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

Pages from the Book of Life


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 426 in total
Tue, 19 May 2015 #1
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 534 posts in this forum Offline

Hopefully this new thread will not end up in a 'calendar' format, with carefully selected quotes and beautiful pictures, but rather offer some authentic pointers towards a spiritual or 'holistic' way of life. Many of them will be certainly inspired by the timeless truths of the K Teachings, but our fine readers and participants are free to bring in their own favourite insights- especially those which worked out in their own life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 May 2015 #2
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 534 posts in this forum Offline

The Book of Mankind

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, you were speaking of 'reading the book of oneself', which is the book of mankind. Now, this book is never complete. As you are reading it, you are creating it, so there are one or two questions which have to be clarified. What is the nature of what is seen within ourselves, of the 'what is' ?

KRISHNAMURTI (K): The whole history of man is part of (enfolded in?) our consciousness; it is part of our story. We as human beings 'are' the whole (ongoing?) history of man. This whole movement ( evolution?) of man in time is in the background of every human being.

PJ: Obviously all the human heritage is my heritage. All that has taken place, the ideas that have formed the brain, the whole development of the human race is common to all of mankind.

K: Most people would not have (given any serious?) thought about this. If a few of us see the truth that we carry (in our genetic and cultural background?) this vast human heritage, then we can proceed.

ACHYUT PATWARDHAN (AP): You see, sir, when I say that I am the inheritor of the heritage of man, it is not the result of a sequential thought process. When I say that I am the inheritor of it all, it is not as verbalized thought; it is a totality.

K: From there let's proceed. ( Deep down in my consciousness?) abides the whole story of man: his sorrows, his anxieties, his loneliness, his miseries, his happiness, and so on. This ( ongoing) story is 'me'. Now, what is the instrument with which we read this (inner?) book?

PJ: Before we go to the instrument with which we read the book, what is it that we 'read'?

K: As I am reading it, it is moving.

PJ: Yes. As I read it the 'future is projected'.

K: Let us be clear by what we mean by this word ‘future’. This ( psychological) 'future' is ( the memory of our?) past modifying itself in the present and going on to the future. So the 'past' (is constantly updated and?) becomes the 'future'.

PJ: But the moment I am reading the consciousness of mankind and not 'my' consciousness, the attitude to that reading has undergone a total change.

K: That’s right. If you are under the illusion that this consciousness is (only) 'yours'—and unfortunately, most people including many psychologists— believe that our consciousness is separate, that it is individual...

PJ: There is a ( psychological ?) 'trap' there

K: Yes, there is a trap.

PJ: If we are 'objectively' (scientifically) looking at the history of man, we would read it one way. We would read that history in encyclopaedias. But the moment we see that the ('psychological' component of this?) 'history' (is constantly?) arising within our consciousness, our response will, immediately a totally different nature.

K: That’s what I was coming to. Naturally, if one actually sees that one’s consciousness is 'universal' (shared by all?) then one’s whole perception changes. Right? To discover ( that inwardly one is?) the whole consciousness of mankind is a tremendous perception.

PJ: Let us take, for example, an instance of observing 'loneliness' or 'sorrow' arise in oneself. This observation does not bring to the forefront the factor that it is the loneliness of all mankind. At that point, it is just 'loneliness'.

K: It is in the investigation of 'my loneliness' or 'my sorrow' that I discover this fact that all men are lonely and that all men suffer (in different degrees?) , that I discover something tremendous. The discovery that it is the whole of mankind that suffers is an enormous (-ly responsible?) perception.

PJ: What brings about this 'holistic' perception about - that I am observing not my petty sorrow, but the sorrow of mankind?

K: I have seen—as must you all have—that wherever you go, loneliness and sorrow live together. This is so in Europe, in America, in India. This factor is shared by all of us. To realize that this thing is shared by all of us, is a great beginning. You see, ( a paradigm?) change has already taken place.

PJ: Yes. So what is it that has to be observed (within and without ourselves ) ?

K: I observe 'sorrow'. Loneliness and sorrow are synonymous.

PJ: Which are ( very 'personal'?) emotional responses to a situation. I feel suddenly a sense of shrinking...

K: A feeling of great loss. Suppose you have lost a great friend or a wife whom you really loved. What has actually taken place here? There is the (actual fact of the?) ending of that person, and with that there is the ending of your ( dependency on the?) relationship with that person : suddenly there is the realization of how utterly lonely you are, because that has been the only relationship that meant something. So when, suddenly, that is gone, there is a sense of great loss.
Now, just 'hold it' for a minute, (abide?) with it; don’t let thought (the 'thinking' brain?) or any other feeling interfere with that state. If you don’t escape from it, try to suppress (deny?) it or analyse it, you will have suddenly discovered this extraordinary (inner truth ?) that with the loss of that person you are shattered and that a certain state of mind has come to an end. Right? The ending here is an ending without ( expecting?) any 'future'. Can the mind remain with this fact (but) not as an 'observer' observing the fact? For the 'observer' is the fact. The observer is that state and, therefore, there is no difference between the observer and the thing that he is observing. He 'is' ( both the creator and?) the suffering; he also is that 'ending'. It is like a 'jewel' (of holistic perception?) you are holding.

PJ: I understand.

K: Now, the history of mankind is my history. I want to read this 'book'. It must be an extraordinary book. It has not (even) been written, there are no chapters. there are no paragraphs. It is just one tremendous movement (flow?) .

PJ: Can any mind contain the immensity of it?

K: Here we must begin (by differentiating?) what is the 'mind' and what is the 'brain'?
The human brain has infinite capacity (to adapt and invent?) . Look what it has done in the technological world—something incredible! But
inwardly ('psychologically') it has been conditioned through (its own ) evolution in time. It has 'moved' in the technological world and that in the other direction, namely in the psychological world, it has not moved at all. And because it has not moved (it got stuck?) , it has not flowered. It is conditioned; it is limited. But the 'mind' is not limited.

PJ: When you speak of the 'mind', what is it you speak of?

K: The ( intelligent?) 'mind' of the universe, the 'mind' of nature; everything that has been created and is in the process of creation is the movement (intelligent timeless activity?) of the 'mind'. And therefore there is no limit to ( the intelligence of universal?) Creation.

AP: Are you suggesting that when I say that 'I am the entire heritage of man', it is not the brain that can take in this factor?

K: It is the brain that takes in this factor, because I have communicated through thought and through words, and you are looking at it through thought, through words. So this communication is verbal and through thought.

AP: At present, whatever I understand, I understand through the brain.

K: No, no.

PJ: The mind being the very source of creation has no limit and therefore this whole history of man is (holistically contained?) within it, if I may use that expression. So, the 'mind', it is all that is created and is in the process of creation ?

K: Pupul, let us be very clear and very careful when we speak of 'creation'.
Thought (the thinking brain?) has created, in the physical world, not only the churches, the temples and the mosques but also all the things that are in them. Thought has created wars. Thought has created the conflict between man and man. Thought cannot perceive a 'mind' that is immeasurable since the function of thought is to reduce everything to its limited, mechanical, fragmentary activity. And we are saying that as long as the brain is 'conditioned' (stuck within its conditioning?) , it can never understand the immensity of the nature of the Mind. If you see this (truth?) , you will also see ‘your’ responsibility to uncondition the brain, to uncondition the limitations which thought has imposed on it.

PJ: Is the responsibility to uncondition the brain or to end this movement of the brain?

K: Which is the same thing.

PJ: Is it to hold the brain in abeyance so that the ( intelligent?) perception which is the Mind can operate?

K: You are putting in modern language what the old tradition says, namely, that there is, in me, God. There is in me God or some element which is not contaminated, and which then operates on that...

PJ: But you have just drawn the distinction between the 'brain' and the 'mind'. You have drawn the distinction between the conditioned and the non-conditioned state.

K: Yes. I have said that we must differentiate between the two meanings of the words. I say that the brain which is limited cannot understand what the 'mind' is. It can only become aware of it when there is no conditioning.

PJ: But you went further.

K: That I shouldn’t have spoken. (Laughs)

PJ: But you have spoken...

K: That was unfortunate. The question is whether the brain itself can ever be free from its limitation. It can’t. It can never be free of its limitation because it is born of limitation.

PJ: What is the distinction between thought and the brain?

K: Thought is the ( outward?) activity of the brain.

PJ: Is there anything in the brain apart from thought?

K: (Laughs) I won’t fall into the trap.

PJ: But if you accept that the brain has tremendous capacity and that it is using only a very small part of it, and also if you could do with the 'psyche' what you have done with technology...

K: Then the universe is open to you. That’s what I am saying. The brain has been able to do such extraordinary things technologically. Now, if the brain can free itself from the limitations of the 'psyche', it will be incredible what it can do. Then the brain is ( intelligently compatible with?) the mind; then it is totally free. Then there is no sense of division (of separation ?) . There is a sense of completeness, wholeness...

PJ: If the brain has had the energy, the drive, the insight to pursue technology, why is it...

K: Why are you not willing to turn the other way?

PJ: You see, man is prepared to go into space and die. What is that element that gives human beings the curiosity, the drive in the direction of technology?

K: I think our education is responsible for (lopsiding?) that. Because every culture has emphasized, that you have to earn a livelihood, that you have to work, work, work, that you have to study, memorize, repeat, repeat. That is all that they say. This morning I met some of the students here at Rishi Valley. Unfortunately, they are the same. They haven’t thought about anything apart from mathematics, history, geography—memorize, repeat, good marks, good job, and so on. If you were to ask them to 'move away' from this, they would be lost. You see, they have not given even a thought to the other.

AP: You see, sir, even the scientists who go to the 'impossible' question are very few. Only
a few of them are willing to move in a new direction. So also, today, there are a few who see the present crisis of the survival of humanity. There are a few people today who have sufficient motivation to say that this is the most intolerable predicament for man and that the brain must be explored.

PJ: They are exploring the brain but not the psyche.

K: Sir, they are exploring the brain; its ( mechanistic?) functions. Just look at it. The brain has extraordinary capacity (and) there is (the possibility of awakening?) a different kind of movement which is not based on experience, knowledge. Now if there is such a 'breakthrough', there will be no division between the 'mind' and the energy of the brain. Do you understand?

AP: Is it the energy of 'attention' ?

K: Don’t use the word ‘attention’; just stick to the word ‘energy’, sir. 'Psychologically' (inwardly our available intelligent?) energy is practically nil. And I’m saying that when that ( the brain's self -identifying?) 'limitation' has been broken through, there is a totally different energy. So far it is only channelled (outwardly) through technology, which is merely the activity of thought and, therefore, that energy is ( perceptively?) limited. The breaking down of the 'psyche' ( of the 'self'-identification?) is not the (result of thye?) energy of thought.

PJ : We have to probe some more into the instruments that man has. Let us examine those instruments. One is thought (the thinking activity of the brain ) , and the others are the senses.

K: The sensitivity of the senses and thought which are both the same.

PJ: This is what we must discuss. The sensitivity of the senses and thought—are they both the same?

K: I will show it to you. I have just caught something, but don’t just accept what
I say. Our senses are controlled by thought—right? Take, for example, my sense of taste—anything that is bitter, I don’t like, and anything that is sweet, I do. So ( the supervising activity of?) thought has come in. The question is whether there is a movement of all the senses, total (integrated activity of the?) senses, without the interference of thought. Have you ever looked at the vast movement of the sea, at the movement of the tides, and at the enormous power of the waves, with all your senses operating? If you do that, there is no ( controlling) interference of thought. Now when thought interferes with the senses, it must inevitably be to limit them or control them.

PJ: What you have said is so. There is a challenge and my senses respond according to the conditioning of thought. But there is a response of the senses...

K: (which usually is?) always partial—because ( the self centredactivity of ) thought is always watching, always controlling the senses. I must, I must not.

PJ: But at some instant there can be a state where there is nothing contained in those senses.

K: Right.

PJ: So, I want to push further—if you don’t jump down my throat.

K: (Laughs) I won’t.

PJ: You see, sir, when you think of your brain, you think of it as there (Touches head) somewhere in the head. But when the senses , do not contain thought, the place of operation changes.

K: That’s right. That’s all I am saying. It’s simple enough. When the senses are observing completely, there is no ( mental controlling?) centre. When you look completely at the movement of the sea, or at the extraordinary sights of the Himalayas when there is not a cloud in the sky, there is no centre; there is no thought. The moment thought comes in, there is a centre.

PJ: We have discussed thought, we have discussed the senses. Is there a 'third movement'?

K: Yes. That is the whole point. Is there a movement, an action, a state (of choiceless awareness?) that is not static, in which is yet not a movement of thought? That is your question, isn’t it?

PJ: Not a movement of thought, not a movement of the senses...

K: When you observe the sea with all your senses, there is no (self-conscious) sensory movement. The senses are not aware that they are 'heightened'. Anything that is excellent is not aware of its own excellence. Goodness in the highest sense of the word has no sense of (itself) being good.

PJ: So, you are talking of the 'essence' of all thought, of the 'essence' of all the senses. Then it is this 'essence' itself that is the instrument.

K: When there is a heightened excellence of the senses, the senses are not aware. We only realize that the senses are fully awake when thought comes in. The heightened state has already gone. Now when thought (the thinking brain?) is aware of its own tremendous limitation, then it is broken through. But to actually see that thought has no place in the movement...

PJ: We are reading the story of mankind and we are asking what the instrument with which we probe is.

K: I will tell you. This (living) story of mankind is an endless movement. It has no beginning and no end. But my brain being limited, is looking for an 'ending' (of the story) . I am approaching this (living) book to find out what the end of all this is.

PJ: The search is for the end (-state?) .

K: Of course, of course. But to realize that there is no end—do you realize what it means? To realize that there is no end is to enter into something (a source of creation?) called Love. Love has no end. So, (at that point?) how do you 'read' the book? You don’t read it at all. There is no more 'book' to read. When you come to this really deep point, namely, that this book (of Life) has no end and no beginning, you realize that you 'are' the book, that (your ?) life as (part of) this movement which has no end is then (one with?) the ( Mind of the ?) Universe. It is then ( part of ?) the Cosmos.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 10 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 May 2015 #3
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

Normally I feel that I am separate from my thinking: that there is a 'me' that is quite substancial and continuous and awake (except when asleep unless I reappear in my 'dream states'). Now, in inquiring into all this,
I see that 'I' am actually not separate from 'my' thoughts; that I actually AM my thoughts and as these thoughts issue from my memories, experiences, beliefs etc., that they are limited in this way and hence so am 'I'. And this situation is not particular to me but is the situation with everyone. Everyone has this sensation of themselves being separate from their thought. So this is a universal situation. And since myself is not different qualitatively from any other 'self' (in fact doesn't actually exist separate from the 'stream' of thought', the stream of 'becoming'), the question arises: If 'I' am not separate from this movement of 'becoming', if 'I' AM this movement of 'becoming', and this 'becoming' is universal among humanity, who am I, really? When (if) the 'becoming' is gone beyond, what are we in essence?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 May 2015 #4
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 318 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K: ............... there is a different kind of 'movement' which is not based on experience, knowledge. Now if there is a 'breakthrough', there will be no division between the 'mind' and the energy of the brain. Do you understand? The energy of the brain has done technological work, but 'psychologically' my energy is practically nil. And I’m saying that when that limitation has been 'broken through', there is a totally different energy. So far it is only channelled through technology, which is merely the activity of thought and, therefore, that energy is limited.
The breaking down of the 'psyche' is not the energy of thought. Technology is the energy of thought, but the energy of thought is limited.

Dan....quite clear and obvious yes...

John Raica wrote:
PJ: We have moved to another dimension altogether which, if we understand, is this: The brain has done tremendous things in the field of technology, but in the realm of the 'psyche' it is still static. We were talking about the reading of the book of mankind, and my question was: Can a single brain contain it? And Krishnaji brought in the differentiation between the 'brain' and the 'mind'. He said that the brain being limited and not having moved, can only move...

just a quick word, qualifying what the brain has done as tremendous , is just automatic self congratulation, I am part of it so I am great myself too, a bigger me it is !! this is the natural and logical expected result of some analytical motives which are in the analytical program in order to make it functioning..pride,glory, extraordinary ,wow, self congratulation etc etc are just the outcome of such program ,rewards ,self rewards....collectively we made these tools, OK fine..but the analyser mentioning the tremendous never think about all the horror that goes along with it...it is lying to itself..

What remains of this analyser if those hints of self pride and self congratulations are seen for what they are ?

John Raica wrote:
K: Pupul, let us be very clear and very careful when we speak of Creation. Thought has created, in the physical world, not only the churches, the temples and the mosques but also all the things that are in them. But because thought in itself is 'limited', thought cannot perceive a Mind that is immeasurable. The function of thought is to reduce everything to its limited, mechanical, fragmentary activity. Right? And we are saying that as long as the brain is conditioned, it can never understand the immensity of the nature of the Mind. If you see this, you will also see your 'responsibility' to decondition the brain, to decondition the limitation which thought has imposed on it. Yes, I’ve got it. That’s it.

If I am in this corner, not having solved sorrow even partially only , not having brought then what is unconscious into the open, not having any direct experiences of something else which is not the usual thinking...can I go any other way that analytically into such subject ?

I have been trapped in this subtle k's analytical words for years....this is why I mention...

he is for me putting the kart before the horse..not mentioning that he knows by experience what he is talking about..and I think that this is a mistake not to have mentioned that, or even from time to time not even say "I have lived that", or "this is what happened to me, let me tell you as closely as possible"!

...what he is saying seems to come from "nowhere",magic, as it seem to happen to one human being every 2000 years, an exception so confirming our status of violent and totally ruthless creature, this does no make sense,something agreed somewhere by k himself of course!
.. it comes from nowhere or much worse from a cleaver analyser which now sees, understand etc etc when it is not that at all, it is surely not the case . Thought is not able to go into those fields,yet it can pretend if clever enough.

obviously all have gone somehow through his own brain mind before as personal experimentation of someone beyond the personal so linked with the global and if global there is it necessarily has no end,as otherwise it is again only partial!!

if not he is lying..so he is too talking from analytical memories here,and why not from a direct moment here he is "connected " ,this I cannot possibly know....with the clarity of reel experience, yes indeed..but the reader may be fooled or fooling himself...there is so a danger in that, for me it is clear that there is such danger or catch 22...because again ,this is going to be digested by the analyser only..who is now able to create a more subtle and sophisticated intellectual pipe dream,without knowing it at all..

John Raica wrote:
K: Our senses are ( presently?) 'controlled' by thought . Take, for example, my sense of taste—anything that is bitter, 'I don’t like', and anything that is sweet, 'I like' . So thought has come in.
The question is whether there is a 'total' movement of all the senses without the interference of thought. Look at the question first. Have you ever looked at the vast movement of the sea, at the movement of the tides, and at the enormous power of the waves, with 'all your senses' operating? If you do that, there is no interference of thought. Now when thought interferes with the senses, it must inevitably be to limit ( use?) them or control them.

when such thing happens for real, this is experience, anything is deeply interesting and not only the sea, the waves ,not only the mountain, not only a fantastic surrounding or sunset or whatever, a simple glass would have as much strength than the biggest mountain, qualified of extraordinary and beautiful by the analyser...division has ended, values are gone, hierarchy is destroyed, so all is "interesting" and beyond the touch of the analyser....I have lived that deeply a few times....

but what the analyser listening to that may get is that there is something extraordinary and wonderful beyond its ordinary no life and sorrowful fight ..it is now creating a new goal: I must have that!! heaven is for me...

another illusory non existing craving is born and more problems will be added to those existing and so unsolved..bit by bit but surely , I am sinking .

in such state..it is clear that "something x" not of analytical thought takes the full control of the brain mind, and there is no looking, no watching, no seeing as such ,all this just happens by itself , how ? i have no single, k has not either or does not say....

then it is interesting i am sure of that to mention to others just to say: listen this happened and I want to say , to share, like one would share any discovery in technical fields for no profit, conscious that behind something may be of some peaceful use for others in a global attitude to live together and not one against each other...any discoveries in all fields whether practical whether non practical are never ours....the stupid analyser thinks that it is...and uses that in its useless and destructive quest to run away from life...

John Raica wrote:
PJ: So, we are talking of the 'essence' of all thought, of the 'essence' of all the senses. Then it is this 'essence' itself that is the ( new perceptive?) instrument.

K: Leave it for the moment. When there is a 'heightened excellence' of the senses, the senses are not 'aware' . You only realize that the senses have been fully awake when ( the controlling process of?) thought comes in. the 'heightened' state has already gone. Now ( if and ?) when thought is aware of its own limitation, then it is broken through. To realize that is to actually see that thought has no place in that movement...

In what I know by experience, by the way k for me has found the right words here "heightened excellence of the senses" as this is exactly what happens, when this happens, at the very beginning of it , thought sees and feel that something is happening....it is aware of that, for a few seconds thought is aware...then something x caught in weird goodness takes place and the control of the brain mind..this has happened to much more people that we can think..it is just that many do not mention..
for practically 35 years I never mentioned , just to a few persons , why mention such moment...? the presence of the weird energy does not change the analyser is the fact I have lived, this is why out of more reasons I know that there is another process which is not analytical....the analyser just knows that it happened, in such moment it knows that it cannot have it...it knows about the reality of bliss, of the otherness...and so what?? what good does it , if it does any ??

That is my point to say that, the weird Universal bliss is one thing, and the analytical sorrow of life is the constant fact of the analyser,whether mild if my drugs are very powerful (one could destroy the planet or himself as a drug to keep escaping) , whether very powerful if my drugs are not functioning much ...suffering which is "ignored" when most of us are pretending with strength: not me , I am great man!!

not buying this lie, I have seen many "strong" person killing themselves apparently out of the blue, surprising most as they looked happy out ,powerful full of energy etc etc behind the apparent joy of a successful life ,there was too a very sad condition...

it is the reality of our "analytical" lives and if what i see for me is right this is meant to happen in order to say : "you are wrong" first, and secondly to force the analyser to stay where it must stay ..

this arrogant and criminal analyser, must bow before its suffering, which at this stage is still a wrong position that it must take, then it eventually becomes right only when this bowing stops because suffering and the analyser are one single item, the analysing brings suffering it could well be in its nature, that is my view here.....mine included of course less those time in bliss and hen sorrow is left alone, which brings from time to time its own calm and quietness but as no direct line with the weird bliss, until again as when young, I found again the way to drown into sorrow as a catalyst..without knowing that this would work...and bring to the surface what is unconscious for the too limited analyser...

this is forcing the unity to be a fact, it by passes the duality of the analyser,turns on the other process or whatever it is in fact ...that why in my view suffering is a vital "tool" in our lives...if not the analyser would keep its ways..yet here imagine a second that suffering is not...would I go insane , would i go to war ? would I steal others? would I torture them ? I say not at all...and this I am sure of it..
If anyone ask me again : and so what ?

We were not meant to stay as we are now and at least for some centuries, yet who knows all the past of mankind...I do not trust any official on that, we are clearly meant to go beyond the analyser's life...as a leaving cert subject the marks of our species right now are zero to "zonkee" one hundred...

and so what ? we may keep trying to ignore the suffering felt by the analyser, when it is its condition, there are plenty drugs for that...then in 2 billion years man's life will be the exact same as 5000 years ago, as right now , if we are still there...

limitation as such does not seem to be a problem..why would it be a problem ?? one problem out of many more is in the sense perceived after if discovered ,that for example it is creating by its limitation an unconscious zone in the brain and this unconscious zone is where secrets motives, unsolved problems and much more are hidden and stored but very much "alive" ,so alive that this is mainly what is driving us, like I think that I am reaching the top of the world when in fact I am just running away...the analyser is not aware of that in normal life as we live..
Mentioning all that here is not showing off , it can't be as it shows me how wrong I usually am but not all the time in my own life, apart from X moments; so that would eventually in fact add more sorrow to go back into that than bringing any goodness to play the man who had some k's like experiences..just to say !

John Raica wrote:
PJ: The search is for the end (for the 'finality' of it?) .

K: Of course, of course. But to realize that there is no end—do you realize what it means? To realize that there is no end is to enter into something called 'love'. Love has no end. I may 'love' my wife—she dies or I die, but the thing called 'love' goes on; it has no end. So, how do you 'read' the Book? When you come to this really deep point, namely, that this book has no end and no beginning, you realize that you 'are' the book. This does not mean that 'you' become eternal, but that Life as this Movement has no end. It is then the universe. It is then the 'Cosmos . It is then the 'whole thing'.
If someone 'heard' all this— someone who was serious, of course—would it all sound so extraordinarily 'wild'? But what I am saying is not 'wild'. It is 'logical' and very clear and can be stated in Sorbonne, Harvard or in Delhi, it will 'hold water' ...

Well ,before such time it seems that a big event of some sort must occur first..we are now far too wrong..far too deep in the darkness of the analyser..and if K is right and I guess he is very much if there is no personal brain mind but a global one unless my taste for yellow and yours for green, then we actually are in the position of someone ready to commit a suicide in order to try to again run away...

so far suffering has no yet played its function before to be mastered...its symptom property as well as its catalyst properties have to be rediscovered...

let us say that all what is said about suffering ( I know I promised not to mention here, not possible it is) is not right...

then..what you seem up to John remains a last chance to go into all that...

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 May 2015 #5
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 534 posts in this forum Offline

Brain, Mind, Nothingness

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, my question is: Is there in oneself, in the human brain, the human mind—call it what you will—is there a 'within' of things, an inner space without ending, and is it a mirror image of that vastness which exists (in the outer space) ?

K: Are you asking whether there is or there can be a space without end, an eternity outside time within the human brain? I’d like to distinguish between the 'brain' and the 'mind'. Can the brain realize the truth as to whether there is Eternity or not? That’s the question, right?

PJ: Yes.

K: Now, how do you begin to feel your way into this really fundamental question? Whether man's (consciousness) is bound to time forever or whether the brain can realize itself in a state of eternity, is a question that has been asked for thousands of years. And that is the question we’re asking too.

PJ: You started by drawing a distinction between the 'brain' and the 'mind'. Would you, please, elaborate?

K: First, we are saying that the brain or at least some part of it (the 'activistic' part?) is ( seriously?) conditioned (by our past ) experience, knowledge and memory. And as our experience, knowledge and memory are limited, thought ( our thinking?) is limited.

PJ: Yes...

K: Now, we have been functioning within this ('known'?) area . And to discover something new, there has to be, at least temporarily, a period ' (a break?) when thought is not in movement, when thought is in abeyance.

PJ: The brain is a material thing and for centuries the operation of the brain has ( predominantly?) been the operation of thought.

K: That is what we are saying, namely that the whole movement of the brain—at least that ( 'known'?) part of the brain which has been used—is conditioned by thought, and thought is always limited and therefore it is conditioned to (accept and work in?) conflict and must create divisions.

PJ: What is the 'mind' then?

K: The mind is a wholly different dimension (of our consciousness?) which has no contact with that part of the brain which has been functioning as an instrument of thought and as long as that part of the brain remains in that area there is no entire communication with the mind. So, when that (self-centred?) conditioning is not (active?) , then that 'mind' which is totally on a different dimension, communicates with the brain and acts (intelligently) using thought.

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

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

PJ: Time ?

K: Yes, time.

PJ: So, time seems to be the essential core of this problem...

K: Time and thought.

PJ: Thought is a product of (our evolution in?) time. In a sense, thought is ( the inner process of?) time.

K: That’s it, that’s the real point. So, were do you start ?

PJ: Perhaps if we could go into this (inner) flow of time, an instant interception is possible...

K: The 'ending' of it.

PJ: I was trying to use another word, but we could use the word ‘ending’.

K: Let’s use simpler words.

PJ: Thought is coming from a past immemorial, ( constantly stretching?) itself into a future, which is also endless. So, unless the human being ceases to be...

K: Ceases to be 'conditioned', right?

PJ: Yes, the content (the self-programming of our consciousness?) will undergo a change, but the mechanism of thought will continue.

K: Let’s put it this way : thought (the thinking capacity?) is the chief instrument we have. Thousands of years of various efforts and actions have not only made that instrument dull, but that instrument has also reached the end of its tether (in terms of inwardness ?) because 'thought-time' is limited, conditioned, divided, and in a perpetual state of (inner struggle and ?) turmoil. Now, can that ( come to an?) 'end'? That’s the question.

PJ: Now, this movement of the past as the 'yesterday'...

K: We are a bundle of ( active?) memories. Don’t separate 'time' as if it were something different from 'thought'. It is ( a joint process of?) 'time-thought'. Are you asking: What is the ‘now’?

PJ: It’s the ‘interception’ that I’m talking about, the contact with the 'fact'.

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

PJ: No, let us be more concrete. I am going away this afternoon, and I may be leaving you (for a long time?) - it is a thought.

K: It’s not a thought; it’s an 'actuality'.

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

K: I understand. Are you asking: The pain of thousands years and centuries—the pain of loneliness, sorrow, grief; the agony, the anxiety and all that—is that separate from the ‘me’ who feels it?

PJ: It may not be separate.

K: It 'is' me. (Emphatic)

PJ: How do I touch it?

K: I don’t quite understand your usage of ‘How do I touch it?’

PJ: Sir, it’s only in the present that the whole of this edifice rests.

K: That’s what I said : the ‘now’ contains the past, the future and the present.

PJ: Yes...

K: The 'present' is the whole past and the future : the 'me' with all the memories of a thousand years, and those thousand years are being modified all the time. All that is the ‘now’—the present.
And you actually observe (become aware of this inner?) 'fact' that the 'present' is the whole movement of time and thought. You, actually, see the truth of that. You have an insight, a perception, into the fact that the ‘now’ is ( encapsulating?) all time and thought.

PJ: Does that perception emanate from the brain?

K: That perception is an insight which has nothing to do with ( the inner movement of?) time and thought.

PJ: But it arises within the brain?

K: Or does it arise outside the brain? That is your question, right?

PJ: Yes, it’s very important.

K: Is it ( coming from?) within the sphere of the brain or is it that insight comes when there is freedom from ( the identification with that?) conditioning, which is the operation of the 'mind'?—That is supreme intelligence, you follow?

PJ: No, I don’t follow.

K: Let’s be clear. The brain is conditioned ( to work within?) this 'time-thought' ( process ?) . As long as that ( self-programming?) conditioning remains, insight is not possible. You may have 'occasional insights' into something, but not 'pure insight', which means the comprehension of the 'wholeness' of things, a perception of completeness. Therefore that insight is part of that ( known-free?) brain which is ( living?) in a different dimension. That’s all I’m saying.

PJ: Sir, (this inward ?) perceiving, listening, seems to be the very essence of insight. Let us take the word ‘insight’. It means ‘seeing into’.

K: Seeing into. Having an 'insight into' or the comprehension of the totality, of the ( innner?) vastness of something, is possible only when there is the cessation of 'thought and time'. Thought and time are limited; therefore such limitation cannot have insight.

PJ: To understand what you are saying, I have to have an open ( inner?) 'ear' and 'eyes' that see. Now, ( such?) an 'in-sight' cannot arise without attention.

K: Don’t introduce the ( slippery?) word ‘attention’. Stick to the same thing. That is, insight cannot exist as long as 'time-thought' plays a part.

PJ: You see, but which comes first? I mean, in my (inner) approach I can’t start with insight.

K: No.

PJ: I can only start with observation.

K: You can only start by realizing the truth that ( the 'psychological' processes of?) 'time' and 'thought' are always limited ( inwardly inadequate?) . That’s a 'fact'. (Emphatic)

PJ: That, Krishnaji, is a fact...

K: So, start from this realization that 'time-thought' is always limited (self-limiting?) and, therefore, whatever it does will always be limited and therefore contradictory, divisive and giving rise to endless conflict. That’s all I’m saying. You can see the 'fact' of that.

PJ: You can ( very easily?) see the fact of that outside of yourself.

K: You can see it politically, religiously. All through the world it is a fact that ( this self-centred process of?) 'time and thought', in their activity, have wrought havoc in the world. That’s a fact.

PJ: Yes, yes.

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

PJ: How does one see that? It’s like telling me that 'I am an illusion'. You say, ‘ The 'self' is a psychological bundle of (active memories of?) the past, a psychological movement of 'time and thought' which is the psyche, and that psyche is limited’...

K: Yes, it is limited, and whatever it does is limited.

PJ: Then, I would ask: What’s wrong with it being ( self-?) limited?

K: There is nothing 'wrong' if you want to live in perpetual conflict.

PJ: Now, we move further : to 'end it' is not ( enough) to say, to feel, that it is limited, but there must be an actual 'ending' to it.

K: I say that there is.

PJ: What is the nature of this 'ending' (of time ) ?

K: What do we mean by ‘the ending something’ ? To end 'attachment'. Not to (concretely?) do this or that (such as ?) 'Not to smoke'. ( But?) to put an end to it. The ending.

PJ: The ( inner?) flow (of 'time'?) ceases to flow.

K: Yes, if you like; yes. The ( inner?) movement of 'thought and time' ceases. What is your difficulty? You are making a simple thing terribly complex.

PJ: No, sir, but there is a point of perception, of insight.

K: Yes.

PJ: What is that point of insight?

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

PJ: In what ( inner dimension of?) time and space do I see it?

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

PJ: Outside I see it ...

K: No, wait, wait. Don’t look 'outside'. This is...

PJ: No, (inwardly?) I don’t see the 'fact'.

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

PJ: Because if I saw the fact, if I really saw the fact...

K: You would stop that kind of thing ?

PJ: It would be all over.

K: That’s all I’m saying.

PJ: So, why is it, if it is 'such a simple thing'—which I don’t think it is, because it has such devious ways (of continuing?) ...

K: No. (Emphatic) That’s the whole point. If you have an 'insight' that this ( inner-outer?) movement of 'thought-time' is divisive—at whatever level, in whatever realm, in whatever area—that it is a movement of endless 'conflict' ...

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

K: Now, can you see this movement ( acting otwards ?) outside, can you see what it does in the world, what misery it has caused in the world? Now, inwardly this movement is the 'psyche', (the inner?) movement of time-thought. This ( self-centred?) 'inward' movement has created that (Pointing outside) This ( self) divisive 'psychological' movement has created the external facts. I am a 'Hindu'. I am a 'German'. I feel secure in the (self-created illusory?) feeling that I belong to something.

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, being a 'Hindu' or being 'greedy'—one has seen as a product of this movement of time-thought.

K: That’s all I’m saying.

PJ: But it’s not quite...

K: What is your difficulty?

PJ: There is, within it all, a sense of ‘I exist’.

K: That’s the whole point. (With emphasis) You don’t realize that the 'psyche' is that.

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

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

PJ: What is the nature of the 'ground' from which insight springs?

K: I’ve told you. Insight can only take place when there is ( an inner space of?) freedom from 'time and thought'.

PJ: 'Time and thought'. You see, it’s so sort of unending...

K: No. It is not. You are complicating a very simple fact, as most of us do. To ( inwardly?) live in peace is to flower; it is to understand the extraordinary world of peace. Peace cannot be brought about by ( the self-isolating process of?) thought.

PJ: You see, it is the brain itself which listens to that statement.

K: Yes, it listens, and then what happens? If it listens, it’s quiet.

PJ: It’s ( temporarily?) quiet.

K: It isn’t ruminating. It’s not going on, if you see what I mean. It’s not rattling. It’s quiet.

PJ: Yes, it’s quiet...

K: Wait, wait. When it really, actually, 'listens', and there is this (inner) quietness that is not induced, then there is ( the unique opportunity of having an?) insight. I don’t have to explain in ten different ways the limitation of thought. It is so.

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

K: Oh yes, there is. Oh God, there is a great deal more. Which is: Is listening only possible when it is connected to a sound, or is there also a listening to something, let’s say, for example, to what you are saying, without the 'verbal' sound? I say that if there is a 'verbal' (hearing?) , I’m not ( truly?) listening, but only understanding the ( intellectual meaning of the?) words. But you want to convey to me something much more than the words. If the words are making a sound in my hearing, I cannot deeply understand (see?) the depth of what you are saying. So, I want to find out something much more—which is what we started with, namely, the (timeless dimension of the?) 'present'.

PJ: Yes...

K: The present is the ‘now’. The ( temporal ?) ‘now’ is the whole movement of time-thought.
If this ( mental?) structure of 'time and thought' ends, the ( timeless?) ‘now’ has a totally different meaning. The ‘now’ then is ( inwardly being?) 'nothing'. And ( this) 'nothingness' contains all.

PJ: Yes...

K: But we are afraid to 'be nothing'.
PJ: When you say, 'it contains all’, do you mean that it is the essence of all humanity, the environment, nature and the Cosmos as such?

K: There is no-thing. The 'psyche' is a ( self-motivated?) bundle of memories, and those memories are 'dead'. They operate, function in us, but they are the outcome of past experiences, which have gone. 'I' am a movement of memories. Now, if I have an insight that 'there is nothing' ( worth keeping?) , then ‘I’ don’t exist.

PJ: You said something about sound and listening...

K: Yes, listening without sound. You see the beauty of it?

PJ: Yes, it is possible when the mind itself is totally still.

K: No, don’t bring in the 'mind' for the moment. When the brain is absolutely quiet, there is no ( mental?) 'sound' made by the word. That is real (inward?) listening.

PJ: So, the brain has not been active in this (inward) listening.

K: Yes. The brain, when it is 'active', is ( generating its own internal?) noise. Let’s come back to this pure ( listening to?) sound : it can only exist when there is space and silence. Otherwise it’s just (mental?) noise.

(Recap:) I’d like to come back to the ( 'time' related ?) fact that all one’s education, all one’s past experience and knowledge, is a movement in becoming—both inwardly and outwardly. ( This process of self?) becoming is ( sustaining?) itself through the accumulation of memory (as well as 'property'?) —more and more and more memories which constitute knowledge. Now, as long as that ( self-protective?) movement exists, there is ( a lurking?) fear of 'being nothing' (and/or having nothing?) . But when one has an insight that ( inwardly?) there is no-thing, when one really sees the fallacy, the illusion of becoming—which is endless time-thought and conflict—then there is an ending of that. That is, the ending of the movement which is the ( self-identified?) 'psyche', which is time-thought. The ending of that is to 'be (inwardly?) no-thing'.
This 'no-thing' ( ness) then contains the ( mind of the ?) whole universe, the entire world of compassion. Compassion is 'no-thing'. And, therefore, that 'No-thingness' is supreme intelligence. That’s all there is. I don’t know if I’m conveying this.

PJ: Yes....

K: So, why are human beings—just ordinary, intelligent human beings— frightened of 'being nothing', frightened to see that they really are (identified with?) verbal illusions, that they are nothing but 'dead' (acting?) memories? That’s a fact. I don’t like to think I’m just nothing but memories, but the truth is that I 'am' memories. If I understand the whole movement of memory, which is time-thought, and see the (true) fact that as long as there is this movement, there must be endless ( self-isolating?) conflict, struggle, pain. And when there is an insight into that, 'no-thing' means something entirely different. That ‘no-thing’ is the ( timeless dimension of the?) Present, and it’s not a ‘varying’ present.

PJ: Not a 'varying present' ?

K: It isn’t that one day it’s this, and the next day it is different. That ( inner) 'no-thing' (-ness) is no time. Therefore it’s not ('me'?) ending one day, and being (the same?) another day. You see, if one goes into this, there must be no shadow of 'time' and 'thought'. You see, Pupul, that after all is real 'meditation'. That’s what s?u?nya (the inner void?) means in Sanskrit. The actual fact is that we are ‘nothing’ except words and options and judgements. I mean, all that is a petty affair, and we’ve made our lives petty. So, we have to grasp, to understand, that in ( being?) 'nothing' is all the world contained—not the pain and the anxiety which are all so small.
So, having listened to all this, what is your comprehension? What is it you realize? If you could put it into words, Pupul, it would be rather good. What is it that you, and those who are going to listen to all this what do you capture, realize? Do you see the 'immensity' of all this?

PJ: It’s really an 'ending' of the psychological nature of the self...

K: Yes.

PJ: Because that is becoming.

K: Wait a minute, Pupulji. Do you say, ‘By Jove, I’ve got it. I’ve got the perfume of it’?

PJ: Sir, don’t ask me that question.

K: Why? PJ: Because anything I say would sound... As you were speaking there was (that) Immensity.

K: There was that. I could feel it, you could. There was the 'tension' of that, but is it temporary—for the moment, for a second—and it’s gone, and then is there once again the whole business of remembering it, capturing it, inviting (waiting for ) it?

PJ: No, no. I say that one has moved from there... But another thing one realizes is that the most difficult thing in the world is to be 'totally simple' (inwardly ) .

K: Yes. To be simple—that’s right. If one is ( inwardly) really simple, one can understand the enormous complexity of ( the outer?) things. But we start with all the complexities and never ( get to?) see the simplicity. We have trained our brains to see the complexity, and then try to find an answer to the complexity. But we don’t see the extraordinary simplicity of life, of ( the inner?) facts rather.

PJ: May I move away a little?

K: Yes please do; I’m glad.

PJ: In the Indian tradition, out of sound were born all the elements. There is this Sound which reverberates, and is yet not heard.

K: That’s it. But after all, Pupul, especially in the Indian tradition, from the Buddha, from Nagarjuna, and the ancient Hindus, there is that state of 'no-thingness-, in which, they said, you must deny the whole thing. Nagarjuna came to that point—I may be mistaken—he denied everything, every movement of the 'psyche'.

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

K: Yes, it is there in the books; it is there in tradition. Now, why haven’t they pursued that? You see, even the most intelligent of them, even the most religious devotee has pursued some 'structure', and not the ( true ) 'feeling' of Religion, the feeling of the Divine, the sense of something Sacred. Why haven’t they pursued denying the ‘me’? . What they have done is to deny the (reality of this?) world—which one cannot—and they have ended up only making a mess of their own lives.

PJ: Sir, really, you know, 'renunciation' is the negation of the ‘me’. Basically, 'renunciation' is never in the outer.

K: Yes, never outside but inside—which means what? Don’t be attached—even to a Highest Principle. Don’t be attached to your ideals (of total poverty?) . I think what is happening is that we are really caught in a net of words, in theories, and not in actuality.
( If the 'fact' is that?) I suffer. I must find a way to end that, and not escape into some kind of silly illusion. Why have human beings not faced the 'fact', but (just tried to?) change the fact? Is it because we are ( inwardly?) living in ( self-created?) illusions, with ideas and conclusions and all those unrealities?

PJ: We are living with the 'history of mankind'. That is the history of mankind.

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

PJ: It’s really the ending of 'time', isn’t it, sir?

K: Yes, isn’t it? The ending of 'time-thought'. That means to listen without the sound. Listen to the universe without a sound. We were talking the other day, a doctor who said, ‘All these questions are all right, sir, but the fundamental issue is whether the brain cells— which have been 'conditioned' for centuries—can really bring about a mutation in themselves. Then the whole thing would be simple’. Do you understand?

PJ: Yes.

K: I said, ‘It’s possible only through insight’, and then we went into it as we’ve gone into it now. You see, nobody is ( readily?) willing to 'listen' to this in its entirety. They listen partially. They agree, in the sense, they go together up to a certain point and stop there. If man really says, ‘There must be peace in the world, therefore, I must live peacefully’, then there will be peace in the world. But man does everything that is the opposite of that. He continues with his ambition, his arrogance, his silly, petty fears and all that. So, we have reduced the 'vastness' of all this to our petty ( self-centred?) little reactions. And so we live such 'petty' (insignificant?) lives. This applies to everyone—from the highest to the lowest.

PJ: What is Sound to you, sir?

K: Sound is the ( silent vibration of the?) tree. Take ( the Sound of ?) music : pure Indian chanting, Rig Vedic chanting or the Gregorian chants—they are extraordinarily close together. Then, you listen to the sound of the waves, the sound of strong wind among the trees, the 'sound' of the person whom you have lived with for many years; you get used to all this. But if you don’t get used to all this, then ( listening to?) Sound has an extraordinary meaning. Then you hear everything afresh. Say, for instance, you tell me that 'time-thought' is the whole (mental?) movement of man’s life; therefore limited. Now, you have communicated to me a simple fact, and if I listen to it without the sound of the words. I’ve captured the depth of that statement, and I can’t lose it. It isn’t that I’ve heard it now, and it’s gone when I go outside. I’ve listened to it in its entirety. That means, the ( listening to?) sound has conveyed the ( truth of the?) fact that it is so. And what 'Is' so is absolute— always.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 May 2015 #6
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

PJ: There is, within it all, a sense of ‘I exist’.

K: That’s the whole point. (With emphasis) You don’t realize that the 'psyche' is that.

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

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

Dan: Yes, as she says, I think and feel that I am something other than a "conditioned state", something other than a bundle of dead memories...but an insight, just a glimpse into the truth of this is immense: that one has never seen oneself as BEING the conditioned psyche, BEING the "movement of becoming", "time-thought" etc., seen, not as something one HAS, but something one IS...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 24 May 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 May 2015 #7
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 318 posts in this forum Offline

paul daniel wrote:

What remains of this analyser if those hints of self pride and self
congratulations are seen for what they
are ?

Really...nothing much, Dan; the K text
just posted above is a brilliant
lesson in this regard. So, actually a
new 'Book of Life' is in the making...

Dan: totally agreed John..down below is my own sum...
thanks for bringing that here...Pupul is definitively my cup of tea ..;-)


K: Are you asking whether there is or there can be a space without end, an eternity outside time within the human brain? I’d like to distinguish between the 'brain' and the 'mind'. Can the brain realize the truth as to whether there is Eternity or not? That’s the question, right?

PJ: Yes.

K: Now, how do you begin to feel your way into this really fundamental question? Whether man's (consciousness) is bound to time forever or whether the brain can realize itself in a state of eternity, is a question that has been asked for thousands of years. And that is the question we’re asking too.

PJ: The brain is a material thing and for centuries the operation of the brain has ( predominantly?) been the operation of thought.

K: That is what we are saying, namely that the whole movement of the brain—at least that ( 'known'?) part of the brain which has been used—is conditioned by thought, and thought is always limited and therefore it is conditioned to (accept and work in?) conflict and must create divisions.

Dan : instead of conditioning, for my own sake I say set up or programming..giving now this: thought is always limited .Thought is programmed by set up to conflictual situations yes/no created by the division me/ the universe....me/sorrow etc etc..its programming is divisive as a need, otherwise there is no analysing, and not any so called living creatures at all, is what I see..

K: The mind is a wholly different dimension which has no contact with that part of the brain which has been functioning as an instrument of thought and as long as that part of the brain remains in that area there is no entire communication with the mind. So, when that conditioning is not (active?) , then that 'mind' which is totally on a different dimension, communicates with the brain and acts (intelligently) using thought.

PJ: Thought is a product of time. In a sense, thought is time.

K: That’s it, that’s the real point. So, were do you start ?

K: Let’s put it this way : thought (the thinking capacity?) is the chief instrument we have. Thousands of years of various efforts and actions have not only made that instrument dull, but that instrument has also reached the end of its tether because 'thought-time' is limited, conditioned, divided, and in a perpetual state of turmoil. Now, can that 'end'? That’s the question.

K: I understand. Are you asking: The pain of thousands years and centuries—the pain of loneliness, sorrow, grief; the agony, the anxiety and all that—is that separate from the ‘me’ who feels it?

K: The 'present' is the whole past and the future : the 'me' with all the memories of a thousand years, and those thousand years are being modified all the time. All that is the ‘now’—the present.
And you actually observe (become aware of this inner?) 'fact' that the 'present' is the whole movement of time and thought. You, actually, see the truth of that. You have an insight, a perception, into the fact that the ‘now’ is ( encapsulating?) all time and thought.

PJ: Does that perception emanate from the brain?

K: That perception is an insight which has nothing to do with time and thought.

K: Let’s be clear. The brain is conditioned ( to work within?) this 'time-thought' ( process ?) . As long as that ( self-programming?) conditioning remains, insight is not possible. You may have 'occasional insights' into something, but not 'pure insight', which means the comprehension of the 'wholeness' of things, a perception of completeness. Therefore that insight is part of that ( known-free?) brain which is ( living?) in a different dimension. That’s all I’m saying.

Dan: Again instead of conditioned I'd rather say for myself programmed

so now it is: The brain is programmed to work within this 'time-thought' process . As long as that program remains the only one active , insight is not possible.

this for me implies another program X or capacity Y to be activated.

K: You can see it politically, religiously. All through the world it is a fact that time and thought, in their activity, have wrought havoc in the world. That’s a fact.

K: Wait, wait. When it really, actually, 'listens', and there is this quietness that is not induced, then there is insight. I don’t have to explain in ten different ways the limitation of thought. It is so.

K: There is no-thing. The 'psyche' is a ( self-motivated?) bundle of memories, and those memories are 'dead'. They operate, function in us, but they are the outcome of past experiences, which have gone. 'I' am a movement of memories. Now, if I have an insight that 'there is nothing' ( worth keeping?) , then ‘I’ don’t exist.

Dan: nevertheless if you remove this bundle of memories, there is no analysing possible, no one to read or write here as the body could not sustain itself..I had the obvious fact-proof of that when my father had a stroke, he lost some memories so capacities..alone he was totally unable to survive...the past, memories ,analysing are so vital too...

K(Recap:)K I’d like to come back to the fact that all one’s education, all one’s past experience and knowledge, is a movement in becoming—both inwardly and outwardly. becoming is ( sustaining?) itself through the accumulation of memory (as well as 'property'?) —more and more and more memories which constitute knowledge. Now, as long as that movement exists, there is fear of 'being nothing' (and/or having nothing?) . But when one has an insight that there is no-thing, when one really sees the fallacy, the illusion of becoming—which is endless time-thought and conflict—then there is an ending of that. That is, the ending of the movement which is the ( self-identified?) 'psyche', which is time-thought. The ending of that is to be no-thing'.
This no-thing then contains the whole universe, the entire world of compassion. Compassion is no-thing. And, therefore, that No-thingness is supreme intelligence. That’s all there is. I don’t know if I’m conveying this.

Dan: For myself in this becoming movement, I see a movement of escaping too...but so far I do not know how they interact together or even if it is just one movement that thought does not perceive as such ,again due to its limitation..

K: So, why are human beings—just ordinary, intelligent human beings— frightened of 'being nothing', frightened to see that they really are verbal illusions, that they are nothing but 'dead' memories? That’s a fact. I don’t like to think I’m just nothing but memories, but the truth is that I 'am' memories. If I understand the whole movement of memory, which is time-thought, and see the fact that as long as there is this movement, there must be endless conflict, struggle, pain. And when there is an insight into that, 'no-thing' means something entirely different. That ‘no-thing’ is the Present, and it’s not a ‘varying’ present.

Dan: it seems to me that that no-thing mentioned here is within the other process nature, the other process ,as lived, does not analyse, does not separate, does not give value, is not hierarchical then the body-mind is penetrating-penetrated both ways with the Universe ( this is really how it feels), the cosmos as k says; a process which has many capacities, one is to be a both way connection to the universe,fact for me, another one is a tool to take care of all what is wrong with us, using what we wrongly call sorrow as a warning of error and as a catalyst having as it wishes an effect on the turning on of this other process...no value given, no hierarchy...mankind problems solved, past ones as well as hen they occur, because problems will always keep occurring of course, but now we can solve them ..

K: It isn’t that one day it’s this, and the next day it is different. That ( inner) 'no-thing' (-ness) is no time. Therefore it’s not ('me'?) ending one day, and being (the same?) another day. You see, if one goes into this, there must be no shadow of 'time' and 'thought'. You see, Pupul, that after all is real 'meditation'. That’s what sunya means in Sanskrit. The actual fact is that we are ‘nothing’ except words and options and judgements. I mean, all that is a petty affair, and we’ve made our lives petty. So, we have to grasp, to understand, that in ( being?) 'nothing' is all the world contained—not the pain and the anxiety which are all so small.
So, having listened to all this, what is your comprehension? What is it you realize? If you could put it into words, Pupul, it would be rather good. What is it that you, and those who are going to listen to all this what do you capture, realize? Do you see the 'immensity' of all this?

PJ: It’s really an 'ending' of the
psychological nature of the self
...

K: Yes.

PJ: Because that is becoming.

Dan: yes indeed..I see here as well the ending not for good of course of the self leadership,as it must remain because it is vital ; again, I still see escaping within becoming or the opposite..Yet as stated I do not know about how intricate they are...What I mean is, have I not started to run away from childhood ? Not aware of that movement which is pain, I live with it ignoring this fact ??

K: Wait a minute, Pupulji. Do you say, ‘By Jove, I’ve got it. I’ve got the perfume of it’?

PJ: Sir, don’t ask me that question.

K: Why? PJ: Because anything I say would sound... As you were speaking there was (that) Immensity.

K: There was that. I could feel it, you could. There was the 'tension' of that, but is it temporary—for the moment, for a second—and it’s gone, and then is there once again the whole business of remembering it, capturing it, inviting (waiting for ) it?

K: Now, why haven’t they pursued that? You see, even the most intelligent of them, even the most religious devotee has pursued some 'structure', and not the 'feeling' of Religion, the feeling of the Divine, the sense of something Sacred. Why haven’t they pursued denying the ‘me’? . What they have done is to deny the (reality of this?) world—which one cannot—and they have ended up only making a mess of their own lives.

K: Yes, and mankind is 'me', and ‘me’ is this endless misery. So, if you want to end misery, end the ‘me’.

Dan: yes...has "me" the capacity within itself to make a vital step renouncing to its leadership all powerful and knowledgeable as it sees itself, even for a second..? I say yes it has, the pressure of wrongness creating a painful symptom which must absolutely be solved is for that purpose
If this is a factual point, then we have "something" which is there to help us through such "door" ...it is not in any book, any reading....and I see that there must be the possibility it can be handled by any human somehow...it must be universally accessible by all of us, if not, then war is our fate...so I go and get weapons right now!! I know this is not our fate...so I won't buy guns..

K: I said, ‘It’s possible only through insight’, and then we went into it as we’ve gone into it now. You see, nobody is * willing to 'listen' to this in its entirety. They listen partially. They agree, in the sense, they go together up to a certain point and stop there. If man really says, ‘There must be peace in the world, therefore, I must live peacefully’, then there will be peace in the world. But man does everything that is the opposite of that. He continues with his ambition, his arrogance, his silly, petty fears and all that. So, we have reduced the 'vastness' of all this to our petty little reactions. And so we live such 'petty' lives. This applies to everyone—from the highest to the lowest.

Dan: I see here the direct link of one movement starting in the brain mind and bringing peace on earth, peace has to be a natural fact within oneself...and the analyser whose life is to be divided in order to analyse which is vital for physical life, does not have in its programming the capacity to do such thing like bringing peace, not its work, as it is surely not at peace with itself, its work it to be choosy ,always choosy ..yes and no with an entity who is right,always right..such "censor" spends its life time eliminating and keeping...giving the illusion of a me being always right...this program has no connection with others, and lives with itself only...if this is all what we have for us..there our definitive ending if not far anymore now..hurray !!
We know that it is not all what we have ...

PJ: What is Sound to you, sir?

K: Sound is the ( silent vibration of the?) tree. Take music : pure Indian chanting, Rig Vedic chanting or the Gregorian chants, they are extraordinarily close together. Then, you listen to the sound of the waves, the sound of strong wind among the trees, the 'sound' of the person whom you have lived with for many years; you get used to all this. But if you don’t get used to all this, then Sound has an extraordinary meaning. Then you hear everything afresh. Say, for instance, you tell me that 'time-thought' is the whole (mental?) movement of man’s life; therefore limited. Now, you have communicated to me a simple fact, and if I listen to it without the sound of the words. I’ve captured the depth of that statement, and I can’t lose it. It isn’t that I’ve heard it now, and it’s gone when I go outside. I’ve listened to it in its entirety. That means, the sound has conveyed the fact that it is so. And what 'Is' so is absolute— always.

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 May 2015 #8
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 534 posts in this forum Offline

Uncovering the Inner Source of Creation

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, most of our lives are so futile . And unless one discovers within oneself the capacity to leap out of this 'futility', one will never be able to have a Creative Spring. You see, sir, when the mind has that, whatever be the circumstances, one seems to go beyond them. And that happens when the mind is not dependent on anything, and when it has some inner space, some perception.
What is the ground of this 'Creative' (inwardness?) ?

K: I think you should make the question a little more clear.

PJ: You have never answered any questions on the ( creative) 'Ground' of all manifestation. Let’s take it at the simplest level. This ‘coming to be’ of anything.

K: Are you asking what is the ( creative?) Source of all life—both the manifest and the non-manifest?

PJ: Yes. If it is possible, I would like to probe into what you have said just now: the manifest, the unmanifest and the pre-manifest.

K: Are we discussing this subject in a scientific (scholastic ?) sense or are we probing into something which you and I don’t know? Just a minute. I want to make it clear. Because, after all, we know about the birth of a baby. We know how it comes into being.

PJ: One may know how it comes into being, but one still does not know the quality of life which pervades it. You see, sir, the 'actuality' of birth is very different from the ( technical) description of birth.

K: Yes. Can we talk about what is the origin, the beginning, of all life or of all existence ? You see, various religious people said, ‘God is the origin of everything’. But ‘God’ is just a word, and a word doesn’t convey...?

PJ: I understand what you are saying. You see, sir, we have narrowed the word ‘creative’ to mean, painting, or writing a book, or discovering something in science. But basically, the whole meaning of a tree, a human being, the earth, the sky...

K: Man has asked this question about what is the meaning and the origin of all this is.

PJ: Yes. Where does it arise?

K: That’s what you are asking, isn’t it? What is the 'Ground' from which all this arises?

PJ: Yes.

K: What is the Source of all existence, all life, all action? Now, how do we come to investigate into something that demands an extraordinary ( inner) freedom -and the very word freedom means love- and an absolutely 'non-conditioned' mind, that quality of mind which is both practical and sensitive and which has the ( intelligent?) quality of great Compassion.

PJ: I can’t start with that.

K: No. So how do we come to that point and move on from there?

PJ: Sir, if you put it that way, I am stuck; I can’t move. I just say that this question arises in my mind and I would like to 'move' with this question.

K: Right.
..

PJ: If I say that the mind can question only when it is free and, therefore, love, what do I do?

K: You can’t do anything. But how do you inquire into something, a question, that man has asked for millions of years? How do you inquire into something that he gave a name to and then was satisfied with? We are not doing that. We are asking, how does a mind inquire into something that must be extraordinary, that must have a quality of not only universal, but something that is of a supreme order? How does one’s inquiry begin? Where does it begin? If you inquire with thought, that doesn’t lead very far.

PJ: How does this inquiry begin? Obviously by being aware of the disorder within oneself.

K: You see, Pupul, I am after all the 'manifest'. I have been born. I am a human being.

PJ: Yes, but obviously, sir, there can be no other starting point.

K: The world outside, the world inside. What is the criterion which 'measures' ( evaluates?) the outer and the inner?

PJ: But is it necessary to measure?

K: If I inquire into myself in a monastery, I can deceive myself enormously. But if I have a 'measure' (an objective assessment ?) of what actually is happening in the world outside of me, if I can observe all that without any bias, and if I can see and relate what is happening outside to what is happening inside, then I will see that it is one ( tidal?) movement and not two separate movements.

PJ: Sir, I am living in the midst of life and I see action at various levels—action that is both connected with me and disconnected with me. I also see the responses within me to these actions. I see the capacity which I may have gathered over the years to be able to remain without reacting to it. I see all that. And I move into that. I move with it.

K: You 'are' it. Don’t say, ‘I move with it’.

PJ: Yes, I am it. But you see, it is easier to say, ‘I am it’ with regard to the interior movement. To see that with regard to an exterior movement is much more difficult. If you tell me that I am ( responsible for?) all the wars which are taking place in the world, that’s very difficult for me to see (to accept?) .

K: Pupul, we are ( 'globally'?) responsible—in the deepest sense of that word—for all the wars that are taking place.

PJ: Yes, but that is a 'distant' ('optional'?) responsibility. Perhaps I might say ‘Yes, I am responsible’, if I take ‘responsibility’ to the ultimate meaning of it all, but I can’t link it in the same way to what is within me. The response within me is a 'living' response.

K: You see,
I want to know why you don’t feel total responsibility for the wars, the brutality, the terrible things that are happening in the world? Why don’t you feel 'totally' responsible?

PJ: How is one feeling 'totally' responsible?

K: My entire way of living, my entire way of thinking and of acting—as
a nationalist, this or that—has contributed to the present state of the world.

PJ: You are making it so difficult ; when you take it to that extent, it is impossible for me to feel the reality of it.

K: Let’s leave that for a moment...

PJ: Yes, I think it’s better to leave that. But let’s probe into the ground of existence which is the ‘is'-ness of life.
The only way to probe it is to 'move into oneself', whatever that means.

K: All right, to move or to 'enter' into the whole complex of oneself. Now, I can’t enter into it as an 'observer' from the outside, for I am all that.

PJ: Yes, it’s not even (necessary to?) that I state 'what I am', but to uncover what I am. And in uncovering what I am, I comprehend that one is uncovering the whole existence of man.

K: Yes, that’s very simple.

PJ: So in this 'journey of uncovering', the superficial things are swept clean.

K: What does it mean—to have 'swept the room'? Is this 'sweeping', or cleansing, or uncovering, a complete moving away (inner withdrawal?) from all the superficial reactions, superficial conditionings, and a trying to enter into the nature of the ( central?) movement that conditions the mind?

PJ: Obviously, sir, you can’t say that you have swept the room and it is over. The grosser elements can certainly be eliminated. You see, sir, it is possible to sweep away the more obvious things, but the subtler things survive in corners which you have not been able to get to.

K: Yes, that’s right. But, let’s go a little more into the 'obvious' things...

PJ: You know for instance, Krishnaji, ambition, envy...

K: Yes, and 'hatred' (aggresivity & resentment?) . Can one really be free of this (accumulated ?) hatred? Can one really wipe it away? Can one be free of all sense of aggression, all sense of the enemity? There is no 'enemy'. The 'enemy' is ( created by?) you.

PJ: But hatred is different from the quality of aggression. Let’s go into it a little, sir.

K: Aggression is related to hatred, because it’s ( the reverse?) part of the same movement. An aggressive nation or an aggressive person inevitably hurts another, and that hurt breeds hatred.

PJ: Yes, that’s why I say that there are the grosser things and there are the subtler things. Hatred—anyone who has known hatred—knows that hatred is a very powerful and a very destructive thing. But aggression may, to some extent, be part of one’s nature.

K: Yes, of course, it’s part...

PJ: It may be that it is part of your make-up as a human being.

K: Yes, to survive, and all the rest.

PJ: You may be more assertive than another, that is aggression. To be assertive is not (necessarily implying?) hatred. I think the only way to move (deeper) into this is to see that nothing is trivial.

K: Yes, that nothing is trivial and that all things, all reactions, have their source in one’s (self-isolating?) conditioning. You see, Pupul, the very word ‘freedom’, as far as I understand, means affection, love...

PJ: And a tremendous ( self-) discipline. Might we use the word ‘discipline’?

K: I know you are using the word 'discipline', but I am not sure...

PJ: I am speaking of ( inner) ‘discipline’ as a demand for such watchfulness that the trivial does not, at any time, creep in.

K: My point is this: Does this 'watchfulness', which is ( choiceless?) awareness, need training? Does it need ( following a?) discipline?

PJ: Sir, we commonly mean by 'discipline' some kind of regimentation. For example, if I were to sit cross-legged and look, unblinkingly, at the wall every morning, forcing myself not to have a single thought, that would be considered 'discipline'. But I mean by ‘discipline’ the mind awakening to the fact that it must become aware of every movement within itself. Sir, that also is (requiring some inner?)
'diligence'... Sir, without diligence nothing is possible. So may we discard the word ‘self-discipline’, and put in the word ‘diligence’?

K: ‘To be diligent’ means to be aware of what you are doing, to be aware of what you are thinking, to be aware of your reactions. Now, in that 'awareness', is the action controlled, is the action put into a certain framework?

PJ: No, obviously not.

K: So the very 'act of learning' is ( bringing ?) its own discipline.

PJ: Yes. But how does this 'act of learning' come to be? From where does the need for observation arise? Why should I observe myself?

K: For a very simple reason : to see whether it’s possible for a human mind to change itself, to change the (course taken by the collective consciousness of the?) world which is entering into such a 'catastrophic' (chaotic?) area.

PJ: Yes, but sir, if I start there, or if I start with sorrow—which is very often the real ground from which one starts...

K: Yes.

PJ: The 'ground' (of this consciousness?) is really sorrow.

K: Yes, I was coming to that... Now, what we started out with was an inquiry into the Origin, the ( Creative?) Ground, of all life. And to inquire into that, you have to inquire into yourself, because you are the expression (manifestation?) of that. You 'are' life.

PJ: Yes.

K: Now we are trying to discuss the Origin of that, and I can only do that by understanding myself. Now, this ‘myself’ is so terribly complex. The 'self' is a living complex; it is a messy, disordered entity. How do we approach an ( inner?) problem that is complex, a problem that is not to be easily diagnosed? Do we say, ‘This is right’, ‘This is wrong’, ‘It should be’, ‘It should not be’?

PJ: But is it not because one starts with a (directed?) attention which is looking for an ordered entity, that one finds disorder?

K: We are missing something (an intermediary step?) . I said the ( 'psychological' state of the?) world is in disorder. I begin with that. There is disorder outside (myself) and disorder inside (myself) . Now, if I want to understand the ( true?) origin of disorder, I can move more and more deeply into something which may ( appear for starters ?) total chaos but which is total order. Do you follow what I mean?

PJ: Isn’t it by being as 'simple' (as 'true' to oneself?) as possible?

K: Yes, that’s what I am trying to say.

PJ: And I have certain instruments of inquiry: eyes, ears, the other senses.

K: Do I look into myself with my (optic?) eyes? I can’t see the ( inward) complexity of myself with my eyes. I must be aware, 'sensitively', without any choice, of this condition.

PJ: Why do you say, sir, that you cannot be aware with your eyes?

K: Do you mean the 'inward' eye?

PJ: No. You see, there is a way of looking out and there is a way of looking in, a way of''listening in'.

K: You must be a little careful here, because it’s misleading.

PJ: Let’s go into it. Is there any other way?

K: Yes, I think there is.

PJ: Isn't the eye, the ear, part of the other way?

K: Hearing? Seeing? Feeling? Those are actually sensory responses, right? I see that colour. I hear that noise. I taste something, and so on. All those are sensory responses.

PJ: Yes. But is there not a 'seeing' of a reaction of anger, a listening to a reaction of anger?

K: Do you listen with your (physical) ears or do you observe anger?

PJ: How do you observe anger?

K: Would it help if we talked about 'perception'?

PJ: Take an act where you are 'totally' attentive. What is the state of the mind in that act of being totally attentive?

K: What is the state of action that’s born out of complete attention? I’ll answer it. But to answer that question, one must first understand what we mean by complete attention. Attention is not concentration.

PJ: Of course, sir, attention is not concentration.

K: Attention means that there is no ( controlling?) 'centre' from which you are attending.

PJ: No, of course not.

K: Don’t just say, ‘Of course not’; please see what’s implied in it.

PJ: You see, sir, are we still 'dusting the periphery'? Unless I (clearly ?) understand what attention is, I can’t even take the first step.

K: What does to 'attend completely' mean?

PJ: For the ‘I’ not to be there ?

K: Yes, that is the real thing. When there is attention, there is no ‘I’. It isn’t a state of 'I am attending', but only a ( transpersonal?) state of mind which is wholly attentive.

PJ: With all the senses...

K: With all the senses and the whole body.

PJ: The whole being is 'awake', if I may say so.

K: Yes, you can use that word.

PJ: And if you are in that state when your ( whole ) being is awake, then you can 'listen', you can 'observe'; you can proceed from there.

K: (Recap:) I want to inquire into myself. Because 'myself' am life and if I am to inquire into what I am, my inquiry has to be correct, accurate, not distorted. It is only then that I may come upon the ground, the beginning of all life. It is only then that the Origin may be discovered, may be uncovered.

PJ: If we start from there, we will find that the ‘I’ is there in the first step.

K: The first step is to see clearly, to hear clearly.

PJ: But the ‘I’ is (still?) there...

K: Yes, of course.
PJ: There’s the 'observer'...

K: ...and the 'observed'. Now, I am inquiring whether that ( perceptive division?) is actually so. So far I have taken it for granted.

PJ: Obviously, sir, when I first start inquiring, I start with the 'observer' (mental attitude?) .

K: Yes, I start with the 'observer'.

PJ: Now you have placed that doubt, in my mind and I ask, ‘Is there the observer?’

K: Is there an 'observer' separate from the 'observed'? 'Who' is this 'observer'? Let’s look into this slowly. Because if ( my brain?) understand ( what is the nature of?) the 'observer', then perhaps it may see the falseness of the division between the observer and the observed.

PJ: Who will see?

K: The perception of what is true. What is of importance here is this (quality of 'true'?) perception, not 'who' sees.

PJ: So, the seeing of what the truth of the observer is will end the state of division. I cannot expect to have an understanding of what you say unless the mind is diligent about this 'being awake'. You cannot deny this.

K: No. It has to be diligent; it has to be watchful; it has to be attentive, subtle, hesitant. It has to be all that. I can only inquire into myself through (insightfully observing?) my reactions—the way I think, the way I act, the way I respond to the environment, the way I observe my relationship to another.

PJ: I find that as I first observe myself, the responses and reactions are rapid, confused (overlaping?) , continuous.

K: I know; they are contradictory, and so on.

PJ: In this very ( meditative quality of ?) observing, some (free inner) pace comes into being.

K: Yes, some space, some order.

PJ: That’s just the beginning, sir.

K: I know. But is it necessary to ( sequentially?) go through all this? Is it necessary to watch my actions, to watch my reactions, my responses? Is it necessary to observe diligently, my relationship with another? Must I go through all this process? Or...?

PJ: The fact is, sir, one has gone through all this.

K: You may have gone through it because you have accepted that ( linear becoming?) pattern.

PJ: No...

K: You see that is what we have all done—the thinkers, the sannyasis, the monks, and...

PJ: And Krishnamurti?

K: I’m not sure. Let’s look at it. We have accepted this (linear, evolutionary?) pattern of self- examination, analysis and investigation. We have ( subliminally?) accepted these reactions, and we have ( self-consciously?) paid attention to them. Now, there is something in it which rings a 'false note'—at least to me.

PJ: You ask: Is it necessary to go through all this?

K: Yes, I think that it may not be necessary.

PJ: Then show me 'how' (else it could be done ?) .

K: I’ll show it to you. We shall call your diligent watching of your reactions, the 'analytical process of inquiry'. Now, this ( step by step?) analytical, self-investigative process, this constant watching, man has done for thousands of years.

PJ: He has not. Mostly he has looked at his mind and tried to suppress...

K: Ah, you see, that’s part of the pattern. Suppress, escape, substitute, transcend—all that is within that ( self-becoming?) framework. Is is it imperative, is it essential, that I go through all this?

PJ: No, but then, are you trying to say that out of the middle of chaos you can leap to a state of total non-chaos?

K: No, I won’t put it that way.

PJ: Then what are you saying?

K: I am saying that humanity has gone through this process. It has been the ( moral, spiritual?) pattern of our existence—of course, some have gone through the process more diligently, sacrificing everything, inquiring, analysing, searching, and so on. You do this too, and at the end of it all you may be just a dead entity.

PJ: No, it may not be so.

K: May not be. But very few—very, very, few—have got out of it (got on the 'other shore' ?) .
So your point is, if it is not necessary, then show me the other (way to do it)  ?

PJ: Yes, show me the other.

K: I’ll show it to you. But first step out of this.

PJ: You see, sir, if I can step out of it, the 'other' it’s already there.

K: Of course. Step out. That’s what I am saying. Don’t 'take time' to go through all this.

PJ: But then, what is meant by ‘step out of it’?

K: I’ll tell you what I mean. Let me talk a little. I realise or 'perceive' (see the truth?) that man has tried this process of introspective observation, diligence and so on, for a million years in different ways, and somehow the mind is not clear at the end of it. I see that somehow this movement is very, very shallow. Now, can you 'listen' to ( the truth of?) this statement—that the whole process is shallow—and actually 'see' the truth of it? If you do, it means that your disordered mind is now quiet (silenced that insight?) ; it is listening to find out. Your traditional mind now not only realises that you got 'accustomed' to ( the inner safety offered by this?) this diligent observation of all your activities but also it sees that the entire process is really very 'superficial' (and /or profitable?) . Once you see the truth of this, you are 'out of it'.

PJ: But do you mean to say, Krishnaji, that a mind which is not capable of observing...

K: No. I am saying that a mind that’s willing to listen...

PJ: But, do you think an (ordinary?) mind can ( ever) be in that state of 'listening'?

K: That’s very simple.

PJ: Is it?

K: Yes. I say just 'listen to a story that I am telling you'. You are interested. Your mind is quiet; you are eager to see what the story is about and so on.

PJ: I’m sorry, sir, it doesn’t happen that way.

K: No?

PJ: No.

K: Just a minute. I ask you, Pupul, to 'listen' to what I am saying.

PJ: I listen.

K: Wait, wait. I am going to explain what I mean by 'listening'. I mean not only the listening with the sensory ear, but the listening with the (mind's?) 'ear' that has no movement. That is really listening. Listening is not translating; listening is not comparing; listening is not trying to find out. Listening is something that is 'complete'. Now, when you listen 'completely' without any (mental?) movement, to a man (a 'speaker' of truth ?) who comes along and says, ‘Don’t go through all this diligent process, because it is false, because it is superficial’, what takes place? If you 'hear' (have an insight into?) the truth of his statement, what takes place? What actually takes place when you see something really true? Now, this diligent process is time-consuming. Right? I have no time. My life is so short. I’ve got so many problems, and you are adding another; be diligent. And I say, ‘Please, I am withered; I am worn out by problems, and you have introduced another problem’. So the man says, ‘I know you have got many problems which are all interrelated. Forget your 'problems' for the moment and 'listen' .

PJ: You are talking of a mind which is already mature. Such a mind, while listening to a statement like this...

K: You see, Pupul, we have made our minds so ( superficial and?) immature that we are incapable of 'listening' to anything.

PJ: But you see, Krishnaji, you start by asking things (that look?) 'impossible'.

K: Of course. To 'see the truth' ( to have 'insight'?) . It has
a tremendous...

PJ: Where can I find the energy which is needed to deal with an 'impossible' thing?

K: This 'diligent' (self-introspective ?) affair has been possible. I say, it is something so trivial.

PJ: I ask you, what is the ( creative source ?) mind which can deal with an impossible statement like that? What is that mind?

K: It’s very simple. That which is utterly impossible is 'non-existent' ( non-manifested?) . We ( like to?) think everything is 'possible' (inwardly achievable?) Can we both, agree—even temporarily—that this diligent process has really led nowhere? Can we see that this process has led to various activities—some of which may be ( socially) beneficial—but in this inquiry which says ‘I must go to the very source of things’ it is not the ( 'true') way?

PJ: Yes, obviously. I would accept that.

K: That’s all. If you accept that, what has happened to a mind that 'sees' that this is too trivial, too superficial? What is the quality of your mind?

PJ: I know what you are trying to say, sir.

K: No, you answer my question. What is the quality of a mind which has been caught in the process of 'diligent (self-) inquiry' when it sees that the process which it has been caught in has no deep, fundamental value? This diligent process will not lead or help to comprehend or come upon or uncover the Origin (of Creation) . The 'other' (approach) may have no time at all.

PJ: But, look at the danger of what you are saying. The 'danger' is that I will not be concerned with sweeping the room.

K: That very inquiry ( into the inner Ground of Creation?) demands that the mind and the heart—my whole existence—is orderly.

PJ: You start with the 'impossible'.

K: (With great energy) Of course, I start with the impossible, Pupul, man has done everything that’s possible. Man has fasted, sacrificed; man has done everything to find the ( Sacred?) Origin of things. Man has done all that has been 'possible' (programmable?) , and that has led nowhere. That’s what I am saying—possibility has led nowhere. It has led to certain benefits—social, and so on. It has also led to a great deal of ( colateral darkness?) misery for mankind.

So,( to re-recap:) this man tells me that this diligent process is time-consuming and, therefore, time-binding. He tells me that as long as I am doing this, I am just scratching the surface. The surface (scratching?) may be the most ( rewarding?) pleasant and ennobling thing—but it’s just the surface. If actually see, actually feel—'in your blood', as it were—that this (approach) is false, you will have already 'stepped out' of something that is 'ordinary' into something that is 'extraordinary'.

PJ: One puts aside the other.

K: Which means—what? That the ( self-becoming?) movement of 'diligence' has stopped—right? Of course. If that is ( seen as ) false, it has gone. So what has happened to the mind—the mind that has been caught in 'diligent inquiry' and so on, all of which is timebound, and has been seen to be utterly superficial? What is the state of my mind? It is a totally 'new' mind. And such a mind is necessary to inquire into, to uncover the Origin. Such a mind has no bondage to time. You see, the diligent process is ( sustained by the desire?) to become something; it is to clarify, to understand, to go beyond. This 'new' mind has no 'beyond'—it is not becoming something. Could you go as far as that?

PJ: You see, the moment this (self-becoming?) movement ends...

K: No, I ask you, would you go so far as to see the fact that such a mind cannot have any kind of dependence, any kind of attachment?

PJ: Yes, that I see. Sir, all that which you have talked about is the movement of becoming.

K: That’s right. All that is the perpetuation of the 'self' in a different form, in a different network of words. You see, if you tell me this, I will want to find the source. And when I start out to uncover the source—which is, for me, a passion—I will want to find out, I will want to uncover the Origin of all life. When there is that uncovering of ( the) Origins (of creation?) , then my life, my actions are different.

PJ: Sir, you have a mind of great 'antiquity' (coming from the Origins) .

K: What?

PJ: You have an antique mind—‘antique’ in the sense that it contains the whole of human...

K: You see, Pupul, that’s why it’s important to understand that I 'am' the ( total consciousness of the?) world.

PJ: No one else would make that kind of statement but you.

K: And one must make it. When you see all the destruction, the brutality, the killing, the wars—every form of violence that has never stopped— where are you? A man who 'loved' wouldn’t be ( labelling himself as a?) British or Israeli or Arab. A man who loved couldn’t kill another. I see this process has been going on for thousands and thousands of years—everybody trying to become something. And all these 'diligent', 'religious' workers are still 'helping' man to become something, to achieve Enlightenment. It’s so (metaphysically ?) absurd.

PJ: With you, sir, the whole 'movement of the dormant' ( day-dreaming consciousness?) has ended.

K: That is, (Laughs) ‘diligence’ has ended. Becoming has ended. Pupul, let us not make this into some 'elitistic' understanding. Any person who wants to hear, who is passionate and not just 'casual' about it and says, ‘I must find the Creative Source of Life’, will 'listen'. It’s in the air

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 May 2015 #9
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 534 posts in this forum Offline

paul daniel wrote:
The brain is programmed to work within this 'time-thought' process . As long as that program remains the only one active , insight is not possible.

this for me implies another program X or capacity Y to be activated.

So, Dan, the human brain got 'self-programmed' by our very evolution in terms of historical time -from one useful accumulation of experience to another. So, in terms of 'free' inner memory space, we're almost full. The complexity is that the brain is 'naturally' deleting some memory to make place for new significant experiences to be stored, but the ' core memory ' is never questioned, let alone 'exposed' or 'deleted'. So, it has structured itself as a central 'controlling' process-or in the K terminology, the 'observer'. and, as any 'artificial intelligence' it can write its own 'programmes' and follow them up or it can 'run' other people's programmes and...follow them up. Computer-wise it is ridiculously simple. Human-wise it got extremely complex and notoriously 'sticky' due to the 'identification' or 'strong-attachment' psycho-process. So much for the 'bad news'...

Anyways the good news is that a new human consciousness is emerging and a living proof is even this new thread of 'lost and found pages from the book of life' which is...practically and efforlessly writing itself

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 May 2015 #10
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 318 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
So, Dan, the human brain got 'self-programmed' by our very evolution in terms of historical time -from one useful accumulation of experience to another. So, in terms of 'free' inner memory space, we're almost full...

Well John, I do not know...is it not accumulation of informations of all sorts rather than self programmed...the program, the analytical one as far as I understand anything is there from the beginning...the other capacity seems to be there too from the beginning of what we are today...it goes far back in our past..we are totally stuck, not me and some if not many, by this idea of so called evolution....but, any tree remains a tree, even if it is a seed, the seed is the tree....

almost full, well I don't know .I mean that I never thought about that...it would make sense that we have reach some limits....

John Raica wrote:
The complexity is that the brain is 'naturally' deleting some memory to make place for new significant experiences to be stored, but the ' core memory ' is never questioned, let alone 'exposed' or 'deleted'..

by the core memory I guess you include what is unconscious for the analyser?? yet totally operational..the real hidden "me"..

John Raica wrote:
So, it has structured itself as a central 'controlling' process-or in the K terminology, the 'observer'. and, as any 'artificial intelligence' it can write its own 'programmes' and follow them up or it can 'run' other people's programmes and...follow them up. Computer-wise it is ridiculously simple. Human-wise it got extremely complex and notoriously 'sticky' due to the 'identification' or 'strong-attachment' psycho-process. So much for the 'bad news'...

Well John let us for once or twice or more not agree here, I do not see as you do...not a problem at all I say .
The observer for me is there from the beginning as a vital necessity to live..no analyser no life form is my view, as we human define life forms.. the program is there too from scratch, well this is what I see..it can make conclusions, methods, etc etc which are not programs , but conclusions, ideas etc from which I do things .. conclusions made by using the analytical program where is to be found an analyser which knows.

complex and sticky for sure I agree.Identification I do not know as I don't get that notion, or fact if it is a fact. Attachment ? well, is not that any conclusion ,desire, negation,method,program, will, hope etc is at the same time its reaching ,giving yes this sense of attachment , the reaching of it being dependant on the root idea from which I base my action or reaction....What I mean her more clearly is this: has this attachment , dependence, something to see with the known and the unknown again ??

John Raica wrote:
Anyway the good news is that a new human consciousness is emerging and a living proof is even this new thread of 'lost and found pages from the book of life' which is...practically and effortlessly writing itself...

writing itself, yes that quite true I think....if so we were meant to be under some sort of goodness of what life is,as part of it and not as apart from it, as this is exactly what we seem to be up to, can you imagine all the carbon's atom deciding to live their own life apart from the whole , that would mean the end of all matter......

all his was possibly meant to happen for us under a sort of "protection", a "protection" which cannot be sought as a separate unite...which is what we are now..for a while..

clearly a disaster, yet of course as an ex marketing expert and sales person I can turn anything "wrong" into a must have it..

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Tue, 26 May 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 May 2015 #11
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 318 posts in this forum Offline

as we were talking about meditation , the quote of the day is helping us.

So, then, what do we mean by understanding? Understanding means giving right significance, right valuation, to all things.
To be ignorant is to give wrong values; the very nature of stupidity is the lack of comprehension of right values.

So, understanding comes into being when there are right values, when right values are established. And how is one to establish right values - the right value of property, the right value of relationship, the right value of ideas?

For the right values to come into being, you must understand the thinker, must you not? If I don't understand the thinker, which is myself, what I choose has no meaning, that is, if I don't know myself, then my action, my thought, have no foundation whatsoever.

So, self-knowledge is the beginning of meditation - not the knowledge that you pick up from my books, from authorities, from gurus, but the knowledge that comes into being through self-inquiry, which is self-awareness.

Meditation is the beginning of self-knowledge, and without self-knowledge there is no meditation. Because, if I don't understand the ways of my thoughts, of my feelings, if I don't understand my motives, my desires, my demands, my pursuit of patterns of action, which are ideas - I do not know myself, there is no foundation for thinking; and the thinker who merely asks, prays, or excludes, without understanding himself, must inevitably end in confusion, in illusion.

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 May 2015 #12
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 318 posts in this forum Offline

John..I just saw your very last post when posting this one..I go back to this last post of yours then after..out of interest.


John Raica wrote:

paul daniel wrote:

..What I mean here more clearly is this: has this attachment , dependence, something to see with the known and the unknown again ??

John:I guess it does, Dan.

I just was very flippantly and briefly reading bits and pieces, in clear lies and bullshit + troll pro NWO ( old world disorder) on a French kind of political web site....and all of a sudden now here mentioning the known and the unknown..what is there in common with all that?

on one hand the actual political-economical reality of fight,division and violence,killing as usual today, some dying of starvation, lack of water, etc etc etc, and on the other hand : what are you talking about ? the unknown ? what is the point ? we need money !! wake up man, life is a fight...

for me no it is not...I refuse that..so I must inquire in all this..

I leave that insanity but do not forget it, in fact I am constantly aware of it since very young, such ways nearly destroyed my life...was I really caring for others or just caring for my own life ?? So easy to self write and play the part of the good guy is not it ?? Me can very well again be very well hiding behind caring for others,in fact it could well be having only fear for himself, this is not easy to find out, to be sure of it..

anyway that is superficially the way it is for me, was I "built up" that way seemingly interested? in the global state of the planet? ( or in mine only in fact ?) this is why I never agree to say that our world had succeeded in practical matters, for me it has not succeeded in practical matters..it is a disaster..yet for some voluntary blind winners , they may say that we are so fantastic....not !!!

When I come back to the times before I realised that letting sorrow effect doing its work is THE right thing to "do"...I was really destroyed by man's global attitude about subjects like competition...which is a myth, like the best which is a myth , surrounded by those 2 myths we would necessarily then have the best possible on earth, obviously that is a lie...but before to be destroyed by all the murders, and violence , I know that in fact I was destroyed by my own no life..

But all this has already become far too analytical for me...stop now. This is being caught in choice self concern, empty of any goodness and bliss.

it is possible to write about that all life...and 10 000 years later nothing has radically changed..

so the known ,unknown....

John Raica wrote:
Once identified or strongly attached to the 'observer' you are mentally functioning by default in the field of the known. So then, it is the whole field of the 'known' (of which 'you' are part) looking at the 'unknown'. But then, this is the very nature of duality.

Is the known capable to look at what it does not know..is thinking, the analytical program, the analyser, capable of such doing..This demands personal experimentation to have a glimpse into such question...
it seems to me that it can't do that...
Why is it fear ? I do not think so, and this is where having many right clues and facts ,,through revealing insights, of how my program is set up and functions becomes vital..

krishnamurti:
Because, if I don't understand the ways of my thoughts, of my feelings, if I don't understand my motives, my desires, my demands, my pursuit of patterns of action, which are ideas - I do not know myself, there is no foundation for thinking; and the thinker who merely asks, prays, or excludes, without understanding himself, must inevitably end in confusion, in illusion.

right, there is mass killing for our comfort..there is starvation, there is violence, there is sorrow, there is desire, there is hope, there is dream, there is rejection of death, there is ignorance , etc etc

k comes along and says that if I do not know myself, there is no foundation for thinking,meaning for me that this program only randomly functions on its own set up...and all this he says must inevitable end in confusion, in illusion....well more right than that seems quite impossible is not it ?

All this is heavy on me..I am unhappy and in sorrow...pretending not in order , I think , to avoid the final drowning that I am totally frightened of ..the thinker whose real state is unhappiness and suffering of all sorts, having no clue of this unknown problem states that it is now running for solutions about an unknown problem, which of course will be an outcome of its capacities, memories and desires , capacities which are far too limited, yet it it at this stage yet aware of that..man is sure of its genius is not it...look at my big machine is not that a proof of it ??

what a heavy weight on one's shoulder..sounds a bit like the imaginary Jesus constantly falling under the weight of the cross, the cross being the symbol for suffering of course..Jesus being the symbol for the self of course...but we all know that :-))

Then of course Jesus as a symbol (probably,possibly, some say, a symbol stolen to very older civilisation and "stories" like pre Pharaohs' times, so without the keys to get it) on the cross as a symbol means that suffering wins, then......................both are not any more...or something like that..all 3 false religion seem to come from a time where man had not yet totally drowned into stupidity and greed.

John Raica wrote:
And out of this 'con-fused' recording it is trying to make for itself a 'realistic' model of the world it's living in. So this is the functioning in the 'known' where every new experience and incident is translated instantly in terms of what was previously known. We can see the two sides of this coin- on one hand, it is very safe and protective , on the other hand it is 'limiting' both our perceptions of life and our self-divisive attitude to it.

Yes , but is it really safe? we are kind of safe here( with policemen,soldiers, and cameras all over the place, this is not safety , it is fear) because the occidental armies are destroying to steal all over the place, this must not be forgotten I think ,safe for me in a self enclosed world means unsafe for many others...so it is not safe ..it is not protective, I do not agree with that...

Anyway back to the main thing here, I practically 100% live in the known..with very rare exceptions when i have no choice but i swiftly fix the unknown into something known...I think I fear the unknown but this is not right for me,and again this is where self knowledge is vital..what I see for me very clearly is that the analytical program, thought ,cannot analyse anything unknown , as analysing can be only made about something recorded...

When I meet something new so unknown I cannot analyse it right away when it occurs..we call it fear but it is not, it is only a technical matter in fact, a matter of competencies, so the incidence of this is terrible,because what happens is if only the analyser is at work, I never meet anything new, unknown at all...the analyser prevents anything unknown so new to be.....

this is definitively separating me from anything which is not me...such me is in pain.....such me is pain, but this is not understood at all...it is rejected...it is not even a catch 22 it is much worse

John Raica wrote:
Now, talking of the true role of 'meditation' in all this, it would be, for starters, to discriminate between these 'con-fused' ' recordings and their subsequent 'con-fused' brain processing, and further on to find what is 'true' and what is 'false' in the ( confusing ?) complexity of the world we're living

Krishnamurti:
Meditation is the beginning of self-knowledge, and without self-knowledge there is no meditation. Because, if I don't understand the ways of my thoughts, of my feelings, if I don't understand my motives, my desires, my demands, my pursuit of patterns of action, which are ideas - I do not know myself, there is no foundation for thinking; and the thinker who merely asks, prays, or excludes, without understanding himself, must inevitably end in confusion, in illusion.

I think we are getting somewhere.

Thanks.

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 May 2015 #13
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 318 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:

paul daniel wrote:

talking about meditation , the quote of the day is helping us.

Indeed, Dan, only that it is helping us...'verbally' like the proverbial -(by now) 'menu' of a restaurant.

Well John, I should have been more precise , what I meant was: *it is helping us to understand what k means by meditation..and so to give a general meaning to a very dodgy and difficult word, as anything can be put behind it.. *

as I do not use this word for me unless someone does...I need a base of a meaning for it..
OK, had a break in the meantime and this came to me out of the blue...I think that I do something like what you call meditation since very young in fact...I won't extend on it..but around ten years old if not before but not sure , I was for example able to spend an entire day on my favourite rock here....lost within the mind , moving very little, that was deep etc etc as well as naturally going into subjects like: what am I really interested in my life and much more than that....whether by myself or others reading cards or whatever else it often-always was about some interest for what I would have called in those years : spirituality....
If so it is then a natural movement you talk about...

John Raica wrote:
Where's the verbal 'tour de passe-passe ? Did you notice the significant number of 'I's? 'If I don't understand the way of my thought, of my desires....'
Now the point is that this 'I'( the 'me') will never understand 'the way of his thoughts'...simply because it is a virtual mental entity, a self-isolating projection of the very process of thought it is trying to 'understand'.

Well I did not noticed because I use I most of the time myself ,because it is not a matter of words at all, not using I does not mean that it is gone, tamed, under control or has became intelligent ..k has created the habit to use it very little..that was his way...why not. Since the revealing of the functioning of thought has started for me by itself...I do not see any problem to use I at all..

In my way I practically consider that it may have triggered something not that good to some k's readers...anything k has mentioned in his life to others, so that he was able to report have been going through the I process too at some stage..no one can mention to others with words something which is not in the I memory or without the help of I...

Will "I" ever understand the ways of its thought ...well, as far as I know, the revealing of thought functioning happens,as it seems, for me, in a way totally out of control. It happens out of the blue without searching apparently as it wishes...one of the side effect of leaving suffering be..this revealing seems to have some effects on thought itself..in the sense that it now becomes more aware of its own random stupid functioning....it becomes less random, less ignorant etc etc

so when you say : Now the point is that this 'I'( the 'me') will never understand 'the way of his thoughts'

this seems factual yes. So this means that something else does that job..

John Raica wrote:
Donc, comme l'on dit, 'Un elephant, ça trompe énormement'- at least, this kind of 'elephant': So...what's the point of a 'verbal pointer' pointing to something illusory ? Wouldn't an insight based meditation help us see the truth in the false ?

Well k spend an entire life pointing mainly if not only ,apart in rare moments when he was writing to himself like in the notebook which was not meant so it is said to be published .. John, so we do here at our on "level" ....

this is why for me reading is not my favourite media and far from it..too much is missing in reading....what is beyond words brought by the intensity of the speaker,when deeply honest and factual of course, is missing...there is communication beyond words too..it is "magic" !!!

that is the limitation of all dialogues when only the analyser is present ...K introduced the illusion that some of his listener were following him in his logical development, putting aside me, replacing it by we, us etc...but it seems that it did not work and that is ,for me , logical, because no one can walk another one life..

Again the way , for me , you or k or some others bring here meditation seems to be like a will to do so..and I do not go that way for me..no offence at all..

meditation if I get it right is a side effect of something else..it cannot be thought from will to do so..

but as you know I do not use this word...it is far too vague for me..

To make it very short what I "do" is this: I consider as part of man's mental life to create problems , it is inevitable and they absolutely have to be solved and we must meet them to solve them, something which is not done , when a vast majority of X% of earth people do consider that as abnormal without even any single deep thought into it to be honest ,it is perceived as not natural, not my creation and so I try by all means to get rid of it..like I would try to get rid of my shadow...then we get cuckoo, but this is then not surprising, the all life lived that way makes no sense at all...

for me in order to be solved the problem has to be detected as a problem first, then it has to be known down to its root..then one sees what happens..

we skip those first two steps all the time....

So there is a will to skip , I ignore-runaway-negate problems to concentrate on what I call solutions which by no means have any relation to the problems, the we create more problems over tons of unsolved and now unconscious problems......run away questions like society is rotten what do you propose ??? such question is wrong..

Behind what we fear most are many little helpers to take our hands..

help yourself then the heavens will help....well not a bad saying, it may be the case..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 May 2015 #14
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 318 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Right, Dan, my point is that the 'verbal' clarity of K's words may just cover up a far more intricate actuality .

Yes, it may, probably it does. At the intellectual logical and analytical level, often what he says seems really clear, often one may say: that is exactly what I feel.

John Raica wrote:
Somehow the same 'truth camouflaging' effect is going on in the videos, you see a 'loving-compassionate-intelligent' K and you say, 'yes, that's it', that's the 'thing to be', So we respond with love to love- for the time being- and when the video is over ( by the way, have you seen the K spectacular interview available on u-tube made by Andre Voisin for the French tv in 1972 ?) we're still back where we were before..

back to where we were before yes...meaning no radical "event", even tiny, of any sort took place.
Yes I have seen this video some time ago, not long ago...Andre Voisin has something for himself too in this talk, has not he?

John Raica wrote:
So the 'challenge of truth' is subtly becoming another 'value added' consumer product.

yes it seems to be so.

John Raica wrote:
So, again, it is all about a 'mirror reading' of our own inner actuality. And it's not really that we don't want to look within, but our inner perception is more often than not taken hostage by our 'all-knowing' mind

mirror reading is an another k saying I have problem with... the reality K or yourself and others find in this image and the reality of it behind the image is not perceived for me..

Nevertheless I give it a try..I get the all knowing mind taking our inner perception into hostage..then it simply does not work in fact, there is so no inner perception but the usual superficial analysing one if I get that right..

do you mean something like this, I take a personal example...

I have seen deeply twice in a deep insight(involuntary of course) that what I think as being a root problem like death ( mine ,the kids etc)is in fact dependant from something else hidden in the unconscious which is a formidable apparent craving for continuity, so fear of death was a step to the root problem ....then continuity now seems to be the root problem now; death is not the root problem, just a problem for this time being..

then again continuity as such was and is now perceived, when aware which is not all the time and far from it, as a natural outcome of the analytical process set up and functioning ; so now continuity is not THE root problem, it is a step to it, but the knowledge of the analytical now is eventually THE root problem , the "must be" discovered problem..

now is the set up and functioning of the analytical process a root problem ? so far I have not seen more behind the set up and functioning of the analytical process, because there is much to see and understand here as well as solving like all those unconscious problems now eventually discovered so solved..

well the exact sentence would be something like: the involuntary revealing of the analytical process set up and functioning, so far has not yet revealed more problems hidden behind ,will it ? I don't know..so is it a root problem or is there again something behind as a problem...? I don't know..

so is this mirror effect something like that..fear of death would be mirroring craving for continuity as a problem, the craving for continuity would be mirroring the set up and function of the analytical process(thought) , the knowledge of some of the set up and functioning of the analytical process is not showing something behind but now inside it....

The possibility for the analytical set up and functioning to be a root problem becomes now a possibility....but it is still mirroring ? many sub problems created by this thought process...like it is shown that there is no competing but elimination...like there is no fear of the unknown but the impossibility for the known to live the unknown etc etc

Am I getting here what is meant by mirror effect or reading as you say..
if so it is going to bring you back to a source at some stage eventually..

go raibh maith agat..

that is Irish Celtic language...it means : merci

the pronunciation is: go rave ma agat

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Wed, 27 May 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 May 2015 #15
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 318 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K's pedagogical position is that once you see the damage that our divisive attitude is doing in the outer world, you can come inwards with the in-tide and 'end' your own self-divisiveness. Which would be a totally OK solution...if we were just born yesterday. So maybe it could eventually work in a future 'brave new world'.

Thanks a lot for trying John, but this mirror effect does not speak to me..yet I understand what you mean for yourself about your own "doing", it tells me a bit why calling that mirror effect.....but for now I won't use that expression..which for me adds an unnecessary complexity,but that is me only...

cheers.

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 May 2015 #16
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 534 posts in this forum Offline

THE SELF-CENTRED CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE VIRTUE OF NON-DUALITY

K: What is 'duality'? Does duality exist at all?

S: The duality of the 'I' and 'you' is structured within us.

K: I want to find out if there (actually) is a 'psychological' duality. Psychologically, there is only
'what is' and because we are not able to solve 'what is', we invent the 'what
should be'. So there is your 'duality'. From the fact, the 'what is', there is
an abstraction to 'what should be', the ideal. But there is only 'what is'.

P: 'What is', to me, is duality.

K: No. But you are conditioned to ( think in terms of) duality, you are educated and you function
psychologically in ( the divisive mentality of?) duality.

S: The starting point (in our everyday perception and thinking) is a 'dualistic' position. It may be
due to many factors.

K: That is what I want to investigate - whether this 'dualistic' (observer vs observed ?) attitude
towards life has come into being because the mind has not been able to solve actually ( its self-
divisive conditioning ?) the 'what is'.

A: As far as we can see, even the newborn baby does not cry only for mother's milk, for
nourishment. It cries whenever it is left alone. Duality is the expression of a (psychical?)
'inadequacy' in oneself which begins almost from the beginning of life.

S: But what is the nature of 'what is'?

K: That's what I want to get at. If I can understand 'what is', why should there be duality?

B: Does the problem arise because there is no contact with (the deeper layers of ?) 'what is'? Duality
is postulated because there is very little contact with 'what is'.

K: What is ( creating?) duality? Is duality (the result of a mental ?) measurement?

P: Duality is the sense of 'I' as separate from the 'not-I'.

K: That is the basic cause of duality. Now, what is the 'I' that says 'you' are different?

P : It is not something as factual as the chair or the table or the body. In itself it has no existence.

K: May I say something? There is no 'duality' for me. Duality exists only as the ( self-isolating?)
space between the 'I' and the 'you' : the ( self-identified?) centre of the 'I' looks at 'you' and there is a
distance between 'me' and 'you'. This 'distance' can be expanded or narrowed down. This process is
( my) consciousness.

B: This ( self-protective) distance enclosed is consciousness.

S: But is the 'I' a concrete entity?

K: The space between this centre and that centre, the movement between this centre and that centre,
the vertical, horizontal movement, is consciousness.

A: Sir, you have suggested two centres - this centre which
comes across another centre. There is no 'other' centre, sir.

K: I am coming to that. The 'other' centre is invented by this centre.

A: I don't know.

S: Achyutji, the 'I' ( thinking entity) creates the 'not-I'.

K: If I have no ( self-identified?) 'centre', there is no 'other' centre. So, the 'I' is the only centre.
From there, the 'not-I' arises and the relationship between the 'I' and the 'not-I'
inevitably brings about conflict (frictions?). There is only the centre from
which arises the other centre, the 'you'. I think that is fairly clear; at least for me.

M: How does this 'centre' arise? Because I have this centre, I create the other centre.

K: I am coming to that. So, in the waking state, this ( controlling ) 'centre' creates the ( image of
the?) 'other' centre and therefore duality arises, the conflicts, the attempt to overcome duality. It is
the centre that creates this division. I see that in the waking state because there is
a 'centre', its relationship will always be divisive. This (inner) division is ( creating its own?) 'space'
and 'time' and ( sooner or later?) there must inevitably be conflict. So during the waking state, what
is going on all the time ( in our relationships?) is adjustment, comparison, violence, imitation. And
even when the brain goes to sleep it maintains the division.

S: In our waking consciousness the 'experiencer' is the (expression of that?) centre ?

K: The ( personalised identity of the?) 'experiencer' is the centre, the centre is memory, the
centre is knowledge, which is always in the past. This 'centre' may project ( itself) into the future
but it still has its roots in the past.

D: So far as my identity is concerned, the past and the future are
only accretions, I have nothing to do with them. I am (living in) the present.

A: You are the child of the past, you are the heir to everything of the past.

D: That is a hypothesis. I don't know the past, I don't know the future.

A: Is the 'I' not created and produced by the totality of the past -
my father, my grandfather? How can I deny that? My consciousness itself is made up of the past.

P: There is the personal, racial, human past.

D: My ( yoghic ?) position is, I don't know about the past or the future. It is an accretion.

A: Deshpandeji, when you say 'I am the present', please think.
Do you mean to say that you are only this moment, with no past
and no future? Is it a theory or a fact? Then you are ( living ) in 'samadhi' (in the Eternal Present?) .

K: just a minute, sir. You speak English. That is an 'accretion' (of the memory of the past) . What is
the centre that accretes?

D: That centre I call 'I', but I don't know ( the essence of?) it.

K: So the centre which has accumulated ( the knowledge of English) is the 'I'.

D: The accumulator and the accumulated are not ( of) the same (nature) .

K: Is there a centre without accumulation? Is the centre different from the thing it has
accumulated?

D: I can't answer that.

M: All that is the 'content' of consciousness.

K: We said the content of consciousness is consciousness. If there is no ( self-) consciousness, there
is no accumulation.

M: I have not said that.

K: I have said it, we started with it.

M: The content of consciousness is consciousness. That means, when there is no 'content' there is no
(self-?) consciousness ?

K: That is what it means.

D: So it means that there is a 'non-dual' consciousness.

K: No, no. That is a speculation. Stick to what we started out with. ( The self-centred?)
consciousness 'is' (undissociated from?) its content. The content 'is' (generating its own?)
consciousness. This is an absolute fact.

A: Sir, at any given time, this 'I' is not able to command the whole field of consciousness as its
purview of perception. In 'my' perception, 'I' don't see the whole field.

K: Because there is a ( subliminal identification with that?) centre. Where there is a centre, there is
a fragmentation (of perception) .

P: You mean that the 'I' is only operational through a ( supervising) process of thinking which is
fragmentary ?

K: That is all.

P : If (as you're saying) the whole content of consciousness 'is' consciousness there is nothing else.
Then I would rest with ( the actuality of this?) consciousness. I would remain there. But we sit in
front of you and ( implicitly ?) say, 'Show me the way,' and you keep on saying 'The moment you
ask the way, you will never know the way.' We still ask you to show the way.

S: The point is that we experience only fragmentarily and not ( with our ) total consciousness.

K: That is what I am saying. As long as there is a ( subliminal identification with this?) 'centre',
there must be ( a perceptive?) fragmentation and this fragmentation is (expressing itself as a
division between?) the 'me' and the 'you' and the ( resulting) conflict in that relationship.

S: So, are you equating this 'centre' with consciousness or is it a fragment of our total
consciousness?

K: The 'centre' is the ( active memory?) content of consciousness.

S: So ( our total) consciousness itself is being 'fragmented' ( compartmentalised)?

K: Let us start again : The ( past memory) 'content' of consciousness 'is' ('our')
consciousness. That is irrefutable. The ( self-isolating) 'centre' is the maker of fragments.
This ('me'-controlling) centre becomes aware of the fragments when the
fragments are agitated (disturbed?) or in action; otherwise, the centre is not conscious of the other
fragments. The centre is (placing itself as) the 'observer' of the fragments. The centre does not
identify itself with the fragments ( but 'steps back' trying to supervise its own backyard?).
So there is always the 'observer' and the 'observed', the 'experiencer' and the 'experience'. So, the
centre is the maker of fragments and the centre tries to gather the fragments together and go beyond.
One of the (brain's consciousness) 'fragments' says, 'sleep' and one of the ( survivalistic ?)
'fragments' says 'keep awake'. In the state of 'keeping awake', there is disorder. The
brain cells during sleep try to bring order because it cannot function effectively in disorder.

S: The brain tries to bring order. Is that process dualistic or non-dualistic?

K: The brain cells demand ( a deep feeling of protection and harmony?) 'order'. Otherwise,
they cannot function. There is no duality in this. But during the day, there is ( a cummulative?)
disorder because the 'centre' is there (trying to control everything) ,( but) this 'centre' being the
cause of fragmentation, can not be aware of the totality of fragments and, therefore, there
is no order and therefore, 'it' lives in disorder. It 'is' (the active factor of?) disorder. Though
it says 'I must experience (peace?) ', it is living in ( a state of 'controlled'?) disorder, living in
confusion. It cannot do anything else but create disorder because it functions only in fragmentation.
Right sir?

A: Yes, sir. It is so.

K: The brain cells need order; otherwise, they become neurotic, self-destructive. That is a fact. The
brain cells are always demanding order, while the 'centre' is always creating fragmentation,
division, conflict and all the rest of it, which is a denial of security, which is denial
of order. So, the ( totality of the?) brain saying 'I must have order', is not a 'duality'.

P: I feel we are moving away from the thing which is tangible to us.

K: This ( brain's natural need for order?) is very tangible.

P: It is not tangible. The brain cells seeking order is not ( perceptively?) tangible.

K: I will show it to you in a minute.

S: Pupulji, the whole physical world, in spite of chaos, maintains an extraordinary order. It is the
very nature of the universe to maintain order.

P: The scientists' sense of time is not a real thing to us. The brain cells seeking order is not a real
fact with us. It may be, but you are moving away from the real facts to a 'fact' which is
beyond our comprehension.

K: Pupulji, we both see that where there is a ( controlling inner ?) 'centre', there must
be conflict, there must be fragmentation, there must be every form of division between the 'you' and
the 'me', and this ( self-isolating) centre is creating this division. How do you know it?

P: Because I have observed it in myself?

K: Verbally or factually?

P: Factually.

K: The centre is the maker of fragments. The centre is the fragment. This whole field is disorder.
How are you aware of this disorder?

P: I have seen it.

K: If the 'centre' is aware that there is disorder, then it is still disorder.

P: I see that.

K: And then it creates a duality as 'order' and 'disorder'. So, how do you
observe ( the ongoing process of inner?) disorder - without the centre or with the centre? If it is an
observation with the centre, there is a division. If there is no
observation of the centre, then there is only ( the fact of) disorder.

P: Or 'order'.

K: Please go slowly. When the centre is not there and ( trying to be choicelessly?) aware, what takes
place?

P: Then there is no ( ongoing) disorder.

K: Therefore, then there is no disorder. That is what the brain cells demand.

P: So, when you bring that in, you take this away. Let us now proceed.

K: Stop there. So I have discovered something, that the centre
creates ( its own ) 'space' and (its own) 'time'. Where there is ( this self divisive) 'space and time',
there must be division in relationship and, therefore, disorder in relationship.
Having ( an already existing?) disorder in relationship, it creates further ( colateral ) disorder (by
trying to 'fix' it?) because that (desire to have 'control' over everything?) is the very nature of the
centre. There is not only disorder in our ( outer) relationships, but there is ( an ongoing) disorder in
(the inner world of?) thought, action, idea.

P: I want to ask you a question: Which is the ( perceivable) 'fact' – the perception of order or..?

K: You are only aware of disorder. I see ( the truth that ?) this ('me'-controlling) 'centre' is the
source of disorder wherever it moves - there is the (subliminal separation between?) 'perceiver' and
the 'perceived'. So, wherever the centre operates, moves, functions, there must be division, conflict
and all the rest of it. Where there is the 'centre', there is disorder. Disorder 'is' (both created and
experienced by?) the centre. Now, how are you aware (of this psycho- fact)? Is the centre aware of the 'disorder' or is there only (a global perception of?) disorder? If there is no 'centre' to be aware of disorder, there is ( the possibility for the brain to have a ?) complete order. Then ( as a result of establishing this order?) all the 'fragments' come to an end, obviously, because there is no 'centre' to make the fragments.

A: When you say that 'I' is the source and the centre of disorder, or the centre is the source and it 'is'
disorder, that is a fact for me. But when you say that if there is no 'centre' observing that disorder -

K: Achyutji, see this : There is no ( self-) consciousness of Order. And that is the beauty of (this
integrated inner ?) order.

( Intermission....)

P: What does the word 'Reality' mean to you?

K: Nothing (no-thing ?) .

P: What do you mean by that? I would like to explore that word 'nothing'.

K: When it (the mind?) is 'something', it is not ( freely) aware. Let us go into the
question of 'dreams' because that is apparently one of the 'fragments' of our life. What are dreams? What is the matrix of the structure of dreams? How do they happen?

Q: It happens when desires are not fulfilled during the day.

K: So, during the day I desire something and it has not been fulfilled, carried out, it has not been
worked out. So, the desire continues.

P: Why do we go beyond? Thought is an endless process without a beginning, expelled from the brain cells. In the same way, there is a period when the mind is totally asleep; it is another
form of the same propulsion.

K: It is exactly the same thing. The movement of the day still goes on. So, the ( controlling) centre
which is creating disorder during the day, still goes on, so this movement which
becomes (expressed as) dreams, symbolic or otherwise, is the same movement.

M: You keep on saying that the 'centre' is the source of disorder.

K: The centre 'is' disorder, not just 'the source'.

M: The sense of 'I' is a constantly longing for order. There is nobody to create it for me, and I am in
this world begging for order, searching for order ; so all the duality is a given duality, not
a ( self-) created duality.

K: No, sorry.

M: I find it is so. I don't want duality.

K: This search (for order) itself is ( a process creating) duality. All our life is a search for non-
duality.

M: I know that whatever I do is for the sake of order. This order may be temporary, a petty little
order, but still there is no gesture, there is no posture of mind which does not aim at order, whether
one is eating, drinking or sleeping. It also makes life possible. So, chaos is something which is
imposed on me, disorder is forced on me. That is my observation. If you say it is not, then my
observation and your observation differ.

P: In all observations, we have sat with Krishnaji and we have observed the self in operation and the
(divisive) nature of the 'self' has been revealed.

M: No, it is only an hypothesis. We are playing with words. The
mind is incapable of co-ordinating the factors. There is no such
thing as a revelation in this, sir. There is nobody to tell us.

P: I agree. The very process of self-observation reveals it. It is
not somebody telling you.

K: This man ( K) says this ( self-identified) 'centre' is the source of disorder. The
movement of daily life continues in sleep. It is the same movement
and dreams are the expression of that 'me'. When I wake up, I say
'I have had dreams'. That is only a ( divisive) means of communication;
(those compensatory) dreams 'are' me, the dreams are not separate from the centre which has
created this movement, this disorder.
The next factor is 'deep sleep'. Are you aware when you are deeply asleep?

S: One is not conscious of deep sleep. You may say: 'I have had no dreams, I had a
peaceful sleep.'

P: It is really saying that you have had a 'good sleep'.

K: So, all that one can say is: 'I have had a very good sleep without dreams.' How does one
investigate that (deeper) state ( of consciousness) which is without dreams, a state which you called
just now 'deep sleep'? Do you do it through the conscious mind or a theory, or by repeating
what somebody has said about it? How do you go into it?

S: The sleep has to reveal itself. Otherwise, you cannot go into the other state.

K: Why do 'you' want to go into it?

S: Because I want to know whether it is the same state (of non-duality ? ) .
.
SWS: My own experience is that when there is a sleep without dreams, there is no centre. Then the
centre comes again, it remembers that I have slept without dreams, again the centre starts (booting
itself up ) its operation.

S: Deep sleep is a sleep without a centre.

K: Why don't we only talk about what is knowable?

P: But you wanted to investigate deep sleep. Is it possible to investigate 'deep sleep'?

K: What do you mean by 'investigate'? Can the ( self-conscious) 'centre' investigate? You watch the
film at the cinema. You are not identifying with it; you are not part of it; you are merely
observing.

S: What is it that is observing without identifying?

K: There is 'no one' to observe. There is only observation.

S: What Pupul is asking is: Can deep sleep be investigated?

K: Can it be revealed, can it be exposed, can it be observable? I say 'yes'. Can one just 'observe' ,
without naming? Of course, it is possible.

P: But first of all, you should have the tools, the instruments (of pure observation) with
which this is possible. One has to have a state of (non-personal ?) awareness where this is possible.
It is only when there is this state of awareness or 'jagriti', that it is possible.

K: Is there an observation of this ( ongoing process of inner ) disorder without the 'centre'
becoming ( self-consciously ?) aware that there is disorder? If that can be solved, I have
solved the whole momentum of it. What is this ( inner) 'order'? We said the
centre can never be aware of order. Then, what is that 'virtue' of which there is no
( self) consciousness of being virtuous? Virtue is an 'integrated' state of mind where it is not
conscious that it is virtuous. Therefore, it topples all the practices, all the sadhanas.
To ( virtuously?) see disorder not from a 'centre' is ( bringing its own?) order. Of that Order 'you'
cannot be conscious of.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 28 May 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 May 2015 #17
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 318 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K: Is there an observation of this disorder without the 'centre'
becoming aware that there is disorder? If that can be solved, I have
solved the whole momentum of it. What is this 'order'? We said the
centre can never be aware of order. Then, what is that 'virtue' of which there is no
consciousness of being virtuous? Virtue is an 'integrated' state of mind where it is not conscious that it is virtuous. Therefore, it topples all the practices, all the sadhanas.
To see disorder not from a 'centre' is order. Of that Order 'you'
cannot be conscious of.

That is the last answer of the last quote...The word order as many other words had been shrunk by all politician and powers to a small but insane affair of violence imposed on people..
On the other hand disorder seems appropriate to me...it factually sort of describe our societies...yet it is again a matter of opinion and lies...the winners even if walking on millions of dead bodies would say that they find that world very sane....
words can be really treacherous indeed...because they are empty by themselves, it is all about the intention behind....

Anyway when I see the word order used by k, for myself I see absence of disorder , like absence of conflict, violence, war, money , business, etc etc

the centre can never be in order says k, the centre being the analytical process and its little gizmo's which end up to always make all final decisions in choice, yes or no..
again to calculate ,evaluate any techniques to simply make it work needs such analysing...no analysing no living creatures as we define living ....

what I find interesting is this:

Virtue is an 'integrated' state of mind where it is not conscious that it is virtuous.

integrated,already there...it is another capacity that k mentions here...not analytical so..by set up having its own programming and capacities independent from the analyser.

when I see myself as obviously not being virtuous, then there is nothing to do with it, apart from living that as a fact..exactly the same with sorrow....sorrow is the step to go into such doing...it is teaching us if I succeed without searching anything to find my ways through it
When I see myself as unhappy, then I stay with it....the analyser is not the good program about virtue, sorrow in one word about ending duality etc etc yet it must accept such thing without knowing that this is what it dos when rightly dealing with sorrow for the first time...a first time which will never come back in an innocent way as it happened...

the quest for happiness of course is so a clear indication that my state of mind is perceived as unhappy so in suffering ..that I have to stay with..

the analyser as turn itself into god.........a fantasy of itself...which is not true..

yet I introduce my own experiment that the centre, me, I know that something is there when the other process is turned on....but something else that the centre is now driving the brain mind and very soon all is entirely different....different in goodness...

What is left for me to do if this other process or those other processes have their own ways not related to the analyser ways?

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Fri, 29 May 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 May 2015 #18
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 534 posts in this forum Offline

Illusion and Intelligence

Rimpoche: Sir, when the 'observer' observes, he is the matrix of thought, of
memories. So long as the 'observer' is observing from this matrix, it is not
possible for him to see without naming, because that naming arises out of that
matrix. How then can the observervation free itself from this 'matrix' ?

Krishnamurti: Sir, isn't the 'observer' the whole movement of the past? Is it possible for this 'observer' to discover his limitations, his conditioning, and so not interfere with the observation?

RMP: That is the basic problem. Whenever we try to observe, the 'observer ' (the recognition process?) is always interfering in the observation. I would like to know whether there is a
method to cut off this 'me' which is interfering.

K: The 'observer' is the result of all past practices, methods, experiences, knowledge, the routine, the mechanical process of repetition, he is the ( active memory of the?) past. ( Following) any system will only strengthen the 'observer'.

A.P.: The 'present' and the 'past' are actually one. They are not separate.

K: How is this ( 'time' ?) movement of the ( 'me' in the) 'past' which is creating the ('me' in the ) 'present',
modifying itself and becoming the future ('me') , to come to an end?

J.U.: I would like to call this 'kshana bindu', the momentum of time. The 'is' ness of the moment, has to be broken : in the movement of observation there is neither the past nor the possibility of the future.

K: May I put this question differently? 'I' am the result of the past. The 'me' is
the accumulation of memories, experience, knowledge - which is the past. The
'me' is always active, always in ( a self-perpetuating?) momentum. And this momentum is (the psychological) 'time'. So, that momentum as the 'me' faces the present, modifies itself and continues into the future. This is the whole (psychological) movement of our daily existence. You are asking, can that movement as the 'me', the 'centre', cease and have no future? Is that right, sir?

J.U.: Yes.

K: My question is, does the 'me', which is 'my' consciousness, recognise itself
as the movement of the past ? The greed, the envy, the sorrow, the pain, the
anxiety, the fears, the agony, all that is the 'me'. Is this 'me' a verbal state, a
conclusion of words, or is it a fact as this microphone is a fact?

J.U.: The 'me' is history, which can be broken by observation.

K: Existence has no 'self'-existence. It ( the 'me'?) is a descriptive statement in observing; it is not a fact.

J.U.: It is history. It has nothing to do with observation.

P.J.: He says, I am this, I am that, I am history. This is a descriptive
statement. In observing, it has no existence.

K: Let us go into it quietly. The 'me' is the movement of the past, the story
of humanity. And that 'story' expresses itself all the time in my relationship with another. So, that past is interfering in my relationship with my wife, husband, child or friend, with its images, with
its pictures, and it divides my relationship with another.

P.Y.D.: At the point of attention everything dissolves.

K: Can the sorrow, the fear, the pleasure, the pain, the anxiety,
which is the story of man, end now, so that the past does not interfere or
prevent pure observation?

RMP.: That was the original question. But whenever we try to observe ( this movement of) the past, ( the knowledge of) the past intervenes (as an 'observer') . At that moment, the observation becomes useless. That is so according to my own experience.

K: Of course, obviously.

RMP.: Now, how to observe without the interference of this 'observer'?

K: What is the quality or nature of the 'observer'? Is he aware of himself as the ( recognition movement of the?) past?

RMP.: I don't think so.

K: No, he is not aware. For the moment we are examining the 'observer'.
We are asking if the observer can be aware of himself.

RMP.: Yes. He can understand the past, he can ( logically) understand his conditioning.

K: Can he understand his conditioning as an outsider observing it, or is he
aware of himself ( right now) as being conditioned? You see the difference, sir?

RMP.: That is not clear. This 'awareness of itself' - isn'it a duality?

K: To make it much simpler: Can ( the self-centred movement of) thought be aware of itself?
Is there awareness of anger as it arises? Of course, there is, I can see the awakening of envy. I see a beautiful car, and there is the greed for it. Now, in that knowing, is ( the controlling part of) thought aware that it is envious or is envy itself aware? Is there an observation of the feeling of envy without giving it a name?

P.J.: You mean that the process of naming itself creates (or sustains ) the feeling?

K: That is what I am saying. Psychologically the word (the verbal image ?) has become more important. Can you free the word from the feeling? I see that car : perception, sensation, contact and thought ( creating ) the (self-rewarding) 'image' of myself owning that car, and so desire arises. And the 'image' which thought has created is (based on ) the word. So, is there a non-verbal observation of that car, which means no interference of thought?

RMP.: In the observation of an outside object... It can be seen without (verbal)
interference.

K: Now, is it possible to observe (the movement of envy) without the word, without the past, without remembrance of previous envies?

RMP.: This is difficult. ...

K: If I may point out, sir, it does not need to become difficult. First, let us be clear:
The word is not the thing; the (verbal) description is never the thing described. But for most of us the word (the verbal, intellectual level of consciousness) has become tremendously important. To us the language moulds our thinking, and all our thinking is with the word, with the symbol, with the picture, and so on. Now, we are asking, can you observe that feeling that we have named 'envy', without the (past conotations of that) word, which means without the remembrance of your past envies?

RMP.: That is the point we do not see. As soon as observation starts, the
past as ( a recognising and naming process of) thought always interferes. Can we make any observation without the interference of thought?

K: I say 'yes', absolutely.

J.U.: The clue to all these lies in seeing that the 'walker' is not different from
'walking'. Walking itself is the walker.

K: Is this so in ( your) daily life?

J.U.: Yes. We are here to see the fact of 'what is' and when we understand that the actor and acting are one, through ( direct) observation, then we break history as the past. I must make myself clear by this metaphor : there is a bullock cart and it is loaded. All that is loaded on the cart, where does it rest, what does it stand on? It is resting on that point where the wheel which is in contact with
the the earth. It is on that point that the whole load rests. Life is a point
on which ( the moving) history as the past rests - past and future. That present existent
moment, when I 'hold it' in the field of observation, is broken. Therefore, the
'load' of the past and the 'bullock cart' (the process of time) are broken.

A.P.: When you say it is broken, is that attention your experience? If what
you say is a fact, then Rimpoche's question should have been answered. If his
question has not been answered, then what has been said is theoretical.

RMP.: This ( metaphor) does not answer my question.

K: Sir, your question in the beginning was, can the ( perceptive interference of the?) past end? It is a very 'simple' ( yet fundamental) question because all our life is this movement of the past. It is the (ongoing) story of all humanity, the enormous length, depth, volume, of the past. And we are asking a very simple but very (profound?) question: Can this vast ( ongoing) story with all its tremendous
volume, like a tremendous river with a great deal of water flowing, come to an end (to a stop?) ?
First of all, do we recognise the immense volume of it ? Does one recognise the great weight (and momentum ?) of the past? Then the question arises, what is the value of this past? Which is, what
is the value of ( constantly living in the field of ?) knowledge?

A.P.: The factual realization is impossible because at this point thought
comes in.

K: There is no realization because thought interferes. Why? Why should
thought interfere when you are asking me the question: What place has
knowledge in my life?

RMP.: Knowledge may have its own utility.

K: Yes, knowledge has its limited (utilitarian) place. Psychologically (inwardly) , it has no place.
Why has the activity of knowledge, the past, taken over the other field?

P.J.: Sir, the receiving of this question is also in the field of knowledge.

K: Why should ( my past accumulation of 'psychological') knowledge (interfere) in my relationship with another? Is my relationship with another ( based on) a remembrance? For instance, 'You have hurt me; She has praised me'; then 'She is my friend', and 'You are not my friend'.
When our ( interactions or ) relationships are based on memory, remembrance, there is division and
conflict. Therefore, there is no love. How is this ( 'personal' knowledge ) remembrance, which prevents love, to come to an end in relationship?

A.P.: The original question that we started with has ended in a new question.

K: I am doing it now: What is the function of the brain?

RMP.: To store ( and retrieve) memory.

K: Which means what? To register (and play back) , like a tape- recorder. Why should it register anything except what is absolutely necessary? I must 'register' (memorise) where I live, how to drive a car. There must be registration of the things that have utility. Why should it register when she insults me, or you praise me? It is that ( psycho-) registration that is (nurturing ) the story of the past - the flattery, the insult. I am asking, can't that be stopped?

RMP.: When I am thinking of how can it be done, it is very difficult...

K: I am going to show you it is not difficult.

RMP.: Sir, you say why not register only what is necessary, but the brain
does not know what is necessary. That is why it goes on registering everything . The registering is involuntary.

K: Of course.

RMP.: Then how can we register only that which is necessary?

K: Why has it become involuntary? The brain needs security - physical security - because otherwise it cannot function. It must have 'food, clothes and shelter' (and...optionally, a bank account, a source of income, a passport, a driver's licence, a job, a family , and so on ...?) . Thought has invented (added to the list?) other forms of security: I am a Hindu, with my gods. Thought has
created the 'illusions' and in that ( network of globally shared ) 'illusions' the brain seeks shelter, security. Now, does thought realize that the creation of the 'gods' , etc. is an illusion, and,
therefore, put it away because they are all the products of thought in which the brain has found
some kind of illusory ( yet very realistic?) security?

J.U.: This momentum of self-protection is also the past. To breaking of that habit of
self-protection is also a ( reality check-) point. It is that point on which the whole of existence
rests. This atma which is samskriti must also be negated. This is the only way
out.

K: For survival, physical survival, not only of you and me but of humanity,
why do we divide ourselves as Hindus, socialists, Catholics...?

RMP.: This is the creation of ( a self-confined) thought, which is illusory.

K: Yet we hold on to it. You call yourself a Hindu. Why?

RMP.: It is a survival reflex.

K: Is it survival?

A.P.: It is not, because ( on a global scale) it is the enemy of survival.

P.J.: At this level we can understand each other. But it does not end that
process. You say the brain is ( functioning) like a tape-recorder recording. Is there another
function of the brain, another quality?

K: Yes, it is intelligence.

P.J.: How is it awakened?

K: Look, I see there is no security in belonging to any religion; therefore, I don't belong to any religion. Seeing that which is false is the awakening of intelligence.

R.B.: Are you saying that as one sees this, the unnecessary ( psycho-) recording comes to an end?

K: Yes. I am no longer a 'nationalist'.

Sunanda Patwardhan: You mean if we cease to be 'nationalists', all unnecessary
recording stops?

K: Yes, with regard to nationalism.

R.B.: Do you mean to say that when one sees that security or survival is an
absolute minimum and eliminates everything else, then the ( psychological component of?) recording stops?

K: Of course, naturally.

J.U.: One song has ended and another has started; a new song has been
recorded on the old. It will go on. Is this the future of humanity?

K: No, you see, this is theory. Have you stopped being a Buddhist?

J.U.: I don't know. My being a Buddhist is the a historical past.

K: Then you drop it when see the ( shared?) 'illusion' of being a Buddhist.

J.U.: That is correct.

K: Seeing the illusion is the beginning of (an awakening of?) intelligence.

J.U.: But we would like to see that when one thing breaks another does not
form.

K: Could we tackle this differently( holistically) ? We are surrounded by ( a global network of psychologically ) illusory things. Must we go step by step, one after another? Or is there a way of
looking at this whole movement of thought which creates illusions and, seeing it, to end
it - is that possible?

J.U.: This is possible. If we can break through the self-protective process, then this is possible. But the self-protective process itself will not end. Thousands of illusions break and thousands of new ones come into being. This happens all the time. So far we have been talking only of the 'gross' illusions; these certainly break. But a new ( self-) image is continually shaping itself. It is making its own thought structures.

A.P.: What you are saying is that this process of negating ( of our obvious illusions) gives place to the arising of new, subtler illusions.

K: ( The self-centred process of our ) thought being limited, whatever it creates is limited – whatever: gods, knowledge, experience, everything is limited. Do you see that thought is
limited and its activity is limited? If you see that, it is finished; there is no further illusion.
That is why I said that thought must find its own proper place, which is utility, and it has no other place. If it has any other place, it is ( creating psuchological ?) illusions. Thought
is not love. When we have really discovered the limitations of thought, there is a
flowering of something else. Is it really happening? Does that ( inner flowering?) take place?

RMP.: I can now recognise the limitations of thought more poignantly.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 May 2015 #19
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

Interesting question...Can I be aware that I am the past? By abstracting myself (using the words, the 'me' or the 'I') I can consider myself as though from a distance and think about 'myself'i.e., but to come into real contact with myself, me, when the 'power' of this 'center' is felt... this is the 'center'(call it what you will, put it in quotes etc.) that will kill, has killed, and is killing; to preserve, justify, defend itself and whatever it has become attached to. My feeling is that I take this idea of 'conditioning' a bit too lightly. But obviously, the only way that this situation of me as controller could possibly come to an end is through seeing that I AM the past, out of 'place'etc.; any effort made to 'negate', go beyond etc. would just be in pursuit of something 'greater':'love' compassion, intelligence...seeing seems the only 'way' and how does one come to see oneself as the 'past'? When I'm combing my hair?, when I'm writing here?, when I'm idly wondering about all this and the other 'spiritual' things that I've been involved with for so (too?) many years...?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 29 May 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 May 2015 #20
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 318 posts in this forum Offline

after all what was recently said...for my own life, I see the need of a catalyst of some sort because thinking cannot go beyond thinking, yet it tries hard ,exactly like my lawnmower cannot fly from Ireland to the north pole....well the lawnmower did not try yet..

A catalyst is triggering and participating somehow in a reaction, the result will not contain the catalyst in it...it is vital to start and help with a reaction...

before any insight, revealing, meditation, kundalini, turning on of the other process etc etc etc something (must) happens to trigger somehow, such event!

For me , I mean not as a Universal truth, yet it could be,
what is found in our unhappy lives is such a trigger; to be so called unhappy is part of a process which has a purpose to bring us from a the known to somewhere else unknown.., it is practically a mean to awake some sort of guidance for us, when I sense what it is!!

to seek for happiness is again finding for more unhappiness, yet of course from time to time some rewards do work up to a point, the analyser has its own world and so its own rewards, always containing in all cases some suffering of some sort(fear ,anxiety,more cravings etc etc etc).......when thought is touching such trigger with its dirty hands, then nothing new, radical, different and in goodness never happens..the trigger does not work.....so there is no other process turned on, shitty life..yet pretending that all is fine of course..and for some it can be yes...this demands possession and means to do all what I want, and this is going to be stolen from others of course as alone I do not even survive...

well of course here I mention suffering-sorrow as a catalyst..so far I do not see any other..if there are some I do not see them....

In what I am saying , it is then somehow sorrow which decides instead of me as an analyser where to go...as sorrow cannot be analytically solved, understood etc..it is the perfect trigger........

then at some stage,when having spent much time in this corner it can be perceived for what it is, a warning ,a signal that what I am up to is wrong, when it happens; we know sorrow because we do not listen, and we do not listen because we do not know about such warning, which can be perceived as a helper of some sort....

then each time something is wrong in my thoughts , this warning can eventually be operational,if I can sense it each time....

A question with no answer sought: let us say that I am not loony, what or who is guiding then ??

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Fri, 29 May 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 May 2015 #21
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 318 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:

paul daniel wrote:

I see the need of a catalyst of some sort because thinking cannot go beyond thinking, yet it tries hard ,exactly like my lawnmower cannot fly from Ireland to the north pole..

I would rather call it creating a 'right inner environment', Dan.

No problem if this formula speaks more for you of course.For now I really stick to catalyst because it is obvious for me, this catalyst will affect the brain mind...so the inner environment yes..

John Raica wrote:
Thought is indeed a fragmentary, partial activity: 'me' and 'my thoughts', 'me' trying to analyse and solve 'my problems',etc etc, and this is the major handicap that every 'thoughtful' human being was facing since antiquity. Some thinkers were aware of it, but - and this is where we are.

I find no problem to be outward orientated and inward at the same time, they both are meant to work together this is obviously clear for me as a matter of fact and of pure logic as well...it is so well "organised" and efficiently self functioning that when this happens it all is so smooth...this says a lot why k possibly very often knowing that state of mind gives the impression that all is quite easy, as this is really what happens when the all brain mind is turned on...

we really easily can forget that this is about an entirely different dimension of the brain-mind that we are talking about...it is not my actuality..there seems to be some necessary work going on...yet some important side effects are a reality...like I had to learn to live with this constant outer awareness of the outer, which is there even if I do not watch any news..the global outer madness is the same energy behind one's suffering, just amplified by the number of human.

As a guess only now, could it be that personally properly living sorrow sometimes connects to a global sorrow....that would fit k words...but this is just intellectual guess...

John: "most of them directed this same capacity of thinking outwardly for some more practical results"..

well is not this inevitable? thinking, analysing is practically only about the outward, the problem again being the absence of all our capacities....for vital practical reasons from birth with others help so young of course the analyser-thought has to always be first on any happening....and never learn to withdraw from its leadership position, whatever the reasons are...and throughout life it is always with other's help that there still are human...a fact which the powers are trying to hide, but no one is forced to be utterly blind is not it? it is really a will to be blind..

John Raica wrote:
So, as I'm seeing it, some 'self-exposure' and 'energy integration' work is required at this point in time. Both are not common activities that the average 'knowledgeable' person would not care to consider except as you say, when a major crisis, 'sorrow' or 'death' are knocking at the door. Can these be looked at as 'catalysts' or 'process quickeners' ? Yes, in the sense that they bring this inner psycho-process of 'thought-time' to a critical point where a major change has to be made.

Yes I mean that....but before to reach such extreme, the catalyst that I see within suffering is there from the beginning under a form which is not perceived, this is to be learnt through a-many major crisis....

we have been brought up that life is suffering, competition, fight, reaching ,success, achieving, war etc etc..so we blindly and vaguely accept suffering as a fate, inevitable, part of life like the sun and the sky...when it is here,my view, to bring a brain-mind to its total turning on of all capacities when the brain physically reaches its full potential...it can be seen that it is reaching its physical so psychical potential when for example the fear of death becomes a reality so hen I want things to last , when I seek for happiness because I am in fact unhappy etc...all this creating great trouble and discontentment, this is precisely when this ruthless society we have crated or support definitively brings into the sad game of man, the opportunity to try to forget about all that, by definitively persuading us that life is competitive which is not at all a fact , I have deeply seen that, and achieving etc
we have many signs when young enough that the time has come to go sort of within and when this time has come, the powers in charge gave us a mean to mentally run away when we should be staying with all our mental troubled time...

this huge mistake ends up in heavy sorrow , in war , and in the possible premature end of a species..honestly what is the point to keep that failed "experiment" last longer ?? talking to the Universe here ;-)..why do I say failed included for myself ? because when this huge immense bliss had been lived deeply you just know it...yet in this dark descriptive and apparent gloomy mood...the thing is that tomorrow remains unknown,each moment contains a radical possibility to rally change...after all , it is not lost in fact..

John Raica wrote:
For many of us, K's teachings and/or his presence did play this role ( of inducing this feeling of urgency)- from where a possible subliminal dependency. But as K once put it in 'mechanistic' terms there has to be the right quality of fuel plus the 'spark' (of insight) in order for the engine to start working properly. So, the 'teachings' may offer a lot of 'sparks'- but the quality and the right amount of 'mind fuel' are left totally at our discretion...

exactly...the spark is needed...well, this is so remote from earning one's life is not it..earning one's life, that is so utterly stupid I think ..

cheers..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 May 2015 #22
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 534 posts in this forum Offline

AWAKENING THE INTELLIGENT ENERGY

Questioner P: You have said that there is a way of awakening (our intelligent ?) energy. What is the way of awakening this (dormant) energy?

Krishnamurti: ( The yoghic?) tradition starts from the psychosomatic, the posture, the breath control and gradually through various forms of concentration to the full awakening of energy.
Through some kind of 'psychosomatic' acrobatics, it is hoped that you will capture the (spiritual) light, the whole universe. I feel that way is an absurd way of approaching something totally vast, timeless. Isn' t there (a possibilty of?) awakening of this ( dormant spiritual?) energy without going through all these practices?

P: Even you would admit that correct posture and right breathing strengthen the structure of the mind.

Krishnamurti: I want to approach all this quite differently. In approaching it entirely differently, it is necessary to throw out all that has been said. . There are other things involved; there is the awakening ( and integration?) of energy which has been dissipated so far. To gather the whole of this energy , attention is involved, and the elimination of time altogether. I think there are these 3 major factors - ( the ending of?) time, (a quality of ) attention which is not forced, which is not centred round a part, and the gathering of energy. I think these are the fundamental things one has to understand (and to do?) because enlightenment is the comprehension of this vast life - life being living, dying, loving; understanding the whole travail and going beyond it. The traditional Masters would also agree that you have to have attention to go beyond time, but they are still use time to go beyond time.

P: How Sir? I take a posture and direct my attention. What is the time involved in this?

Krishnamurti: Is that attention the result of ( a practice in?) time?

P: No. You ask a question and there is an immediate attention. Is this attention the product of time?

Krishnamurti: No, certainly not.

P: So, this self-knowing process which is going on all the time also involves time. My mind twenty years ago would not have known the present quality. This state had no existence then.

Krishnamurti: Let us go slowly. We are trying to understand ( the awakening of?) something which is out of time.

P: The tradition says prepare the body and mind.

Krishnamurti: Through time (along a preset time-table?) you prepare the body and mind to comprehend, to be free of time. When you say through time you perfect the ( mind?) instrument, is it so? First of all who is it that is perfecting the instrument? Is it thought?

P: It would be invalid to say only thought. There are many other factors involved.

Krishnamurti: Thought, the knowing of thought, intelligence, are all maintained by thought. To say 'thought must end and intelligence must come into being' or 'the thinker and thought are one', is again an action of thought. To me the traditional approach of perfecting the ( perceptive) instrument through thought, the cultivation of intelligence and the going beyond time - all these are still in the area of (controlled by?) thought (of the known) . That is so. Contained in that very (process of?) thought there is the 'thinker' which says 'this must happen, that must not happen'. That thinker has become the ( impersonation of the?) will of achievement. So, your will to 'perfect the instrument' is part of thought.

P: In this circle (circular logic?) you are talking about, is also implied the questioning of the very instrument which is thought.

Krishnamurti: But the 'questioner' is part of ( the same process of self-centred?) thought; its whole structure is part of thought. Thought is a material (process) ; its material is memory. We are constantly functioning within the area of the known and the man who is cultivating thought says he will go to the unknown through the known, perfect the known and get to enlightenment. Again all this is ( within the area of the 'known') thought.

P: So, if everything is ( happening in the area of?) thought, it must then be necessary to give birth to a new instrument.

Krishnamurti: When thought (decides that) 'it must become silent' and becomes silent it is still ( under the control of?) thought) .

P: Then there is no way of proceeding.

Krishnamurti: Thought can never possibly touch "the other" because thought is never free, thought is old, thought is conditioned. Thought is the ( response of our) whole structure of the known.

P: What do you mean by "the other"?

Krishnamurti: 'That' ( which ) 'is' within the field of silence. Therefore find out if sorrow can end. Come out of the corner. Find out what life is, what death means, what it means to end sorrow. If you have not come upon this, playing tricks upon ( your own) thought has no meaning. You can awaken all the kundalinis (chakras?) , but to what purpose?

The ( right) exercise of the brain is to find the truth and the false; to see the false as the false. You see when the boy Krishnamurti saw the truth (about the falsehood involved in 'organising' truth ) , it was over. He gave up all organizations, etc. He had no training "to see".

P: But you had training. There were 'instructions' as to how to bring up that boy.

Krishnamurti: It was like 'combing the hair', doing asanas, pranayama; it was all at that level.

B: It is still something very subtle. I am not saying that what happened had any relationship to the illumination, but it is necessary to look after the body.

Krishnamurti: Yes, it is necessary to keep the ( psycho-somatic?) body healthy.

P: But you have been doing asanas, pranayama, every day for so many years. Why?

Krishnamurti: That is not important. It is like 'keeping my nails clean'. I am saying that spending years in perfecting the instrument is so 'childish' (spiritually imature?) . All that you have to (once inwardly 'awake'?) do is "to look".

P: But if one is born ( spiritually ?) 'blind', only when an (enlightened?) person like you comes and says, 'Look !' , something happens. Most people would not understand what you are talking about.

Krishnamurti: Most people would not 'listen' to all this. They would brush it aside.

B: The other way is easier. It gives something whereas this gives nothing.

Krishnamurti: This gives everything if you touch it.

B: But the other is easier.

Krishnamurti: You see I am terribly interested in how has the mind of Krishnamurti maintained this state of innocence?

P: You may have been an exception. Did you have a 'centre' to wipe away?

Krishnamurti: No.

P: So you are unique and therefore you are a 'phenomenon', and so you cannot tell us you did this and so it happened. You can only tell us "This is not it" and whether we 'drown' or not, no one else can tell us. We see this. We may not be 'enlightened', but we are not 'unenlightened' either.

Krishnamurti: I think it is tremendously interesting to see that anything that thought touches is not the Real. Thought is ( a process of ) time. Thought is ( the coordinated response of our past ?) memory. Thought cannot touch the Real (the Timeless?) .

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 30 May 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 May 2015 #23
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 318 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
The fact is that we are all inheriting a heavily materialistic culture...and before we know it, we're trapped in this collective struggle for survival. Kind of a sad psycho-heritage.

hello John,

the struggle for survival only comes because we refuse to cooperate, yet as there is no choice all what is produced is collective....then we are forced to be collective, when we just could do it voluntarily,but as in such case ,there is intelligence..the pyramidal society would be destroyed...simple..in the outer this is the main work of those willing to be mentally in charged to keep us separated...not a hard job in fact..

John Raica wrote:
So, let's hope that here we're doing something in the right (non-sorrowful ?) direction. The real point in not in bringing up the spiritual virtues of sorrow, what is actually required -at least in my view- is to get out of this sad spiritual condition ( when and whether we can...)

Sorrow as a catalyst is apparently not a virtue but a tool, a mean ...to get out of this sad condition is required yes absolutely, I keep insisting on what I know about that, which is : to solve sorrow,which is something I can't do, I must not try to solve sorrow,as such thinking or attempt will only bring an analytical option..then it will not be solved..

to know that sorrow must be solved is one thing ,which i find totally right, but in all cases , for me , it must only be lived so my analytical brain-mind must not be willing to solve it, and rather my analytical brain-mind must be defeated by sorrow....there is a moment I see when "I" really leaves sorrow alone...this has another vital side effect as then in such moment it is obvious that for some reasons the unconscious is not willing to solve sorrow as well..solving sorrow is a side effect of living it properly, it can't be a goal as such....

this is what I know by experience which keeps repeating itself from quite young in fact

so we seems to agree on most of it, just for me to attempt to solve sorrow does not work, it ill be a side effect of something else which freezes "me" as a leader of the brain mind when it sees its defeat...so it has to be lived and not escaped which is what we all do all the time by all means...those means become insanity ...and war.

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 May 2015 #24
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

B: The other way is easier. It gives something whereas this gives nothing.

Krishnamurti: This gives everything if you touch it.

B: But the other is easier.

Krishnamurti: You see I am terribly interested in how has the mind of Krishnamurti maintained this state of innocence?

P: You may have been an exception. Did you have a 'centre' to wipe away?

Krishnamurti: No.

I found this very interesting and have in the past: He said he never had this "center of darkness" like us and that as long as there is any "shadow of thnought" that we can not "touch" the "other". So as I have (am) more than a "shadow of thought", I have to take this "other" on faith that 'it' is there because he said so and implies that if one does not reach this in one's life, then one has really never lived. This is where the 'circus' begins. The 'search' for that which cannot' be found through 'search'; subtle, gross, etc. Like a 'Koan'. Why do I have 'faith' in what this man says is 'possible' for humanity when everything points in the opposite direction: more division, more killing, more poverty and misery etc. Do I take some part of it, his teaching, enough to buoy me along? If some person said to me :"you're problem is that you have not accepted Jesus,Allah, etc., into your heart. If you do your life will be beautiful and you will be with them after death..." Though that appeals somehow to many, it's too far out for me...but then what is this 'carrot' of the 'Other' that K speaks of that "gives everything if you touch it.." but you can't 'touch it' if you don't 'disappear'! This business gives one pause...and makes one wonder. All the traditions use 'time' to get to the 'goal'. K says 'time' is out where this is concerned in that 'time' is 'thought' and "anything that thought touches is not Real." Really quite a 'puzzle'...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 30 May 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 May 2015 #25
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 318 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:

paul daniel wrote:

to solve sorrow, which is something I can't do, I must not try to solve sorrow,as such thinking or attempt will only bring an analytical option

John: Very true, Dan, 'I' the self conscious entity cannot solve this ages old problem of sorrow. One basic reason would be that this 'self-isolating ' inner attitude ( an attitude which also can ...'think' ?) is creating the premises for sorrow.

Yes, in what I sense, sorrow seems(is) embedded within this analytical self itself as a safe guard because of the inherent capacity of the analytical process which as such has no outer limits when it is about reaching all sort of goals,as we see in our societies; my view is that it is so embedded as it is(was) meant to be a guide line...a bit like an electrical fence is keeping the cows in the field where they have to be...sorrow when understood for what it is and so perceived was meant to play that fence, it does not do that anymore....that is one effect of sorrow as a warning of wrongness
for some reasons it does not produced what it was meant to produce any more...yet it is still there and working..to not take it into account drives the species ruthless and insane, because of suffering which terribly hurts permanently ( consciously and-or unconsciously) and

What we are up to, simply does not exist, it is only a fantasy of the conceptual analyser the attempt again to run away from it so from what I deeply am.

John Raica wrote:
So I believe that there's a lot of wisdom in K's advice...to 'do nothing' about it- which becomes quite obvious when you realise that you are both its creator and...direct beneficiary. Again, this may represent a major qualitative jump in the evolution of human consciousness

Indeed. Nevertheless as you probably see it too, this is not enough.
To do nothing needs to develop much more because this is not something we naturally do any more, to do nothing.....the analyser always does something..about everything..

If I am insisting on that and I will keep doing it, it is because as you put it here, it seems( is) to be as you say a "major qualitative jump in the evolution of human consciousness".

Sounds arrogantly wow !!! when it is simple and a possibility for anyone so just a fact...it had saved me from constant hurts and brought so many side effects, like I see now the kundalini, the presence of this weird universal bliss, the partial solving of my main hurts, the involuntary discovering out of the blue of the analytical process functioning, I mean like looking at its programming itself.. etc etc ,then a life is back since..

This sorrow as a warning and a catalyst is still there, so I play by ear with it ...

I have not a single clue of what is next...I just passively use what is wrong when I am aware of its signal..which has to be left alone, or as you say when quoting k: do nothing with it, so it is free to exist and do whatever it has to do....

So at some stage what happens in my brain is that all what exist for the analyser is sorrowful only, out of being far too fed up with that and seeing no more escape when none has worked so far,"I" consciously make the choice to leave it alone "whatever happens in such moment , "I" is defeated !! sorrow is the winner would say the poor analyser, of this fight between me and me, me the winner versus me in sorrow then this is a fact, then "enjoy the ride", as you as a "I" are not in charge anymore...something happens right there, as soon as sorrow as a symptom is lived and not escaped..to be honest I see difficult to mention what comes after...it is far too swift, too fast , to be able to make a logical catalogue of the event...and this is fine by me.....because analysing has no capacity here ...

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sun, 31 May 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 #26
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 318 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Indeed, Dan, this is the general perception- that the 'thinker' , the conscious and educated 'me' is there to create some 'progressive' order, namely to kick out the inner (and outer) depression and sorrow and build a 'positive' inner (and outer) environment. And this mentality of an endless growth and progress is still largely spread all over the world inspite of some facts that may point to its downside.

for me so for you as i see what you say here, yes exactly, in our view so.
this is why whether it is right or not, we are conditioned to an expending big bang, from the worse to the very good, but what is this world expanding in? is a question no "specialist" would take, this is why there has to be so called evolution too, when for me it is change of which we clearly know nothing about the ultimate Origin of it, apart from so called "scientific" guesses giving the one doing that so many grants to follow every years because it simply suits the actual old world disorder re-baptised for the occasion new WO..words are so easy as in themselves they are empty, !! Old world disorder of this planet which says, yesterday it was all crap, today is good, but tomorrow will be fantastic...bingo here is a new religion..any idea based on tomorrow all will be fine is a trap and a lie...etc etc

Anyway, here we have a link with K, like what he talks about is now..not in a gradual tomorrow..

John Raica wrote:
In fact it is a strong self-sustained (un?)consciousness 'stream' ; and you can be within the stream and engage in its fierce competition for anything, or outside of it - for various reasons.

well yes.

John Raica wrote:
Now most of the second category are unfortunately feeling 'outcast', failures- meaning that they got kicked out of the 'winner team' but still got stuck in the same utilitaristic and self-comparing mentality.

so both are still caught in the belief of competition so of war, having no clue that competition brings war...this is so obvious when I go on political orientated websites where i see people having no clue of the direct link competition = business = money = hierarchy = utter poverty = war= destruction = stealing... etc etc..
but this is not only on political websites ;-))..and of course have no clue of what is competition, which is a side effect of the divisive functioning of the analytical mind and it is not about competition at all but about elimination, a mental outcome of choice..with a centre..

bottom line if you do not know the way you function, you have no clue about why and what you are up to..again k is right about that in my view...he is very much heavily insisting on self knowledge..a subject which amazingly was not of any interest AT ALL, before I find again purely incidentally a way to droned into sorrow as a catalyst ..but it is the subject which invited itself...so again there was no search for that..it seems that definitively any search can only be analytical...so, divisive, so, in conflict etc

so what you call meditation has to be be a factual happening then if this is in order to by pass any search..

John Raica wrote:
So technically speaking there is sorrow both inside and outside of that stream, but perhaps that those engaged in a competitive life style do not have the time nor the disposition to question the validity and/or the ethics of their life choices.

They have not a clue should I say! Competition, or rather elimination, takes all the brain-mind hostage of its needs, in other words the analyser blindly leads the game..

there is questioning( moaning only in fact) when loosing only...and such questioning is only because I do not even accept the rules of the game I am playing...when I loose.
It is not a deep questioning.Like the bank say: "we win it is for us , we loose it is for you people to pay"
..yet at their level they are the ones having the practically full control of the planet(not entirely yet..) so this option is included from the beginning, but when it comes to so called isolated ordinary people, this option of loosing is not even included as only winning is THE option...but all this is really so basic..
this suggest that those in charge are analytically speaking, less analytically "stupid"( more cunning) than "ordinary" people, and surely more greedy too....more ruthless as well etc etc..one difference is that at that level they cooperate..out of no choice...this is why the absolute need to keep the flock divided..with personal believes being the main way to do so, because this has a direct effect on each person , the main one being that I am simply lost in my own life, so when it comes to the collective one, of course it does not work, easy then for the master to shear the sheep...
Again there is of course a direct line between ignorance of what I deeply am ( how I function,what it is etc ..) , and the actual state of humans' societies..

John Raica wrote:
So, there are rather few people left who can afford to think and feel differently, and even for them things seem to be getting worse (before getting better ?) It is almost as if the mind finds itself in an 'after war' situation, ruins and destruction everywhere.

So I think that it is not a matter of affording....but of what and how one deeply feel about his own life, in order to do I see one necessary quality ( out of many others): to be totally excessive, not stay in the middle of the road so in k's words not being mediocre, so having clear definite choices of some strong refusal ...with no other option accepted!! ..

not a matter of affording like it is when we had practically no money and no job nevertheless it is when we travelled the most..transposed to a psychological level.
Is it getting worse..? Apparently yes it is, but i am not sure...the main media owned by the main banksters emphasises all that , now those hidden thieves and puppets show up everywhere when before they were hiding much more, but for me I knew somehow that it was the case since I am on this planet, so they are indeed doing their coming out in the obvious, because they now are trying the final strike...and in order to do so, the now have to openly walk ...

but all this are "only" logical consequences of each one failure to be awake multiplied by now 7 billions ish..if I may say so...ass it sounds a bit ???...well it will do for now...

again k is right: changing yourself etc etc

so that there is the global and the personal too and they are linked, something we are not part of anymore.
the personal I speak of is not the analyser personal...the analyser is just a tool yet of course it is vital to physically find means to live , but messing up with most of what it touches...with of course here and there things which relatively work...but when taking a whole picture of this planet for me if it does not work....it is a disaster...how many people again today are going to die for the comfort of the winners..

see again this brings us back right to the self functioning...when dividing me and the universe, when it chooses it always eliminates one possibility...down to our levels it means killing..

John Raica wrote:
Definitely not at all funny. In the late 40's Mr K was speaking ( especially to small groups in India) of a 'surrendering' of the self ( while still putting his own 'spin' on it- this should not take time) but with some hindsight we can see that it hasn't really worked- even a surrendering 'ego' may expect better times to come. In short, coming from that end, no pedagogical method seems to be of any practical help. However, a responsible perception of the global situation might bring the spiritual energy to jump-start the 'mind' engine

not at all funny yes indeed John..at all levels.Yes it has not really work.
Better times after destruction as usual ,this is the proven best method of all leader always becoming pure insanity ?? Out of unknown suffering for me..I see the direct link ..

no pedagogical help right now yes..now is the " necessary" time of collapsing and falling, which can be short if???...like for one person there is THE time to go through the door of suffering and sorrow...it is the same energy behind multiplied by X billion...at work....it is of course because we keep refusing to leave sorrow alone as a catalyst, as this is unknown...my view. Sorrow being me, when me says : "that is not me ,go away"!! does not work at all of course....I escape from me in fact, which is obviously absolutely impossible ....Me should not be that bad is my logical view, something else goes wrong...

your last words suit me John:

However, a responsible perception of the global situation might bring the spiritual energy to jump-start the 'mind' engine...

And the very last for k, from today’s quote:

So, the reason why I give so much importance and urgency to the psychology of the mind, is that the mind is the cause of all action; and without understanding that, merely to reform, to potter around, to trim the superficial actions, has very little meaning. We have done that for generations, and have brought about confusion, madness, and misery in the world. So, we have to go to the very root of the whole problem of existence, of consciousness, which is the 'I', the thinker; and without understanding the thinker and its activities, mere superficial social reforms have no significance - at least, not for the man who is very serious, very earnest.

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 #27
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 534 posts in this forum Offline

CONFLICT AND THE TOTAL FIELD OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Questioner A: Do the brain cells as a source of intellect have any valid part to play in their own silencing?

Krishnamurti: We were talking yesterday of why ( acquiring inner ?) knowledge has been made (all?) important as a way of enlightenment. Apparently every religious teacher has insisted on (having the right kind of?) knowledge, not only in the East but also in the West. And as tradition is so strong in this country, it is really necessary to find out what part this whole systematized thinking plays in attaining enlightenment. What part does the environmental conditioning play in enlightenment? How does the cultural conditioning come into being? You must cover the whole field.

A: ( In Buddhism ) it starts with this sutra: " If you know the cause, you can eliminate the cause." This is the statement of the Buddha. By understanding the cause you get rid of it and he has told you the cause : all our manifested thought, behaviour, is within the field of cause-effect.

Krishnamurti: I question this. There is no fixed cause, there is no fixed effect. Isn't there a constant movement which the mind and brain are incapable of following, living? And so the (thinking) mind says there is cause and effect and it is held in that pattern.

A: If ( inwardly) there is a chain of cause-effect, at any point you can hold it. At the cause point where effect becomes the cause, that is the key to this.

Krishnamurti: You insulted me yesterday, that is the cause; at that moment, if the mind is totally aware, there is no ( psychological process of ?) cause-effect at all. The (personal ?) response to that insult is coming from the old brain that has divided (isolated?) itself, and has been functioning in a pattern. At the moment of insult, for the 'old' (fragmented?) brain not to respond can only happen when there is complete attention. In that moment of attention there is no cause- effect.

A: But if there is no such attention, it becomes the cause of another chain. Therefore, where an effect germinates itself into a new cause, it is there that action comes which is different. I have affection for you I will understand, but if I do not have affection, then I will blame you. So causation is always within.

Krishnamurti: I see very clearly what you say.

A: The general law is as follows: "Thus the whole thing arises within a matrix of not-knowing ( of ignorance) - avidya. In 'avidya' is contained 'samskara', all that man has done. From that is arising ( a self) consciousness, and out of that consciousness comes naming. These lead to the body and the six senses: then you 'see'." 5In the ancient texts causality is used in a broader, cosmic sense. But you start from the point of "I see" and start only from there.

J: Sankara says you cannot say how ignorance began and he denied causation. Cause-effect can be ended. ( But...) before you go any further you have to exhaust the intellect.

Krishnamurti: There is ignorance and there is always perception, sensation.

A: Samskara is that ( content of human consciousness ?) which has been put together.

Krishnamurti: Put together in time which means ( through) evolution. So, is consciousness different from samskara (its content?) ? All that ( evolutionary content?) which has been put together 'is' (defining our ?) consciousness.

A: No Sir, ( deeper down?) it is the matrix (of consciousness) . Within that comes 'your ' consciousness, 'my' consciousness. This matrix ( of human consciousness) is common to all of us.

Krishnamurti: 'Samskara', you say, means 'put together'.

A: Literally it means 'tendencies'.

Krishnamurti: I am asking what is ( our) consciousness ? Consciousness is made of content. Without the content, is there consciousness at all? The content of consciousness is consciousness. Content has been going on for centuries.

A: Is content all ( there is to our consciousness?) or is it just a segment?

Krishnamurti: I see that all my 'conditioning' (known content ?) makes for consciousness.

A: Man has existed for many, many years. Before his consciousness came into being, the matrix was already there.

Krishnamurti: Thought ( self-consciousness?) began with the unitary cell. Man has lived (as such) for more than thirty-five thousand years; during that time he has collected all kinds of experiences. All that 'is' our consciousness.

A: Out of all this (evolution) has come our ( present) consciousness.

Krishnamurti: There is no separation of the two. If there is no content, there is no ( self-centred?) consciousness. Now, in this (existing human) consciousness there are many ( active?) fragments, and it is not one solid content. There are different levels, activities, attitudes, characteristics; all that is (contained in our) total consciousness. One part of this total consciousness assumes importance. Then it says "I'' am ( the supervisor of my ?) consciousness" , "I am this", "I am not that".

A: You have made a distinction between a total consciousness which has different levels and that point at which it says "I am different". Then there is a difference between the ( total) matrix of human consciousness and the 'self'- ( identified part of consciousness) .

Krishnamurti: The content of consciousness is ( generating its own ?) consciousness. Without this ( active memory?) content there is no ( self-?) consciousness. This content is made up of various ( 'compartments' and ?) divisions - my family, your family, and all that; it is made up of fragmentation. One of the fragments assumes importance over all other fragments.

A: The moment there is this (self-controlling?) focus, the individualization starts.

Krishnamurti: Be careful. The word "individual" actually means 'indivisible in himself', not (the identification with the controlling?) fragment. So one ( central?) fragment assumes the authority, the power to criticize, the censor - all within the total area (field of our?) consciousness.

A: In the case of a non-identified consciousness , what happens?

Krishnamurti: I do not know a thing about (what you mean by?) 'identification'.

A: The moment ( the process of self?) identification starts I identify myself with the part. That is the point of separation.

Krishnamurti: The 'content' of consciousness is ( generating its own 'self-?) consciousness'. When there is no ( active memory ?) content there is no ( self-) consciousness. Now, in that ( active?) 'content' there are tremendous factors of conflict, of fragmentation. One fragment assumes ( a controlling ?) authority (and ?) feels insecure - there are such vast conflicts there. ( This total consciousness?) does not ( have to?) identify with any fragment, it does that only when it says "I like this, I do not like this".

R: What is that "I"?

A: Buddha said it is the totality of all 'impressions' (psychological imprints?) which has created an identity for itself but which has no true identity.

R: The human consciousness has an immense diversity.

Krishnamurti: There are many ( specialised?) fragments. How is it that one fragment becomes important, and the importance then goes on? In this whole field of fragmentation, when does the "I" come into being?

A: Is it not implied in the field of consciousness itself? The ( the 'self'-consciousness?) which comes out of it is latent in it.

Krishnamurti: There are all these fragments, contradictions, there is ( a constant inner) conflict. From ( the pain of?) that conflict comes the desire to end conflict.

A: If I am not ( self-) identified, it does not affect me. At that point it does not become conflict.

Krishnamurti: There is only conflict, opposition, contradiction in our ( daily) consciousness. Where there is opposition, contradiction, that is the field of conflict. Each fragment being ( self-confined?) will produce (its own frustrations ?) pleasure, sorrow, agony, despair. This whole structure of our consciousness is a battlefield. In the phenomenal world he is (identifying himself as?) a Hindu and I am a Muslim, and that is breeding war and hatred. This is a simple, straight phenomenon. When the conflict becomes acute then comes the ( self-focussing as?) "me" and "you". Otherwise I float along in this conflict, but the moment conflict becomes acute a (process of self-) identification takes place with something which I think is greater - with God, nation, ideal. As long as the conflict is mild, I leave it alone. (To recap:) My point is, as long as there is no conflict, there is no"I". We are saying, therefore, that ( the degree of our inner/outer?) conflicts is the measure of the "I". There was no conflict yesterday, there is conflict today, and I hope there will not be conflict tomorrow. This movement (projecting its own continuity in time ? ) is the "I". This is the essence of the "I".

A: There are many other facets.

Krishnamurti: Is the tree different from the branches? It may have ten hundred branches. The structure of our consciousness is based on this conflict.

R: Does it all begin here or does the arising of "I" go deeper?

Krishnamurti: Is there a 'self', an "I", ( something fixed?) which is to be studied, or is the "I" a movement?

A: You say the "I" begins as a movement in consciousness.

Krishnamurti: No. ( But) there is a (wide spread) assumption that the "I" is static. Is it so? Is the "I" something to be learnt about? Or is the "I" a movement? Do I learn about something or do I learn in movement? The former is non-existent. It is fallacious, it is an invention. So the central fact is this (self-isolating tendency?) 'division'. It is the source of all conflict. This (inner/outer) conflict may take different shapes, levels, it may be pleasant (rewarding?) but it is a part of the structure of conflict.

R: The nature of our consciousness is conflict ?

Krishnamurti: It is not its nature. ( My) consciousness 'is' (caught in?) conflict. If I have no ( inner/outer?) conflicts, what happens to 'me'?

A: You say there is no "I" if there is no conflict. Does that mean the state of 'non-conflict' is a 'non-consciousness'?

R: The state of non-conflict is beyond conflict. The dimension in which we live is conflict.

A: Sir, I said intensification of conflict includes naming.

Krishnamurti: Naming is all included in this. The average man 'swims along' till a conflict becomes acute.

A: When conflict becomes acute, then ( a process of?) naming starts.

Krishnamurti: ( Inwardly ? ) why do we need naming at all? Why do I say "She is my wife?"

A: Security, I want to 'hold on' to her.

Krishnamurti: Look, I say the word is not the thing. She 'is my wife' is legally true, but why have I named it? To give continuity, to strengthen the 'image' I have built? I possess her or she possesses me, for sex, for comfort and so on. All these strengthen the image about her. The image is there to establish her as 'mine'. In the meanwhile, she is changing; is looking at another man. I do not acknowledge her freedom, and I do not acknowledge freedom at all, for myself. So what have I done when I say 'she is my wife'?

A: You are saying we do not like movement, we like everything to be static.

Krishnamurti: The brain cells establish a pattern of habit and refuse to leave that habit.

A: The entire consciousness is words, knowledge. I want to understand this, what you are saying.

Krishnamurti: ( All our acquired?) knowledge is 'put together'- horizontally (in a temporal sequence) or (is organised?) 'vertically'. ( Acquiring, storing, processing and using ?) knowledge is a process which implies time. Time implies thought. ( But if inwardly?) through ( this process of) thought, knowledge, time, you are trying to find something which is out of time, you cannot. The 'common (deeper psychological ? ) factor' ( 'fact'?) between all human beings is despair, agony, sorrow. Can this be dispelled through time or can they be dispelled instantly? And is this process to be ended with words or without words? The word is not the thing. You may describe the most marvellous food, but the description is not the food.

A: ( A responsible?) use of words demands a complete understanding of the field of knowledge.

Krishnamurti: Words are necessary to communicate, to share together our common problems. The word is not the thing, but we have to use the word in order to understand (to see the inner truth of ?) the 'thing'. When does (an authentic?) communication take place – the sharing together of a common problem?

A: It can take place non-verbally.

Krishnamurti: To me communication means sharing together, thinking together, creating together, understanding. When are we 'together'? When we are tremendously vital, passionate, at the same level with the same intensity. And when does this happen? It happens when you 'love' something. When you ( have the intelligence of compassion and?) love, it is finished. When we lack that thing, we just spin around with words. I am sure all 'professionals' miss that. So our (global consciousness?) problem is how to meet, to come together at the same time, at the same level, with the same intensity. That is the real question. We do that (or not?) when there is sex... which we call 'love'. Otherwise ( consciousness-wise) you battle for yourself and I battle for myself. This is the problem. Can I, who am in sorrow, say, "Let us come together, let us talk it over", and not talk of what others said?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 #28
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 318 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
This 'K method' is working only in a 'time free' inner environment.

yes it is indeed...so the need to paralyse somehow the dictatorship of the analyser caught in time...not a problem as such because that is the way it is functioning, it becomes a problem as this is enough enough to "live"..

John Raica wrote:
This does not mean that we kick 'time' out of the door, nor that we are taking a 'time out' from this endless process of thought-time, but in terms of 'inner'action, that there's no more time left for you to act- you do it now...or you don't.

yes , I like the way you put that in words, that speaks quite well for itself.

John Raica wrote:
And this is the radical difference with psycho-analysis, which is giving itself all the time in the world to end in an orderly way, one by one, all the 'psychic' garbage we have collected in one million years of 'Darwinian evolution'.

Absolutely, again well put in words in my view ...as this clearly opens to "something"..

thanks..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 #29
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

Yes indeed "well put".

I have a feeling of frustration when I can't understand something that is being spoken of in this realm. As if I should understand everything. Now when it comes to quantum physics say, which I have tried (unsucessfully) to fathom, it's not a problem...I say I just don't have the 'brain' for it,e.g. But here with listening to K and the others, the 'desire' to understand, to get a 'result' results only in frustration. But seeing that the 'frustration' is the conflict of the 'I': not being able to get what it wants (self-calming?), becomes a 'signal' that one is 'asleep'...it is a 'reminder. That thought cannot "touch" that which is beyond itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jun 2015 #30
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 534 posts in this forum Offline

THE NATURE OF INNER EXPLORATION

Questioner A: Buddha discovered the (inner) cause of suffering and was liberated from suffering. You say 'cause is effect and effect is cause', and you also point out that in this endless chain of cause and effect, time is inescapable. But the (inner) impact of causation has become an integral part of one's thinking. Can we explore the validity of the cause-effect sequence in respect to ( self-) understanding ?.

Krishnamurti: What is the state (the attitude?) of the mind which explores ( inwardly) ?

I do not know (all) the causes of my action. There may be obvious causes and other causes which are undiscoverable by the conscious mind. I can see the superficial causes for action; but these superficial causes have very deep roots in the recesses of one's own being. Now, can the conscious mind not only examine the superficial but also uncover the deeper? Can the conscious mind ever examine the deeper layers? And what is the state of the mind which explores? These three questions are important. Otherwise discovering the (direct) causes has no ( deeper) meaning.

R: You explore when you do not know.

Krishnamurti: So before I begin to explore, I must find out the state of the mind which explores. Now, what is the quality of the mind that can explore? Obviously, it must be a 'free' mind. Have you a mind that is free from any 'conclusions'? Otherwise you cannot explore.

A: We have unconfessed postulates (assumptions) but we can see and drop them.

Krishnamurti: What you are doing is analysis. This analytical, intellectual process implies (requires ?) time. But by the time you have enquired (inwardly) through analysis, other factors enter which distort the cause. So the way of analysis is entirely wrong. So, there has to be a dropping of analysis.

J: I am confused.

Krishnamurti: Yes, it is a fact we are confused. We do not know what to do (or where to start?) and we begin to analyse.

A: The process of analysis is to us something concrete. You said while you try to operate on cause, some other factors enter. Does it mean the analysis of the problem becomes inconsequential?

Krishnamurti: It is difficult with the conscious mind to analyse, to examine the hidden layers (of our consciousness) . So I feel this whole intellectual process is wrong. I say this without any disrespect.

A: We have only that tool - the intellect, as a means of examination. Is the intellect capable of examination except to collect, recollect, foresee, analyse? Intellect is capable of doing that. But...it is only a fragment. Therefore, the examination by a fragment can only bring about a fragmentary (partial) understanding. What do we do?

R: I cannot do anything.

Krishnamurti: If I see the truth of the fact that the intellect being partial can examine only partially, therefore I no longer use the intellect.

A: When the mind superficially turns away from analysis, it falls into other traps; so this has to be done rigorously with ( under) the (supervision of the?) intellect.

Krishnamurti: Analysis is not the way.

A: Then with what instrument do we explore? Our reason must corroborate what you say.

J: You may arrive there by some path which is not analytical. We see the logic of it.

Krishnamurti: I tell you analysis is not the way of ( a holistic self-) understanding. Why don't you see the truth that analysis is not the way?

A: In the effort to understand his environment, nature, the outer phenomenon, man has developed certain instruments and here too we are trying to use the same ( mental) instruments; but they are inadequate. What is the ( perceptive) instrument which explores when you put the question?

Krishnamurti: If I see ( the truth?) that (introspective self- ) analysis is not the way, this ( insight?) frees the mind from a false process altogether. So the mind is much more vital. It is like a man walking with a heavy burden and the heavy burden is removed.

A: But with us the burden comes back.

Krishnamurti: The moment you perceive something to be true, how can it return? The moment you see that the snake is 'dangerous', you do not go back to the snake. The whole analytical process is finished.

A: When we have gone through this....

Krishnamurti: I am showing you how to explore (holistically). If the intellect is not the ( proper) instrument of examination, then what takes place?

A: When one comes to this point, one comes to believe in the need for support or for the help of some prop.

Krishnamurti: Then what is examination? If the intellect cannot explore, what is the instrument that can explore? What do Sankara, Nagarjuna, Buddha say about this? Do any of them deny the intellect?

A: They say explore with the help of the 'terra firma'.

Krishnamurti: That is with partial energy, explore the whole energy. How can it?

R: The Vedantic concept is that with the intellect you cannot 'see', but with the Self or the atman, which is of the very nature of perception, you can 'see'.

A: As our minds have been heavily conditioned, so, when we get a support, we hold on to it.

Krishnamurti: What is the quality of this mind that can explore - 'mind' being not only the intellect but the brain cells, the biological, the physical, the nerves, the whole thing, the total, the complete (mind energy field?) . This mind then asks what the nature of an (inner) perception ( 'in-sight'?) that is total. It is only such a total perception that can examine. And it may not need to examine at all, because that which had to be examined is of the partial field of division. I am asking : what is the quality of total perception?

R: It seems as if there is no instrument because the instrument belongs to something.

Krishnamurti: When you look out of the window and see these bushes, how do you look at them? You are usually 'thinking about something' and at the same time 'looking'. I say you have (just ) to 'look', that is all. What is the difficulty? We never 'look' (directly, non-verbally?). If I look at a picture, I look. I have no measure. I do not verbalize. We said just now partial looking is no looking at all, therefore, the mind has finished with the partial, so when I do look, I 'look'.

R: The element of habit is so strong.

Krishnamurti: Therefore, the mind which is caught in habit cannot explore. So we have to examine the mind which is caught in habit and not exploration .Can the mind understand habit? Let us tackle that.

R: What is the difference between perception and recognition? For us perception (or understanding) is only there in the form of recognition.

Krishnamurti: You recognize through association. Recognition is part of the habit of (mental) association. So you cannot (holistically?) explore with a mind which is used to ( this mental) 'habit'. How have habits been formed? That is the 'door' (of a holistic exploration?) . I am now going through that 'door', how is it that the mind falls into habit? Is it because it is the easiest ( pre-programmed?) way to function? To get up at six, to go to bed at nine. There is no friction; I do not have to think about it. It is the 'easiest' (thought-free?) way to live; it is 'easy' to live mechanically. I can live life without (any need for) change, because in that ( routinely existence) I find (the brain finds?) complete security. In habit there is no need for (self-) examination, searching, asking.

R: I live within the field of habit.

Krishnamurti: ( However an existence based on acquired?) habits can only function within a very small field. Like a 'professor' who is marvellous but functions in a very small field; or like a monk who operates within a very small cell. The ( instinct driven human ?) mind wanting safety, security, no change, lives in patterns. But this is just an 'analytical', partial, examination - it does not free the mind from ( living within pre-programmed?) patterns. So what shall I do?

A: Having seen this, how does the mind free itself totally from habit?

Krishnamurti: I am going to show you.

A: We have examined habit, but the mind does not get out of it.

Krishnamurti: You will never go back to the analysis of habit. You are no longer going to examine the causes of habit. So the enquiring mind is free of the burden of ( self-) analysis which is part of habit. So you have got rid of it.

R: Yes, but...

Krishnamurti: No. It must go. Not merely verbally. 'Habit' is not only symptomatic, but psycho-somatic. When we have examined habit as we have done, it is over.

A: We are not free of habit.

Krishnamurti: Because you are still saying "I know". There is a certain sense of arrogance. You do not say "I want to find out." Then what is total perception when the mind is free from habit? Habit implies conclusions, formulas, ideas, principles. All these are ( mental) habits. Habit is the essence of the 'observer'.

R: It is all that we know of the "I".

Krishnamurti: That is where the damage is done, the damage which the other ( 'all-knowing' ?) people have established. I prefer this one, I prefer the other one, and so on. I will not let go ( my 'known' based attitude?). You know the cartoon which says "My guru has more enlightenment than yours". That is about all. Therefore ( an inner quality of?) 'humility' is necessary : I know absolutely nothing , but I am not going to repeat anything which I haven't found myself. I know this is not the way. I do not want to 'know' anything more. That is all. The (knowledge?) door which I thought was real is not 'the' door. What happens later? If I do not move in that direction, I will find out.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 426 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.)