thought ?

K: That’s right, and therefore, outside the realm of...

PJ: ...( material ) time ?

K: Yes, time.

PJ: As 'time' seems to be the essential core of this problem...

K: Time and thought.

PJ: ( The self-centred process of ) thought is a product of time. In a (more holistic?) sense, thought 'is' time.

K: That’s the real point. So, where do we start ?

PJ: Perhaps if we could go into this whole 'flow of time', at any instant an 'interception' is possible... you may also use the word ‘ending’. (Man's self-centred ) thinking is coming from a past immemorial, and is constantly projecting itself into a future, which is also endless...

K: In terms of thought, the 'future' is conditioned by the 'past'—as (pertaining to) a human psyche.

PJ: Yes. So, unless the human being ceases to be...

K: Ceases to be ( self-interest?) conditioned, right?

PJ: The (psychological) 'content' will undergo a change, but the mechanism of thought will continue.

K: Now, thought is the chief instrument we have. Thousands of years of various (matter oriented?) efforts and actions have not only made that instrument dull, but this instrument has also reached the 'end of its tether'. ( The mental process of?) thought-( projecting itself in?) time is limited, conditioned, divided, and in a perpetual state of (inner conflict & ) turstrong textmoil. Now, can that end? That’s the Question.

PJ: Now, the actual contact with thought-time, as a psychological process, is in the present, isn’t it?

K: Are you asking: what is the ‘now’?

PJ: It’s the point of ‘interception’ that I’m talking about —the contact with the fact, with ‘what is’.

K: May I put it in the way that I understand it? The ( mental continuity of the ) 'past', the 'present' and the 'future' is a movement of time-thought. How do you come to see the truth of it, how do I come into contact with the fact that I am ( mentally identified with?) a whole series of memories, which is (the process of) 'time-thought'?

PJ: No, let us be more concrete. That I am going away this afternoon is a thought.

K: It’s not ( just ) a thought; it’s an actuality.

PJ: Actuality, yes; but beneath that actuality, there are certain emotional, psychological elements which come to cover up the fact. So, what is the 'fact' which has to be contacted? Not the fact that I’m going away, but this ( psychological) pain (of leaving someone) .

K: The ( residual inner) pain of centuries of loneliness, sorrow, grief; the agony, the anxiety and all that—is it separate from the ‘me’ who feels it?

PJ: It may not be separate.

K: It 'is' me. (Emphatic)

PJ: But how do I touch it? It’s only in the (active) present that the whole of this edifice rests.

K: That’s what I said : the ‘now’ contains the past, the future and the present. Let’s understand this (holistically encripted statement?) The 'present' is (containing) the whole past and the future. This ( psychological dimension of the ) present is 'me' with all the ( personal & collective?) memories of a thousand years, which are being (updated & ) modified all the time. All that is the ‘now’—the ( me-in-the-?) present.

PJ: But the present is also something which is not static. It’s over before...

K: Of course, of course. The moment you’ve said it, it’s gone.

PJ : So what is it that you can actually observe?

K: You actually observe the ( truth of the ) fact that the ( 'me-in-the-) present' is the whole movement of time and thought. You, actually see the truth of that. You have an insight, a (timeless?) perception, into the fact that the (my temporal consciousness ?) ‘now’ is all (part of an endless continuity of) time and thought.

PJ: Does this ( enlightening ?) perception emanate from the brain?

K: That perception is a (timeless?) insight which has nothing to do with 'time & thought'.

PJ: But it arises within the brain?

K: Or does it arise outside the brain? Is it occurring within the sphere of the brain or is that ( inwardly enlightening?) 'insight' comes ( naturally) when there is freedom from conditioning, which is the operation of the 'mind'?—That is supreme intelligence, you follow?

PJ: No, I don’t quite follow...

K: Let’s be clear. The ( material) brain is conditioned by time & thought. As long as that ( self-centred) conditioning remains (active) , ( a total) insight is not possible. You may have occasional insight into something, but not a 'pure insight', which means the ( enlightening?) comprehension of the totality of things—I use the word ‘totality’ and not ‘wholeness’, because that word is now being used so much (by everyone here?) . That insight is the perception of completeness. Therefore that insight is part of that brain which is in a different dimension.

PJ: Let us take the word ‘insight’. It means ‘seeing into’. But...seeing into what?

K: An 'insight' or the comprehension of the totality, of the vastness of something, is possible only when there is the cessation of ( the inner process of ) thought and time. Thought and time are limited; therefore such limitation cannot have ( access to) insight.

PJ: Now, such an insight cannot arise without attention.

K: No, wait; don’t introduce the ( widely abused?) word ‘attention’. Stick to : insight cannot exist as long as time-thought plays a part.

PJ: But you see, in my consciousness, in my approach to this, I can’t start with insight.

K: No.

PJ: I can only start with ( mindful?) observation.

K: You can only start by realizing the truth that the psychological process of 'time & thought' is always (intrinsically) limited. That’s a fact, and you can see the fact of that.

PJ: You can see the fact of that in the world outside yourself.

K: You can see its (grave limitation) politically, religiously. Throughout the world it is a fact that 'time and thought', in their ( self-centred) activity, have wrought havoc in the world. That’s a fact.

PJ: Yes, yes.

K: So, now the (new) question is: Can this limitation ever end or is man condemned, forever, to live within the 'time-thought' area (in the 'known') ?

PJ: To 'see the fact' that ( the inner process of?) time-thought is limited? What exactly does it mean? What’s so wrong with it being limited?

K: There is nothing 'wrong' if you want to (enjoy?) living in ( an inner state of) perpetual conflict (& swimming with the sharks?)

PJ: Now, a move further. To actually 'end it' is not enough to feel that it is limited - there must be an action of ending it.

K: I say that there is.

PJ: What is the nature of this ending?

K: I must be clear that we both understand the same thing when we use the words—‘to end something’ - ( like) ending ( one's psychological dependency or?) attachment. To put an end to it.

PJ: Like the (inner continuity of attachment?) ceasing to 'flow' ?

K: Yes, the ( time binding) movement of 'thought & time' ceases—psychologically. What is your difficulty? You are making a ( holistically?) 'simple' action sound so terribly complex.

PJ: Sir, there is a point of ( time-free) perception which is a point of insight.

K: Yes.

PJ: What is that 'point of insight'?

K: What do you mean ‘point of insight’?

PJ: In what ( inner dimension?) do I see it?

K: Look, Pupul, let’s be simple. In the outer world the 'time-thought' process has divided the world: politically, geographically, religiously. That’s a fact. Can’t you see the fact?

PJ: Looking at the outside world and I can see it

K: No, wait, wait. Don’t look (just ) 'outside'.

PJ:(Inwardly ) I don’t see the truth of this fact.

K: What do you mean ‘I don’t see the fact’?

PJ: Because if I saw the ( inward truth of this) fact...

K: would stop that kind of thing ?

PJ: It would be all over .

K: That’s all I’m saying.

PJ: Therefore it's not such a 'simple' thing—because it has such devious ways...

K: No. (Emphatic) That’s the whole point. If you have an insight that the movement of 'thought-time' is ( not only time-binding) but self-divisive—at whatever level it is a movement of endless ( personal & collective strife & ) conflict...

PJ: Yes, you can see it more easily when it’s a matter outside you.

K: Now, can you see ( that all this mentality of conflict is caused ) inwardly by the movement of the psyche which is the movement of time-thought. This inward movement has created that. (Pointing outside) Simple (as 'pie'?) This ( self-) divisive 'psychological movement' has created the visible external facts. I am a German. I feel secure in the ( Germanic?) word. I feel secure in the feeling that I belong to something...

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, all these (outward manifestation like) being a 'Hindu' or being 'greedy'—one has seen as a product of this movement of time-thought.

K: That’s all I’m saying.

PJ: But it isn't enough ...

K: What is your difficulty?

PJ: There is, within it all, the ( subliminally self-identifying?) sense of ‘I exist’.

K: That’s the whole point. (With emphasis) You don’t realize that the 'psyche' is (the subliminal expression of?) that (same 'time & thought' process ?) .

PJ: Yes, that’s essentially the nature of my problem.

K: Because you (may?) think that the 'psyche' ( the higher 'Self') is something other than a conditioned state. You think that there is something in you which is timeless, which is ( part of) God, and that if only you can reach That, everything will be all right. That’s part of your ( self-created?) conditioning. Because you are uncertain, because you are confused, God or the highest principle or some kind of conviction gives you safety, protection, certainty. That’s all.

PJ: If this is so (elementary?) , then what is the nature of the Ground from which insight springs?

K: I’ve told you. Insight can only take place when there is freedom from time and thought.

PJ: 'Time and thought'. You see, it’s a sort of a never-ending story...

K: No. It is not. You are complicating a very simple fact : To live in peace is to 'flower' (inwardly) ; it is to understand the extraordinary 'World of Peace'. Peace cannot be brought about by ( the time-binding process of) thought.

PJ: You see, the brain itself (stops & ) listens to that statement.

K: Yes, it listens, and then what happens? When it really, actually, listens, and there is ( an inward) quietness that is not induced, and then there is insight. I don’t have to explain in ten different ways the limitation of thought. It is so.

PJ: I see what you are saying. Is there anything further than that?

K: Oh yes, there is. Is listening only possible when it is connected to a 'sound' , or is there also a listening to something without the verbal ( interpretation of the) sound? If you want to convey to me something much more than the words and the words are making a sound in my hearing, I cannot listen to the depth of what you are saying.

So, back to what we started with, namely, the 'present' is the (instant cross-section of the ?) whole movement of 'time-thought'. It is ( containing ) the whole structure. If the ( time-binding) structure of 'time & thought' ends, the ‘Now’ has a totally different meaning. The ‘Now’ then is ( being inwardly as ) 'no-thing'. And this (being as?) 'nothing' contains all. Right?

PJ: Yes...

K: But we are ( consciously or unconsciously) afraid to be 'no-thing'.

PJ: When you say, ‘ it contains all’, do you mean that it is the essence of all humanity, the environment, nature and...

K: Yes, yes.

PJ: The Cosmos as such?

K: ( Inwardly speaking ) there is 'nothing' (not-a-thing) . The (self-conscious ?) 'psyche' is a bundle of ( personal & collective?) memories, and those ( psychologically active?) memories are (creatively-wise as good as ?) 'dead'. They operate, function in us, but they are the outcome of past experiences, which are gone. I 'am' ( inwardly ) a movement of ( constantly updated & recycled personal & collective ) memories. Now, if I have an insight ( into the truth that?) that there is nothing (worth keeping ?), then the ( self-conscious?) ‘I’ don’t exist.

  • ( A Few Bonus Questions)

PJ: You were saying something about Sound and Listening.

K: Yes, listening (inwardly) without 'sound'. You see the beauty of it?

PJ: Yes, but I think this ( non-verbal listening) it possible only when the mind itself is totally still.

K: When the brain is absolutely quiet, there is no ( mental) sound made (or induced?) by the words. That is the real listening. The words have given me (the physical meaning of?) what you want to convey : ‘I’m going away this afternoon’. I listen to that...

PJ: But the (verbally conditioned ?) brain has not been (totally) active in this (kind of) listening.

K: The brain, when it is ( outwardly ?) 'active', is ( listening to its own mental ? ) noise. Let’s come back to this business of ( Listening to ) Sound, because it’s very interesting. The pure ( listening to?) Sound can only exist when there is (free inner) space and silence. Otherwise it’s just ( listening to one's own mental ?) noise.

(Silent Pause)

( Coming back to our worldly 'reality' ?) all our (traditional) education as well as all one’s past experience and knowledge, is a movement ( of personal & collective 'self-interest' engaged in ?) (self-) becoming— both inwardly and outwardly. ( The origins of the desire for ?) becoming ( safer, stronger & happier ?) is the (indiscriminate) accumulation of memory — more and more and more memories which constitute our 'knowledge'. Now, as long as that movement exists, there is (also the darker side of it ?) fear of being nothing (or of not succeeding & failing ?) . But when one has an insight that (inwardly) there is no-thing (not-a-thing?) , and when one really sees the fallacy, the illusion of (self-) becoming—which is (an endless process of ) 'time-thought' and conflict—then there is an ending of that (illusory inner ) movement which is 'time-thought'. The 'ending' of that ( mental ) movement is (resulting in a state of inwardly ?) being (as) 'no-thing'. This ( inward ) 'nothing-ness' contains the entire World of Compassion. Compassion is not a (material?) 'thing'. Therefore, that (state of?) 'inward no-thingness' is (inwardly open to ?) Supreme Intelligence. That’s All There Is.

PJ: Yes...

K: So, why are the human beings frightened of (inwardly?) 'being (as) nothing', so frightened to see that ( psychologically-wise ?) they really are a verbal (a mental structure of?) illusions, that they are (inwardly) nothing but 'dead' ( although... constantly updated & refreshed personal ?) memories? The truth of the 'fact' is that I am ( inwardly identified with my ?) memories.
If I have no ( personal) memory, either I’m in a state of ( moronic ?) amnesia or I'll (have to wake up inwardly and ? ) understand the whole movement (internal activity of my) memory, which is ( a collective stream of) 'time-thought', and see the fact that as long as there is ( an unbroken continity of) this ( thought) movement, (my inner existence will be ?) an endless state of conflict, struggle, pain.
(However on the 'plus' side?) when there is a (liberating) 'insight' into all this, (the inner significance of being inwardly as ) 'nothing' means something entirely different. That ‘being as nothing’ is ( living in the eternal?) Present, not in a ‘varying present'.

PJ: Not in a 'varying present' ???

K: It isn’t that one day it’s this, and the next day it is different. That ( inwardly being as?) nothing is not of time. Therefore it’s not ending one day, and being another day. You see, if one goes into this problem, not theoretically, but actually, this is the real meditation. That’s what S?nya (the Inner Void?) means in Sanskrit. The actual (truth of the?) fact is that inwardly we are ‘nothing’ except ( a self-identified mental structure of?) words, opinions and judgements. And (that's how?) we’ve made our (inner) lives petty.

So, ( in a nutshell?) we have to grasp ( the insight that?) in ( inwardly being as?) nothing, all the ( Consciousness of the?) World is contained — not the (personal) pain and the anxiety which are all so small. Now, having listened to all this, what is your comprehension? What is it that you, and that (silent minority?) who is going to 'listen' to all this, what do you capture, realize? Do you see the immensity of all this? Do you say, ‘By Jove, I’ve got it. I’ve got the perfume of it’?

PJ: Sir, don’t ask me that question ; as you were speaking there was (the feeling of that?) Immensity.

K: Yes, there was ( a visitation of ?) That. I could feel it and you could. There was the tension of that (Presence ?) , but is it (here only ?) for the moment and then it’s gone ?

PJ: No; but I realize is that the most difficult thing in the world is to be (inwardly?) totally simple.

K: Yes. To be ( inwardly ) 'simple'—that’s right. If one is really simple, one can understand the enormous complexity of things. But we start dealing with the complexities and never get to see the (inner) 'simplicity'. That’s our ( ages old cultural?) training. We have trained our brains to deal with the ( ever increasing?) complexities of daily life , and try to find an answer to the complexity. But we don’t see the extraordinary simplicity of life, of facts rather.

PJ: In the Indian (Spiritual) tradition, out of Sound were born all the elements - there is the Sound ( of All That Is?) which reverberates, and yet it is not heard.

K: That’s it. But after all, Pupul, especially in the Indian tradition, from the Buddha, from Nagarjuna, and the ancient Hindus, there is that state of 'no-thingness', for which, they said, you must 'deny' the whole thing.

PJ: Yes, every movement of the brain cells as we...

K: Yes, it is there in the ( Sacred) Books. Now, why haven’t they pursued that? You see, even the most intelligent of them have pursued some (mental) structure, and not the (authentic) feeling of religion, the feeling of the divine, the sense of something sacred. Why haven’t they pursued denying, not the ( reality of the?) world, but the ‘me’?

PJ: Sir, basically, renunciation refers to renouncing the 'me' , not renouncing the outer world

K: Yes, inside—which means what? Don’t be attached—even to a Highest principle. I think what is happening is that we are really caught in a ( self-protective?) net of words, in theories, and not in actuality. I suffer. I must find a way to end that. Why have human beings not faced and changed the fact? Is it because we (indulge ) living in ( self-comforting?) illusions, with ideas and conclusions and all those 'non-realities'?

PJ: We are living with the whole history of mankind.

K: Yes, and ( this history of) mankind 'is' (reflected in) me, - the ( temporal?) ‘me’ 'is' this endless human misery. So, if you want to end misery, end the ‘me’.

PJ: It’s really ( synonimous with?) the ending of (psychological) time, isn’t it, sir?

K: Yes, the ending of 'time-thought'. That means to listen without the sound. Listen to the Universe without a sound.

( Story time:) We were talking the other day in New York, to a doctor who is, I believe, very well known. He said, ‘All these questions are all right, sir, but the fundamental issue is whether the brain cells—which have been conditioned for centuries—can really bring about a mutation in themselves. Then the whole thing would be simple’. I said, ‘It’s possible only through insight’, and then we went into it as we’ve gone into it now. )

But you see, nobody is willing to 'listen' to this in its entirety. They listen partially, they agree up to a certain point and stop there. If ( a holistically responsible?) man would really say, ‘There must be peace in the world, therefore, I must live peacefully’, then there will be peace in the world. But man (the average sensory person ?) doesn’t want to 'live in peace'. He ( enjoys?) continuing with his ( wordly) ambition, his arrogance, his silly, petty fears and all that. We have reduced the vastness of all this to our petty little reactions and we live such petty lives. This applies to everyone—from the highest to the lowest.

PJ: What is ( the inward significance of?) 'Sound' ?

K: The Sound 'is' the ( life vibration of the?) tree. Then, take ( the Sound of?) Music – the pure Vedic or Gregorian chanting- they are extraordinarily close together. Then, you can listen to the Sound of the Waves, to the Sound of a Strong Wind among the trees, then (listening to the?) 'Sound' ( feeling the 'presence' ?) of the person whom you have lived with for many years, etc - if you don’t get 'used' to all this, you hear everything afresh-
( And still deeper inwardly ?) you tell me that 'time & thought' is the (central 'time-binding' ) movement of man’s life; which is therefore limited. Now, you have communicated to me a 'simple' fact, and if I 'listen' to it without ( getting distracted by?) the 'sound' of the words, I’ve captured the inner significance, the depth of that statement, and I can’t lose it. If I’ve listened to it in its entirety the Sound ( of Truth?) has conveyed the ( insight into that?) fact : 'It Is So'. And what is seen 'as being so' is ( an insight which is?) absolute—always. I believe that in the Hebraic ( spiritual ) tradition only the Nameless One can say ‘I Am’. ( Same thing) in the Sanskrit ; Tat Tvam Asi – Thou Art That

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 27 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Jun 2018 #64
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 211 posts in this forum Offline

Exploring the inward nature of 'God'

( An 'experientially essential' - 'reader friendly' edited) K dialogue with Mrs Pupul Jayakar & friends, cca 1981)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Can we investigate into the nature of 'God'?

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): Are you asking what is ( the Source of?) Creation or whether 'God' ( is another name for ) Reality or Truth ?

PJ: Behind the (generic) word ‘God’ lies millennia of man’s quest for something that is absolute, for something that is untouched...

K: Yes, for something that is universal.

PJ: Is it possible to inquire into the nature of ‘That’—call it 'God' or Creation or the Ground of Being ?

K: I think it is possible, providing the 'brain and mind' (complex ) is totally free to investigate that which the Israelis call the ‘Nameless’ and the Hindus call ‘Brahman’ or the ‘highest principle’? ( For starters?) can we put away all 'beliefs'? For only then will it be possible to investigate.

PJ: What exactly does it mean for the mind to be free of belief ?

K: Can one, consciously as well as un-consciously, be free of that ( 'psychological load' of this) word - which has played such a tremendous part in the Islamic and Christian world?

PJ: At one level it is possible to say that one is free – like if you were to ask me whether I believed in God, or whether I believed in Krishna, Rama or Siva. But that is not the final thing. There is this inner 'feeling for God' that seems to be integral to the fact of life itself. You see, there is a sense that without ‘this’ nothing could exist, the sense that ‘this’ is the ( spiritual ) Ground of all Existence

K: Shall we discuss this ( Inner ?) Ground ( of Creation?) from which everything originates? As I said, one can only find it out when one is absolutely free (inwardly) . (Unfortunately?) the 'un-conscious' (part of our inner ) being is absolutely crowded with all this...

PJ: There is a state of my inner being where the ( mental) movement of 'belief' is negated .

K: Does one 'negate' it (just intellectually?) or deeply at the very root of one’s being? Can one say, ‘I know nothing’ and stop there?

PJ: I can say that the movement of thought as the 'belief' in a particular God does not arise in my mind. But I still do not know the state of ''I-know-nothing'' which is a very different state from negating the outer movement as belief.

K: So could we go into that?

PJ: How does one proceed?

K: Can one negate, completely, the whole (mental) movement (in terms) of knowledge? Not the technological knowledge, of course, but can one negate the (psychologically ingrained ) feeling that one 'knows'? There is deep within one the whole accumulated experience of man which (assumes?) 'that there is God'. Of course there have been 'seers' who have said that there is no such thing as ( an omnipotent, omnipresent & omniscient?) God, but their words just add to man’s traditional ( systems of) belief, to his traditional knowledge. The question is: Can one ( inwardly) negate the 'knowledge' of all that one knows?

PJ: Let me put it this way. One has comprehended the way of negating the rising movement of thought as belief, but the depth, the dormancy, the thousands of years that form the matrix of one’s (psychological) being—how does one touch all that?

K: That is what one has to do.

PJ: Yes, but how does one ( get in ) touch with it?

K: Could we begin not by inquiring into whether there is God, but by inquiring into why the human mind has worked with (the concept of) becoming—a becoming that is based on knowledge, a constant movement (mental attitude?) —not only outwardly but also inwardly?

PJ: We started with an investigation into the nature of God and then you went on to speak of the matrix of becoming—are they related?

K: Aren’t they related? You see, one’s ( religious sense of) being is essentially based on the feeling that lies deep in one that there is something enormous, something incredibly immense—I am talking about that part of one’s being, that knowledge is the matrix, the ground on which one stands. So long as that is there, one is not actually free. Can one investigate into that?

QUESTIONER (Q): Isn't there (in the depths of human consciousness) an inherent (aspiration for?) 'something' that is beyond what one is taught, beyond what one picks up through one’s cultural heritage?

K: Even if it is an 'inherent' thing, can't one (meditation-wise?) empty one’s self -(centred consciousness) of the accumulation of a million years? Can one 'empty oneself' of that which may be implanted from childhood? Can one 'empty oneself' of the centuries of belief that there is 'something' beyond all this? I think that that is the most deep-rooted belief. It is something that is in the 'unconscious', as all deep things always are. And I think that if we want to investigate (the truth or falsehood of it?) that belief must go too.

PJ: Can one get to the deepest movement of the 'unconscious' mind? How is it possible, without the (deep layers of our collective?) unconscious being exposed, for it to end? How does one experience that which lies beyond anyone's personal knowledge?
I can go through the whole of my knowledge, and yet it will not contain it.

K: No. But aren’t you getting an (absolute beginner's ?) insight into this, namely, that there must be the total negating of everything man's (self-centred thinking ) has put together?

PJ: Perhaps one is asking the wrong question. Perhaps there can never be a 'total' negating of that. How can one negate that?

K: Just a minute. Man has tried in several ways to negate everything. He has fasted, he has tortured himself, but he has always remained anchored (within the field of the known?) to something or other - like the great Christian mystics; they were anchored to (their faith in) Jesus, and from there they moved.

PJ:Don't you think we are also 'anchored' to you?

K: Maybe, but if you are, then weigh the 'anchor'...

Q: One can be free of being anchored to most things, but can one cease to be anchored to the question (regarding Divinity ) ?

K: Oh yes, oh yes (just for experiential purposes?). I wouldn’t even ask that question: What is God? For then my ( cultivated?) brain would start spinning a lot of words.

Q: It seems to me that we have already gone beyond the ( need for positive) replies. But behind all that remains the inquiry.

K: What do you mean ‘remains the inquiry’?

Q: By the ‘inquiry remaining’ I mean that the question whether there is something else seems to be innately in us. In other words, the movement towards ( finding an experiential answer to ) that question seems to be innately in us.

K: If my investigation is a movement towards the understanding of what is called 'God', that movement itself is a bondage.

Q: Why?

K: Because it implies a motion towards something. And any such action, implies (thinking in terms of) time. Don’t let us use words that have implications of time, implications of 'going towards' something. Going towards something, trying to find something, implies time—and that ( thinking in terms of time ?) must stop.

Q: Then how can Pupul ask that question?

K: That is the whole point. Our question is whether one can do such a thing in the first place. Is that possible—to be so totally in ( an inner state of?) non-movement? For otherwise we will be forever ( being involved ) with the movement time and thought, and all the rest of it. ( Which brings us back to square one?) Why do we want to find the meaning of God? Why do we want to find the meaning behind all this?

PJ: There is a part of us which is still...

K: ...still seeking, searching, demanding. We never (come to a full mental stop and ?) say, ‘I don’t know’. I think that that is one of our ( major experiential) difficulties. We all want to 'know' and we ( unconsciously) put God into the realm of knowledge. To say, ‘I don’t know’ is a (deeply meditative) state of mind that is absolutely motionless (not 'moving' mentally in any direction)

PJ: Is it not necessary to wipe out this matrix (of the known?) ?

K: Oh yes. Can you wipe out the matrix?

PJ: I don’t know.

K: Which is what? When you use the word ‘matrix’ what do you mean by that?

PJ: I only know that beyond the (known) 'horizons' of my mind, behind the obvious beliefs, there are depths and depths and depths in me. You used once a very significant phrase ‘Play around with the deep’. So you also point to depths which lie below the surface (of human consciusness) . Is this 'depth' within the matrix (of the known?) ?

K: No, it can’t be. But I wonder what you call the 'matrix'?

PJ: I mean by ‘matrix’ that which does not come within the purview of my eyes and ears, but is still there. I know it is there. It is ( the matrix of the ) ‘me’. Even though I am not able to see it, to touch it, I have a feeling that perhaps, if there is a right listening to the truth...

K: Then why use the word ‘depth’? For ‘depth’ is of necessity linked with the measurable.

PJ: I am using the word ‘depth’ to connote something that is beyond my (known consciousness or ?) knowledge. You see, if it is within the contours of my horizon, if it is available to my senses, then it is measurable. But if it is not available, I can do nothing about it. I do not have the (inwardly perceptive ) instruments to reach it.

K: How do you know that it is all not imagination? Do you know it as a ( pleasure seeking?) 'experience'?

PJ: The problem is: If you say ‘yes’ it is a trap, and even if you say ‘no’ it is a trap.

K: I want to be quite clear, Pupul, that we both understand the meaning of the word 'depth' . I am talking of a feeling.

PJ: Surely, sir, this word can be uttered lightly, from the surface of the mind, and it can also be uttered with great depth behind it. I am saying that there is this 'Ground' that contains the whole history of man. There is life in that utterance; it has great weight and depth. Can’t you feel that depth?

K: I understand Pupul, but is that depth—the depth of silence? Silence means that the mind, the brain, is utterly still; it is not something that comes and goes.

PJ: How can I answer that?

K: I think one can if there is no sense of attachment to it, no sense of ( personal) memory involved in it. Let’s begin again (from square one:)
The whole world believes in 'God', but I really don’t know what God is. Probably I will never find out, but what I am concerned with is whether the human mind, the brain, can be totally, free from all accumulated 'knowledge-experience'. Because if it is not free (of its 'known'?) , it will always be confined to that area, so can the brain be completely free from all taint of knowledge. To me that is tremendously significant, because if it is not, it will never be out of that area. Never. Any movement of the mind (attempting to move) out of that area is still a movement that is anchored in knowledge; it will then only be a 'seeking of more knowledge' about God. So my concern is with whether the ( meditating?) mind, the brain, is capable of being completely immovable.

When you confront a question of that kind, if you deny ( speculating ) both on the 'possibility' and the 'probability' of it, then what is left?
Can one have the depth of insight into the (self-limiting) movement of knowledge, so that the insight stops the movement? The insight stops the movement, not 'I' or the ( thinking) brain. The stopping of the movement is the ending of ( the psychological activity of) knowledge and the beginning of something else. So I am concerned only with this 'ending of knowledge', deeply.
There is this enormous feeling that comes when we realize that we are 'all one'. The feeling that comes from that 'oneness', from a harmonious unity, is extraordinary, but if it is ( verbally) simulated it is worthless, for then you will only be perpetuating 'yourself' ( your good-old self-consciousness?) Right?

Q: Could we talk a little more about this (inner) questioning which seems so complete? Could we discuss having no anchor? Is having no anchor the putting aside of everything?

K: Don’t you see the importance of it? And, even if you do, ask yourself whether it is merely (ego-centrically?) intellectual.

Q: Yes, sir, I do see the importance of it; but apparently that is not enough.

PJ: Somehow there is something we are missing.

K: Look, Pupul, suppose this person—K—were not here. How would you deal with this problem? How would you deal with the problem of God ? You see, each one of us is totally responsible. We are not referring to past authorities—to (the sayings of the?) 'saints'. Each one is totally responsible to answer this question. You have to answer.

PJ: Why should I have to answer?

K: I will tell you why : because you are ( a responsible part of the consciousness of ) humanity, and humanity is asking this question. Every saint, every philosopher, every human being somewhere 'in his depths' is asking this question.

PJ: May I ask you something else ? How does one take a question like this and 'leave it' (abide) in consciousness? You see, sir, you have a way of taking a question, asking it and, then, 'remaining with it'.

K: Yes, that is right.
PJ: When we ask such a question, there is a movement of the (temporal) mind towards it. With you, when such a question is put, there is no movement.

K: You’re right. Now are you asking ‘how’ to achieve this state?

PJ: I know that 'I' can’t.

K: No, but you are right to ask that question. I am asking you as a human being, just as many human beings have for a million years: What is God? I come and put this question to you. Are you ready to answer it or do you 'hold the question' quietly? For out of that ( non-personal contemplative?) holding where there is no reaction, no response, comes the answer.

Q: Could you say something more about the nature of that holding?

K: I am talking of a holding that is without any ( mental) waves, without any motive or movement, a holding that is without any trace of ( personally?) 'trying' to find an answer.

Q: With most of us, we may first remain (meditating?) quietly with an unanswered question, but sooner or later an 'answer' comes from the deep wells of the ( collective) unconscious, and that answer rises up to fill that ( free inner) space.

K: I know.... I ask you an (in class:) question: Do you believe in God? Can you say, ‘I don’t know’? Or do you immediately say, ‘I don’t believe’ or ‘I believe’ or ‘Maybe there is’ and so on? Can you 'look' at the question—just 'looking' —without saying a single thing? Can you? I really 'don’t know' whether there is God or not.

PJ: Then there is nothing that ( a thoughtful ) mind can do.

Q: Are you saying, sir, that this ‘holding’ is something that takes place outside the area (of the known?) ?

K: Of course.

Q: In holding isn’t there any further inquiry?

K: No, you see, unless you understand this it can lead to a great deal of misunderstanding.
Our brains work like pre-programmed computers way too. We have been programmed for thousands of years, and the brain replies immediately. If the brain is not programmed, it is watching, looking. Now, can our brains be (silent) without (running such ) a 'programme'?

PJ: You see, sir, when such a question is normally put to the mind, it is like a grain of sugar being dropped on the ground—'ants' from all over come towards it.
Similarly, when a question is posed, all the responses are awakened, and gravitate towards the question. Now the question is: Can the question be asked without the (gravitating) movements?

K: Without the 'ants', yes. I am told that when the brain is not operating (mentally) , it is quiet; it has a movement of its own. We are talking of the brain that is in constant movement, the energy of which is ( canalised by?) thought. To 'quieten' thought is the problem. Can you question ( the inner validity of using ?) thought completely? Can you have a mind that is capable of 'not reacting' immediately to a question? Can there be a delaying reaction, perhaps a holding of the question indefinitely?

To go back, Pupulji. Can I have no (psychological) anchors (in the known?) at all—either in knowledge or in belief? Can I see that (inwardly) they have no meaning whatsoever? I think it is absolutely essential not to give ( a verbal) meaning to anything.
Isn't that state of mind, out of time? Isn't this a state of real profound meditation—a meditation in which there is no (direction of) of achievement; nothing? The state in which the ( consciousness of the?) 'meditator' is not the 'ground', the 'origin', of all things.

PJ: So can the Ground (of one's inner being) be without the ( subliminally self-centred?) ) 'meditator'?

K: If the 'meditator' is, the ( creative) Ground (of one's being?) is not.

PJ: But can there be such a meditation without the 'meditator'?

K: I am speaking of an ( inner dimension of) meditation without the 'meditator'.

PJ: Is not 'meditation' a human process?

K: No.

PJ: Let us investigate this point, if we may? Meditation cannot be free of the 'individual' being. There can be no meditation without the 'meditator'. You may say that the meditator is not the ground, but...

K: No, just a minute. As long as 'I' m trying to meditate, ( the authentic?) Meditation is not.

PJ: Yes...

K: Therefore there is only a ( non-personal & compassionate?) mind, that is in a state of meditation.

PJ: Yes.

K: Now that is the ( Universal) Ground : The ( Mind of the?) Universe is in a state of meditation. And that is the Ground, that is the origin of everything; and that is only possible when the (self-consciousness of the?) 'meditator' is not (around?)

PJ: And that is only possible when there are no anchors (in the 'known'?) ..

K: Absolutely. That is when there is an absolute freedom from (man's personal & collective?) sorrow. That state of meditation comes with the complete ending of the (brain's identification with the?) 'self'.

You know, Pupul, 'beginning' may be the eternal (timeless) process, it may be an eternal Beginning. You see, the question really is coming down to whether it is at all possible for a ( meditating ) brain, for a ( holistically inclined?) human being, to be completely, utterly, free of the (self-identified consciousness of the?) 'meditator'. This is essential—right? The ( self-interested?) 'meditator' tries to meditate in order to get somewhere, or in order to hide something, or in order to put his life in order. Whichever way you put it—you meditate to put your life in order or you put your life in order and then meditate—it is still the 'meditator' s ( self-identified consciousness?) in operation. The question is whether it is possible to be free of this (self-identified, all controlling mental entity of the ? ) 'meditator'.
If it is possible to be free of the 'meditator' (personal engramming?) , then there would be no question of whether there is God or no God for then this ( 'meditator-free') meditation is the ( one with the?) Meditation of the Universe.

( For meditation homework) Is it possible to be so utterly free? I am asking that question. Don’t reply (right now ?) hold it. Do you see what I mean? Let (the truth of?) it operate. In the holding of it, ( one's intelligent inner ) energy is being accumulated and that ( integrated?) energy will act—not 'you'. Do you understand?

So, have we understood the (inward?) nature of God?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 64 of 64 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)