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

K The essential Texts

Displaying posts 61 - 75 of 75 in total
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 #61
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


ENERGY, ENTROPY AND LIFE(experientially friendly edited )

Questioner D: The other day we discussed God. We also discussed
energy and you spoke of human energy and cosmic energy. I will
state the scientific position. Scientists have measured (the material ) energy and have arrived at a fantastic figure. But biologists have also proved that the 'life-energy' is anti-entropic, which means that while the material energy dissipates itself, the life energy does not. The human being generally moves with entropic energy and, therefore, decays.
The (vital ?) problem is therefore: How can man become part of the anti-entropic movement of energy ?

Krishnamurti: One can see quite simply, that that which is
mechanical wears itself out, given a certain time.

D: Unfortunately, the movement of entropic energy, dominates the world of today. How do we get out of its grip?

P: This is a very important point. If there is a (possibility to activate in ourselves that ?) movement of energy which does not dissipate itself, which does not end, decay, then from the point of view of the scientist as well as man, it is probably the answer to all the problems of the world.

Krishnamurti: So are you asking how is (the modern) man who is
caught in the ( Brownian ?) movement of this mechanical decay - how can that decay be put to an end? Or is there a contrary movement?

D: And what is the nature of that contrary movement?

Krishnamurti: Let us put that question again simply. Man is
caught in material energy, in mechanical energy; he is caught by (his dependency on new ?) technology, by the movement of thought - that is the field in which man lives, which really taking him over, absorbing him and that (direction of human ?) energy is one of decay, an energy of waste. ( Some open minded ?) scientists also say that there is a movement of our energy in the opposite direction which is creative energy; the real human energy which is non-mechanical, non-technological. Now, what is the question?

P: Chardin says that the next leap forward will come by "a process of seeing" which is the same as the traditional "pashyanti".

Krishnamurti: We will come to that if we can examine the (nature of the ) decaying processes; the energy which is mechanical, which is
entropic. We are also trying to find that life-energy, which is nonmechanical energy. What is this energy?

A: The biologist's approach is very tentative: whenever he speaks of life-energy, he does not speak with the same precision as the other. There is a (tacit) recognition that the anti-entropic is the unknown, the un-definable. But even after having said this, the "other" is still unknown. So, we can take the movement of life-energy as something
unknown to us; we cannot manipulate it, but as man becomes
conscious of the entire evolutionary process in himself, he becomes
aware of consciousness.

P: I think we are going round in circles. The observable thing is,
man is born, lives and dies. The phenomenon of a cyclic movement
of beginning and ending of energy is visible and deeply structured
in our consciousness - the thing emerging and disappearing, the
two manifestations of energy. Is there energy which is not
concerned with emerging or disappearing?

Krishnamurti: It is the same thing. Do we accept this that there
is a beginning and ending of energy?

F: Individuals may begin and end, but life does not. It keeps creating.

Krishnamurti: There is a movement of energy which is mechanical, which is measurable, which may end, and there is life-energy which you cannot manipulate; it goes on infinitely. We see that in one case there is
wastage of energy and in the other there is non-wastage of energy.

F: I do not see the "other" as a fact.

Krishnamurti: All right. (but we can ?) see the movement of (the motivated ?) energy which can reach a height and decline. Is there any other form of energy which can never end, which is not related to the energy which begins, continues and withers away?

D: Is there any form of energy that will not decay?

Krishnamurti: I have got it. In that whole field (of life energy) , there is the energy brought about through resistance, through conflict, through violence, through growth and decay, through the process of time. Now we are asking, is there any other energy which is not of time,
which does not belong to this field?

F: Do you mean, it is an energy that does not undergo any transformation?

Krishnamurti: I know the energy of sorrow, the energy of conflict, of hope, of despair; they are within the field of time. And that is the whole of "my consciousness". I am asking, is there an energy which is not
time-bound, which is not within the field of time at all? Is there
an energy which may go through the field of time and yet not be
touched by time? It is very interesting. Man must have asked this
question for centuries upon centuries: is there any other energy which is not of time?

D: Yes?

Krishnamurti: And how do I find out? I reject (the concept of ?) God, because (such) 'God' is within the field of time. I reject the super-self, the atman, the brahman, the soul, heaven, for they are all within the field of time. Now I ask, is there energy which is timeless? Yes, Sir. There is.
Shall we go into it?

D: Yes, Sir.

Krishnamurti: How do I find it out (experientially ?) ? ( For starters, the self-) consciousness must empty itself of its (active psychological ?) content. Must it not?

D: The question is: this self- consciousness is my temporal
condition of existence. I cannot just throw it away.

Krishnamurti: You can throw away the ( psychological) content which time has created which one calls ('my') consciousness. This (active) content has been accumulated through time, which is culture, religion, knowledge. Whether it expands or contracts, the whole movement of (this self-centred ?) consciousness within the field of time. It 'is'
time itself. What do you say "D", consciousness is time?

D: I have no other perceptive instrument but this consciousness.

Krishnamurti: I am aware of that. I see consciousness is time
because the content of it is consciousness and the content has been
accumulated through centuries upon centuries.

D: This consciousness is (in a state of ?) conflict, friction.

Krishnamurti: We know that. How can my mind look at this
total field of time and not be of the field? That is the question.
Otherwise, it cannot look. Total perception must be free of time. Is
there a perception and seeing which is not of time? What do you

D: That is our question.

Krishnamurti: And if it is not of time, then (this) perception is the life-movement. Perception itself is the life-movement.

A: How can we say perception itself is the life-movement? I do not
know anything about it.

Krishnamurti: Can my mind, which is of time, which is (identified with ?) the content of consciousness ('content' being the accumulated impressions, the experience, the knowledge in time) - can my mind disassociate itself from that field? Or is there a (quality of Intelligent ?) perception which is not of time and therefore sees the totality?

P: I would say that I just cannot posit the "other".

A: The moment I posit it, it becomes the God of the Upanishads. All I can say is: I am seeing that all my consciousness is within the field of time, I can remain with it. I am "it".

Krishnamurti: You are "it". Somebody comes along and says
that movement within the field of time is measurable and he asks is
there a perception - he does not say there is or there is not - is there
a perception which sees the totality of consciousness which is
time? Is there such a perception? That is a legitimate question.

P: May I say something? I see you. I see this room. And I also can see the interiority of my consciousness. There is no more than that. My seeing is concrete.

Krishnamurti: I understand Pupul, here I am sitting in this room. I
see the content of the room and myself in it. Myself is the observer
who is conscious of the room, the proportion of room, the space of
the room, and I see this through the (background) consciousness which is made up of time. Both the 'observer' and 'what is observed' are
within the field of time. That is all I know. But knowing that, somebody comes along and asks: Is there a movement which is not of time? And that is a legitimate question.

P: I do not know...

Krishnamurti: You can put it to yourself: Can the mind see the totality of itself? Can the mind see itself as the field of time - not as an
observer seeing the field of time? Can the mind itself become
totally aware so that it sees (its self-) consciousness as ( a process of ?) time? It is fairly simple.

P: Your statement regarding the (insightful ?) perception of my consciousness as a "movement of " is not (experientially ) valid. If we do not get the 'concreteness' of this 'seeing', we move into the field of the conceptual.

Krishnamurti: Are you saying, that you (expect to ?) perceive (the totality of your) consciousness with the same tactile feel as when you enter this room ? If there is (an insightful ?) perception, there is no time. I look and there is no time.

P: I want to examine 'under microscope' your (holistic) question "Do you see (your) consciousness as the whole content of time?"

Krishnamurti: My mind is the result of ( a long evolution in ?) time - memory, experience, knowledge. My self-consciousness is within the field of time. How can I see that its whole content is within the field of
time? Is it a ( K formulated ?) conclusion which we have arrived or is it an actual perception? Let us go slowly. Is that a (holistic ?) conclusion, or do I see (the truth of ?) it as a fact ?

P: How would you distinguish between the two?

Krishnamurti: One is a formula, a conclusion, a statement, the
other is something I am finding out (right now) .

P: I find it very difficult. How can there be a perception of an abstraction?

Krishnamurti: When you say 'it is an abstraction', it is a (mental) conclusion.

P: When I say that "my consciousness is the product of
time", is it a (generic 'holistic' ?) statement or is it something I can see?

Krishnamurti: Is it a just a statement with verbal meaning, which if I
accept (blindly ?) becomes a 'conclusion', or is it an actual (perceivable) fact that the whole of my brain, the whole of
"my consciousness" is (the result of) this enormous field of time? Is it as concrete as that?

P: How can it be as concrete as the physical perception of this room ?

Krishnamurti: I will show it to you in a minute. If I see very clearly that (an intellectual ) conclusion is not a fact, because thought has
heard this statement and accepts it and makes it a formula and
remains (safely stuck ?) with that formula. That formula is a (mental)
abstraction created by thought and therefore it (a further ?) cause of
(inner) conflict. It is the very nature of ( all our psychological ?) conflicts.
Now, is there a (holistic ?) perception which is not (originating ?) from the total field of time as the mind? Formulas are the most deadly things. Formulas and concepts are products of thought and, therefore, are all within the field of time.

P: Why is it necessary to make such an absolute statement ?

Krishnamurti. I will show you in a minute. I am enquiring into the
field of "time". Time, we said, is (the streaming of human ?) consciousness. Time is the result of centuries upon centuries of (accumulated ?) experience. That is my (self-centred ?) consciousness,
and this consciousness is made up of all the content. I hear you state
that and thought picks it up (as a 'great insight' ?) and makes a (fool proof ?) "formula" of it. One can see that this very formula is within the field of time, that very formula is the factor of (inner) friction. So I do not touch it. I have "negated" (garbaged ?) it.
I am finding something : whenever (my self-centred ?) thought operates, it must operate within the field of time, so it must come to a "conclusion" and this "conclusion" is (becoming ) part of my self-consciousness; that is all.

I now ask myself, is there any ( speculative ) movement of thought
or there is a "non- movement" of thought and only perception? The moment thought comes in, it (starts processing the 'facts' ?) into the field of time. Now ( for extra-homework ?) I am asking myself: is the mind deceiving itself by saying "I have no formula", but is still safely entrenched in (its fool-proof ?) "formulas", or is there a (direct ?) perception which has nothing whatsoever to do with thought? I only know that all (my self-) consciousness is within the field of time and thought 'is' (actively creating & feeding this?) consciousness ?
I see that whenever thought comes into being, it must create a
formula, and the formula is within the field of time. The whole of
consciousness 'is' (both the result & the creator of ?) time. I hear you say this. Now, is it another (fool-proof ?) formula which I have accepted or is it a 'fact' - the 'fact' being there is a perception of the total movement of thought (in its self-created continuity in time ?) ?

P: You see, Sir, these are ( generic ?) words which you use - "the total
movement of thought" - what is really meant by those words? When you
ask whether we have accepted it as a formula, I have neither
accepted it as a formula nor is it "seen as a fact". It is neither of these.

Krishnamurti: It is not a question of 'accepting'. By listening (with the "inner ear"?) , by examining, by investigating, you see that this is so. Now, move a step further. Is that "it is so", is it (another subliminal ?) acceptance of an intellectual idea and therefore still within the field of (thought &) time?

P: I will never ask that question to you or to myself.

Krishnamurti: You are not asking that question. I am asking it. You know nothing about it. I just wanted to find out whether the mind that is the result of time, hearing that statement, does it accept it as a (fool proof ?) formula, and therefore remains (stuck ?) in time, or it "sees
the truth" (of it) , it sees the fact. Then what takes place? If it is a "fact",
nothing more can be said when thought does not arise. I see the
room, but the moment (my knowledgeabe ?) thought says it has proportion, colour, beauty, then (thought & ) time enters - you follow?
In the same way ( inwardly ?) this whole 'field of time' exists only when thought operates. Now is this a fact which is realizable,
which we can be aware of? Is (my self-centred ?) thought completely absent, and only a (transpersonal ?) "awareness of time" and nothing more? Then what takes place? I am (totally ?) "aware" of this room without any interference of (thought & ) time.

P: At this very moment, this instant what are you "aware" of?

Krishnamurti: Is there an (actual) operation of perception without (the knowledgeable interference of ?) thought? What takes place then?

P: I was asking you (personally) "What are you perceiving at this moment?" (Pause)

Krishnamurti: (Makes a gesture brushing one hand over the
other) Nothing. That is it. It is (even ?) logically right.

A: But when we hear you , the next moment it has become a "memory" (to be meditated upon later ?) .

Krishnamurti: Forgive me, I am not concerned about "you" at all.
I am not concerned whether you see or do not see. I said I
am going to investigate and.... I am investigating. ( The problem being that ?) you are not investigating. You are merely remaining with the ( fool-proof "K ?) formulas". (So, we're back again to square one ?) Am I perceiving with (through the screen of my fool-proof ?) 'formulas', or
I am perceiving without (the mental logistics of the ?) movement of thought, without a 'formula'?
Then if "P" asks me, in that (directly perceptive) state, what is there to perceive? Absolutely "nothing" (nothing specific ?) , because it is not of time. That is the factor of (the non-entropic ?) life-energy.

P: I'd want to ask a further question. You said that "there is nothing".
But is there (another kind of inner ) movement?

Krishnamurti: What do you mean by "movement", before I say
yes or no?

P: From 'here' to 'there' .

Krishnamurti: Measurable, comparable ? The (inner) movement, when it is measurable, is within the field of time. Right? And you are asking me whether in that (state of inner ?) "no-thingness", there is movement? If I say "there is", you will then tell me it is measurable and
therefore it is in time.

P: So, there is a movement in that "no-thingness" ?

Krishnamurti: Which means that this (inner) " movement of no-thingness" is not of time, therefore not measurable. But it has its own (creative activity ?) 'movement' which you cannot possibly understand unless (in the context of meditation ?) you leave the 'movement of time'.
That (non-entropic inner 'movement' of Creation?) is infinite (and self-sustained ?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Apr 2017 #62
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


INTELLIGENCE AND THE (Spatio-temporal ?) CONSCIOUSNESS ( Experientially -friendly edited)

Questioner P: I wanted to ask you Krishnaji, if there is one
question which needs to be asked by the individual, which would
open the door to ( the direct perception of ?) Reality. There were many things which we have discussed during the last few days (in Bombay) . Can all these questions converge into one question?

Krishnamurti: I think so.

F: There is in you a tiny little touch of something,
that "elseness" of yours - now is there an (experiential) key to that? Is there a question which opens that up?

P: I would further ask: is there a (holistically perceptive ?) instrument and what is the nature of that instrument which will make this possible? We have examined our minds with a microscope. Now, (if the 'thinker' is not there?) under whose command do the brain cells function? What happens to them if there is no one to direct, to command?

Krishnamurti: I thought "K" explained yesterday that it is
Intelligence. Intelligence is that quality of mind which can use
all the vast field of (practical) knowledge, but not use knowledge
in another field. "P" asked what is the
essential demand in life? And she goes on further to ask whether
thought can operate sanely, efficiently in the whole field of
knowledge where it is necessary and not operate in another field
where it brings chaos, misery.

Can we tackle this question differently? Can the totality of the mind, empty itself of everything, of the knowledge of science and language and also of the mechanism of thought that functions all the time? Can the mind empty itself of all that? I do not know if I am making myself clear. Can the mind empty itself not only at the conscious level but at the
deeper secret chambers of the mind? (And once this is done in the context of a meditator-free meditation ?) from that (state of inner) "emptiness" can knowledge operate and not operate?

B: The question then would be "emptiness"?

Krishnamurti: Let us see. Can the mind empty the whole
content of itself as the (active memory of the ?) past, so that it has no motive? Can it empty itself and can that emptiness use knowledge, pick it up, use it and drop it, but always remain empty?
"Emptiness" in the sense of the mind "being (as) nothing"; an emptiness
which has its own movement, which is not measurable in terms of
time. A movement which is in emptiness, which is not the
movement of time, that movement can operate in the field of
knowledge and there is no other operation. That movement can
only operate in the field of knowledge and nowhere else.

P: Are they two movements?

Krishnamurti: That is why I said that movement can operate
only in knowledge; it has no two movements. Please follow. I am
just investigating. You are asking a question, which is, that from
what you have observed in your talks here, "K" has divided
knowledge and freedom from knowledge.
Knowledge operating in the field of science in which there must
be a certain direction, an operative function, a design; and knowledge not operating where there is no place for thought and therefore of (egotistic ?) will. You can see that thought is operating always within the field of knowledge. The knowledge brings both (inner frustration & ?) pain and that knowledge (outwardly) helps man to live more
comfortably environmentally. Right? - and that thought also brings
misery, confusion. That is a fact. Then you and I ask, (where) is thought necessary? Is it possible for thought not to create (any psychological ?)
misery? That is all. Keep it as simple as this.

F: My answer to that is the roots of (this inner) 'misery' are not known to me. The promptings which create this 'misery', I do not know.

Krishnamurti: We began with the superficial layers. Now we
will go into the "secret chambers" of the mind.

P: Surely we are not positing a (split ?) consciousness where
thought will operate at the technological level and at the day-to-day
level of action where necessary, and if by some kind of (mental) trick,
all other consciousness as thought were to be wiped
away, it would be enough? We are not postulating that surely ?

Krishnamurti: Of course not.

P: But the moment you speak of a place where thought
can operate legitimately and a place where thought has no
legitimate place, you are postulating a state (of our consciousness ?) which is non-thought. So, if (our ) consciousness is only (made up of its past ?) content, then what is the 'other'?

F: When you said that thought 'is' consciousness, I would
put a question mark. Is thought (covering) the entirety of our consciousness? Can we (truly) say that consciousness is nothing beyond thought? I would question this.

Krishnamurti: So we have to (make another detour and ?) go into the question of what is this consciousness.

B: You have often used the word "intelligence" in a different way. That word is the key, if we know what it is.

F: Intelligence is different from consciousness. We must
distinguish between the two. Intelligence is much vaster than
consciousness. We can all have an 'unconscious' intelligence.

P: So, according to you, what is "consciousness"?

Krishnamurti: There is a waking (self-conscious ?) consciousness, there is a hidden consciousness; (in short) a consciousness of
certain parts of 'me', of the superficial mind, and a total lack of
awareness of the deeper layers of consciousness.

P: I would say, Krishnaji, that there is an (area of our) consciousness in which (the self-centred process of ?) thought operates, then there is another (area of ) consciousness where 'attention' is and where there is seeing; and a (still deeper part of our ?) consciousness which is
unconscious of thought. I see these three states as they operate in

Krishnamurti: The operation of memory as thought, as (spatio- temporal) action; then attention, a state of attention where there is no thinker...

P: ...and a state of deep sleep when you are not aware of thought, nor of attention.

Krishnamurti: A state in which there is neither attention nor
thought, but a sense of being half asleep ?

P: Half awake, half asleep.

Krishnamurti: So, all this is (contained in) what you would call "consciousness". Right?

P: Plus the fact that in all these states whether consciously or unconsciously, the sensory perceptions are in operation.

Krishnamurti: Can we start this way? I am just being tentative -
there is a 'consciousness', wide or narrow, deep or shallow. And as long as there is an (identitary ?) centre which is conscious of itself, it may expand or contract (its consciousness) . That centre says 'I am aware' or 'not aware'. This (self-conscious ?) centre has its deep roots in the cave and operates superficially. All that is our "consciousness". In all that there must be a centre.

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

Krishnamurti: That is not the point.We will (probably ?) come to that presently. Let us begin very simply. When are you actually "conscious"?
Either through a sensory reaction, through a sensory shock, a sensory
resistance, sensing a physical danger, a conflict in which there is (involved) pain or pleasure. It is only in those moments that I say "I am conscious": when I am (feeling personally?) challenged, when there is an impact, conflict, pain, pleasure, then I am (self-) conscious.
This whole phenomenon (of being conscious of whatever is happening physically ?) is going on, whether there is a deliberate awareness or not, this thing is operating all the time. That is what we call 'consciousness'.

P: You mean there is no 'photographic' consciousness ?

Krishnamurti: But 'you' are seeing it. Your mind is registering it.
That is, the brain cells are receiving all these 'impacts' as pleasure, pain, conflict, sorrow, consciously (or not) this 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 is going on all the time. So what is the next

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

Krishnamurti: It is still the same. Only it is (happening at the ) the deeper layers.

B: Why are we unconscious of these deeper layers?

Krishnamurti: Because superficially we are ( pretending to be ?) very active all the time.

B: So the density of the superficial layers prevents our being
conscious of the deeper layers ?
Krishnamurti: I am making noises on the surface. It is like
swimming (with sharks ?) on the surface. So what is my next question?

B: Is it possible to 'integrate' these various layers?

Krishnamurti: No.

P: What is the relationship of thought to consciousness?

Krishnamurti: I do not understand this question because ( the self-centred process of ?) thought is (generating and controlling this ?) consciousness.

P: Isn't there anything else (within our consciousness besides this self-centred) thought?

Krishnamurti: Why do you put that question?

P: Because you were speaking of a region where thought has a legitimate place and a region where thought has no legitimate place - and yet... you say thought 'is' consciousness.

Krishnamurti: Slowly. When the superficial consciousness is making a lot of noise, (your) consciousness 'is' thought - pain, conflict,
registration, memory, remembrance. Thought is (generating) all that.

P: Then... what is the rest?

A. All this is our consciousness. Thought comes into operation
when the "I" wants to localize.

Krishnamurti: That is right. All that we have described, memory, everything, is our "consciousness". Now (the self-centred ) thought comes into operation when 'I' am getting interested in a part of this. The 'scientist' is interested in (studying) the material phenomena, the 'psychologist' in his area, because each has limited the field of investigation. Then ( the objective capacity of ?) thought comes as a systematizer.

F. Is this thought the (result of a ) non-"self-consciousness"?

Krishnamurti: When "P" asks what is the relationship between
thought and consciousness, I think that is a wrong question.

P: Why?

Krishnamurti: Because thought is not something separate from all this.

P: Is thought just a part of it, or is thought all there is to our consciousness ?

Krishnamurti. Go slow. I do not want to say something which is

P: I won't accept this so easily because in everything "K" says
the "other" (dimension of human consciousness ?) is (implicitly) posited.

A: We are trying to ask: is there in our consciousness a 'space'
which is not covered by ( the spatio-temporal ?) thought?

P: Quite right.

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

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

Krishnamurti: I do not think in ( the perimeter of the self-centred ?) consciousness there is any (place for free inner?) space.

P: When I perceive you and listen to the whole thing operating, there is no movement of thought, but I am (feeling) totally conscious. I cannot say -

Krishnamurti: Why do you call that 'consciousness'? "A" says there is 'space' in consciousness. We have to answer that question first.

A: I may be using the wrong word.

Krishnamurti: You have used the right word. But we do not see
that (a free inner ?) space cannot be contained in a frontier, in a boundary, in a (self-enclosed ?) circle.

A: In one sense, even if held within a circle or a square it is (some kind of ?) space.

Krishnamurti: ( Consciusness-wise ?) where there is a border there is no (free inner ?) space. "Space" in the sense in which we use the word does not exist in ( a self-centred ?) consciousness. Now what is the next

P: If thought is (the dominant factor in our ?) consciousness, is thought not related to seeing as consciousness?

Krishnamurti: Put the question this way. Is there a state of mind
in which there is no (accumulative ?) learning at all? You see the question?

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

Krishnamurti: I want to go slowly. Thought 'is' consciousness, and so are the (sensory) seeing, learning, hearing, and memorizing and reacting to that memory is part of all this ('man-made' consciousness ?)

P: Agreed, when any one of these is operating, there is no "other". Then, what you say is understandable. Then there is no duality. Now we
take the next step. When each of these operates, it is consciousness.

Krishnamurti: It is the (self-) focalizing of consciousness. It is not the whole of consciousness. (Eg:) I say a few words in French or Italian; at that moment there is just that. When thought is operating in that specific field, there is no (egotistic ?) duality. When thought compares that particular operation to another then there is ( the 'thinker vs thought') duality. Right? If I say "how marvellous that lamp is", it (the focalisation of my consciousness ?) is finished. But when (the self-centred process of?) thought ( jumps in and ?) says "I wish I had it in my room", then there is duality. See what has been found ? That when there is
the simple functioning of thought without any motive, there is no

P: This (choiceless thinking?) is very difficult (to achieve ?) - since ( the self-centred ?) thought is (dominated by the personal ?) motives.

Krishnamurti: I have a memory of that sunset - I see that sunset. It is recorded at that moment, it is finished. But thought comes along and says....

P: I am saying "thought is motive", because thought is verbal, and the words are (psychologically) loaded...

Krishnamurti: There is memory of that sunset, then thought
says, I wish it would happen again. In that, (the personal) motive operates.

D: But...when you look at that sunset, motive is irrelevant.

P: Sunset is an impersonal thing, let us not take that. Suppose that I am
jealous. There is a movement of my thought as "jealousy".

Krishnamurti: Jealousy is ( already containing ?) the factor of duality - my wife looks at another man, and I feel jealous because I (assume that I ?) possess her, she is mine. But if I observe, if I am
aware that she is not mine from the beginning, then the (dualistic ) factor of jealousy does not enter. She is (supposed to be ?) a free human being as I am a free human being. I allow her freedom.

P: I understand that.

Krishnamurti: So, there is duality (in our everyday thinking ?) only when there is the (sublimial ?) operation of (personal ?) motive, measurement, comparison. However, in the observation of a
lovely sunset, in seeing the light, the shadow, there is no duality.
When 'I wish to have it again', begins the dualistic process. That is all.

P: We have somehow moved away.

Krishnamurti: I will come back, which is, ( the spatio-temporal ?) consciousness is perception, hearing, seeing, listening, learning and the memory (processing ?) of all that and the responding according to that memory. All that is (our everyday) consciousness, whether or not (self-) focalized. In that consciousness there is (a subliminal process of continuity ?) time; time which creates (its own self-enclosed mental) space. Let us stop there.
In this (spatio-temporal consciousness ?) there is duality, non-duality, the conflicts (of interests ?) - I must, I must not - the whole of that field is our "consciousness". And in it there is no (free inner) space at all because it has boundaries, frontiers, which are (self-created ?) limitations.

A: There is another (subliminal) factor which I would like to have included: the perceptions and experiences of the whole world are "syphoning" into my consciousness. How can we ignore all
that? The movement of the "I" as thought is constantly being fed and renewed by that. Unless I see this process, I do not understand.

Krishnamurti: The whole of this field of (human) consciousness is a movement of contraction and expansion, a movement of information, knowledge, registration of knowledge, (personal & collective) motivation, all that is happening in (our global )environment, is part of me: I am the environment and the environment is the me. In that whole
field there is the (choicy ?) movement of the 'me'. I like the Arabs and I do not like the Jews - within this ( whole field of man-made ?) consciousness, this comes up -

A: In this wide canvas we see (how the "streaming" of collective ?) thought is syphoning into this focus which we call consciousness.

Krishnamurti: All that is ( our spatio-temporal ?) consciousness. This consciousness creates (conflicts &) mischief by saying, "I like", "I do not like", part of this (subliminal) movement over which I have no control at all.

A: But isn't the real problem our (personal) 'identification' which gives this weightage to the "I like" and "I don't like", that it builds around it ?

Krishnamurti: Here I am born in India, with all the (cultural)
environment, all the superstitions, the riches and poverty, the sky,
the hills, the economic, the social, the whole of that is me.

A: Something more: our entire historical and the pre-historical past. If
you include all that, then ( the factor of personal ?) choice disappears.

Krishnamurti: Wait, Sir, I am all that, the past and the present
and the projected future; I am born in India with all the culture of
5000 (+) years. That is all my point. That is what I call consciousness.

A: It is wider; it includes America, the whole world -

Krishnamurti: But (the personal) choice arises when you say you are a Hindu and I am a Muslim; there is a (self-) focalization through
identification, there is then (the factor of my free ?) choice.

P: Let us come back to what we were saying: we said seeing is
consciousness, listening is consciousness, thought is consciousness.

Krishnamurti: Plus all the (collective cultural) heritage which "A" brought in is also consciousness, past, ancient, present and all that.

P: You have been stating (generically ?) that it is legitimate for thought to operate in fields where knowledge is necessary and when it
operates in other fields then it brings sorrow, pain, duality. But my
question is: Does the "other" (timeless) state which you are (sometimes ?) talking about, is it also part of human consciousness?

Krishnamurti: Stick to that 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, is it still (part of the spatio-temporal) consciousness with all the things we have put into it? The "other" is not.

P: The "other" is not... what?

Krishnamurti: It is not (in the area of ?) thought.

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

Krishnamurti: I am saying "consciousness" in the sense that there
is no conflict.

P: Why should there be conflict in our consciousness when thought is not operating?

Krishnamurti: There is no conflict at all there...

P: Then what is it that operates "there"?

Krishnamurti: Is Intelligence ( related to this spatio-temporal ?) consciousness? Intelligence is not (part of this) consciousness.

P: Now we come to a stage where we are just listening...

Krishnamurti: The whole content of (our spatio-temporal) consciousness is the whole human heritage and I am all that. And this
'consciousness' - as we know it - is ( caught in a generalised state of inner & outer ?) conflict. So my chief concern is to end that conflict, conflict being sorrow, pain. In examining that, there is a discovery that it is all (the result of ?) a (self-centred ?) process of thought. And from that (realisation) the (potentially intelligent ?) mind says 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 (new inner quality ) is intelligence. And that is not ( part of the traditionally self-centred ?) consciousness. Intelligence is not heritage whereas ( the old self-) consciousness is heritage.
(Do not translate this Intelligence as "God").
Now that Intelligence can use knowledge, that Intelligence can
use ( the capacity of objective ?) thinking to operate in the field of knowledge and therefore its operation is never dualistic.

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

Krishnamurti: Intelligence has no language, but it can use
language. The moment it has (created a convenient 'spatio-temporal') language it is back again in the field (of the known ?)
That intelligence having no language is not "personal". It is not "mine"
or "yours".

P: It may not be 'personal' but... is it focalized?

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

P: When it moves, doesn't it need to focalize?

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

P: It is never "held" (in a mental structure ?) ?

Krishnamurti: It is like (trying to ) hold the Sea in your fists: ( whatever you hold) is part of the Sea, but it is not the ( whole) Sea.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Apr 2017 #63
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


Questioner A: Sir, we have been listening to you with all the
attention of which we are capable, with our minds and with all our
analytical capacities. We have covered every inch of the ground
and we no longer accept anything we do not understand. Between
you and us there has been verbal communication and also a communication beyond words. By ourselves we have not
been able to penetrate the verbal barrier and reach that
understanding which comes beyond words. When I sit by myself, I
find that all 'communication with myself' remains at the verbal
level. I wonder whether we could take up for discussion the
problem of communication. (The Hindu spiritual) tradition has classified communication into four different states vaikhari, madhyama, pashyanty and para. "Vaikhari" is the verbal communication that we grasp through the organ of hearing. It is subject to deformations of various kinds. It depends on the verbal sequence. 'Madhyama' is grasped by the inner organ (the mind), and by no external sensory organ. Here, there is the (logical) sequence of what is mentally conceived. The state of 'pashyanti' does not have a (temporal) sequence, there are no attributes of anteriority and posteriority; Perception and communication are undivided. There is a transcendence of association with the different objects of the world, and also of time and space; Such a state is free from any distinction between the 'knower' and the thing known.
And finally 'para' is the faculty of self-revelation of the Absolute, which is inseparable from oneself. Para is the channel, the true channel of all (spiritual) communication.

P: Acyutji is right. In examining what Krishnaji calls "listening and seeing", which are the functional aspect of his teaching, it would be possible to discover the nature of communication. We have not yet tried to figure out whether communication is a process, or rather an instantaneous light.

KRISHNAMURTI: Can we begin with the verbal level, and work from there?

P: This question involves not only the communication between the 'speaker' and ourselves, but also the nature of the instrument which enables us to grasp and apprehend.

KRISHNAMURTI: Do you want us to start from there slowly? There is a verbal communication in which each of us understands the meaning of the word. In such a communication, the word is (the common?) meaning, and this meaning can be understood by me and by you. This is verbal communication. Then communication also means listening not only to the (verbal) meaning of the word, but also to the intention of the speaker at the moment when he uses it. Otherwise, the communication is broken. When we use a word, it must have a quality of 'directness' that does not allow any ambiguity, and it must also include the real need to communicate something. This need must be accompanied by affection, respect- the feeling that it is your understanding that matters, that it is not that I am superior and inferior to you. And, in this use of speech, there must be the 'contact of the intention' transmitted by the very quality of the voice. This means that each of us, at the same moment, at the same level, and with the same intensity, must understand the words; There must be contact with the intention, and only in this case does an (authentic) communication exists.

A: Yes, this is a fact. Earlier, when you spoke, we built so many obstacles inside! All this is now over. There are no more (conscious ?) barriers.

KRISHNAMURTI: What is important in a (transformational ?) communication is not so much the words, although the words and their meaning are necessary, but also to meet at the same moment, at the same level and with the same intensity.

A: Isn't it also important (in the context of meditation ?) to 'communicate with yourself'. What does communication mean in this regard?

K: Can we communicate with ourselves?

A: Yes. It is about becoming coherent with oneself.

K: In general, "communication" means what happens between two or more persons.

A: But it's not necessarily between two people. It can be a person and a book. All this is involved when talking about communication with oneself.

K: I do not think we can 'communicate with ourselves'.

A: Sir, in Sanskrit, they use the word "swasamvada" to indicate this "communication with oneself".

K: That's one thing I question.

A: Why?

K: I do not think you (really ?) 'communicate with yourself'. Simply, you observe what happens. The moment you use the word communication there is (a subtle implication of ?) duality - duality in the sense that there is the 'you' and the 'book', the 'you' and (your inner ?) 'self'.

A: You also said that there must be a certain sense of relationship , even in observation. I wonder if that's not also a valid point.

F: But in communication, the part that counts most is the message.

KRISHNAMURTI: No, I can say something, and if you are not in relationship with me, you will distort what I said. You will distort the message. So the important thing is not the message, but why, on certain levels, some messages seem to be communicated to some people and not to others.

D: Why is not the message you want to communicate received by the other person?

K: We are talking about the quality of communication, not of its content. If this quality is absent, you can not communicate (deeper than the verbal level ?) .

A: There is communication by the word and communication by the meaning , and there is also communication beyond the words and beyond the meaning.

F: The human race has created certain instruments that enable it to grasp messages through word and meaning, but we have no instrument to grasp or to come into contact with what is Beyond words and meaning. After all, radio and television have 'receiver' instruments. Do we have specific receiving instruments?

D: The problem of communication arises only when the message is distorted or incomplete.

K: It is also in the direction (personal spin ?) . You say something to me, and I distort it.

F: No. You say something to me, I listen with the instrument that I have, and my understanding is done according to its quality. There is no question of deforming. We can see that the reception of what you have to say always takes place for us on a lower wavelength. This is not (necessarily) a distortion. What you are saying, quite simply, does not seem to penetrate (through the 'ego' shield ) . It has nothing to do with the message.

P: Either our perceptive instruments have not been properly tuned , or they are not there. Krishnaji, you can say what you want, but until the instruments are there, the message will not be transmitted.
K: That's simple .

P: The question is whether the instruments have been tuned accurately, or whether new instruments have to be created. That is the essential point.

K: A. said that when (cca in 1947) we began to come into contact with each other, there was some resistance, some intellectual objection to what was being said, and he asserts that now he put all this aside and is listening. Why should there be a (mental) resistance in the beginning?

A: We met after a lapse of nine to ten years. There was ( the cultural ) conditioning - social, political, ideological; but there was (a sincere) effort to understand you, given this conditioning.

K: P. asked whether it was necessary to 'tune in' the instrument.

P: Take a child. Keep it away, carefully, from any conditioning; it will nevertheless continue to react because it is the instrument of a (genetic) inheritance. The instruments I have are working in a particular way. And they themselves are incapable of being "receivers" in any other way than the way already known.

K: And, therefore, what is the question? Is it to (integrate) these same instruments, to make them acute, vulnerable, sensitive? Or is it a question of seeing new instruments being born?

D: May I say that the only ( perceptive?) 'instruments' we have are our eyes and ears; do they prevent us from understanding?

P: The (cultural) history of man has perfected the instruments. But they are trained to act only in specialized channels . The functioning of our sensory perception is compartmentalized. So, I'm asking you if these are the same instruments to be used?

B: A. referred to two things: he spoke of a stage where there was ( an intellectual) resistance and then of another stage where there was none, but the instruments remained the same.

A: In the use of his perceptive instruments man has no choice. What can be (worked out ) is their imperfect use.

P: It may be an imperfect use, or a completely new instrument is needed. Let's ask Krishnaji. Let's ask him the (100 $) question. Are you saying that it is always the same instrument, or is it a new instrument? If I would have really received what was to be communicated , I would not be questioning. I would not be sitting here. But the fact that I did not receive it means that the instruments that I have have failed.

A: What I would like to point out is that there is a certain degree of communication; but when we come to ( apply ?) it, it remains at the verbal level.

P: In listening to Krishnaji, many things have been communicated. Our perceptive instruments are capable of receiving. But I am sure, however, that the necessary event did not occur. Despite the flexibility of our consciousness, the faculty of receiving, the faculty of all our sensory & mental instruments to act together, despite the understanding of the problem of 'time', in spite of all this, the "explosion" (in consciousness ?) did not take place.

A: Can we speak in an impersonal area, and understand objectively what is the problem of communication? Can we use the brain, which is our instrument, so that it does not create obstacles at any level?

K: What's the problem?

P: Here is already a period of time (of 25 years) that you see us. Do you believe we are able to "communicate" with you?

K: Up to a point, quite obviously.

P: And at that point, what is the obstacle? What is the catch?

K: Obviously, all communication goes (only up) to a certain point. Communication implies that I say something to you, that you listen to me, and that you agree or disagree. In other words, you and I have a common problem. We discuss it, and we can discuss it only if we see this problem as a whole, in its entirety, and if sharing the meaning, the words, the description, between you and me, are granted; We then say that "we have understood each other". The next point is this: I want to tell you something (to which) you resist. It may be that I tell you something incorrect, and you have the right to resist. Or I'm telling you something that's true, "mathematically" true, and you're telling me that's not true because you have your own judgments, your opinions. At this point, our communication stops. I want to tell you something, speaking as between two human beings, and not like me a guru, and you a disciple. I will express it as best I can by my words, but what I (really) want to tell you is not the word, nor even the (intellectual) meaning of the word. I want to tell you something that can only be described in part, and the rest of the meaning can not be described. You take the part I have described, but not the other. And, therefore, there is no (total) communication. You are satisfied with the explanations, and say "that is good enough for me" . I'd want to tell you something that I feel very strongly and that I feel I need to communicate. I give a description of it, but you refuse to enter it, and our communication ends. Verbally, we understand, but the "other" (deeper quality ?) can not be communicated.

A: There is no refusal on our part, but only incapacity.

K: I doubt it. Listen to what I said. I use words that you understand. You listen to the meaning, the word, the description, the explanation. But that does not cover the whole thing I want to convey to you. First of all, you refused to go beyond that. You refused it , not even knowing what it was. You had the feeling that what could not be put into words did not (really) exist. The word and description do not interest me. I want to tell you something now. How will I communicate something that is not the word, not the meaning, not the description, and yet (for me ?) is just as real as speech and contains as much meaning ? The words, the explanations are not 'the' thing itself. And that is our problem. Now what is happening in you and in me? Let's talk about it. I use the word; The description continues in the context of the words. My words include your (subliminal ?) feeling that there is a threat to your (self) image. Then, the (self-identified ?) image intervenes and says: "Stop", and our communication comes to a stop. It's just an assumption I'm making.

P: What happens, Krishnaji, is that we can follow you, we can advance with you, penetrate into ourselves to the point where thought stops, to the point where there is an end of thought. But at this point, when thought ends, there is a total inability to move in this new field.

K: I'm coming to this. Hold on your idea. I would like to finish with this. I ask myself consciously or unconsciously: "Where does he lead me? Perhaps there is a threat to my (identitary ?) security, a threat to destroy my (self) "image". Therefore, I do not want to move. I say that the description is enough for me. I agree and stop. The (self-protective ?) image is so important that I am satisfied with verbal comprehension.

P: If you were to ask me, or if I asked myself a question that implies the destruction of my (self-) image, ( I guess ) there would be (some) resistance.

K: You follow to a certain point, and there you stop. All of you do this to varying degrees. Why ? Why do you stop there? (Pause) I think I know.

A: In our relationship where the problem of communication was contemplated, it was clear that we must never accept what we do not have a real understanding of. The mind has an ability to make beliefs, to make what it has in life to believe. I am now trying to express the barrier that my mind presents. I tell myself that I have to accept only what I understood, nothing else.

K: You accept the word, the meaning, the description, the explanation, the analysis. You go that far. Now I tell you, just as between two human beings, that I want to communicate to you something that is beyond the verbal level and you don't move further. And I wonder why. Either you do not consciously want to understand what I want to convey beyond words, because ( some radical) understanding could upset you; or you resist because all your cultural heritage, all your education tells you, "Do not get close to it, do not touch it".

A: But it is not so.

K: I'm just questioning. In general, this is what happens. You listen to words, meaning, description, analysis, and you stop there, because the (vital) need to ask this question does not arise. If we ask the question, it is a disaster.

P: If I ask this question, everything rushes to protect the image. Whilst if I advance, which I observe step by step, there is a fluidity which dissolves the (self) image.

KRISHNAMURTI: Yes, dissolve the (self-protective) 'image' , but only when you and I propose to communicate about something that is more than words, right? Few people are (really interested in ?) going beyond this point. There are few who are willing to break their opinions, conclusions, and images. Speaking together, I discover the image, you illuminate it, and I see. To see it is to put an end to it. There is therefore the word, meaning, description, analysis, "seeing" - (self) image. This is true communication. The difficulty is when we penetrate the non-verbal (levels) . What quality is necessary for both of us to understand something that is not the word? This means looking, not being caught in the trap of description, explanation, meaning, words.

P: But see what you have just done! You bring us to a certain point by analysis, thought, language. You sharpen the intelligence, you rarefy the atmosphere. But you never go further, so that nothing remains, no description that you can give that allows to fill this void.

KRISHNAMURTI: Listen. To communicate in this way, that is, by the word. Meaning, description, analysis, this whole and something more, the mind must not be caught in the trap of the word, meaning, description and analysis. It must not be trapped (in the known?) . It must remain moving, fluid. But (for lack of anything else ?) you cling to the words, meaning, description, analysis, all these are processes of thought, of memory. And now you come by and tell me something that does not belong to the domain of words. And I'm just moving according to thought. I move with the thought, okay? Communication is verbal, and it is not. So the meaning, the description and the analysis, all this must be present, and the mind must be so ... I do not know what word to use ... must be such that you and I see the same thing, at the same moment, at the same level, with the same intensity. Otherwise our communication is purely verbal.

P: And now we are at the crucial point.

K: Let's move slowly. It is with great care that we have reached this point.

P: This movement in (the empty inner ?) space, is it a question for me to feel the movement of space as it is in you?

K: Please, simple words, simple words!

P: Is it a matter of 'getting in touch' with this movement of emptiness that you communicate (non-verbally ?) ?

K: Wait, wait! I do not communicate anything at all. I can communicate only "this" and not "that". And consequently there is no communication "there". There is communication only "here".

A: You say that we've gone beyond the word. The meaning, the description, but that through all we still hold the thought by the hand. "This"( inner emptyness ?) is something that our thinking can not stand.

K: Please, look at what's going on between you, A. and P. Both of you have a meaning, a word. A description, an analysis. You came to a conclusion, but she did not come to a conclusion, so the communication stopped. As soon as you reach a conclusion and the other does not, the communication is over.

P: Krishnaji says that he communicates by means of speech up to a certain point. Then he says that there is a communication for which no words can be found; but how? Again, I speak in my own way. I say that to the point where the mind becomes fluid, rarefied, communication through speech is possible because there is a point of reference. At the next moment I ask him whether this movement in space should contact or be contacted by the Krishnaji movement in his silence, or is it not even then a problem between Krishnaji and me ?

K: That's not a (real) problem at all. There are not "two people". What you said is very simple. Have you got it ? Two things can happen: words, meaning, description, analysis and (reaching a final) conclusion; Or words, meaning, description, analysis, but no conclusion. The man who has reached a conclusion stops there, can no longer communicate with the man who has no conclusion. They can not meet. They may continue to argue interminably, but these two can not meet.
And now we ask: does this "other" exist? Is it communicable? The word "communicable" implies that there are two persons. When you have no conclusion, and I have a conclusion, there is an end to the communication. But also there is a state where I have no conclusion and you don't either. So, both of us go forward, both of us smell the "fragrance of the flower", right ? What is there to communicate (verbally ?) ? Both of us smell the flower. (Pause)

F: I would like to ask a question. Is there something we can call "co-experience", a common state?

K: As long as there is ( the personal ?) experimentation, there is no "co-experience".

F: I speak of communication. Communication involves two parts or the 'two'.

K: Up to a point.

F: And co-experience?

K: When you and I (fully ?) experience a sunset, or a sexual phenomenon, there are no more "two".

F: But the perceptive instruments are two.

K: Of course. But we have not yet gone beyond the examination of the fact that we come to a conclusion. Take more time to examine the one that leads to a conclusion.

F: I also see that there is a threat to my (self-) image.

K: I am committed to a certain activity and I translate what you say according to my activity. I say that I understood you, but what I understood, I will translate it in the terms of (my prioritary ?) activity. I am "committed" .

P: If there is a frontal attack on my self- image and you ask me: "Do you have an image? I will reply: "Of course I have an image. But it is a purely peripheral thing. There could be a denudation, the destruction of the image, without it being confronted. You can strip, expose the image, but do not ask me a (frontal) question about it.

K: I want to go a little deeper into the "making of the (self-) image".

P: Each movement of thought adds to the image, and each negation is a denudation of the image.

D: The motives which have contributed to the construction of this image come from the fact that we are bound to a certain mode of activity, and as long as the mind refuses to renounce it, we render all communication impossible.

P: For me, this approach to the question is totally false. I say that if you are going to let yourself be locked in the effort to free yourself from the image, you will never be delivered from it.

K: Pupul , you're right.

P: You said that if there is a (self-) image and a conclusion, the communication does not subsist, but we still must face this fact.

K: What happens all the time, consciously or unconsciously, is that I am already committed to ( a certain course of action ?) , or that I am on the eve of committing myself. Thus, one communicates only to a certain point, not beyond. This is what happens constantly.

P: The (self-) image is made of many small things. The image is "what is". For twenty-two years I've been trying to get rid of it, and now I'm thinking of leaving it alone. I have to find the movement, to realize if what is now static can be freed - and ( if lucky ?) an action will happen on its own.

A: But all those millions of years of the past, how to tackle it?

F: Can two brains with different personal histories, experiences, feel the same at the same level? How is it possible ?

K: Your way of asking the question is false.

P: I can not break an 'image' that it took millions of years to build. But can I break the perceptive instrument, give it flexibility and mobility? That is the question.

A: We must take another point into account. There are some (inherited ?) 'aggregates', and they can be eliminated when exposed in the light of communication. That kind of thing happens effortlessly.

P: All of us who have participated in these dialogues can understand up to the point where the (time-continuity of the self-centred ?) thought ends. I am sure that what must happen must happen there.

K: Let's ask the same question in a different way. Is there an opportunity to communicate, or to experience something that is not verbal? All that is involved in "(personal ?) experiencing" is wrong.

P: Let me understand this sentence. It seems like a very important statement to say that "(personally ?) experiencing something is totally wrong".

K: The 'conclusion' or the 'idea' that an (inner) state can be "experienced" by two (egotistic ?) people is false. That can never happen.

A: That's true.

K: That it can never be experienced, what does that mean? Any man who says, "I" have experienced" has not "experienced" anything at all. You see how extraordinarily subtle it is ?)

P: This highlights the extent to which man is caught in the "wanting more" trap.

K: When you and I (really ?) watch a sunset, it's only "the sunset". It is the same with two people who are at the height of anger. So there are not two people. ( At that very moment ?) they do not (have the time to ?) say, "We are (gathered here to ?) experience anger".

F: But what about the recording that continues in the brain? In the present, this memory is not.

K: But it acts in the present.

QUESTION OF F: But at that moment, the memory is not yet created.

KRISHNAMURTI: Do not make a theory. Watch it: You and I are watching the sunset. When it is there, before us, both of us see it, both are silent, because it is a splendor. 'We' do not (purposefully ?) stop any (mental) movement. All movement stops. Then, there are not two (self-conscious ?) people there.

F: But are there not two separate self-consciousnesses ?

K: ( If) both of us, we feel this "sunset moment" in its fullness - you and I are not talking about "having this experience" at that moment.

P: I would like to ask you a question, sir, now, because I feel it is important that your mind also be opened to us. You have led us through the verbal state. Your mind, at that moment, was recording, and then, at one point, the "verbal phase" stopped.

K : In other words, you and I did not ( bother to ?) form any (self-) image.

P: Yes. But at that time did you have a recording of what was happening?

KRISHNAMURTI: I'm not following you very well.

P: You moved in thought. You have gone through the entire process of communication through the word, meaning, and analysis. Then came the moment of flexibility, and the analysis ended. Before the analysis resumed, there was a (silent) interval . Did your brain record anything during this interval ?

K: No.

P: Is there no part of your brain cells that traces the impact of this state of inner emptiness ?

K: I wonder what you're talking about. I said no.

D: Is it because always, you "are" (always living ?) in this interval?

K: But what are you trying to say?

P: How do you know that there was no recording of the "silent experience"?

KRISHNAMURTI: That's the next question. First, there is seeing , then the question: when one experiences the most trivial or the biggest thing , is there no recording in the form of thought, memory ? Do you understand ? There is the word, the meaning, the description, the analysis. This is a necessary process. What is unnecessary, which does not need to be there , is the "conclusion". It disappears. And then we ask: can the experience of what is "non-verbal" be translated into thought, description, analysis, meaning or word?

A: This is the reverse process.

K: Look at its subtlety. We started by talking about communication. Then there was an end of thought. Then it goes through the reverse process. Am I right ? (Pause) And now, the next point is this: do the brain cells (have to ?) record this state which, from then on, becomes (personal) memory, which, in turn, affirms: "I had this experience"? - You follow? Is this seeing- perception - listening to something that is not verbal and can not be (sensorily ?) experienced, recorded in the brain cells?

A: No ?

K: Obviously not. See what happens ? The brain records all the noises, it records all impressions, everything being subject to recording. The brain is fully accustomed to this process. He accepts it, and it is a healthy, normal, rational state. Right? And then it said, "A strange phenomenon happened, I recorded it. Obviously, I experienced it, since it was recorded and memorized." You see what's going on?

A: No, I do not understand.

D: As soon as one says this, it (the 'peculiar ' experience) ceases to exist ?

KRISHNAMURTI: One minute. Is it possible that all 'experience', except the experience of surviving, not to be registered ? I know I'm asking an absurd question. I am very aware of what I am asking
(Eg:) You insult me or you flatter me. It's (instantly) recorded (in "my personal" files ?) . Why ? The brain records what is important. But why should he also record what is not at all? Why should it bear the imprint of all superficial impacts? Why keep them? For what purpose ? Can't it erase all that, and that brain's (memory) cells only retain what will help their survival?

F: You have introduced the word "survival" ...

K: Why should I retain your insult or your flattery? Why do I have to record it? For if I do, there is aversion and preference.

F: But how can I eliminate it?

K: ( The nature of inner ?) freedom is to be free from all this ('psychological' ) burden of insults, regrets, joys, fears, torments.

A: Can I ask you a question? Is it possible for me to live in a routine that would not record?

K: No.

A: So, living in a (self-continuity ) routine, there will be registration. So, I can not do anything to prevent it.

K: If you see (the psychological risks ?) of that, there is an (awakened) state of intelligence that refuses to "record" (this stuff) . This (intelligence of the ?) "active present" can help us here (and now) not in the past or the future.

P: So, when there is a "complete attention", not only is there no recording, but on the contrary there is erasure (of the old files ?) .

KRISHNAMURTI: This is good enough: if the brain cells realize that there is no need for them to carry all the burden, all the (pettiness of our personal ?) daily incidents.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Apr 2017 #64
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

An (experientially friendly edited) K DIALOGUE IN BOMBAY (1971)


Questioner P: There was something which Krishnaji said in his talk
yesterday. I do not know whether it will bear discussion. It was a
very startling statement. The question he posed was whether the
brain cells could strip themselves of everything except the
movement of survival, the pure biological necessities which alone
makes the organism exist? Krishnaji seemed to suggest that before
any movement in the new dimension could take place, this total
stripping to the bare bedrock was essential. If you strip man of every psychological element except the urge for physical survival, how is he different from the animal?

Krishnamurti: We know both 'biological' and 'psychological'
survival. The biological survival exists , but the 'psychological'
factors like nationalism are preventing man from surviving.
(In a nutshell:) the 'psychological' fragmentation is destroying the beauty of survival. Can one strip man ( the human consciousness ?) of all the 'psychological' factors?

P: Apart from the biological and psychological, isn't there
anything else?

Krishnamurti: As far as we know (it now) these are the only two factors
that operate in man.

F: Is there not a 'psychological' survival, apart from the physical?

Krishnamurti: Which means the survival of the 'psyche' (of a self-consciousness ?) that is the result of (our cultural ?) environment, of heritage. Last evening when we used the word "consciousness", we said the whole of this (self-) consciousness is (generated by its ?) content. The (active) content of this consciousness is conflict, pain; the whole of that is (displayed as 'self- ?) consciousness'.

D: You said also that Intelligence is more than this consciousness.

Krishnamurti: We said that in understanding the 'fact' of (this self-centred) 'consciousness' and the going beyond it, is Intelligence. You cannot come to that ( Compassionate ?) Intelligence if this ( time-bound ?) consciousness is in ( a state of inner) conflict.
Now all that we know is biological survival and the survival of
psychological consciousness. What is the next question?

P: You implied yesterday that there was a necessity to 'empy' it so that nothing existed but biological survival.

Krishnamurti: Can you not empty this 'psychological' content of consciousness ? In this emptying , that Intelligence is in operation. Then, there is the biological survival and that 'intelligence' - there is no other.
So then, the human mind is not merely the survival element, but there is another "quality" in it which perceives.

P: What is that quality?

Krishnamurti: What did "K" say yesterday?

P: He said that (state of inner) "silence" sees

Krishnamurti: Perfectly true. Now what is this "silence"? What is the
nature of silence? Let us go back (again to 'square one' ?) . We want to survive psychologically and also biologically.

D: I'd say there is something else.

Krishnamurti: We will have to find it out (experientially ?) . Merely to posit that there is something else has no (practical) meaning.

D: But you said 'when all other aspects of the human being have ended' ....

Krishnamurti: When (our inner ) conflict, misery, pain have ended......

P: As also the fantasy, the wonder, the imagination; that which has
made man reach out, reach in.

Krishnamurti: "K" said both the outer and the inner...

P: ... are the same movement. Then when you say all this is to be
stripped, what happens? Is that a legitimate question to ask (outside the context of meditation ?) ? Can we, in this very discussion, get the feeling of that ('psychological') stripping ?

Krishnamurti: We have said intelligence is beyond (our spatio-temporal ?) consciousness and when the mind is stripped of its 'psychological' elements (attachments ?) , in the very stripping there is the uncovering of this Intelligence. Or ( that Compassionate ?) Intelligence comes into being in the very 'stripping'.
Then, there is the biological survival and Intelligence.
That "Intelligence" has no (cultural ?) heritage. (The self-) consciousness has heritage. We are caught in (a process of self-) becoming within the field of ( the 'heritage' consciousness ?) .
Within the ('known' ?) field of this consciousness we are trying to become (better, safer, richer, smarter, happier... ?) . Empty all this ('psychological' becoming ?). Let the (meditative ?) mind 'empty itself' of all that. In that very 'emptying' comes Intelligence.
Then there are only two things left: the highest form of
Intelligence and the (physical dimension of our personal & collective ?) survival which is entirely different from animal
survival. ( In this regard ?) man is not merely the animal because he is able to think, to design and construct.

P: Do you mean to say there is (automatically this ?) intelligence which manifests itself in the very emptying ?

Krishnamurti: The mind that really wants to be free from (its daily ?) struggle and from its 'back-chattering', asks: can I strip "myself" of all (my ego-centric?) content ? That is all. (Pause.) And in that, (a quality of non-personal & compassionate ?) Intelligence comes to be.

P: Is this (psychological ?) 'emptying' an endless process?

Krishnamurti: Certainly not. Because then I am caught in the
same phenomenon.

P: You mean, once it is done, it is "done" (for good ) ?

Krishnamurti: Let us go slowly. You must first understand this 'fact'
verbally (intellectually ?) : my (self-)consciousness is made up of all that we have talked about.

P: But the 'emptying' of it, does it take time or is it free of time? Is
it piecemeal? Or is it an emptying of the whole?

Krishnamurti: Is that your question? The piecemeal and the
whole? ( Feel free to ?) discuss it.

P: What is it actually that one 'strips'? Or what is it that one perceives? Or is there dissolution of the thought which emerges?

D: If all these go what remains?

B: Only awareness remains. Is this 'complete awareness' the whole?

P: Yes.

Krishnamurti: She says 'Yes'. ( But...) what is the question?

P: Is the awareness of a particular aspect of ( my self-) consciousness - such as jealousy - is the awareness of that one thing, revealing the totality of all (my) consciousness?

Krishnamurti: If you mean aware of all the implications
- an 'awareness' in which there is no choice, no compulsion, no resistance - obviously it is so.

P: So at any point this is possible?

Krishnamurti: Of course.

P: Yes, because that is the (experiential ?) "door"; the door of dissolution.

Krishnamurti: Let us again begin slowly because I want to
go step by step. (a) My (self-) consciousness is made up of all this. My
consciousness is part of the whole (consciousness of mankind ?) , both at the superficial and at the deeper level and you are asking, is there any awareness which is so penetrating that in that very awareness the whole of it is present? Or is (this awareness ) bit by bit - a search, a looking in, and an analysing?

D: The (traditional ) yogic position is that nature is (like ?) a flowing river. In that flow, man's organism comes into being. As soon as it comes into being, it has also the capacity to choose and the moment it chooses,
it separates itself from the flow of the river. So, the only thing which brings this ( self-separation ) into being is (the personal ) choice. Therefore, they say the "dissolution of choice" may bring you to total emptiness and in that "emptiness" you "see".

Krishnamurti: Right sir, that is one point. But "P"s question was, is
this awareness, this process of stripping bit by bit? This
"awareness in which there is no choice", does it empty the
whole ( egotistic content ?) of consciousness? Does it go beyond consciousness?

P: Is there an end to this 'emptying' ...

Krishnamurti: ...or is it a constant ( Sysiphic ?) process?

P: And the second related question was: where there is (the awakening of ?) Intelligence is there (still need for any further psychological?) stripping?

Krishnamurti: Let us start with the first question which ( for a beginner's purpose ?) is 'good enough'. What do you say? Discuss it.

P: It is one of those extra-ordinary questions where you can neither say "Yes" nor "No".

D: It hangs on 'time' or 'no time'. If it is invited, it is 'time'.

P: If you say it is not a question of time then five minutes later it will emerge again. So this question cannot be answered (conclusively).

Krishnamurti: I am not sure. My (self-) consciousness is a process of time. Now I am asking: that consciousness, can it go beyond this? Can
we, who are caught in the movement of time, go beyond time?
That question, (that self-centred ?) consciousness cannot answer. It does not even know what it means, because it can only think in terms of time and when questioned whether this process can end - (an ending) in which there is no time, it cannot answer, can it?
Now as ( our time-bound) consciousness cannot answer the question, we (take a non-personal detour and ?) say: let us see what is ( the choiceless) awareness and investigate whether that awareness can
bring about a timeless state? But this brings in new elements. What
is (this choice free ?) awareness? Is it within the field of time, is it outside the field of time?

Now is there in this awareness any (personal) choice, justification, or condemnation? Or is there the (purposeful action of the ?) 'observer', the 'chooser'? And if there is, is that (a non-personal ?) awareness? So is
there an awareness in which there is no observer at all? Obviously.
I am (directly ?) aware of that lamp and I do not have to choose when I am aware of that lamp. ( Further on ?) is there an awareness in which the (all-controlling ?) "observer" is totally absent?

Not a 'continuous' (or 'permanent' ?) state of awareness in which the observer is absent, which again is a fallacious statement.

A: The ( traditional ?) word is "swarupa shunyata". The observer becomes 'empty' ('as nothing' ?) .

Krishnamurti: Now is that (quality of non-personal ?) awareness to be 'cultivated' (perfected ?) which implies time? How does this (choice-free ?) awareness come into being in which there is no 'observer'?

It is a (direct ) observation in which there is no observer.
Now how is that to come about without ( our self-) consciousness
interfering? Does it flower out of this consciousness? Or is it free of consciousness?

D: It is free of ( my self-?) consciousness.

P: I'd like to ask you two things. Does it come about when I ask the
question "who am I? Or does this (special ?) 'awareness' come about when one tries to discover the observer?

Krishnamurti: No. The moment you 'try', you are in time.

P: But where is the 'observer'? We are taking for granted that
the observer "is".

Krishnamurti: Let us begin slowly. One sees what (this spatio-temporal ?) consciousness is. Any movement within that field, any movement is still a process of time. It may try 'to be' or 'not to be', it may try to 'go beyond' itself, or invent something beyond consciousness,
but it is still part of time. So I am stuck (in the 'known' ?) .

P: What is the (active) element in me which seems to me the most potent and powerful: It is the sense of the "I".

Krishnamurti: Which is the (result of the ?) "past".

P: I will try not to use your language. Can there be a perception of the "I"?

F: That is a wrong question. The "I" is nothing but ( the impersonation of ?) an insatiable hunger for experience.

Krishnamurti: Pupul began by asking "who am I?" Is that the
central factor in our consciousness?

P: It seems so. And then I say let me see the "I", let me find it,
perceive it, touch it.

Krishnamurti: So you are asking, is this central factor
perceivable sensorily? Is this central factor tactable, to be felt, to be tasted? Or is that central factor, the "I", something (like a mental hologram ?) which the senses have invented (projected ?) .

P: That comes later. First of all, I see whether it is tactable.

Krishnamurti: When I have asked the question, "who am I?",
one must also question who is investigating, who is asking the
question "who am I?".

P: I do not ask that ( trick ?) question. I have asked that question over and over again. I have discussed awareness endlessly. I leave it,
because the one thing which you have said is, do not accept one
word which is not your own. I start looking anew . Is this "I" which is the central core of myself, is it something 'tactable' (tactile ?) ? I observe it in the surface layers, in the depth layers of my consciousness, in the hidden darkness and as I unfold it what takes place is a light within, an
explosion, an extension within. Another factor that operates is that
which has been exclusive becomes inclusive. So far I have been
exclusive, now the world movement flows in.

Krishnamurti: We see that.

P: And I find this ( 'I') is not something which can be touched,
perceived. What can be perceived is that which has been, which is
a manifestation of this "I". I see I had a thought of this "I'' in
action, but it is already over. Then I explore - from where did
that thought emerge? Can I find the springs of thought? Or where does
thought go? Can I pursue a thought? How far can I go with a
thought? How far can I hold a thought? Can a thought be held in
consciousness? These are tangible things which I think the (honest ?)
individual has to completely ( experiment with and ?) feel for himself.

Krishnamurti: I thought (assumed ?) we had done all this.

F: I say all this 'is' (part of) awareness.

Krishnamurti: Let us be simple. When I ask "who am I?", who
is asking the question? And one finds on investigation that the "I"
is not observable, touchable, hearable, and so on. And so, is the "I" (the sense of 'I am' ?) within the field of the senses? Or have the senses created the (sense of ?) "I"?

P: The very fact that it is not within the field of the senses......

Krishnamurti: Is it not also within the field of the senses? We jump too quickly. Is (our inner) perceiving a visual perception or something else?

P: I want to put aside (the authority of ?) everything Krishnaji has said and I find that the very enquiry, that the very investigation into the ( reality or non-reality of the ?) "I" creates inner light, intelligence.

Krishnamurti: You are saying, the very enquiry brings about
awareness. Obviously I did not say it did not.

P: And in the enquiry one can only use certain (readily available ?) instruments which are our senses - the seeing, listening, feeling - and the field of the without and the field of the within is
illuminated. Now in this state of (timeless ?) illumination, you suddenly find that there has been a thought, but that it is already over.

Krishnamurti: ( The self-centred ?) thought does not exist by itself. It exists in observing our relationship - (for instance in observing this ?) lamp. But, is (our inner) perception partial? I have investigated through the senses, the senses creating the "I", investigating the "I". This activity brings a lightness, clarity. Not the entire clarity, but some clarity.

P: I will not use the word 'some clarity', but clarity.

Krishnamurti: It brings clarity. Is that clarity expandable?

P: The nature of our seeing is depending on the power of the eye.

Krishnamurti: We said perception is not only visual but also

P: What is the nature of this 'non-visual' seeing?

Krishnamurti: It is 'non-visual', which is 'non-thinkable'. It does
not pertain to the word. It does not pertain to thought. That is all.
( For starters ?) is our visual perception a 'non-verbal' perception?
The non-visual perception is the perception without (mentally processing the verbal) meaning, the expression, the thought.
Is there such a perception without ( the knowledgeable interference of ?) thought? Now proceed.

P: This is not such a difficult thing. I see there is such
perception. Now that perception can see close, can see far.

Krishnamurti: Wait. We are talking of a perception which is non-visual which is not (measuable in terms of ?) 'deep' or 'shallow'. Shallow perception or deep perception comes only when thought interferes.

P: Now in that (direct inner perception ?) is there partial stripping or total stripping?

Krishnamurti: When there is ( this quality of ?) non-verbal perception, what are you asking further?

F: We are asking is there a "perception" in which ( the psychological ?) stripping is not necessary?

Krishnamurti: There is no such thing as an everlasting perception.

P: Is it identical with what you call Intelligence?

Krishnamurti: I do not know. Why are you asking that?

P: Because it is timeless.

Krishnamurti: Why do you ask? A perception which is non-verbal, isn't it also (free of ?) time, (free of ?) thought? If you have answered this question you have answered that. Is there perception that is non-verbal and therefore not pertaining to (the self-centred ?) thought? A
mind that is perceiving is not asking this (academical ?) question, it is perceiving. And each perception 'is' (a new) perception. It is not carrying over (the old ?) perception. So, where does the question of stripping or not stripping arise?

P: I say that (any direct) perception which is not linked with thought,
perception is never carried into another thought. I see that lamp.
The seeing has not been carried. The thought (of it) is only being carried.

Krishnamurti: That is obvious.
( Grand Recap:) My (self-) consciousness is the result of my sensory perceptions. That is all our human consciousness. This (self-centred) consciousness is the result of time, evolution, growth. It is expandable, contractable and so on. And thought is part of that.
Now somebody comes along and asks "who am I?". Is the "I" a permanent entity in this consciousness?

D: It cannot be.

Krishnamurti: This "I" - is it (the projection of our ?) consciousness?

D: It is not permanent.

Krishnamurti: ( This self-centred ?) consciousness is (our racial & cultural ?) heritage. Of course it is.

F: Aren't we are mixing the 'concept' of consciousness, with the
'experience' of consciousness ?

Krishnamurti: This is very clear (experientially) . "I" is (the self-focalisation of ?) that consciousness.

P: The "I" has a great reality for me till I ( begin to ?) investigate it.

Krishnamurti: Of course. But after (exposing & ?) looking, observing , I (finally ?) see that I "am" (the self-focussing of ?) the whole of this consciousness (of mankind) . This is not ( an opportunistic ? ) verbal statement. I "am" all that. I "am" the heritage. Now, ( the 100 $ question is:) is this "I" touchable, observable? Can it be felt ? Is it the result of (all our human) heritage?

F: It is the inherited.

Krishnamurti: And then she asks who is that "I"? Is that "I" part
of (the self-centred process of ?) thought? I say yes. Thought is (projecting ?) the "I", except (in the practical areas ) where thought is functioning 'technologically', where there is no "I" (no need for it to identify itself ?) . But the moment you move away from the (objective thinking in the ?) scientific field, you come to the ( inner safety of the ?) "I" which is part of our (brain's) biological heritage.

F: So, the "I" is just the (processing ?) centre of our (sensory) perceptions ?

Krishnamurti: In the whole field of our (inherited) consciousness the "I" is the centre.

P: I want to put aside everything and tackle it in a new way. I
see that the most important element in my consciousness is this sense of the "I". Now what is the "I"? What is its nature? One investigates that and in the very process of observation there is clarity.

Krishnamurti: Full stop.

P: Now, this inner clarity is not eternal.....

Krishnamurti: But it can 'pick it up' again.

P: What would you say?
Krishnamurti: You have to answer this question. At the moment of perception the question ( of stretching the inner clarity ?) does not arise.
The next moment I do not perceive so clearly.

P: But if I am alert to see that I am not perceiving so clearly, I will
investigate that.

Krishnamurti: Let us be simple about this. There is ( a time-free?) perception. In that perception there is no question of duration. The next minute there is no (more) clear perception. It is muddled. ( If ?) there is (an earnest ?) investigation of ( the cause of ?) this 'pollution' (one is back to inner) clarity. Right? And again perception; move again (through inattention ?) cover and uncover - and this is going on (the process is self-sustained ? ).

P: A very interesting thing takes place. The very nature of this
(time-free inner ?) awareness is that it operates on (the causes of ?) inattention.

Krishnamurti: ( So, to recap:) Attention and inattention. Then be aware of inattention which becomes attention. This (timeless inner) "balancing" is going on all the time.

P: I observe that attention has its own action on inattention.

Krishnamurti: Does that action on inattention wipe away (the root-causes of ?) inattention so that inattention does not come again?

P: Further than that, I'd say the nature of this (self-sustained ?) "attention" is such that it operates on the brain
cells. That which is was (slack or ?) dormant in the brain's cells - when it is exposed to attention, the very nature of that dormancy undergoes a change. I would like this area to be investigated.

Krishnamurti: Let us begin again (back to the 'experiential square one' ?) Awareness - if there is (a personal preference or ?) choice in that awareness we are back again in ( the 'known') consciousness.
The choiceless awareness is non-verbal. Awareness has no relationship to thought. That (integrated quality of compassionate ?) awareness we call "attention". And when there is inattention...there is just inattention. Why mix the two?
( Let's take the 'worst case scenario':) I am inattentive; in that state of inattention there are certain (egocentric ?) actions going on. And those
activities bring further misery, confusion, trouble. So ( the most common trap is that ?) I say to myself, "I must be attentive all the time so as to prevent this kind of disturbance taking place "
I say I have to cultivate attention and therefore that (subliminally egotistic ?) cultivation becomes ( the primary cause of ?) inattention. The seeing of the ( danger of this self-induced ?) inattention brings attention. Attention affects the ( quickening of the ?) brain cells.

( In a nutshell:) There is attention, and then inattention. In inattention there is ( an accumulation of inner ?) confusion, misery, and all the
rest of it. Now what takes place?

P: Is it not really that 'you' can do nothing about it?

Krishnamurti: I agree "P; but... hold on a minute.

( Grand Recap:) There is attention and there is inattention. In (that inner state of ?) ' inattention' everything is confusion. But, why
do I want to put the two together? When there is the urge to put the
two together, then there is an action of will which is choice. I
prefer attention; I do not prefer inattention - so I am back again in
the field of ( my temporal) consciousness.
So what is the Act of Intelligence where the two are never brought together? I want to explore it a little bit ( for 'fun & profit' homework ?):

When there is attention, thought as (the mechanical response of the memory does not (have the 'time' to ?) operate. There is no ("thinker-) thinking" process in attention. There is only attention. I am only becoming aware that I have been inattentive when my action produces discomfort, misery and/or danger. Then as that (tiny instant, or days, months & years of ?) inattention has left a (psychological engramming ) mark on the brain, I am now concerned with the (global ?) misery which that (long lapse of ?) inattention has brought about.
Then in (unravelling, exposing and ?) investigating that (burden of inner) misery, (eventually ?) "attention" comes again leaving no
mark. So then, actually what is taking place? Each time there is inattention there is ( the inner opportunity of ?) a quick, instant perception of inattention. Therefore this ( inwardly clarifying ?) perception is not ( a matter ) of duration, of 'time'. ( Direct) perception and "attention" leave no mark. The "immediacy of perception" is always (constantly ?) taking place.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Apr 2017 #65
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


THE FLAME OF NON-DUALISTIC PERCEPTION(experientially -friendly -edited)

Questioner P: We have talked several times, and so far the
discussions have been related to the ( thinking ?) mind and its problems. What we have not discussed is the movement of the heart.

Krishnamurti: I am glad you have raised that.

P: I use the words mind and heart, because these are the two focal points
around which certain sensory responses appear to focus. Are these
two movements in fact ( part of) one ( unitary ) movement?

Krishnamurti: Let us begin ('scientifically' ?). What do you mean by 'movement'?

P: Any kind of emotional responses like love, affection, goodwill, compassion, seems to move from a focal point which we identify as the 'region of the heart'.

Krishnamurti: Which is the (emotion charged ?) response of the nerves, the heart, the brain, the whole psychosomatic organism. Now, is the
movement of the mind separate from the movement which is
generally called 'of the heart' - the sentiments, the angers, the jealousy,
the feeling of guilt - all the emotions that make the heart throb and
beat faster. Are the movements of the mind and of the heart separate? I think this division is artificial. And if they are not separate,
then when the mind is empty of ( its egocentic self-? ) consciousness , what is the quality of the mind that 'is' (full of ?) compassion, love, empathy? So, let us begin by asking whether the movement of the heart is separate. Is any (inner ) movement separate? Or it is all an unitary movement, like all (our physical, emotional and mental ?) energy is unitary, though we may fragment it?
All movement of (our) life is one; a unitary movement. One has broken
this movement up as the movement of the heart, the movement of
different categories; I do not know if I can verbalize this - the mind, the heart, the brain, arent they one unit? And from that unit, movement flows; a movement which is unitary. (Unless) we (mentally ?) divide our emotions, sentiments, devotion, tenderness, compassion, enthusiasm from their opposites...

P: evil, cruelty, vanity. But there is also a purely intellectual
movement which is neither one nor the other; the technological movement.

Krishnamurti: Is the 'technological' movement different from the
movement of the (thinking ) mind? We said just now that compassion, love, tenderness, care, consideration and politeness are one movement.
The 'opposite' movement is contrary to that - it is violence and all
that. So there is the movement of the (thinking ) mind, the movement of
affection, love and compassion; and the movement of violence. So
there are now three movements. Then there is another (controlling) movement which says this must be or this must not be...

D: So there is the movement of the 'coordinator' apart from the

Krishnamurti: Now we have the fourth movement - the
coordinator. The movement of affection as the movement of the
heart, then the movement of violence, callousness, depression,
vulgarity and all that; then the mental, intellectual movement and
the movement of the 'coordinator'. So there are now four
movements and every one of these movements has its own
subdivisions, each in contradiction with its opposite.

(In a nutshell ?) Our psychosomatic organism has got dozens of contradictions ( conflicts of interest ), there are simultaneous and contradictory movements, and there is the 'coordinator'
trying to arrange things so that he can operate.

F: Is there not a selective mechanism, which picks up and calls
it thought, mind, heart and so on? Is that not the coordinator?

Krishnamurti: Coordinator, selecter, call it what you will, they are all in contradiction with each other.

F: Why do you say they are in contradiction ? Is it because each one
has an independent movement?

P: At any given point (in time) if one is (dominating) , the other is not.

F: Then there cannot be an actual contradiction.

Krishnamurti: When one is (active) , the other is not. But the 'coordinator' weighs these two - I want this and I do not want that.

F: That is the whole movement of our daily life.

Krishnamurti: Contradiction is not when one ( compartment) is (active) , and the other is not, but when the "coordinator" says I would rather not have this but have that; then begins the contradiction, the opposition as (personal) choice.

A: The question is, is the movement of the heart distinct from that of the
mind? Though one may not have personal feelings of hate or anger, when I read about Bengal, certain emotions come, but they are social
responses. Whereas to have love, affection is a definite quality of enrichment; a sustenance; which the (intellectual) mind cannot give you.

Krishnamurti: You were asking, are there two movements with their subdivisions; are they (moving in ) parallel?

P: Parallel means that they never meet.

Krishnamurti: We know only these two movements the
one the thinking, the intellectual, the rational movement; the
second the feeling of kindliness, gentleness. Are they
two separate movements? Or because we have (traditionally) treated them as two separate movements, our whole misfortune, our confusion arises ? The whole religious tendency in the west as well as in the
east has been this division of the 'soul' and the 'body' and all the (sacred) scriptures have maintained that. It is really a psycho-somatic state, not one or the other. And so the question is, are they two movements or have we accustomed ourselves to thinking that the two are separate - the body and the soul - till somebody says it is a psychosomatic state. If they are not (actually separated ?) , what is the one unitary movement that includes thought (as the movement of the brain) and the (feeling as the ) movement of the heart?

How do you investigate this question? I can only investigate it from fact to fact. I see the fact of perception. I see the fact of the movement
of thought. And if there is complete cessation of thinking which is (the mental) movement, is there a movement which is an emotive movement as love, devotion, tenderness, care? Or when the movement of thought comes to an end without any compulsion, is there not a totally different movement which is not that or this?

P: That is so, Sir, and I am saying this very very hesitantly.
There is a state when it is as if an elixir is released, when one is
overflowing; a state in which the 'heart' is the only thing that is there
- I am using metaphors - and there can be action in that state, doing
in it, thinking in it, and everything in it, and there is a state when
thought has ceased and the mind is very clear and alert, but the
elixir is not present.

Krishnamurti: Let us stick to one thing. Just what is the factor in
us that divides one as the emotive movement and the other as the
'intellectual-thought' movement? Why is there the soul and the

A: As far as my (inner) experience goes, when the verbal movement
ceases, there is an awareness of the entire body in which there is pure feeling. It is no more thinking, but pure feeling.

P: In the ( Hindu spiritual) tradition there is a word called "Rasa" . Rasa is essence, it is that which fills, that which permeates.

D: It is emotion.

P: It is much more; rasa is (the spiritual ?) essence.

Krishnamurti: Keep to that word 'essence', perfume. Now what happens? In observing (non-dualistically ) the whole movement of thought, in observing the content of consciousness, the 'essence' comes out of it. And in observing the movement of the heart, in that perception, there is the essence. The 'essence' is the same whether it is (derived from) this or (from) that. It is the essence of all the flowers that makes the perfume.
( To recap:) In perceiving the whole movement of thought as (self-centred) consciousness, in that very observation of that is the external refinement which is the essence. Right? In the same way there is the
perception of the whole movement of the body, love, joy. When
you perceive all that, there is the essence and in that there are no
two essences. So, this 'essence' has to come into being. Now how do you produce it? How you distil it? When the flowers are distilled, the essence of the (volatile scent of the ?) flowers is the perfume.

F: But in the context of what we were talking here what do you mean by 'essence'?

Krishnamurti: Just look. We have observed the movement
of thought as (spatio-temporal ?) consciousness. There is ( a non-dualistic) perception of that. The perception is the distillation of that and that we call essence which is pure intelligence. It is not my intelligence or your intelligence but it is (pure) intelligence, it is essence. And when we observe ( non-dualistically) the movement of love, hate, pleasure, fear, which are all emotive, as you perceive it, the 'essence' comes out of that. There are no two essences.

P: The great masters of (Hindu) Alchemy were called "rasa-siddhas" -those who are established in "rasa", that is, those who have
attained, who have their being in that (spiritual essence ?) .

Krishnamurti: During these days and before, one has watched
the movement of thought. One has watched it, and watched it
without any choice and in that is the essence; out of that choiceless
observation comes the essence of the one and the essence of the
other. Therefore what is this 'essence' (of Intelligence ?) ? Is it a refinement of emotions, or is it totally unrelated? And yet it is (somehow) related because it has been (distilled by non-dualistic ?) observation. Right?

P: So that (integrated) energy which is attention, though it is operating on matter, the essence is unrelated to both.

Krishnamurti: Let us begin again slowly with 'essence'. Is it
unrelated to ( the spatio-temporal ?) consciousness? I am taking it that there has been a perception of the movement (of self-) consciousness, (as thought) and of the content of that consciousness which is (the psychological process of ) time and the very flame of that observation distils. Right? In the same way the flame of perception brings the essence of emotive movement. Now (once) having this essence, what relationship has it to that and to this? None whatsoever. ( the timeless) essence has nothing to do (anymore) with the (physical) flower.
Though it is (derived) from the flower, the essence is not of it.

F: Even grammatically does not sound quite all right....

Krishnamurti: Look, Sir, the other day I saw they were taking
the bark of a tree to produce some kind of alcohol; that essence is
not the bark.

F: It is realized because of the heat.

Krishnamurti: (The ) heat (energy ) of (direct) perception produces the essence. So is that essence related to (the fragmentary ?) consciousness? Obviously not. So the whole point in this is the flame of perception and the flame of perception 'is' the essence.

D: It creates the essence and it is the essence.

Krishnamurti: (Or, in short ?) it 'is' the essence.

P: Is (direct ) perception part of the moment of Creation?

Krishnamurti: I do not know what you mean by "creation".

P: Bringing into our being something which was not there ?

Krishnamurti: I ask of you what is meant by creation? I do not
know. Bringing into being something new or bringing into being in
the mould of the known ?

P: Creation must be bringing into being the new, not the old.

Krishnamurti: Therefore let us be clear. Bringing into being
something totally new. At what level? Watch it. At the sensory
level, at the intellectual level, at the memory level; where?
Bringing into being something new; but where? So that you see it, so
that you can visualize it? The man who produced the jet engine because he was familiar the internal combustion engine, was that creation totally new? So when you say bringing into being something
totally new, at what level? Can you bring into being something which is not self-expression? It is not new if it is self-expression.

P: If creation is something entirely new which is unrelated to
any self-expression, then probably all self-expression ceases, all
manifestation ceases.

Krishnamurti: What I want to get at is: the man who
discovered the jet - at the moment when he discovered it, there was
no self-expression. Then he translated it into self-expression and put into a formula. Now, inwardly the flame of perception has brought about the essence, and now the question is, has that "essence" any (need for material) expression? Does it create anything new?

D: It creates a new perception.

Krishnamurti: No. There is no (creating a ) new perception. The flame "is" the perception. The flame is flame all the time. One moment pure flame of perception, then forgotten, and again pure flame of perception, then forgotten. Each time the (light of the ?) 'flame' is new.

D: The energy of this perception touches matter, and there is an explosion and there is mutation. Now that which emerges out of it, you cannot postulate. It is like the discovery of the jet engine.

Krishnamurti: Let us put it this way. In that essence when there
is action, but that essence is not concerned with self-expression. It is
concerned with action. Its action then is total, not partial.

P: I want to ask one more question. The manifestation of
this has contact with matter.

Krishnamurti: There is ( a mutational ?) action.

A: Up to ( the distilling effect of direct ) perception we go with you.

Krishnamurti: No, Sir. You have gone further. There is a
perception which is flame, which has distilled the essence. You
cannot say "I have got it" (or..."it is all mine" ?) . There is only essence. Now that (timeless intelligent ?) essence (of Being ?) acts or may not act. If it acts, it has no frontiers (no personal boundaries) at all. There is no "me" acting. Obviously.

P: That itself is creation. Creation is not something apart from

Krishnamurti: The very expression of that ( timeless) essence is Creation in action, not new action or old action. The essence 'is' expression.

P: Then is (such direct ?) perception also action?

Krishnamurti: Of course. See the beauty of it ? Forget ( spatio-temporal ?) action. See what has taken place in you. Perception without any (verbal ) qualifications is a "flame". It distils whatever it perceives. Whatever it perceives it distils because it is the flame.
It is not a 'sensory' perception. When there is that (time-free ?) perception which distils (what it perceives) at every minute, when you say I am a fool, in perceiving that the essence acts or it does not act, depending upon the environment, depending upon where it is; but in that action there is no "me", there is no (personal) motive at all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #66
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


K: I wonder what we mean by 'action' (in the inner sense?) .
Acting is always in the active present, not as past action or future
action, but action which is now.

P: Can there be always an action 'now'?

K: I want to find out, Pupul, whether there is an action (an active dimension of being?) which is continuous (self-sustained ?) and, therefore, always a movement without any causation. I am exploring, just move with me.

P: Our action is always related to something. That is the movement of ( spatio-temporal ?) action?
K: The past, the present and the future. What do we generally mean by action? The physical doing, going from here to there, or intellectually or emotionally 'working out' (the solutioning of ?) a problem? So (our temporal) action means 'operating on something', 'operating through', or operating from something.
But is there an action which is whole, not producing conflict - outside or inside? Is there an (inner state of ?) action which is unrelated to
our environment, unrelated to me or to the community? Is there an
action which is a movement out of time? All that to me is (involved in ?) action.
But to us action is generally in relationship to another. Action is related to the community we live in. Our action is dictated by the economic,
climatic, personal, environmental conditions. It is based on (strong) beliefs, ideals and so on. That is the action we know. Now, I want to find
out if there is an action which is not the result of environmental

M: It is the (personal ) motivation that matters in most of our actions .

K: Motivation is part of action. I want something and I get it. I
don't like you and I act, or I like you and act. We know that. We
are trying to find out what is (a holistic ?) action? I think we have to eliminate causation in (this kind of) action. Is that possible?

P: In attention there is this kind of (non-causal) movement. The question is: In this state of attention now, which has
nothing except seeing you, what is it that motivates, moves?

K: I want to get at something much deeper. What is the action
which is self-energizing? An (inner state of ?) action which is an infinite (endless ?) movement with infinite energy? I think that is (the holistic ?)
"action". I am feeling my way into something. Our (current) actions
are always (originating ?)within the field of the known and, therefore, bound to time and therefore not free. That is so. Now I want to find out if there is any other action. We know the action (with)in the field of the known : the technological action, the action of (calculated ?) thought, the action of behaviour. Within the field of (self-centred ?) consciousness, we know action very well. It is all within the field
of the known. I feel that such action must lead to various forms of (inner & outer ?) conflicts, frustration, sorrow, disintegration.

Now, I ask myself: Is there any other (dimension of human ?) action which does not belong to this (ego-centric) consciousness with its frustration, failures, sorrows, misery, confusion? Is there any action which is not of time? I want to find out if there is an action which is without friction, an action which is non-contradictory, which does not bring conflict.

A: You would not be here if the motive was not there.

K: This does not mean that this action follows a set pattern. Following a pattern is a mere mechanical repetition and (eventually ?) leads to a complete destruction of the brain. I want to find out an action which is not repetitive, which is not (generating ?) conflict, which
is not imitative, conforming and therefore corrupt.

M: To live means to act on (the existing cultural ) environment.

K: Therefore, I don't (have to ?) depend on (this ?) environment. I want to live a life without conflict, which means life is action. And I see that life always has conflict in it. "Conflict" means imitation,
conformity and a mechanical way of living. Can we find a way of living
a living now, today, in which there is no (sense of inner ?) conflict ?
My intelligence, looking at all the actions (confined) within the field of the known, observing them, paying attention to them, my intelligence asks this question. ( A different quality of ?) intelligence is in operation now. The word "intelligence" means not only to have a very alert mind, but "to read between the lines". It reads between the lines of the
known activity. Having read that, my intelligence says that ( as long as one is stuck ?) in the field of the known, all action will be contradictory.

P: We appear to be totally blocked here. You say something and
there is no way to find out, there is no way to talk about it.

K: I said I am going to investigate.

P: How will you 'investigate' this?

K: (By negating what is false ?): I see - not as an idea, but as a fact - that any action with a (hidden 'psychological' ?) motive must inevitably bring about a contradiction. So, I say, is there in my mind any contradiction ? Paying attention, I see that an action based on a 'belief' is contradictory. So, I say to myself: Is there such a (hidden root assumption or ?) 'belief' which is living, acting and therefore contradictory? If there is, I go after that belief and "wipe it out".

P: How are you doing that ?

K: In that (non-dualistic quality of ?) attention, (aka:) "observation", that 'belief' ends in me. In that attention, I see that any form of conformity
breeds fear, suppression, obedience. So, in that very attention, I see that any action in (the daily) relationship, based on a (self-protecting ?) image, divides people. In paying attention to the 'known' all the factors of the 'known', their structure and their nature, end. And then (a quality of non-dualistic) attention becomes very important.
This ( quality of compassionate & intelligent ?) attention says: Is there any action which has none of these things ?

A: Would you say that such "attention" itself is action?

K: That is it. Therefore, attention is ( intelligent & compassionate ?) perception (integrated in daily ?) action and therefore in that there is no conflict. It is 'infinite' (inexhaustible ?) The action (based on ?) a belief is wastage of energy. Action in attention is producing its own energy and it is endless.

(In a nutshell ?) The human brain has functioned always in
the field of (physical & psychological) conflicts, belief, imitation, conformity, obedience, suppression; it has always functioned that way and when the brain begins to (become aware of ?) that, then this (quality of integrated ?) attention begins to work. The brain cells
themselves become "attentive" (rather than indulging in the known field of their memories ?) .

M: You seem to say that attention calls for (an inner integration of ?) energy and then that energy directs.

K: Attention is action. (Left for homework:) We also said, consciousness is its content...

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

M: Biologically speaking, every cell is individual, able to recharge
energy and, therefore, to function. Every cell also functions
because awareness is built into the cells.

K: I think so. But I would like to start from a different point: the
brain cells have gone through (many millenia of ?) "wastage of energy" which is conflict, imitation, all the rest of it, and they got accustomed to that (dissipative way of life ) . The brain cells now have stopped that (living entropically in field of the known?) . They are out of that field, and the brain is no longer the (passive ?) residue of all that. It may function (in the field of the known ) technologically and so on, but the brain that sees life is action and is without conflict, is in a natural state of "attention", there is (a self-energising) complete attention, right inside, not imposed, not directed, not willed, then the whole structure is "alive"; not in the usual sense, but in a different
sense. I think there is a (qualitative inner?) transformation.
I think it is a direction of 'death' (as 'ending' ?) so, there is a (newly born quality of ?) action which is non-repetitive and therefore the freedom from the known is "attention in the unknown".

P: Freedom from the known is also within the brain cells. The
brain cells are the (carriers of the ?) 'known' but the freedom from the known is also (possible) within the brain cells.

K: Therefore, there is a definite (qualitative inner ?) transformation coming into being (taking place ?)

M: If the brain is cleared of its 'engrams', that is a physical

K: This is so (even ?) logically, in the sense that as long as the mind is
functioning within the field of the known, it is functioning in a (temporal ?) groove and the brain cells have been functioning in grooves. Now
when those 'grooves' are non-existent, the total brain acts in freedom, which is "attention".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Apr 2017 #67
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline



P: Krishnaji, you have spoken about holding the quality of anger,
fear or any strong emotion, without the word, in consciousness.
Could we probe into that? The wiping away, whether it is a hurt,
fear, anger or any one of the darknesses within one, is only
possible if what you are talking about takes place. Can we come to
that passion of feeling, which goes behind all these words of fear,
anger, etc? Can that be held in consciousness?

K: What does it mean to hold the feeling of anger, whatever `is',
without the word? Is this possible?

P: And is there anything without the word?

K: Go on.

FW: Is there fear when there is not the word 'fear'? And what is
the nature of the energy in the body or in the whole being if there is no naming?

A: Clarity for us is clsely related to naming. When we want to probe into a strong feeling, a disturbance, we want to know precisely what it is, we don't want any self-deception. Invariably, before we have been able to grasp it completely, we have named it. So, naming is both our instrument of clarity and the cause of confusion.

K: Is the word different from the fact, from 'what is'? Is the
word 'door' different from the door? The name 'K' is not the
actuality; the (physical) form is not the actuality.

So, we are trying to find out if the word 'fear' is different from the actuality. Does the actuality represent the word and without the word is there the actuality?

S: What is the 'feeling of fear' without the word?

K: Let us go very very slowly. I want to make this perfectly
clear to myself. There is the word 'fear', now is the word 'fear'
different from the actuality, the emotion, the feeling of fear and
without the word is there that feeling?

R: The word (the verbal recognition is part of the process of ?) thought.

K: The word is the medium through which thought expresses
itself. Without words, can thought express itself? Of course it
can; a gesture, a look, a nod of the head, and so on, but only to a very very limited extent. Whenever you want to express something very complicated in thought, the words are necessary. But (psychologically speaking) the word is never the actual state.

A: I raise one difficulty: we perceive with the senses. That
process ends when there is naming. With naming, a number of complicated things begin in my brain. But even if wipe out the name, I have not wiped out the (deeper) feeling.

K: I am not quite sure, Achyutji. Pupulji is asking, what is the
quality of the mind that without the word can hold that feeling
(and contemplate it ?) without any movement(further mental activity).

P: If I may say so, there are many things in our consciousness which arise prior to the word.

K: Can you observe something without the word? (without verbal recognition ?) Can you observe me, the (physical) form, for the moment without the word?

P: Yes.

K: You can. So, you have removed the (psychologially loaded ?) word 'K' and you are observing the form.

P: We are "observing". The moment you say 'I am observing the form',
there has to be naming.

K: Of course, you are observing (in a wider sense). (Now in observing the psychological field suppose ?) there is (a reaction of ?) fear. I want to find out whether (its verbal recognition ?) has created that fear. Ten years ago I was afraid, that fear is registered in my brain associated with
the word. It occurs again today and immediately the recognizing process sets in - the word gives me a (mental association with a similar ?) feeling that I have had before. This (verbal recognition) has stabilized (and given reality to ?) the feeling (and to its 'observer' ?) .

R: Yes. Sustains it.

K: It holds it. Now, I am asking whether without naming it
there can be fear. The word is (part of a wider ?) process of (recording and ?) recognition. How do you 'know' you are afraid?

FW: I have (the memory of having) been afraid before, so I know that feeling. So, as it comes again, I just...recognize it.

K: But if you don't 'recognize' it, what is the state? If there is no recognition, no verbal movement, would that reaction of fear ( be the same ?) ?

P: There is still an emotional disturbance. If I may say so, fear is not such a simple thing that you can say "if there is no naming of it, fear is not"...

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

P: There are profoundly deep fears. Psychologically something happens even before naming takes place. If we would accept your position that only the word creates fear, that means there is no (emotional) content to fear at all.

K: I don't say that. But if that process of (verbal) recognition didn't exist, if that is at all possible, then, what is (involved in the direct observation of ?) fear? If there is no process of registration, recording, which is memory in operation, what is the thing called fear?

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

K: I am attacking it quite differently. You insult me because I
have a ( self- identified ?) 'image' . So, there is an immediate registration ( of the verbal insult and of who uttered it ?) taking place. I am asking: Can the ('personal' component of ?) that registration come to an end when you insult me - so there is no (carrying on of that psychological ?) recording at all?

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

K: It is ( holistically speaking ?) exactly the same thing. The fear arises because I am afraid of ( the consequences of something improperly done in ?) the past. The past (misdeed ?) is registered and (the verbal triggering of the memory of ) that incident in the past awakens the sense of fear. Is it possible to observe the new feeling, whatever it is, without
bringing the (psychological memory of the ?) past into action? Have you got it?

Rad: There is a feeling of (non-verbal) recognition even before you actually call it 'fear'.

K: Look: you insult me (and /or ) I insult you back. What takes place? You register it, don't you?

Rad: I register it and that itself creates (its own ?) momentum.

K: Therefore, can that (psychological ?) 'momentum' stopped?
Let us put it much more simply: you are ( being) hurt from childhood for various reasons and it has been deeply registered in the brain. The
instinctive reaction is not to be hurt any more. So, you "build a wall",
and withdraw (behind it ?) . Now, without building this (psychologically protective) wall, can you be aware that you are hurt, and the next time a process of hurt begins, not 'register' it?

FW: What do you mean by 'registering'?

K: Our brain is (functioning like ?) a tape recorder. It is registering all the time, there is a recording of likes and dislikes, pleasures and pains. I
say something ugly to you and the brain immediately takes charge,
registers it. Now, I say: 'Can you stop that (new) registration, though it
has (previously) registered? And next time if there is any insult, not to register it at all. ? You understand what I am talking about?

FW: That means not to form any 'image' of it right away.

K: No, no. Just don't introduce the (existing self-) image for the moment. That becomes yet more complex. Can you recognize the (insulting ?) word but not register it?
I want to keep it very simple: (a) The brain is registering (sub-consciously all kind of stuff ?) all the time. You call me 'a fool', and that is registered for various reasons. (b) The next question is:
Can that (momentum of 'psychological ?) registration' stop? Otherwise the mind, the brain, has no inner sense of freedom .

P: The brain is a live thing. It has to register. Registration is one
thing, but the cutting of the ('psychological') momentum is the movement away from ( an indiscriminate ?) registration.

K: That is what I am talking about.

P: Does that mean the (momentum of 'psychological time' in the ?) brain cells does come to a stop?

K: If there is no possibility of stopping (the psychological ?) registration, then the brain becomes mechanical.

A: You are oversimplifying the matter. Actually, our state of receiving anything is without our (conscious) knowing that there is a preference or an aversion, and fear is (part of) that cycle. It arises from the past, and is not directly related to what I perceive now. But it is (part of ) that ('observer' entity) which perceives.

K: As long as the brain is (indiscriminately ?) registering (and remembering ?) all the time, it is moving ( within the 'field of the known') from 'knowledge' to 'knowledge'. Now, I am challenging the ('psychological' usage of the naming?) word . I see ( that living in the area of ?) 'knowledge' is limited, fragmented and so on and I am asking
myself whether (the momentum of 'psychological' ?) registration can stop.

GM: Can the brain answer this question?

K: I think it can, in the sense the (open minded ?) brain can become aware of its own registering process.

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

K: That 'cry of millennia' is fear. The brain has also been registering (it) for millennia. Therefore, the human brain has become mechanistic. I say: Can the (momentum of this ?) mechanistic process stop? If it cannot be stopped it (the human brain) becomes merely a (programmable thinking ?) machine, which it is (already ?).
This is all part of the constant ( sub-conscious process of ?) registration throughout millennia.
So, I am asking a "simple" question ( to be meditatively contemplated for homework ?) which has great depth to it, which is: Can it stop? If it cannot stop, man is never free (of his karmic past ?) .

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

K: For safety, security, protection, certainty. The "registration" is
to give the brain a certain (subliminal) sense of ( physical & psychological ?) security.

P: Isn't the ( evolution of the human) brain itself involved? It has evolved through registration.

K: It has evolved through (constantly acquiring, processing and optimising its experience in terms of ?) knowledge, which is (all encapsulated in the generic term ?) "registration".

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

K: Someone comes along and says: "Look, through countless millennia
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 registering, you are (bound to be) living a fragmentary life because (living stuck in the field of your ?) 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 all these explanations, can that registration, can that movement of the past, end? Can this (sub-conscious ?) "movement of millennia" stop?

P: Is this related to the quality of our 'listening'?

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

P: So, that ( quality of inner ?) 'listening' ends, or "silences" this (whole momentum of ?) registration ?

K: That is it. Find out if that (sub-conscious ?) momentum which has
tremendous volume, depth, can end. You know it is a tremendous
flow of energy which is (involved in the self-sustained movement of ?) knowledge. Stop that (psychological activity of ?) knowledge. That is all.

FW: May I ask you a (practical ) question? Can the brain stop it by itself?

K: We are going to find out (or not ?) but first, "listen" to the question.

S: In the whole of "my consciousness", is there only this registration ( & remembering ?) process going on?

K: Of course.

S: Then, what is it left there that can observe that registering?

K: We also know (moments of ?) silence, like the (intervals of ?) silence that is between two noises...

S: Isn't that 'silence' which I experience also registered?

K: Obviously.

S: You can't use the word 'registering' for silence.

K: As long as there is this (self-centred ?) registration process going on, it is mechanical. ( The 1000 $ question is therefore ?) Is there a ( quality of inner ?) "silence" which is non-mechanistic? A silence
which has not been induced, or invented ? Otherwise, the ( self-conscious) 'silence' is merely mechanistic.

S: But one knows this "non-mechanistic silence" sometimes.

K: Not 'sometimes'....

Raj: Sir, is it possible for a non-mechanistic silence to come ( naturally into being ?) ?

K: No, no. I am not interested in that (approach) . I am asking something
entirely different: this momentum, this conditioning, the whole of (our spatio-temporal) consciousness is the ( momentum of the ?) past (and) it is moving (creating its own continuity in 'time' ?) The whole (human) consciousness is (caught in ?) the (momentum of ?) past, registered, remembered, stored up as experience, knowledge, fear, pleasure.
That is the whole "momentum of the past". And somebody ( from a different sphere of Consciousness ?) comes along and says: Listen, can you end that momentum? Otherwise this "momentum" (of man's consciousness ?) , with its (ego-centric ?) 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, ( but rather by the insight that ?) the momentum "is" you. You are not different from the momentum. You don't (seem to ?) realise that you are this vast momentum, this river of tradition, of racial prejudices, the collective drive, the 'individual' assertions. There is no (open ) future if this current is going on. You may call it a 'future', but it is only the same thing modified. There is no (authentic ?) future. I wonder if you see this.

P: The question arises: Can my consciousness with its own content, which is 'darkness'...

K:... end ? Can the brain (put on ?) hold this momentum (of psychological time ?)? If this (perception ) is not another idea, a conclusion, then the brain is directly in contact with ( that inner ?) momentum. And therefore, it (the brain ) can say: 'All
right, I will watch it.' When it is 'watching' it , it is not allowing it to move.
Now, is it the (K ) words you are holding on to, or are you observing this vast movement? You "are" the vast movement. Therefore, ( for homework ?) find out if that thing can end - the (active memory of the ?) past coming, meeting the present, a challenge, a question and
"ending" there. Otherwise, there is no end to 'suffering'. Man has put
up with suffering for thousands upon thousands of years. This "suffering" is the vast (psychological) momentum of man. Can that "momentum" ( of psychological time ?) stop?
If it does not stop, then there is no (authentic individual ?) freedom, then action will always be incomplete. Can you see the whole of that, see it actually?

P: Can we ever see that?

K: ( Back to the experiential 'square one' ?) I call you "a fool". Must you register it ?

P: If these eyes and ears of mine are still and do listen, there is no registration. There is a listening but no (psychological) registration.

K: So, what are you seeing then ?

P: .Obviously, if my listening is directed to the (verbal meaning of the ?) words, I register, and this very movement outward throws it
back. But if the eyes and the ears are seeing and listening, but still,
then they take in without any registration.

K: So, you are saying that if there is a "quietness" in this listening, there is no (need for any psychological ?) registration, but... most of us are not quiet.

P: We can't still answer that (holistic ?) question of yours: Why should one register? The way you put it, you are suggesting we have two alternatives: it is either to register or not to register.

K: No. You are (the brain is?) registering all the time.

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

K: I want to find out whether this vast (psychological ?) "Stream of the Past" can come to a (natural ?) ending. That is all my question.

P: There has to be an (experiential) way to end it.

K: How can it (come to an) end?

P: So, we have to move from that (impossible question ?) to the ( intimate functioning of the ?) brain cells - to the actual (process of ) registration.

K: So, the brain cells are (constantly) 'registering'. Those brain cells have found in that (traditional) momentum their only safety. So, in that momentum, the (traditional ?) brain has found a tremendous (sense of 'psychological & physical') security. Right?

P: Please listen to me. ( The observable fact ?) is only one movement which is, the movement of the 'past', touching the 'present'
and moving on to the 'future'...

K: The (active memory of the ?) past meeting the present, moving on, modifying - we have gone into that. The brain is conditioned to think that as long as that "(time-) stream" exists, it is perfectly safe. Now, how are those same brain cells to be shown that the momentum of the past in which they have (traditinally) found enormous security and well-being is the most 'dangerous' movement? To point out to that brain the (psychological ?) "danger" of (indulging in ?) this 'momentum' is all that matters. The moment it sees the actual danger, it will end it (effortlessly ?) . Do you "see the danger" of this movement? Not
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 (ongoing) 'danger' in it. It has seen it and dropped it. Do you see the danger of a cobra? When you 'see the actual danger', you avoid which is an ( example of spontaneous ?) instant action.

The human brain has been conditioned to "carry on" ( and make the best of whatever comes?) because in that there is (the perfect illusion of a ?) complete safety, in meeting the present, learning from it,
(opportunistically ?) modifying it and moving on. To the (traditional ?) brain, that is the only safe movement it knows, so it is going to remain there (forever after ?) . But the moment the same brain realizes that (psychologically indulging in ?) it is the most dangerous thing, it drops it
because it wants ( a real) security.

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

K: Why, sir? Are you living with the ( verbal) description of the momentum or living with the momentum itself which "is" (an integral part of ?) you? You understand my question ? Is that 'momentum' different from you?

Raj: No, sir.

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

Raj: Yes. But this does not happen very often...

K:Are you aware without any (personal ?) choice that you "are" the momentum, not 'sometimes'? You can't say: I only see the precipice occasionally" !

( To recap:) Fear is not the word, but without its (verbal recognition ?) would that (thought created ?) 'fear' exist?
Its (verbal recognition ?) is (part of ) the registration process. When
a totally new challenge arises, the brain refuses (to face it directly) because it is a new (unpredictible ?) thing; so, it immediately says "it is fear". Now, for the brain to 'hold the momentum' of that (self-protecting recognition process ?) , wait & watch. Give a 'gap' between the ( interfering ?) movement of thought with the actual movement of feeling. This 'gap' (of inner deliberation ?) 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 this.

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

K: Of course, you can 'hold' the feeling of anger, fear, without
the word; just remain with that feeling. Do it.

P: But what do you actually 'do'?

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

P: What is it then?

K: It is no longer the same thing which I have associated with the past
as fear. I would say it is (mental & emotional?) "energy held" without any movement. When ( this unitary ?) energy is held without any movement, there is an (internal ?) "explosion". That (integrated energy ) then gets (qualitatively ?) "transformed".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #68
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


DS: I wonder if we could discuss the question of the psychological 'momentum' (leading to ?) the creation of the 'thinker' and which ultimately produces the identification with the 'thinker'? The fact is that we are faced everyday with this momentum, this movement. Could we examine that?

K: Is there (in us ?) an energy which is endless, without a beginning and without an end? Or is there just an energy which is mechanical which always has a motive? And is there an energy in relationship?

P: Dr Shainberg asked what is the momentum that gives the psychological identification with 'thinker' .

K: Let us keep to that. What is the drive, the force behind all our action? Is it mechanical? Or is there an energy, a force, a drive, a momentum which has no friction? Is that what we are discussing?

DS: Let us stay out of the 'fantasy' realm for a while and
keep to just this "momentum of thought and desire" and its
mechanical nature. What is (behind ?) the momentum of this energy, of
thought, desire and the creation of the 'thinker' (entity) ?

K: You are asking what is the momentum behind desire. I desire
a car. What is behind that desire? We will keep it very simple.
What is the urge, the drive, the force, the energy behind the desire
that says, 'I must have a ( Mercedes coupé?) car'?

DS: Is it that 'you' desire a car or does the car come up as a desire and then creates the 'I'? Is the 'I' created by (this momentum of thought sustained ?) desire?

K: If I didn't actually see the car, didn't feel it, didn't touch it, I
would have no desire for a car. Because I see people driving in a
car, the fun of driving, I desire it.

P: Sir, is it only the object which creates desire?

K: It may be a physical object, or a non-physical object, a belief, an idea, anything.

P: It is desire that keeps the world going. Can we take desire back to its roots?

K: What is the momentum behind any desire? Let us begin with what is behind my being here? I have come here to find out what you are talking
about, what this discussion is about. The desire is to discover
something other than my usual rush of thought. Is that my desire? Now, what is behind the desire that made me come here? Is it my suffering? Is it my pleasure? Is it that I want to learn more? Put all these together, what is it that is behind all that?

DS: To me it is relief from what I am (inwardly stuck with ?) .

P: Which is identical with a sense of (self-) becoming.

K: Becoming? What is behind becoming?

DS: To (inwardly) get somewhere different from where I am ?

K: What is behind that (thought sustained desire) energy that is making you do that? Is it (the expectation of a ?) reward? All our structure of psychological movement is based on reward
punishment to gain one, and to avoid the other. Is that the
basic drive or energy that is making us do so many things? So is
the motive, the drive, the energy derived from these two: to avoid
one and gain the other?

DS: Yes. That is part of it. That is at the level of thought.

K: Not only at the level of thought. If I am hungry, my reward is food. If I do something wrong, my reward is punishment. Reward
and punishment. I think that is (the basic causation behind ?) the ordinary, common drive.

P: Reward and punishment to whom?

K: I have not yet come to that. The problem is, what is
satisfying I call 'reward', that which is not satisfying I call
'punishment'. Now, does the 'physiological' (needs ?)
spill over into the psychological field and does the whole (egotistic ?) cycle begin there? Food is physically necessary. But that same urge (surreptitiously) goes into the 'psychological' , and there it begins a completely different cycle. But it is (basically ?) the same movement.

Singh: Sir, where is all this process going on? Is it in the brain? Where do I find this 'pleasure - pain' need?

K: Both at the biological level and the psychological.

Singh: If it is the brain, then there is definitely something,
which one may say is a 'twilight (zone)' , between pleasure and pain. There are definitely some moments when there is no need to satisfy
hunger and still the desire to be satisfied is there. I may be satisfied
and may still feel hungry.

K: I don't quite follow what you are saying.

Singh: That there are some responses in the brain which are "in between" reward and punishment.

K: You mean there is a gap between reward and punishment?

GM: You mean there is a state which is neither reward nor

Singh: Yes. Where one merges into another.

P: How does this answer the question about the nature of this force which brings (the 'experiencer' or the 'thinker') into being and then keeps it going?

DS: That is the question. Where is (originating) this momentum of reward and punishment?

K: Are you asking, what is it that is pushing one in the direction
of reward and punishment? What is the energy, what is the
momentum, what is the force, what is the volume of energy, that is
making us do this or avoid that? Could it be (a subliminal craving for ?) satisfaction, gratification, which is pleasure?

DS: But then, what is your state of being when you are aware that
there is freedom from hunger?

K: It is very simple, isn't it? There is hunger, food is given, and
you are satisfied. But the same thing (attitude ?) is carried on (by thought into the psychological field ?) and there it is never ending. I seek one satisfaction after another and it is endless. I am (physically not ?) hungry but psychologically there is the feeling of 'emptiness', there is the feeling of (self-) insufficiency. And so (to solve that inner insufficiency ?) I turn to God, to the Church, to gurus.
Physiologically, the insufficiency is satisfied very easily.
Psychologically, it is never satisfied.

Par: At what point does one go from the physiological
fulfilment to the thought process?

K: Sir, it may be that the (mental attitude picked up from the ?) physiological movement has entered into the 'psychological' (field of activity ?) and carries on. Is this so?

P: It is not a matter of choice. It is so from the moment I am born. Both types of "wants" begin. Therefore, I am asking, what is the source of both beginnings, the physiological and psychological? Both are structured in a (psycho-somatic) 'momentum' which then propels. That structure within one, the coming together of a number of
things, is the centre, the 'I'.

K: I don't think it is the 'I'.

P: Why do you say that?

K: I think it is an endless (momentum of personal ) dissatisfaction, the endless insufficiency.

P: Can there be (this sense of ?) insufficiency without the one who feels it?

K: I don't (want to ?) posit the 'I'. There is this continuous (sense of inner ) insufficiency. The more intelligent I am, the more awake I am, the more dissatisfaction there is. Then, what takes place?

S: So, you are implying that there is an ( energy ?) matrix which in its very momentum (for self-fulfilment ?) can act.

K: (For starters ?) I don't know (anything about ?) the matrix. I don't know about the (nature of the ?) 'I'. All that I am pointing out is the one factor that there is physiological insufficiency which has entered into the field of psychological insufficiency and that goes on endlessly.

DS: An endless sense of 'incompletion' ?

K: (Self-) insufficiency. Keep to that word.

A: I suggest at this point that we may cut out the 'physiological'

K: I am purposely insisting on that..It may be from the (over-) flowing
out of that, that we create all this misery.

Par: What do we exactly mean by 'spilling over'? One is a fact, the other is not.

K: Therefore, there is only 'physiological' insufficiency...

P: How can you say that? There is both physiological as well as psychological insufficiency.

K: Look, Pupulji, I feel hungry. It has been satisfied. I feel sexual, that is being satisfied. And then I say: 'That is not good enough, I must have something more.'

P: The desire for 'more' is the momentum, isn't it?

K: No, the 'more' is the brain (constantly ?) seeking satisfaction.

P: Why should the brain seek satisfaction?

K: Because it needs stability; it needs security. Therefore, it
says: ' I thought I had found satisfaction in this but there isn't any. I shall find satisfaction and security in that, and again there isn't any'. And it keeps going on and on. That is so in daily life. I go to one guru after another, or one theory after another, one conclusion after another.

Q: Sir, the very nature of this insufficiency at a physiological
level leads to sufficiency at the meta-physiological level. It leads
from some inadequacy in the physiological machine to the desire for the
completion of it. And this is how the human brain works. If the physiological is ever to continue spilling -over in the psychological field, then this (temporal dynamic ) of "insufficiency and sufficiency" must continue.

K: Must continue? Examine yourself. It is very simple. You are
seeking satisfaction. Everybody is. If you are poor, you want to be
rich. If you see somebody richer than you or somebody more beautiful, you want that and so on and on. We want continuous satisfaction.

A: Sir, I want to draw your attention that between the physiological insufficiency and its recurrence, there is always a gap, whereas where psychological insufficiency is concerned, we begin a (thought -desire ?) cycle in which we do not know any gap.

K: Forget the gap sir. Isn't the whole of the movement the
energy a drive to find gratification reward? Shainberg what do you
say to this?

DS: I think what is coming out of this model of the
physiological reward-punishment scheme is definitely so. I mean
that is the whole way the 'me' functions, whether it is logical or

K: The whole 'momentum of seeking satisfaction' is captured by
the 'I'.

DS: Then it is there that the 'I' becomes manifest (as the entity in control ?)

K: That's it. That is what I mean. "I" am seeking satisfaction, not 'satisfaction is being sought'. Actually it should be the other way: "satisfaction is being sought".

DS: Satisfaction being sought creates the 'I'.

K: So the momentum is the urge to be satisfied.

P: I will ask you a question: isn't the sense of the 'I' inherent in the brain cells which have inherited (some personal experience and ?) knowledge?

K: I question that.

P: I am asking you, sir: listen to the question. The knowledge of
man which is present in the brain cells, which is present in the
depths of the subconsciousness, isn't that 'I' part of the brain?

S: Pupulji, are you then equating the whole of the past with the

P: Of course, the whole of the past. I am asking whether the 'I'
just comes into existence because of this manifestation of seeking
satisfaction. Or, whether that very centre of memory, the matrix of
(self-centred ?) memory, whether that is not the 'I' sense.

K: You are asking, is there the 'I', the 'me' the ego, identifying
itself with the past, as knowledge.

P: Not 'identifying itself'. But 'I' as (the impersonation of all man's ?) past. The 'I' sense is the whole of that.

K: Wait. Does the brain contain the (collective memory of the ?) 'I'? I would say tentatively, investigating, there is no 'I' at all but
only the search for pure satisfaction.

P: Is the whole racial memory of man fictitious?

K: No. But the moment you say "I" am that past, that (self-identification ?) is fictitious.

S: Is the (whole memory of the ) past itself saying that "I am the past", or a part of the past saying that "it" is the past?

K: You see you are raising a question which is (holistically ?) really very interesting: There is the whole past of mankind , millennia of human endeavour, human suffering, human misery, confusion, millions of years. There is only that movement that current, there is only that vast river - not 'I' and the vast river.

P: I would like to put it this way: When this "vast river of the past" comes to the surface (of our consciousness) , it gets (self-) identified as the 'I'.

Chorus: I don't think so.

K: Pupulji, the 'I' may merely be a means of communication.

P: Is it as simple as that?

K: No, I am just stating (a fine holistic point ?) . It is not as simple as that.

S: Sir, at one point you said the manifestation of the stream is
the individual. When this vast stream of sorrow manifests itself as
the individual, is the 'I' present or not?

K: That is not the point. That vast stream (of man's consciousness ?) manifests itself in a human being; the father gives to me a form and then I say 'I', which is the (personal identification with the physical) form, the name, the (cultural ?) environment, but that stream "is" me. There is this vast stream which is obvious.

A: I am saying that we are identifying ourselves with the stream. The (conscious ?) identification is done post facto, whereas it really starts with the momentum.

P: You see, the (holistic) way Krishnaji puts it does not really lead to the (actual) depth of oneself. The depth of oneself says,'I want to become, I will be ('someone') '. That depth (of self-becoming) springs from our whole racial unconscious.

K: Can I ask, why is the 'I' there? Why do you say "I" want ?
There is only want.

P: Still by saying that, you don't eliminate the 'I'.

K: No, you do eliminate that 'I'. But in what manner do you observe this stream (of collective self-interest) ? Do you observe it as an 'I'
observing? Or, is there ( a non-personal) ''observation'' of the stream only?

P: What one does in observing is a different issue. We were
talking of the nature of that energy which brings about the momentum.
Now I am saying the momentum is the very nature and structure of
the 'I' which is caught in (a collective mentality of temporal ?) becoming.

K: I want to question whether the 'I' exists at all. It may be
totally verbal, non-factual. It is only a word that has become
tremendously important, not the fact.

FW: Isn't there an imprint of the 'I' in the brain matter? Isn't
that an actuality?

K: No, I question it.

FW: But the imprint is there. The question is: If it isn't an
actuality, then what is it?

K: The whole momentum, this vast stream is (manifesting itself ?) in the brain. After all, why should there be the 'I' at all in that?

P: Talking of the 'actual', it is there.

K: It is there only verbally (mentally ?) .

DS: It is actually there. In the sense that if you and I are together,
there are two parts to it; my identification with myself is the 'I', is
the relationship with you.

K: Sir, when are you (self-) conscious of the 'I'?

DS: Only in my relationship. When I want something, when I identify myself with something, or... when I look at myself in the mirror.

K: At the moment of (directly) experiencing something, there is no 'I' ( no self-consciousness ?) .

P: All right, at that very moment there is no 'I'. We agree with you. But then the 'I' emerges a second later.

K: How? Look, let's go into it slowly. At the moment of (a real conflict or ?) crisis there is no 'I'. Then, later, comes the (personal ?) thought
which says: 'That was exciting, that was pleasurable,' and that (self-centred ?) thought creates the (self-consciousness of the ?) 'I' which says: 'I have enjoyed it.' Right?

P: So, what has happened there? Is the 'I' (self-consciousness ?) a concentration of energy?

K: No.

P: The (total psychical ?) energy that dissipates?

K: It is the energy that dissipates, yes. It is a (non-personal ?) energy that is being misused.

P: The 'I' itself is a concentration of energy that dissipates. As the body wears out, the (temporal) 'I' has the same nature, it gets old, it gets stale.

K: Pupul, at the moment of crisis, there is no 'I'. Now is there a living at the height of that crisis, all the time? A crisis demands your total energy. Crisis of any kind brings about the influx of all energy. At that second, there is no 'I'. Now, I am asking: 'Is it possible to live at that height all the time?'

DS: Why are you asking that?

K: If you don't live that way, you will have all kinds of other (time-binding ?) activities which will destroy that ( inner sense of wholeness ?) . My point is this: the moment thought comes in, it brings
about a fragmentation of (this total ) energy. Thought itself is fragmentary (specialised & self-centred ?) . So, when thought enters, then it is a dissipation of energy.

DS: Not necessarily...

P: We could say it is so. But still that does not answer the question as to why the 'I' has become so powerful. You have still not answered the question even though at the moment of crisis, the 'I' is not, the whole past is not.

K: That is the (experiential 'chek ?) point'. At the moment of crisis, there is nothing (no self-consciousness )

P: Then why are you saying 'no' to the idea of the 'I' being the (impersonation or ?) mirror of the whole racial past?

K: I am saying 'no' because it may be merely a way of

P: Is the 'I' structure as simple as that?

K: I think it is extraordinarily 'simple'. But what is much more interesting (experientiall) and much more demanding, is that whenever ( the time-binding process of ?) thought comes into being,
then a dissipation of (our total inner ) energy begins.
So, I say to myself: 'Is it possible to live at that height?' The moment the 'I' comes into being, there is dissipation. If you left out the 'I' and I left out the 'I', then we would have right relationship.

FW: You said the moment thought comes in, there is dissipation
of energy. But the moment the 'I' comes in, there is also dissipation
of energy. What is the difference?

K: Thought is (the response of our self-centred) memory, experience, all that.

DS: When you say 'dissipation of energy', I immediately see myself taking up the (righteous ?) position of the 'observer' and say 'that is bad'. What I am suggesting is that you can be "neutrally aware" (and take life as it comes ?) . There is a crisis and a dissipation, a crisis and a dissipation. That is the flow of existence.

K: No.

P: K's point is, there is that, but the "transformation" of which we are
talking about is to negate that (time-binding condition ?)

DS: I question whether there is any such thing as a "breaking out"
of this. I think we remember the intensity of the energy of the
crisis, and then we say I would like to keep it all the time. Do you
do that?

K: No.

DS: Then why ask the question?

K: I am asking that question purposely because thought interferes.

DS: Not all the time.

K: All the time! Question it (for homework ?) , sir.
(In a nutshell:) The moment you have a (real existential ?) crisis, there is no past, nor present, only that moment. There is no (sense of ?) time in that crisis. The moment 'time' comes in, the dissipation (of our total energy) begins.

A: There is the crisis. Then, there is dissipation and then identification.

P: At the moment of such a crisis, many things happen. You talk of a
holistic position at the moment of crisis. But even to come to that, one
has to investigate it very deeply in oneself, in order to know what
this thing is.

K: You see Pupul "holistic" implies a very sane mind and body, a
clear capacity to think, and also it means 'holy', sacred; all that is
implied in that word 'holistic'. Now, I am asking: 'Is there an (inner source of ?) energy which is never dissipated, which you want to draw from?' A 'holistic' way of life is one in which there is no dissipation of energy. A 'non-holistic' way of living is dissipation of energy.

P: What is the relationship of the 'holistic' and the 'non-holistic' to
the brain cells?

K: To be quite clear that we understand the meaning of that word
'holistic'. It means complete, whole, harmony, no disintegration, no
fragmentation. That is the 'holistic' life. That is an endless energy. The
non-holistic life, the fragmented life, is a wastage of energy. When
there is a feeling of the whole, there is no 'I'. The other is the
movement of thought, of the (active memory of the ?) past, of time; that is our daily life, and that way life is (driven by ?) reward and punishment and the continuous search for satisfaction.

P: Sir, the 'holistic' quality is held in the brain cells. That is, it throws up
responses, challenges. The 'non-holistic' (attitude) is also held in the brain cells - the whole stream of the past meeting the present challenge. Now, what relationship has the 'holistic' (way of life) to the brain cells and the senses?

DS: Can I go into that? I think if there were something in what
we were saying, there would be a different relationship of such part
functions in the holistic state. They are not merely part functioning
but functioning as part of the holistic state, whereas in the
dissipation of energy and fragmentation, it begins to function as
isolated centres.

K: Sir, her question is very simple. Our brain cells now contain
the past, memory, experience, knowledge of millennia, and those
brain cells are conditioned to a 'non-holistic' way of living. What takes
place in the brain cells when there is a 'holistic' way? That is her

DS: I would put it differently: 'What takes place in
the relationship to the brain cells in the holistic state of perception?'

K: I am going to answer that question. The holistic brain still
contain the (memory of the ?) past, but can the (experience & knowledge of the ?) past be used 'holistically'? Because it is (feeling ?) whole, it contains (includes) the part, but when there is the operation of the part, there is dissipation of energy.

P: After going through all this, we have come to this fine holistic point.

K: Yes. A marvellous point. Stick to it.

P: What is then its place in the structure of the human brain and mind?

K: We know only the non-holistic way of living, keep to that.
That is the fact, that we live non-holistically, fragmentarily. That is
our actual life and that is a wastage of energy. We see also that
there is contradiction, there is battle. All that is a wastage of
energy. Now, we are asking: 'Is there a way of living which is not
a wastage of energy?'

We live a non-holistic way of life, a fragmentary life, a broken
life. You understand what I mean by broken, saying something,
doing something else, a life that is contradictory, comparative,
imitative, conforming, having (also) moments of (inner peace and ?) silence. It is a fragmentary way of living, a non-holistic way, that is all we know. And somebody says: Is there an (inner quality of ) energy which is not wasted? And with that question let us investigate it to see if it is possible to end this (dissipative) way of living.

P: But I have asked another question, and you have still not
answered it.

K: I am coming to that. That is a very difficult question to
answer which is: one lives a non-holistic life, which is a constant
seepage of energy, a wastage of energy. The brain is conditioned to
that. One sees that actually. Then one asks: Is it possible to live a
life which is not that? Right?

Q: Not always, sir, that is what we are investigating. Whether
that breath of freedom could be a totality.

K: No, it can never be totality, because it comes and goes.
Anything that comes and goes involves (that the dominant process is the self-centred continuity in ?) time. Time involves a fragmentary way of living. Therefore, it is not whole. Look, we live a non-holistic life. The brain is conditioned to (indulge in ?) that.
Occasionally, I may have a 'flair of freedom' but that flair of
freedom is still (occurring ?) within the field of time.
Now, can the human brain that is conditioned to that non-holistic
way of living, can that brain so completely transform itself
that it no longer lives (along) the way of conditioning? That is the

DS: I wonder whether the (average human) brain can ask it.

K: I am asking it. Therefore, if one brain asks it, the other brain
must ask it too.

DS: Could you say anything about how you can ask the
question about what you state without (a subliminal) seeking for further satisfaction?

K: It can be asked because the brain has realized for itself the game it
has been playing. It is asking it, because it says, 'I am seeing through that.' So, it says: 'Is there a way of living which is non-fragmentary,
which is holistic?'

DS: That is what I am having trouble with - where that question
comes from. You say the (average human) brain seeking satisfaction is not holistic. Then, what brain is producing this question?

K: The brain which says: 'I see very clearly the waste of energy'.

P: The very fact of your saying that the brain is 'seeing through'
this whole problem of its (time-binding) fragmentation...

K: the 'ending' of it.

P: Is that holistic?

K: The 'ending' of it, that is holistic.

P: So, the ending is in the very seeing of its fragmentation.

DS: Is that holistic?

K: That is holistic. But she asked a much more complex
question in regard to the 'holistic' brain which still contains the essence of the past. The (impact of that ?) past is nothing, but such a brain can use the (practical experience of the ?) past.

( Re-re-recap:) My concern is with one's life, actual, daily, fragmentary,
'stupid' (way of) life. And I say, 'Can that be transformed?' Not into ( a source of ?) greater satisfaction. But (in the sense of?) can that structure end itself? I say: if you are capable of "observing without the observer", the brain can transform itself. That is (the very purpose of ?) meditation. That (resulting ?) "essence" is the whole. ( But in living a life of inner ?) fragmentation, there is no essence of anything.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #69
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

A K DIALOGUE ON "THE TIMELESS INNER ENERGY" (experientially friendly edited)

P: (For starters ?) could we discuss this chief blockage to self-understanding: the (imponderable ?) factor of self-centred activity?

K: When you talk about 'self-centredness', a 'centre' implies a 'periphery'. Can we say, where there is a centre there is a (self-protective ?) boundary and all action must be within the circle of centre and periphery? That is self-centred activity.

P: What are the 'boundaries' of the self ?

K: As long as there is a centre, there is a periphery, but that boundary (of the self-consciousness ?) can be stretched.

P: Does that mean that there is no limit to this 'stretching'?

K: From the centre 'you' can stretch ( outwardly ) as far as you like, through social service, democratic or electorate dictatorship and tyranny, everything is within that area.

A: The point is, sir, is any action possible which does not nourish this 'centre' ?

K: Or, can there be no (self-identification with the ?) centre?

A: Sir, that cannot be said from our position because we start
with a 'centre'. We can factually say that we know there is
a centre, and every activity nourishes that centre.

K: The point is this: the energy that is expanded within the
circumference and the centre is a limited energy, a 'mechanical'
energy. Do you (realise) , not verbally but actually inside you, that
where there is a centre, there must be a circumference and that any
action that takes place within that area is limited, fragmented and
therefore a wastage of energy?

VA: To realize this self (identification ?) in ourselves would be the first (experiential ) problem.

K: That is the problem, sir. We are selfish entities (dominated by self-interest ?) . We are self-centred human beings, we think about ourselves, our worries, our family - we are (identified with ?) the centre. We can move this centre (of self-interest ) into social work, to political work, but it is still the same centre operating.

P: That is a little more subtle to see, because you can concern
yourself with something in which you feel the centre is not

K: You may think so. But it is 'I' who work for the poor, but I am
still working (from) within this limitation.

P: Sir, I want some clarification. It is not the "work for the poor"
which you are questioning?

K: No. It is the identification of myself with the (work for the ) poor, my
identification with the nation, with God, with some ideal and so on, that is the problem.

Apa: I think the question that Pupulji asked was whether this
(self-centred) movement of the mind with its habits can be 'stilled'? Can this movement of the mind which is exhausted by identification, by a
constant movement, from the centre to the periphery, from the
periphery to the centre, can it be silenced? Is there another (deeper) energy which will silence it or make it irrelevant, make it seem a shadow?

P: It is really like this: we have done (almost ?) everything to understand
(and transcend ?) this self-centred activity. We have observed, we have
meditated, but the 'centre' does not cease, sir.

K: Because we are making an (experiential ?) mistake. We don't
actually see, perceive in our heart and in our mind, that any action
from the centre to the circumference, and then from the circumference to the centre, this (mental ?) movement back and forth is a wastage of energy and must bring sorrow. Everything within that area is (ending up in ?) sorrow. We don't see that.

P: Sir, if it is the (natural survival oriented ?) action of our brain cells to constantly throw out these ripples in which they get caught, which is in a sense self-centred existence, then...

K: No, Pupul, the brain needs two things: security and a sense of permanency.

P: And...both are provided by the 'self' ( but...with mixed results ?) .

K: That is why it has become very important.

Apa: Sir, the brain is a mechanical, a physical entity in its habit
of seeking security or continuance. Now, how do you 'break out' of
its habits, its mechanical operations? That is what Pupulji has been
hinting at.

K: Is there an action, a movement which is not self-centred?

P: We know states, for instance, when it appears as if the self is
not, but then if the seed of self-centred activity is held within the
brain cells, it will repeat itself again. Then I say to myself there
must be another energy, there must be another quality which will
wipe it out.

Apa: Now, sir, what is that energy; is it attention, is it silence, is it exterior, is it interior?

K: Our brain is 'programmed' to function ( in the safe area ?) from the centre to the periphery and from the circumference to the centre, this back-and-forth movement. Is it possible to 'break' that momentum of the
brain cells?

P: Is there an energy which will, without 'my' volition, wipe out
that momentum?

K: Can this (self-centred ) 'momentum' of the brain, which
has been conditioned to it for millennia, can that stop?

Apa: And de-condition itself ?

K: The moment it stops, you have 'broken' it. Now, is there an
energy which is not (part of the ?) self-centred movement, an energy without a motive, without a cause, an energy which without these would be endless?

P: Is it possible to investigate that energy?

K: We are going to. Is there (in us ?) an energy which is not (coming) from the centre, an energy which is without a cause, an energy which is
inexhaustible and therefore non-mechanical ?
(For starters ?) we have already discovered something: that the brain has been conditioned through millennia to move (in the safe area ?) from the centre to the circumference and from the circumference to move to the centre, back and forth, extending it (technologically ?) , limiting it (politically ?) and so on.
So, is there a way of 'ending' that movement? We just now said it ends when the brain ('takes a leisurely break' and ?) stops moving along that direction; but (...) if there is any causation for the stopping, you are back again in the circle. Does that answer you? That is, can the
brain which has been so conditioned for millennia to act from the
centre to the periphery and from the periphery to the centre, can
that movement stop? Now, the next question will be: Is it possible? You follow? I think that is a "wrong" question. When the brain itself sees the necessity of the movement ceasing, it stops. I wonder if I am making myself clear.

Q: Yes. It stops the movement for a while, but then it starts again

K: Sir, the moment you say you want (the inner comfort of ?) it again, you are back in the centre.

Q: Is it because I want to bring about a 'permanent' stopping ?

K: That is ( a subliminal form of ?) greed. If I see the truth of the fact, the moment there is the cessation of this movement (back & forth, within the field of the known ?) , the thing is over. ( However ?) it is not a 'continuous' stoppage. When you want it to be 'continuous', it is another (projection of the 'thought -) time' movement.

Apa: The (insightful ?) 'seeing' then is without movement.

K: Seeing the whole movement of the centre to the
circumference and from the circumference to the centre, that
movement is (the seeing of ) 'what is'.

Apa: But this "seeing" is without any centre.

K: Of course.

Q: So, sir, that seeing is on a different dimension altogether.

K: You "see". There is ( an insighful ?) perception when you are aware without any choice. Just be (non-personally ?) aware of this movement. The 'programme' stops.

Now, Pupul's question is: Is there an (inner source of intelligent ?) energy which is non-mechanical, which has no causation, and therefore an energy that is constantly renewing itself?

VA: That is the "energy of death".

K: What do you mean, sir? Death in the sense of "ending"?

VA: A total ending.

K: You mean a total ending of the periphery ?

VA: Of what I know as 'myself'.

K: Just listen. You said something. The total ending of this
movement from the centre to the circumference, that is ( a psychological form of ?) death, in one sense. Then, is that the energy which is causeless?

VA: It is causeless, sir. It comes, like the blood in the body.

K: But, is that a theory or an actuality?

VA: An actuality.

K: Which means what? That now there is no 'centre' from which you
are acting?

VA: During the period when that energy is there. There is a sense of 'timelessness' at that time.

K: Yes, sir. Then, what takes place?

VA: Then again (the self-centred) thought comes back (and takes control ) .

K: And you are back again (in the safe area ?) from the centre to the periphery ?

VA: One is afraid of that 'particular thing' happening again because it is like a "total death".

K: It has happened without your invitation.

VA: Yes.

K: Now, you are 'inviting it'.

VA: I don't know whether I am inviting it or whether I am afraid of it.

K: Afraid or inviting, whatever it is, it is still within the (self-centred ?) field. That is all.

The other question is what Pupulji raised (in private ?) about an "endless journey". You (actually) want to discuss "kundalini"?

P: Yes, sir.

K: First of all, would you forget everything you have heard about
it? We are entering into a subject which is very serious. Can you start with a completely 'empty slate'?
You have to enquire by really 'not knowing' anything about

Q: We just want to know whether there is such an energy that can
wipe out conditioning.

K: So long as the self-centred activity exists, 'you' (the 'self'-centred consciousness ?) cannot touch it. That is why I object to any (public ?) discussion on kundalini or whatever "that" energy is, because we have not done the "spade work" - we don't live a life of correctness and we just want to add something new to it, while carrying on with our mischief.

VA: Even after awakening kundalini, self-centred activity

K: I question whether the kundalini is awakened. I don't know
what you mean by it.

P: But do you know of such an 'energy' when self-centred activity ends?
We assumed that this is the source of that endless energy (endless journey ?) but it may not be.

K: Are you saying the ending of this movement from the centre
to the circumference and back, the 'complete ending' of it - is (opening the door to ?) the release of 'that' energy which is limitless?

P: I don't say that.

K: I am saying that. So, can we put the 'kundalini energy' in its right place? A number of people ( claim to have had ?) the experience of what they call 'kundalini' (but) I question whether it is the actual reality or some kind of physiological activity which is then attributed to kundalini. You live an 'immoral' life in the sense of a life of vanity, ($$$ and ?) sex, etc. and then you say that your kundalini is awakened. But your daily life, which is (still) a self-centred life, continues.

P: Sir, (traditionally) the awakening of kundalini is linked to certain psychic centres located at certain (chakras) of the body. The first question I would like to ask is whether that is so?
Has the release of this (timeless ?) energy, which has no end, anything to do with these 'psychic' centres ?

A: Before we go into that, sir, I feel that unless the person's heart is cleansed of hate, and his thirst to (dominate and ?) harm is completely transmuted, this energy can do nothing but more mischief.

K: Pupulji is asking about (the validity of ?) the standard acceptance of the power of this energy going through various centres and the releasing of energy and so on.

A: There is in the Indian (spiritual) tradition a word which I think is very valuable: 'adhikar' - which means that the (truth seeker ?) person must cleanse himself sufficiently before he can pose this question to himself.

K: Are you saying that Pupulji's question is not valid unless there is a stoppage of this (mental) movement from the centre to the circumference and from the circumference to the centre ?

A: I think so. The word 'adhikar' used by the Hindus and the word 'sheela' used by the Buddhists really mean the same thing.

P: I take it that when one asks the question, there is a depth of
self-knowing with which one asks. It is not possible to investigate
the self which also releases energy, if one's life has not gone
through a degree of inner balance, otherwise what K says has no
meaning. When one "listens" to Krishnaji, one receives at the depth
to which one has exposed oneself, and therefore I think it is right to
ask the question. Why is this question more dangerous than any
other question? Why is it more 'dangerous 'than inquiring into what
is thought, what is meditation ? To the mind which will comprehend, it will comprehend this and that. To the mind which will not comprehend, it will comprehend neither. the mind which wants to misuse, it will misuse anything.

K: Unless your daily life is completely a non - 'self-centred'
way of living, the 'other' (energy ?) cannot possibly come in ( the mind is 'time bound' ?)

P: Why has this (kudalini) question awakened so many ripples? Most
people go through a great deal of psychic experiences in the
process of self-knowing. One also understands, at least one has
understood because one has listened to Krishnaji, that all psychic
experiences when they arise, have to be (wisely ?) put aside.

K: Is that understood? Psychic experience must be totally put

P: The real problem is to what extent is (the quality of ?) your life totally
changed. I mean the only meaning of 'awakening' is if there is a
totally new way of looking, a new way of living, a new way of

Q: Sir, taking for granted that one is leading a holistic life, is there something like kundalini?

K: Sir, are you living a holistic life?

Q: No.

K: Therefore, don't that question.

P: I was just asking Krishnaji whether there is an energy which,
on awakening completely wipes out the centre.

K: I would put it the other (roundabout ?) way. Unless the self-centred
(mental ?) movement stops, the "other" can't be.

P: it does not seem possible to proceed further with this (kundalini) discussion, may I put another question? What is
the nature of the field which needs to be prepared, to be able to
receive that which is limitless?

K: Are you cultivating the soil of the brain, of the mind, in order
to receive it?

P: I understand your question. I can neither say 'yes' nor 'no'
to it.

K: Then, prepare, work at it. We live an (inner ?) life of contradiction, conflict, misery. I want to find out if it can end (my ?) sorrow, the whole of human sorrow and enquire into the nature of compassion.

S: So, why were you asking this question, "why do you want to cultivate the soil?"

K: As long as you have (personal ?) motive to 'cultivate that soil' in
order to receive that (other ?) energy, you will never receive it.

S: What is our 'motive', sir? It is (to leave our inner) prison. To see the whole prison and ask whether there is any other way out of this, is
it a (personal ?) motive? Then, one gets caught in a vicious circle, in a trap.

K: No, you haven't 'listened'. I live an (inner) life of (endless effort) misery, confusion. That is my basic feeling and can that end? There is no
(need for any ?) 'motive'.

S: Here there is no motive. But you are also asking a further question.

K: No. I don't have further questions, only that first question.
Can that whole process (of 'thought-time' ?) end? Only then can I answer the other questions, which have a tremendous significance.

P: So, you're saying that I am (living inwardly in a state of ?) conflict, I am suffering and I see that a life of conflict and suffering has no end.

K: That is all. If it cannot end, then wanting to awaken the 'other' in order to wipe this out is a 'wrong' process. It is asking an 'outside agency' to come and clear up your (inner) house.
In the process of clearing the ('inner) house' there are a great many things that are going to happen. You will have clairvoyance, the (ESP ?) 'siddhis' and all the rest of it. They will all happen. But if you are getting caught in ( indulging in ?) them, you (obviously) cannot proceed further. If you are not caught in them, the heavens are open to you.

You are asking, Pupul, is there an ('inner) soil' that has to be prepared, not in order to receive 'That' ? Work at that, clean the (inner) house so completely that there isn't the shadow of escape. Then, we can ask, what is the ( "endless journey "?) state we are all talking about.
If you are working at the ending of sorrow, if you are working at that and you come along and say : "Is there something known as kundalini power?" then I am willing to listen.

Is there such an energy which is non-mechanistic, which is endlessly renewing itself? I say there is. Most definitely. But it is not what you call 'kundalini'. The body must be sensitive. If you are working, clearing up the (inner) house, the body becomes very sensitive. The body then has its own (natural) intelligence, therefore becomes extraordinarily sensitive, not to its desires, but it becomes sensitive per se.
There must be a cleansing of this (inner) house all the time. Then Pupul says, 'Can we talk about that energy of which she has had
a glimpse, the feeling of it, an energy that is endless ?'

And K comes along and says 'yes', there is such a thing. There is an energy which is renewing itself all the time, which is not mechanistic,
which has no cause, which has no beginning and therefore no
ending. It is an eternal movement. I say there is. ( But...) what value has it to the (casual ?) listener? Will you go off into that and not clear
up the house?

P: That means, sir, that to the person who enquires ( seriously), it is the ending of suffering which is essential ?

K: The only job. Nothing else. 'It' ( The 'Other' ?) is the most sacred thing, therefore 'you' can't invite it. (And you are all inviting it...)

( For homework:) 'Clearing the house' demands a tremendous (inner) discipline, it demands a tremendous attention. When you give your
complete attention, then you will see a totally different kind of
thing taking place, ( the awakening of ?) an energy in which there is no repetition, and energy that isn't 'coming and going'. It is not as though I have it one day and a month later I don't have it. ( However ?) it implies, keeping the (inner house of one's ?) "mind" completely empty. Can you do that? Then, there is that "energy". You don't even have to ask for it. When there is (this free inner ?) space, it is empty (of self-consciousness ?) and therefore full of energy. So, in cleansing, in ending the 'things of the house', (the 'content' ?) of sorrow, can the mind be completely empty, without any motive, without any desire? When you are keeping the (inner) house clean, other things come naturally (or... not ?) . That is
(the true purpose of ?) Meditation.

P: And the nature of that is the transformation of the human mind.

K: ( In a nutshell :) We are (inwardly) 'programmed' by centuries of ( cultural & environmental ?) conditioning. When there is the stopping of ( this 'self-interest' based programme ?) , there is an ( opportunity of ?) "ending" of it. (If you pull the plug out of the computer, it can't function any more) . When this (cyclic) mental 'movement' from the centre to the periphery (& back) stops, (the thought-projected ?) 'time' stops. When there is no 'movement of selfishness', there is ( the 'awakening' of ?) a totally different kind of (timeless) 'movement'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #70
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

WHY IS YOUR TEACHING SO DIFFICULT TO LIVE ? ( experientially friendly edited)
Renée Weber: My first question is of a general nature and concerns an aspect of your discourse which, one might say, is "all or nothing". Take the example of the 'educator' and the 'educated'. What you seem to say, among other things, is that a teacher who is not totally free from fear, suffering and all human problems can not really be a genuine teacher. The final impression is that there is only one alternative: either one is perfect, or one is good for nothing.

Krishnamurti: I think this is a misunderstanding.

Renée Weber: Let's hope so.

Krishnamurti: If, in order to be able to teach, one must first have attained perfection - no matter what the term is used - and have freed oneself from certain states of mind, then the situation would be impossible, would it not?

Renée Weber: Yes.

Krishnamurti: In this case, the student, the one to whom your teaching is addressed, will feel lost. But can't the educator say, " We both have various forms of conditioning, let's talk about it and see if we can free ourselves from it "? It is thus possible to break the conditioning.

Renée Weber: But don' t you think that the educator should at least understand this process better than the student does?

Krishnamurti: He may have read more about it, have studied a little more.

Renee Weber: But he does not know better than the student how to do it.

Krishnamurti: Thus, through this communication with the pupil, or with himself, the educator realizes that he is both the teacher and the pupil. Rather than learning first and transmit later, the teacher teaches the student and at the same time that he learns from him.

Renée Weber: What you are saying is that he is not an oracle with a peremptory message. If it is open, it teaches and learns at the same time.

Krishnamurti: That's right, an authentic educator does not just say, "I know, and I will tell you what I know. "

Renée Weber: Which means that among other flaws, this person must be devoid of pride, I suppose.

Krishnamurti: These are obvious things. Suppose that I am teaching and that I am full of arrogance, vanity, ambition and all that follows - in short, all the usual stupidities that exist among human beings. Speaking with the student, or someone else, I learn - I learn that I am arrogant and that the student is also arrogant in his own way; We are beginning to discuss it. And a discussion like that, if one is honest and truly ready to self-criticism, to self-awareness, opens up vast prospects.

Renée Weber: In your opinion can this process really work between the teacher and the student even if neither is perfect?

Krishnamurti: If it is possible to establish an authentic relationship in which there is an open and free dialogue is established, oriented towards self-criticism, on the awareness of what we are, a dialogue punctuated by questions, doubts, (self-) questioning , then we both learn to share our points of view, our difficulties. And in this way, if we really (would ?) want to get to the bottom of things, we help ourselves and help each other.

Renee Weber: Let's suppose - even if it does not necessarily reflect my feeling - suppose we say: "But there is a problem, because the student may feel that the teacher knows very little more than he does - and this can undermine his confidence. "

Krishnamurti: I would reply to the student: "Listen, I studied a little more than you. I have studied, for example, various Indian philosophies, Buddhists, I know a little more than you do about it. "

Renée Weber: Exactly. .

Krishnamurti: That does not mean I'm 'extraordinary'.

Renée Weber: So you feel that if the teacher, in all honesty ...

Krishnamurti: His function is to be honest.

Renée Weber: ... honestly explains his strong points and weak points: "I know more than you, but I do not know everything"

Krishnamurti: Suppose, for example, that the topic of discussion is Buddhism, or Aristotle, or Plato - say Plato. You studied the subject more than I did. I have not studied Plato at all, but you did . You say, "I know a little more than you do about this, of course, otherwise I would not be (hired as ?) your teacher. "

Renee Weber: Exactly, otherwise I would not teach, it would not be honest.

Krishnamurti: And I, who have not read Plato, neither Aristotle nor any of these philosophers, would say: "I am willing to study things in depth, not from a specific Buddhist, Platonic or Aristotelian or other point of view, but as a human being in the face of another human being. Let's talk about such questions as: what is life? What is the purpose of existence? Is there justice in this world? Why are we here? " And so on.

Renée Weber: I think that makes it much clearer, because in that case, adults who are both attentive and capable of self-criticism would feel able to teach. Whereas if one must be perfection incarnate, who could be a candidate?

Krishnamurti: But very few people are (willing or ?) able to question themselves, to be honest with themselves, to be aware of the nature of their thoughts , etc. I think we have to be fundamentally honest in all these things.

Renée Weber: How do you explain that some people are capable of doing this, and others do not? ( Inwardly ?) honest people are so rare, you say. Why ?

Krishnamurti: It's a fact (of life): some are serious, some not.

Renée Weber: What qualities do you have to be truly honest with yourself?

Krishnamurti: Not being afraid to discover what you (actually) are, to be able to say simply: this is what I am - I am a bunch of words, a lot of ideas borrowed from others, I am incapable of thinking for myself, I keep quoting others, I depend on the environmental pressures exerted on me, of this and that ... If one is not conscious of oneself, critical of oneself, one ends up being ...

Renée Weber: At least have enough lucidity and courage to say it.

Krishnamurti: I do not like the term "courage".

Renée Weber: Which term would you use?

Krishnamurti: Any really serious man, who really wants to explore this area, feels no fear (for his personal future ?) ; he will say, "Well, if I have to lose my job, I lose it and ( do something else ?) do not talk about it anymore.

Renee Weber: But even outside of any outside sanction, as in the case of work, do you not think that in general, one has the feeling or the fear, if one looks at the opposite, to see the situation worsen, including for oneself, rather than seeing it improve? That is what we fear.

Krishnamurti: There is a fear of (one's ?) increased uncertainty.

Renée Weber: That's it, and that's why ...

Krishnamurti: We have to face this uncertainty, rather than say, "Even greater uncertainty, even more serious problems are on the horizon, so better do nothing "- which in reality amounts to leading a 'meaningless' existence.

Renée Weber: You would probably say that it is a matter of escaping and hiding.

Krishnamurti: Yes, we hide partly.

Renée Weber: Some people might also have the argument - I've heard this before - that this "other thing" is going to disintegrate me and alter my mental health.

Krishnamurti: What you call mental health is perhaps madness. What is happening today in the world is pure madness. If you want to participate in all this madness, go there, take your place among the fools. But suppose you refuse to lose your reason, in which case you say, "Sorry, I refuse to follow this current".

Renée Weber: This raises a second question, which comes up again and again; It is related to the previous but more extensive. What disturbs people, including me, and leaves them perplexed, here as in India, is this state of which you speak, and which seems to be a certain state of integration, of mental equilibrium, whatever the term , You even use that of "light" -; And we are a number to say, "Yes, to have tasted it from time to time, I have a modest notion of this state.

Krishnamurti: Most people say that.

Renée Weber: Exactly. They also say that then this state seems to disappear, to run away, to dilute.

Krishnamurti: It's disappearing.

Renee Weber: You've always said that if this state were ever to disappear, it was because we never had the real experience, because it is not the kind of thing that can appear and then disappear. Could you clarify that? Because this question constantly plunges people into confusion, even into distress.

Krishnamurti: What's the problem? I experienced a great clarity of mind, or the feeling of a fullness, of a holistic existence. This experience may have lasted a day, or a week, but it faded. And I remember it, it left an (emotional ?) imprint, and I would like to find it back. I would like it to be part of my daily existence, or I would like to live it permanently, to make sure that it is always present by my side. The question, therefore, is this: is this state, that 'thing' which occurs so rarely in a man's life, came naturally, (in a leisurely moment) when you had no problems, and so on. - then it came (spontaneously) . And now it is gone, and you are back in your old state of mind, and you'd want it to come back. You want to know if it would not be possible to enjoy it's presence permanently.

Renée Weber: Yes, but in its presence, we feel better to get through, to find intelligent solutions to everything.

Krishnamurti: Yes, you have experienced a state of mind that was born spontaneously, without solicitation; It is when you did not think of yourself that it has arisen.

Renée Weber: Yes, suddenly, we feel 'whole'.

Krishnamurti: It is happening when you are not continually preoccupied with yourself. And then you say: "In that state, I saw everything with great clarity.

Renee Weber: Exactly.

Krishnamurti: No problem was unsolvable, nothing could resist you, hinder you, nothing. So what should I do ?

Renée Weber: Precisely.

Krishnamurti: In fact, the question is this: this state of mind - whatever name we call it - arose when the 'self' (consciousness ?) was absent - that is, when our ego, our personality, our problems, our chaos, our ambitions, greed, etc., were temporarily suspended. It was then that this state arose.

Renee Weber: You said the 'ego' was temporarily suspended. Does that mean he's just gone in the background , he's no longer in front of the stage? Or has it simply dissolved?

Krishnamurti: No, of course not. If it dissolved, the rest would not (continue) .

Renée Weber: That's right; So, in a way, this state was provoked ...

Krishnamurti: No, it has 'happened' . You go down an alley lined with a multitude of trees, and before so much beauty, you suddenly exclaim: "What a sight ! At that moment, the ego, with all its little problems, is no more.

Renée Weber: I see.

Krishnamurti: The "I" (the self-consciousness ?) , with all its pleasures, its joys, and all the rest. But when this state (of Grace ?) ceases, you are back to your old self. The question, then, is whether it is possible to free oneself from the ego and not to ask how it is necessary to regain that state of mind or to live it permanently or to retain it through a meditation system - a practices that only strengthen the (subliminal aspects of the ?) ego.

Renée Weber: All right. But may we return for a moment to that (exceptional) state of mind. In that state I was totally 'present' at ...

Krishnamurti: No, not 'you' - that's out of the question.

Renée Weber: What would you say, in that case?

Krishnamurti: I would say that this (extra-ordinary ?) state of mind has aroused such an (integrated ?) sensation that you could perceive everything very clearly.

Renée Weber: Yes.

Krishnamurti: All your 'problems' - everything was clearly perceived.

Renée Weber: Yes. The usual hindrances, the endless obstacles were no longer there to bar the way, the way was free. But this state, what causes it to be born, and what makes it disappear again?

Krishnamurti: What makes it occur? ( Theoretically ?) it is very simple: when the "I" is not, 'It' is there.

Renée Weber: But what is the 'trigger'? Why is there no more 'ego' suddenly?

Krishnamurti: Because you do not (continue to ?) worry about your problems; You look at these orange trees, you contemplate the beauty of these flowers. And for a second, 'you' (and 'your' problems ?) are no more.

Renée Weber: And the second after, you're back.

Krishnamurti: Then you say, " My God, if only I could recover this state!" Without realizing that it is precisely this demand (for its permanency) that ...

Renée Weber: ... is an obstacle.

Krishnamurti: Not only does it hinder this state, but it also strengthens the 'ego'.

Renée Weber: Because it is from 'me' that the demand comes.

Krishnamurti: Of course. We fall back on the old resistance. That is why I said that in this area you need a great deal of simple humility, honesty, rather than the (egotistic ?) arrogance of knowledge. The two things are incompatible

Renée Weber: But in your opinion, even if we only glimpse of 'this thing', is it useful or not?

Krishnamurti: We have to be very cautious here. What do you mean by 'this thing'? For it is not something 'mysterious', occult, which would be obtained with great efforts of false meditation or other practices of the same kind.

Renée Weber: That's not what I meant; 'this thing' ...

Krishnamurti: I would rather say: 'this state'.

Renee Weber: We can have a glimpse of this state, yes.

Krishnamurti: I say that this state is not something 'mysterious', and that it is by no means necessary to go through a multiplicity of processes.

Renée Weber: I understand, but you have to admit the rarity of this state.

Krishnamurti: But this is because human beings are concerned with themselves ( with their self-interest ?) in various ways.

Renée Weber: Yes, subtly or blatantly.

Krishnamurti: Yes, and the more subtle the way, the more difficult it is to detect it, but it always comes down to the same thing .

Renee Weber: Okay, let's just say that if we see this 'state of being' ...

Krishnamurti: It's not a 'state of being'.

Renée Weber: ... this mode of operation? How would you call it ?

Krishnamurti: A state in which the 'self' (consciousness ?) is absent. The 'ego' signifies time, the ego signifies (a survivalistic ?) evolution, the ego signifies all this (indiscriminate ?) accumulation of memories, problems, and all those terrible ('territorial' ?) things through which the ego manifests itself: power, social status, dependence on others. When all this (temporal consciousness ?) ceases, even for only a second, this "other thing" is ( not ?) . This "other thing" is nothing (really ?) "extraordinary".

Renée Weber: It has nothing exotic or romantic ?

Krishnamurti: Obviously.

Renee Weber: Yes, but the question that keeps coming back, and it reappeared, remember, in India, Madras. All your friends assembled there asked, this question: why is this state, if it manifested itself, only "fluctuating" (coming and going) ? Why is it, for some (like you ?) , part of their everyday life even, while others only occasionally catch a glimpse of it, sporadically?

Krishnamurti: It is very "simple" (to explain verbally ?) . The (mind of the ?) one in whom this state 'remains' is devoid of 'selfishness'. But it seems that this 'state of mind' when the ego is rather disregarded (by the average self-centred mind?)

Renée Weber: What does that (state non-selfishness ?) mean?

Krishnamurti: Not being selfish - with all these complexities.

Renée Weber: You do not necessarily mean that you have to be 'altruistic'? That is not at all what you mean ?

Krishnamurti: Not to strive (inwardly) to become anything.

Renée Weber: All right. But "not being selfish", what does that mean? The (average) man in the street would say, "I'm me, I have to make my own decisions, I have to ..."

Krishnamurti: What does it mean to be "selfish"? This means being interested in oneself through different, more or less coarse, subtle or refined biases, concealing oneself under the generous mask of helping others, or behind the name of a guru. Blatant cases abound, there is nothing to look around.

Renée Weber: I understand. If you start with what you're describing ...

Krishnamurti: It's not a description, it's a reality.

Renée Weber: All right. If you were told: and those who are not 'intellectuals' or 'adepts of meditation', those who are simple people who think very little of themselves ...? But (then...) it does not apply to them either.

Krishnamurti: No, of course. In the first place, the 'faculty' of (self-centred ?) thought is common to all mankind, shared by all. It belongs both to leading scientists and to the poorest, least educated, least sophisticated human being - it is therefore the 'common ground' of all human beings.

Renée Weber: Yes....

Krishnamurti: It is the common ground of all human beings, so it is not my individual thought. Thought is common to us all - you, me, such or such. But we decreed it as 'my' thought.

Renée Weber: Do you feel that it is a collective process that is shared?

Krishnamurti: It is not "collective", but simply shared. I do not have to live it as collective or non-collective, it is so. The sun is shared by all human beings. It's not 'my' sun.

Renée Weber: The situation is analogous for the human thinking?

Krishnamurti: Of course.

Renee Weber: One could retort: "I am the only one who knows my thoughts, and I do not know your thoughts".

Krishnamurti: No, it is the faculty, the process of thought that is involved.

Renée Weber: But the process of thought and its (particular) result are two different things.

Krishnamurti: Obviously. The ( particular ) expression of (our self- centred ?) thought can vary, the scientist will express his in the most scientifically complex way, and the poor villager, the poor uneducated man, will say, "I want that (piece of bread ?) ". But thought is common to us all.

Renée Weber: As a function, yes.

Krishnamurti: And you can express it differently because you have read Plato, unlike me (who did not) . I shall therefore express it in simpler terms.

Renée Weber: But we had not finished talking about the role of selfishness in most people ...

Krishnamurti: So when I say it's 'my' thought and not 'yours', I know that the expression of thought is diverse - okay? You are a Platonist, not me, or you are a Buddhist, not me, and if you are a Christian, you express your thoughts by using a certain ...

Renée Weber: ... system of symbols.

Krishnamurti: ... to symbols, to a jargon, and so on. For you, the Saviour is important, for me it is not, I do not believe in any of this. Your (thinking) expression and mine therefore differ, and we believe that these different expressions confer an 'individuality'...

Renée Weber: I understand.

Krishnamurti: But it does not. Thought is common to all, it belongs neither to 'you' nor to 'me'.

Renee Weber: According to you, then, the essential thing is the activity of thought, which is shared, and not in the (personalised ?) results or the content of thought.

Krishnamurti: That's right.

Renée Weber: While we are focussed on the result and the content.

Krishnamurti: I paint, I'm an artist. My status as an 'artist' makes me feel superior to others, better than others, and so on. I never realize that my (self-centred ?) thinking is the same as yours, because my way of expressing it - on the canvas - is different from yours. It makes me 'feel different'. You do not know how to paint, but I know.
But see the beauty of this (holistic ?) idea that we all share the same sun, the same light. But from the moment I identify myself with my expression as a painter, or with my immense property , then the difference arises. (Self-) identification ( with: name, form, ideas, property, skill... ?) is therefore one of the factors (generating) selfishness. Just as the attachment to 'my opinions'. I (may ?) have an immense faith in Jesus, and I assume that you lack it - in which case I am obviously a "believer", I am distinct (or better ?) from you.

Renée Weber: I see.

Krishnamurti: But you also may believe in something else.

Renee Weber: Let us suppose - this is only an example, that I think that those who believe in something are credulous and stupid, and that my superiority is in believing in nothing.

Krishnamurti: As soon as you identify with your 'superiority', the 'you' enters the scene (and...stays ?) .

Renée Weber: Well, let's say, I'm a modern person , I do not believe in anything.

Krishnamurti: The moment you 'identify' (yourself) with that (image) , it's the same thing. So this 'selfishness' is so extraordinarily skilful in its own way, it can conceal itself behind the most brutal things as well as under the most subtle forms of expression, constantly refining the ego, making it more and more (sophisticately ?) egocentric .

Renée Weber: The most egocentric of all being the 'disinterested' ego. For he is (totally ) deceiving himself.

Krishnamurti: That's right. That is why I said that one needed a deep sense of (inner) humility and honesty, and not to 'double talk' on any subject whatsoever. When one truly wants to live in this way, one leads a scrupulously honest existence, and if one is so honest one is 'naturally aware' while remaining humble. Then ( thinking in terms of 'spiritual ?) evolution' becomes superfluous.

Renée Weber: What is the relationship between self-confidence, or lack of it, and that absolute honesty with respect to oneself?

Krishnamurti: Why should we have 'self-confidence' ?

Renee Weber: Let's say rather: 'having trust in on's own lucidity of conscience'.

Krishnamurti: Why is this 'trust' necessary?

Renée Weber: Can I give you an obvious answer? I believe that those who are not overly egocentric, they are always in uncertainty, in a constantly worry.

Krishnamurti: Most (egocentric ?) people are 'neurotic'.

Renée Weber: I am of your opinion, it is ( a condition) very widespread.
But you don't you have the impression that this ( programatic ?) refusal to protect yourself that you are talking about, that 'disinterested-ness' ...

Krishnamurti: We must understand very clear about what 'disinterestedness' or 'openness' means for us. These words can not be used lightly. We have more or less defined what the nature of the 'ego' is. It creates (its ) 'gods' and venerates its 'gods'. This is yet another form of egocentrism.

Renée Weber: But would you say the same thing about everything man creates: would art then be a form of egocentrism?

Krishnamurti: As soon as I identify (myself) with the form of expression that I have created which I describe as marvelous, or from which I profit, etc., it is a movement of the ego.

Let us therefore live (for a change ?) without identifying ourselves with anything - neither with our experiences, nor with our knowledge, nor with our creations, that their expression passes through the intermediary of the hand or the mind. This is why this "other thing" is so rarely encountered.

Renée Weber: Do you think it's within anyone's reach?

Krishnamurti: I hope so.

Renée Weber: In my opinion, this is undoubtedly a very difficult thing to understand for the majority of people.

Krishnamurti: Because they do not put it into practice.

Renée Weber: Some would like to. But...why don't they do it?

Krishnamurti: No, they do not really want to, they (would rather ?) do what they like. If we really "want to do" something, we (can ?) do it.

Renée Weber: It's a difficult process to follow. In fact, most of those who are seriously interested in these issue

Krishnamurti: But they do not 'really' want to.

Renée Weber: ... yet they spend long years trying .

Krishnamurti: No, you can't 'try' this. It is like a (violent) man trying to be 'non-violent'

RW: But you were saying that they "don't want to"..

K: Of course; they wanted to go to the Moon and they did it. That also requires a great deal of energy, coordination, cooperation, efficiency. Now, if you (would ?) apply all that to yourself and say "Look, I really want this thing- to live a life without any conflict...of course you can 'do it' (for starters on an instant by instant basis ?) .

RW: You see, it sounds "sooooo simple" and people have heard you say that and they have (honestly) 'tried' doesn't happen !

K: You can't 'try' it ! You don't try to put your hand in the fire !

RW: Is it really so similar ?

K: It is ( once you see the danger of 'fire' ?) You realise that this 'selfish' and complex way of living creates problem after problem. When I realise that this 'egotistic) way of living is meaningless and that it's basis is a deep unexplored selfishness and say: Do I really want to live that way ? ( Most people do want to live that way because it is easiest way to 'run with the (winner's ?) pack' )
But if you don't , you say, " Sorry, I don't wantany of that!"

RW: All right, suppose you are at that point, what is your next step ?

K: Then I may be a Professor , or ...a cook, anything I'll carry on ...

RW: But what has changed ?

K: What has changed is my whole way of looking at life.

RW: You're saying that there's not necessarily a change from an external point of view, but it is how I relate myself to everything, there is a (qualitative ?) change in how I view the world. So, what do I do next ?

K: It is not what you 'do' next. It is 'what you don't need to do'

RW: All right, what we don't need to do ?

K: What you don't need to do is not to make an 'effort'. ( Making a psychological ?) effort means (giving continuity to the egotistic ?) achievement. I am out of that current of (self-interest ?)

RW: So, what other stuff can I let go ?

K: Attachment - and that implies a tremendous lot -the implications of it.
To be (inwardly) unattached means to have an extraordinarily quick, subtle mind. Because usually I am (subliminally ?) attached to so many things ...

RW: And they tie up the (inner) energy.

K : Yes, for instance I may get attached to (my) knowledge...

RW: Are you saying that attachment takes the ( inner energy) and constricts it ?

K: No, but that 'attachment' is a (subliminal) form of selfishess .

RW: I put a part of 'me' there ?

K : Not just a part. That 'is' me. Being attached to my family, to my knowledge, my experience , all these are expressions of 'me'

RW: You are really saying that 'I' am (my self consciousness is ? built up of all these things . That this is how the (temporal ?) 'me' comes into being ?

K: Of course, attachment is (creating the ?) 'me'

RW: Yes, so 'attachment' is the first thing to let go.

K: Of course, if ou are un-attached there is freedom, there is no fear...

RW: You make it sound so simple and logical and even so 'simple', yet we agree that it is not easy. So, why is it (experientially) so...difficult ?

K: I wouldn't call it 'easy'. It is complex...

RW: Why it is so difficult to live that way ?

K : With (all due) respect you are putting the question wrongly...
Why is it that people (chose to ?) live this way- wars, problems, conflicts -with all the misery that's going on in the world ?

RW: So, you are turning the quastion around: you are saying that 'this' is the difficult way to live ?

K: This is the most 'impractical' way . So, why do people want to live this way ?
Partly because it's 'traditional'

RW: Yes, we got used to it, so it seems easier...

K: And living that way you don't have to 'think' (about the deeper meaning of existence) . ( On the other hand ?) our minds are so complicated, so 'clever', so cunning...

RW: But still, the 'other' way is it so simple ?

K: No, it's not

RW: So you are basically saying that (the letting go the 'self'-attachments and self -identifying ?) is so...'simple' that we are missing it ?

K: Of course, that's the beginning of ('doing ?) it' !

RW: So that takes years of overcoming our past conditioning ?

K: No.

RW: How can that process be 'simple' ?

K: Conditioning 'is' the (temporal ?) movement of thought. So to be aware of this 'movement' , not to say 'how am I to step out of it ?'

RW: Krishnaji, I would ask you something (point blank). It is a question that comes up often and I ask it with real sincere respect: " Why is it so clear to (this) one person and however hard he tries to explain it and clarify it to others , the others...can't 'do it' ? Are you really saying that it can be done by everybody ?

K: I say: If one can do it, eveybody can (eventually ?) do it .

RW: But that's exactly what is being 'questioned' . If that were so (elementary ?) , woudn't everybody 'do it ' ?

K : Please listen: first of all we are so heavily conditioned . Now, if (on top of this ?) I am also ambitious to become the 'Principal' or become the President of that contry, do you think that I will give that (bird in hand ?) for something that sounds...

RW: vague ?

K: Not 'vague' but very clearly (and uncompromising ) '?. So I prefer to be the 'Principal' or the 'President' (of...whatever I can get ?) .

RW: On the other hand, that will give me a (solid ?) guarantee 'happiness' ?

K: Because here...there's no 'guarantee'.

RW: OK, so I have to let go all that and...'jump into the Unknown'...

K: Ah, no, ( just to see ) that ( the other option?) is 'false'! Therefore, 'Leave it!'

RW: But...with no guarantee.

K Of course !

RW: I agree, that's the wrong model and people are afraid they'll "fall between the cracks " and have nothing... So, you have answered the question really: If people were completely serious about it, they could do it too.

K: It is so 'simple' . It is like a man who says " Look, you don't know how to swim. I'll help you to lean to swim but...If you won't enter the water, if you are (subliminally ?) frightened already, you won't move "
But if he says " I will guarantee that you won't sink...because you've got this or that (swimming certificate ?)... That's why all the 'gurus' (& coaches & Professors ?) make all that money !

RW: You're saying that it is so "simple"... but even the simple farmer who has not cluttered up his intellect with ideals and concepts ...cannot do it either .

K : Of course that he is 'dull' - the opposite of the other ( smarter guys ?)
(In a nutshell) it requires a good mind, it requires a clear perception of ( inner & outer ?) things as they "are"

RW: A good mind which is not cluttered with concepts.

K:( Not to mention that ?) As long as I am comparing myself (with the clever people ?) I am caught in that (self-made ?) trap. Personally I've never compared (myself ?) If there is no feeling of ( self-centred ) comparison. That's a different way of living!

RW: That's very interesting. Thank you very much.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 15 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #71
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


SELF-KNOWLEDGE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE K TEACHING'( text 'experientially -friendly' edited )

P: What is the relationship between your 'teaching' and the actual
process of self-knowing? In all the traditional ways of arriving at truth, the words of the teacher are taken as an indication of a direction,
something to move towards. Are your words of the same nature
and, if so, what is their relationship to the perceptive process of

K: What is the relationship between (K's ) words and
the actuality that he is talking about? Is that it?

P: When K talks about the holistic approach, that is the words. Then there is the actual process of self-knowing ( taking place in ourselves) and what is revealed in this self-knowing. What is the relationship of K's words ( insights ?) to our own self-knowing?

K: I don't quite catch this.

P: For instance, you say there is 'no psychological or spiritual
authority'. We have a tendency to take that verbal expression 'no authority' and try to see whether we can reach a state of 'non-authority'. We take your words for "truth" itself .

K: I understand. ( The statement ) 'No authority' - is it (accepted as ?) an idea and then one pursues that idea? Is it 'self'-revealing, or is it merely a (convenient ?) conclusion, a slogan?

A: There is also another side: does it become a 'commandment' to which one tries the nearest (experiential) approximation?

K: Yes, that's right.

P: That which is revealed (inardly) in the process of self-knowing is not knowable through the words (of another) . One hears you
speak, one takes in what you say, or one reads your books and
applies it to one's daily life; therefore there is a gap ( a 'distance' ?) between self-knowing and your words. Now, where does Truth lie?

K: Neither in the words nor in the self-revealing. It is completely

P: Can we discuss that?

K: I listen to K and he says that without knowing oneself
there is no foundation (for any spiritual endeavour ?) . In what
manner do I 'listen' to that statement? Do I listen to it (intellectually ?) as an ideal, a commandment, a conclusion? Or in my (own process of ) self-knowing, I realize the (damaging) implications of ( accepting any spiritual ?) authority and therefore see that what he
says tallies with what I discover for myself? If I listen to the words
and draw an (intellectual) conclusion about these words as an idea and (try to) pursue the idea, then it is not self-revealing. It is merely a conclusion. But when I am pursuing my own thoughts, then in the (mirror of the ?) words of K is there an (authentic) self-discovery?

P: Now, are the words of K necessary to self-discovery?

K: Suppose I come to a (K) talk or read a book because I am interested in self-knowing and I pursue that. And when I hear K talking about 'no authority', what is the state of my mind when I hear those words? Is it one of accepting it (as a good idea) or (the truth of it ) is it seen as a fact?

P: How does it become a 'fact'? Does it become a fact through
the discovery of that in the perceptive process of self-knowing? Or
is it a fact because you have said so?

K: This microphone is an (objective) fact. It is not because I say it is the microphone.

P: But when you say ' no spiritual authority' it is not a (perceivable) 'fact' in the same sense as this microphone.
K: So, am I clear on that point, that ( in the context of self-knowing ?) the word is never the thing it describes? Or the (verbal) description is 'good enough for me' and I get entangled (or stuck with ?) the description, wanting (to reach ) that state which is described and clinging to the idea?
( However ?) don't reject the verbal structure altogether. We use language to communicate, we use words which we both know. But we both know that the words we use are not the actual feeling which I
have. So the word is not the thing.

D: One talks either through the mental process or one talks
without the mental process. When we listen to you, we know
you are not talking the way we talk.

K: Why do you say that?

D: It is a difficult question, but the source of his words lies much deeper than the words we commnly use.

K: I understand, sir. I can say superficially, 'I love you', or I
can also say 'I really love you' - the words convey the depth of the feeling.

D: I will go a little further. They really convey a deep feeling which is indefinable, which we may call 'love' - but I do not know the exact word for it.

K: You may not know the word, yet I may hold your hand, I may make a gesture. Is that what you are trying to convey, Pupul?

P: One of our (experiential) difficulties, in understanding ourselves and going beyond, is that one takes your words, either the spoken words or the written words, and they become an abstraction to which one approximates.
On the other hand, there is the process of ( introspective ?) self-knowing in which the truth of your words can be revealed; but it does not
normally happen that way. It always seemed to me that 'listening' to
you without ( any intellectual ?) obstacle may bring about a change in the nature of my mind as such, but the discovery of the actuality of the words you use, can only be revealed in the process of self-knowing.

K: What am I to say to that?

P: Sir, I think first of all we should investigate (the nature of this ) self-knowing. We have not done it for a very long time.

K: Let us do that. 'Self-knowing' was being spoken about,
thousands of years ago, by Socrates and by others before him.
Now, how do you 'know yourself'? Do you know yourself from the observation of a thought and from that thought the observation of another thought springing up, to relinquish the first thought and pursue the second (thread of ?) thought and then the third (thread) thought that arises dropping the second, following the third; dropping the third and following the fourth; so that there is a constant alertness and awareness of the movement of thought?

Now, let's proceed (with a simple example) I observe myself being jealous. The instinctual response to jealousy is 'rationalization' (to tackle it rationally ?) . In the process of 'rationalization' I have forgotten, or put aside, jealousy. So 'I' ( the controller ?) am caught in rationalization, in words, in the capacity to examine and then to suppress. Then arises the desire to run away from it. I examine that desire to escape (from the resulting inner conflict ?) . It is an escape into what?

P: Into... 'meditation' ?

K: Of course, that is the easier trick . So, I say, is that (an authentic ?) meditation? It is not meditation, if it is an escape. So, (eventually ?) I go back and examine my jealousy: why am I jealous? because I am attached, because I think I am important and so on. This whole process is ( or... could be a self-?) revelation. Then I come to the ( non-duality "check- ?) point": Is the 'observer' (entity) ,
different from the 'jealousy' which is being observed? Obviously it is not. So true observation is when there is no' observer'.

P: You said, 'Obviously he is not'. Could you go into that ?

K: The 'observer' is the ( all controlling memory of the ?) past; the remembrance, the experience, the knowledge stored up in memory. The past is the 'observer' , the "I" which observes the present (reaction) which is my jealousy. And I use the word 'jealousy' for that feeling because I recognize it as having happened in the past. It is a remembrance of jealousy through the word (naming ?) which is part of the past. So, can one observe (a) without the word and (b) without the observer which is the past? Does the word (jealousy?) bring that feeling or is there feeling without the word? All this is part of self-knowledge.

P: How does one observe without the word?

K: Without the observer, without a remembrance. That is very

P: How does one actually tackle the problem of the 'observer'?

A: May I say that in the watching of the 'observer', there is also
the disapproval or the approval of the 'observer' of himself.

K: That is his conditioning. That is the whole
movement of the past, which is contained in the 'observer'.

A: That condemnation is the barrier (to self-knowing) .

K: That is what Pupul is asking. She says: How do I observe the
observer? What is the process of observing the observer?

Par: In asking such a question, another 'observer' is created.

K: No, the question is, what is the 'observer'? - who is the 'observer'?

P: Does one observe the 'observer'?

K: I am coming to that: you dou do not observe the 'observer'. You only observe 'what is' and the (controlling ?) interference of the observer.
But you said you (should) recognize the 'observer'. See the difference?
There is ( the primary reaction of ?) jealousy. Then the 'observer' (the controlling process ?) comes in and says: 'I have been jealous in the past; I know what that feeling is.' So you cannot observe the 'observer' by itself; there is (an indirect ?) observation of the 'observer' only in its relationship to the 'observed': when the observer arrests the observation, then there is awareness of the observer. One can only observe the 'observer' in (its controlling ?) relation to something.

( To reap:) At the moment of (the actual jealousy ) feeling there is neither the observer nor the observed, there is only that state. Then the
observer comes in and says, '( Aha !) that is jealousy' and he proceeds to
interfere with 'that which is', he rationalizes it, justifies it, or escapes from it. Those (dualistic ?) movements indicate the 'observer' in (its controlling ?) relation to 'that which is'.

FW: At the moment when the observer exists, is there a
possibility of observation of the observer?

K: At the moment of ( a spontaneous reaction of ?) violence there is nothing. There is neither 'you'- the
observer- nor the observed. There is only that state of violence.
Then the 'observer' comes in, which is the ( dualistic ) movement of ( the self-centred process of ) thought.
Thought is the ( response of the ?) past - there is no new thought - and that movement of thought interferes with the present. That interference is the 'observer' and you can study the observer only through its (all controlling ?) interference. It tries (play safe and ?) escape from what is irrational in violence, to justify it and so on, which are all traditional approaches to the present. The traditional approach is the 'observer'.

P: So, therefore, the observer manifests itself only in terms of escaping from the present.

K: Escapes, or rationalizations.

D: Or interference.

K: Any form of (controlling) interference with the present is the action of the 'observer'. (Don't accept this. Tear it to pieces, find out !)

Your experiences, your inclinations and motives, all that is the (controlling activity ?) of the past, which is ( reducing everything in terms of your previous ?) knowledge. So whenever the past interferes with the present; the 'observer' comes into operation. If there is no such interference (in the process of self-knowing ?) there is no observer, there is only (pure) observation without the word, without the recollection and association of the past. There is nothing, only observation.

FW: In that way is the observation of the 'observer' possible?

K: When you see that, when you have an insight into that, then there is no observer, there is only observation. So can I observe the (acceptance of any 'spiritual' ) authority, which is in the demand from another for
enlightenment; the leaning on, the attachment to another, all that is
a form of authority. And is there (any other) 'authority' in operation in my brain, in my mind, in my being? `Authority' may be (one's own ?) experience, knowledge depending on the past - of a vision and so on. Is there a (global) observation of the movement of thought as 'authority'?

P: What is more important? Is it the observation of every movement
of my consciousness, or is it the attempt to discover in my consciousness the truth, the actuality of what you are saying?

S: Can I put it this way? For instance, the observation of a (psychological) hurt is something which I can do as part of self-knowing. But where do I create authority? When Krishnaji says:
'Once you see ( the process of ) hurt it is over,' it is then that I create ( an outside) 'authority'. Then I project a movement towards that state, because I do not want to be caught in the trap of constant observation of hurt. But there are several other active factors in my consciousness. That is where I create authority.

K: I observe the (psychological) hurt and all the consequences of the hurt, how that hurt has come into being and so on. and in my mind I hear K saying, once you see that in its entirety, holistically, then it is over, you will never be (or feel ?) hurt. He has said that.

S: It is there in my consciousness.

K: What is in your consciousness? The words?

S: Apart from the words, the state (of not being hurt ?) which he communicated when he uttered that, because when K is talking, he seems to indicate a 'state' beyond the words.

K: Sunanda, look: I know I am hurt. By listening to
you I see the consequences of all that - the self-withdrawal, the
isolation, the violence, all that I see. Do I see it because you have
pointed it out to me? Or do I see it though you have pointed it out
to me?

S: Obviously the fact is there, you have come into my life and I
have listened to you.

K: Then the question arises; K says once you see it fully,
holistically, then the whole hurt is over. Where is the authority

S: Authority is there because it affirms a state which I would
like to have.

K: Then examine that state which is (spiritual ?) ambition, which is ( a form of ?) desire. ( To recap:) I am hurt. I am aware of the image
that is hurt and the consequences of that hurt - the escape, the
violence, the narrowing of my life, the fear, the isolation, the withdrawal, the anxiety, and all the rest of it. How am I aware of it? Is it because you have pointed it out to me? Or because I see it and I am moving with you? In that there is no authority. I am not separate from what you are saying. That's where the "catch" is.

S: Up to a point there is a movement with you. So long as I am moving with you, there is a ( 'learning') relationship.

K: The moment I break that (learning ?) relationship, then begins my
question: How am I to do it? If I am following (at the same time, same level & with same intensity ?) what you are saying - seeing that the image is hurt and then the ( various ?) escapes, the
violence - I am moving with you. It is like an orchestra, an
orchestra of words, an orchestra of feeling, the whole thing is
moving. As long as I am moving with you, there is no
contradiction. Then K sais "Once you see this as a whole, the
thing is over" - are we still moving together ?

S: This has not happened...

K: I will tell you why. Because you have not 'listened'.

S: You mean to say that I have not listened for twenty years?

K: It doesn't matter. One day is good enough. You have not
listened. You are listening to (K's) words, and you are carrying along
your ( self - centred) reactions. You are not moving with him.
So, (in a nutshell ?) can you 'listen' in the sense of no interpretation,
no examination, no comparison?

R: Or no (personal ?) expectations ?

K: Nothing, just "listening". (If so) it is like two rivers
moving together as one river. But I cannot not listen that way if I want to 'get that'. Therefore I am no longer listening because 'I' want that.
R: Therefore, the question of "how to remain with whatever is ?" is a wrong question - a movement away from remaining with it.

K: Of course.

P: In a moment of ( a major personal ?) crisis there is an intensity of energy and to remain with it totally, the only action is the refusal to move away from it. Or, if sorrow arises and it fills you; what is the action that will enable it to flower without dissipation?

K: Are you filled with that energy which is called 'sorrow'
completely, or is there a part of you, somewhere in you, where
there is a loophole?

R: I think there is always a (dualistic) loophole because there is a (subliminal) fear of anything filling one's whole being. I think that fear is there.

K: So, sorrow has not filled your being. That is a fact. So you (have to) pursue not sorrow but fear. The fear of what might happen, etc. So you go into that, you forget about sorrow and go into that.

D: The use of the word 'holistic' implies actuality. Actuality
itself is the whole.

K: Sir, the meaning of the word 'holistic' means healthy, physically healthy. Then it means sanity, mentally and physically and from that arises "holy". When you have very good health and when the brain
emotionally, intellectually, is "sane" without any quirk, without any
neurotic movement, it is (also) holy. That is the holistic approach. If there is a quirk, an idiosyncrasy, a belief, it is not whole, - so clean it up,
do not talk about holistic. The holistic happens when there is
sanity, health.

S: This is where our (experiential) dilemma comes in. You said: pursue the fragment. But unless one sees the fragment holistically...

K: Do not bother about (seeing it) 'holistically'.

S: Then, how does one observe the fragment? Then, what is the
process involved? Which comes first?

K: I am doing it (by starting from ?) "I do not know". The fact is that I work, live, act in fragments, in myself and I know
nothing about the other.

FW: This brings us to the initial question: What is the meaning
of your words apart from our (academic ?) communication now? In my daily life, to remember what you say about ' never being hurt', has it a
meaning when I am hurt?

K: No, all I know is the fact that I am hurt - because I have a (self-protecting) image about myself. Have I discovered that
"image" by myself or has K told me that the image is hurt? That is
very important to find out. Is it that K's description has created the
( mental representation of this ) image or is it that I know the image exists?

S: One knows that the image exists.

K: All right. If the image exists, I am concerned with (understanding) the image -making mechanism , not how to get rid of the image, not how to look at the image 'holistically'. I know nothing about it.

S: That is very clear. But how does one 'hold the hurt totally'? Isn't that your own statement ?

K: Of course. But throw it out.

S: Then there is no problem because one observes certain
symptoms of being hurt. There is an observation of it and it ends. I do not need K's telling me about it. This I know; to observe something at that level, everything that is arising in consciousness, the observing of it and the subsidence.

A: The discussion started on the very crucial question of ( subliminally accepting the teachings' ?) authority. The point is that if we make an (guiding) 'authority' of what you have said (during all those years ?) , then that is becoming barrier.

K: Obviously. There is something very interesting which comes
out of this. Are you 'learning' and then acting from whatever you have learned, or are you having an 'insight' into it? The traditional learning implies authority: I learn about mathematics, technology and so on and
from that accumulated knowledge I become an engineer and act. Or I just go out into the field, act and learn (as I go) . Both are based on an accumulation of knowledge and acting from knowledge - so your knowledge becomes the authority, whether it is the authority of the doctor, the scientist, the architect, or the guru who says 'I know' - which is his authority. Now, somebody comes along and says: Look, acting (inwardly) according to ( the previously accumulated ?) knowledge is a prison; you will never be free; you can not ascend (spiritually ?) through knowledge. And somebody like K says: "Look
at it differently, look at your actions with insight - not accumulate
knowledge and then act, but insight (is bringing its own instant ) action". In that ( direct approach) there is no ( time & space for any?) authority.

P: Since you have just used this word 'insight'. What is the actual meaning of that word?

K: To have insight into something is to grasp the (truth about that ?) thing instantly; (which implies ?) to listen carefully. You see, you do not (really ?) 'listen', that is my point. In your learning there is an accumulation of information, knowledge and then you act according to that knowledge, skilfully or...less skilfully. So your accumulated knowledge becomes the (conditioning) 'authority' and you will never ascend anywhere through that process; it is mechanical. If you see that, that is (a total) insight. Therefore, you are acting not from knowledge; but by seeing the (time-bining ?) implications of knowledge and authority. Your ( inner & outer ?) action is totally different.

So ( to wrap it up ?) where are we? Self-knowledge and the word of K. If there is a 'movement together' (in 'listening' ?) , then it is very simple. You 'move'.

P: But aren't both the words of K and the movement with these words essential? Can the revelation be without the word?

K: All right. When K says: 'Be a light to yourself ", it does not mean
he become the (ultimate ?) authority (since) K also says: "Nobody can take you there; you can not invite that.You can (passively ?) listen to K endlessly for the next million years and you will not get it." But he says: "Be a light to yourself and see holistically that thing".
( Nevertheless ?) to know oneself is one of the most difficult things because in the observation of myself I ( may ) come to a conclusion about what I am seeing; and the next observation is through that conclusion.
( So, for homework ?) Can one observe the actual (feeling of ) anger without any conclusion, without saying right, wrong, good,
bad? Can one observe it holistically? Self-knowledge is not ( a cummulative) 'knowing' about oneself, but knowing every movement (ongoing activity ?) of (one's self centred ?) thought. Because the 'self'
is the (constantly refreshed and updated ?) image of the 'me.'
So, watch every movement of thought, never letting one thought go
without realizing what it is. Try it. Do it and you will see what
takes place. This gives 'muscle' to the brain.

S: Would you say that in a single ( self-centred ?) thought is the essence of the self?

K: I will say 'yes'. You see, ( the egocentric ?) thought is fear, thought is
pleasure, thought is sorrow. And the "image" that thought has created is 'me'. There is no difference between 'me' and the (self-) image. The 'me' is the image. Now, am I observing this (self-) image which says, 'I want to attain Nirvana,' (which means I am greedy) ?. That is instead of wanting ( fame, power and ?) money, I want the other thing. It is ( a sublimated form of ?) greed. So I examine greed. What is this greed? I want to change 'what is' into the more, the greater. So I say: 'Now why am I doing this?' 'Why do I want ( to trade 'what is' for ?) more?' is it (part of my cultural ?) tradition, is it the 'mechanical' response of the
brain? I want to find out. Now, either I can find it out "with one glance" or (the diligent way ?) "step by step". However, I can observe it with one glance only when I have no (hidden personal ?) motive, for this motive is the distorting (the time-binding ?) factor.

( To recap:) It is most interesting to 'know yourself' because (in) yourself may be (enfolded) the global ( Intelligence of the ?) Universe. I also want to know myself because I see very clearly that if I do not really know myself, whatever I say is corrupt, my action is corrupt action and I do not want to live a corrupt life.
Now, to know myself I ( start from square one and ?) "watch" my relationship to you, to my wife, to my husband. In that watching I see 'myself' reflected in (the mirror of ?) that relationship. ( for instance ?) I want my wife because I want sex; I want her comfort; she looks after my
children; she cooks; I depend on her. So, in (the mirror of ?) my relationship to her, I discover the "pleasure principle", the "attachment principle" and the "comfort principle" and so on. Now, am I observing it without the past, without any conclusion? Is my observation precise? The moment one says "Be a light to yourself", all authority is gone including the authority of the Gita, the gurus, the ashramas. And (also for homework ?) if I am a light to myself, what is my (responsability in my) relationship politically, economically, socially? Then how do I act with regard to the political tyranny, the tyranny of the guru, of the ashramas?

( In a nutshell:) To "be a light to oneself" means being holistic. Anything that is not holistic is corruption. A holistic mind will not deal with corruption.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #72
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


( a reader-friendly edited K dialogue with Pupul Jayakar)

P: Is there in the human mind, in the human brain, a 'within of things? Are there vast, immeasurable spaces that lie in the 'within' of nature?

K: Are you asking whether within the human brain—I would like to use ‘mind’ as separate from ‘brain’—whether there is or there can be a space without end, a movement that is not of time, a movement that is eternal?

P: How do you proceed into this? You started by drawing a distinction between the brain and mind. Would you elaborate?

K: The brain is conditioned. That conditioning is brought about by knowledge, memory, experience. So to discover something new there has to be a (silent interval) even temporarily, when thought is not in movement, when it is in abeyance.

P: The brain is a material thing, it has its own (natural ) activity.

K: Yes, the activity of the 'brain' - of that part of the brain being commonly used- is conditioned by ( the time-binding process of ) thought - which is always limited and conditioned to (accept life as ? conflict. 'Mind' is a totally different dimension ( of our consciousness ?) that has no contact with (this ego-centric ?) thought.
Now, so long as that part of the brain remains in that state, there is no entire communication with the mind. So when there is no functioning of (self-centred) thought, that (intelligent mind ?) can communicate with the brain.

P: So, you are postulating a state (of intelligent consciousness ?) outside the realm of thought?

K: That’s it. That is outside the realm of (matter and ) time

P: As time and thought seem to be the essential core of this problem, perhaps if we could go into the flow of time, we could discover at what instant an ‘interception’ of this movement from the past.

K: The memories of our past (moving through the ) present into the future is a movement of "time & thought". How does one have contact with the fact that "I" am a whole series of memories, which is time—thought?”
P: Let us be more concrete. The thought that I go away this afternoon and I will be leaving you is a fact.

K: It is an actuality.

P: Out of that is born a certain 'nostalgia' of leaving you, which is emotional, psychological, which covers up the (objective) fact. What has to be contacted, surely, is not the fact that I am going away, but the pain of my leaving.

K: Is this (psychological) pain separate from 'you' who feel it?

P: It may not be separate. But how do I intercept it? This 'present' is also not static. The moment you try to see it, it is gone. So what is it that you actually observe?

K: The fact that the 'present' is the whole movement of time and thought. Can one see the truth of that? Can one have insight, perception into the fact, that the "now" is all time and thought?

P: Does that perception emanate from the brain?

K: This perception is an insight that has nothing to do with time and thought.

P: Does it arise within the brain?

K: Is it (arising) within the sphere of the brain, or is there an insight that comes when there is freedom from conditioning? This "insight", this (action of the ?) mind, is supreme intelligence.

P: I don’t follow.

K: The brain is conditioned by (its routine pattens of ?) time and thought. So long as conditioning exists, ( a total ?) insight is not possible. You may have an occasional insight, but this total insight we speak about is the comprehension of totality, a perception of completeness. Right? This insight is not bound by "time & thought" (by the spatio-temporal thinking ?) . That insight is part of that brain which is (open to ?) a different dimension.

P: Without (an inwardly perceprive ?) 'sight' there obviously cannot be any 'insight'. The literal meaning of the word ‘insight’ is the "seeing into".

K: "Seeing" (in the sense of) comprehending the totality, the vastness of something. Such "insight" is possible only with the cessation of "thought and time" ( of the self-centred thinking creating its own continuity in time ?) . ( The controlling activities of ?) "Thought and time" are limited. Therefore in such limitation there cannot be (any major) "insight".

P: Which comes first? I cannot start with 'insight'. I can only start with observation.

K: You can only start by 'seeing' that the 'psychological' ( thinking in terms of ?) time is always limited, and so whatever it does will be limited. The (ego-centric) process of 'time and thought' have brought havoc in the world. You can see that. The question is,: Can that (ego-centric ?) limitation ever end? Or is man to live forever in that condition?

P: What takes place inwardly when you hear an (absolute ?) statement like this: that "time & thought" are limited? ( If one would take it personally) it is like telling me, "Pupul is ( inwardly just ?) a bundle (of memories ?) consisting of the personal & collective ) past, of time and thought.”

K: The self-consciousness is part of the 'psyche', and whatever it does is limited (to the 'spatio-temporal' dimension of reality ?) .

P: And what exactly is wrong with that?

K: Nothing - if you want to live in ( an inner state of ?) perpetual conflict .

P: Then, what is the nature of ending (the psychological time ) you speak about?

K: What is 'ending'?

P: To see that the (thought & time) flow ceases to flow ?

K: Yes, to see that "time & thought" ceases "psychologically"

P: There is a 'point of perception' - in what (dimension of ?) "time-space" do I see it?

K: Look, Pupul, let us be "simple". In the outer world (the ego-centric process of ) "time & thought" has divided the world. Can’t you see the simple fact of that?

P: No, Sir. I don’t see the (inwardness of this ?) fact. If I would see it I would stop "time and thought". If it is such a 'simple' thing—but it is not. It has such devious ways (to create its own continuity in time ?) .

K: Can't you have an insight that the (ego-centric) movement of 'thought and time', at whatever level, in whatever area, is a realm of endless conflict?

P: You can see it clearly in the world (out-there) .

K: If you do see it happening outwardly, then you can also see it inwardly that the ( inner activity of your ?) psyche is (geared to ?) time and thought. In fact, the (inner component of this ?) divisive movement has created the outer divisive facts. ( Eg: ) the (identitary inner) feeling that "I am a Hindu", that I feel secure in belonging to something (greater) this is the factor of division and conflict.

P: All this ( process of time-binding identification) can end. One can see it as a movement of time & thought, but within it all, there is still a sense of ‘I exist.’ That is essentially the problem. Why don’t I see it?

K: Because we have (traditionally) thought of the "psyche" (of the 'Self') as other than the conditioned state. I have thought that deeper down there is something in my (mind or) brain, which is "timeless", and that if I could reach "that" everything would be solved. That is part of my cultural conditioning: I feel that God, the Highest Principle, will protect me.

P: ( If this is true , then ?) what is the nature of the Ground from which a total "insight" springs?

K: (Such an) Insight can only take place when there is freedom from (the psychological process of ?) "time and thought"

P: Then...this looks like an unending process (or...being put on a loop ?) .

K: No, it is not. To (inwardly) 'live in peace' is to flower, to understand the extraordinary world of Peace. ( And such inner ?) Peace cannot be brought about by ( the constant 'movement forward' of ego-centric ?) thought.

P: Is it the (totality of the ) brain that listens to what you say?

K: Yes. Then watch what happens.

P: It is quiet. It is not rattling, it is quiet.

K: So, when it is "quiet and listens", then there is insight. I don’t have to explain in ten different ways the limitations of thought.

P: Is there anything further?

K: Oh, yes, there is. The present is the (timeless ?) ‘now.’ In that the whole movement of time-thought, the whole structure of time-thought ends. The ‘now’ then has a totally different meaning.
(The psychological dimension of ) Now is (being as ?) 'nothing.’ (An inner sense of) ‘nothing-ness' (which) contains everything.
But we are (traditionally ) afraid of "being nothing"

P: When you say this (sense of inner emptiness or ?) "no-thingness" contains everything, does it mean the whole racial environmental—nature—cosmos?

K; Yes, yes. Do you see the fact that (deep down ?) there is nothing? The 'self'- consciousness is a bundle of memories; memories that are ( constantly refreshed but technically ?) 'dead'. They function, but they arise from (the memory of ) a past that is over. If one has an insight into that ('time' creating process ?) it ends. Then I see that in the ‘now’ there is ‘no-thing.’

P: So, it is possible to 'listen' only when the mind itself is totally still...

K: We won’t speak of the "mind", but when the brain is absolutely quiet, therefore there is no (mental reverberations ?) sound made by the words. This is real listening. The words only (inform ) you of what I want to convey. It is very interesting to enquire into sound. Pure sound can only exist when there is inner space and silence. Otherwise it is just 'noise'.

Can we come back to our initial question? All our education, knowledge, is a movement in ( personal and collective ?) becoming, psychologically as well as outwardly. So long as that movement exists (inwardly) , there is fear of ('not becoming' anything or ?) being 'as nothing'. But when one sees the illusion of becoming, that (self-) becoming is an endless ( karmic chain of ) time, thought, and conflict, there is an (inner opportunity of inwardly) "ending" that. An ending of the movement of the psyche which is time-thought. The ending of that is to "be nothing".
( This inward being as) ‘no-thing’ then contains the whole (Compassionate Intelligence of the ?) Universe. After all, Pupulji, ‘no-thing’ means the entire world of compassion. Compassion is ‘no-thing,( not a material thing ?) ’ and therefore that ‘No-thingness’ is the Supreme Intelligence.

(But we are genetically & culturally ?) conditioned to be frightened of "being nothing". Do I see that ( psychologically speaking ?) I am nothing but a "walking illusion", nothing but "dead" memories? So can I be free of this (self-recycling process of ) memory as "time-thought" and see the fact that as long as there is this movement of (self-centred) becoming, there must be an endless (self-destructive accumulation of) conflict, pain?
( The ww celebrated ?) astrophysicists are trying to understand the Universe. They can only understand in terms of the (measurements of ) material world, in terms of their (highly knowledgeable ?) limitations. But they cannot understand the (inner ?) immensity of it; immensity as a part of the human being; not only 'out-there', but 'in-here' —“which means (that in terms of such inner experience ?) there must be no shadow of "time & thought". That is ( the very purpose of a ?) real meditation. That is what "Sunya" ( the "Inner Void" ?) means in Sanskrit.
We offer a hundred ( psychological ?) 'commentaries', but the actual fact is, that (inwardly) we are ‘nothing’ except a lot of ( nice sounding ?) words. Can one grasp (the metaphysical concept ?) that in ( this inner dimension of being as ?) ‘no-thing,’ all the ( Consciousness of the ?) World exists.

( Back to our "real" ?) life, when "I" suffer or there is ( a dark cloud of ?) fear, it is the only thing "I" know. But I don’t see that they are all petty little things. So, if you could put it into your own words, what is your response. What is the perfume of all this?

P: Anything I say would sound totally inadequate. Because as you were speaking, there was immensity...

K: Yes. I could feel the tension of that. it temporary? Is it for a moment, then gone?

P: No. One has moved away from that, but the one thing one realizes is that the most difficult thing in the world is to be totally simple.

K: Yes. If one were really simple (inwardly) , from that one could understand the whole complexity of life. But we have trained our brains to see the (ever increasing) complexity, and try to find an (optimising) answer to the complexity. But we don’t see the extraordinary 'simplicity' of inner facts.

P: But after all, in the Indian tradition the Buddha also said man must deny the whole thing.

K: Why have they not pursued that? Not by denying the ( real ?) world, but by the total negation of the ‘me.’

P: The true 'renunciation' is the negation of the ‘me' ; basically, renunciation is never in the outer.

K: Renunciation is in the within. But I think we are caught in a net of (nice sounding ?) words, we do not live in 'actualities'. I suffer, and the way to end that is not to escape into illusion. Why have human beings not faced this (inner) fact and changed the fact? Is it because we are ( safely indulging in ?) ideas, ideals—unrealities? ( Inwardly) We are the "living history of mankind". Mankind is 'me', and the ‘me’ is endless sorrow. And so if you want to end sorrow there has to be an ending of the ‘me.’

P: This is really what you mean by "the ending of time", isn’t it?

K: Yes. The ending of "time-thought", that is, to listen without sound. To listen to the Universe without sound.

A doctor in New York said the fundamental issue is whether the brain cells, which have been conditioned for centuries, could bring about a mutation? I said it is possible only through 'listening'. But no one is willing to listen in its entirety. If man really said, ‘I must live peacefully,’ then ( for him ?) there is (an instant ?) peace in the world. But he doesn’t ( really ?) want to live in peace. He is ( enjoying the wordly rewards of being ?) ambitious, arrogant, petty. So we have reduced the vastness of all this to some petty reactions. Do you realize that, Pupul? We have such petty lives—from the highest to lowest...

( In a nutshell ?) You tell me 'time and thought' (the 'ego-centric' process of becoming ?) are the whole inner movement of man’s life. You have communicated a simple 'fact'. Can I listen to it without the sound of the words? Then I have captured the depths of that statement, and I can’t lose it. I have listened to it in its entirety. It has conveyed the fact that "it is so" and what is so, is absolute(ly true) always.
( For further home work ?) in the Hebraic tradition it is only the "Nameless One" who can say ‘I Am !’ that is (pretty similar with ) the "Tat Tvam Asi" ( "You are That !" ) in Sanskrit.”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Apr 2017 #73
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


THE FACTORS OF INNER DETERIORATION ('experientially friendly' edited )

P: Could we discuss the problems of (our inner) deterioration? Why is it that the mechanism of the brain has an inbuilt tendency to deteriorate with age, an ebbing away of energy? At the end of life, there is the death of the body and the death of the brain. If, as you often said, the brain cells contain ( the temporal ?) consciousness, then, is it not inevitable that the cells of the human the brain, will also deteriorate?

K: Is it a deterioration of ( our total ) energy or a deterioration of the brain cells in their capacity to produce energy? Let us first put the question clearly.

B: When we say that the brain deteriorates, the assumption is
that the brain was very alive at some stage and then it stats going downhill , but one of the problems of existence is the ( constant) mediocrity of the ( self-centred human ) mind.

K: The question is: Why does the brain not keep its quality of
sharpness, clarity, deep energy? As it gets older, it seems to
deteriorate. This ( starts to) happen even at the age of twenty. It is already held in a groove and gradually peters out. You can see that certain minds, even though they are quite young, have already lost this quality of swiftness. They are getting caught in a groove and the deterioration has already begun.

S: Is it that we are born with a certain ( aging ?) conditioning? Is that the
determining factor?

K: Is it a matter of (genetically programmed ?) conditioning and the 'breaking through' of that conditioning which frees energy and therefore enables the mind to go on indefinitely; or has the deterioration to do with a mind that functions in 'decisions'?

S: What do you mean by 'functioning in decisions'?

K: A mind that operates through ( personal ?) choice and will. When one's decisions are not based on (inner) clarity, not on the observation of the total field (of existence) , but according to (the personal) satisfaction and enjoyment, which are fragments of that field. And one continues to live in that fragmentation. That is one of the factors of deterioration. (Eg:) My choice to become a (highly paid ?) 'scientist' may be based on the family influence, or my own desire to achieve success in a certain direction. These many considerations being about the choice of a particular profession, and that choice and the actions resulting from that choice, is one of the factors of ( inner) deterioration. The brain cells do not function totally but only in one direction.
The whole brain is not ( awake & ?) active, and I think that is the factor of deterioration. I have observed for these many years that a ( specialised ?) mind that has followed a certain course of action disregarding the totality of human action, deteriorates.

P: Let us explore that. The brain cells themselves have an
inbuilt sense of time, sense of memory, instinct. They operate as
reflexes... and we know no other way.

K: We are trying to find out what are the factors of
deterioration. When we see what the factors are, perhaps we may
get to 'seeing the totality' .

P: One can think of twenty factors - like conflict, for instance.

K: Let us not take too many. A pursuit which has the motive of self- fulfilment or the desire to achieve, that action must create conflict. So, conflict is perhaps the major factor of deterioration. ( Eg:) If I decide to be a bachelor because I think that to attain God, Truth, Enlightenment, I must remain celibate. That decision obviously brings about a conflict in
me, a sexual conflict, a conflict in keeping away from ( worldly ?) people, and so on. (In a nutshell:) ( self-centred ?) 'choice' and
'will' are factors of (inner) deterioration.

P: And yet they are the two instruments of action we have.

K: That's right. All our life is based on these two factors: ( personal) choice and the ( calculated ?) action of will in the pursuit of satisfaction.

Now, if you see that, then the question is, Is there an
action which does not have in it these two principles?

P: But how about the other factors - like our inherited (conditioning) ?

K: If I have inherited a dull, stupid mind, I can go to various temples and churches but my brain cells themselves have been affected.

P: Then there are the shocks...the action of life itself.

K: Why should life itself produce a shock?

P: It happens (even to the best of us ?)

K: Are you using the word 'shock' psychologically or physically?

P: It is a physical shock, it is neurological shock, the coming
into actual contact with the fact of something which ends.

K: All right. Let us take "shock" - the physical, psychological, emotional
shock of suddenly losing something, losing somebody, the shock
of being alone, the shock of something that has suddenly come to
an end. The brain cells receive this shock. Now is that shock a factor of deterioration?

S: No, but the way we respond to the shock is.

K: My brother is dead. It is a tremendous shock because we have lived together, played together. The shock of it does paralyse the mind for the time being. How the mind comes out of it is the important factor. Does it come out with a wound , or does it come out without a single hurt?

S: I may not know it consciously - I may say verbally that I have worked it out. But how do I know that there is not a trace of hurt?

D: Could it be that in the case of such a shock there is an ending of the ( safe continuity ?) patterns of my mind and the very seeing of that is the ending of it?

K: That is all implied. Now, I am asking whether that shock has left a (psychological ?) mark or hurt, or not. If it has not , then the mind comes out of it totally refreshed, totally new.
But if it has (marked by that incident, or ?) brutalized, then that is a factor of deterioration.

P: If it is hurt deeply, profoundly, does it mean that there is no
hope and it is all over? Or is there a way of wiping away?

K: We are going to go into that, Pupulji. The shock is (authentic) because I have suddenly been 'thrown out on the street', metaphorically
speaking. Neurologically, psychologically, inwardly, outwardly,
the whole situation has changed. How does the mind come out of this?
That is the (immediate ?) question. But are the hurts (of the past) so profound that the conscious mind cannot possibly know them at a given
moment and, therefore, they will keep on repeating, repeating (their sublimated ?) memory ? All that is ( an unconscious ?) wastage of energy. So, how does the ( conscious ?) mind find out whether it is deeply hurt?

P: The depths of the unconscious are ( eventually ) 'thrown up'.

K: What is being thrown up?

P: Pain ?

K: Pain, of which you have not been aware and the (latest ?) shock reveals the ( memory of that forgotten ?) pain. Now, was the cause of pain there?

P: The cause of pain was there. The shock comes and makes me aware of that pain.

K: ( The memory of that ?) is one of the factors. My brother is dead,
that is absolutely final. I cannot bring him back. The whole world faces
this problem, not you and I alone, everybody faces this problem.
There is a shock. That shock is (awakening ?) the deeper hurts. Wasn't the cause of the hurt there even before the hurt and the shock has only 'revealed' it? (For instance ?) I have never faced the sense of ( my isolative ) loneliness which is one of the factors of hurt.

Now, can't I look at that 'loneliness' before the shock comes,? Can I,
before the shock comes, go into this question of (my psychological) dependency, or whatever are the causes of hurt, so that when the next
shock (the next challenge of life ?) comes I have no hurt.

M: What makes you prepare yourself?

K: I don't 'prepare' (for that) . I watch life. I watch what are the
implications of attachment, or of the cultivation of
independence: dependence causes pain, but to cultivate 'independence' (the inner invulnerability ?) may also bring pain. So, I watch
myself, I watch and see that dependence of any kind must
inevitably bring about deep hurt. So, when the shock comes, the (psychological) cause for ( being) hurt is not there anymore.
Then, a totally different thing ( may ?) take place.

P: Sir, all these (obvious ) things one has done (for homework) . One has observed, one has gone into the problems of attachment. But a major shock seems to touch the depths of my being which I have
never been able to touch before, to which I have had no access.

K: If you have (really) went through loneliness, attachment, fear, then what takes place? When shock comes, the shock of ( someone's ) death, what takes place? Are you getting hurt?

P: That's what I would like to enlarge upon. It seems to bring
out all the pains I have had before.

K: Which means what? You have not resolved the pain of ( your self-isolating) loneliness. I am taking that as an example.

P: Is it a matter of "resolving" the pain of attachment or is it a complete comprehension of whatever "is", an awakening to the total process of pain?

K: We will use the ( generic term) 'suffering' to cover the inner sense loneliness, attachment, dependence, conflict. We (will also include in it ) the hidden and the observable totality of human suffering - the pain of a villager, the pain and sorrow of a woman who has lost her husband, the sorrow of the man living always in poverty; and also the ( aggressive & arrogant ?) pain of a man who is ambitious, frustrated - all that is "suffering" - and the shock brings up (exposes ?) all that pain, not only yours, to the surface.

Then, what takes place? I don't know how to deal with (the inner darkness of ?) it. I cry, I pray, I do everything, trying to get out
of this torture of pain. Why should ( you wait for ) the shock to reveal all this?

P: Because the deeper roots of pain have never been (exposed and ?) revealed ?

K: Seeing that beggar on the road, or the villager endlessly working in sorrow, why has that not touched the human mind? Why should ( only a personal ?) shock touch it?

P: Is there a 'why'?

K: Why doesn't the seeing of that beggar move me and the whole of society? Why do I cry only when my ( own brother or ?) son dies?
I saw a monk in Rome. I cried to see the pain of someone tied to a 'post' called (organised ?) religion. We don't cry there but we cry here. Why? There is a 'why', obviously: because we are (inwardly) insensitive.

B: Our ( deeper ?) mind is ( safely ?) asleep (in its daily routines ?). The shock wakes it up.

K: That's it. The shock wakes it up and we are awakened to
pain, which is "our" (collective burden of ?) pain: we were not awakened to that pain before.

P: No, sir, when you make a statement like that, I am awakened
to pain and it is not a question of my pain...

K: Now, what do you 'do' with this pain? What takes place?
I felt (this) pain when I saw that beggar. When I saw that monk, I cried. When I saw that villager, I was tortured. When I saw the rich man, I said, 'My God, look !' The whole suffering of man is also (involved) the
pain of my losing my brother. So what do you do with this pain? What shall I do with it?

P: I am in a position of "stand still"...

K: You 'are' (not separated from ?) that pain. It is "your baby" ; I am
the pain of the villager, the pain of the beggar, the pain
of that man who is rich who goes through ( his expensive ?) agonies, the monk and all the rest of it. I "am" that pain. What shall I do?

B: Is there not a transformation of this pain into "wakefulness"?

K: That is what I want to find out.

B: When there is an unintelligent operation of the brain,
suffering may wake it up. Apparently, it is (indulging in ?) a very unintelligent operation.

K: What shall I do with it?

M: The (compassionate) understanding by which the beggar's pain and another's pain becomes your own pain is unavailable to us. Not everybody can see the beggar's pain as his own pain.

K: I am not concerned whether everybody sees it or not. Many people do not see (such) things. You heard that beggar singing last night. It was a terrible thing. The fact is there - the pain, the suffering. What will you do? (...)

( A brief recap:) You asked what are the factors of deterioration of the brain cells and the mind. We said one of the major factors is 'conflict'.
Another factor is hurt, pain. And what are the other factors? - fear,
conflict, suffering, and the pursuit of pleasure (whether you ) call it God, social service, work for the country. So, all these are the factors of
deterioration. Unless the mind solves this (whole bunch ?) , its action will produce more suffering, more pain.

P: Or...the deterioration will be accelerated.

K: That's an obvious fact. What shall the human mind do?

SWS: By asking this, the mind tries to become something other
than what it is.

K: If it is (caught ?) in pain, how can it act?

S: How can it become something else? Becoming is another
factor of deterioration. Becoming is a factor because in it, there is
conflict. I want to 'be something (else)'; therefore, becoming is the
avoidance of pain, therefore conflict. So, what shall I do? I have
tried village work, I have tried social work, cinemas, sex, and yet
pain remains. What shall I do?

Q: There must be some way to let that pain go ?

K: All you are (subliminally ?) concerned with is to 'make it go'. Why should it go? There is no way out, is that it?

SWS: have to live with it.

K: How do you live with something which is ( the inner darkness of ?)
sorrow? How do you live with it?

Rad: When I stop 'doing' anything about it.

K: Are you 'doing' it or are you just saying it as a theory? What
is the mind to do with this 'everlasting battle' that brings about the deterioration of the brain cells?

B: One should try to watch it ?

K: Watch what, sir? Is my suffering different from the watcher? Is it?
( Silent chorus: No !) So, what takes place when the observer 'is' the ( sorrow ?) observed?

M: We cannot say just : "I am pain, I have to live with pain". This is endless (& hopeless ?) . We must cease to suffer. Now, what is the secret of it? You tell us.

K: It is absurd to say that we must endure this pain. On the contrary, knowing that (this 'invisible' inner ?) pain is one of the major factors of deterioration, how does it come to an end? Sir, at the ending of pain, the mind becomes extraordinarily (com)passionate; it is not just a dull, painless mind. You want the secret of it?

M: Do you know the secret?

K: I will tell you. Let us approach it in a different (roundabout ?) way. Is it possible for a mind never to be hurt? ( Our standardising) "education" hurts us, the family hurts us, society hurts us. How can an (intelligent human ?) mind, living in a world in which there is ( a lot of opportunity for being) hurt, never be hurt?' I am showing you the (experiential ?) "secret": What takes place when the observer 'is' the observed ?

SWS: There should be a (pure) observation without the centre ?

K: (Such) observation without the 'centre' (of self-interest ?) means there is only that thing which you call 'pain'. There is no (self-conscious ?) 'entity' that says "I must go beyond that pain".
When there is no "observer", is there pain? It is the 'observer'
that gets hurt. It is the centre that gets flattered. It is this 'centre' that
says 'I know this pain'. So, can you (mindfully ?) observe this thing called 'pain' without the (controlling interference of the ?) observer? It is not a (mental ?) vacuum. What takes place?

M: The feeling (of personal pain ?) changes ?

K: Sir, this is a (notoriously ?) difficult thing because we are always looking at pain from the (safe bubble of the ?) 'centre' who says: 'I must do something about that pain' , but when the centre 'is' pain, what is
there to be done?

The word Compassion means 'passion for all ' and how does that come? When suffering is not (around?) , the 'Other' is. Does this mean
anything to you? How can a mind that suffers know (the intelligence of) Compassion?

M: So...the knowledge that there is pain is ( sublimated into )compassion ?

K: Forgive me. I never said 'become compassionate'. We are
seeing the ( global inner ?) fact, the 'what is', which is "suffering". That is an absolute (inner) fact. ( Consciously or not ?) I "suffer" and my mind is doing everything it can to 'run away' (or to get rid of?)
from it. When it (does realises it and ?) does not 'run away', then it "observes". Then if the observer (observes) very very closely, that it is (not separated from) the (feeling of sorrow) observed, and that
very (vital energy of ?) pain is transformed into 'passion', which is ( then becoming ?) Compassion.
So, don't ( bother to ?) 'escape' from ( that energy of ?) suffering, which
does not mean you become 'morbid'. Live with it. You do live with ( the subliminal pursuit of ?) pleasure, don't you? Why don't you live with suffering completely?

Can you ( for homework:) "live with it" (mindfully ?) in the sense of not escaping from it? What takes place then ? The mind is (naturally becoming ?) very clear, very sharp. The ( inner energy caught in ?) suffering being transformed into "passion" is something enormously (significant?) From that arises an (innocent) mind that can never be
hurt. Full stop. That is the ( experiential "K ?) secret".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 #74
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

What Is Meditation?

K in dialogue with Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche ( 'very precious') Tibetan Buddhist

Krishnamurti: You know, sir, in all the organized religions, with their dogmas, beliefs, traditions, the person and the personal experience have played a great part. The person has become extraordinarily important, not the teachings, their reality, but the person. Human beings throughout the world have emphasized the 'personality' of the teacher. The (image of that) person represents to them tradition, authority, a (safe) way of life, through him they hope to attain or reach enlightenment or heaven or whatever. And most people seek personal expenence and that in itself has very little validity, because it may be merely a projection of one's own intentions, fears and hopes. So the 'personal' experience has very little validity in (serious ?) religious matters. It has really no value at all where Truth is concerned

Now, to negate the 'personal' (aspects of the ?) experience is to negate the 'me', because the 'me' is the very essence of all experience, which is the past; and when religious people go on missions or come over to the West from India or elsewhere, they are really doing propaganda and that has no value with regard to truth, because then it becomes a (convenient commercial ?) lie.

So if one puts aside completely all the experiences of human beings and their systems, their practices, their rituals, their dogmas, their concepts - that is, if one can actually 'do it', not theoretically but actually wipe it all out - then what is the quality of the mind that is no longer held in the matrix of (the desire to ?) experience? Because truth is not something 'you' experience, truth is not something towards which you gradually progress; you don't come to it through infinite days of practice, sacrifice, control, discipline. What you have then in the ‘personal experience' is the division between the “me', the person, and the 'thing' that you experience, and though you may try to identify yourself with that experience, with that thing, there is still (a subliminal?) division.

Seeing all this, how the organized religions have really destroyed ( the living spirit of ?) truth, giving human beings some absurd myths to make them behave, if one can put aff that aside, what place has meditation in all this? What place has a guide, a guru, a saviour, a priest?

Recently I saw somebody from India preaching 'transcendental meditation'; you attend his class and practise every day and the idea is you will have greater energy and ultimately reach some kind of 'transcendental' experience, it is really — if can’t put it too strongly — it is really a great calamity when such things happen to people. When they come from India, from China or Japan to teach people 'meditation', they are actually doing ( a subtle form of ?) propaganda. And is meditation a thing that you practise daily, which means
conforming to a pattern, imitating, suppressing? You know what is implied in conformity. Can such conformity to any pattern, it doesn’t matter what it is, ever lead to Truth? Obviously not.
Then, if you actually see, not just theoretically, but actually see the falseness of practising a system, however absurd, however noble, that it has no meaning, what is then 'meditation'?

What, first of all, is traditional meditation? — whether it be Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Tibetan or Zen, you know all the varieties of meditation and their schools. For me, all that is not meditation at all. Then what is Meditation? Perhaps we could discuss that?

Chôgyam Trungpa; Yes, I think so.

K; Why should one make meditation into a problem? We human beings have enough problems, both physically and psychologi­cally, why add yet another one with meditation? And is meditation a way of escaping from one’s problems, an avoiding of what actually is, and therefore no meditation at all? Or is meditation the understanding of the problem of living? Not avoiding but understanding daily living with all its problems. If that is not understood, if that is not put in order, can go and sit in a comer and follow somebody who teaches me transcendental or some nonsensical meditation and it will have no meaning at all.

So what is it to you to meditate, what does it mean? I hope I have not made it too difficult for you to answer because I deny all that kind of meditation, the practice of constantly repeating a word, as they do in India, in Tibet, as they do all over the world, "Ave Maria" or some other words, repeat, repeat, repeat, it means - nothing. You make the mind more absurd and grotesque than it is.

So if we may, together, inquire into this question. Is it because there is a long established tradition that you must meditate, and therefore we 'meditate'? When I was a small boy I vaguely remember that being a Brahmin we went through a certain ceremony, we were told to sit quietly, close our eyes, meditate, think about something or other - the whole thing was set going. So if we could together examine and share what is meditation, what the implications of it are, why one should meditate at all. Because if you make meditation into another problem, then for Gods sake avoid it! So could we together go into this? Seeing the traditional approaches, and seeing their absurdity. Because unless the human being becomes a light to himself, nothing matters: if you depend on somebody else then you are in a state of perpetual anxiety. So could we examine this traditionally first. Why should one meditate?

CT: Don’t you think that meditation happens as part of the living situation of a man?

K: Sir, a human being has innumerable problems. He must solve those first, mustn’t he? He must bring order in the (inner) house in which he lives, the house that is the ‘me’ - my thoughts, my feelings, my anxieties, my guilt, my sorrow - I must bring order there. Without that order how can I proceed further?

CT: The problem is that if, while trying to solve the problem, you are looking for order, then doesn’t it seem to be looking for further chaos?

K: So I do not look for order. I inquire into disorder and I want to know why there is disorder, I do not want to find order, then I have all the gurus and all the gang coming in! I don’t want order, I only want to find out why in one’s life there is such chaos and disorder. A human being must find out (for himself) , not ask someone else to tell him if there is disorder.

CT: Well, you can’t find it out intellectually.

K: Intellect is part of the whole (mental) structure, you can’t deny the intellect.

CT: But you can’t use intellect to solve non-intellectual problems.

K: No, you can’t solve these problems at any level except totally.

CT: Quite, yes.

K: That is, sir, to solve the human problem of disorder, does this need 'meditation' — in the ordinary accepted sense of the word?

CT: I wouldn’t say in the ordinary, conventional sense of meditation, but meditation in the extraordinary sense.

K: What do you mean by that, if I may ask?

CT: The extraordinary sense of meditation is to see the disorder as part of the direction.

K: To see disorder...

CT: To see disorder as order, if you like.

K: Ah, no. To see disorder.

CT: Well, if you see disorder then it becomes order.

K: First I must see it.

CT: See it clearly.

K: So that depends, then, on how you observe disorder.

CT: Not trying to solve it.

K: Of course not. Because if you try to solve it, you solve it according to a set pattern which is the outcome of your disorder, the opposite of your disorder. If you try to solve the disorder it is always according to a preconceived idea of order. That is, the Christian order, Hindu order, whatever order, socialist order, communist order. Whereas if you observe it entirely, what is disorder? Then, there is no duality in that.

CT: Yes, I see.

K: How is one to observe this total disorder, in which human beings live? The disorder you see on television, the commercials, the hectic violence, the absurdities. Human existence is a total disorder - killing, violence and at the same time talking about peace. So we come to the question: what is observation of disorder? Do you see it from the ‘me’ as separate from the thing that is disorder?

CT: That is already disorder.

K: Isn’t it! So do I look at disorder with the eyes of my prejudices, my opinions, my conclusions, my concepts, the propaganda of a thousand years - which is the ‘me’. Or do I look at disorder without the ‘me’? Is that possible? That is 'meditation'. You follow, sir? Not all the rubbish they talk about. To observe without division, to observe without the ‘me’, who is the very essence of the past, the ‘me’ that says, I should, should not, I must, I must not’. The ‘me’ that says, ‘I must achieve, I must gain God’, or whatever it is. So can there be an observation without the ‘me? You see, if that question is put to an 'orthodox' (traditional) meditator he will say, ‘there can’t, because the ‘me’ is there. So I must get rid of the ’me’. To get rid of the ‘me’ I must practise.’ Which means (that in the meanwhile) am emphasizing the ‘me’! Through practice I hope to deny practice, through practice I hope to eradicate the result of that practice, which is still the ‘me’, so I am caught in a vicious circle.

So the traditional approach, as one has observed it in the world, emphasizes the ’me’ in a very subtle but strengthening way - the ‘me’ that is going to sit next to God - which is an absurdity! The ‘me’ that is going to experience Nirvana or Moksha or heaven, enlightenment - it means nothing. So we see the 'orthodox' approach (of meditation) is really holding the human being in the prison of the past, giving him importance through his personal experience. Reality isn’t a ‘personal’ experience. You can’t personally experience the vastness of the sea, it is there for you to look, it isn’t your sea.
If you put that aside then the question arises: is it ever possible to see without the ’me’, to observe this total disorder of human beings, their lives, the way they live, is it possible to observe it without division? Because division implies conflict, like India and Pakistan, like China and America and Russia, all that. Division politically breeds chaos, division psychologically breeds endless conflict, both inwardly and outwardly. Now to end this conflict is to observe without the 'me'.

CT: I wouldn’t even say 'observe'.

K: To observe ‘what is’.

CT: Well, when 'you' observe then... 'you' are judging.

K: No, that is not what I mean. You can observe through criticism, through evaluation. That’s partial. To observe totally, in that there is no evaluation (measurement ?) at all.

CT: A total observation. Then there is no 'observer'.

K: Therefore what is meditation then?

CT: That is meditation.

K: That is meditation. So in observing disorder, which is essentially ( an act of ?) meditation, in that observation there is order, not the 'order' which the intellect creates. So meditation is not a personal search for personal experience. Meditation is not the search for some transcendental experience that will give you great energy to become more mischievous. Meditation is not 'personal' achievement, 'you' sitting next to God.
Meditation is therefore a state of mind in which the ‘me’ is absent, and that very absence brings order. And that order must exist to go any further. Without that (sense of inner harmony and ?) order things become silly. It’s like these people who go around dancing, chanting and repeating ‘Hare Krishna’ and all that silly stuff, they are creating a colossal disorder! As the Christians are creating great disorder, as the Hindus, the Buddhists are. As long as you are held within a pattern you must create disorder in the world. The moment you say, 'America must be the superpower’, you are going to create disorder.

So the next question is: can the mind observe without time and without memory, which are the material of the mind?
Memory and time are the material of the mind. Can it observe without those two elements? Because if it observes with memory, the memory is the centre, the ’me’. Right? And time is the ‘me’ also, time is the ( imprinting of the ?) evolution of the brain cells as 'becoming'. So can the mind observe without memory and time? Which is only possible when the mind is completely still. And the traditional people recognize this, so they say, ‘we must practise in order to be silent!’ So control your mind - you know the tricks they play...

CT: I don’t see any particular importance in laying emphasis on the stillness of the mind because if one is able to see the non- dualistic way of looking at situations then you have further energy that will flow out.

K: You can only have further energy to flow, greater energy, when the mind is quiet.

CT: But to put the emphasis on stillness ...

K: No, we said, observe disorder, without the ‘me’, without its memories, its structure of time, then in that quality there is a 'quietness' of the mind which is observing. That stillness is not an acquired, practised thing, it comes naturally when you have order.

You see, sir, all one can do is to 'point out' and help the person to go to the (inner) 'door', but it is for him to open that door, you can’t do any more than that. This whole idea of wanting to help people means, you know, you become a 'do-gooder'. And a 'do-gooder' is not a religious man at all. Shall we go on with this?

CT: I think so. There is a further thing that can be clarified, when you put emphasis on absolute (inner) peace.

K: Ah! I said, sir, complete order is complete quietness of the mind. Quietness of the mind is the most active mind.

CT: That’s what I wanted you to say,

K: It’s the most dynamic thing, it Isn't just a dead thing.

CT: People could misunderstand...

K: Because they are used only to practice which will help them to become-that is death. But a mind that has gone, inquired into all this in this way, becomes extraordinarily active and therefore quiet

CT: That’s what I mean, yes.

K: It’s like a great dynamo.

CT: Yes.

K: The greater the speed the more the vitality. Of course, man is seeking more energy, he wants more energy, to go to the moon, to go and live under the sea. He is striving for more and more and more. But I think this 'search for more' does lead to disorder . The consumer society is a disorderly society. (The other day I saw some paper tissue, Kleenex, which was beautifully decorated!)

So our question is: does the observation of disorder bring order? That is really a very important point because for most of us ( some) effort is demanded to bring about order. Human beings are used to effort, to struggling, fighting, suppressing, forcing themselves. Now all that (attitude) has led to disorder, socially, outwardly and inwardly.

The difficulty with (the modern ?) human beings is that they have never observed a tree, a bird, without division. Since they have never observed a tree or a bird totally they can’t observe themselves totally. One can’t see the (truth regarding the ?) total disorder in which one lives, there is always an idea that somewhere there is a part of 'me' that is order which is looking at disorder. So they invent the idea of a 'Higher Self', which will bring about order in disorder - "God is in you" and pray to that God, he will bring about this order. Always there is this effort (of self-becoming) . What we are saying is that where there is the 'me’ there must be disorder. And if I look at the world through the 'me’ - to the world outside or the world inside, there is not only ( a sense of) division, but that (sense of one's ) division creates chaos and disorder in the world. Now to observe all that totally, in which there is no division, such observation 'is' meditation. And for that you don’t have to practise, all that you have to do is to be aware of what exactly is going on inside and outside, just to "be aware" (non-dualistically ?) .

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 27 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #75
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


EXPLORING THE ORIGINS OF INSIGHT ( 'experientially friendly' edited)

Questioner : Can we discuss the relation between Krishnamurti's teaching and truth? Is there such a thing as a K teaching at all, or is there only Truth?

KRISHNAMURTI: There are two things involved. The speaker is either talking out of the "silence of truth", or he is talking out of the noise of an illusion which he considers to be the truth.

Q: But because one feels that he is speaking out of the silence of truth there is a greater possibility for his words to be (literally) taken as 'truth'.

K: No, let's go slowly for this is interesting. What is the criterion, the measure that you apply so you can say: "Yes, that is it." Or do you (start by ) saying: "I don't know" but are examining, investigating (into) the truth of what he is saying. I would want to know whether he was speaking out of this, or out of that. But as I don't know, I am going to 'listen' to what he is saying and see if it is true.

Q: But what sees it as 'true'?

K: Say one is fairly alive to these things. I don't know how you would find out. I'll tell you what I would do: I would put his personality, his influence, all that, completely aside. Because I don't want to be influenced, I am sceptical, doubtful, I want to find out (the truth about this matter ?) so for the time being - while I am listening at least - I will put aside everything I have known. Now am I capable of listening to what he is saying with a complete abandonment of the past? Are you? Then my relationship to him is entirely different. Then I am listening out of silence.
This is really a very interesting question. I have answered for myself. But there are a dozen of us here, how would you answer it? How do you know that what he is talking about is the truth?

Q: I wouldn't be concerned with that word 'truth'. When you use the word truth you indicate you have the ability to judge what is true, or you already have a definition of truth, or you know what truth is. Which means you will not be listening to what somebody is saying.

K: If I were a stranger I might say: You have listened to this man for a long time, how do you know he is telling the truth? How do you know anything about it?

Q: We listen to people who speak from knowledge, and we listen to you, and there is something totally different. I don't know what it is, but it is totally different.

Q(2): That means there is a 'ring of truth' in it. But I think that for thought it is not at all possible to be 'sure' about this matter. It is typical of thought that it wants to be sure that it is not deceiving itself, that it is listening to truth. Thought will never give up that question, but thought cannot touch it, cannot know about it.

K: Dr Bohm and I had a discussion of this kind in a different way. If I remember rightly we (K) said: Is there such an ( inner state of creative ?) "silence" which is not verbal , which is not imagined or induced? Is there such a silence, and is it possible to speak out of that silence?

Q: The question was whether the words are coming from ( an insightful ?) perception, from ( the inner clarity of that ) silence, or from the memory. As we used to say: like the drum which vibrates to the emptiness within.

K: Yes. Are you satisfied by this answer? - by what the others have said?

Q: No, Krishnaji. But can we say that truth is ( to be found ?) in the silence out of which the teaching comes?

K: Dr Bohm is a scientist, a physicist, he is clear-thinking, logical; suppose someone goes to him and asks, "Is what Krishnamurti says the truth?" How is he going to answer?

Q: But you are then saying, use the instrument of logic to find out?

K: I have heard so many people who are 'illogical' and 'careless' saying he is speaking the truth. But I go to a serious thinker, who is very careful with the use of words, and ask: "Please tell me if he is telling the truth " How is he going to answer me?

Q: There are people who are very clever, who speak of things which are (sounding) very similar, who have grasped this intellectually very well and say they are speaking from truth.

K: Please be simple with me. I want to know if Krishnamurti is speaking the truth. Dr Bohm has known Krishnamurti for several years. He has a good, trained mind so I go to him and ask him.

Q: I could say that when we did discuss these things it was from the emptiness, and that I felt it was a direct perception

K: So you are telling me: I have found out that man is telling the truth because I had a direct perception, an insight into what he is saying.

Q: Yes.

K: Now be careful, because I have heard a disciple of some guru saying exactly the same thing.

Q: I have also heard a guru say this but a little later by looking at it logically I saw the thing was nonsense. When I was looking at the fact and the logic I saw that it did not fit. So I would say that in addition to direct perception I have constantly examined this logically.

K: So you are saying that perception has not blinded you and with that perception goes logic also.

Q: Yes, logic and fact.
K: So perception first, then logic. Not first logic, then perception.

Q: Yes. That is what it always has to be.

K: So through perception and then with logic, you see that it is the truth. Hasn't this been done by the devout Christians?
Q: Logic is not enough, because we have to see how people actually behave as well. I see that Christians say certain things, but when we look at the whole of what they do it, it doesn't fit.

K: It is a field which is full of mines, the razor's edge path. Can the mind - which has been conditioned for centuries to be secure - abandon that, and say, "I will walk into a (psychological) 'danger zone' "?

Q: In principle that is the way all science works. But this word 'danger' has to be explained too. From one point it is 'dangerous' (risky ?) , and from another it isn't. I have to investigate. My conditioning is also very 'dangerous'.

K: So we're saying: "I have walked in danger and I have found the logic of this danger. Through the perception of the danger I have found the truth of what Krishnamurti is saying. And there is no 'psychological' safety in this. Whereas all the others give me safety."

Q: What you have described is actually the scientific approach. They say "every statement must be in danger of being false"; it has been put that way.

K: That is perfectly right. Are we saying that direct perception, insight and the working out of it demand great logic, a great capacity to think clearly? But the capacity to think clearly will not (necessarily ?) bring about insight.

Q: But if the logic does not bring about perception, what does it do exactly?

K: It 'sharpens' the mind.

Q: Is it through the mind that the perception comes ?

K: That all depends on what you mean by the 'mind'. Logic makes the mind sharp, clear, objective and sane. But that ( intellectual probity ?) won't give you the 'other' (the insightful perception ?) . Your question is: How does the 'other' come about?

Q: That was not my question. Logic clears the mind, but is the 'mind' the instrument of perception?

K: You might remain (stuck ?) in the debris if you don't have logic.

Q: If the perception is a real perception and so the truth, why does it then need the discipline of logic to examine it?

K: We said ( the insightful ?) perception works out (even) logically. It does not need 'logic' (logical thinking ?) , but whatever it does is reasonable, logical, sane, objective. Now, will this perception keep the confusion, the debris away all the time so that the mind never accumulates it and doesn't have to keep clearing it away?

Q: I think ( our inner ?) perception hasn't reached the stage at which it is 'continually' keeping the field clear. It can reach that stage for a certain moment.

K: At a certain moment I have perception. But during the interval between the perceptions there is a lot of ('psycho'-) debris being gathered. To put it round the other way: Does one (major insightful ?) perception keep the field clear?

Q: Can one make a difference between insight and perception?

K: Take those two words as synonymous We are asking: Is our perception from time to time, (having 'blind spots' ?) with 'intervals' during which a lot of debris collects or does ( a major insightful ?) perception in itself bring about tremendous clarity in which there is no debris?

Q: Are you saying that once it happens it (its inner clarity ?) will be there 'for ever'?

K: Don't use the words "continuous," "for ever". Keep to the question; Once ( a global ?) perception has taken place can the mind collect further debris, confusion? If there is ( an awakening of the inner ?) perception why should there be a further gathering of debris ?

Q: There are a lot of 'difficult points' in this.

K: Does it open the Door so that there is 'insight' ( clarity of the 'inner sight' ?) all the time?

Q: Does that mean that you would never have any (psychological) confusion?

K: Yes, we came to that point.

Q: I think there is danger in this: one could think one has insight when one has not.

K: We are treading on very dangerous (slippery ?) ground and therefore are greatly aware of it.

Q: Because the mind tries to find security in all this.

K: The (personal ?) mind has always been seeking security and when that security is threatened it tries to find security in insight, in direct perception.

Q: In the illusion of 'insight' ?

K: Yes, it makes the 'insight' into ( a dynamic formula for generating its sense of ?) security. The next ( 'bonus ' ?) question is: Must there be a constant breaking of ( that inner clarity of) perception, or is there no further confusion after this deep insight?

Q: Are we saying this ( total insight ?) perception is (encompassing the ?) whole?

K: Yes, if the perception is complete, whole, then there is no confusion at any time. Or one may (subliminally ?) deceive oneself that (that insight was ?) iwhole and act based upon it, which brings confusion.

Q: Let's say that out of this genuine insight a certain action came. One then thinks that is the way things should be.

K: That is what generally happens.

Q: But isn't that a ( vast potential for inner ?) corruption in just making a pattern out of the action instead of continuing to look? It is like being able to really look at something, for instance looking out of the window and something is seen. But then you don't look out again and think everything is the way it was. It may have totally changed. The perception starts out being genuine, but you don't continue to look, have insight.

K: Yes. Scientists may have an insight in some specialized field and that insight is put into a category of science unrelated to their (inner) life. But we are talking of a "perception" that is not only in the field of action but also in one's daily life.

Q: I think we have to explore the (potential) 'danger'. You said that one day a man came to you and said you were "stuck in a groove".

K: Yes, "caught in a rut".

Q: You didn't say immediately, "I know I am not because I have had a perfect insight." But rather, you said you looked at it for several days.

K: Of course. Now would you say, when there is complete (awakening of this non-dualistic 'insight ?) perception' there is no further confusion?

Q: It seems 'reasonable' to say that. But then... why did you feel it necessary to 'look again into it'?

K: Because I may deceive myself. Therefore it is 'dangerous' (very slippery ?) ground and I must be alert, I must watch it.

Q: Do you mean that even after the 'real insight' you could still deceive yourself?

K: No. ( But supposing ) you have a deep insight, complete, whole and someone ( a 'troll' ?) comes along and says: "Look, you are deceiving yourself". Do you instantly say, "No, I am not deceiving myself because my perception was complete"? Or do you (mindfully ?) 'listen' and look at it all afresh? It doesn't mean that you are denying the (actuality of that ?) complete perception,but you are 'again watching' if it is real or illusory.

Q: You mean, watching that is not an 'intellectual' process?

K: I would say both. It is intellectual as well as non-verbal. But that leads to 'dangerous' (psychologically slippery ?) ground. The Hindus say that "God is always there inside you - the deeply abiding Divinity, or Soul, or Atman, and it is covered up. Remove the confusion, the debris and it is found inside". And most (Hindu ?) people believe that. I think that is a ( culturally transmitted ) 'conclusion'. And ( starting the inner inquiry ?) from a 'conclusion' you can never have a total, complete perception.

Q: But if you deny ( the validity of ) that (traditional assumption ?) , then what makes one 'step out of the stream'? Does it mean that the stepping out is for certain ( gifted ?) individuals only?

K: When you say "certain (gifted ?) individuals" I think you are putting the wrong question, aren't you?

Q: So, that possibility exists for everyone ?

K: Yes, the possibility exists for ( ready, willing and able ?) 'human beings'.

Q: For the totality?

K: For human beings.

Q: Then there is some energy which ( is available to us all ?)

K: Which is outside of them or which is in them.

Q: Yes. We don't know.

K: Therefore don't come to any 'conclusion'.

Q: There would not be the possibility of a deepening of perception?

K: You can't 'deepen' perception. You 'perceive the whole' - that's all.

Q: But then, what did you mean by saying there was this (Universal ?) "Mind" into which you could continually go more deeply?

K: That is something else.

Q: You mentioned a 'watchfulness' even after (a total) perception.

K: What happened was: A man came up to me and said, "You are getting old, you are stuck in a groove." And I listened to it. For a couple of days I thought about it. I looked at it and said to myself, "He may be right."

Q: You are almost suggesting that it could be possible ?

K: No, I wanted to examine (the truth of ?) it. Don't say 'it could', or 'could not'.

Q: I was going to ask: to be 'caught in habit' after a perception, could that not ever happen again, at certain levels?

K: There is 'partial' perception and 'total' perception - let's (academically ?) divide it into those two. When there is total ( awakening of the inward ?) perception there is no further confusion.

Q: You don't get caught in habit?

K: There is no ( residual causation for ?) further confusion. Because... it "is so"

Q: What if something (bad ?) happens to the brain physically?

K: Then of course 'it' is gone.

Q: So there seems to be a "limitation" to what you say: you assume that the brain remains healthy.

K: Of course, assuming that the whole organism is healthy. If there is an accident, your brain suffers concussion and something is injured, then it is 'finished' ( better luck next time ?)

Q : But it is still "in here". You are not tapping it from "out there". That ( Intelligent) energy is within you, isn't it?

K: One has to ( take a 'back to square one' detour and ?) go into this question of what is a (totally insightful ?) perception. How do you come to it?
(a) You cannot have (any insightful ) 'perception' if your daily life is (going on ?) in disorder, confused, contradictory. Can I have perception if I am attached to my (social) position, to my wife, to my property?

Q: It 'colours' the act of perceiving.

K: Take the ( Nobel Prize ?) scientists, they have their family, their attachments, they want a ( safe social) position, money and all the rest of it, but they have a (scientific ?) insight.

Q: It is not total.

K: So we are saying that a 'total insight' perception can only take place when in your daily life there is no confusion.

Q: May we look more closely into that?

K: If the windows (of inner Perception ?) are not clean, my view is confused (fuzzy ?) . If I am inwardly living in 'fear' my perception will be very partial. That is a fact.

Q: But don't you need ( the basic insight-) perception in order to end that fear?

K: Ah, in investigating 'fear' I have a 'total' perception of fear (or...a dualistic
one ?) . But in (the context of an observer-free ?) 'observing', in 'delving into it' I have perception.

Q: What is it that is observing?

K: Take a fact: you become aware of the (inner) fact that there is fear. And you observe also what that fear has done. And in looking very deeply into it you have an insight.

Q: I 'may' have an insight...

K: No, you 'will have insight', which is quite different.

Q: So, the inner confusion due to fear (greed & other psychological 'facts') is not complete; it is always open to ( any serious ?) person to have ( a total) insight ?

K: To one who is investigating, who is observing. (Eg:) One suffers and you see what it does. In observing it, investigating it, opening it up, in the very 'unrolling' of it you have a certain insight. Now, that insight may be just partial. Therefore one has to become aware that it is partial. Its action is partial and it may appear complete, so... watch it.

Q: Very often it looks as if it is totally impossible to have such an insight, since you say: "If you are distorting how will you look?" But you are also saying, that when you have (become aware of ?) a distortion, the one thing you can look at is the distortion.

K: That's right.

Q: That factually you have that capacity.

K: One has that capacity.

Q: Could one say that the "fear can look at itself"?

K: No, no. One is afraid: in looking at that fear - not having an insight, just watching it - you see what it does, what its action is.

Q: You mean by looking, being aware of it.

K: Without any 'choosing' - being ( non-personally ?) aware. And you see what fear does. And in looking at it more extensively, deeply, widely, suddenly you have an insight into the whole ( 'self'- generated ?) structure of fear.

Q: But there is still the question: in that moment of fear, I am (getting totally immersed in ?) fear.

K: How you observe fear matters - whether you observe it as a (safe ?) 'observer', or the observer 'is' (fully immersed in ?) that. You perceive the observer 'is' (not separate from the 'fear which is being) observed' and in this action there is ( an increased ?) confusion. And you examine that confusion, which is also born of fear and in the very process of examination you have a ( global) insight. Do it, and you will see it - but if you (play safe & ?) limit yourself by saying, "If I 'am' frightened, how can I look", you run away from (facing the actuality of ?) it.

Q: To simplify it : in examining fear, (examining) the distorting factors, is the 'cleansing of the window' ?

K: How you observe it (non-dualistically ?) , that is the 'real thing'. That is, an (insightful ?) perception can only take place when there is no division between the 'observer' and the (inner fact ?) 'observed'. Therefore you are watching ( in full immersion ?) ?) the 'movement of fear' and in the very watching of it there is ( the actual possibility of ?) an insight.
And yet Krishnamurti says: "I have never done this"...

Q: Never gone through all this? Then how do you know somebody else can?

K: That's just it. Let's discuss it. Suppose you have not gone through all this (in your present life ?) , but you 'see' (the truth about ?) it instantly. Because you see it instantly your capacity to reason explains all this ( verbally for educational purposes ?) . And (the earnest student ?) listens and says, "I'd like to get that, I don't have to go through that whole process."

Q: Are you saying that all we have been discussing just now is merely a pointer to something else? And that we don't really have to go through all that ( iner chore ?) ?

K: Yes. I want to get at that.

Q: In other words, that helps to clear the (perceptive ?) ground in some way?

K: Yes.

Q: So, you are saying there is a 'short cut'?

K: Not a 'short cut'. Must you go through (step by step in examining ?) fear,jealousy, anxiety, attachment? Or can you clear the whole thing (slate ?) instantly? Must one go through all this ( extremely tedious ?) process?

Q: You said that you "have never done this". And by having that immediate total perception you are able to see what those with the dirty windows can do to clean them. But that isn't necessary an immediate way for those who haven't...

K: No. First put the question (and in meditatively "listening" to it ?) , see what comes out of it: is it possible that through discovering ( the non-dualistic truth ?) that the observer 'is' the (inner stuff ?) observed - to free all the rest? I think that is the only way.

Q: Is it possible if one were raised in a certain (loving) way, or went to a certain ( Montessori style ?) school not to have certain fears, jealousy, attachment?

K: But there may be deeper (karmic ?) layers of which you may not even be conscious of - you may not be totally aware of the deeper (existential ?) fears, etc. You may say "I am all right, I have none of these things"...

Q: But if one went to a certain school, the kind of learning and investigation that would take place in such a school, would that 'clear the way' towards the possibility?

K: Obviously. ( But since such 'opportunity' is "too little & too late" for us ?) What we are talking about is: Must one go through all this process?

Q: Couldn't we remove from the problem the 'personal' aspect? We are discussing what is 'open to mankind' rather than to any (lucky ?) 'individual'.

K: Yes. Is it open to any human being without going through alI this ( sequential approach of the existing ?) fears, sorrow, jealousy, attachment, you go through all that, step by step ? Or can a (potentially intelligent ?) human being see the whole thing at a glance? And that very 'glance' is the (non-dualistic) investigation and perception.

Q: Which is what you mean by "the first step is the last" ?

K: Yes, total (& final ?) perception.

Q: Then what would one's responsibility be towards someone who is ( living ?) in sorrow?

K: The response to that human being is the response of ( the Intelligent & Loving ?) Compassion. That's all.
So, what can you do actually? Somebody comes to you and says, "I am in deep sorrow". Do you talk to him out of Compassion, or out of your own particular experience of sorrow which has conditioned you, and you answer him according to your (cultural) conditioning? The person who is suffering wants some sort of solace, someone on whose lap he can put his head. So what he is seeking is (instant ?) comfort and escape from this terrible (existential ) pain.
Will you ( the 'good doctor' ?) offer him any of those escapes? Whatever comes out of ( an Intelligent ?) Compassion will help him.

Q: Are you saying that as far as the human sorrow is concerned you can't directly 'help' anyone, but the (intelligent ?) energy of Compassion itself may be of help?

K: That's right; that's all.

Q: But many such 'wounded spirits' will come to the (K) Centre here and I think it is going to be a (serious) problem to know how to deal with them.

K: There is no problem if you are Compassionate. Compassion doesn't create problems. It has no problems, therefore it is Compassionate.

Q: You are saying that this total Compassion is the highest Intelligence?

K: Of course. If there is compassion, that Compassion has its own intelligence and that Intelligence acts. But if you have no (access to that ?) compassion and (its) intelligence, then your (cultural ?) conditioning makes you reply whatever he wants.
To go back to the other question: Must a human being go through the whole ( self-introspective ?) process? Has no human being said, "I won't go through all this. I absolutely refuse to go through all this (psychological labyrinth ?) "?

Q: But on what basis does one refuse? It wouldn't make sense to refuse to do what is necessary.

K: Of course. You see, we are such creatures of habit. Because my father is conditioned, generations after generations are conditioned and I am conditioned. And I accept it, I work in it and I operate within it. But if I say, I won't ever operate in ( the 'known' field of ?) my conditioned responses, something else may (eventually ?) take place.
(Eg:) If I realize I am (inwardly ?) a 'bourgeois', I don't try to become an 'aristocrat' or a ' revolutionary militant' - those are all (upgraded ?) 'bourgeois' to me. So something does take place if I reject the whole thing. I 'd want to investigate that.

Q: But isn't the (psychological) key to all this somewhere in ( the very process of ?) desire? There is in all of us some sort of desire for continuity, for security.

K: That's right. 'Bourgeois' implies ( a comfortable state of inner ) continuity, security, belonging to something ( a 'select' club ?) - all that...

Q: But if you are saying that Krishnamurti never had the need to go through all this , we can only conclude that he is some kind of (psychological ) freak.

K: You can say he is a 'freak' but it doesn't answer it (your own problems)... If somebody says to you, "I have never been through all this", what do you do? Do you say he is a freak? Or would you say: "How extraordinary, is he telling the truth? ' ( If this is the case ?) then your ( only constructive ?) question is: "How does it happen, must I go through all this?" Do you ask that?

Q : Krishnaji, you are taking two widely separate things. One is the (psychologically) 'uncontaminated' person, who never had to go through the process because he was never 'in the soup', but most other people, apparently, are in some form of 'contamination', it may be fear, or something else. Therefore the person who has already got this 'sickness' says "This man has never been sick for a day in his life." What good is it to examine that, because one is already 'sick' in some form ?

K: Can we put the whole thing differently? Do you seek "excellence", not excellence for instance in a building, but the "essence of (inner) excellence"? Or you seek excellence along certain direction and never the (spiritual) "essence of excellence"? As an artist I seek excellence in my painting and get caught in ( the materialistic rewards of ?) that . But an 'average' intelligent human being who is fairly intelligent and decent, if he sought the (spiritual ?) "essence of excellence", would this (inner miracle ?) happen? The (intelligence of this ?) essence (once awakened ?) would meet all this. I wonder if I am conveying something? That very demand for excellence - and how you demand it - brings the essence of it. You demand it passionately. You demand the highest intelligence, the highest excellence, the essence of it.

Q: Where does this 'demand' come from?

K: Demand it! Don't say: "Where does it come from?" There may be a (personal ) motive, but the very (purity of the ?) demand washes it all away. I wonder if I am conveying anything?

Q: You are saying: Demand this 'excellence' - of which we don't know anything...

K: I don't know what is beyond it, but ( for starters ) I want to be morally excellent.

Q: Does that mean 'goodness'?

K: I demand the excellence of goodness, I demand the excellent flower of goodness. In that very demand there is a demand for the essence.

Q: Does ( the totally insightful ?) perception come from this demand?

K: Yes, that's right.

Q: Could you go more exactly into what you call this 'demand'?

K: It is not a demand that means imploring, wanting - cut out all those...

Q: But then aren't you back to 'prayer' ?

K: Oh, no. Leave out all that.

Q: You are really saying that this ''impossible" (task) is possible to the average intelligent human being?

K: We are saying that, yes. I say it is possible for the average human being, who is fairly clean, who is fairly decent, fairly kind, who is not (inwardly) a 'bourgeois'.

Q: Traditionally we are conditioned to believe that these are very special people with no (self-) conscious content of consciousness, so it is very difficult for someone like me to feel that one could really be completely free of it.

K: You see, you have not 'listened'. Please listen first, don't bring in all these ( conscience ?) objections. Just listen to what he is saying: what is important in life is ( the aspiration for this ?) supreme (inner) excellence which has its own (spiritual ) essence." That's all. And to "demand it" does not mean ( any personal ?) begging or praying, getting something from somebody.

Q: The point is, we do usually confuse this demand with desire.

K: Of course.

Q: And you see, when people feel that they should give up desire then there is a danger of giving up this demand ( for inner excellence) as well.

K: Let's find a good ( better ?) word for it. Would the word "passion" be suitable? There is this "passion for excellence".

Q: Does it imply that this passion has no object?

K: Burning passion - not for something. The Communists are (or...were ?) passionate about their ideas. That passion is very, very petty and limited. The Christians have (or...had ?) passion for missionary work - that passion is born of the love of Jesus. That again is very narrow. putting all that aside, I say: "Passion".

Q: Many people have had some vision, or a dream of something and that has developed a great energy. But you are saying it is not a dream, it is not a vision; but it is nevertheless some perception of this excellence.

K: All those 'passions' (subliminally ?) feed the ego, feed the me, consciously or unconsciously. We are cutting out all that. There is this young boy (named K) who has a passion to grow up into an extraordinary human being, into something 'original'.

Q: He sees that it is possible and therefore he has the passion.

K: Yes, it is possible. But, again, that human being didn't (even) demand it. I never even asked for it.

Q: Perhaps we are conditioned to ( the traditional way of ?) 'mediocrity', not to make this demand.

K: Yes, of course, mediocrity is (synonimous to a ?) lack of great passion.

Q: We are not only conditioned to mediocrity but our demand is always to have some direction.

K: The demand is a direction, quite right.

Q: To have a demand without any direction, doesn't it imply that it is not in time?

K: Of course. It demands no direction, no time, no 'person'. So does total insight bring this passion? Total insight 'is' the passion.

Q: They can't be separated?

K: Total insight 'is' ( generated by ?) the flame of passion which wipes away all confusion. It burns away everything else. Don't you then act as a (psychic?) magnet? The bees go towards the nectar. In the same way don't you act as a 'magnet' when you are passionate to create? That may be the thing that is missing. If there is something missing I would 'ask for it'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 75 of 75 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.)