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

K The essential Texts

Displaying posts 61 - 68 of 68 in total
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #61
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

Sorrow, Love, Death and Meditation
3-rd K Seminar Madras 1978 (experientially-friendly edited )

P.J.: Could we discuss the problem of the sorrow of man, the nature of compassion and meditation? I feel we are in a trap: being (inwardly engulfed in?) sorrow and ( thereby) not understanding the nature of (Love intelligence & ) compassion.

K: May I ask, what are your ideas or concepts about sorrow, meditation and love?

A.P.: Sorrow is an inescapable part of life. We are helpless victims when a part of humanity is forced to live a subhuman life, with no hope of change in their way of life. Unless one sees some affirmative process, one feels completely lost.

P.J.: You can't talk about the sorrow of another.

A.P.: But it is my sorrow. Nothing can be more integral than the fact that there is no compassion in me as an authentic response when I witness the sorrow of another, I am therefore part of that sorrow.

K: I wonder what we mean by the word 'sorrow'. Every human being goes ( eventually ?) through this ugly business of sorrow. Now, what is this deep feeling that we call sorrow? My son dies, and there is a tremendous feeling ( of personal loss & loneliness) . Is that sorrow?

P.J.: It is sorrow.

K: In that is involved self-pity, loneliness, a sudden realization that I have lost somebody and I am left alone. But the root of this enormous (cloud of?) sorrow is what man has carried through timeless centuries.

P.K.S.: As an (experientially friendly ) definition of the word 'sorrow' , what is actually felt when you are in sorrow? I think there is some sense of privation, a want, and this produces a state of mind, a pang which is called sorrow. In it is a sense of one's ow limitation, finitude, helplessness.

A.P.: If I may suggest, we human beings know physical pain. Physical pain is a condition which we have to accept; we can do nothing about it. Sorrow is the exact equal of that - psychologically; that is, we are totally unable to do anything about it. We have to just take it and be with it.

K: Sir, you meet the poor people next door, you have great sympathy for them. Perhaps you may feel guilty because you get used to their poverty, their endless degradation. Perhaps you may have great affection for them. Would you call the fact of man living in this appalling way, sorrow?

I.I.: I do. And this is the kind of sorrow about which I would want you to enlighten me most.

K: We will discuss it, sir. As you said, there are different kinds (& levels?) of sorrow. There is the one we just described - seeing the appalling ignorance, and seeing that there is no hope for man in a country like this. And there is the sorrow, the deep agony of realizing ( that inwardly ) you are nothing. There is also the sorrow of how man treats man and so on. Now, is there an end to ( the inner darkness of?) sorrow at all, or is it an everlasting thing?

I.I.: Certainly there is no end to this sorrow as long as I am willing to participate in ( exploitating others & ) violence.

K: I am asking what is 'love' ? I would like to go into it and then, perhaps, we shall be able to answer the fundamental question, which is, whatever I do at present causes some kind of sorrow to ( myself or to) another. The word 'love' is ( currently) misused, vulgarized, sexualized, anything you like. Perhaps we can have a dialogue about the (authentic) feeling of love.

K.S.: I think that the primitive man, the hunter, did not have any of these problems which we are facing now. Is my love for my wife or my child truly selfless ?

K: I want to find out whether love exists at all apart from the sensory, apart from desire, attachment, jealousy and, therefore, hate. We have reduced love to such a limited, ugly thing. Therefore, we don't ( know what is the true meaning of?) love.
Love implies much more than the word. It implies a great deal of beauty. The very feeling of love implies an (authentic) relationship with nature, love of stars, the earth, stones, the stray dog, all that, and also the love of my wife. If you reduce it to desire and sensation, then it becomes a tawdry affair.

I.I.: Is love communion?

K: Can I be free of the image I have of you, of my wife, of the professor, doctor and so on? Only then is there a possibility of communion. I don't have to use words.

I.I.: And love, perhaps, is free communion?

K: ( A loving?) Relationship means to be in contact at all levels, not just the physical level which is desire, pleasure. Does it not imply, when I say, 'I love you,' and I mean it, that you and I meet at the same level, meet with the same intensity, at the same moment?

I.I.: Yes...

K: That happens apparently only sexually, at the biological level. I question this whole approach to life, life in which there is this immense thing called love. Now, are we not concerned to find out what it is? Does not your heart, mind, say that you have to find out? Or, is everything reduced to a verbal level?

N. T.: If our 'love' is sensual pleasure and based on the pursuit of desire, it is not love; love has to be based on compassion.

K: I want to find out, I want to have this sense of love. As a human being it is like breathing; I must have it.

Prof. Subramaniam: Sir, if love means being related to another person at all levels, when I don't understand myself and when I don't 'love' myself, how is it possible to love another? I don't find that I am relating myself at all levels to myself and I realize that I am not related to another person either , whether it is my wife or another, at all levels.

K: So, as a human being, don't you want to come upon this, don't you want to find out? Don't you want to have a sense of this great thing? Unless you have it, I don't see the point of all these ( seminars &) discussions.

R.B.: I think the point is that when there is no relatedness inside oneself, when there are 'warring ( conflicting) elements' within oneself, there can't be love. But you started with the question of 'what is sorrow ?' and followed it up with the question of 'what is love ?'. Could you tell us what is the relationship between these two questions?

K If you haven't got love, how can you regenerate anything? If you don't look after the plant that you have just put in the earth, if you don't give it water, air, proper nourishment, affection, see that there is plenty of light, the plant won't grow. ( Hint:) When there is 'love', there is no ( divisive sense of?) 'you' or 'me'.

I.I.: There is no 'you' and there is no 'me', but on the other hand, there is more of you and more of me.

K: Sir, when there is great beauty like a mountain, the majesty of it, the beauty of it, the shade, the light, `you' don't exist. The beauty of that thing drives away the 'you'. Do you follow what I am saying?

I.I.: I follow what you are saying.

K: At that moment, when there is no 'me' (no self-divisive consciousness?) because of the majesty of the hill, there is only that sense of great wondering glowing beauty. So, I say: Beauty is when 'I' ( the self-consciousness is?) not (active) , with my (endless personal ?) problems and all the rest of it. When 'I' am not, the 'other' is.

I.I.: And yet - correct me if I am wrong - at that moment the transparent flame is burning higher and the stream of life is clearer, fresher, and the renewal of this world goes on.

K: At that moment there is a new rejuvenation taking place, if you like to put it that way. I am putting it this ( holistically correct?) way, that there is a sense of an 'otherness' than me.

I.I.: Yes. And that 'otherness' implies... ?

K: The 'otherness' is not the opposite (of self-consciousness?)

P.J.: May I then ask, what is it that makes the 'spring' (of this 'Otherness'?) flow (within oneself) ?

K: I have seen the birth of the great river right in the hills. It starts with a few drops and then collects, and then there is a roaring stream at the end of it. Is that ( the same with selfless ?) Love?

P.J.: What is it that makes the stream flow fully?

K: I come to you and say, 'Look, I don't know what Love is, please help me to learn what Love is.' ( For starters?) attachment is not Love, the mere biological pleasure with all its movements, with all its implications, is not Love. So can you be ( inwardly) free of attachment ( psychological dependency ? ), 'negate' it completely? Through negation you may come to the positive.

P.J.: What is the relationship of 'sorrow' to 'love'? Is there any relationship?

K: You must relate sorrow, love and 'death' ( or 'ending' ?). If you end attachment, end it. Do not say, `I will end it today but pick it up tomorrow.' End it completely and also jealousy, greed. Do not argue, but 'end' it, which is ( the ultimate challenge of?) death. Both biologically and psychologically the 'ending' ( the coming to an end?) of something is death. So, will you 'give up' ( your personal attachment to?) your status, position, attachments, beliefs, gods? Can you throw them into the River ( of Universal Life ?) and see what happens? Will this 'renunciation' help you to understand the inner beauty of Love ?

P.K.S.: From your ( holistic) observations we obtained certain characteristics of Love. One of these is 'unselfishness', the other is 'non-possessiveness'. But in the very human nature there is ( residual) jealousy and greed...

K: Right, sir. I say to myself, nobody can help me. No guru, no book, nothing, will help me. So I discard the whole thing. Then I ask, what is Love? Let me find out because if I don't have that flame, that (compassionate Intelligence of?) Love, life means nothing. For starters I have to put the biological movement of desire in its right place. So I am free from the biological explanation of love. Now, is Love (to be found in?) the pursuit of an incident which happened yesterday, the memory of that and the cultivation of that? Pleasure implies enjoyment, seeing the beauty of the world, seeing the beauty of nature; I put that also in its place. Then what is Love? It is not attachment, obviously; it is not jealousy, possessiveness, domination; so I discard all that ( as meditation homework ?)
Then I ask, what place has thought ( the act of thinking within the field of the known ?) in ( my everyday) relationship? Has it any place at all? Thought is remembrance, the response of knowledge, experience from which thought is born. So thought is not ( conducive to?) Love.
In this ( bulk discarding of the false concepts aout Love?) there is a denial of the total (self-interest based mental) structure which man has built. My relationship to everything is no longer based on thought, sensory desire, biological demand or attachment; it is totally 'new'. Will you go through all this (& do all the homework?) ? Now I ask, what is Love? It is ( born in ) the ending of everything that man has created in his relationship with another - country, race, language, clan. Doesn't this ending mean ( a 'psychological'?) death?

I.I.: Sir, could we not say ''I have never loved enough until the moment of my death?''

K: I want to invite ( the psychological aspect of?) death, not commit suicide. So death means an ending. I am attached to my ( material?) life and death comes and says, look, that is all over. Ending means death; the ending of attachment is a form of death. The ending of jealousy, biological demands, is also death, and out of that may come the feeling called Love. We are educated to assume that death is something happening naturally at the end of our physical life. I am saying death is at the beginning of ( the spiritual?) life, because death means ending. This ending is the ending of my selfishness. Therefore, out of this comes that extraordinary bird called Love, the Phoenix. I think if one has that sense of love I won't deceive myself. I have no illusions.

I.I.: Is it also the end of sorrow?

K: Yes. Sir, do you know the Greek root for sorrow? In it is involved 'passion'.
I know that most human beings know (the passion of) biological pleasure and all the rest of it is, but are they actually aware of what ( their existential?) sorrow is? Or is it something that they experience (the safe-way?) after it is over? Do I know sorrow at the very moment my brother, my son, my wife, dies? Or is it always in the past?

I.I.: Would it not be an act of wisdom to keep sorrow in its right place? If I have the courage to act with the sorrow which I understand, then at the very same time, I will progressively eliminate from my life all those things which cast the long Shadow of Sorrow.

K: Sir, I want to find out what is the 'right' action under all circumstances. Right action may vary in different things, but it is always 'right'. We are using the word 'right' – as true, non-contradictory, not the action of self-interest; all that is implied in that word "right action". What is the right action in my life? Right action will come about when the mind is not concerned with the 'me'.

P.K.S.: Can I ask for your definition of meditation? Is it a constant awareness?

K: The word 'meditation' has now become the fashion in ( US &) Europe. It is vulgarized, ( real?) money is made out of it. Wipe away all that. Is not ( the ultimate significance of?) Meditation the 'coming upon something sacred', of something that is not contaminated by time, by the environment, something that is Original. I am shy of these words, but please accept it. Is meditation an enquiry into that?
( Moreover?) this enquiry then must be completely undirected, unbiased. Otherwise, I will go off at a tangent . If I have a ( personal?) motive for meditation because I am feeling unhappy, then I go off into illusions.

I.I.: If I said the same thing in different (Zen?) terms: ''Meditation is the readiness for radical surprise'', will you accept it?

K: Yes, I accept it. So my concern in meditation is – do I have a (hidden?) motive? Do I expect a ( psychological?) reward? I must be very clear that there is no ( surreptitious?) search for reward or (for avoiding a ?) punishment, which means there is no ( self-projected ?) direction. And also I must be very clear that no ( hidden?) element creates an illusion. Illusion comes into being when there is desire, when I want something.
( In a nutshell:) The mind ( engaged ) in meditation must be tremendously aware that it is not caught in any kind of self (- interest?) created illusion. So part of meditation is to wipe away the illusory machine. And, if there is ( a 'meditator -in-?) control', it is already directed.
Therefore, it means, can I live a ( meditatively friendly way of) life in which there is absolutely no censor, saying 'do this, do that'. All our life, from childhood, we are educated to control, suppress & follow. So can I live my everyday life without any ( thought?) control, without direction ( born of self-interest?) , without movement?
That is ( just ) the beginning of any authentic Meditation.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 21 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Aug 2018 #62
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially friendly' edited version )

Questioner P: We have not dealt so far with the problem of ( psychological) time and the silencing of the brain cells.
If we could examine what happened to K's brain cells which contained the horizontal movement of ( thought & ?) time, it might be possible for us all to understand ( the nature of a psychological) mutation in our own brain cells.

Krishnamurti: I wonder if that 'horizontal' movement
was not a very superficial movement? The young K repeated what he was taught and at a given moment, there was a breakthrough.

P: Our ( 64,000 $ ) question is : What was it that triggered that 'breakthrough' which suddenly made him say that Truth is not a fixed point?

Krishnamurti: Look at it as if "K" was not here. I am here and so may answer you or may not, but if I were not here how would you answer it?

P: The analytical way would be to examine what you have said, along with the influences which have operated on you, at the time, to see at what point the breakthrough took place and what were the crises, inward or outward, that have triggered it.

Krishnamurti: What you say would take lots time (& scholarly) investigation. How would you find out now?

D: It is like this. We boil water under heat. Up to a hundred
degrees its state is uniform and then there is a complete transformation.

Krishnamurti: But even to come to that point takes time.

P: If I did not have the historical background, I'll have to see whether such a breakthrough is possible within my consciousness. In short, the only way to investigate would be through self-knowing.
( But since you're here?) what triggered it in you? If you tell
me that it just happened, I will say all right. If it happens, it happens, if it does not, it does not. I will continue my present way of life.

Krishnamurti: I will show you very simply. The cultivation of a
brain, of any brain takes time. Lots of personal experiences, knowledge and memories are (constantly recorded &) stored up in the (memory of the?) brain cells. It is a biological fact : the human brain is the result of ( a long evolution in) time. Now this ( K) man at a point breaks the
movement. A totally different movement takes place, which
means, the brain cells themselves undergo mutation. And "P" says
you must answer and tell us what ( exactly) took place; otherwise what
happened was merely by chance.

B: An answer by Krishnaji himself may help us to bring about a
mutation in ourselves.

S: Two explanations are possible. One is the theosophical
explanation that the Masters were looking after K's mind and so he was
untouched by ( his earthly ) experience. Another explanation is that of

Krishnamurti: What is your answer? Given these facts, faced with them, how do you answer this?

B: Sir, you alone can say what took place. We have no personal knowledge nor the capacity to know.

Krishnamurti: If you ask me how did this happen to me, I really do not know, but... let us (try to) investigate it together. First of all, is there time involved at all?

P: We are trying to comprehend the essential nature of the 'time movement' and of the 'non-time movement'.

Krishnamurti: Begin with ( the direct sensory) perception; is seeing involved with time?

P: What happens to the brain cells in the process of (visual) seeing?

Krishnamurti: They either respond in terms (of what they knew already ?) or they hold themselves back in abeyance without the (knowledgeable intervention of the?) past.

P: You say that in a non-verbal perception which is instantaneous, the brain cells hold themselves back. If they are not operating, do they exist?

Krishnamurti: They do, as the (stand-by) storehouse of knowledge which is the ( personal & collective memory of the ) past. That is the 'old brain'. In any (direct, non-verbal) perception, the old brain does not respond.

P: What operates then? If the old brain's cells are not operating, what
is operating?

Krishnamurti: A totally 'new brain'. The 'old brain' is full of
images, memories, responses and we are used to responding with
the 'old ( knowledgeable) brain'. We're saying that (any direct & non-verbal) perception is not related to the 'old brain'.
This new perception is ( spontaneously occurring) the ( silent) interval between the old response and the new response which the 'old brain' does not yet know. In that interval there is no ( thinking?) time.

F: So the direct sensation is time-free but the (thinking) interval is of time.

Krishnamurti: Let us get this clear. You ask me a question. The
old brain responds according to its information, according to
knowledge; but if the old brain has no readily available knowledge, no information, there is a (time ?) interval between the question and answer.

F: The interval is due to the sluggishness of the brain cells.

Krishnamurti: Not (necessarily?) .

F: Memory tracing continue in the brain.

Krishnamurti: You ask me what the exact distance is between here
and Delhi. No amount of my thinking with the brain cells would help. The 'fact' is not registered. If it were, I would then 'think about it' and answer. But as there is no such knowing, in that 'no-knowing',
there is a state in which time does not exist.

D: No amount of waiting will make me know.

Krishnamurti: The moment I know, the knowing is time.

P: You have talked of a new brain . The question is what has happened to the old brain?

Krishnamurti: The old brain is ( keeping?) quiet.

P: Has it a real existence?

Krishnamurti: Of course it has; otherwise I cannot speak the

P: So, when the 'new brain' exists, the other, the old brain, does not (is on stand by?)

Krishnamurti: Perfectly right. The 'old brain' has through centuries, registered ( in its 'knowledge bank') every experience and it will function on that level all the time ( which is generating ) its (own sense of ) continuity in time. If it has no continuity, then it becomes
neurotic or imbalanced. However functioning in this continuity it can never find ( experientially) anything new because ( in the psychological realm?) it is only when something ends, that there is something new.

F: When you say 'continuity', it has a movement ?

Krishnamurti: It is adding, taking away, adjusting; it is not static. At a given point of time I may call it the 'new', but it is still the old. I hanker for the new and invent new (experiences) within the same circle (of the known)

P: There is a 'new' ( experience) which is a rearrangement of the old and
there is the "New'', which is not a rearrangement of the old. What is
the New which is not the invention of the old? Is it recognizable, is it perceivable?

Krishnamurti: It is perceivable but not recognizable.

P: So it is not a (recognisable ) experience?

Krishnamurti: It is a ( spontaneous?) perception without the 'observer'.

F: Sensation is also without the past. Sensation is not loaded. It is

Krishnamurti: The ( all-knowing?) mind which has become mechanical craves for something 'new'. But the 'new' (experience) is always within the field of the known. You may call thought's movement within the field of the known 'infinite' , but it is always within that field. We want the new in terms of the old (...only better?) . P's question was about what happens to that brain when there is a perception which is really new, and in which perception is not a (personal) experience to be stored up and remembered and therefore to become knowledge ?

F: You just said that the 'old brain' does not respond.

P: The brain cells are acting independently of whether I am conscious or unconscious. If you observe it, it is like ripples being thrown up, thought as ripples, and suddenly one is becoming attentive and there are no ripples.

Krishnamurti: In that state of ( undivided) attention, there is (an insightful) perception. That state of attention 'is' (generating its own) perception.

D: When I see the fact that my brain is registering everything
and I suddenly realize that it is going on without me, the (all-knowing?) 'observer', that annihilates me.

Krishnamurti: It is like a recording machine that is registering everything. You have just heard that noise of the car horn blowing.
The brain cells have registered it (before you knew it?) . There is no ( personal) resistance or acceptance involved in this registering.

D: There is more to it.

Krishnamurti: Go slow: The human brain is ( consciously or subconsciously functioning as?) a machine which is registering everything all the time : Suppose that you come along and challenge the brain. It will respond in terms of like, of dislike, you are a danger and she is not a danger. In that instant is born the "me". But it is the function of the (material) brain to register every experience, and this is going on irrespective of the 'thinker' as a separate entity. Out of ( the painful/pleasurable impacts of this ?) this registration emerges the "me".

P: When the registration (mechanism is operating) , I am ( becoming personally ?) conscious of the ( background) sound ( or of what else is being experienced)

Krishnamurti: Which is what? ( After that sound has been processed as?) pleasant or unpleasant. But at the very moment of ( direct sensory?) experiencing, there is no "I" ( nothing personal?) in it at all. Now comes the ( time-free opportunity for?) a new ( perceptive ) action. I register that noise but there is no ( personal?) response to it. The moment there is ( a 'personal') response, that response is the "I". That response increases or decreases according to pleasure, pain, suffering.

Now, "P"s question was how is the ( ego-centric?) 'old brain' which is doing all this mechanically, all the time, how is this brain
ever to see without the ( subliminal interference of the?) 'registerer' or 'registration'?

P: We have gone over this. When one listens (non-personally ) the sound passes through us. There is ( a state of holistic) attention in which - for a split second the horizontal movement (of the 'thinker' ) has come to an end. ( In that silent interval ?) what has happened to the 'old brain'?

Krishnamurti: It is still there (in abeyance?) .

P: What do you mean ?

Krishnamurti: See what has just happened when there was that
child crying. The sound is being registered, the child's cry, why the
mother does not look after it, all the rest of it.

P: Didn't you record all that?

Krishnamurti. No. There was a complete listening. Now has happened
to the 'old' ( personal?) brain in that (instant of silent ) listening?

Let me put it differently. Your brain demands security; it needs a
great sense of protection, both physical and psychological. That is
all I am saying. That is its function. That is the essential point.

P: But when there is this 'horizontal' movement of the (temporal) mind ( as the brain cells are operating (within the field of the known?) , what is it that makes the "other" ( quality of holistic perception) possible and what takes place when the "other" is?

Krishnamurti: I will tell you. The brain cells need security,
protection, safety to survive. They have survived for millions of
years. Now what takes place? In its ( instinctual) search
for security, the brain is always 'experimenting' ( the various challenges of life?) and gets stuck (in the subliminal 'images' of its own recording process?) - it gets stuck and has to be rooted out.
Because the basic thing is that it wants is 'safety and survival' it has invented (projected?) a (known ) time sequence of its own survival – 'horizontal' and/or 'circular'.
But when the basic necessity of the brain is granted (by the quality of a holistic attention?) , isn't its perception in terms of ( personal) security not entirely different?

D: Man's (unconscious?) demand for (an endless temporal ) security resists the question you are asking.

Krishnamurti. Not (necessarily?) For seventy (+) years K's ( inner & outer security ? ) has not been damaged because it says ''survival, but not at the price of illusion''. It (the integrated Intelligence?) says ''do not invent 'beliefs' or 'ideas' (for psychological purposes?) for in them there is no security at all. Wipe them out because they are illusory''.
Therefore the brain is now completely (time-free & ?) secure in itself. Before it sought ( its temporal) security through family, through egotism, competition, through seeking (new hedonistic and/or spiritual experiences?) .

( In a nutshell:) (Seeking one's psychological ) 'security' through something is the greatest insecurity. So, it discards that. Therefore, because it has no personal illusions, motives & formulas, it can perceive 'what is'. The mind is then free of the illusion that I will find ( a long lasting comfort & ) security in my family, in my God, in my knowledge - which is ( in the memories of ) the past.

F: Unfortunately in the real world we are at the mercy of the
psychosomatic body and there we are very insecure. And there has
to be a different approach to this. It is something very vulnerable
because our bodies are so fragile.

Krishnamurti: So I will protect the (physical) body. There is no egotism involved in it.

F: Vulnerability is usually associated with the 'ego'.

Krishnamurti: I will protect the body without the 'ego'. I will
wash it, look after it. We think we protect the body through the (all-controlling?) "I". Once we grant deeply the brain's necessity for safety for the brain, we will ( be able to) solve all the other problems.
Let us put it in this way: Is the direct perception (of what is ) related to the 'old brain' s cells which demanded survival at any price?

P: My mind does not function in this way. At this moment the questions of security or of non-security have no (practical) relevance. Here I am before you and I want to understand (the intricacies of ) this movement of ( thought-) time and see whether if there can be an inner state where it ceases to function.

Krishnamurti: Are you saying, that your brain cells are (still engaged ) in perpetual movement in one form or another?

P:When I am listening to you there is no movement in my mind.

Krishnamurti: Why? Because you are listening with a ( holistic quality of) attention in which there is no 'centre' ( of self-interest) to attend ?

P: Now, in this state where is the weight of the past?

Krishnamurti: When you are giving a complete (undivided) attention to anything , is there (any self-centred thinking in terms of) time in that?

P: How do I know it ?

Krishnamurti: In this attention there is no ripple, there is no centre, there is no measurement. Your question was , what has happened to the old brain? (Pause.) I have got it ! The total attention is not disassociated from the brain. The whole psychosomatic organism is (attending) which is also including the brain cells. Therefore, the brain cells are exceedingly alive but quiet, not responding with the old. Otherwise you could not be fully attentive (in the living Present)

There is the answer. And in that (quality of integrated) attention the brain can function ( free of temporal constraints ?)
That (holistic) attention is (has its own) silence, and out of that inner silence, innocence, emptiness, the brain can operate; but not as
a (self-conscious ) thinker in terms of seeking security in something.

P: Does it mean the whole brain has undergone a transformation?
Krishnamurti: No. What has taken place is a (time-free psychological) mutation. The ( all-controlling?) 'observer' is not (in charge anymore ?) .

P: But the brain's cells are still the same.

Krishnamurti: ( For extra meditation homework?) Watch what happens then to the brain cells : they are still registering ( keeping track of what is going on inwardly & outwardly?) but there is no ( self-focussing of the temporal ?) "me", which was part of the ( survivalistic order of the old ?) brain's cells – it is (now becoming redundant and/or ?) 'wiped out'.

(To recap:) Attention means complete attention – the body, the 'psyche', the brain's cells; everything is alive. In that ( enlightened?) state, there is no centre, there is no time, there is no observer as the
"me". ( Hint:) There is no (thinking) in terms of the past but yet the (factual memory of the ) past exists because I speak the ( English) language.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Aug 2018 #63
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

A K dialogue on Consciousness and Intelligence ( reader friendly edited )

Questioner P: I wanted to ask you Krishnaji, if there is one
question which needs to be asked by the (spiritually motivated?) individual, which would open the Door to ( his/her inner) Reality. Can all questions be reduced to the one question?

Krishnamurti: I think you asks, about an inward opening, a breakthrough ?

F: From your own experience what would you say is this 'breaking through'? I come to ( listen to) you because in you there is an imponderable quality, that "Otherness" of yours - is there a key to that? Is there a question which opens that up?

P: How does it happen that ( within your mind) thought arises only where it legitimately should function and does not impinge into areas where it should not function. Under whose command do (your) brain cells function? What happens to them if there is no one to direct, to command?

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

D: So, Intelligence is the new perceptive instrument ?

Krishnamurti: Intelligence is ( a holistic term for) the quality of ( an awakened) mind which can use (the factual) knowledge, all the vast field of knowledge, and also not use knowledge in another field.
Now what is (opening the Door to ? ) this ( holistic?) Intelligence that can prevent thought from operating (in the 'psychological' areas ?) so that it does not create (confusion &) misery?

( For starters?) can the (meditating?) mind, empty itself of the mechanism of ( its self-centred?) thinking that functions all the time?
Can the ( meditating?) mind 'empty itself' ( of the psychological residues of thought & time ?) not only at the conscious level but at the
deeper secret chambers of the mind? From that ( free inner space of) 'emptiness' can knowledge operate (when necessary) and also not operate (when not required ) ?

B: So, the key question would be ( to create this inner space of?) 'emptiness'?

Krishnamurti: Let us see. Can the ( meditating?) mind empty the whole
content of itself as the (subliminal background of the?) past, so that it has no motive? Can it empty itself and can ( the intelligent energy of?) that 'emptiness' use knowledge, pick it up, use it and drop it, but always remain 'empty'?
'Emptiness' in the sense of the mind being inwardly 'as nothing'; an (inner) emptiness which has its own ( intelligent ?) movement, which is not measurable in terms of time. This 'movement' can operate (as intelligent thinking ?) in the field of knowledge and there is no other operation.
( To recap:) You were asking a question, which is, that from
what you have observed in our talks here, "K" has divided
knowledge and freedom from knowledge.
Knowledge operating in the field of science in which there must
be a certain will, a certain direction, an operative function, a
design; and knowledge not operating where there is no place for ( self-centred ) thought and (its) will (power?) .Then you can ask : is it possible for thought not to create misery? Keep it as simple as this.

F: ( More often than not?) the roots of ( my inner confusion & ) misery are not known to me.

Krishnamurti: We began ( academically ?) with (examining) the superficial layers. Now we will ( try to enter ?) into the 'secret chambers' of the mind.

D: What else is there ( in our hidden ) consciousness?

Krishnamurti: There is a waking consciousness, and there is hidden consciousness; there is a 'waking consciousness' at the surface (layers of the temporal ) mind, and a total lack of awareness of the deeper layers of consciousness.

P: I would say, Krishnaji, that there is a (dimension of human ) consciousness in which thought operates (in the field of the known?) , then there is a consciousness where attention is and where there is seeing; and a consciousness which is unconscious of thought. I see these three states as they operate in me.

Krishnamurti: Three states, which are (a) the operation of
memory as 'thought' (self-centred thinking in the field of the known?) , as ( temporal?) action; then (b) attention, a state of ( non-personal) attention where there is no 'thinker'...

P: ...and a state of being deeply asleep when you are not aware of
thought nor of attention ?

Krishnamurti: So we are saying there is the ( temporal ) operation of
thought, memory, having been and will be. Then there is a state of
attention and there is a state in which there is neither attention nor
thought, but a sense of being half asleep.

P: Half awake, half asleep.

Krishnamurti: All this is what you would call 'consciousness'.

P: And all these states whether ( recorded?) consciously or unconsciously, the sensory perceptions are in operation.

Krishnamurti: Can we start this way? I am just being tentative -
there is this consciousness, wide or narrow, deep or shallow. As long as
there is a 'centre' (of self-interest?) which is conscious of itself, this centre may expand or contract (at will ?) . That 'centre' says : now I am fully aware or not aware (of what is going on within or outside myself?) and can ( valiantly?) attempt to go beyond the ( self-protective) limitations which it has (subliminally ?) placed around itself. That 'centre' has its deep roots in the 'cave' and operates superficially
( as the 'thinker' or the 'experiencer') . All that is ( the common self-centred?) consciousness. In all that there must be an (identitary?) 'centre'.

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

Krishnamurti: We will come to that presently (... eventually?) . That is not the point.

A: I wanted to ask whether there is such a thing as the matrix in
which there is not even a centre, because it is out of that the centre
is formed? A matrix of temporality.

P: ( The matrix of) consciousness is that which registers. It is the only thing which distinguishes life from a state of death. As long as there is
registering there is no death.

Krishnamurti: Are we (indulging in) speculating? Let us begin very
simply : When are you actually ( 'self-) conscious'?
Either through sensory response , perceiving a sensory danger, or (when you get personally ) in a conflict in which is involved pain or pleasure. It is only in those moments that I say 'I am conscious'. I
am becoming aware of that lamp, the design, but there is also a ( personal) reaction and I say it is ugly or beautiful. Is not that the basis of all this? (In a nutshell:) I am becoming self- conscious when I am challenged, when there is a sensory impact, conflict, pain, pleasure, then I am conscious (of myself) This whole phenomenon is going on, whether there is a deliberate awareness or not, this thing is operating all the time. That is what we call ( self-) consciousness.

P: You mean there is no 'photographic' consciousness. I see a

Krishnamurti: That is, the brain cells are receiving all these impacts. Impacts as pleasure, pain, conflict, sorrow, conscious, or unconscious, are going on all the time and there may be an awareness of all that at one moment, and at other moments there may not be. But it (the recording process ) is going on all the time. So what is the next question?

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

Krishnamurti: It is still the same. Only it is the deeper layer.

B: Why are we unconscious of the deeper layers?

Krishnamurti: Because superficially we are very active all the

B: So the density of ( the challenges occuring at ) the superficial layers prevents our being conscious of ( what is going on at?) the deeper layers ?

Krishnamurti: I am making ( lots of?) noises on the surface. It is like
swimming on the surface. All that we have described, memory, everything, is consciousness. Now thought comes into operation when I am interested in a part of this. The scientist is interested in the material
phenomena, the psychologist in his area, because he has limited the
field of investigation. Then thought comes as a systematizer.

A: Isn't there in the human consciousness some 'space' which is not covered by thought?

Krishnamurti: I am not at all sure. I do not say you are not right.
So go on.

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

Krishnamurti: . "A" says there is space in consciousness, but we do not see that ( the free inner ?) space cannot be contained in a frontier, in a boundary, in a circle.

A: Even if it is held within a circle, a square, a rectangle, in one (practical) sense, of course, it is space.

Krishnamurti: Where there is a ( self-protective?) border there is no (free inner) space. ( The inner?) 'space' in the sense in which we use the word does not exist in consciousness. So, put the question this way : Is there a state of mind when there is no ( process of acummulative) learning at all?

P: You have left us far behind now...

Krishnamurti: I want to go slowly, please. Thought is (part of the self-centred?) consciousness (and the common process of ?) learning and memorizing and reacting to that memory is part of the (same self-centred consciousness?)
When thought is operating (objectively?) in any specific field, there is no duality. I say 'how marvellous that lamp is' . It is finished. But when thought says 'I wish I had it in my room', then there is duality. See what has been found ? That when there is the simple functioning of thought without any motive, there is no duality.

P: This again is very difficult ( to achieve in real life, since most of our ) thoughts are ( based on personal) motive.

Krishnamurti: What is ( the basic mechanism of?) thought? I see that sunset. It is recorded at that moment, it is finished. But thought comes along and says....

P: I am saying thought is (undissociable from personal ) motive, because thought is ( using ) words which are 'loaded'...

Krishnamurti: The ( fabulous?) memory of that sunset is ( recorded objectively?) then thought says, 'I wish it would happen again'. In that (second thought ?) the ( personal) motive operates.

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

P: Sunset is ( in itself) an impersonal thing, let us take the a movement of (envy or?) jealousy as ( it occurs in our everyday ) thinking .

Krishnamurti: Pupulji, jealousy is a factor of duality, but if I am aware that (s)he is not 'mine' from the beginning, then the factor of
jealousy does not enter. S(he) is a free human being as I am a free
human being. I allow her/him freedom.

P: I understand that. But we are talking about the structure of
thought. As a ( random?) thought arises in consciousness, there is no factor of duality in it ?

Krishnamurti: There is 'duality' only when there is the operation
of ( a personal) motive, measurement, comparison. In the observation of a lovely sunset, in seeing the light, the shadow, there is no duality.
The word "beautiful" may be ( sounding) dualistic in terms of the 'ugly', but one can using the word without comparison. The moment I say I wish I had it again, begins the dualistic process. That is all.

P: We have somehow moved away...

Krishnamurti: I will come back, which is, our ( temporal?) consciousness is (including) perception, hearing, seeing, listening, learning and the memory of all that and the (thought ) responding according to that memory. All that is consciousness, whether or not focalized. In this consciousness is (also involved the sense of its continuity in?) time - which creates its own ( mental) space because it is enclosed. In that ( continuity in 'time'?) there is duality, non-duality, the conflicts - I must, I must not - the whole of that field is (the self-centred 'known consciousness'?) . And in that there is no ( free inner) space at all because it has ( self-protective) boundaries, frontiers, which are limitations.

A: There is another active factor which I would like to have included
- the perceptions and experiences of the world are syphoning into my consciousness. How can we ignore all that? If we only take the "I" it is not enough. The movement of the "I" as ( self-centred) thinking is something that is constantly being fed and renewed by that (constant streaming of our collective consciousness) . Unless I see this process,
I do not understand.

Krishnamurti: The whole field of human consciousness is an (interactive) movement of contraction and expansion, a
movement of information, knowledge, registration of knowledge,
motivation, change, the political theme, all that is happening in the environment, all this is part of 'me' (of my temporal consciousness?)
I am the environment and the environment is the me. In that whole
field there is the movement of the 'me'. I like the Arabs and I do not
like the Jews - within this consciousness, this (element of personal choice?) comes up ...

A: In this wide canvas we see thought is syphoning into this
focus which we call 'our consciousness'.

Krishnamurti: All that is our ( personal) consciousness -which creates
the mischief by saying, "I like", "I do not like". I see that, I am a
witness to this "I like" and "I do not like" also, because that is part
of this movement over which I have no control at all.

A: But that is not the ( crux of the?) problem. The problem is the ( self-focussing?) identification which gives this weightage to the "I
like" and "I don't like", that it builds around it.

Krishnamurti: I am born in India with all the culture of 5000 + years. That is what I call ( my temporal) 'consciousness'. But choice arises when you say you are a Hindu and I am a Muslim; when there is focalization through (self-) identification, there is then (duality &) choice

P: All this is ( the temporal) consciousness and it is also a fact that when ( our self-centred) thinking operates, it ( creates the personal ?) consciousness ; so I ask the question "what is the relation between
thought and consciousness?''

Krishnamurti: It is a wrong question.

P: You have often stated that it is legitimate for thought to
operate in fields where knowledge is necessary and when it
operates in other fields then it brings sorrow, pain, duality. The
question is: Does the 'other' state which you are ( implicitly?) talking about, is it also ( part of our total ?) consciousness?

Krishnamurti: Let us examine that. What would you say?

P: I say it is consciousness because 'seeing' is also part of our consciousness.

Krishnamurti: Stick to this question for the moment ; Thought
has a legitimate field of operation and if it impinges into other
fields then it brings pain, suffering. That which operates in this
area (of the known?) , is the consciousness as we know it with all
the things we have put into it . The 'other' ( area of consciousness?) is not.

P: The other is not what?

Krishnamurti: It is not ( occupied by the self-centred ?) thought.

P: But is it (a part of our total ) consciousness? I will open it out a little more. The sensory perceptions operate. Seeing, listening operates, therefore why do you say it is not consciousness?

Krishnamurti: I am saying (the 'other' it is not part of our temporal?) consciousness in the sense that there is no conflict in it.

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

Krishnamurti: There is no conflict at all there.

P: Then what is it that operates there?

Krishnamurti: Is intelligence ( part of the time-bound?) consciousness? Intelligence is not ( part of the ego-centric ?) consciousness.

P: Now we come to a stage where we just listen (non-personally?) .

Krishnamurti: ( To recap:) As Achyutji pointed out, the whole content of ( my temporal) consciousness as the past Indian tradition, the whole human heritage - I 'am' all that. ( The time-bound human ) consciousness is all that. And this consciousness - as we know it- is ( functioning in duality & ?) conflict. And my chief concern is to end that conflict, conflict being sorrow, pain. In examining that, there is a discovery that it is all ( due to?) the process of (ego-centric ) thinking . There is pain and pleasure and from that the (prospective intelligent?) mind says (that thought) must operate in the field of knowledge and not here. What has happened to my mind? It has become pliable, soft, alive. It 'sees', it 'hears'. It does not have the quality of conflict in it, and that is ( the newly awakened ?) Intelligence. Nut that is not ( the same self-centred ) consciousness. ( This timeless?) Intelligence is not ( the product of?) heritage whereas ( the temporal) consciousness is heritage.

Do not ( try to ?) translate this Intelligence ( in terms of the traditional image of?) 'God'. Now that Intelligence can use ( the function of ) thinking to operate in the field of knowledge, but its operation is never dualistic.

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

Krishnamurti: Intelligence has no ( verbal) 'language', but it can use
language. The moment it has ( a crystallised?) language it is back again in the field (of self-centred thinking ?) That Intelligence having no language is not 'personal'. It is not 'mine' or 'yours'.

P: It may not be 'personal' but is it ( getting self-) focalized?

Krishnamurti: No, it (only) appears to focalize.

P: When it moves (in the real world ?) doesn't it have to focalize?

Krishnamurti: Of course, it must, but it is never ( getting stuck?) in focalization.

P: It is never 'held' (in any particular consciousness?) ?

Krishnamurti: It is like holding the Sea in the fist: it ( the water you are holding in your fist ) is part of the Sea, but it is not the ( Immensity of the ?) Sea.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Aug 2018 #64
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

An 'experientially friendly' edited K dialogue on


K: I wonder what is the (inward meaning of ) 'action' ? I want to find out the action which is taking place 'now'.

P: Can there be such an action ( in the timeless?) 'now'?

K: I want to find out, Pupul, whether there is an (holistic ?) action which is continuous and, therefore, always a ( timeless ?) movement without a causation. I am just exploring it so, just move with me.

P: What do you mean by ( this holistic) action?

K: What do we generally mean by 'action'? To 'do (something)' , the physical doing, going from here to there, or intellectually or emotionally working out a problem? Such action to us means operating on (something) , through something or from (something) .
Is there a (holistic approach to our daily?) action without producing conflict - outside or inside? Is there a way of action which is whole, not fragmented? Is there a (time-free ) action which is unrelated to my environment, to me or to the community? Is there an action which is a movement out of ( the field of thought &) time? All that to me is ( the holistic) action.
But to us action is related to the ( needs of the) community we live in and is dictated by the economic, cultural & environmental conditions. It is based on beliefs, ideals and so on. That is the (temporal) action we know. Now, I'd want to find out if there is a (self-sustained inner) action which is not the result of the various 'environmental' pressures.
We are trying to find out what is ( the holistically friendly way of ?) action?

P: What is the factor which propels the movement (of holistic action) ?

K: Pupulji, I think ( that in the meditational context ?) we have to eliminate causation in action. Is that possible?

P: Any physical action is a movement in a ( specific) direction. In the ( non-verbal) attention in which we are listening to you there is no (directional) movement within us. The question is: in this state (of pure seeing or listening ) what is it that motivates, moves?

K: I want to get at something much deeper. What is the (inner) action which is self-energizing? An action which is an infinite (endless?) movement with infinite energy? I think that is (the holistic) 'action'.
All our ( self-centred) actions are always (taking place) within the field of the 'known' (of what was already known ?) and, therefore, bound to
( the limitations of thought & ) time and therefore not free. Now I want to find out if there is any other action (besides the time-binding ) action in the field of the known ? We know the technological action, the action of thought, the action of behaviour. Within the field of (our self-centred)
consciousness, we know action very well. It is all within the field
of the known, but I feel that such action must lead to various forms of personal frustration, sorrow, disintegration.

Now, I ask myself: Is there any other action which does not belong to this (self-centred) consciousness with its (psychological burden of) frustration, failures, sorrows, misery, confusion? Is there any action which is not of ( the causality of thought & ) time? One has acted always within the field of the known and every such action breeds some kind of ( psychological) friction. I want to find out a (way of) action which is non-contradictory, which does not bring conflict, (a self-energising ?) action which is not repetitive, which is not conflicting which is not imitative, conforming and therefore corrupt.
Can we find a way of living in which there is not a breath of imitation, conformity, suppression? It is ( all about) living (in the timeless) Now in which there is no conflict. My ( natural) intelligence, looking ('reading between the lines' of?) at all our actions in the field of the known, observing them, paying attention to them, my intelligence asks this question. Intelligence is in operation now and having read between the lines of the known activity, this ( compassionate?) intelligence says that in the field of the known, action will be contradictory.

P: ( Experientially-wise?) we appear to be totally blocked here. You are positing something and there is no way to find ( the truth of) it out (in our own lives).

K: I said I am going to investigate.

P: What is the difference between the words 'investigate' and 'search'?

K: There is a great difference. Investigate means to 'trace out'.
Search means 'seeking to find something'.

P: will you investigate this (very delicate issue of holistic action?) ?

K: (For starters?) I can see that any action with a ( personal) motive (motivated by of self-interest ?) must inevitably bring about a division , and/or a contradiction. I can also see as a 'fact' that any action based on a ( root assumption or?) 'belief' is contradictory. So, I say
to myself: Is there such a 'belief 'which is ( subliminally?) acting and therefore contradictory? If there is, from that attention, observation, ( my psychological dependency to that?) belief ends in me. ( And further down the line?) if in that ( holistic) attention, I can see that any form of conformity breeds fear, suppression, obedience. So, in that (compassionate?) attention I also wipe out any ( other psychologically motivated?) action based on ( the expectation of a) reward or of a
punishment is finished. I see that any action in ( the area of human) relationships, based on an image, divides people. ( And last but not the least?) in paying attention to ( being stuck in the field of ?) the known, all the factors of the known, their structure and their nature, end.
And then ( the building momentum of?) attention becomes very important and this same attention says: 'Is there any action which has none of these things?'

A: Would you say that ( the holistic) attention itself is action?

K: That is it. Therefore, such attention is ( the time-free movement of ) perception in action and therefore in that there is no ( inner friction or?) conflict. It is producing its own energy and it is endless.
The human brain has functioned always in the ( materialistic) field of conflict, belief, imitation, conformity, obedience, suppression; it has always functioned ( and evolved?) that way and when the brain
begins to realise ( the intrinsic limitations of acting exclusively in the field of the known?) , then ( a holistic quality of integrated?) attention begins to work. The brain cells themselves become ( naturally?) attentive.

M: From what I have now understood, you seem to say that
attention calls for (intelligent?) energy and then that energy directs.

K: Attention 'is' ( 'has' its own ? ) action.

P: In a state of ( integrated) attention, do the brain cells themselves undergo change?

K: I think so, (in the sense that previously these ?) brain cells have gone through a wastage of ( their available intelligent?) energy in conflict,
imitation & all the rest of it and they got (totally?) accustomed to that (traditional condition). Now, these very brain cells now have stopped doing that. They are out of that field (of the known ?) , and the
brain is no longer the residue of all that. It may function
technologically and so on, but as the ( awakened mind & ) brain is without conflict, it is in a state of ( effortless?) attention right inside itself , not imposed, not 'willed', then the whole ( mind & brain?) structure is alive ; (Hint:) not in the 'usual' ( survival oriented?) sense, but in a 'different' sense. I think there is even a physical transformation (in the functioning of the brain cells?) so, there is an action which is
non-repetitive and therefore the freedom from the known is ( allowing the awakening of a holistic) attention in the Unknown.

P: The brain cells are the ( depository of the?) known but now, the freedom from the known is also ( integrated ?) within the brain cells.

K: Therefore, there is a definite transformation coming into being.

M: If the brain is clear of its ( psychological) 'engrams'; that is a physical

K: This is so even logically - as long as the ( self-centred) mind is
functioning within the field of the known, it is functioning in a (time-binding?) groove and the brain cells have been functioning in grooves. Now when those 'grooves' (of self-interest?) are non-existent, the total brain 'acts in freedom', which is ( the essence of any holistic ?) attention.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 25 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Aug 2018 #65
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

REGISTRATION, THE MOVEMENT OF MILLENNIA (cca 1972) (experientially friendly edited)

A: I'd want to raise a (major experiential) difficulty: we perceive (directly) with the senses. This (primary) process ends when there is naming. This starts a secondary process (of mental) processing . With the naming, a number of complicated things (within the field of the 'known'?) begin in my brain. Now, one can see the (psychological redundancy of the secondary processing) and wipe out the verbalising process, the 'naming'. My problem is that when I have wiped out the naming , I have not wiped out the actual (self-centred?) feelings.

K: I am not quite sure, Achyutji ; what is the (holistic)
quality of the mind that can hold that feeling without (naming it)
without any ( mental) movement, right?

P: If I may say so, there are many things in our consciousness which arise prior to the word – take just the feeling of tenderness or joy for instance.

K: Can you observe something without (mechanically naming it?) ? Can you observe me - take my (physical) form for the moment- without the word?

P: Yes.

K: You can. So, you have removed the ( psychological connotations of the ) word 'K' and you are observing the form.

P: I don't say we are observing only the form. We are 'observing'.

K: Then, what are you observing?

P: When I say there is just observing, then ( K's physical) form is part of the whole observing field. I am observing, not only you, I am observing.

K: Of course, you are observing. I am limiting it ( for simplified educational purposess?) to just the ( physical) 'form'. Are you observing the form?

P: I am observing the form but my mind is also trying to see whether the ( mechanism of naming?) was not there prior to that.

K: Pupul, let us keep simple. ( Taking another example) there is ( a mental reaction of) fear. I want to find out whether the words have created that fear. The ( usage of the ) word is ( part of ) the recognition of that ( psychological reaction) which I have called 'fear', because that fear ( of what might happen if... ?) has been going on for many years (it was recorded & stored ) and 'I' (the all controlling 'thinker'?) have recognized ( and safely distanced itself from ?) it through the word. So, the word (the 'fast naming' mechanism) gives me a ( reassuring?) feeling since I have had ( that fear?) before.
(In a nutshell:) The ( spontaneous usage of the ) word 'fear' encourages ( gives reality to?) that feeling, and 'stabilizes' the feeling (not to mention reassuring the all controlling 'thinker' entity ?)

R: Yes. Sustains it.

K: It holds it. The 'word' ( the naming mechanism ?) holds the thing (at a safe distance?) by recognizing it, by remembering it and so on. Now, I am asking whether without the word it can be ( the same psychological) fear. The word is a process of recognition. Fritz, look at it : how do you know you are afraid of something or other ?

FW: I have been afraid before, so I know that feeling. So, as it
comes again, the 'I' recognizes it.

K: But if you don't recognize it ( verbally ) , what is the state?

FW: There is ( a disturbance in the ?) energy (field) in the body.

K: If there is no recognition, no verbal (& mental) movement, would there be fear?

P: There is still a disturbance. Fear is not such a simple thing that you can say , if there is no naming of it, fear is not...

K: Of course, there is a lot of complexity involved in it.

S: Psychologically something happens even before naming takes place.
If we would accept only your (over-simplifying ?) position that the word creates fear, that means there is no ( psychological) content to fear at all.

K: There is ( in the activity of the brain cells an ongoing ?) process of ( recording & ) recognition. If that process of recognition didn't exist (is put 'on hold'?) , if that is at all possible (for the meditating mind?) , then,
what is the ( actuality of that ) thing called fear?

P: Remove the word and see what remains. Any word I use is going to apply exactly as much as the word 'fear'.

K: I am attacking ( this delicate psychological issue) quite differently. ( Supposing ?) you insult 'me' (my self-protective identitary 'image' ?) . There is an immediate registration ( of that 'violation'?) taking place (in the brain cells) . I am asking: Can the ( mental processing of that?) registration come to an end ( at the very moment ) when you insult me and so there is no ( hurt?) recording at all?

S: I don't understand this. That is a totally different process.

K: It is exactly the same thing. Fear arises because I am afraid
of my past ( 'affair' being exposed ?) . The past ( incident?) is registered (in my personal files?) and ( thinking about the potential repercussions of ?) that incident in the past awakens the sense of fear. That fear has been registered. Is it possible to observe the newly occurring feeling, whatever it is, without bringing the ( emotionally loaded memories of my?) past into action? Have you got it?

Rad: There is a feeling of recognition before you actually call it 'fear'.

K: No, look : (Supposing ?) I insult you. What takes place? You register it, don't you?

Rad: I register it (as an insult only after?) I recognize it initially. That ( registering) creates (its own psychological ) momentum.

K: Therefore, stop that momentum. Can that momentum be
stopped? Look Radhika, let us put it much more simply. You are
being hurt from childhood for various reasons and ( the painful memory of ?) it has been deeply registered in the mind, in the brain. The
instinctive ( self-protective) reaction is not to be hurt any more. So, you build a (mental fire)wall, and ( safely ) withdraw behind it . Now, without building ( or further consolidating ) the wall, can you be aware that you (have been ) 'hurt' and the next time a similar process of hurt
begins, not register it?

FW: What do you mean by 'registering'?

K: Our brain is ( functioning as ) a ( top of the line?) tape recorder. It is registering all the time the ( personal) likes and dislikes, pleasure and pain. It is moving ( mechanistically along this line?) : I say something ugly to you and the brain immediately registers it (as a personal attack?) . Now, I say: 'Can you ( become aware of it and?) stop this (ages old momentum of this psychological ?) registration, though it has ( already ) registered (lots of personal stuff?) ? And next time if there is any (incoming ) insult, do not register it at all.' You understand what I am talking about?

FW: That means, not to form any (psychological) 'image' of it right away ?

K: Don't introduce the 'image ( -making' mechanism) for the moment. That becomes yet more complex. Can you recognize the ( insulting meaning of the ) words but not register it (as a 'personal' hurt?) ? I want to keep it very very simple :
( Recap:) The brain is registering all the time. You call me 'a fool', that is registered ( in my 'personal' files?) for various reasons. That is a fact. The next ( game-changing?) question is: Can this (momentum of personal) registration stop? Otherwise the mind, the brain, has no
sense of ( intimate sense of) freedom (as it is constantly on defensive?)

P: The brain is a living thing. It has to register. Registration is one
thing, but the cutting of the ( self-protective?) momentum is the movement away from registration.

K: That is what I am talking about.

P: When you say 'do not register', does that mean the (mechanical momentum of the?) brain cells come to a stop?

K: Look, Pupulji, ( holistically-wise?) it is very important because if
there is no possibility of stopping registration, then the brain
becomes ( repetitive, imitative & ) 'mechanical'.

A: You are oversimplifying the matter. Actually, our normal state of receiving anything is without our awareness that there is either a preference or an aversion, and fear is in that cycle. It arises from the ( 'stand-by' memory of the ) past, and is not directly related to what I perceive in this present moment. But it is ( an integral part of ) the 'entity' which perceives.

K: As long as the brain is registering ( & processing life's challenges ) all the time, it is moving ( in an overlapping continuity of thinking ) from past knowledge to ( present) knowledge to (still further knowledge) . Now, I am challenging the 'word' ( the process of 'verbal recognition' ?) and I am asking myself whether ( the momentum of psychological) registration can stop.

GM: Can the ( temporal) brain answer that question?

K: I think that the brain can become aware of its own registering process.

P: There are certain fears which you can deal with in that way.
But (the) fear ( of the Unknown?) has been the cry of man for millennia - you 'are' that cry.

K: The brain has been registering for millennia. Therefore, registering has become part of it. ( And slowly evolving along this line?) the brain has become mechanical. I say: Can this mechanical process ( of psychological registering ?) stop? That is all. If it cannot be stopped it
becomes merely a machine, which it ( already ) is. This is all part of tradition, part of repetition, part of the constant registration through
millennia. I am asking a 'simple' ( experiential) question which has great depth to it, which is: Can it stop? If it cannot stop, man is never free.

Par: May I ask you a ( collateral) question? Why do we register at all?

K: For safety, security, protection, certainty. The registration is (supposed) to give the brain a certain sense of (its temporal) security.

P: Isn't the brain itself involved in it ? It has evolved through registration.

K: It has evolved through knowledge, which is ( based on processing the results of ) registration.

P: Then, what is it from within itself which says 'stop'?

K: Someone ( a wise man?) comes along and says: Look, through millennia man has evolved through knowledge and at present you are
certainly different from the great apes. And he says: Look, as long
as you are ( blindly) registering ( the 'psychological' incidents?) , you are living a fragmentary life because ( the resulting) knowledge is fragmentary and whatever you do from that fragmentary state of brain is incomplete. Therefore, there is pain, suffering. So, we are asking at the end of that ( insightful?) explanation, can that registration, can that movement of the past, end? Can this ( time-binding?) movement of millennia stop?

P: Is there something in the very quality of listening?

K: Yes, there is. That's it.

P: And this ( quality of holistic) listening ends, silences the ( subliminal activity of psychological) registration ?

K: That is it. That is my point. You have come into my life by
chance. You have come into my life and you have pointed out to
me that my brain has evolved through knowledge, through
registration, through experience; but that (vast accumulation of) knowledge & experience is fundamentally limited. And whatever action takes place from that limited state will be fragmentary and therefore
there will be ( inner & outer) conflicts ( and/or ) pain. Find out if that momentum which has tremendous volume, depth, can end. You know it is a tremendous flow of (intelligent) energy which is (active in the field of the known ?). Stop ( the subliminal identification with this ) knowledge. That is all...

FW: May I ask you a ( bonus?) question? Much reference has been made
here to the tape-recorder which just goes on registering, and it can't stop
itself. It has to be stopped. But then, how can the brain stop itself?

K: We are going to find out (the answer in the field of meditation ?) . First, listen to the question.

S: In the whole of my ( active) consciousness, is there only registration going on?

K: Of course.

S: Then, what is it that can observe the ( subliminal) mechanism of registering?

K: We also know ( moments of) silence, - the silence that is between two

S: Is the 'silence' which I experience also being registered?

K: As long as there is this registration process going on, it is
mechanical. But isn't there ( an inner dimension of?) silence which is non-mechanistic? A silence which has not been thought about, induced, brought about or imagined? Otherwise, the silence is merely mechanistic.

S: One knows moments of non-mechanistic silence sometimes.

K: Not 'sometimes'...

Raj: Sir, then is it possible for the non-mechanistic ( quality of) silence to come (by itself?) ?

K: No, no. I am not interested in that (random visitation ?) . I am asking something entirely different: can you 'end' that momentum? Otherwise this (time-binding) momentum, with its fragmentary activity, will go on endlessly.

Raj: I think this movement can be stopped only if you don't
hang on to it.

K: No, the momentum 'is' you. You just don't realise that ( deeper down?) you 'are' ( unconsciously driven by?) this vast momentum, this river of tradition, of racial prejudices, the collective drive, the
so-called 'individual' assertions. If there is no stopping that, there is
not ( a new?) future. So, there is no future if this current is going on. You may call it a 'future', but it is only the same thing modified. There is no future. I wonder if you see this.

P: An action takes place and ( a tidal wave of inner) darkness arises in me. The question arises: Can the (momentum of all this) consciousness with its own content of darkness...

K:... End ?

P: What do you mean exactly ?

K: Can the ( meditating ) brain ( put on ) 'hold' this momentum, or is it (dealing with the?) idea that it is momentum? You follow what I mean? Is the momentum ( seen directly as something) actual or is it an idea? If it is not an idea, a conclusion, then the brain is getting directly in contact with the ( inner) momentum (of registering?) . Therefore, it can say: 'All
right, I will watch it ( live?) .' (Hint;) You 'are' this vast movement (of psychological time?) . Find out if ( in a meditator free meditation?) that thing can end – the ( subliminally active memory of the?) past coming, meeting the present challenge and ending there. Otherwise, there is no end to suffering (to the sorrow of time?) . Man has put
up with suffering for thousands upon thousands of years and that
momentum is going on and on. I can give ten explanations -
reincarnation, karma - but I still suffer. This suffering is the vast
momentum of man. Can that momentum come to an end without
the controller's control ? Can that momentum stop ( spontaneously?) ?
If it does not stop, then there is no freedom, then any action will always
be incomplete. Can you see the whole of that, see it actually?

P: Can we ever see that?

K: I call you a fool. Must you register it?

P: I can't just answer why should I register.

K: Don't register !

P: If these eyes and ears of mine still and listen, there is no
registration. There is listening but no registration. I have been observing
while this discussion has been going on and I say: What does it
mean to register the fact? Obviously, if my listening is directed to the word, which is coming out of me, I register, and this very movement outward throws it back. But if the eyes and the ears are seeing and listening, but still, then they take in without any ( psychological) registration.

K: So, you are saying that there is a quietness in listening. There
is no registration. But.... most of us are not ( non-personally?) quiet.

P: We can't answer that question of yours: Why should one

K: No. I am asking quite a different question. Someone calls
you a fool. Don't register it at all.

P: It is not a ( volitive) process in which I can register or I can't register.
The way you put it, you are suggesting two alternatives: it is either
to register or not to register.

K: No. You are registering all the time.

P: There is a registration all the time. So ; as long as my senses are
moving outward, there is registration.

K: That means you are not ( stopping it) now. I want to find out whether this vast stream of the past can come to an end. That is all my question.

P: You won't accept any verbal statement on it. Therefore, there has to be an (experiential) way to end.

K: I am asking: How can it end?

P: Then, we'll have to move to the actual process registration in the brain cells

K: So, the brain cells are registering. In that momentum (of registering everything) , the brain has found tremendous security. Right?

P: There is only one movement which is the movement of the past, touching the present and moving on.

K: The past meeting the present, moving on, modifying - we
have gone into that. The brain is conditioned to do that. It sees as long
as that 'stream' (of its temporal continuity) exists, it is perfectly safe. Now, how are those cells to be shown that the ( 'time?) momentum' of the past in which the brain cells have found enormous security and well-being is the most dangerous movement? Now, to point out to that brain the danger of this momentum is all that matters (for the prospective holistic educator?) . The moment it (the brain) sees the actual danger, it will end it. Do you see the danger of this movement? Not
the theoretical danger, but the actual physical danger?

P: Are your brain cells saying that this movement is dangerous?

K: My brain is using these words to inform you of the danger, but
it has no danger in it. It has seen it and dropped it. Do you see the
danger of a cobra? When you see the danger, you avoid it, which is instant action.
The brain has been conditioned to 'carry on' ( this subconscious recording) because in that there is complete safety, in meeting the present, learning from it, modifying it and moving on. To the ( temporal) brain, that is the only safe movement it knows, so it is going to remain there indefinitely . But the moment the ( awakened ?) brain realizes that it is the most dangerous thing, it drops it because it wants (a complete) security.

Raj: I don't see the danger of the momentum as actually as you
see it.

K: Why, sir?

Raj: Partly because I have never ( took the quality time to ) observe the vast momentum & to see its danger.

K: Are you living with K's description of the momentum or
living with the momentum itself which is you? You understand my
question, sir? Is the momentum different from you?

Raj: No, sir.

K: So, you 'are' the momentum? So, you are watching yourself?

Raj: Yes. But this does not happen often.

K: Are you aware without any choice that you 'are' the momentum, not
'sometimes'? You can say: I only see the precipice occasionally.

( To re-recap:) The word is not the thing. Fear is not the word, but
without the word, would that thing called 'fear' exist? The word is ( brought about by ) the 'registration' process. Then, something totally new (reaction) arises. That 'new', the brain refuses because the new thing (is beyond its control) ; so, it immediately says 'Aha ! It is fear'.
Now, for the ( meditating?) brain to hold the momentum of (registration?) , wait & watch. Give a gap between ( the knowledgeable) thought interferes with the actual movement of feeling. The gap can only happen when you go very deeply into the question that the word is not the thing, the word is not fear. Immediately, you have stopped the momentum. I wonder if you see ( the practicality of?) this.

P: I still want to get this thing clear. Is it possible to hold a
quality of feeling without the word, whether it is hatred, anger or
fear ?

K: Of course, you can hold the feeling of anger, fear, without
the word; just remain with that feeling. Do it (for extra meditation homework) .

P: But what do you ( K) do exactly?

K: When fear arises from whatever cause, remain with it,
without any movement of thought.

P: What is it then?

K: It is no longer the thing ( the self-centred reaction ?) which I have associated with the past as 'fear'. I would say it is ( all mind's intelligent?) energy held without any movement. When energy is held without any movement, there is an 'explosion' ( of the known boundaries ?) . That (known-free mind?) then gets transformed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Sep 2018 #66
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

 K IN CONVERSATION WITH DR RAHULA -a highly knowledgeable Buddhist scholar - (cca) 1979 ( 'reader & experientially' friendly edited )


R: Sir, I want to ask you just one thing today. You see, we all talk of Truth, absolute truth, ultimate truth; and of seeing it or realizing it; according to Buddha's teachings, that is the essence (of any spiritual endeavour?) . Now, Buddha says ''there is only one Truth, there is no second'', but unfortunately, this ( ultimate Truth?) is never defined in positive terms ; sometimes the word 'truth' is used in place of Nirvana. But then... Nirvana is never defined; except mostly in 'negative' terms ( as what it is not). If it is described in 'positive' terms it is mostly metaphorically, in a symbolic way. And when the question was put to him "What is (the ultimate Truth) ?" he answered the question with a 'thundering silence'.
So, just as they asked..., I ask you today: what is Truth, what is absolute truth, what is ultimate truth and what is the 'non-duality' as you see it? Tell us. It is a ( personal) challenge.

K: (For starters?) do you think, sir, there is a difference between ( the material world of ) reality and Truth? if we could distinguish between what is reality and what is truth, then perhaps we could penetrate more deeply into this question.
What is 'reality'? The very word res, means 'things', thing. Could we say that everything that thought has created is ( part of our everyday?) reality - including the illusions, the gods, the whole movement of (time &) thought, and what it has brought about in the world ? Nature is not created by thought. It exists. But we human beings have used nature to produce things, like our houses, chairs, a beautiful cathedral, a beautiful poem, a lovely picture, are all the result of thought. That reality, including the illusions it has created, as well as the material things it has created through technological knowledge and so on, so on, all that is ( the world of) 'reality'.

R: May I add that ccording to Buddhas's teaching, there is a 'relative truth' of ( the material) reality.

F:But through the centuries people have tended to talk of 'reality' more in terms of one of its connotations of ultimate reality.

K: I know, but I would like to separate the two - truth and reality.

S: Are you also including ( the world of) nature in ( your concept of) 'reality'?

K: Of course it's a reality, but it's not created by thought. Now, let us look at reality - what is reality? The world is reality. You sitting there, and this person sitting here, are realities. And also the illusions that one has, are an actual reality.

F: Could we regard all that is apprehended through the senses, and then interpreted by the brain as 'reality' ?

K: That's right, sir. And can we say that the 'actual' is what is happening now?

F: Yes, that's a good way of putting it. But... are we capable of apprehending the totality of what is happening now ? We apprehend only a portion of it.

K: ( The next step is ) whether the ( truth seeking?) mind see that from reality you cannot go to truth - all the sensory responses are the beginning of thought and thought, with all its complex movements, is what is happening now when we're talking. What is ( actually) happening is the actual, but our (personal) understanding of what is happening depends on thought. All that, including our illusions is ( part of the temporal world of ?) reality.

F: Yes, that is so.

K: Then if we accept that for the moment; then the question arises: can the (temporal) mind, which is the network of all the senses, actualities and so on, can that apprehend, see, observe what is Truth?

F: Provided the mind can be free of all its conditioning...

K: To find out what the absolute Truth is, the whole movement and the nature of thought must have been gone into, observed. And (as thought finally finds ?) its (right) place, the ( meditating?) mind then becomes absolutely still and perhaps out of that, in that stillness, Truth is perceived, which is not to be measured by words.

F: Yes, there I'd agree, completely, fully.

R: Yes, I agree with that.

K: Now, this are the two - isn't it. And ( the average) human being is caught in the movement of thought. And this movement projects what is truth.

F: This is the mistake that man makes.

K: Of course. He projects from 'this' ( world of reality?) what he thinks is Truth. And this (man-projected?) Truth can be put in different words - God. Brahman, or Nirvana, or moksha, you know, all that business. So our ( new experiential?) question is then, sir, can the mind cease to 'measure'?
Measurement is ( the result of) our ( materialistic) educational environmental & social conditioning. Would you agree?

R: Yes.

K: Inwardly, what is this 'measurement'? Measurement means comparison. Right? One measures oneself, psychologically against somebody (supposed to be doing better or worse than oneself?) . So there is this constant measurement ( based on ) comparison, both externally and inwardly. And as long as thought is measuring there must be duality.

R: Absolutely, that is a fact.

K: Now, how has this conditioning (of psychological measurement?) come about? Why has man been caught in this constant ( mental) comparison & imitation - you know, the whole movement of measurement,

R: This whole ( psychological) measurement is based on one's self-interest

K: Yes, but how has it come about?

P: It seems the thought needs a static point to measure, and itself is moving constantly, and in a state of continuous flux or movement, it can't measure, so it creates a static point which is immovable, which is taken as the centre of the self. From there only you can measure.

K: Yes, sir. I mean, the very word 'better', 'greater', is indicating a psychological measurement. So the language itself is involved in measurement. Now, one has to find out, what is the source of this psychological measurement. Why has man been held in this measurement?

SS: Probably he thinks it's the only way to move forward : if you're a farmer and you plant to crop in a certain way, and you get this kind of result, the next year you plant in a different way, and you get that better result.

K: Yes, so it is ( the result of thinking in terms of?) time. But I want to go a little further than that. Which is, why has man used time as a means of progress? I'm talking 'psychologically', not ( about the chronological) time which is necessary to learn a language, or to develop a certain technology and so on.

F: Do you think that our tendency is, that starting with the physical facts of difference, in size, in quantity, and so forth, and then we apply that analogically to the psychological process also ?

K: Yes. Of course, without measurement there would have been no technology. But why has man used the 'psychological' time as a means of self growth, of 'getting better', getting more noble, achieving enlightenment? All that implies time.

N: Is it, as Metah says, carried over from the day to day living of measurement signs, to the psychological field? Is it carried over, or does it exist in the psychological field without reference to this?

K: That's what we're discussing. We're asking : do we need ( to think in terms of?) time (inwardly or?) psychologically?

SN: What is it that creates time?

K: Thought, thought 'is' ( projecting its own continuity in?) time. Time is ( a material measurement associated with ?) movement, isn't it ? Physical distance and psychological distance. And one is questioning whether the psychological distance is not a (thought generated?) illusion. To put it very succinctly sir, is there (inwardly or) psychologically, 'tomorrow'?

F: Only in terms of anticipation.

K: Ah, in terms of (one's personal) anticipations , because thought says, "I hope to have (a better day 'tomorrow'?) ".

F: But in addition to thought, there is the fact of our physical experience, of day and night, and therefore the words 'tomorrow', 'today'.

K: We said that very clearly. But we are asking, is there a 'psychological' (distance expressed in terms of?) time at all, or thought has invented ( its own ) psychological 'time (line') in order to live in some kind of (temporal?) security?

R: Inwardly, what is time? Time is nothing but the unbroken continuity of cause and effect, and we give a word called 'time' for that movement.

K: Yes, that's one aspect of time. And also the aspect of time which is ( required in) going from here to London , ( the time necessary in) covering a physical distance. I have to go to London and it takes time to get there.

M: Sir, would you say that ( the process of?) thought in itself implies time, because the action of the mind going through the thought process takes, even if it's a very quick, short amount of time, it is still time.

K: Surely, because thought is the response of memory, memory is (the recorded result of our material existence in ) time. We are questioning whether 'psychologically' (inwardly?) there is (any objective evolution in terms of) time at all. Or thought has invented time as a means of either achieving security, or, it is lazy to completely transform itself immediately. So it says, "Give me time". Give me time to become stronger psychologically. Give me time so that I get rid of my anger, my jealousy or whatever it is, and I'll be free of it. So he's using time as a means of achieving something psychologically.

M: But then one must ask you about the use of the word 'psychological' in this instance because if time is implicit in thought, how can you be (the same person?) without thought psychologically?

K: We are coming to that. Isn't the whole psyche put together by thought?

M: If that is so, then how would it be possible for there not to be time involved in any psychological movement?

R: Of course, in all religious traditions, there is a spiritual aspiration, always. But I think your point is : whether the seeing of truth is now, in this moment, or whether you postpone it till you become (inwardly) better (prepared to see it?) .

K: Ah no, the moment you introduce the word better...

R: So, the ( experiential) question is, if it is true, you see it now.

K: I don't want to enter the World of Truth yet. One wants to be clear that one's thinking is logical, sane, rational, or it comes to a conclusion which is illusory. If there are no (high hopes for?) tomorrow, psychologically, our whole action now is different.

N: You would say then, any ( spiritual) aspiration, however noble it is, is in the field of reality ?

K: In the field of ( our self-centred) thought, yes.

F: Yes, because it is a formulation made by thought.

F: Exactly. So would I be right in saying you are concerned with being free of the time factor totally, in psychological terms.

K: Yes, sir. Otherwise our mind is living always in circle - the past modifying the present and going off (to a 'fake' future ?) . This ( personal memory of the?) past modifying itself ( in the present and projecting itself into an imagined ?) future is time. So when one says, "I will be better", "I will understand" or "I will try", all these are involved in time. So I question whether it is merely an invention of thought for its own ( hidden purposes) and so it is illusory, and whether so there is no ( wishful thinking?) 'tomorrow'.
So ( as a possible suggestion for homework meditation : ?) is it possible, being envious, to be free of it instantly, and not allow ( one's self-centred thinking in terms of?) time to intervene? That is my whole point.

F: Isn't the envy, the psychical reaction to what is perceived through the senses?

K: Yes, that's right.

F: So the 'psychical' reaction follows the sensuous activity. And that involves the pleasure/pain drive within us.

K: Obviously. One sees you driving in a big lovely car. And I'm driving a small car, so there is a ( subliminal) comparison.

F: Yes. This is more pleasant or this is less pleasant.

K: That begins from (early) childhood.

F: So we get into the 'psychological' habit (of comparing ourselves with others... resulting in our cultural standardisation?) .

K: That begins in childhood. You are not as good as your brother, the whole education system is based on this comparative evaluation of one's capacities.
Do we see that the 'psychological' usage of time is an illusion ? Do we understand it even ( if only intellectually?) that ( our self-identified ) thinking has created this psychological time as a means of achieving something ?

M: We can see that ( following a time-line of spiritual achievement is ?) still within the realm of thought...

K: Yes, but I'm just asking, Maria, do we understand clearly, even intellectually, that we have used time as a psychological catalyst to bring about change? And I'm questioning that catalyst.

F: What do you precisely mean when you say, "Do we see that psychological time is an illusion", what do you mean by the word 'see'?

K: I mean by that ( holistic?) word 'see', to observe without the interference of thought.

F: That means, to be completely conscious, to be completely aware of time being an illusion as a fact ?

K: Yes, to see this is like I see the ( actual) snake, and I don't mistake it for a rope.

F: But wouldn't you agree that ( this direct seeing) involves a complete transformation of your whole mode of awareness, your consciousness?

K: Not call it, but see the shape, just to observe without any reflection.

F: Quite, without naming it.

K: Naming it all the rest of it.

F: In other words, to see in the sense of 'being' (one with ) what you see.

K: Sir, to observe implies - first let's look at it as it is generally understood - to observe a tree, I name it. I like it or don't like it. And so on, so on. But what we mean by ( observerless?) 'observation' is it to listen first and not make an abstraction of it into idea, (because?) then it is the ( self-projected) 'idea' that sees. I wonder if you see (the qualitative difference) ?

R: Yes, yes...

K: For instance - I said a little earlier that 'psychologically' there is no time, psychological time is the invention of thought, and may be a (very realistic ?) illusion. Now to 'listen' to that (statement) without making an idea of it, but just to listen. As one can listen that way, in the same way observe, see.

R: What are you trying to tell us?

K: I'm trying to say, sir, that truth cannot possibly be perceived, seen, through ( the self-protective screen of psychological ?) time.

R: Right. I see it.

K: I'm also saying that man through ( the mental habit of) comparison with the outer world has created a 'psychological' time as a means of achieving a desired rewarding end.

R: I agree.

K: But... do you see that as a 'fact' - fact in the sense 'it is true'.

F: ( Seeing it as an?) idea is just a ( 2-D) picture of the actual listening.

K: Yes. Which is ( also a subliminal) avoidance of the actual observation...

F: ...of the immediate fact.

SS: Then there may be something ( hidden deeply) which we are evading constantly ; there may be a driving factor which accounts for ( facing directly the inner facts?) and which may be sorrow.

K: Yes, sir, escape from ( the present sense of self- insufficiency or?) pain through ( pursuing a higher?) reward.

SS: And it seems to apply to the most sophisticated and to the more primitive civilizations, all of them.

K: Obviously. Because all our ( self-centred) thinking is based on these two principles, reward and punishment. Our ( expected) reward ( here) is Enlightenment, God, Nirvana, ( a moving ) away from all the pain of existence, you know, all the misery of it all.

F: Is it not possible to be free from this (basic assumption?) of reward or punishment?

K: That's what I'm saying. As long as our minds are thinking in terms of reward and punishment, that is 'time'.

F: How is it that our minds think that way?

K: Because we're educated that way.

F: Yes, true.

K: We are conditioned from childhood that measurement was important (for both our collective & personal survival ) , otherwise you couldn't have got all this technological knowledge.

F: And would you say that this is due to the fact that we are tied to the idea of a separate 'me', a separate 'I' ? Supposing one sees, hears, touches, in an awareness of life's wholeness.

K: You can't be aware of the wholeness (of Life) , unless you have understood the movement of ( self-interest based?) thought. Because (the ego-centric) thinking is in itself limited.

F: Yes, of course, which means the intrusion of the self-consciousness as a separate something.

K: Sir, how did this 'self-separative' consciousness come into being?

F: ( Due to our survivalistic?) conditioning in the first instance.

K: It's so obvious – by measurement.

F: Measurement, exactly. And that inevitably gets transferred to the realm of the psyche, the realm of the mind..

K: Of course. So we come to this point that psychological time has been used by man as a means of achieving ( a personal) reward away from the ( existential?) pain which he's had. So we are saying, this search for reward or the achievement of the reward, is a movement of time. And is there such a thing at all? We have invented it, it may be illuson. And from this ( very realistic?) illusion ( of my self-isolation?) I can't go to Truth.
So the ( seriously meditating?) mind must be totally, completely free of this movement of measurement. Is that possible?

F: As a short answer, I would simply say 'yes'.

K: I agree intellectually that it is so, but... I go on the rest of my life moving in the other direction.

F: If one really sees it , then one doesn't go in the other direction.

K: So, do we 'see it', or we (just indulge in thinking ?) that we see it ?

M: Can we go back for a moment? You said you 'hear' the statement, you 'observe' it. Actually what does the mind do in that ( holistic ?) observation?

K: ( This holistic?) observation implies a ( quality of direct?) seeing without naming, without measuring, without a motive, without ( expecting a personally rewarding) end. Obviously that is actually 'seeing'. ( Hint ; the word 'idea' from the Greek, the word itself means to observe) .

M: We would probably all agree with that. But what is acting at that moment? It is a kind of ( holistic?) logic, I think, in most people.

K: No...

M: It seems very 'evident' what you've said.

K: ( The observer-free?) observation implies silence and not forming any conclusion, just to observe silently, without any psychological or sensory responses (interfering) – a pure insight without the responses of memory.

R: Without any value judgements.

K: Yes.

F: Would you say, sir, without any reaction from the brain or the senses or...

K: It's a ( potentially slippery?) thing to bring in the brain. Because then we have to go into the whole question of 'mind' & 'brain' . It implies thought is absolutely quiet in ( the context of an insightful) observation.

F: Scientists, for example, who have really new remarkable inspirations, or again great artists when they create wonderful things, this happens when everything is quiet inside, which allows this new to emerge, the new, the truly new, the pulse of creation.

K: Yes, sir, but their insight are partial, because (a total) insight implies a whole transformation of his daily life, it isn't just, I'm a scientist and I have an insight into mathematics, into matter, into the atom. ( The holistic) Insight implies the way the man lives as a whole.

R: That is perfectly so.

K: Let us talk a little bit about insight, or ( holistic?) seeing. Insight implies an observation in which there is no ( personal) remembrance of things past, therefore the mind is alert, free from all the elements (of self-interest?) and so on, just to observe. Only then you have a (total?) insight. And the insight of which we are talking about, implies, one's whole life, not as a scientist, as an artist. They go have partial insights, but that's not what we're talking about.

R: And the insight that we talk of is ( involving one's ) whole existence.

K: Of course, man's existence.

R: And that ( holistic?) seeing is beyond time. It is beyond time, that seeing is not limited or caught in time.

K: That ( total) insight is not involved in time. But, wait a minute. Have we got ( a total) insight into this psychological invention of time by thought, as achieving some result? Have we got ( the holistic clarity of?) insight, or you see it just at a verbal, ideological level?
Does one see this as an idea (as an ideal to be achieved?) , or it is so? Then how is a human being, to totally move away from that, totally transform this whole concept of time? I say it's only possible when you have an insight into this whole thing, which doesn't involve ( any mental?) effort, which doesn't involve concentration, all that. This is ( insight the essential part of the?) real meditation.

F: In fact, it just 'happens'.

K: It's the real ('meditator'-free?) meditation.

R: Indeed.

K: ( To recap:) Listening without analysis, without interpretation, without like or dislike, just listen. And if you so 'listened' you have absorbed the (truth of the) fact that thought is the (personalised?) response of (one's previously known?) memory. Then you can proceed. Can thought ever free itself from from its source of ( deeply embedded self-interest?) ? Obviously not.

M: Sir, would you say that if insight comes into (one's?) being at that moment, that then that ( mind illuminated by?) insight doesn't fall back into the thought mechanism ?

K: Of course not. Say, for instance, you have an insight and you act. Now let's be clear. Insight means action ( seeing & acting?) instantly, not have an insight and later act. That very ( clarity of) insight implies action. And that ( time-free?) action is always accurate, precise, without any regret, without any effort, without any reward or punishment, it is so.

SS: That action may be a 'non-action' in terms of doing things externally.

K: You may have to act both externally and inwardly. If I have an insight into attachment, attachment to ideas, attachment to conclusions, attachment to persons, attachment to my ( earnestly acquired?) knowledge & experience. If I have an insight into ( what is really wrong with?) that, this 'whole thing' is abandoned.

R: And if I may put it in another way - to see this whole illusion (of psychological dependency?) or whatever name you give to it, to see...

K: The 'what is'.

R: Yes, see 'what is'. Don't give any ( particular) term.

K: To see 'what is'.

R: To see 'what is' is to see the truth.

K: No, no, I'm not yet ready for that...

R: Well, I want to get it, before one o'clock! I don't want to postpone it ! Even your main thesis is,''don't introduce time'. To see 'what is' as it is, is to see the truth. That's what I would like to short-(cut) . And truth is not away from seeing the 'what is'

K: I don't know what it means to see. I may only think that I see.

R: Yes, then... you are not seeing.

K: I must be very clear that I am not just thinking I'm seeing. My whole life is based on that (assumption) - I think I see. The ordinary person says, ''I see, yes''. Which is, ''I think I see what you're saying''. But I may not see actually 'what is'. I may only think I see ( the rapid inner movement of ?) 'what is'.
So, do we really 'listen' (non-verbally?) or we've got all kinds of ( intellectual ?) conclusions, that ( the totality of our ?) mind isn't capable of listening. You see me, you say, ''Well, he's considered to be an (enlightened?) person ". don't actually 'listen'...
So, sir, now we come back to this question of truth. Do we have another discussion this afternoon?

R: Yes, but I don't want to wait for ( the ultimate?) Truth. (laughter)

K: You want it all in five minutes, sir?

R: Not even in five minutes...

K: One minute?

R: One minute. If you can't do it in one minute, you can't do it in five hours.

K: I quite agree. All right, sir, in one second. Truth is not perceivable through (a mind caught in?) time. Truth doesn't exist when the 'self' is there. Truth doesn't come into existence if ( one's self-centred) thought is moving in any direction. Truth is something that cannot be measured. And without love, without compassion, with its own intelligence, Truth cannot be.

R: Yes, now again you have given it in 'negative' terms, in the real tradition of the Buddha. Yes...

K: You see, you know what you've just done, sir ? You have 'translated it' into terms of tradition, therefore you've moved away from the actual 'listening' of this ( 'fast track' description of Truth?)

R: I listened, I listened very well.

K: Then you've captured the perfume of it  ?

R: Yes, and I captured the perfume of what you said. And that is why I wanted to have it in one minute.

K: So, sir, what then is the relationship of Truth to ( the material world of?) reality? I mean, are these two everlastingly divided?

R: No. They are not divided.

K: How do you know?

R: I know it.

K:. Then what do you mean by '' Truth and reality, they are not divided'' ? We are all agreed that ( our everyday?) 'reality' is everything that thought has put together, including illusion. But Truth, is nothing whatsoever to do with this, it can't. And therefore the two cannot be together.

R: To see that 'illusion', or whatever it may be, to see 'what is', is to see the truth. There is no truth apart from that. 'What is' is the truth.

K: No, sir...

R: That is, 'what is' is the truth, and 'what is not' is untrue.

K: No, we said 'reality' is the movement of thought. Right, sir? And Truth is timeless. Truth is timeless, it's not your truth, my truth, his truth - it is something beyond time. Thought is of time, the two cannot run together,

R: That is again duality, again you are dividing them .

K: No, I'm not. I'm pointing out, sir - that thought may deceive itself by saying, "Yes, I've seen the Truth." Therefore there must be clarity that there is no deception whatsoever. And I'm saying that deception exists, will inevitably exist if I don't understand the nature of 'reality'.

R: I think here we have come to Truth. I don't know whether you would agree ...

K: There's here a tremendous ( qualitative?) difference: 'I' can't go to Truth, 'I' can't see Truth. ( The transcendental dimension of?) Truth can only 'exist', or (simply) 'is' only when the 'self' (-consciousness?) is not (openly or subliminally active?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Sep 2018 #67
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

(cca 1979)

( a 'reader-friendly' edited version ?)

R: The other question we wanted to talk about, whether there is a 'pre-existence', ( a next life spiritual ?) continuity, what ( the Buddhist scholars ) call generaly 'rebirth'.

K: Sir, is your question : if there is ( a continuity of our?) life after death ?

R: May I say a few words about it?

K: Of course, sir.

R: You see, I want to put this question to you because all religions, as far as I know, agree and accept a life after death. Of course Buddhism and Hinduism, they accept not one life but many lives before this birth and after this death. That is Hindu and Buddhist teaching. I don't know about others very much, but these religions, they accept life after death ; and of course, except in Buddhism, in all those religions there is a Soul, a Higher Self, Atman, with this unchanging, everlasting, permanent substance in man which transmigrates or is reincarnated. Buddhism does not accept a self, Atman or soul or ego which is permanent, eternal, everlasting, unchanging. But Buddhism accepts man is composed of five aggregates, physical; and if you put it in brief, as the Buddhist term say, 'name and form' - 'name' means the mental qualities and 'form' is the physical body. But these are all ( intelligent ) energies according to Buddhism, forces. And according to Buddhism, what is generally called call 'death' is non-functioning of the body.

K: Yes.

R: But this does not mean the non-functioning of all other qualities and forces, like desire, the will to become (more enlightened?) - as long as man is imperfect, that is, if he had not seen the Truth. Once one sees the Truth, he is perfect and there is no desire for becoming, because there is nothing to become.
So ( the opportunity of?) rebirth is there for (the imperfect man) , but according to Buddhism, it is not one unchanging substance that goes on, but as Buddha says, ''every moment we are dead and reborn''. The question is very often asked in many Budhist texts,'' Is it the same person or another one?'' . And the traditional Buddhist answer is, ''neither he nor another'' – pointing to a continually changing process. (EG:) a child is grown up to be a man of fifty, is he the same child or another ? It is neither the same child nor another one. In the same way, it is neither he nor another. That is the Buddhist attitude to rebirth.
And now I would like to know what is your attitude and what is your interpretation?

K: Sir, would you say that ( the collective consciousness of?) humanity, whether the human being lives in America, Russia, India or Europe, is ( at its depths ?) caught in sorrow, conflict, strife, guilt, great sense of misery, loneliness, unhappiness, confussion ? All that is the (largely ignored 'psychological') content of the ordinary consciousness of man. Outwardly they might differ, tall, short, (richer or poorer?) and so on, but psychologically they are greatly similar. So (in this respect?) , ' you are the (representative of the aching consciousness of the?) world'. Would you agree ?

R: Yes, a sense.

K: Not 'in a sense'. It is not only 'partially true', it is so. Outwardly one's culture, one's tradition, one's climate, food, all that may vary. But ( deeper down?) inwardly we have the same feeling of (an existential?) anxiety, loneliness, various forms of depression, sorrows and fears, these are the commonly (ignored?) lot of man. So ( deeper down inwardly the ) human beings throughout the world are more or less similar, apart from their physical name and form. Would you agree?

R: Yes.

K: So ( consciousness-wise?) deeply down you 'are' ( exactly like?) me.
Because ( sooner or later?) each person goes (at various degrees of awareness?) through various forms of personal tragedies & misfortunes. And so the (collective consciousness of?) humanity is one. Would you agree?

F: (The total consciousness of) humanity is one.

K: If you see that, accept it, then, who is it that dies? The ( personal) name, & form (dies certainly) , but the anxiety, the pain, the sorrow, the misery - does that also die? Or that is the Stream (of consciousness?) in which man lives, psychologically.
Then what what is it that dies? The body? The form, the name? The form and the name, but this vast stream (of mankind's temporal consciousness?) is going on all the time, like a great river. Right? Let's discuss it.

M: Sir, are you saying that in that Stream the whole notion which most people share of their individual consciousness is a complete illusion?

K: I think so. But also the word 'individual' is really misapplied, because 'individual' obviously means an (integrated human consciousness?) who is indivisible. But (as of now ?) we're all 'broken up' ( inwardly ) . So we can hardly call ourselves ( authentic?) 'individuals'.

F: We are fragmented.

K: So if we see ( the profound truth?) that our consciousness 'is' the consciousness of the world, in that vast river (of Time?) which has no beginning, which is still going on, what happens (at the moment of death?) to all my (unfulfilled?) desires, what happens to all my anxieties, fears, longings, aspirations, the enormous burden of sorrow which I have ( unknowingly?) carried for years - what happens to all that?

F: It 'comingles' with the world stream ?

K: It is part of that stream which has manifested itself as 'K'., with his name & form.

R: Now I am with you in this question. So, in that stream there is ( the individualised consciousness of?) K.

K: Wait! There is no 'K'. That's the whole point. There is only that stream - that stream is made up of desire, anxieties, despair, loneliness, all the travail of mankind. That is the River (of Time?) .

F: Would you say, sir, that that which we now call our 'individual' (consciousness) is a misnomer ?

K: Not only a misnomer ; I don't think it exists ( as such) ; 'your' consciousness is ( flowing in the Stream of Time?) like that of everybody else.
You're born in India and I was born in Europe, or in America. We go through the same 'hell', through the same 'rat race'.

M: So, there is nothing apart from that in the human consciousness ?

K: You're asking, whether is there is anything (of spiritual nature?) which is not 'man-made'?

M: Something Real.

K: ( May be, but?) not in that ( collective) River (of Self-Interest ?) .

M: I'm asking if there's something else in the (total consciousness of mankind?) except the river (of Time?)

K: 'Nothing' (not-a-thing ?) . No ( personal?) Soul, no 'God' - nothing. Don't accept it (at its verbal 'face value'?) , please !

M: There is enormous implication in that. Because if that were so there would be no end to the Stream (of Self-Interest?) .

K: ( Only for?) the man who steps out...

R: Thinking about it, or meditating, in what Mary said there is a very important (metaphysical) point.

K: We'll answer that presently ( the 'negative' way?) . So that Stream is (deep down inwardly?) common to all of us, our consciousness is of that Stream.

SS: Because all (our temporal consciousness?) is a creation and manifestation of thought ?

K: Yes, the creation of thought which has created illusions and the operation of man's divisive illusions. I want this to be clear that ( azt the depths of our consciousness?) we 'are' part of that Stream, and when the physical body dies, the desires, the anxieties, the tragedies and the misery goes on.
I die, but that stream, that river (of man's temporal consciousness?) is going on. I don't see how you can reject it.

R: No rejection, no acceptance.

K: No, just waiting – right?

R: Only waiting for the conclusion.

K: Quite right. So that river manifests itself as K. The river, which is (propelled by thought & ) desire, river is that.

F: One of its manifestations is 'K'.

K: The river manifests itself as 'K'. And K has certain (gifts &) capacities by tradition, by education and so on to paint, to build a marvellous cathedral. But we're talking psychologically.

R: I fully agree that what you ( generically) describe as 'suffering' and all that, is common to all humanity.

K: That is, we are of that stream and 'I' am the representative of all mankind. Me.

N: Qualitively (speaking) When you say, "I am of that stream", all the qualities of the Stream are in me.

K: Yes, that's right. All the qualities of that stream.

N: Not in the sense that I'm the whole river, but the drop contains all the qualities of the river.

M: Would it be helpful to use the example of a wave: a wave is no different from the rest of the ocean, but it manifests as a wave which disappears.

K: If you like to put it that way. But this must be clear. Each one of us is the ( responsible?) representative of the whole of that Stream. So if one manifestation of that stream leaves the Stream (of collective Self-Interest?) , (consciousness-wise?) he's completely free of that Stream.

R: So you are not whole humanity, because if you leave the river, then you leave; whole humanity, then all humanity is away.

K: Just a minute, sir, if X doesn't free himself completely from ( the subliminal pressures of?) this stream, he's back in it.

M: But, sir, this ( stepping out?) is the moment that my earlier question referred to : what else is there? You said there was nothing separate from the stream.

K: Wait, wait. I haven't explained it. There is no-'thing'. But if X doesn't step out of that stream, there is no salvation for mankind.

M: Sir, what is there to 'step out'?

K: Finish with your (ego-centric ?) anxieties, sorrow, all the rest of it.

M: But you said there was nothing except the 'content' of the stream.

K: As long as 'I' remain in the stream.

M: What is the 'I'?
K: I is the 'thing' (the self-conscious 'entity'?) that has 'manifested' itself as A, and A now calls himself 'individual', which ( psychologically wise?) is not factual, which is illusory. And when A dies, he's part of that Stream. That's clear.

M: Yes, but if A is composed of the 'water' of the Stream how can the water of the stream step out of the stream?

K: Oh, yes.
P: Then there is some logical error in your...

K:... in my explanation ? Aren't you the ( responsible?) representative of whole of consciousness of mankind, psychologically?

R: Yes, but I think that is too general and too vague a statement.

K: No, it's not vague. I have made it very clear. That stream is this content of our consciousness, which is agony, pain, desire, strife, all that.

M: But, sir, maybe we're being too literal, but what is it that can separate itself from the stream if it is only made up of the water of the stream?

K: Part of (the central current of ) that stream is this egotistic concept. That's all.

R: Her point is this : What is it that 'steps out' of the river. That is the question.

K: You see, when you ask that question, you're positing an 'otherness' ( a spiritual essence?) , something which is not of the Stream. Right?

F: Sir, may I add a word here. I think the question which the lady (MZ) asked implies a permanent spiritual entity.

K: There is no permanent entity.

M: A 'something' , I'm not making it more definite than that.

N: Some ( non-material) aspect of Intelligence.

K: I know what you're trying to say. is there some aspect of Intelligence which sees the...

N: ... the futility of this stream (of collective selfishess?)

K: Yes.yes, and therefore steps out.

M: Then this ( intelligent & loving ?) quality it is part of the stream, it's in with all the other human things, something that is able to separate itself from all the rest of the stream.

K: That stream has manifested itself as A. So A perceives he is suffering (for some hidden obscure reasons ?) and he says, "Why am I suffering? What is this?" And so he begins to 'reason', and begins to see (what was wrong?) . Why do you need introduce some other ( extraneous ) factor?

R: According to Buddha's teaching, in that Stream there is also ( a dormant quality of universal intelligence or ?) 'wisdom' which sees the whole of this thing. And ( the awakening of?) that ( holistic) 'seeing' is the 'stepping out'.

M: Are you saying that there is a (spontaneous ) action of 'stepping out' without an 'actor'?

K: Yes. I'll explain it : A is of that stream, with a name and a form. And as he lives he realizes what he's going through. Right? In that realization he says, "I'm suffering." Then he begins to enquire into the whole nature of suffering, and ( the newly awakened intelligence?) ends ( the inner cause of ) that suffering . And ( before he knows it?) he is out of that Stream. That entity is really unique, who is out of that Stream.
(Recap:) The moment A realizes that he's suffering, and doesn't ( try to?) 'escape' from that suffering - enquires, explores without any hidden motive (of self-interest?) into the nature of suffering, and has a (total) insight into the whole structure of ( mankind's existential?) suffering, that very insight ends that suffering.

R: So, the ( capacity for a total) insight also in the stream.

K: You see, you're 'positing' something I'm not.

R: Then, from where you are bringing ( that liberating?) insight?

K: No, I brought in 'insight' very carefully. A realizes he's suffering, he doesn't escape from ( looking at?) it, because he wants to know the whole nature of it, the nature and the structure and what is behind suffering. So he examines it, both logically and also non-verbally. And the (non-dualistic) looking into it, is coming the insight. It's not of the stream, the looking into the suffering.

R: Then, from where does it come?

K: He's concerned (to find its deeper causation ?) he's studying, he's exploring, he's questioning the whole thing, he wants to know (the noble truth about suffering?) . He's not concerned what the Teacher said, he pushes all that aside. Why is there suffering? In the very enquiry of it - the enquiry depends on your capacity to put aside interpretation, escapes and all the rest of it - in the very enquiry into the nature of suffering and the cause of it comes insight. The (illuminating clarity of?) insight isn't in the Stream (of Self-Interest?) .

R: I say it is in the Stream. You see, it has in itself the capacity of producing it and also of stopping it.

K: No, sir, I wouldn't (assume this?)

R: Then where does that insight come from?

K: A begins to enquire, and he realizes that an authentic enquiry can only exist when there's complete freedom from all escapes, suppression and all the rest of it. So in that ( energy gathering?) moment of enquiry when he doesn't suppress, when he doesn't rationalize or seek the cause of suffering, in that very moment of examining, is insight.

N: Then, where does this insight come from?

K: From the freedom ( from the 'known' necessary ?) to enquire.

N: Where does that freedom to enquire come from?

K: From his own ( passionate) examination he realizes the blockages that prevents exploration, and therefore he puts them aside, he's free to enquire. And in that freedom there is insight.

P: There is a 'missing link' here.

K: There may be ten, sir. Let's follow it step by step, sir. Part of that Stream (of Time ) is suffering. A is suffering (has an 'existential malaise'?) so A says, "Why, why should I suffer?"

P: So the question "Why should I suffer?", is the beginning of the whole thing ?

K: No. Man has asked for ages "Why should I suffer ?", they have a dozen explanations - the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Christian and so on. The man who is ( immersed in) suffering says, "I see all this, the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Christian, the Muslim, I reject all that, because that doesn't leave me the freedom ( from the known necessary?) to enquire.

F: Sir, perhaps could we put it this way : the ( traditional) conditioned enquiry (into the nature of suffering? Has already become ?) part of the Stream.

K: That's the whole point.

F: But the free enquiry...

K: the beginning of...

N: ...getting away from the stream.

K: No. Look. Now, leave the 'stream' (metaphor) alone now.
( Re-recap:) A is suffering. A says, "Why am I suffering?" Studies Buddhism, studies Hinduism, studies Christianity, and says, "For God's sake, that world is out. I'm going to find out for myself." And he begins to enquire. And he realizes he can only explore if he's free to look. Right? Free from fear, free from reward and punishment, free from any kind of motive, otherwise he can't enquire. The moment he's in that ( non-dissipative) state of examination, there is insight. This ( road map?) is very clear.

F: And of course very difficult to do.

K: No, I won't even accept the word 'difficult'.

F: At first it is, because otherwise we wouldn't be enquiring.

K: Because we have not given our energy to this. We don't care, we have put up with so many things. So leave ( the earnest person ?) 'A' alone. But B is part of that stream, and he suffers, he says, "Yes, that's human nature, there is no way out, no Jesus is going to save me, I'll put up with it." So he is contributing to the stream.

SS: So the stream ( of selfishness?) becomes more intense.

K: Yes, it has more volume.

M: Sir, can one use the word insight in the same sense as intelligence ? Is there a difference?

K: Intelligence is essentially part of Love and Compassion. What do you say, sir? The 'love' in the stream is not Love...

F: Could we also put it this way: thought invents ( its own sequence of ) psychological development through time, instead of what really belongs to the psychological sphere, namely the immediacy.

K: That's right. This ( inner quickening of ?) immediacy only takes place when there is insight. In that there is no regret, no saying, "I wish I hadn't done it." So our action is always at the time level.

R: But...what happened to ( the answer to) our original question?

K: Death – rebirth?

R: Yes, what happened there ?

K: Rebirth is this constant Stream, manifesting itself into A, B, C, down the alphabet.

SS: Are you also suggesting that death is part of that stream?

K: Yes, body dies. By usage and wrong way of living, it dies, dies, inevitably.
But to find out what ( the spiritual significance of?) death is, one has to be with death. That means, ending one's attachments and beliefs, end to everything that one has collected.

M: But this psychological action of death would not be part of the Stream.

K: No. You see, for the man who is gone through this (psychological death, his mind) it's something entirely different.

M: So, it's the action of the insight, is it not?

K: Yes, the action of insight. And you cannot have insight if there is no Love, Compassion & Intelligence. And then, it's only then there is a relationship to Truth.

SS: You seem to be suggesting in some way that this 'death' is a key.

K: Yes, sir. ( For extra homework?) Enquire into that, so that there isn't a shadow of the Stream (of Selfishness?) left. (We don't do this because we are too 'learned', too occupied with our own pleasure, our own worries. So we say, "Please, leave that to the (professional ) priests; not for me.")
So is there a continuation of the 'me' ( reincarnating itself?) in different forms? As long as 'B' lives in that Stream, his consciousness is part of that stream, he's only contributing more and more to the volume of that water. Obviously, sir, if you see that. So there is no 'me' to continue (independently?) Sir, nobody will ( happily?) accept this, but it's the truth.

M: Isn't it really the place where people 'go wrong', so to speak, that they do not 'see' in the sense you're talking about; they 'see ' intellectually, on various levels, but they don't really 'see'.

K: I think mostly they don't mind being sorrowful, they say well why not? One doesn't see one's own petty reactions.

M: Or they don't 'see' that they don't see, to put it perhaps childishly. They don't realize that what they think is understanding is not.

K: Maria, has one dropped ( the personal attachment to) any opinion that one holds? One's prejudice; completely? Or one's experience? Never, they say, "Please" - they won't even listen to you. Do you mean to say a politician will listen to you? Because there he's completely safe, completely secure. And if you come and 'disturb' him, either he worships you or kills you, which is ( about?) the same.

M: Or he sees that his security (in the known) is a complete fabrication...

K: Then he (wisely?) drops these prejudices, his conclusions, even his knowledge.

R: The purest form of Buddhist meditation is this insight into 'what is'.
Vipassana is the 'insight vision' , to see into the nature of things, that is the real vision.

K: Have they a system?

R: A system is, of course, developed. But when you take the original teaching of the Buddha, it is called Satipa??h?na, the best discourse by the Buddha on this insight meditation. And the key point in to be mindfully, aware, of all that happens, you are not expected to run away from life and live in a cave or in a forest. And the meaning of that word Satipa??h?na is 'the establishment of mindfulness', or rather it is the 'presence of awareness',.

K: Then what is this 'awareness', how does it come into being?

R: You see, you live in the action in the present moment.

K: What is the mind that lives in the present?

R: The mind that lives in the present is the mind which is free from the idea of self. When you have the idea of self either you live in the past or in the future.

K: The ( temporal) now is, as far as one sees generally, the ( memory of the?) past modifying itself in the present and going on.

R: That is the (the temporal) 'now'

K: Then what is the timeless 'present'? Being free of the past?

R: Yes.

K: That's it. Free of the ( pre-recorded memory of the?) past, which means free of time. So that is the only state of mind which is 'now'. Now I am just asking, sir, what is 'awareness'? Being aware of all your 'pettiness'. What do you mean by that?

R: It is not necessary to know what it means.

K: You (the Teacher?) tell me, be aware of it. So I say, look, awareness is something in which choice doesn't exist. To be (non-personally?) aware of this hall, the curtains, the lights, the people sitting here, the shape of the walls, the windows, to be aware of it. Just a minute. Either I am aware of one part, part by part, or as I enter the room I am aware of the whole thing: the roof, the lamps, the curtains, the shape of the windows, the floor, the mottled roof, everything. Now what is the difference between that sense of ( choiceless) awareness and 'attention' ( 'attending completely to something?)

R: How do you discriminate these three: awareness, mindfulness and attention?

K: I would say awareness in which there is no choice, just to be aware. The moment when choice enters into awareness there is no awareness. So awareness is without choice, just to be aware. To say, "I don't like, I like this room", all that has ended.
Then in attention, there is no ( observer-observed ) division, not a (self-conscious?) 'me' attending. And so the complete attention has no measurement and therefore no borders.

R: In that sense it is equal to awareness.

K: No. In awareness there may be a 'centre' from which you are being aware.

SS: Are you saying ( the non-dualistic ) attention is a deeper process ?

K: Much more, a totally different quality. One can be aware of what kind of dress you have. One may say, "I like it", or "I don't like it", so choice doesn't exist, you are aware of it, that's all. But in ( the holistic) attention there is no attender, one who attends, and so no ( sense of inner) division.

R: In awareness also you can say the same thing, there is no one who is aware.

K: Of course, that's right. But it has not the same quality as attention.

R: The Buddha's teaching is that in this practise of (the insight based ) meditation there is no discrimination, there is no value judgement, there is no like or dislike, but you only 'see'. That's all. And what happens will happen when you see.

K: In that state of attention, if you totally attend, with your ears, with your eyes, with your body, with your nerves, with all your mind, with your heart in the sense of affection, love, compassion, total attention, what takes place?
I am asking what is the quality of the mind that is so supremely attentive? You see it has no quality, no centre, and having no centre no border. And this is an actuality, you can't just imagine this. That means has one ever given such complete attention.

SS: Is there any 'object' in that attention?

K: Of course not, because there is no division. You try it (for extra meditation homework?) do it, sir ! Give tour complete attention, if you can. Say for instance, I tell you 'meditation is the meditator'. Give your complete attention to ( the inward truth of) that, and see what happens. That's a statement has the quality of truth, it has the quality of great beauty, it has a sense of absoluteness about it. Now give your whole attention to it and see what happens.

R: I think Buddhist meditation is that.

K: I'll accept your word for it, but I don't know.

R: And I think it is not misleading to accept my opinion.Real satyabhatana is that. Now if you ask people who (try to?) 'practise' it, there are many meditation centres, I openly say they are misleading people

K: Yes, sir, that is nonsense. But I am asking, can one give such attention ?
Which means do we ever 'attend' ? If that ( quality of non-dualistic) attention is not there, Truth cannot exist.

R: I don't think that is appropriate. Truth exists but cannot be seen.

K: Ah, I don't know. You say truth exists but I don't know.

R: But that doesn't mean that truth does not exist.

K: I don't know, I said.

R: That is correct.

K: I said without that ( quality of undivided ) attention, Truth cannot come into being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 #68
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline


(an 'experientially friendly' edited K dialogue held in Rishi Valley 1971)

Krishnamurti: Cou1d we enquire if there is anything new in what we are saying regarding the (totality of ) human existence, human sorrow & conflict? How do the 'professionals' ( of the ancient Indian spirituality?) answer this question?

SW: In the tradition, we find two clear directions. The 'orthodox'
direction with a ' guru knows best' interpretation of the facts and a 'breakaway' tradition, in which "the whole of nature, the whole world is my guru", "observe and understand the world". Buddha's teaching
represents the core of this breakaway pattern. Those who broke
away were closely linked with ( a direct observation of) life.
If you read the Yoga Vasishtha, it says that the (temporal) mind is full of
thoughts, conflicts; and these conflicts arise because of desire and
fear; unless you are able to resolve them, you cannot understand.
The yoga vasishtha also says that giving (occult) 'initiations' and such other actions are meaningless. Awakening of the disciple is in right understanding and in awareness. This alone is the most primary responsible fact.

R: And yet there are many places in the Yoga Vasishtha where it
says that without a guru, you cannot find anything.

A: Breakaway from what? If it is a breakaway from a (religion based) social system, the breakaway tradition also continues the social system.

SW: The breakaway is not from society. Both these traditions exist. In the monasteries, they talked of the Vedas but what they said
had nothing to do with life; there were others who related all that
they understood to life.

R: How is it that the 'guru' tradition has become so important?

Krishnamurti: Shall we discuss this question of guru? Shall we
begin with that? What does the word "guru" mean?

SW: The one who helps to awaken the disciple; one who helps the seeker to understand. The word 'guru' means vast, beyond, great.

Krishnamurti: Then what relationship has he to a disciple?

SW: In the Upanishads, it is one of love and compassion. The
Upanishads maintain that compassion is the contact between the
guru and the disciple.

Krishnamurti: How has the tradition now become authoritarian?
How has a sense of discipline, of following, of acceptance of
whatever the guru says, how has that been introduced into the
relationship? The authoritarian, compulsive, destructive
relationship comes in the way of real thinking, it destroys initiative.
How has this relationship come into being?

SW: The two approaches must have existed for a long time. In one tradition, the guru is taken as a friend, as a person the disciple loves; in that the guru is not authoritarian at all. The other tradition exploits. It wants authority, followers.

A: Swamiji's main point is that there has not been a homogenous stream. There is the outsider and the conformist.

R: We come back again to your first question - apart from the question of gurus what is the fundamental answer to life?

Krishnamurti: Could you dig into it? You come to a well and whatever 'vessel' you carry, that amount of water you get. You have read a great deal of the ancient literature, you have practised, you have read what we have talked about. Question about everything, from the
beginning to the end. It is like going to a (timeless spiritual) well with tremendous thirst (for Truth ) , wanting to find out everything. Do it that way, Sir. Then I think it will be profitable.

SW: Then... can how I be absolutely free?

Krishnamurti: Break all the 'windows', because I feel wisdom is
infinite. It has no limits, and because it has no frontiers, it is totally
impersonal. Do not be satisfied by just a few words. Dig deep.

SW: But... how did you came to it yourself?

Krishnamurti: I could not tell you how this person came upon it.
Apparently never went through any (self-imposed) discipline, (nor through any personal) jealousy, envy, ambition, competition,
wanting power, position, prestige, fame. And therefore there was never any question of giving up. So when I say ''I really do not know'', I think that would be the truth. Most of the (great spiritual) teachers go (ASAP?) through such things, then give them up, they sit (& meditate?) under a (Bodhi ) tree and... come upon ( an illuminated state of inner ?) clarity.

SW: Then, another thing I would like to ask is, in your
teachings, sensitivity, understanding, passive awareness, are factors
that must saturate one's living. How did you come upon this?

Krishnamurti: I really could not tell you. What importance is it how I got it?

SW: The moment you talk about awareness, attention, sensitivity, one
is so full of wonder, appreciation. How is it that this man is able to talk like this? And when we analyse what you say, it is so rational and full of meaning.

Krishnamurti: You know the story of how this young boy was picked
up ( at Adyar by a clairvoyant leading theosophist who saw no traces of selfishness in his aura?) . ( Therefore?) although he (K) was born in a most 'orthodox' Brahmin family; he was not (inwardly?) conditioned by that tradition, nor as a 'theosophist'. It did not touch him. First of all, I do not know why it did not touch him.

A: How did it happen that a person who was in the midst of an
environment which laid maximum stress on the 'phenomenal' aspects of life did not get caught in that life?

Krishnamurti: How is it that a man like K, not having read the
sacred books, the scriptures of the east or west, how is it that not
having experienced, given up, sacrificed, gone through the gamut
of all this, how does he say these things? I really could not say, Sir.

A: Well, you actually gave us the answer a few minutes ago; you said that ( the Universal) Wisdom is not personal.

Krishnamurti: I do not know how to put it. 'It comes', but I do not know 'how'; not (only?) from the heart or from the mind, but 'it comes'. Would you say that 'It would come' to any person who is really non-selfish?

SW: Perfectly, yes.

Krishnamurti: I think it would be the most logical answer.

SW: Or is it that (like the young Buddha) you saw the misery of mankind and then 'got it' ?

Krishnamurti: No. But to answer this question really properly (& experientially?) , there was in him the (holistic?) quality of 'speaking from emptiness' - there is never any accumulation (of inner knowledge or wisdom?) from which he speaks. So your (technical?) question, "How do you say these things?," involves a much greater question : whether Wisdom or whatever you would to call it (Universal Intelligence?) , can be contained in any particular consciousness or it resides beyond all particular consciousness?

This (Rishi) Valley - with the surrounding hills, the trees, the rocks - the valley is all that. Without the ( material ) 'content' of the valley, there is no 'valley'. Similarly, if there is no (of self-interest generated ?) 'content' in one's consciousness, there is no (self-) consciousness - in the sense of the 'limited'. Therefore your question, "How is it that he says these things?" what can be answered ( in experiential terms ) : that when 'it' happens, the mind is completely empty (of all the residual psychological content?) . This does not mean that you become a (dumb?) 'medium'.

SW: I derive from this, that ( The Mind of?) Infinity is Beauty, Rationality, Logic. It is full of symmetry in its expression.

Krishnamurti: So, what do you want to find out? You have capacity, you have read a great deal, you have practised (inner silence & ) and meditated - from there, ask.

SW: ( The temporal ) consciousness is bondage. Only from ( meditating in inner ) emptiness can one have an entry into it.

Krishnamurti: So you are asking how can a (meditatively inclined ?) human being 'empty' the mind?

SW: There is a traditional idea of the 'adhikari', the person who
can learn- that there are levels or differences in the persons who can receive or learn. What he can learn , depends on that difference. There are three levels mentioned as sattva, rajas and tamas.

Those who belong to the first category - 'sattva' - can have (a totally insightful?) understandingjust by listening to an (enlightened ?) Teacher. The 'rajas' category have to listen and recollect when they face a problem of life. The 'tamas' ( the inwardly 'dull'?) ones cannot learn (this kind of stuff?) because their minds are too gross.
In order to make the mind more subtle, there are many methods of Yoga, starting with breath-control, ( thought control based?) meditation, and the standing on the head. Even then, they say these asanas are only meant as a cleansing. It is said, whatever you do, be (inwardly ) passive & observe "what is".

Krishnamurti: You say, as human beings are constituted, there
are levels, gradations of (inner) receptivity. As they are not through with the ( self-) becoming process, is it possible to come upon this?

SW: That is only one part of it. The other is that most people have their moments of ( authentic) understanding. But (unfortunately?) they 'slip back' and for some of them this is becoming a constant inner struggle. What is such a person to do?

Krishnamurti: Knowing there are (limitation) levels, is it possible to cut across these levels?

SW: Can we just 'cut across' these levels or are there ( subtler?) processes by which we can transcend the levels?

A: I say my life is a life of becoming. When I come and sit with
you, you say time is irrelevant. I say "yes" because it is clear, but I
am back again in the field of time, effort, etc., and this ( subtle ) thing which I feel I understand, slips away.

Krishnamurti: The question is fairly clear. The question is that
when I listen, I seem to understand and when I go away it is gone.
And the other point is, how is one who is not bright, who is not
rational, to 'break through' his conditioning and come upon it? What
is your answer to this?

SW: My answerboth from personal experience and the traditional answer is : let this person do some ( homework?) meditation by which the mind is made much more alert.

Krishnamurti: That is, do certain practices, do certain exercises,
breathing, etc., till the mind ( & heart are fully integrated & ) capable of understanding. And the other who says when I listen to you, I understand but it slips away. These are the two problems.
First of all take a mind that has no
capacity (of clear inner perception?) ; now, how is it capable of seeing? How is such a mind capable of seeing, understanding without the (self-becoming in?) time process? My mind is dull. My mind has not
the clarity to understand this whole thing immediately. So you tell me to
practice, to breathe, to eat less, you ask me to practice all the
methods and systems which will help to make my mind sharper,
clearer & more sensitive. All that involves time and when you allow time, there are other ( distorting) factors which enter into the mind.
Like I see something beautiful and I am carried away. ( Besides this) The way (to inner awakening ?) is not a straight path on which I walk. Innumerable incidents, happenings, impressions are going to change the
direction of movement. ( Not to mention that?) the thing which I am trying to understand is not a fixed point either.

A: The statement point that 'Truth is not a fixed thing' should also be explored.

Krishnamurti: ( Suppose) my mind is ( inwardly ) confused or disturbed, I do not even understand (what you're talking about?) You tell me to ( increase my capacity to) understand by doing these things. So you have ( implicitly) established understanding as a fixed point ( in time?) and... it is not a fixed point.

SW: It is not a fixed point.

Krishnamurti Obviously. So, that way ( of progressive realisation of Truth ?) is a false thing altogether. Then, since you
are denying the whole ( ' time- becoming' approach?) , you have wiped away a tremendous field of 'practices', 'meditations' & (other) knowledge. Then...I am left with the ( original ?) 'fact' that I am inwardly confused and/or dull.

Now, how do I know I am dull and/or confused ? Because I compare ( my present condition with the memory of a time when I was far more) perceptive and I say, through ( mental ) comparison, through measurement, that now I am... dull. So, through (this psychological)
comparison I have ( momentarily condemned?) myself to a state which I call 'dull'. So I reject comparison. Am I still 'dull' if I do not compare?

SW: Does it mean, that this ( time-free approach to self-) understanding is not a vitally connected with ( one's holistic ) capacity at all?

Krishnamurti: You show me ( what was wrong or false in my experiential approach ) time, process, fixed point, etc. You show it to me, and I deny them (at once?) . So what has happened to ( the perceptive quality of ) my mind? In the very rejection (of the 'false' stuff?) the mind has become ( inwardly 'unburdened' and therefore ?) less 'dull' ( 'stuck'?) . The rejection of the 'false' makes the mind ( proportionally?) clear; and the rejection of comparison
which is also false, makes the mind ( quicker or ? ) sharp.

So, where am I now ? ( On the + side?) I have completely rejected comparison and conformity. What have I left? The (state of mind?) I have called 'dull' is not ( forever?) dull. It is "what is" ( holistically viewed as a living movement?) . So ( from one stroke?) I rejected all the ( temporal) structures which man has imposed upon me to achieve enlightenment.

So, I start (everything anew ?) from the beginning. I know nothing
about 'enlightenment', understanding, process, comparison,
becoming. I have thrown them away. I do not know. ( Relying psychologically on other people's?) knowledge is
the ( sure?) means of getting hurt and tradition is ( generously providing?) the instruments by which I get hurt. I do not want those (fake?) instruments and, therefore, I am not getting hurt ( not hurting myself?) inwardly anymore.

I start anew ( from Square One but this time ?) with the complete innocence (of not-knowing ?) . ( Hint:) Innocence means (latin 'innocere' ) 'a mind that is incapable of being hurt'. So, do not compare ( yourself inwardly?). Can one flower in Goodness through ( a process of mental) comparison?
Why not tell me (honestly?) : you know nothing and I know nothing,
let us find out together if what all the ( psychological?) things human beings have imposed on other human beings are true or false ? ( Eg:) They have said that Enlightenment is something to be achieved through ( a diligent progress in?) time, through self-discipline, through the (coaching of a 'psy' or ) 'guru'.

( Parting words:) The so-called 'man of error' is much nearer to the Truth than the man who practises (diligently in order?) to reach Truth. The man who (follows 'spiritual ) practises' in order to attain Truth ( sooner or later risks to?) become impure, unchaste.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 68 of 68 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

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