|Fri, 16 Dec 2016||#331|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
So Spoke Krishnamurti in 1945 (Ojai, California)
K: Is there ( within us ?) an enduring state of creative tranquillity? Is there an end to the seemingly endless struggle of the opposites? Is there an imperishable ecstasy? The end to conflict and sorrow is through understanding and transcending the ways of the 'self' (identified consciousness ?) and in discovering that imperishable Reality which is not the creation of the (temporal ?) mind. (The way of ?) self-knowledge is 'arduous' but without it ignorance and pain continue; without self-knowledge there can be no end to strife. The "ultimate solution" lies in freedom from craving; not in another but in yourself is the way.
The unity of mankind is to be found only in Love, in the illumination that Truth brings. This "oneness" of man is not to be established through mere economic and social readjustment. The world is ever occupied with this superficial adjustment; it is ever trying to rearrange values within the pattern of acquisitiveness; it tries to establish security on the insecurity of craving and so brings disaster upon itself. We hope that outward revolution, outward change of values will transform man; they do affect him but acquisitiveness, finding gratification at other levels continues. This endless and purposeless movement of acquisitiveness cannot at any time bring peace to man, and only when he is free of it can there be creative being. There must be persistent self-awareness, and the more earnest and strenuous you are the more thought will free itself from its own self-created bondages ( attachments ?).
In the bliss of the Real the ( division between the ?) experiencer and the experience cease. A mind-heart that is burdened with the memory of yesterday cannot live in the eternal present. Mind-heart must die each day for eternal being.
Questioner: To me what you are saying is something new and very vitalizing but the 'old' intrudes and distorts. It seems that the new is overpowered by the past. What is one to do?
Krishnamurti: ( The self-centred process of?) thought is the result of the past acting in the present; the past is constantly sweeping over the present. The perception of the new is so fleeting; no sooner is it felt than the swift current of the past sweeps over it and the new ceases to be. To die to the many yesterdays, to renew each day is only possible if we are capable of being passively aware. In this passive awareness there is an intense stillness in which the new is ever unfolding, in which silence is ever extending with measure.
To some of you these talks and discussions may have brought a new and vitalizing understanding; what is important is not to put the new into old patterns of thought or phrase. Let it remain new, uncontaminated. If it is true it will cast out the old, the past by its, very abundant and creative light. The desire to make the creative present enduring, practical or useful makes it worthless. Let the new live without anchorage in the past, without the distorting influence of fears and hopes. Die to your experience, to your memory. Die to your prejudice, pleasant or unpleasant. As you die there is the incorruptible; this is not a state of nothingness but of creative being. It is this renewal that will, if allowed, dissolve our problems and sorrows however intricate and painful. Only in death of the 'self' is there life.
Questioner: Do you believe in karma?
Krishnamurti: The root of the Sanskrit word 'karma' means to act, to do. ( Any temporal ?) action is the result of a cause. Is not our existence the product of enchaining conditioning? Cause is ever undergoing a modification and an alert awareness is necessary to follow and understand it. A silent and choiceless awareness not only reveals the cause but also frees thought-feeling from it. Can effect be separated from cause? Is not effect ever present in the cause? We desire to reform, to rearrange the effects without radically altering the cause. This occupation with effect is a form of escape from the basic cause. It is comparatively easy to discover the superficial causes but to discover and transcend craving, which is the deep cause of all conditioning, is arduous and demands constant awareness.
Questioner: It has never occurred to me myself as being able to attain liberation. The ultimate I can conceive of is that perhaps I might be able to hold and strengthen that entirely incomprehensible relation to God which is the only thing I live by. And I really do not even know what that is. You talk about being and becoming. I realize that these words mean fundamentally different attitudes and mine ha been definitely one of becoming. I now want to transform what has been becoming all along into being. Am I fooling myself?
Krishnamurti: We must first understand the process of becoming and all its implications before we can comprehend what is being. Is not the structure of our thought-feeling based on time? Do we not think-feel in terms of gain and loss, of becoming and not becoming? We think Reality or God is to be reached through time, through becoming. We think that life is an endless ladder for us to climb ever to greater and greater insights. Our thinking-feeling is caught in the horizontal process of becoming; the becomer is ever accumulating, ever gaining, ever expanding. The self, the becomer, the creator of time, can never experience the Timeless. The self, the becomer, is the cause of conflict and sorrow.
Does becoming lead to being? Through time can there be the Timeless? Through conflict can there be tranquillity? Through war, hate, can there be love? Only when becoming ceases is there being; through the horizontal process of time the Eternal is not; conflict does not lead to tranquillity; hate cannot be changed to love. The becomer can never be tranquil. Craving can never lead to that which is beyond and above all craving. The chain of sorrow is broken only when the becomer ceases to become, positively or negative
Being is only when there is no effort to become - positive or negative, ; only when the becomer is self-aware and understands the enchaining sorrow and wasted effort of becoming and no longer uses will, then only can he be silent. His desire and his will have subsided; then only is there the tranquillity of supreme wisdom. To become non-greedy is one thing and being without greed is another; to become implies a process but being does not. Process implies time; the state of being is not a result, not a product of education, discipline, conditioning. You cannot transform noise into silence; silence can only come into being when noise ceases. Result is a time process, a determined end through a determined means; but through a process, through time, the Timeless is not. Self-awareness and right meditation will reveal the process of becoming. Meditation is not the cultivation of the becomer but through self-knowledge the meditator, the becomer ceases.
Questioner: If we only consider the obvious meaning of your words, memory constitutes one of the mechanisms against which you have warned time and again. And yet you yourself, for instance, sometimes use written notes to aid your memory in reconstructing the introductory remarks which you obviously have thought out previously. Does there exist one necessary and even indispensable kind of memory related to the outside world of facts and figures, and an entirely different kind of memory which might be called psychological memory, which is detrimental because it interferes with the creative attitude which you have hinted at in expressions like "lying fallow" - "dying each day" etc?
Krishnamurti: Should we not, as the questioner points out, be aware of the two kinds of memories: the indispensable, relating to facts and figures, and the psychological memory? Without this indispensable memory we could not communicate with each other. We accumulate and cling to psychological memories and so give continuity to the self; thus the self, the past, is ever increasing, ever adding to itself. It is this accumulating memory, the self, that must come to an end; as long as thought-feeling is identifying itself with the memories of yesterday it will be ever in conflict and sorrow; as long as thought-feeling is ever becoming it cannot experience the bliss of the Real. That which is Real is not the continuation of identifying memory. According to what has been stored up one experiences; according to one's conditioning and psychological memories and tendencies are the experiences, but such experiences are ever enclosing, limiting. It is to this accumulation that one must die.
Is the experience of the Real based on memory, on accumulation? Is it not possible for thought-feeling to go above and beyond these interrelated layers of memory? Continuance is memory and is it possible for this memory to cease and a new state come into being? Can the educated and conditioned consciousness comprehend that which is not a result? It cannot and so it must die to itself. Psychological memory, ever striving to become, is creating results, barriers, and so is ever enslaving itself. It is to this becoming that thought-feeling must die; only through constant self-awareness does this self-identifying memory come to an end; it cannot come to an end through an act of will for will is craving and craving is the accumulation of identifying memory.
Truth is not to be ( verbally ?) formulated; only when there is freedom from becoming, from the self-identifying memory, does it come into being. Our thought is the result of the past and without understanding its conditioning it cannot go beyond itself. Thought-feeling become a slave to its own creation, to its own power of illusion if it is unaware of its own ways. Only when thought ceases to formulate can there be creation.
Questioner: Do not the images of saints, Masters, help us to meditate rightly?
Krishnamurti: As meditation is of the highest importance we ought to approach it rightly from the very beginning. Right means create right ends; the end is in the means. Only right meditation can bring about right understanding. It is essential for the 'meditator' to understand himself, not the objects of his meditation, for the meditator and his meditation are one, not separate. Without understanding oneself meditation becomes a process of self-hypnosis inducing experiences according to one's conditioning, one's belief. The dreamer must understand himself, not his dreams; he must awaken and put an end to them. If the meditator is seeking an end, a result, then he will hypnotize himself by his desire. Meditation is often a self-hypnotic process; it may produce certain desired results but such meditation does not bring enlightenment. Before you learn to concentrate, understand the structure of your whole being, not just one part of it. With self-awareness there comes self-knowledge, right thinking. This self-awareness or understanding creates its own discipline and concentration; such pliable discipline is enduring, effective, not the self-imposed discipline of greed and envy. Understanding ever widens and deepens into extensional awareness; this awareness is essential for right meditation. Meditation of the heart is understanding.
If the 'meditator' begins to understand himself then his meditation has great significance. Through self-awareness and self-knowledge there comes right thinking; only then can thought go above and beyond the conditioned layers of consciousness. Meditation then is being, which has its own eternal movement; it is Creation itself for the ( self-centred ?) "meditator" has ceased to be.
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 17 Dec 2016||#332|
|Richard Lewis Bulgaria 12 posts in this forum Offline||
Thank you, Jesse, for this easy readable post, in which one senses a good complexed simple writer.;)
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 17 Dec 2016||#333|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
So Spoke Krishnamurti in 1946 (in Ojai, California)
K: This morning we shall consider meditation. In understanding it we can perhaps comprehend the full and deep significance of passive awareness. Awareness is ( the) right (approach to ?) meditation and without meditation there can be no ( authentic ?) self-knowledge.
To delve deeply within oneself and discover needs an earnest application which is not brought about through the practice of any method. It comes through serious interest and awareness. If one is interested in something thought pursues it, consciously or unconsciously, in spite of fatigue and distraction. If you are ( vitally ?) interested in painting then every light, every shade has meaning; you do not have to exert to be interested, you do not have to force yourself to observe but through the very intensity of interest even unconsciously you are observing, discovering, experiencing. Similarly if there is a (vital ? ) interest in the comprehension and dissolution of sorrow then that very interest 'turns the pages' of the (inner) Book of Self-knowledge. Our (self-centred ?) thinking is the result of the past; our thinking is based on the past, and without comprehending this ( active interference of the ?) past there is no understanding of the Real. The right foundation for (such) understanding is self-knowledge. All 'right thinking' is the outcome of self-knowledge. Without self-knowledge our incessant activity is of ignorance; this incessant activity, inner or outer, only causes destruction and misery.
Questioner: You said the Real should not be an incentive. It seems to me that if I try to think of the Real I am better able to understand myself and my difficulties.
Krishnamurti: Can we think about the Unknowable? Can we think, meditate upon the Timeless when our thought is the result of the past, of time? The past is ever the known and thought which is based on it can only create the known. So to think about Truth is to be caught in the net of ignorance. If thought is able to think about Truth then it will not be Truth. Truth is a state of being in which the ( mental ?) activity of thought has ceased. Thinking, as we know it, is the result of the process of time, of the past; it is the result of the movement of the known to the known. Thought which is the outcome of a cause (odf self-interest ?) can never formulate the Causeless. It can only think about the known ( about knowable stuff ?) for it is the product of the known.
What is known is not the Real. Our thought is occupied with the constant search for security, for certainty. Self-expansive intelligence by its very nature craves a refuge, either through negation or assertion. How can a mind that is ever seeking certainty, stimulation, encouragement, possibly think of that which is illimitable? You may read about it which is unfortunate, you may verbalize it which is a waste of time, but it is not the Real. When you say that by thinking about Truth you can better solve your difficulties and sorrows, you are using the supposed truth as a palliative; as with all drugs, sleep and dullness soon follow. Why seek external stimulants when the problem demands an understanding of its maker?
As I was saying, virtue gives freedom but there is no freedom in ( the self-centred attempt of ?) becoming virtuous. There is a vast and unbridgeable difference between 'being' and 'becoming'.
Questioner: Is there a difference between truth and virtue?
Krishnamurti: Virtue gives (the inner space of ?) freedom for thought to be tranquil, to experience the Real. So virtue is not an end in itself, only Truth is. To be a slave to 'passion' (lust ?) is to be without freedom and in freedom alone can there be discovery and experience of the Real. Greed like anger is a disturbing factor, is it not? Envy is ever restless, never still. Craving is ever changing the object of its fulfillment, from things to passion, to virtue, to the idea of God. The greed for Reality is the same as the greed for possessions.
Craving (aka 'desire' ? ) comes through perception, contact, sensation; desire seeks fulfillment so there is identification, the me and the mine. Being satiated with things desire pursues other forms of gratification, more subtle forms of fulfillment in relationship, in knowledge, in virtue, in the realization of God. Craving is the root cause of all conflict and sorrow. All forms of becoming, negative or positive, cause conflict, resistance.
Questioner: Is there any difference between awareness and that of which we are aware? Is the observer different from his thoughts?
Krishnamurti: The observer and the observed are one; the thinker and his thoughts are one. But to experience the thinker and his thought as one is very arduous for the thinker is ever taking shelter behind his thoughts; he separates himself from his thoughts to safeguard himself, to give himself continuity, permanency; he modifies or changes his thoughts, but he remains. This pursuit of thought apart from himself, this changing, transforming it leads to illusion. The thinker is his thought; the thinker and his thoughts are not two separate processes.
The questioner asks if awareness is different from the object of awareness. We generally regard our thoughts as being apart from ourselves; we are not aware of the thinker and his thought as one. This is precisely the difficulty. After all, the qualities of the self are not separate from the self; the self is not something apart from its thoughts, from its attributes. The self is put together, made up, and the self is not when the parts are dissolved. But in illusion the self separates itself from its qualities in order to protect itself, to give itself continuity, permanency. It takes refuge in its qualities through separating itself from them. The self asserts that it is this and it is that; the self, the I, modifies, changes, transforms its thoughts, its qualities, but this change only gives strength to the self, to its protective walls. But if you are aware deeply you will perceive that the thinker and his thoughts are one; the observer is the observed. To experience this actual integrated fact is extremely difficult and right meditation is the way to this integration.
Questioner: Experiencing is not necessarily a 'becoming', is it?
Krishnamurti: The additive process prevents the experiencing of the Real. Where there is accumulation there is a becoming of the self which is the cause of conflict and pain. The accumulative desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain is a becoming. Awareness is non-accumulative for it is ever discovering truth and truth can only be when there is no accumulation, when there is no imitation. Effort of the self can never bring about freedom for effort implies resistance and resistance can be dissolved only through choiceless awareness, effortless discernment. It is truth alone that frees, not the activity of will. The awareness of truth is liberating; the awareness of greed and of the truth about it brings liberation from greed.
Meditation is the purgation from the mind of all its ( inner ?) accumulations; the purgation of the power to gather, to identify, to become; the purgation of self-growth or self-fulfilment; meditation is the freeing of the mind from memory, from time. Thought is the product of the past, it is rooted in the past; thought is the continuation of accumulative becoming, and that which is a result cannot understand or experience that which is without a cause. What can be formulated is not the Real and the word is not the experience. Memory, the maker of time, is an impediment to the Timeless.
Questioner: Why is memory an impediment?
Krishnamurti:( The 'psychological' component of ?) memory, as the identifying process, gives continuity to the self. Memory then is an enclosing, hindering activity. On it the whole structure of the ego, the I, is built. (We are considering the 'psychological' memory not the memory of facts, or of the development of technique and so on.)
Meditation as it is generally understood and practised is a process of the expansion of the self; often such meditation is a form of self-hypnosis.
In meditation, ( the essence of ?) being, the Eternal, is experienced. Becoming can never transform itself into Being. Becoming, the 'expansive' (temporally stretched ?) and enclosing activity of the self, must cease; then there is Being. This Being cannot be thought about, cannot be imagined; the very thought about it is a ( potential ?) hindrance; all that thought can do is to be aware of its own complex and subtle becoming, its own cunning intelligence and will.
( In a nutshell:) Through self-knowledge there comes 'right' thinking which is the foundation for right meditation.
Sign in to recommend This post has been recommended by 1 reader
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 18 Dec 2016||#334|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
So Spoke Krishnamurti in 1947 (Madras, India)
K: (...) You can only bring order and peace and happiness through self-knowledge, and not by following a particular system, either economic or religious. But to 'know oneself' is most difficult: to be aware of the ( self-centred ?) activities of your daily existence requires an awareness which very few people are willing to practice. Self-knowledge is not the knowledge of some supreme Self but the knowledge of yourself in your daily action, what you do every day, what you feel, what you think every moment. This requires extraordinary alertness, does it not? There must be constant alertness to pursue every thought, every feeling and to know all their contents. From ( such) self-knowledge comes right thinking, therefore, right action which is really extremely simple when you are aware, but extremely difficult when you talk theoretically about it.
Question: What is the ( choiceless) awareness that you speak of? Is it the awareness of the supreme Universal Consciousness?
Krishnamurti: Surely, Sirs, to be aware means very simply, to be aware of yourself in relation to your neighbour, to the flower, to the bird, to the tree; to be aware of your own thoughts, feelings and actions, because you must begin very near, mustn't you, to go very far. You cannot be aware of something that you don't know; you talk about Universal Consciousness, but you don't 'know' it. You have learned of it in a book or you have been told about it. It is still within the field of the mind, of the memory; you want to begin with the most difficult and far away and not with the near, because it is much easier to be aware of God, for you can lose yourself in an idea, in imagination. But to be aware of your own daily acts, daily feelings, daily thoughts is much more painful and so you would rather be aware of something far away than of the things very close, such as your relationship with your wife or with your neighbour. You can be aware of love ideologically for it is the farthest and the most difficult thing. But to be aware, in our relationship how thoughtless, callous, self-enclosed we are is very painful, and being conscious of the immediate pain which direct awareness brings, we would rather think of, or be aware of the universal consciousness, whatever that may mean, which again is a form of escape from the actual, from what is.
So, the awareness I am speaking of, is the awareness of what is directly in front of you, because in understanding what is, which is the very nearest, you can reach great depths, great heights; then there is no deception, then there is no self-illusion, because in the understanding of 'what is' there is transformation. You will find that awareness is not condemnation or identification but a process of understanding of what is. If you want to understand your child and if you condemn him you don't understand him. Similarly if you have a feeling, which is 'what is', don't condemn it, don't identify it with yourself, don't cling to it but be aware of it; and by becoming aware of it you will find that you can go deeper and deeper into it and therefore discover the whole content of what is.
Awareness of what is must be choiceless which again is very arduous. Awareness is that state of choicelessness, because if you want to understand something you must not condemn or identify, it must tell you its story. After all, if you observe a child, if you want to understand him, if you want to study him, his ways, his mannerisms, his idiosyncrasies, his moods, you can only do that if you don't condemn him or identify yourself with him, saying: this is my child. Condemnation, justification or identification prevents understanding and to be aware of the whole total process of what is, there must be choiceless observation. You do just that when you are interested in something, when you are vitally interested in pursuing something, in understanding something; you are not criticizing, you are not condemning, you give all your mind and heart to it. But, unfortunately we are trained educationally and religiously to condemn and not to understand. After all, condemnation is very easy, but to understand is very arduous, understanding requires intelligence, condemnation does not demand any intelligence at all, condemnation is a form of self-protection just as identification is. When you condemn you protect yourself, but if you want to understand what is, condemnation is a barrier. If you want to understand the state of the world as it is now, its appalling misery, surely it is no good condemning it, you must investigate it, you must observe from different points of view, from the psychological, economic, and so on. It is a total process and to understand the total process you cannot condemn it in part. We condemn because it is so easy to condemn, while to be aware and to pursue all the implications requires a great deal of patience, a capacity to penetrate and to be still. You understand only when there is stillness, when there is silent observation, passive awareness. Then the problem yields you its significance. So, the awareness of which I am speaking is awareness of what is, and not of something which is the invention of the mind. Being aware implies awareness of the mind's activities in which are included ideas, beliefs but also the tricks which the mind plays upon itself. So, be aware of what is, without condemnation, without justification or identification, then you will see that there is a deeper understanding which resolves our problems.
Question: I am very interested in your teachings; I would like to spread them. What is the best way to do it?
Krishnamurti: As it has always been in the past, so also at the present time the salvation of man is in his being creative. You are caught inwardly in belief, in fear and in those hindrances that prevent the coming together of man and man. That is, if I don't how to love my neighbour, my wife, how can there be communion between us. We need communion, not communion between systems but communion between you and me without systems, without organizations and that means we must really know how to love one another, our hearts must be opened to one another, but your hearts cannot be open if you belong to an organization, if you are bound by beliefs, if you are nationalistic, if you are a brahmin or a sudra.
So, you can spread even a tiny part of what I have been talking about, only as you live it. It is by your life that you communicate profoundly, not through words. Words, Sirs, to a serious, thoughtful man have very little meaning. Terms are of very little significance when you are really seeking Truth, Truth in relationship and not an abstract Truth of valuations, of things, or of ideas. So, if you want to spread these teachings, live them, and by your life you will be spreading them, you will be communicating them, which is much more true and significant than verbal repetition, for repetition is imitation and imitation is not creativeness and you as an individual must awake to your own conditioning and thereby free yourself and hence give love to another.
Sirs, in order to communicate with another there must be love. But unfortunately, love is something you cannot learn, it is something which comes into being when you have no ( personal ?) problem. Have you not found yourselves walking along the streets sometimes, looking at the stars, looking at the sky, or the sunset and feeling happy without knowing why? At such times you want to put your arm around another, you are really in communion with man. But if you are hiding behind a wall of your own making and without breaking down that wall, there cannot be communion and to commune there must be love. When there is love there is chastity, purity, there is incorruptibility.
Question: I have listened to what you have been saying and I feel that to carry out your teachings I must renounce the world I live in.
Krishnamurti: Sir, you cannot renounce the world, can you? Even if you give up your house you will still have a 'kurtha'. You may renounce your wife but you will still be in relation with someone, with the man who gives you food. If you must renounce something, renounce the wrong valuations which you have given to everything. Wrong valuations create havoc and it is from these wrong valuations which cause ( the inner) misery that you want to escape. You can only live truly happily with the world when you are not of the world, which means you don't give wrong values to the things in the world. This can happen only when you understand yourself the giver of wrong values. Sirs, it is like a stupid man trying to renounce stupidity. He will still be stupid, he may try to become clever but he will remain stupid. But if he understood what stupidity is, that is, himself, surely then he would reach great heights. Then he would have wisdom. It is not by renouncing that you can find Reality. By renouncing you escape into illusion; you do not discover that which is true. So, what I have been saying is that one must give right values to things, to relationship, to ideas and not try to escape from the world. Sirs, ( material ?) things have no value in themselves. The house has no value in itself but it has the value you give it. But if inwardly you are empty, insufficient in yourself, the house becomes very important because you identify yourself with the house, and then comes the problem of attachment and renunciation. But if you understood your inward hollowness, then the problem would have very little meaning. Everything becomes extraordinarily significant when you are trying to use it to cover up your own loneliness. Similarly with relationship, with ideas, with belief. So, there is (inner) richness only in understanding the significance of what is, and not in running away into isolation.
Question: a) Life hurls at us one problem after another. Will the state of awareness of which you speak, enable us to understand and solve, once and for all, the whole question of problems or have they to be solved one after the other? b) I feel certain deep urges which need to be disciplined. What is the best way of disciplining them?
Krishnamurti: There are several things involved in this question. You will be pursued by problems, one after the other, with their constant annoyance and pain, constant apprehensions if you don't understand who is the creator of problems. If you understand who is the creator of problems, then naturally you will not deal with the problems one by one. If I understand the cause and not merely the symptoms, then the symptoms cease to be. Similarly if I understand who is the creator of the problems, then the problems cease to be, then there is no question of tackling first one problem and then another.
Then, there is the ( dualistic ?) problem of the 'thinker' and the 'thought': the thinker, the discipliner is trying to discipline his thought. You discipline yourself in order not to be tempted, you discipline yourself against something. But, discipline as a mode of resistance, which is ( self-) violence, ceases only when you understand it, when you are aware of it, when you don't reject it, when you don't condemn it. You will find that through awareness there comes a discipline which is not imposed, a discipline of extraordinary intelligence and pliability. So, discipline is a form of resistance and where there is resistance, there is enclosure and where there is enclosure there is no understanding, there is no communion. A disciplined man is merely (self-) righteous but a ( self-)righteous man has no love in his heart, he is enclosed within the walls of his (self ?) becoming.
The other point in this question is whether problems can be solved all at once, in one stroke cut off at the root. But first we must discover who is the creator of problems. The creator of the problem is the thinker, is he not? ( The inner ?) problems do not exist apart from the thinker, that is obvious, is it not? Now, is the thinker separate from his thoughts? If he is separate, then the problems will continue because he creates the problem, separates himself from it and deals with the problem. But if the thinker 'is' the thought, he can begin to solve himself without being concerned with the problem, or with the thought.
Now, how does the 'thinker' (entity ?) come into being? Obviously through ( the self-identification of ?) desire. Desire is the outcome of perception, contact, sensation, identification and the 'me'. The visual perception of a car, sensation, desire, identification, and 'I like it', 'I want it'. So, the thinker is the product of desire, and having produced the 'I', the 'I' separates itself from the thought because it can then ( control and ?) transform the thought and yet remain permanent.
So, as long as the thinker is separate from his thought, there will be problems, one after the other, innumerable problems; but if there is no separation, if the thinker is the thought, then what happens? Then the thinker himself undergoes a transformation, a radical, fundamental transformation, and that, as I have said, is meditation. It is self-knowledge, it is all that I have said about the thinker; how he separates himself from the thought and how the thinker has come into being. You can test it for yourself. That is the beginning of self-knowledge and from that there comes Meditation. Meditation is the ending of the thinker, by not giving significance to the thinker, by not giving continuity to the thinker. When the 'thinker' ceases thinking, then meditation begins. Meditation 'is' self-knowledge and without self-knowledge there is no meditation. You will find that if you go into the whole question of self-knowledge (which is the beginning of wisdom ) you can go deeper and deeper starting with the centre which is the desire creating the 'I', pushing further (for ) his permanency. Till you are aware of this whole process there is no ending of the (psychological) problem. But when you become aware, you will find that 'time' has ceased - time as ( the active ?) memory of the past and ( projecting ) the future - and that there is the (dimension of the ?) Immediate Present, the Eternal, and in this alone is Reality.
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 19 Dec 2016||#335|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
So Spoke Krishnamurti in 1948 (New Delhi)
K: (...) Any amount of explanations will not feed a (spiritually ?) hungry man. He is hungry, and he must have the substance that nourishes. Most of us are satisfied by the ( karmic) explanation of the cause of suffering. Therefore, we don't take our suffering as a thing to be radically resolved, a contradiction in ourselves that must be understood. How is one to understand suffering? One can understand suffering only when explanation subsides and all kinds of escapes are understood and put aside, that is, when one sees the 'actual' in suffering.
Modern things help us to escape, and to escape is to be utterly uncreative, it is self-projection. That does not solve our problem. What does solve our ( existential ?) problems is to cease to escape and to live with suffering; because, after all, to understand something, one must give full attention to it, and (the mental ?) distractions are mere escapes. To see the falseness of our escapes is to put an end to them by, and to perceive the whole significance of suffering, is a process of self-knowledge; and without self-knowledge, without knowing the total process of yourself - both the thinker and the thought, the actor and the action - there is no basis for (creative thinking ?) . You can repeat like a gramophone, but there will be no song in your heart.
So, through self-knowledge alone can suffering come to an end. After all, what does suffering mean as a fact? How does suffering arise, not merely as a scientific observation, but actually? In order to find out, surely discontent is essential. So, if we can understand discontent without smothering it by the search for certainty, psychological security, if we can keep that discontent and its flame alive, that very ( energy of ?) discontent is creative, and from that we can move on. But the moment we smother discontent, put it away, resist it, hide it, then the mind is concerned merely with the reconciliation of effects, and discontent is no longer a means of going forward, plunging into something unknown. That is why it is so important for each one really to understand oneself.
There is no end in understanding oneself, it is a constant movement. If you observe yourself very carefully, you will see that there is no fixed moment when you can say, 'I understand the whole totality of myself', it is like reading many volumes. The more one studies oneself, the more there is to be studied. Therefore, the movement of the self is timeless; and that self is not the high or the low, but the self which is from moment to moment, with its actions, its thoughts, its words. That self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom, and in that self-knowledge one discovers a state of utter tranquillity in which the mind is not made still, but is still; and only when the mind is still, when it is not caught up in the thought process or occupied with its own creations - only then is there creativeness, is there reality. It is this creativeness, this perception of reality which will free us from our problem, not the search for an answer to the problem.
So, self-knowledge is the 'technique' (the right approach ?) of meditation, and without self-knowledge there is no (authentic ?) meditation. Self-knowledge is not something acquired from a book, or from a guru or teacher. Self-knowledge begins in understanding oneself from moment to moment, and that understanding requires one's full attention to be given to each thought at any particular moment without an end (to be gained) in view; because, there cannot be complete attention when there is condemnation or justification.
I have several questions here, and I shall try to answer them as briefly and clearly as possible.
Question: I have parents who are 'orthodox' and who depend on me, but I myself have ceased to believe in their orthodoxy. How am I to deal with such a situation? This is a real problem to me.
Krishnamurti: Now, why has one ceased to be orthodox? Have you rejected the old without understanding it? - which is merely a reaction. But if you have ceased to be 'orthodox' because you see that a mind caught in tradition, in habit, is without understanding, then you know the full significance of orthodoxy. I do not know which you have done: Either you have left it in protest; or it has fallen away from you naturally - because you understand it. Now, if it is the latter, then what is your responsibility to those people around you who are orthodox? Should you yield to their orthodoxy because they are your mother and father, and they cry and give you trouble at home, calling you an undutiful son? Should you yield to them because they create trouble? What is your responsibility? If you yield, then your understanding of orthodoxy has no meaning; then you are placatory, you don't want trouble, you want to let sleeping dogs lie. But surely, you must have trouble, a revolution is essential; not the bloody kind of revolution, but a psychological revolution - which is far more important than mere revolution in outward effects. Most of us are afraid to have a fundamental revolution; we yield to the parents saying, 'There is enough trouble as it is in the world, why should I add more?' But surely, that is not the answer, is it? When one has trouble, it must be exposed, opened up and looked into. Merely to concede to the parents because they are going to kick you out of the house, does not bring out clarity; it merely hides, suppresses conflict, and a conflict which is suppressed acts as a poison in the psychological being.
If there is ( a resulting ?) tension between you and your parents, this contradiction has to be faced if you want to live creatively, happily; after all, what is the ( creative ?) function of relationship? Surely, relationship is a process of self-revelation; and if relationship is an active process in which there is self-revelation, in which I discover myself as in a mirror, then out of it comes clarity and joy.
Question: It us the universally accepted conclusion of modern intellectuals that educators have failed. What is, then, the task of those whose function it is to teach the young?
Krishnamurti: There are several problems involved in this, and to understand them, one must go very carefully into them. First of all, why do you have children? Is it mere accident, an unwanted event? Do you have children to carry on your name, title or estate? Or do you love, and therefore you have children? Which is it? If you arc lonely and a child helps you to cover up that loneliness - then your children become all important because they are your own self-projection. But if you really love them in the profound sense of that word - and to love somebody means to be in complete communion with them - then education has quite a different significance. If as a parent you really love your children, you will see that they have the right kind of education. In other words, children must be helped to be intelligent, sensitive, to have a mind and heart that are pliable, able to deal with any situation. Surely, if you really love your child, you as a parent will not be a nationalist, you will find out what is your right relationship with property; you will not belong to any particular religion, because belief creates antagonism between man and man. It you love your children, you will do all these things. So, that is one aspect.
Then the other aspect is that the educator (himself) needs educating - and the educator is you; for the home environment is as important as the school environment. So, you have to transform yourself first to give the right environment to the child; for the environment can make him either an unfeeling technician, or a very sensitive, intelligent human being. The environment is yourself and your action; and unless you transform yourself, the environment, the present society in which we live, must inevitably harm the child, make him rude, rough, unintelligent.
Surely, sirs, those who are deeply interested in this problem will begin to transform themselves (inwardly) and thereby transform society, which will in turn bring about a new means of education. But you see, we don't love; we use the word 'love' but the content of that word has no meaning any more. We just use the word without substance, and we live merely on words; so the complex problem is there still, and we have to face it. And don't say I have not shown you a way out of it. The way is yourself and your relationship with your children, your wife, your society. You are the gleam, you are the hope; otherwise there is no way out of this at all. So, you have to create a right environment, not only at home, but outside, which is society; and you have to create a new kind of government which is radically different, which is not based on nationalism, on the sovereign State with its armies and efficient ways of murdering people. That implies seeing your responsibility in relationship, and you actually see that responsibility in relationship only when you love somebody. When your heart is full, then you find a way. This is urgent, it is imminent - you cannot wait for the experts to come and tell you how to educate your child. Only you who love will find the way; for, those hearts are empty that look to the experts.
Question: Marriage is a necessary part of any organized society, but you seem to be against the institution of marriage. What do you say? Please also explain the problem of sex. Why has it become, next to war, the most urgent problem of our day?
Krishnamurti: Let us investigate the problem, not the answer, because the answer is in the problem, not away from it. The more I understand the problem, the clearer I see the answer. If you merely look for an answer, you will not find (the true) one, because you will be seeking an answer away from the problem. Let us look at marriage as it is, for then we can do something about it. When one is young, the biological, sexual urge is very strong, and in order to set a limit to it you have the institution called marriage. There is the biological urge on both sides, so you marry and have children. You tie yourself to a man or to a woman for the rest of your life, and in doing so you have a permanent source of pleasure, a guaranteed security, with the result that you begin to live in a cycle of habit, and habit is disintegration. To understand this biological, this sexual urge, requires a great deal of intelligence, but we are not educated to be intelligent. We merely get on with a man or a woman with whom we have to live. I marry at 20 or 25, and I have to live for the rest of my life with a woman whom I have not known. I have-not known a thing about her, and yet you ask me to live with her for the rest of my life. Do you call that marriage? As I grow and observe, I find her to be completely different from me, her interests are different from mine; she is interested in clubs, I am interested in being very serious, or vice versa. And yet we have children - that is the most extraordinary thing.
It is only for the very, very few who love that the married relationship has significance, and then it is unbreakable, then it is not mere habit or convenience, nor is it based on biological, sexual need. In that love which is unconditional the identities are fused, and in such a relationship there is a remedy, there is hope. But for most of you, the married relationship is not fused. To fuse the separate identities, you have to know yourself, and she has to know herself. That means to love. But there is no love - which is am obvious fact. Love is fresh, new, not mere gratification, not mere habit. It is unconditional. Surely, to love is to be in communion with somebody; but are you in communion with your wife, except physically? Do you know her, except physically? Does she know you? Are you not both isolated, each pursuing his or her own interests, ambitions and needs, each seeking from the other gratification, economic or psychological security? Such a relationship is not a relationship at all: it is a mutually self-enclosing process of psychological, biological and economic necessity, and the obvious result is conflict, misery, nagging, possessive fear, jealousy, and so on. Do you think such a relationship is productive of anything except an ugly civilization?
So, sex has become important because in every other direction you are living a life of conflict, of self-aggrandizement and frustration. Therefore, there is only one source of "self-forgetfulness", which is sex, and that is why the woman or the man becomes all-important to you, and why you must possess. So, you build a society which enforces that possession, guarantees you that possession; and naturally sex becomes the all-important problem when everywhere else the self is the important thing. And do you think, Sirs, that one can live in that state without contradiction, without misery, without frustration? There is chastity only when there is love. When there is love, the problem of sex ceases; and without love, to pursue the ideal of Brahmacharya is an absurdity, because the ideal is unreal. The real is that which you are; and if you don't understand your own mind, the workings of your own mind, you will not understand sex, because sex is a thing of the mind. The problem is not simple. It needs, not mere habit-forming practices, but tremendous thought and enquiry into your relationship with people, with property and with ideas. Sir, it means you have to undergo strenuous searching of your heart and mind, thereby bringing a transformation within yourself. Love is chaste; and when there is love, and not the mere idea of chastity created by the mind, then sex has lost its problem and has quite a different meaning.
Question: In my view, the guru is one who awakens me to Truth, to Reality. What is wrong in my taking to such a guru?
Krishnamurti: Are you really going to a guru to be awakened to truth? Let us think this out very clearly. Surely, when you go to a guru you are actually seeking (self-) gratification. Your life is a mess, it is in confusion; and because you want to escape from it, you go to somebody whom you call a guru to find consolation verbally, or to escape an ideation. That is the actual process, and that process you call 'seeking truth'. That is, you want your confusion cleared away by somebody; and the person who helps you to find escapes you call a guru. Actually, you look to a guru who will assure you of ( getting) what you want. The idea may be that he should awaken you to truth, but the actual fact is that you find comfort.
Can anybody help you to solve the confusion which you have created? Confusion, ( frustration ?) and suffering exist in your relationship with things, people and ideas; and if you cannot understand that confusion which you have created, how can another help you? He can tell you what to do, but you have to do it for yourself, it is your own responsibility; and because you are unwilling to take that responsibility, you sneak off to the (next) guru and you think you have solved the problem. And, strangely, you always choose a guru who will assure you of what you want; therefore you are not seeking truth, and therefore the guru is not important. You are actually seeking someone who will satisfy you in your desires; that is why you create a leader, religious or political, and give yourself over to him, and that is why you accept his authority. Authority is evil, whether religious or political, because it is the leader and his position that are all-important, and you are unimportant. You are a human being with sorrow, pain, suffering, joy, and when you deny yourself and give yourself over to somebody, you are denying reality; because it is only through yourself that you can find reality, not through somebody else.
Now, you say that you accept a guru as one who awakens you to Reality. Let us find out if it is possible for another to awaken you to Reality. Can I, who have been talking for an hour and a half, 'awaken you to Reality, to that which is Real? The term 'guru' implies a man who leads you to truth, to happiness, to bliss eternal. Is truth a static thing that someone can lead you to? Someone can direct you to the (train) station, but Is truth like that, static, something permanent (in time) to which you can be led? It is static only when you create it out of your desire for comfort. But truth is not static, nobody can lead you to truth. Beware of the person who says he can lead you to truth, because it is not true. Truth is something "unknown" (to be seen ?) from moment to moment, it cannot be captured by the (thinking ?) mind, it cannot be formulated, it has no resting place. Therefore, no one can lead you to truth. You may ask me, 'Why are you talking here?' All that I am doing is pointing out to you "what is" and how to understand "what is" as it is, but it is for you to look and see it. Therefore, you are important because you can find truth only through yourself, not through (the eyes of ?) another. When you repeat the truth of another, it is a lie. Truth cannot be (mechanically ?) repeated. All that you can do is to see the problem 'as it is', then you begin to awaken (inwardly) , but not when you are compelled by another. There is no other Saviour but yourself. When you have the intention and the attention to look directly at what is, then your very attention awakens you, because in attention everything is implied. To give ( an undivided ?) attention, you must be devoted to ( finding the truth about ?) 'what is', and to understand what is, you must look, observe, give it your undivided attention, for all things are contained in that full attention you give to what is.
So, the guru cannot awaken you; all that he can do is to point out 'what is'. Truth is not a thing that can be caught by the (knowledgeable ?) mind. The guru can give you (magic ?) words, he can give you an explanation, the symbols of the mind; but the symbol is not the real, and if you are caught in ( cherishing) the symbol, you will never find the way. Therefore, that which is important (in your own search for Truth ?) is not the teacher, it is not the symbol, it is not the explanation, but it is 'you' who are seeking truth. To seek rightly is to give attention, not to Truth, because you don't 'know' it, but attention to your relationship with your wife, your children, your neighbour. When you establish right relationship then you 'love truth'; for truth is not a thing that can be bought, truth does not come into being through self-immolation or through the repetition of mantras. ( The inner light of ?) Truth comes into being only when there is self-knowledge. Self-knowledge brings understanding, and when there is understanding, there are no (personal) problems. When there are no problems, then the mind is utterly still, not made still. This total process is ( self- ?) awareness, and it brings about a state of undisturbed tranquillity which is not the outcome of any discipline, of any practice or control, but is the natural outcome of understanding every problem as it arises. Then there is no disturbance of any kind in the mind and the thought process is silent. In that state the 'thinker' (also ?) ceases, and then the mind is no longer caught in time; and when there is no time, the Timeless comes into being. But the (thinking) mind, which is the product of time, cannot think of that which is timeless. Therefore, Eternity is not a thing of the mind; eternity comes into being only when there is Love, for Love in itself is eternal. When you know that Love which is unconditional, which is not the product of the mind, then Reality comes into being, and that state is utter bliss.
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 20 Dec 2016||#336|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
So Spoke Krishnamurti in 1949 (in Ojai)
This morning I shall answer some of the questions first. Many questions have been sent in, and, I have chosen those which are representative; also, in answering questions, naturally one cannot go into full details, because that would take too long; and so one can only deal with the fundamentals; the details will have to be filled in (for homework ?) by yourself. ( Those of you who have been coming here regularly will find that having understood the outline from the answers which have been somewhat brief and succinct, you can 'fill in the details').
Question: Ideas do separate, but ideas also bring people together. Is this not the expression of love which makes communal life possible?
Krishnamurti: I wonder when you ask such a question, whether you do realize that ideas, beliefs, opinions, separate people; that ideas not hold people together . After all, ideas are images, sensations, words. Can words, sensations, thoughts, bring people together? And is love an idea? Can you think about love? You are able to think about a person whom you love, or the group of people whom you love. But when there is thought about love, is that love? And, surely, only love can bring people together, not thought - not one group in opposition to another group. Where love is, there is no group, no class, no nationality. So, one has to find out what we mean by "love". We have filled our heart with the things of the mind, which are opinions, ideas, sensations, beliefs; and around that and in that we live and 'love'. But is that love? When one loves, is there a sense of separateness, of bringing people together, or disbanding them, pushing them away? Surely, that state of love can be experienced only when the process of ( our self-centred ?) thought is not functioning.
So, love is not a thing of the mind. It is only when our (thinking ?) mind is really quiet, when it is no longer expecting, asking, demanding, seeking, possessing, being jealous, fearful, anxious - when the mind is really silent, only then is there a possibility of love. When the mind is no longer projecting itself, pursuing its particular sensations, demands, urges, hidden fears, seeking self-fulfilment, held in bondage to belief - only then is there a possibility of love. Most of us think that love can go with jealously, with ambition, with the pursuit of personal desires and ambitions. Surely, when these things exist, love is not.
So, we must be concerned, not with love, which comes into being spontaneously,but with the things that are hindering love, with the things of the mind which project themselves and create a barrier. And that is why it is important, before we can know what love is, to know what is the process of the mind, which is the seat of the 'self'. And that is why it is important to go ever more deeply into the question of self- knowledge - if one can understand the ways of one's thought, the ways of our desires and their pursuits and ambitions, then there is a possibility of having or understanding that which is love. But that requires an extraordinary understanding of oneself. When there is self-abnegation, when there is self-forgetfulness - not intentionally, but spontaneously; that self-forgetfulness, self-denial, which is not the outcome of a series of practices, disciplines, which only limit - then there is a possibility of love.
That 'self'-denial (negation ?) comes into being when the whole process of the self is understood, consciously as well as unconsciously. Love is not sentiment, not romanticism, not dependent on something; and that (holistic ?) state is extremely arduous to be in. Because our minds are always interfering, limiting, encroaching upon its functioning; and therefore it is important to understand first the (thinking ?) mind and its ways; otherwise we shall be caught in illusions, caught in words and sensations that have very little significance.
Question: Would you kindly explain the distinction you make between factual and psychological memory?
Krishnamurti: Memories without any emotional content, have their (practical) significance; but we give to them emotional content, as like and dislike: this I will keep, that I won't keep, this I will think about, and that I will ponder over in my old age, or continue in my future. Why do we do that? Surely, that is the problem, is it not? Not that we must forget factual or psychological memories. Because, all the impressions, all the responses, everything is (stored) there, unconsciously: every incident, every thought, every sensation which you have lived through, is there - hidden, covered up, but still there. And as we grow older, we return to those memories and live in the past, or in the future, according to our conditioning. We remember the pleasant times we had when we were youthful, or we think of the future, what we are going to be. So, we live in ( an inner space decorated with ?) these memories. We live (in it) as though we were different from those memories. We mean by memories, words, images, symbols, which are merely a series of (residual ?) sensations; and on those ( constantly refreshed) sensations we live. Therefore, we separate ourselves from the sensations, and say, 'I want those sensations'. Which means that the I, having separated itself from memories, gives to itself permanency. But it is a fictitious permanency.
Now, this whole process of the I separating itself from memory, and giving life to that memory in response to the present, this total process obviously hinders our meeting the present, does it not? That I, which has separated itself from memory, thus giving itself permanency, regards the present, looks at the incident, the experience, and draws from it according to its past conditioning - which is all very simple and obvious, if you examine it. It is the memory of yesterday - of possessions, of jealousies, of anger, of contradiction, of ambition, of what one ought or ought not to be - it is all these things that make up the 'I'; and the I is not different from memory.
So, memory is the (essence of our ?) self-(consciousness ?) . Memory is the word, the word which symbolizes sensation, physical as well as psychological sensation; and it is to that we cling. It is to the sensations we cling not to the experience; because in the moment of experience, there is neither the experiencer nor the experience - there is only experiencing.
So, one understands how the mind is attached to memory and thereby strengthens the me. The me, after all, is sensation, a bundle of sensations, a bundle of memories. It is the 'known', and from the known we want to understand the 'unknown'. But to understand Reality, there must be a newness of the mind, a freshness - not the burden of the known. God, or Reality cannot be imagined, cannot be described, cannot be put into words. Therefore, if one would understand that (essence of one's being ?) which is eternal, timeless, the mind as (a recycler of ?) memories must come to an end. If the mind does no longer cling to the known, it must be capable of receiving the unknown. You cannot receive the unknown if the mind (and heart ?) is burdened with memories, with the known, with the past. Therefore, the mind must be entirely silent - then the (subtle) distinction between psychological and factual memory is obvious and simple. To go beyond the limits of the mind, there must be freedom from the desire to be, to achieve, to gain.
Question: Is not life true creation? Are we not really seeking happiness, and is there not serenity in life, that 'true being' of which you speak?
Krishnamurti: In answering this question, to understand it fully and significantly, should we not perhaps understand first why do we seek? Is this search prompted by our moods? Do you make an effort because you are unhappy and you want to be happy? Do you seek because you are going to die, and therefore you want to find? Do you seek because you have not fulfilled yourself in the (material) world, therefore you want to fulfil here? Do you seek because you are unhappy, and, hoping for happiness, you seek, you search, you try to find out? So, one must understand the motive for one's search, must one not? What is the motive for your eternal search? - if you are really searching, which I question. What you want is substitution: as this is not profitable, perhaps that will be; as this hasn't given me happiness, perhaps that will. So one is really seeking, not truth, not happiness, but a (materialistic) substitution that will be profitable, safe, and that will give one ( mental and sensory ?) gratification. Surely, that is what we are seeking, if we were very honest and clear in ourselves; but we clothe our gratification with words like God, love, and so on.
Now, why don't we approach this question ( of seeking happiness ?) differently? Why don't we first try to understand 'what is'? Why are we not capable of looking at the thing exactly 'as is'? Which means, if we are in pain, let us live with it, look at it, and not try to transform it into something else. If I am in misery, not only physically but especially psychologically, how am I to understand it? To (deeply) understand something, must there not obviously be a passivity of the mind, an alertness which is yet passive? Please, you cannot arrive at that passivity of the mind which is alert, through effort, can you? If you make an effort to be passive, you are no longer passive. If one really understands that, the significance of that, and sees the truth of it, then one will be passive. One doesn't have to make an effort.
So, first one must find out what one is seeking and why. Most of us know what we are seeking, and therefore it is a projection, therefore unreal; it is merely a home-made thing. Therefore, it is not truth, it is not the real. And, in understanding this process of search, this constant making effort to be, to discipline, to deny, to assert, one must inquire into the question of what is the thinker. Is the one who makes the effort separate from the thing which he wants to be?
Surely, (my) memories are not different from the 'me' who thinks about them. I 'am' those memories. The memory of the way to the place where I live, the memory of my youth, the memories of both inexperienced and fulfilled desires, the memories of injuries, resentments, ambitions - all that is me, I am not separate from it. Surely, that is an obvious fact, isn't it? The me is not separate, even though you may believe that it is. Since you can think about it, it is still part of thought, and thought is the result of the past. Therefore, it is still within the net of thought, which is memory.
So, the division between the thinker, and his thinking, is artificial, fictitious; the 'thinker'(subliminally ?) separates himself to give himself permanency: he 'exists' while his thoughts vary. It is a false security; and if one sees the falseness of it, actually experiences it, then there are only thoughts, and not the thinker and the thought. Then you will see that there is a complete revolution in your thinking. Then there is a real transformation, because then there is no longer a seeking for quietude or aloneness. Then there is only the concern with what is thinking, what is thought. Then you will see, if this transformation takes place, that there is no longer an effort, but an extraordinary, alert passivity, in which there is understanding of every relationship, of every incident as it arises; therefore, the mind is always fresh to meet things anew. And hence that silence, which is so essential, comes into being naturally when you understand this fundamental thing, that the thinker 'is' the thought, and therefore the 'I'( the self-consciousness ?) is transient, not a spiritual entity.
Therefore, it is really important, essential to understanding, to have this sense of complete integration between the thinker and the thought. It is like a deep experience which cannot be invited; you cannot lie awake thinking about it. It must be seen immediately; and we do not see it because we are (subliminally ?) clinging to past beliefs, conditioning, what we have learned - that the I is something spiritual, more than all the thoughts. The (thinker-thought) division has been artificially created for (our brain's own sense of ?) self-protection, and is therefore unreal. When once there is the experiencing of that integration, then there is a complete transformation with regard to our thinking, feeling, and outlook on life. Then there is only a state of constant experiencing . We do this occasionally when the 'self' (-consciousness ?) is absent (or is taking a break ?) .
I do not know if you have noticed that when there is a deep experiencing of anything, there is neither the sensation of the experiencer nor the experience, but only a state of experiencing, a complete integration. When you are violently angry, you are not conscious of yourself as the experiencer. Later on, as that experience of anger fades, you become conscious of yourself being angry. Then you try do something about that anger to deny it, to justify it, to condone it - you know, various forms of trying to pass it away. But if there is not the entity who is angry, but only that state of experiencing, then there is a complete transformation.
If you will experiment with this, you will see that the mind is (naturally ?) quiet - not compelled, disciplined. When there is the experiencing of that which is vital, which is essential, which is real, which is the beginning of transformation, then the mind is quiet, without any compulsion. And, when the mind is quiet, then it is capable of receiving, because you are not spending your efforts in resisting, in building barriers between yourself and reality, whatever that reality may be. The mind can be empty only when the whole content of the mind is understood. To understand the content of the mind, one must be watchful, aware of every movement of every incident, of every sensation. Therefore, self-knowledge is essential - we must understand the process of desire, the psychological craving to be something, to achieve a result, to have a name, to have a position, to be powerful, or to become humble. Surely, only when the ( vessel of the ?) mind is empty , then only can it be useful. We must all have had experiences of those moments when the (self-conscious ?) mind is silent , and suddenly there is a flash of joy, a flash of an idea, a light, a great bliss. How does that happen? It happens when the 'self' is absent, when the process of thought, worry, memories, pursuits, is still. Therefore, creation can take place only when the mind, through self-knowledge, has come to that state when it is completely naked. But to go into this question of self-knowledge and not be caught in self-consciousness, to go ever more deeply, more profoundly so that the mind is completely quiet - that is true ( meaning of) religion. Then the mind is capable of receiving that which is Eternal.
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 21 Dec 2016||#337|
|Jess S Portugal 6 posts in this forum Offline||
Winter in Europe (in The Only Revolution, part 9):'The day began rather cloudy and dull and the naked trees were silent in the wood. Through the wood you could see crocuses, daffodils and bright yellow forsythia... A few rain drops fell and the wood was deserted.'
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 21 Dec 2016||#338|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
SO SPOKE KRISHNAMURTI IN 1950 (in Paris)
K: We seem to think that by pursuing a particular course of philosophy, or a belief, or a system of thought, we shall be able to clear up the confusion not only in ourselves, but also about us. We have innumerable beliefs, doctrines, and hopes; and in trying to follow them, in trying to be sincere in regard to our ideals, we hope to clear the path to happiness, or the path to knowledge and comprehension. One can be faithful to an idea; to a hope, to a doctrine, to a particular system; but merely copying, pursuing an idea, or conforming oneself to a particular doctrine will surely not help us to clear up the confusion in ourselves, and so the confusion about us.
So, it seems to me that what is necessary the earnestness which is essential in the understanding of ourselves. In the understanding of the process of ourselves there need be no belief, no doctrine no particular philosophy. On the contrary, if we have a philosophy a doctrine, it will become an impediment to the understanding of ourselves. And it is important, is it not?, in order to understand ourselves, that we be aware of every reaction, every feeling, as it arises. Each one of us is made up of many 'entities', conscious as well as unconscious; and to choose one particular entity, one particular desire, and pursue that is surely an impediment to the understanding of ourselves.
So, seeing the whole process of ourselves is the beginning of wisdom. Wisdom is not something that can be learned through another, that can be gathered even through experience. Experience is merely memory; and the accumulation of memory or knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is surely the experiencing of each moment without condemnation or justification; it is understanding each particular experience or reaction, fully, completely, so that the mind comes to every problem anew. After all, the 'me' is the centre of recognition; and if we do not understand that centre, but merely recognize every experience or reaction and give it a name, a term, it does not mean that we have understood that particular reaction or experience; on the contrary, when we name, or recognise a particular experience, we only strengthen the 'me' - that isolated (self-) consciousness which is the centre of recognition. So, merely recognizing every experience, every reaction, is not the understanding of oneself. The understanding of oneself comes only when we are aware of the process of recognition, and allow a gap between experience and recognition - which means, a state of mind in which there is stillness.
Before I answer some of these questions, may I suggest that when listening to the answers, you and I should both experience what is being said. That is, take an inner journey together in understanding these problems, which I am going to try to explain verbally. So, please do not merely try to understand intellectually, because, the intellect cannot understand (globally ?) any human problem - it can only make it more confusing, more conflicting, more sorrowful. If we can go beyond the intellect, then perhaps we shall be able to see the truth of these questions.
Question: Beyond all the superficial fears there is a deep (existential ?) anguish, which eludes me. It seems to be the very fear of life - or perhaps of death. Or is it the vast emptiness of life?
Krishnamurti: I think most of us feel this sense of emptiness, a great sense of loneliness. We try to avoid it, we try to run away from it, we try to find security, permanency, away from this anguish. Or, we try to be free of it by analyzing the various dreams, the various reactions. But it is always there, eluding us, and not to be resolved so easily and so superficially. Most of us are aware of this emptiness, of this loneliness, of this anguish. And, being afraid of it, we seek a sense of permanency, in things or property, in people or relationship, or in ideas, beliefs, dogmas, in name, position, and power. But can this (existential ?) emptiness be banished by merely running away from ourselves? And is not this running away from ourselves one of the causes of confusion, pain, misery, in our relationships and therefore in the world?
Obviously any escape from this anguish, from this loneliness, will not solve the problem. On the contrary, it merely increases the problem, and brings about further confusion. So, to understand the fact which we call emptiness, there must be no condemnation, no naming, of that fact. After all, loneliness is a process of isolation, is it not? Surely in all our relationships, in all our efforts in life, we are always isolating ourselves. That process of isolation must obviously lead to ( this sense of inner) emptiness; and without understanding the whole process of isolation, we shall not be able to resolve this emptiness, this loneliness. But when we understand the process of isolation, we shall see that emptiness is merely a thing of words, mere recognition; and the moment there is no recognition, no naming of it, and hence no fear, emptiness becomes something else, it goes beyond itself. Then it is not emptiness, it is 'aloneness' (all-oneness ?) - something much vaster than the process of isolation.
Now, must we not be (inwardly ?) alone? At present we are the result of all kinds of influences - social, religious, economic. hereditary, climatic. Through all those influences, we try to find something beyond; and if we cannot find it, we invent it, and cling to our inventions. But when we understand the whole process of influence at all the different levels of our consciousness, then, by becoming free of it, there is an (inner state of integrated ?) aloneness which is uninfluenced; that is, the mind and heart are no longer shaped by outward events or inward experiences. It is only when there is this aloneness that there is a possibility of finding the Real.
With most of us, the (experiential ?) difficulty is that we are unaware of our escapes. We are so accustomed to our escapes, that we take them as 'realities'. But if we will look more deeply into our selves, we will see how extraordinarily lonely, how extraordinarily empty we are under the superficial covering of our escapes. Being aware of that emptiness, we are constantly covering it up with various activities, whether artistic, social, religious or political. But emptiness can never finally be covered: it must be understood. To understand it, we must be aware of these escapes; and when we understand the escapes, then we shall be able to face our emptiness. Then we shall see that the emptiness is not different from ourselves, that the observer is the observed. In that experience, in that integration of the thinker and the thought, this loneliness, this anguish, disappears.
Question: Is it possible for westerners to meditate?
Krishnamurti: I think this is one of the romantic ideas of westerners - that only easterners can meditate. So, let us find out what we mean by meditation. Let us experiment together to find out what meditation means what are the implications of meditation. Merely to learn how to meditate, to acquire a technique, is obviously not meditation. Going to a yogi, a swami, reading about meditation in books, and trying to imitate, sitting in certain postures with your eyes closed, breathing in a certain way, repeating words - surely, all that is not meditation; it is merely pursuing a pattern of conformity, making the mind repetitive, habitual. The mere cultivation of a habit, whether noble or trivial, is not meditation. This practice of cultivating a particular habit is known both in the east and in the west, and we think that it is a process of meditation.
The practice of concentration, repeating certain phrases, breathing in a special manner, and all the rest of it - can't really help us to understand what meditation is. They are very popular, because they always produce certain results; but they are all obviously foolish ways of trying to meditate.
Now, what is meditation? The understanding of the ways of the mind is ( an integral part of ?) meditation, is it not? Meditation is the understanding of myself, it is being aware of every reaction, conscious as well as unconscious - which is self-knowledge. Without self-knowledge, how can there be meditation? Only in understanding ourselves does the mind become quiet; and without understanding ourselves, the tranquillity of the mind is not possible. When the mind is quiet, not made quiet through discipline; when the mind is spontaneously still - only then is it possible to find out what is true and what is beyond the projections of the mind.
Surely, if I want to know if there is reality, God, or what you will, my mind must be absolutely quiet, must it not? Because whatever the mind seeks out will not be real - it will merely be the projection of its own memories, of the things it has accumulated; and the projection of memory is obviously not reality or God. So, the mind must be still, but not made still; it must be naturally, easily, spontaneously still. Only then is it possible for the mind to discover something beyond itself.
Question: Is truth absolute?
Krishnamurti: Is truth (to be found the ?) the cultivation of memory? Or, is truth to be found only when the mind is utterly still? When the mind is not caught in memories, not cultivating memory as the centre of recognition, but is aware of everything I am saying, everything I am doing in my relationships, in my activities, seeing the truth of everything as it is from moment to moment - surely, that is the way of meditation, is it not? There is comprehension only when the mind is still; and the mind cannot be still as long as it is ignorant of itself. That ignorance is not dispelled through any form of discipline, through pursuing any authority ancient or modern. Belief only creates resistance, isolation; and where there is isolation, there is no possibility of tranquillity. Tranquillity comes only when I understand the whole process of myself - the various entities (inherited tendencies ?) , in conflict with each other, which compose the 'me'. As that is an arduous task, we turn to others to learn various tricks which we call meditation. The tricks of the mind are not meditation. Meditation is the beginning of self-knowledge; and without meditation, there is no self-knowledge. Meditation is watching observing being aware of oneself, not only at one particular hour of the day but all the time when we are walking, eating, talking reading in relationship - all that is the process in which we discover the ways of the `me'.
When I understand myself then there is quietness, then there is stillness of the mind. In that stillness, Reality can come to me. That stillness is not stagnation, it is not a denial of action. On the contrary, it is the highest form of action. In that stillness there is creation - not the mere expression of a particular creative activity, but the feeling of creation itself.
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 22 Dec 2016||#339|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
SO SPOKE KRISHNAMURTI IN 1952 ( MADRAS)
K: Most of us are aware that the self centred activity creates mischief and chaos; but we are only aware of it in certain directions. Either we observe it in others and are ignorant of our own activities; or being aware of our own self-centred activity, we want to transform it, we want to go beyond. But before we can deal with it, we must know how this process comes into being. Surely, this self-centred process is the result of time. Is it not?
So, as long as this centre of activity in any direction, conscious and unconscious, exists, there is this movement of time, and I am conscious of the past and the present in conjunction with the future. The centre of this activity, the self-centred activity of the 'me', is a time process. That is what we mean by time - the psychological process of time; it is memory (of the past ) that gives continuity to the activity of the centre which is the 'me'. Now can the mind be free from it? That may be possible at rare moments; that may happen to most of us when we do an unconscious, unintentional, un-purposive act. Is it possible for the mind ever to be free from self-centred activity? That is a very important question to put to ourselves, because in the very putting of it, you will find the answer. That is, if you are aware of the total process of this self-centred activity, fully cognizant of its activities at different levels of your consciousness, then surely you have to ask yourselves if it is possible for that activity to come to an end - that is, not to think in terms of time, not to think in terms of what I will be, what I have been, what I am. From such thought, the whole process of self centred activity begins.
Surely this process of time is not revolutionary. In the process of time, there is no transformation; there is only a continuity and no ending. It is only when you have complete cessation of the time process, of the activity of the self, is there the new, is there revolution, is there transformation.
Being aware of this whole total process of the 'me' in its activity, what is the mind to do? It is only with the renewal, it is only with the revolution - not through evolution, not through the "me' becoming, but through the"me' completely coming to an end - there is the new. The time process can't bring the new; time is not a way of creation.
Now, our question surely is: Is it possible for the mind to experience, to have that state, not momentarily, not at rare moments but ( constantly) to be in that state without regard to time? Surely, that is an important discovery to be made by each one of us, because that is the (inner) door to Love. Love is not of time, it is the only thing that is new, eternally new. Since most of us have cultivated the mind which is a process of time, which is the result of time, we do not know what (this) Love is.
Seeing this whole picture, being aware of this whole process of time as (self-) consciousness, without any choice, with out any determined, purposive intention, without the desire for any result, you will see that this process of time comes to an end voluntarily - not induced, not as a result of desire. It is only when that process comes to an end, that love is, which is eternally new.
Truth is not something far away. It is the truth of the (everyday) mind, truth of its activities from moment to moment. If we are aware of the "moment-to moment" truth (regarding ?) this whole process of time, this awareness releases consciousness or that energy to be. As long as the mind uses consciousness as the self activity, time comes into being with all its miseries, with all its conflicts, with all its mischiefs, its purposive deceptions; and it is only when the mind, understanding this total process, ceases, that love will be. You may call it ( Universal ?) 'Love' or give it some other name; what name you give it , is of no consequence.
Question: How can one know if one is deceiving oneself?
Krishnamurti: When do we deceive ourselves, consciously or unconsciously? Most of us, though we do deceive ourselves, are totally unaware that this process is going on. We may be aware of the self-deception in a vague (intuitive ?) way. But that will not do. We must know that at all levels, fundamentally. When do we deceive ourselves, delude ourselves? Self-deception exists as long as I am trying to impose a (desired ?) experience on others or on myself, as long as I am translating an experience through attachment or through identification or through the desire to convince another.
So self-deception is a process of time. It is an accumulated process. 'I have had an (mystical ?) experience as a boy and I want that experience to continue. I am convinced that experience was true and I want to convince you of it, because I have experienced it and I hold on to it. So, the 'knowing' which is the (personal) interpretation of my experience, brings about self-deception which is a process of time.
Don't you know when you are deceiving yourselves? There is a fact and you translate that to suit your own vested interests, your own likes and dislikes; and immediately, there has begun self-deception. When you are incapable of facing a fact and are translating that fact in terms of your memory, immediately self-deception has begun. I have a vision which I translate according to my like or dislike and proceed to deceive myself through my past experience; there self-deception begins, starting with interpretation.
When I am capable of looking at the fact without any kind of comparison or judgment, without translating, then only there is the possibility of not being deceived. When I do not want anything out of it, when I do not want a result, when I do not want to convince you of it or convince myself about it, this possibility of not being deceived exists. I must look directly, be in contact with the fact, without any interpretation between me and that fact. Between me and that fact, the time process which is deception, should not be there.
I have a (mystical) experience as a boy, of a Master or what you will; then, what happens? I interpret it according to my likes, my conditioning. Then I say ( Now )'I know'. There begins self-deception. I cling to an experience which is translatable (in terms of like/dislike) . An experience that is translatable, is the beginning of self-deception. From there I proceed, I build up this whole process of knowing. If I have capacities, I can convince you of ( the reality of ?) my experience; and you, uncritical, superstitious, follow me because you also want to be deceived, you also want to be in the same net. The net has to be thrown away. You can plough the ground every day, do nothing but plough, plough and plough; but until you sow a seed (of truth ?) , you won't get anything. That is how we are deceiving ourselves constantly and deceiving others.
So (in a nuthshell) to discover for oneself if there is self-deception is very simple: as long as there is the (self-centred ?) 'interpreter' translating the experience, there must be deception. Don't say there is infinite time to get free from the experiencer, from the translator. That is another of your ways of self deception; that is your desire to evade (facing) the fact. It is only when you do not put out the begging bowl for another to fill, then only you will know the state in which no deception is possible.
Question: You say that through identification we bring about separation, division. Your way of life appears to some of us to be (self-) separative and isolating and to have caused division among those ( TS people ?) who were formerly together. With what have you identified yourself?
Krishnamurti: Now, let us first see the truth of the statement that identification divides, separates. I have stated that several times. Is it a fact or not? What do we mean by identification? You identify yourself with your country. Don't you? When you do that what happens? You immediately enclose yourself through that identification with a particular group. That is a fact, is it not? When you call yourself a Hindu, you have identified yourself with particular beliefs, traditions, hopes, ideas; and that very identification isolates you. That is a fact, is it not? If you see the truth of that, then you cease to identify; therefore you are no longer a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Christian, politically or religiously. So, identification is separative, is a deteriorating factor in life. That is a fact; that is the truth of it whether you like it or not.
The questioner goes on to ask if I have, through my action, brought about division among those who were formerly together. Quite right. If you see something true, must you not state it? Though it brings trouble, though it brings about disunity, should you not state it? How can there be unity on falsity? You identify yourself with a idea, with a belief; and when another questions that belief, the idea, you throw that other fellow out; you don't bring him in, you push him out. You have isolated him; the man who says what you are doing is wrong, has not isolated you. So, your action is isolating, not the action of the person who points to the truth. You don't want to face the ( truth of the ?) fact that identification is separative.
Your whole way of life, is separative; and so you are responsible for (the TS) separation. You have thrown me out; I have not gone out. Naturally, you begin to feel that I am bringing division, that my ideas and my expressions are destructive. They should be destructive; they should be revolutionary. Otherwise, what is the value of (seeing ?) anything new?
Surely, Sirs, there must be ( an authentic inner ) revolution which comes into being when there is an inward cessation of all (self-) identification; and you can only do that, when you are capable of looking straight at the fact without deceiving yourself and without giving the 'interpreter' a chance to tell you what he thinks of it.
Sirs, we must break (free ?) to find out. The real revolution is the inward revolution; it is a revolution that sees things clearly and that is of love. In that state, you have no identification with anything.
Question: You say there can be (a selfless ?) cooperation only when you and I are 'as nothing'. How can this be true? Is not cooperation a positive action, whereas 'being as nothing' is an unconscious negativity? How can two 'nothingness' be related and what is there for them to cooperate about?
Krishnamurti: The state of 'no-thingness' must obviously be an unconscious state. It is not a (self-)conscious state. When you are (self) conscious as being nothing, you are still something This is not a mere amusing statement, but this is a fact. When you are (self-) conscious that you are virtuous, you become respectable; a person who is respectable can never find what is real. When I am conscious that I am as nothing then that very 'nothingness' is some thing (just another self-image ?) .
There can be ( a selfless) cooperation only when you and I are 'as nothing'. Find out what it means, think it out and meditate about it. Don't just ask questions. What does that state of 'no-thingness' mean? We only know the state of activity of the self, the self-centred activity. We only know the state which is self-centred action. That obviously engenders (colateral ?) mischief, misery, turmoil, confusion and non-cooperation.
We know now that any cooperation based on an idea leads to destruction, as has already been shown. Action, cooperation, based on an idea is separative. Just as belief is separative, so is action based on an idea. Even if you are being convinced, or if millions are convinced, still there are many left to be convinced; and therefore there is contention going on all the time. So, that cannot be fundamental cooperation, though there may be superficial persuasion through fear, through reward, through punishment and so on - which is not ( an authentic) cooperation obviously.
So, What is one to do if one wants really to bring about cooperation? If you want ( a true) cooperation from your wife, your child, or your neighbour, how do you set about it? You set about by loving the person. Obviously! Love is not an idea. Love can be only when the activity of the self has ceased to be. But you call the activity of the self positive; that positive act leads to destruction, separativeness, misery, confusion, all of which you know so well and so thoroughly. And yet, we all talk of cooperation, brotherhood. Basically, we want to cling to our (known ) activities of the self. So, a man who really wants to pursue and find out the truth of cooperation, must inevitably bring to an end the self-centred activity. When you and I are not self-centred, we 'love' each other; then you and I are interested in action and not in the result, not in the idea but in doing the action; you and I have love for each other. When my self-centred activity clashes with your self-centred activity, then we (may) project an ideal towards which superficially we are cooperating, but we are at each other's throats all the time.
If you and I (really ) loved each other, do you think the dirty, filthy villages would exist? We would act, we would not theorize and would not talk about brotherhood. Obviously, there is no warmth or sustenance in our hearts and we talk about everything; we have methods, systems, parties, governments and legislation's. We do not know that our words cannot capture that state of love.
Question: What system of meditation should I follow?
Krishnamurti: We are going to find out the truth if systems, methods, help you to meditate. Truth is not something far away, miles away for which we have to go. It is there right under your very nose, to be discovered every minute; it is there for you to discover with a fresh mind which is creative. We shall discover in this way the truth, the whole implication of meditation.
What is the implication of (following) a system? Practice, doing the thing over and over again, repetition, copying and imitation. Through practice, through repetition, are you going to find that happiness, bliss, something which is not measurable ?
At the very beginning of your practice, you have both the beginning and the ending of that practice; that is, what you begin with is also what you end up with; the beginning is the end. If I practice, if I copy, I will end up as an imitator, as a machine repeating. If my mind is only capable of repeating, practicing day after day a certain method, following a certain system, at the end my mind is still copying, imitating, repeating. Surely this is obvious, is this not? Therefore at the beginning, I have set the course which the mind shall follow; if I do not understand at the beginning, I shall not understand at the end. That is the obvious truth. So, I have discovered that the end is at the beginning. Systems through promises, through pleasure, rewards, punishments, make the mind (obedient ?) mechanical, stupid, drunk. And at the beginning there is no freedom, and therefore there is no freedom at the end. So, the beginning matters enormously.
Imagine you have abolished all systems, the whole idea of systems has fallen away. Then what happens? Your mind be comes more (responsible) more aware. Do you not then see that any pursuit of the (knowing) mind, any form of (self-) achievement, is a burden?
Please follow all this, and meditate as I am talking; and you will see that any form of achievement of success, any sense of becoming, is still the action of the self, and therefore of time. When you see that clearly, fully recognize it, then all sense of achievement, of being (or becoming) somebody, drops away; therefore the mind becomes quieter, more serene, not looking for a reward or punishments; it becomes completely indifferent to flattery and insult alike. What has happened to your mind? The things that were agitating you before, the things that acted in a separative way, seeking a reward, avoiding punishment, all these have gone away. The mind has become more quiet, more alert. There is gripping silence, not induced, not disciplined, not forced. Then what happens? Then, in that quiet state, ideas come up, feelings come up; and you understand them and put them away. Then, if you proceed a little further, you will see that in that state there are certain activities which are not self-projected, which come darkly and mysteriously without invitation, like the breeze, the sunset, like beauty. The moment they come, the mind, seeing the beauty, may like to hold on to it; it may then say `I have experienced that state', and then it clings to it and thereby creates the process of time, which is memory. That possibility also must go away.
You know how the mind is operating and how it wants a series of sensations, which are called marvellous, and how it is naming them. When you see the truth of all that, these things also go away. Now, what is the (integrated ?) state of the mind that is not seeking, that is not pursuing, that is not desiring, that is not searching out a result, that is not naming, that is not recognizing? Such a mind is quiet; such a mind is silent; the silence has come very naturally without any form of enforcement, without any compulsion, without any discipline. It is the truth that has liberated the mind. In that state, the mind is extraordinarily quiet. Then that which is new, which is not recognizable, which is creation, which is love, which is not different from the beginning, comes. And such a mind is a blessed mind, is a holy mind. Such a mind alone can help. Such a mind can cooperate. Such a mind can be without any identification, be alone, without any self-deception.
What is beyond, is not measurable by words. That which is not measurable, comes; but if you seek like the foolish, then you will never have it. It comes when you are least expecting it; it comes when you are watching the sky; it comes when you are sitting under the shade of a tree; it comes when you are observing the smile of a child or the tears of a woman. But we are not observant; we are not meditating. We meditate only about a mysterious thing to be pursued, to be practiced and to be lived up to. A man who practices meditation, shall never know; but the man who understands the true meditation which is from moment to moment, only shall know it. There is no (Truth) experience of the 'individual'. Where truth is concerned, the ( sense of separate ?) individuality disappears, the 'me' has ceased to be.
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 24 Dec 2016||#340|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
SO SPOKE KRISHNAMURTI IN 1953 (in Madras)
K: (...) Am I talking Greek? I feel there is no contact of what I am saying with what you are thinking. Look, Sirs, should not one ask oneself whether it is possible to have an uncontaminated mind, a fresh mind, a mind which is innocent ?
What makes the mind contaminated? That is the problem. What makes the mind dull, stupid, routinely, bound to habit, tradition? What makes the mind decay, grow old? If the mind can remain fresh, not decaying, not deteriorating, then experience cannot contaminate it, though we have to live, though there is experience.
What is this thing that makes the mind deteriorating? One of the major factors is effort - this constant struggle to become, the struggle to do the right thing, to be successful, the struggle to understand, the struggle and the practicing of virtue, the following of an idea or ideal. Because of this everlasting struggle of the mind, the mind has never a moment of tranquillity, or rest. . Such a mind, both conscious and unconscious, is like a machine that is running all the time ceaselessly. The consciousness is everlastingly in movement, ever lastingly pushing and pushing, struggling and struggling to acquire, struggling to change, struggling to understand, struggling to fulfil, and when not fulfilling, feeling thwarted, agonised, held, finding resistance, hindrance, blockages; and having ambitions, successes. That is our life. How can the mind that is everlastingly struggling be a fresh mind? But if such a mind ceases its activity of everlasting struggle to be, then there is a possibility of the conditioned state ceasing and the mind being a fresh mind.
After all, the thing that we call the 'me', the 'I', is the entity that is ( constantly consolidating itself by ?) gathering experience. Isn't that the entity that is everlastingly struggling? Please follow this, Sirs. If you really listen, you will see an extraordinary thing that will take place in front of truth; there is a disintegration ( dissolving ?) of the 'I', and therefore there is the possibility of a fresh mind, a mind that is really experiencing what is true, and therefore the mind itself is the truth.
What is after all the 'I', the 'me'? That is the centre of the struggle, that is the centre of ambition, this everlasting becoming - I was, I am, and I shall be - and that is the centre, that is the deteriorating factor that makes the mind corrupt, that makes the mind dull, heavy, stupid, mediocre. Just see the fact that the struggle is the central factor of deterioration, the struggle of the 'me' becoming something, and therefore never a moment of real tranquillity, real stillness of the mind. A still mind can experience and yet be uncontaminated. But a mind that is acquiring, pushing. struggling gathering, in itself experiencing - such a mind is a deteriorating factor. Simply see the thing as it is taking place in your own mind.
Question: I have listened to you for a long time. My mind has grown dull, weary, with endless repetition of a few basic statements. Is there any hope of my liberation?
Krishnamurti: The problem is, have you listened at all? If I know how to listen to one truth, one thing that is truth, that one thing is going to be the liberating factor. A mind becomes dull through routine, and is so eager to gather, to accumulate. You have to just listen sweetly without any argumentation. When in front of a magnificent scenery, in front of a lovely thing, if your mind is chattering or comparing itself with another, do you ever see the magnificent thing? Because your mind is occupied with comparison, you do not see. So, if you can just listen without comparing, that very listening will tell you whether the thing that is being spoken is true or false. The truth of that will bring to the mind a freedom from innumerable burdens effortlessly. You are not listening; your mind is either already dull or already gone dull or already gone away somewhere else.
Question: Is it not better to have a contented mind than a still mind? In that case, do not the problems themselves cease to exist?
Krishnamurti: Is it not a problem that your mind is not contented, nor is it still, but is disturbed is confused? Being confused, you say "I must have a contented mind or a still mind." So you are pursuing again a contented mind, or gathering or saying "How is my mind to be still?' Sirs, contentment is something which comes into being when I understand what is. What is important is not to have a contented mind but to understand the things as they are, not as you like them to be, to understand what is. To understand the thing as it is requires an extraordinary awareness in which there is no comparison, no judgment, no condemnation - to look at it as it is, not as you would like it to be, not as something different which you wish it to be. That requires extraordinary insight; and out of that insight, the mind becomes quiet, which you may call contentment. The mind is still, with the understanding of what is, the thing I am and not what I think I am, the thing that I am - envious, jealous, anxious, fearful, struggling, afraid of what my neighbours say, afraid of my uncertainty, afraid of my job. To understand myself as I am requires a choiceless awareness in which there is no condemnation but watching without any deflection, without any destruction. Seeing the thing as it is brings about the breaking down of a mediocre mind, and it is only that mind that really understands, that is capable of receiving that which is eternal.
Question: What we have learnt about meditation from our sacred books, from our spiritual leaders, seems to be essentially different from what you term as 'meditation'. Will you kindly go into this?
Krishnamurti: Sirs let us see what 'is' meditation because this is a very important problem and if I know how to meditate, then the problem of existence will be understood. Can I learn meditation from another, from the sacred book or from the teacher or from the school which teaches you to meditate?
When we enquire into the question of meditation, the problem is the meditator and his becoming. What we know in ( the traditional ?) meditation is the thinker trying to change his thoughts, trying to push his thoughts higher up, climbing, climbing. The maker of the effort is the thinker, the 'I', moulding, shaping, controlling, guiding, aspiring, suppressing thought. That is what you call meditation. You have the image of a master, a picture of a guru, or some image made by the hand or the mind, and you concentrate. So there is a 'concentrator' with 'the thing that is concentrated upon'. In this, there is a (dualistic ?) division between the thinker and the thought. Now, is there actually such a division? We have created the division, the thinker and the thought. But if you have no thoughts, is there a thinker?
The thoughts have created the thinker because thoughts are transcendent, and so we say the thinker is permanent. So thoughts seeking permanency have created a thinker. Then the thinker dominates his thoughts and shapes them in order to reach something else which is obviously not truth. Thoughts have created a thinker, whether the thinker is Paramatman or a supreme being, whatever it is. Thoughts have created it, and without thoughts there is no thinker. So seeing the truth of that, there is no longer( need for) the controlling of thoughts, there is no entity shaping, pushing thoughts into all directions or in one particular direction; there is only thinking. If I say that and if that is understood, there is already a tremendous revolution, is there not?, because there is no longer the thinker to actually experience, to actually see the truth of that, namely that there is no (objective ?) 'thinker' is the beginning of meditation. Without seeing that all the experiments of going to high and low, are all tricks of the mind. They are not meditation. They will lead nowhere, they are all illusion. Till you have understood this primary thing that the thought creates the thinker and without the thought there is no thinker, and till you experience that - not verbally but really - reality will not come into being.
Reality comes into being after a great deal of meditation - the meditation being the thinking out, watching, observing, not letting the mind play tricks upon it, seeing the trick which the mind plays and has played upon us for centuries that the thinker is completely different from thought, something divine, something extraordinary, totally out of time. As long as there is the thinker apart from thought, do what you will, your meditation is an illusion which will lead you to nowhere.
So meditation is not merely sitting still, controlling your mind. Meditation is something entirely different. Without self-knowledge, there is no meditation, the'self' being your mind, and you have to understand how it operates, how it works. Without understanding that, you do not know how to meditate; and all meditation and the labours of discipline are in vain, and they have no meaning.
Now, when you come to that point when there are only thoughts (the fusion of the thinker with his thoughts ?) , then quite a different issue arises; what is the significance of thinking? Thinking before had a significance because it ( subliminally ?) created the (continuity of the ?) 'thinker' entity; then the thinker came into being, and he lived, functioned, experienced, acquired or rejected. But when through the observation of self-knowledge in your relationship, in your talk, in your looks, smiles, watching everything - you know how the self works, there is the beginning of meditation; and as you go into it, you must invariably come to the point when you will see the thinker and the thought are one and not separate. Then when you come to that state, what is the significance of thinking? That is merely a reaction to any response, to any stimuli; when there is no stimulation, when there is no asking, looking, then the mind is still. If there are only thoughts, then you see the significance of thoughts. From there, the mind is still.
The still mind is not a (self-) disciplined mind. There is no discipliner, one who controls and says 'I am still.' That still mind has no 'experiencer' because the moment there is the experiencer, he is experiencing, gathering; he is different from the experience. Yet, if you observe, all of us want to continue experiencing - 'I want to experience truth', 'I want to experience God.' You will never experience God, never the truth, as long as there is the ( dualistic ebtity of the ?) 'experiencer' who is separate from thought. So there is only thinking, thinking without the thinker. Therefore, the mind is no longer concerned with what to think or with what is right thinking. It is only thinking and seeing the significance of thought. Therefore, there is no continuity of thinking. So the mind is still. That still mind is not experiencing, because the experiencer has ceased. There is only the state of being in which there is no experiencer. Therefore, in that silence, in that stillness, the mind is non-recognizing. If you have gone so far, you will immediately know what I am talking about.
The still mind is the creative mind. That which is creative is not of time, it is something beyond time. It is of no nationality, no race, no individuality. It is timeless, it is something eternal. If the mind can perceive that which is eternal in itself, the stillness, then the mind itself is the eternal. Self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom. That which is creative - the creativeness of God, of truth - does not come into being, cannot come into being, when the mind is seeking. The mind must cease to seek, and then only Reality can come into being.
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 25 Dec 2016||#341|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
SO SPOKE KRISHNAMURTI IN 1954 (in New York)
K: (...) You have been told that "if you seek you will find". But if you go into the process of your search, it is the outcome of a desire to find some kind of security, some kind of hope, some kind of fulfilment, a bliss, a continuity in which there is no frustration. And as long as you are seeking, you must create authority, the authority that will take you over, that will lead you, give you comfort.
So, what I am asking is: will our seeking lead us to Reality? - Reality being the Unknown, that which is not the product of the mind, which is a state of creativeness, which is totally new from moment to moment, which is timeless, eternal, or whatever other word can be used to indicate that it is out of time.
If you are really persistent with the question, "Why do I seek?" and let that question reveal the ( self-centred ?) content of your search, then perhaps there may be a moment, a second when all search ceases. Because your search is really dictated by your conscious or unconscious desire. Now, at the moment of rest from your constant (inner) struggle, is there not the freedom from search? And is it possible to experience, not in terms of time but immediately, that state when the mind is no longer seeking? The immediacy is important, not how to arrive at that state when the mind is no longer seeking, because then you introduce all the factors of struggle, of time. And I think it is important, not only to listen to that question, but actually to put it to yourself and leave it, not try to find an answer to it. According to the way you put it, and the earnestness of your question, you will find the answer. For that which is measureless cannot be caught by a mind that is seeking, by a mind that is full of knowledge; it can come into being only when the mind is no longer pursuing or trying to become something. When the mind is completely, inwardly empty, not demanding anything, only then is there that instantaneous perception of what is true.
Question: You have said that nationalities, beliefs, dogmas are separative. Is the family also a separative force?
Krishnamurti: As long as there is any form of identification with the family, with a national group, with a dogma, with a belief, obviously it is separative. But surely, the question is not whether the family or the group is separative, but why the mind identifies itself with something and thereby creates division? Why do I identify myself with India? Because if I do not identify myself I am lost, I feel alone, deserted. This fear of being lonely, alone, compels me to identify myself with my family, with my property, with a house, with a belief. It is that that is bringing separation, not the family. If I do not identify myself with something, what am I? I am nobody. But if I say I am an Indian with Oriental wisdom and all that nonsense - you know the whole business of it - , then I am somebody. If I identify myself with America or with Russia, it gives me prestige, it makes me feel worth while, it gives me a sense of significance in life, because I do not want to be nobody, I do not want to be anonymous. I may bear a name, but the name must bring importance. I am unwilling to be really nobody, to have no identification of the "me" with something which I call bigger: God, truth, country, family, or ideology.
Question: Do you deny the value and integrity of saints in all ages, including Christ and Buddha?
Krishnamurti: This raises a very interesting question. What is your measure of a "saint"? Your measure will be according to your desires, hopes and conditionings. But, you see, the mind wants somebody to cling to, something beyond itself. You want leaders, saints, examples to follow, to imitate, because in yourself you are poor, insufficient, so you say, "If I can follow somebody, I shall be enriched". You will never be enriched, you will be made the poorer; because it is only when the mind, when your whole being is empty, not seeking, that the creativeness of reality comes into being. If you can remain with what is without any desire to transform it, then there is transformation. But as long as the mind is trying to imitate, to adjust, to measure with its preconceived ideas who is a saint and who is not, then it is merely pursuing its own fulfilment, which is vanity.
Question: I am a young man without any religion. I do not consider any system of government as my authority. I lack ambition and I do not have a job, nor can I keep one for very long because I am not ambitious. I create misery in my home because I am financially dependent on my parents, and they are not sufficiently well off to support me. How might we look at this problem?
Krishnamurti: You are living in a society whose structure, morality and ethics are based on acquisitiveness, on envy. Not to fit into that society implies either that you are totally free from ambition, and are therefore not acquisitive, or that mentally there is something wrong; because to be without ambition is astonishingly difficult. I may not be ambitious in the worldly sense, but I may be seeking something else: I want to be happy, I want to fulfil myself in my children, in my activity, and so on. So, it is a very rare thing to find someone who is not ambitious, competing, striving.
To understand the whole problem of (personal) ambition, of strife, and to find out what it really means to live in a competitive society without striving to be somebody, is a very difficult thing to do; because if we fail in this world, we want to succeed in the next world, we want to sit at the right hand of God. Not to seek any form of (self-) fulfilment requires great understanding, for each one of us is seeking fulfilment; and when we seek fulfilment, there is frustration. You may be aware of that frustration beforehand and therefore try to avoid all kinds of ambition, all desire to fulfil, but that only imprisons you in your own conclusion. Whereas, to understand the process of fulfilment, to go through it, to be aware that one's whole drive, urge, compulsion, is towards fulfilment, and that thereby there is frustration and sorrow, and to ask oneself if there is any such thing as fulfilment at all - surely, all that requires self-knowledge.
Question: If we could experience immortality, would there be fear of death?
Krishnamurti: Is it possible for the human mind, for you, to experience something which is not mortal, which is not created by the mind, which is not of time? Obviously, if we could experience that, there would be no fear of death. But is it possible? Is it possible for a mind which is afraid, which functions within the field of time - is it possible for such a mind to experience that which is beyond time? Perhaps if you did various tricks you might experience something, but it would still be within the field of time.
So, let us leave aside for the moment the question of what is the immortal, because we do not know what it is. But we do know the fear of death, of old age and withering away, we are quite familiar with that; so let us take that and examine it, go into it, and not ask if we can be free of fear by experiencing immortality. Such a question has very little meaning.
We are afraid of death, which means we are afraid of ( our life) coming to an end. All the things we have acquired, the experiences we have gathered, the knowledge, the relationships, the affections, the virtues we have cultivated - we are afraid of all that coming to an end. You may have a hope, a belief that there is a resurrection in the future, but fear is there, because the future is uncertain. Through your religions, your priests, your hopes have said that there is a continuity in some form or other, there is still uncertainty. You do not want to die. That is a fact. So, is there the understanding of fear in relation to death?
Is it possible to 'die' while living? If I am not accumulating, if I am not living in the future, in tomorrow, if I am content in the rich worship of one moment, there is no continuity. Continuity implies time: I was, I am, and I shall be. As long as I am sure that I shall be, I am not afraid; but the "shall be" is very uncertain, and so I seek immortality, a confirmation that I shall continue.
In continuity is there a transformation? Can anything that continues in time be in a state of complete revolution? Can a continuity have newness? And is it not important inwardly to die each day, not theoretically, but actually not to accumulate, not to let any experience take root, not to think of tomorrow psychologically?
As long as we think in terms of time, there must be fear of death. I have learned, but I have not found the ultimate, and before I die I must find it; or if I do not find it before I die, at least I hope I shall find it in the next life, and so on. All our thinking is based on time. Our thinking is the known, it is the outcome of the known, and the known is the process of time; and with that mind we are trying to find out what it is to be immortal, beyond time, which is a vain pursuit, it has no meaning except to philosophers, theorists and speculators. If I want to find the truth, not tomorrow, but actually, directly, must not I - the "me", the self that is always gathering, striving and giving itself a continuity through memory - cease to continue? Is it not possible to die while living - not artificially to lose one's memory, which is amnesia, but actually to cease to accumulate through memory, and thereby cease to give continuance to the "me"? Living in this world, which is of time, is it not possible for the mind to bring about a state in which the experiencer and the experience have no basis? As long as there is the experiencer, the observer, the thinker, there must be the fear of ending, and therefore of death. As long as I am seeking further experience, giving strength to my own continuity through the family, through property, through the nation, through ideas, through any form of identification, there must be the fear of coming to an end.
And so, if it is possible for the mind to know all this, to be fully aware of it and not merely say, "Yes, it is simple; if the mind can be aware of the total process of (self-) consciousness, see the whole significance of continuity and of time, and the futility of this search through time to find that which is beyond time - if it can be aware of all that, then there may be a death which is really a creativity totally beyond time.
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 26 Dec 2016||#342|
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline||
I have little to write down those days, but I keep an eye on some subjects here.
here the word mind is clearly used, for me , to mention the thinking process, the analytical process..based on memory,desires,necessity of practical daily life and the future, my future, there is no room as k says for the present ,apart in mechanical duties of physical life..
Well, am I in the position to put such question if my life is not a mess somehow, ...I can posses the earth or having nothing is not what matters here. I mean the perception that something is wrong must be there..whether it is a valid question or not does not matter right now....something is wrong and I do not know what it is!! is a starting point..
k suggests leave that as a question..
In today's language, when thought does not dictate...something takes place which is not of thought..as we know it day after day...any answer seems to be there by itself, always unexpected, always out of the blue, it is instant,swift,deep,etc accompanied by a touch of strange always unusual sort of "goodness" with it..."not demanding" seem the key words to me..
For myself I have mainly if not only ? known that when my own sorrow and more than that was all what was there for me...this freezes thought...because it is more powerful than thought because it is the real state of thought...which for once is not escaped, an escape which never takes place as it is impossible apart from killing oneself, yet then life is gone too .
This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Mon, 26 Dec 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 26 Dec 2016||#343|
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline||
Hello John, well I have read from K himself, somewhere I am unable to locate where right now but if I find it I will bring it here, that in his early years up to above 20+++ ish, he said that he was constantly aware of this permanent discontentment in himself ,whatever he was up to was bringing discontentment...
for me even a very light discontentment, usually not even perceived as such by most so used we are to accept all that, is sorrowful and painful I have to say,because it is this absence of "strange goodness(bliss)" which is in fact sorrowful, revealing so the nature of thought as it is.. !! ..I guess that most people may think that I only speak of a very heavy pain, but not at all...I speak a lot from the birth of what will become pain as we do not listen so it must increase, a feeling which is not nice but which looks like just an innocent moment where I just do not feel good and would be of no importance..
So like anyone he had that as it is thought's nature for me to produce it.....in order to create the conditions to enquire somehow to be found by oneself into all that...
it is not coincidence, luck, chance etc for me...like it is the same for physical pain...as I find a link between both..
Then it seems that he had a sort of quasi permanent "connection" with , let us say the universe whatever is its nature...yes a remarkable exception indeed...or may be we are in fact the exceptions....and that k just lived what was intended..
nevertheless as you say: So we have to follow our own thread of Truth in our own life..
it is really a kind of: "help yourself then the " Universe" will help you...."
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 26 Dec 2016||#344|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
SO SPOKE KRISHNAMURTI IN 1955 (In Ojai)
K: (...) I hope that you are not being 'mesmerized' (and subliminally influenced ?) by me. What I am saying has meaning, I am not saying it casually. You listen with silence. If that silence is merely the result of being overpowered by another personality, or by ideas, then it is utterly valueless. But if your silence is the natural outcome of your attention in observing your own thoughts, your own mind, then you are not being mesmerized, you are not being hypnotized. Then you do not create a new collective, a new following, a new leader - which is a horror, it has no meaning and is most destructive. If you are really alert, inwardly observant, you will find that these talks will have been worthwhile, because they will have revealed the functioning of your own mind. Then you have nothing to 'learn from another', therefore there is no teacher, no disciple, no following.
Question: Many people who have been through the shattering experience of war seem unable to find their place in the modern world. Tossed about by the waves of this chaotic society, they drift from one occupation to another and lead a miserable life. I am such a person. What am I to do?
Krishnamurti: This culture is based on envy, turmoil, its 'religions' destroy the religious mind. Then what is an individual to do? Having been shattered by war, either you become a neurotic, or you go to somebody who will help you to be non-neurotic and fit into the social pattern, thereby continuing a society that breeds insanity, wars and corruption. Or else - which is really very difficult - you observe this whole structure of society and are free of it. Being free of ( the mentality of this ?) society implies not being ambitious, not being covetous, not being competitive; it implies being nothing in relation to that society which is striving to be something. But you see, it is very difficult to accept that, because you may be trodden on, you may be pushed aside; you will have nothing. In that 'no-thingness' there is sanity, not in the other. The moment you see that, the moment you are 'as nothing', then life looks after you. It does. Something happens. But that requires immense insight into the whole structure of society. As long as one wants to be part of this society, one must breed insanity, wars, destruction and misery; but to free oneself from this society, the society of violence, of wealth, of position, of success, requires patience, inquiry, self-discovery, not the reading of books, the chasing after teachers, psychologists, and all the rest of it.
Question: I am puzzled by the phrase you used in last week's talk, 'a completely controlled mind'. Does not a controlled mind involve will or an entity who controls?
Krishnamurti: I did use that expression, 'a controlled mind', and I thought I had explained what I meant by it. I see it has not been understood, so I shall explain again. Isn't it necessary to have a very steady mind a mind that has no distractions? Please follow this. A mind that has no distractions is a mind for which there is no central ( self) interest. If there is a central interest, then there are distractions. But a mind that is completely attentive, not towards a particular object, is a steady mind.
Now, let us examine briefly this whole question of control. When there is control there is an entity who controls, who dominates, who sublimates or finds a substitute. So in control there is always a dual process going on: the one who controls, and the thing that is controlled. In other words, there is conflict. Can the entity who evaluates totally disappear, and only the fact remain? Can the mind look at the fact without evaluation, that is, without opinion? When there is an opinion about a fact, then there is confusion, conflict.
So, confusion is a waste of energy and the mind must be confused as long as it approaches the fact with a conclusion, with an idea, with an opinion, with a judgment, with condemnation. But when the mind sees the fact as true without opinion, then there is only the perception of the fact, and out of that comes an extraordinary steadiness and subtlety of mind, because there is then no deviation, no escape, no judgment, no conflict in which the mind wastes itself. So there is only thinking, not a thinker; but the experiencing of that is very difficult.
Look what happens. You see a lovely sunset. At the precise moment of seeing it, there is no experiencer, is there? There is only the sense of great beauty. Then the mind says, 'How beautiful that was, I would like to have more of it', so the conflict begins of the experiencer wanting more. Now, can the mind be in a state of experiencing without the experiencer? The experiencer is memory, the collective. Oh, do you see it? And can I look at the sunset without comparing, without saying, 'How beautiful that is. I wish I could have more of it'? The 'more' is the creation of time, in which there is the fear of ending, the fear of death.
Question: Is there a duality between the mind and the self ? If there is not, how is one to free the mind from the self?
Krishnamurti: Is there a duality between the'me', the self, the ego, and the mind? Surely not. The mind is the self, the ego. The ego, the self, is this urge of envy, of brutality, of violence, this lack of love, this everlasting seeking of prestige, position, power, trying to be something - which is what the mind is also doing, is it not? The mind is thinking all the time how to advance itself, how to have more security, how to have a better position, more comfort, greater wealth, increased power, all of which is the self. So the mind is the self; the self is not a separate thing, though we like to think it is, because then the mind can control the self, it can play this game of back and forth, subjugating, trying to do something about the self - which is the immature play of an educated mind, educated in the wrong sense of that word.
Look. I and my mind are the same, there is no division between myself and my mind. The self that is envious, ambitious, is exactly the same as the mind that says, 'I must not be envious, I must be noble', only the mind has divided itself. Now, when I see that, what am I to do? If the mind is the product of environment, of envy, greed, conditioning, then what is it to do? Surely, any movement it makes to free itself is still part of that conditioning. All right? Do you understand? Any movement on the part of the mind to free itself from conditioning is an action of the self which wants to be free in order to be more happy, more at peace, nearer the right hand of God. So I see the whole of this, the ways and trickeries of the mind. Therefore the mind is quiet, it is completely still, there is no movement; and it is in that silence, in that stillness, that there is freedom from the self, from the mind itself. Surely, the 'self' (consciousness ) exists only in the movement of the mind to gain something or to avoid something. If there is no movement of gaining or avoiding, the mind is completely quiet. Then only is there a possibility of being free from the totality of ( self-centred) consciousness as the 'collective' and as ( the individual) opposed to the collective.
Question: having seriously experimented with your teachings for a number of years, I have become fully aware of the parasitic nature of self-consciousness and see its tentacles touching my every thought, word and deed. As a result, I have lost all self-confidence as well as all motivation. Work has become drudgery and leisure drabness. I am in almost constant psychological pain, yet I see even this pain as a device of the self. I have reached an impasse in every department of my life, and I ask you as I have been asking myself: What now?
Krishnamurti: Are you experimenting with my teachings, or are you experimenting with yourself? I hope you see the difference. If you are experimenting with what I am saying, then you must come to, 'What now?', because then you are trying to achieve a result which you think I have. You think I have something which you do not have, and that if you experiment with what I am saying, you also will get it - which is what most of us do. We approach these things with a commercial mentality: I will do this in order to get that. I will worship, meditate, sacrifice in order to get something.
Now, you are not practising my teachings. All that I am saying is, observe your own mind, see to what depths the mind can go; therefore you are important, not the teachings. It is important for you to find out your own ways of thinking and what that thinking implies, as I have been trying to point out this morning. And if you are really observing your own thinking, if you are watching, experimenting, discovering, letting go, dying each day to everything that you have gathered, then you will never put that question, `What now?'
You see, the confidence that comes into being when you are discovering from moment to moment is entirely different from the self-confidence arising from the accumulation of ( wealth and ?) discoveries which becomes knowledge and gives you importance. Do you see the difference? Therefore the problem of self-confidence completely disappears. There is only the constant movement of discovery, the constant reading and understanding, not of a book, but of your own mind, the whole, vast structure of consciousness. Then you are not seeking a result at all. It is only when you are seeking a result that you say, `I have done all these things but I have got nothing, and I have lost confidence. What now?' Whereas, if you are examining, understanding the ways of your own mind without seeking a reward, an end, without the motivation of gain, then there is self-knowledge, and you will see an astonishing thing come out of it.
Question: How can one prevent ( "choiceless ?) awareness" from becoming a new technique, the latest fashion in meditation?
Krishnamurti: As this is a very serious question I am going into it rather deeply, and I hope you can follow with relaxed alertness the workings of your own mind.
It is enormously important to meditate. But if you do not know what meditation is, it is like having a flower without scent. Meditation is the perfume of life, it has immense beauty. It opens doors that the mind can never open, it goes to depths that the merely cultured mind can never touch. So meditation is very important. Now, if we can brush aside, the swamis, the yogis, the interpreters, the 'breathers', the 'sitting-stillers', and all the rest of it, then we must inevitably come to this question: What is meditation?
Do you know what meditation is? Obviously you don't (really ?) , do you? You don't know. And that is the basis on which to meditate. Do you understand the beauty of that? It means that my mind is stripped of all technique, of all information about meditation, of everything others have said about it. My mind does not know. We can proceed with finding out what is meditation only when you can honestly say that you do not know; and you cannot say, 'I do not know' if there is in your mind the glimmer of secondhand information, of what the Gita. or the Bible or Saint Francis has said about contemplation, or the results of prayer. You must put all that aside, because if you copy, if you follow, you revert to the ( inwardly inert ?) 'collective' (consciousness ?).
So, can the mind be in a state in which it says, 'I do not know'? That state is the beginning and the end of meditation, because in that state every experience, every experience is understood and not accumulated. Do you understand? When you say, 'I do not know', then there is no ( self-centred ?) movement of thought, is there? There is a movement of thought only when 'you' begin to inquire, to find out, and that (self-centred ?) inquiry is from the known to the known.
Meditation is a process of purgation of the mind. There can be purgation of the mind only when there is no 'controller'; in controlling, the controller dissipates energy. Dissipation of energy arises from the friction between the controller and the object he wishes to control. Now, when you say, 'I do not know', there is no movement of thought in any direction to find an answer; the mind is completely still. And for the mind to be still, there must be extraordinary energy. The mind cannot be still without the energy that is complete attention. Any movement of ( the self-centred ?) thought in any direction is a dissipation of energy, and for the mind to be completely still there must be the energy of complete attention. Only then is there the coming into being of 'that' state which is Creativity (Creation ?) , that is the Timeless, the Real.
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 28 Dec 2016||#345|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
SO SPOKE KRISHNAMURTI IN 1956 (IN NEW DELHI)
K:(...) I don't think we see sufficiently clearly the truth that an occupied mind is a petty mind. Whether the mind is occupied with self-improvement, with God, with drink, with sexual passion or the desire for power, it is all essentially the same, though sociologically these various occupations may have a difference. Occupation is occupation, and the mind that is occupied is petty because it is concerned with itself. If you see, if you actually experience the truth of that fact, surely your mind is no longer concerned with itself, with its own improvement; so there is a possibility for the mind that has been enclosed to remove its enclosure.
Just as an experiment, observe for yourself that a mind which is occupied starts with an assumption, it approaches life with an idea, a conclusion. And a challenge is always new, is it not? If the mind is incapable of responding adequately to challenge, there is a deterioration, a going back; and the mind cannot respond adequately if it is consciously or unconsciously occupied, occupation being based on some ideology or conclusion. If you realize the truth of this, you will find that the mind is no longer petty, because it is in a state of inquiry, and a mind that is truly inquiring is not accumulating. It is the accumulating mind that is petty, whether it is accumulating knowledge, or money, power, position. When you see the truth of that totally, there is real transformation of the mind, and it is such a mind that is capable of dealing with the many problems.
I am going to answer some questions, and as I have pointed out, the answer is not (primarily ?) important. What is important is the ( unfolding of ?) problem, and if the mind can give undivided attention to the problem. All solutions are based on desire, and the problems exists because of desire - desire for a hundred things. Without understanding the whole process of desire, merely to respond to the problem through one particular activity of desire, hoping it will produce the right answer, will not bring about the dissolution of the problem.
Question: I entirely agree with you that it is necessary to uncondition one's mind. But how can a conditioned mind uncondition itself?
Krishnamurti: How can a mind which is ( culturally ?) conditioned, uncondition itself? Your mind is conditioned, that is obvious, not partially, but all the way through. Don't say the Atman is unconditioned. When you think of the Atman, your thought is conditioning the Atman.
So, the question is this: I know that my mind is conditioned; and how am I to free my mind from conditioning when ( even) the entity that tries to free it is also conditioned? This is a very difficult issue to discuss with such a large group, and unless you pay real attention you will not find the answer. I am not going to give you the answer, so you have to observe your own minds very intently.
All thinking is obviously based on memory, conscious or unconscious, and when the thinker says, "I must free myself from conditioning", that very thinker, being the result of thought, is conditioned; and when you realize this, there is the cessation of all effort to change the conditioning. The mind that fully realizes this is in an unconditioned state, because it has seen the totality of conditioning, the truth or the falseness of it. Sirs, it is like seeing something true. The very perception of what is true is the liberating factor. But to see what is true demands total attention - not a forced attention, not the calculated, profitable attention of fear or gain. When you see the truth that whatever the conditioned mind does to free itself, it is still conditioned, there is the cessation of all such effort, and it is this perception of what is true that is the liberating factor.
Question: How can I experience God, which will give a meaning to my weary life? Without that experience, what is the purpose of living?
Krishnamurti: (...) So you can find out with clarity, with truth, with real experience whether there is God or not, only when the mind is totally free from the known. Surely, that something which may be called God or Truth must be something totally new, unrecognizable, and a mind that approaches it through knowledge, through experience, through ideas and accumulated virtues, is trying to capture the unknown while living in the field of the known, which is an impossibility. All that the mind can do is to inquire whether it is possible to free itself from the known. To be free from the known is to be completely free from all the impressions of the past, from the whole weight of tradition. The ( self-centred) mind itself is the product of the known, it is put together by time as the 'me' and the 'not-me', which is the conflict of duality. If the 'known' totally ceases, consciously as well as unconsciously - and I say that there is a possibility of its ceasing - , then you will never ask if there is God , because such a mind is immeasurable in itself; like love, it is its own eternity.
Question: I have practised meditation most earnestly for twenty-five years, and I am still unable to go beyond a certain point. How am I to proceed further?
Krishnamurti: Before we inquire into how to proceed further, must we not find out what meditation is? When I ask, "How am I to meditate?", am I not putting a wrong question? Such a question implies that I want to get somewhere, and I am willing to practise. a method in order to get what I want. It is like taking an examination in order to get a job. Surely, the right question is to ask what meditation is; because right meditation gives perfume, depth, significance to life, and without it life has very little meaning. Do you understand, sirs? To know what is right meditation is much more important than earning a livelihood, getting married, having money, property, because without understanding, these things are all destroyed (by time) . So the understanding of the heart is the beginning of meditation.
So, what is meditation? Is not this very inquiry the beginning of meditation? Do you understand, sirs? No? I will go on and you will see. Is meditation a process of concentration, forcing the mind to conform to a particular pattern? That is what most of you do who 'meditate'. You try to force your mind to focus on a certain idea, but other ideas creep in; you brush them away, but they creep in again. You go on playing this game for the next twenty years; and if at last you can manage to concentrate your mind on a chosen idea, you think you have learned how to meditate. But is that meditation? Let us see what is involved in concentration.
When a child is concentrating on a toy, what is happening? The attention of the child is being absorbed by the toy. He is not giving his attention to the toy, but the toy is very interesting and it absorbs his attention. That is exactly what is happening to you when you concentrate on the idea of the Master, on a picture, or when you repeat mantrams, and all the rest of it. The toy is absorbing you, and you are merely a plaything of the toy. You thought you were the master of the toy, but the toy is the master.
Concentration also implies exclusiveness. You exclude in order to arrive at a particular result, like a boy trying to pass an examination. The boy wants a profitable result, so he forces himself to concentrate, he makes tremendous effort to get what he wants, which is based on his desire, on his conditioning. And does not this process of forcing the mind to concentrate, which involves suppression, exclusiveness, make the mind narrow? A mind that is made narrow, one-pointed, has extraordinary possibilities in the sense that it may achieve a great deal; but life is not one-pointed, it is an enormous thing to be comprehended, to be loved. It is not petty. Sirs, this is not rhetoric, this is not mere verbiage. When one feels something real, the expression of it may sound rhetorical, but it is not.
So, to concentrate is not to meditate, even though that is what most of you do, calling it meditation. And if concentration is not meditation, then what is? Surely, meditation is to understand every thought that comes into being, and not to dwell upon one particular thought; it is to invite all thoughts so that you understand the whole process of thinking. But what do you do now? You try to think of just one good thought, one good image, you repeat one good sentence which you have learnt from the Gita, the Bible, or what you will; therefore your mind becomes very narrow, limited, petty. Whereas, to be aware of every thought as it arises, and to understand the whole process of thinking, does not demand concentration. On the contrary. To understand the total process of thinking, the mind must be astonishingly alert, and then you will see that what you call thinking is based on a mind that is conditioned. So your inquiry is not how to control thought, but how to free the mind from conditioning. The effort to control thought is part of the process of concentration in which the concentrator tries to make his mind silent, peaceful, is it not? "To have peace of mind" - that is a phrase which all of us use.
Now, what is peace of mind? How can the mind be quiet, have peace? Surely, not through discipline. The mind cannot be made still. A mind that is made still is a dead mind. To discover what it is to be still, one must inquire into the whole content of the mind - which means, really, finding out why the mind is seeking. Is the motive of search the desire for comfort, for permanency, for reward? If so, then such a mind may be still, but it will not find peace, because its stillness is forced, it is based on compulsion, fear, and such a mind is not a peaceful mind. We are still inquiring into the whole process of meditation.
People who 'meditate' and have visions of Christ, Krishna, Buddha, the Virgin, or whoever it be, think they are advancing, making marvellous progress; but after all, the vision is the projection of their own background. What they want to see, they see, and that is obviously not meditation. On the contrary, meditation is to free the mind from all conditioning, and this is not a process that comes into being at a particular moment of the day when you are sitting cross-legged in a room by yourself. It must go on when you are walking when you are frightened, when you are getting into the bus; it means watching the manner of your speech when you are talking to your wife, to your boss, to your servant. All that is meditation.
So meditation is the understanding of the 'meditator'. Without understanding the one who meditates, which is yourself, inquiry into how to meditate has very little value. The beginning of meditation is self-knowledge, and the mind which understands itself is a meditative mind. Self-knowledge is the beginning of meditation, and as you proceed deeply into it you will find that the mind becomes astonishingly quiet, unforced, completely still, without motion - which means there is no experiencer demanding experience. When there is only that state of stillness without any movement of the mind, then you will find that in that state something else takes place. But you cannot possibly find out intellectually what that state is; you cannot come to it through the description of another, including myself. All that you can do is to free the mind from its conditioning, from the traditions, the greed, and all the petty things with which it is now burdened. Then you will see that, without your seeking it, the mind is astonishingly quiet; and for such a mind, That which is immeasurable comes into being. You cannot go to the immeasurable, you cannot search it out, you cannot delve into the depths of it. You can delve only into the recesses of your own heart and mind. You cannot invite truth, it must come to you; therefore don't seek it. Understand your own life and then truth will come darkly, without any invitation; and then you will discover that there is immense beauty, a sensitivity to both the ugly and the beautiful.
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 29 Dec 2016||#346|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
SO SPOKE KRISHNAMURTI IN 1957 (IN BOMBAY)
K (...) There is a religious revolution which takes place in the individual when there is no becoming of any kind, that is, when I inwardly see the fact of what I am without any form of distortion: the fact that I am envious, acquisitive, Utterly lacking in humility. If I am aware of the fact of what I am and do not approach it with an opinion, with a judgment, with an evaluation - because opinion, judgment and evaluation are based on the intention of transforming the fact, which is the desire to become something - then that fact itself brings about a transformation in which there is no becoming at all. To be aware of the fact that one is envious without condemning it, is extraordinarily difficult, because the very word `envy' has a condemnatory significance. But if you can free the mind from that condemnatory evaluation, if you can be aware of the feeling without identifying the feeling with the word, then you will find that there is no longer the urge to change it into something else. A feeling without verbalization, without evaluation, has no quality of becoming. And you will also find that when there is a feeling without verbalization, there is no desire for its fulfilment. There is a desire for the fulfilment of a feeling only when there is identification of that feeling with a word, with an evaluation.
It is becoming that gives soil to the root of sorrow; and if you go into it very deeply, really think it out so that the mind frees itself from the whole process of becoming, then you will find that you have eliminated sorrow altogether. It is only such a mind that is concerned with the primary, which is reality, and because it is concerned with the primary, its action on the secondary will have its own significance.
Merely to be concerned with the secondary (issues) will never lead to the primary. It is like putting a room in order, cleaning and decorating the room, all of which is essential; but it has no meaning without that which comes into the room. Similarly, virtue is essential. A mind that is virtuous, austere, has put itself in order; and the mind must have order, it must have clarity. But order, clarity, humility, austerity, have no significance in themselves; they have significance only because the mind that has them is: capable of proceeding without the experiencer who is gathering further experience, and therefore there is no becoming but only being. That is, the mind is completely empty of all ideas based on the experiencer, on the thinker, on the observer who is always becoming. It is only in emptying the mind of this whole process of becoming that there is being, which has its own movement unrelated to becoming; and a man who, while becoming, seeks that state of being, will never find it. The man who is pursuing ambition, fulfilment, who desires to become something, will never find reality, God. He may read all the sacred books, do puja every day, go to all the temples in the world, but sorrow will be his shadow.
So it seems to me very important to understand in oneself this process of becoming - and such understanding is essentially self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is the understanding of ( self-) becoming, which is the 'me; and when, through self-knowledge, becoming ceases, there is within him a religious revolution. This is the only revolution that can bring about a different world in every way - economically, politically, and in our ,social relationships.
There are three written questions this evening, and I am not going to 'answer' these questions, because life has no answers. Life must be lived, and a man who merely sits on the bank wanting to swim, who only asks a question in order to receive an answer, is not living. But if you are living, you will find the answer at every step, and that is why it is very important to understand the problem itself and not seek an answer, a solution to the problem.
Question: Reality has been defined as SATYAM, SHIVAM, SUNDARAM, or Truth, Goodness and Beauty. All religious teachers have stressed Truth and Goodness. What place has Beauty in the experiencing of Reality?
Krishnamurti: Is there a difference, between goodness, truth and beauty? Are they three different things, or really one thing which can be called by these three different names? To understand truth, goodness, or beauty, we have tried to suppress desire, to discipline, control, or find a substitute for desire. Finding that desire is tremendously active, volcanic in its operation, and that it brings extraordinary sorrow, pain and joy, we say we must be free of desire. That is what all religions have maintained, that we must be free of desire in order to find truth, beauty, goodness; so for centuries we have proceeded to suppress desire, and in the very suppression of desire we have lost sensitivity to goodness, to truth, to beauty.
What is beauty? How am I to find out 'experientially ?) what (the inner ?) beauty is, not verbally or theoretically, but actually to experience the feeling of that extraordinary thing called beauty?
But when I am fully attentive, in that full attention is there a reaction? And is there attention when there is an object of attention? As I have said, attention with an object is no attention at all, because the object absorbs you. But if I am fully attentive, with the totality of my being, then in that state is there a reaction? In that state is there what is called the beautiful and the ugly?
Now, I am asking myself , is there a state in which the mind is fully aware of and understands its own reaction to beauty as well as to ugliness, and does not call it beautiful or ugly because it is giving that complete attention in which there is the totality of experience? And in that state of total attention, is there an entity who says, "I have experienced beauty" or "I have experienced ugliness", or is there only a feeling, an experiencing which is not a reaction, not the result of a cause? So, can the mind - without losing its sensitivity to the ugliness and to the beauty created by man in a building or in a statue - experience that totality of attention in which it does not create the beautiful and the ugly?
Sirs, as I said, this is a very complex question, and to understand really, not merely verbally, what is beauty, or goodness, or truth, the mind must be empty of the word and its reaction to that word. Then you will find that there is a totality of experience, and not an experiencer who is experiencing the totality. In that state there is a creativeness which has nothing to do with the creations of a contradictory mind which must find a release through building, through architecture, through the writing of poems, essays, and so on.
Question: To you, 'love' is the solvent of all human problems. I have no love, and yet I have to live. But (since you are saying that ) love can never be cultivated. Does this mean that my problems can never be solved?
Krishnamurti: Most of us would want a definition of love, or we seek that state of love which we call universal, cosmic, godly, and all the rest of it, without understanding our daily existence. But don't we know in our daily living any kind of friendliness, kindliness, gentleness? Are we never generous, compassionate? Have we never the feeling of being good to another without motive, have we never a sense of great humility? Are not these the expressions of love? And when you love another, is there not a total feeling in which the 'I' is non-existent?
Yes, you will all nod your heads and agree with me, but you are going to pursue your ancient ways; and the tragedy is, not that you have no (moments of ?) love, but that you have no understanding of the ways of your own life, you do not see the significance of the way you are actually living. If you understood that, really felt it, then you would be generous. Surely, the generosity of the hand and of the heart is the beginning of friendliness; and where there is friendliness, there is no need for justice by law. Where there is friendliness there is goodness, a compassion without motive. You have been friendly occasionally, when you were not thinking about yourself, when you were not so concerned about your own problems. And when you go beyond all that, there comes something entirely different - a state in which the mind is compassionate and yet 'indifferent'. I am talking of an indifference which is the outcome of compassion; the mind is compassionate and yet indifferent. Have you ever felt that way? When you see someone in pain you help him, and yet you are 'indifferent' (non-personal ?) in the very process of helping.
So, if you observe the functioning of your own mind, you will find that all these things (do already ) exist in your daily life. You know moments of compassion, moments of love, of generosity, but they are very rare. While our calculated actions are based on this process of becoming something important, and only the mind that is free from becoming can know that love which is the solvent of our many problems.
Question: If, as you say, God or Reality is beyond the mind, then has God any relationship to my everyday life?
Krishnamurti: Sir, what is our everyday life actually? It is confused, miserable, ambitious, envious, stupid, is it not? We quote a lot of books containing the experiences of others about which we know nothing, we repeat what we have been taught, we struggle, suffer, and occasionally there is a movement of joy which is gone before we can feel the depth of it. That is our life: a vain process of lying, cheating, trying to become something important, struggling to dominate, to suppress. And do you think such a life has anything to do with ( the ultimate) Reality, with Goodness, with Beauty, with God, with something which is not man-made? Yet, knowing what our daily life is, we want to bring that (holy ?) Reality into it, so we go to temples, we read the sacred books, we talk about God, we say that we are seeking salvation, and so on. We want to bring that Immensity, That which is measureless, into the measurable. And is such a thing possible?
Do you see how the ( self-centred ?) mind deceives itself? Can you bring the Unknown, that which cannot be experienced, into the conditioned, into the realm of the known? Obviously not. So don't try it. Don't try to find God, truth, for it has no meaning. All you can do is to observe the operation of your own mind, which is the area of conflict, misery, suffering, ambition, fulfilment, frustration. That you can understand, and its narrow borders can be broken down.
So, a man who is aware of all this is not ( primarily ?) concerned with Reality, with the Immeasurable, the Unknowable; he is concerned with the ending of envy, with the ending of sorrow, with the ending of this whole process of ( self-) becoming. That you can do - you can do it every day by being alert to your envy, watchful of the way you talk, the way you show respect which is no respect, the way you acquire, accumulate. Through ( an insightful ?) self-knowledge the mind can liberate itself from its limitations, its conditioning, and this liberating of itself from conditioning is meditation.
Do not try to meditate on ( the Ultimate ) Reality, because you cannot; that is an impossibility. Meditation on God has no meaning. How can a mind which is conditioned, small, petty, envious, meditate on something Unknowable? All the mind can do is to free itself from the known - the "known" of your ambitions, your identifications, your greeds. Freeing the mind from the memory of all this, is meditation. And when the mind is free, then you will find that there comes an extraordinary quietness, a stillness in which there is no 'experiencer' who is always measuring, remembering, calculating, desiring. Then the mind is ( becoming ?) aware of something totally different, a state which is in itself a blessing, which has within itself a movement that has no centre and therefore no beginning and no ending. A mind that is capable of this total attention without the entity who is experiencing what is taking place, will find there is a Reality, a Goodness, a Beauty which is not a (sensory or intellectual ) reaction, which is without a cause, and is therefore something in itself. But the realization of that Immensity cannot come about unless the mind is totally empty of the known.
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 31 Dec 2016||#347|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
SO SPOKE KRISHNAMURTI IN 1958 (In Madras)
(...) I hope you are listening rather than just 'hearing' because I want to go into something rather difficult: as I was saying, the 'negative' thinking is the highest form of thinking. We usually think only positively. That is, we think from a conclusion to an (upgraded ?) conclusion, from a pattern to a pattern, from a system to a system. ( But psychologically-wise ?) that way of thinking only leads to further limitation of the mind, to narrowness of the mind, to pettiness of action; it always strengthens the self-centred activity. Negative thinking is something entirely different - if I can understand the (iinward) limitations of positive thinking, which invariably leads to self-centred activity, then there is (an opportunity for ?) a new awakening in negative thinking. This 'negative thinking' is not thinking in terms of ( previously known ?) patterns and has no causation.
We will approach it differently: the negative way of thinking is the maintenance, the sustenance of the (holistic ?) quality that is discontent - discontent in itself, not with something. A radical (inner) transformation is only in the negative thinking, as we saw in relation to attachment and to discontent. The 'positive' thinking leads (inwardly) only to a dull mind, an insensitive mind, a mind that is not capable of reception, a mind that thinks only in terms of its own security - either the security of the individual or of the family, group or race.
Nobody thinks of this whole world as "ours", nobody says, 'let us do something together about it'. Instead, we have this fragmentary way of thinking which we call 'positive'. If I can see that, then there is a different approach, a different feeling of the mind : there is the love of the earth - not your earth and my earth, you cultivating your little field and I cultivating mine, and quarrelling over it, but it is our earth.
Now when we see that (ultimately) this positive way of thinking is destructive, then the 'negative way' comes into being. To think negatively there must be ( a total) sensitivity, sensitivity both to the beautiful and to the ugly. The appreciation of the beauty of a tree, a leaf, the reflection on still waters, is not sensitivity if you are not also aware of the squalor, the dirt, the way you eat, the way you talk, the way you think, the way of your behaviour.
You must have watched your mind how vagrant it is, how it wanders all over the place, one thought pursuing another. When you try to examine one thought, another comes in. So the mind is full of this (mental) movement, the agitation of thought. The mind is always occupied with thought. Thought is the instrument of the mind; so the mind is never still. So, realizing the incessant activity of the thought-producing mechanism, through memory, through association, being aware of that, cannot the mind empty itself of this mechanism? If you see the positive, destructive way, of your mind's activity of producing thought and being controlled by it and then trying to empty the mind - if you can see the falseness of it, then you will also see that the mind can empty itself of 'itself', of its limitations, of its ego-centricity, of its self-centred activities. t You can see if you go a little further that the mind can be emptied of thought, can free itself from the past, not be burdened by the past. It does not mean that memories are not there but they do not shape or control the mind. Now all that is still positive thinking. If you see the falseness of it, the mind will invariably go further, which is, the mind then is not the slave of thought but it can think what it wants.
I do not know if you have ever tried to think without being a slave to thought. With most of us the mind is a slave to thought, it pursues thought, contradictory thought and all the rest of it. If you perceive that and empty the mind, it can then think, freed from thoughts associated with memory; and if you go further into it, you will see that the mind which is free in itself - and then that mind, emptied of memory, can think in a 'negative' way and can perceive that there is action in this world, not from fullness but from emptiness.
You see, we are acting now with (knowledge saturated ?) minds, minds that are incessantly active, in contradiction, struggling, adjusting, ambitious, envious, jealous, brutal or gentle and so on. The mind, being full, acts. That way of action can never produce a new mind, a new quality of mind, a fresh mind, an innocent mind - and it is only such an innocent, fresh mind that can create, that is in a state of creation. If the mind can empty itself (of the known ?) , then the action that is born out of emptiness is the true positive action, not the other. That is the only true, positive, creative action, because it is born out of emptiness. If you have done any painting, written a poem, a song, you will find the deep feeling comes out of nothingness. But a mind that is crowded can never feel that nothingness and can therefore never be sensitive.
One sees that there can be a radical change in the quality of the mind, which is absolutely necessary now because the present society is a (creatively ?) dead society, reforming itself through various forms of anaesthesia and pumping activity into itself. If you as an individual are to change fundamentally, radically, deeply - and therefore change society - then this whole thing that I have described must take place. Then beauty has quite a different significance, as has ugliness, because beauty is not the opposite of the ugly. An 'ugly' face can be beautiful. But such beauty is not conceived by the mind that has avoided ugliness.
Now, if you have really listened and do not try to do anything about it - because whatever you do will be so-called positive and therefore destructive - then it is enough. It is to see something lovely and leave it alone, not try to capture it, not take it home and smother it by thought. If you have seen for yourself the extraordinary quality of the mind that is empty, then from that emptiness there is a new birth.
It is this 'new birth' (re-birth ?) which is needed, and the mind that is really creative is the empty mind, not the blank mind or the mind that merely wishes to be creative. It is only the empty mind that can understand this whole thing - the extraordinary process of thought and thought emptying itself of its own impetus (momentum of the past ? ). Then you will see that there is a radical, deep change which is not brought about by circumstances, culture or society. It is that mind which will ( eventually ?) create a new ( truly humane ?) society. And recognizing that no tradition, no knowledge is 'permanent', we can see that the mind which is empty is in a state of creation.
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 01 Jan 2017||#348|
|pavani rao India 3 posts in this forum Offline||
It's indeed with so much gratitude I'm writing this post to convey my deeply felt appreciation for the work you had undertaken in bringing all this marvelous K 's early texts and presenting them in here . Well yes all k material is available on line but to be able to go through any content any time without exerting is indeed a great luxury and convenience :) and especially these early texts are priceless in their clarity and simplicity .
Wishing you a very happy, meaningful and fruitful new year .
This post was last updated by pavani rao Sun, 01 Jan 2017.
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 20 Jan 2017||#349|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
A meditation on ...Meditation ( from The Only Revolution)
To meditate is to transcend time. Time is the (mental ?) 'distance' that thought travels in its achievements. This 'travelling' is always along the old path covered over with a new coating, new sights, but always the same road, leading nowhere except to pain and sorrow.
The emptying of the mind of this 'time'(of self-becoming ?) is the silence of truth, and the seeing of this is the doing; so there is no division between the seeing and the doing. In the interval between seeing and doing is born conflict, misery and confusion. That which has no time is the everlasting.
There they were, the yellow daffodils, and nobody seemed to care. They were there for decorative purposes that had no meaning at all; and as you watched them their yellow brilliance filled the noisy room. Colour has this strange effect upon the eye. It wasn't so much that the eye absorbed the colour, as that the colour seemed to fill your being. You were that colour; you didn't become that colour - you were of it, without identification or name: the anonymity which is innocence.
Love is like that wood across the way, always renewing itself because it is always dying. There is no permanency in it, a movement which thought can never understand, touch or feel. The feeling of thought and the feeling of love are two different things; the one leads to bondage and the other to the flowering of goodness. The flowering is not within the area of any society, of any culture or of any religion, whereas the bondage belongs to all societies, religious beliefs and faith in otherness. Love is anonymous, therefore not violent. Pleasure is violent, for desire and will are the moving factors in it. Love cannot be begotten by thought, or by good works. The denial of the total process of (self-centred ?) thought becomes the beauty of action, which is love. Without this there is no bliss of truth.
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 12 Feb 2017||#350|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
Here are a few interesting pages from Mrs Pupul Jayakar's most remarkable book "Krishnamurti, a biography':
(The year is 1948 ) Although Krishnamurti was resting and in retreat, the news of his presence in Ootacamund had spread rapidly.
Both men were shy, hesitant. It took some time for them to establish contact. Jawaharlal Nehru started the conversation by saying that he had met Krishnaji many years earlier, and that he had often thought of what he had said. He had been anxious to meet Krishnamurti again. Achyut Patwardhan and other friends had spoken to Nehru at length on the profound work Krishnamurti was doing in Madras and Bombay. Nehru appeared anguished at the massacres and violence that had erupted after partition and independence. He spoke of it at length; he saw the two forces operating in India, the thrust for good and evil. These forces were in conflict; if the good could not contain the spread of evil, the world would perish. Krishnamurti said good and evil were always present; while it was more difficult for the good and the compassionate to function, evil was waiting for a crack in which it could gain a foothold. It needed a great awakeness and awareness to ensure that evil could not enter and gain strength. To be awake and aware, said K, was what would sustain man.
“Tell me, sir,” he asked Krishnaji, “I wish to be clear of this confusion within me. Tell me what is right action and what is right thought.” To us who listened it was the perennial question of the awake Indian mind.
There was silence for over three minutes. We were discovering that the silences that surrounded Krishnaji in dialogue formed part of communication; a silence of the mind in which distances between the minds diminished so that there was direct mind-to-mind contact and communication.
Then Krishnamurti spoke slowly, pausing at every word. “Right action is only possible when the mind is silent and there is a seeing of ‘what is.’ Action that arises from this seeing is free of motive, of the past, free of thought and cause.” He then said that it was difficult to go into this vast problem in a short time. Jawaharlal Nehru was listening deeply, his mind appeared fresh and sensitive, capable of receiving and responding. Krishnaji leaned forward, his hands eloquent. He said that with the growing chaos in India and the world, man could only start the process of regeneration with himself. He had to begin anew. For the world to be saved, a few individuals had to free themselves of the factors that were corrupting and destroying the world. They had deeply to transform themselves, to think creatively and so transform further people. It was from the ashes that the new had to rise.
“Like Phoenix from the ashes,” said Nehru.
“Yes,” replied Krishnaji, “for there to be life there must be death. The ancients understood this and that is why they worshipped life, love, and death.”
Krishnaji then spoke of the chaos of the world being a projection of individual chaos. The human mind caught in the past, in time as thought, was a dead mind. Such a mind could not operate on chaos, could only add to the
The seer and the hero politician spoke for over an hour and a half. The evening sky had darkened and the evening star had sunk behind the horizon, when we came out of the room. The prime minister saw us to the car and there was affection and grace in the parting. They promised to meet again in the winter, when Krishnaji was to be in Delhi. Later Krishnaji recorded these observations:
He was a very famous politician, realistic, intensely sincere and ardently patriotic. Neither narrow minded nor self-seeking, his ambition was not for himself, but for an idea and for the people. He was not a mere eloquent tub-thumper or vote-catcher; he had suffered for his cause and, strangely, was not bitter; he seemed more of a scholar than a politician. But politics was the breath of his life and party obeyed him, though rather nervously. He was a dreamer, but he had put all that aside for politics.
Toward the end of May certain ( very strange ?) incidents occurred which cast light on the secret mystical life of Krishnamurti.
In August 1922 in Ojai, when Krishnaji was undergoing a violent (process of spiritual ) awakening, he had two trusted friends with him. This was so on most such occasions in his life, and the emphasis on the two people is not accidental. From Krishnaji’s early years, Annie Besant had insisted that two people be with Krishnaji all the time, to protect the body. The protection of the body of the sage when it is undergoing mystical processes of mutation and transference of consciousness, was deeply rooted in Indian mystical tradition. The body at this time is immensely sensitive, vulnerable, and empty of all ego sense.
The incidents at Ooty extended over a period of three weeks, from around May 28 or 29 1948 to June 20. They took place in Krishnaji’s room at Sedgemoor. My sister Nandini and I were present. It was embarrassing for Nandini and me. Maurice Friedman had undoubtedly explained to Shanta Rao and Miss Petit something of what was happening, familiar as he was with the secret mystical traditions of the sages of this land. Anyway, there was nothing we could do.
Although I had been swept away by my meeting with K, I had a skeptical mind and observed very intently the events as they took place.
After the first evening he started going for a walk alone in the evenings and used to ask Nandini and me to come later to the house. In the beginning the experiences started at 6 P.M. and were over by 8:30 P.M., but later they sometimes went on until midnight. On days when he had to meet people (Jawaharlal Nehru, for instance), nothing happened. Toward the end the periods grew longer, and on one occasion went on all night. On no occasion did he speak of dirt or express a desire to leave the room as he had done at Ojai, though Sedgemoor was not particularly clean; nor did he speak of disturbing thoughts. On one occasion he asked Nandini to hold his hand, as otherwise he would slip away and not come back.
May 30, 1948:* Krishnamurti was getting ready to go for a walk when suddenly he said he was feeling too weak and not all there. He said, “What a pain I have.” He caught the back of his head and lay down. Within a few minutes the Krishnaji we knew was not there. For two hours we saw him go through intense pain. He said he had a pain in the back of his neck, his tooth was troubling him, his stomach was swollen and hard, and he groaned and pressed down. At times he would shout. He fainted a number of times. When he came to, the first time, he said, “Close my mouth when I faint.”
His face throughout the occurrence was worn and wracked with pain. He kept clenching his fists and tears streamed from his eyes. After two hours, he fainted again. When he came to, he said: “The pain has disappeared. Deep inside me I know what has happened. I have been soaked with gasoline. The tank is full.”
He was silent for a time, then said, “This pain makes my body like steel—but, oh, so flexible, so pliant, without a thought. It is like a polishing—an examination.” We enquired whether he couldn’t stop having the pain. He said: “You have had a child. Can you stop it coming when once it starts?” Then: “They are going to have fun with me tonight. I see the storm gathering. Oh, Christos!”
And then he lay on the bed and there was just the body. The voice that came from it was that of a frail child. The Krishnaji we knew was not there. The body of Krishnamurti started saying that he was very hurt inside, that they had burnt him inside; that there was a pain right through his head. He was shivering and started saying that something had happened on the walk. He turned to us and asked, “Did you see him return?” He could not synchronize his body and mind. At time he felt he was still in the woods. “They came and covered him with leaves.” He said, “Do you know, you would not have seen him tomorrow. He nearly did not return.” He kept on feeling his body to see if it was all there. He said, “I must go back and find out what had happened on the walk. Something happened and they rushed back. But, I do not know whether I returned? There may be pieces of me lying on the road.” Twice he got out of bed and made for the door, but lay down again. Later, he went to sleep. When he awoke, he felt himself and stared at his hands.
Although the notes we took on the final night are lost, Nandini and I remember the occasion vividly:
Krishnaji had been suffering excruciating pain in his head and neck, his stomach was swollen, tears streamed down his face. He suddenly fell back on the bed and became intensely still. The traces of pain and fatigue were wiped away, as happens in death. Then life and an immensity began to enter the face. The face was greatly beautiful. It had no age, time had not touched it. The eyes opened, but there was no recognition. The body radiated light; a stillness and a vastness illumined the face. The silence was liquid and heavy, like honey; it poured into the room and into our minds and bodies, filling every cell of the brain, wiping away every trace of time and memory. We felt a touch without a presence, a wind blowing without movement. We could not help folding our hands in pranams. For some minutes he lay unmoving, then his eyes opened. After some time, he saw us and said, “Did you see that face?” He did not expect an answer. He lay silently. Then, “The Buddha was here, you are blessed.”
In one of his letters to me, K later referred briefly to what had happened. I had asked him one morning what was the reason for the two voices—that of the frail child and the normal voice of Krishnamurti. I said that it looked as if some entity goes out of the body and some entity reenters the body. Krishnamurti said in his letter, “This is not so. It is not that there are two entities.” He said he would talk about it later; but (...) it was to be many years before he spoke of it again.
On my return to Bombay I underwent a very deep and inexplicable experience. My senses, torn from their routine, had exploded. One night as I lay down to sleep I felt the pervading touch of a presence, waiting. I was received and enveloped in a dense embryonic fluid. I was drowning, for I felt my consciousness fading. My body rebelled; it struggled, unable to accept this encompassing embrace, this sense of death. Then the silent presence disappeared. This happened for three nights running. Each time, my body struggled; it resisted this encounter, unable to face this touch of death, which passed as swiftly as it had come, never to return. There was no fear.
I told Krishnaji about it at our next meeting, and he told me to let it be, neither to hold it nor resist it.
Krishnaji said, “Possibly that was so.” He paused, and then continued. “After Ojai, Leadbeater could not explain the pain, nor could Mrs. Besant. The explanation given by them was that the consciousness of Krishnaji had to be emptied for a fragment of the Maitreya Bodhisattva to use the body.”
When asked whether it was “Maitreya,” he neither said yes nor no. I asked, “Is it that we are witnessing the first mind that is operating fully, totally?”
I told him that while he was in those states, only the body was operating; there was an emptiness in the body. The voice was childlike. K said, “Couldn’t you explain the two voices by saying that one was that of the body alone?”
I asked, “Only the body speaking?”
K asked what would happen the next morning. I said we sometimes went with him for a walk. Krishnaji was alive, fresh. The pain had left no mark, and he appeared to have forgotten what had happened. He laughed a great deal, looked at us quizzically, was affectionate, considerate, overwhelmed us with his presence, and had no answer to our questions. He said he did not know.
That same year, 1979, when K was in Bombay, some of us asked him to explain the phenomenon of the face changing. He said, “Many years ago I awoke and there was the face beside me. There was the face that K’s face was becoming. This face was with me all the time, happily. The face was extraordinary, highly cultured, refined.” He spoke as if his words related to another being. “And one day the face was no longer there.”
“Had it become one with K?” I asked.
K said he did not know. He also spoke of the need of the body to be protected. Nothing ugly should take place around it while K was away, nothing evil. In that state the body was defenseless, all kinds of elements wanted to destroy it. “When there is good, there is also the other.”
K also said that it was possible that the pain and what took place was necessary, as the brain was not ready. Traces of immaturity remained, the brain cells were not large enough to receive the energy. “When the energy comes pouring in and the brain is not capable of holding it, then that energy feels it has to polish it up. It may be its own activity.”
Speaking further of the need for two people to be with the body, K said, “Where there is love there is protection. Hatred permits evil to enter.”
He seemed hesitant to probe further. He said that he should not probe further. “You can ask,” he said, “and I will reply. But I cannot ask.”
This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 12 Feb 2017.
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 15 Feb 2017||#351|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
Here are a few remarkable K quotes collected by Mrs Pupul Jayakar & friends in her remarkable "K Biography". This is how he was adressing his closest associates:
In 1950 to the young (then) Mrs Nandini Mehta :
Stand alone. If you have acted out of the depths of self-knowing because you feel in yourself that what you have done is right, then throw yourself on life. Its water will hold you, carry you, and sustain you. But if you have been influenced, then God help you. The guru has disappeared.”
Same year to Mrs Pupul Jayakar:
Same year to his small discussion group:
Let us see whether we can stay in the pause between two thoughts. In silence what is there to experience? Silence can only experience silence. Can silence leave an imprint?”
“Do we see that our consciousness is never in ‘the now’, that it is always a projection, a backward or forward movement? That it is never in the present. The ( experiential) understanding of the ‘now’ can never be through thought, through ( the self-centred ?) consciousness,”
What is the state of the mind when it sees this? The ( self-identified ?) mind cannot understand the Now, which is the New. It is a fact, like a wall is a fact. What happens when you see as a fact that the mind cannot understand the ‘now?’ What is the state of your mind?”
It is silent—thought has ceased ? I offered.
What happens when the mind sees the fact that thought has ceased and yet there is movement, a freedom? I see it and thought has ceased, and yet I hear your voice, a sensory perception continues. Mind as thought is not there and yet sensory perception continues, is present. Only (the self-) identification has ceased.”
The next morning we again discussed consciousness.
First comes the layer of everyday activity—eating, going to the office, drinking, meeting people, the conditioned habits that operate automatically. It is obviously a static (steady ?) state that conforms to a pattern.
When one’s ( comfortable) routines are disturbed, this surface layer ceases for an instant and what is below reveals itself. For convenience we will call this the second layer (of course, since consciousness is nonspatial, it cannot be accurate to use terms indicating layer or level). The thinking that emerges from this layer is still conditioned memory, but it is not as automatic as the surface layer. It is more active, more elastic; it has more nuances. Here thought need not conform so completely to ( the generally accepted) patterns, it has more vitality. The next layer is conditioned by ( personal ?) likes, dislikes, choosing, judging, identifying. Here there is the sense of the ego's (reality) established and in focus.
Someone asked, “What sustains it?
Krishnaji was silent. After a few moments, he said, “Its own movement, its own functioning. What lies below? How can one proceed, go beyond the matrix?
“Shut off the mind?” said Rao.
Seeing the fact of consciousness—not the word, not the theory, but the fact of it—is not an ending possible? Again, whatever I do to move toward the 'other' (inward dimension of consciousness) is of effort and so destroys it. I cannot desire it. I can do nothing except be (non-personal or ?) "indifferent" to it. And concern myself with (understanding ?) the ego, with what I am and my problems.( continued next morning )
Can we go into consciousness again? Yesterday we had gone into it from the point on the periphery to the center. It was like going down a funnel. Could we today go from the center to the point on the periphery? Could we move from the inward out? Could we approach consciousness from the center?
But is there really a center?” asked Rao.
The center is only (becoming self-conscious ?) when ( the routinely life of the ?) periphery is agitated. The 'center' is formed as a point on the periphery. These peripheral points are one’s name, one’s property, one’s wife, fame. These points are constantly being strengthened. There is movement all the time at the peripheral points. There is a constant fear of the breaking of these points.
“Can I live without the formation of centers?” asked Rao.
“If I start from the center, to investigate, where is the center from which to start? There is no center, but only the field (of the known) . Except for the periphery (identification) there is no center. The (safety) fences to this field create the center. I only know the center because of the fence, the periphery. The fences are the points of ( self-centred) attention, the limits that create the center. Remove these fences. Where is the center?
“Can one remove the fences?” I queried.
“If you move in the ( mind's ) field, in the non-center, there is no (interference of) memory. See what happens as you move from field towards fence. As you approach the fence,( the personal) memory begins (to awaken) .
“So far we have been thinking from the periphery to the center. The thinking from this (non-center) must be totally different. I have to get used to the movement from within towards the periphery.”
“What happens to the points?” I asked.
“It is like slipping under and through the fences. The fences no longer matter. What we do, however, is to
“To go (introspectively) from the periphery to the center is to stick to the center. When attention becomes (self-) identified it becomes the point. Thinking in habit is the movement of the periphery. The more I stay in the (non-centred mind ?) field, I see there is no ( egotistic) center.”
This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 15 Feb 2017.
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 21 Feb 2017||#352|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
( From Pupul Jayakar's K- abiography
In Varanasi ( CCA 1956) we asked Krishnaji what he would do to create a school that would reflect his teachings. He replied, “First of all there has to be an atmosphere of immensity. The feeling that I am entering a temple. There must be beauty, space, quietness, dignity. There must be a sense of altogetherness in the student and teacher; a state of floration, a sense of flowering, a feeling of extraordinary sacredness. There must be truthfulness, fearlessness. The child must put his hands to the earth, there must be in him a quality of otherness.”
“How do you create this concretely?”
“I would go into the way of teaching, the quality of attention,” Krishnaji responded. “I would enquire how to teach the child to learn without memory being predominant. I would talk about attention and not concentration. I would go into the way the child sleeps, his food, the games he plays, the furniture in his room; I would see that the child is attentive to the trees, the birds, the spaces which are around him. I would see that he grows in an atmosphere of attention.”
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 22 Feb 2017||#353|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
Can There Be Action without Consequence?
The winter of 1955 saw Krishnaji in Varanasi. He had come there with Rosalind from Sydney. His astonishing, awesome beauty was absent. The face appeared aged, the hair had started to turn grey.
Krishnaji asked, “Can there be action without consequence? Can the past, future, be brought together in the present and extinguished? The past mistake was a consequence, my action on it is a consequence, my refusal to act on it is also a consequence, and yet there has to be action without consequence.” He went on searching. He would take up the question, letting every intimation surrounding the question arise, perceiving the response without condemnation or justification and so negating it. All enquiry was tentative, there was a total absence of any assertive statement.
“What does that imply?” we asked.
“To live without self-concept,is to be aware of the constant projection of the self and seeing it, to negate it.”
Another morning he said, “We die through disease, old age, suicide. The dying is the sinking into the unknown, a sudden cutting away, an oblivion.” Then he asked with great gravity, “Living, can one enter the house of death?”
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 23 Feb 2017||#354|
|Dan McDermott United States 126 posts in this forum Offline||
Which I understand to say is that if there is NOT the awareness of this "constant projection" of the 'self', then there will be nothing available to "negate it", and it will continue unabated in its role as 'controller' as it has for a million years. That is the 'challenge' each of us face in our 'short' stay here, isn't it?
This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 23 Feb 2017.
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 23 Feb 2017||#355|
|Dan McDermott United States 126 posts in this forum Offline||
I personally know of no-one who is even vaguely aware (or cares) that mankind's (my) basic problem may lie here, that this is the root : the projection by the brain of a "self-concept". And that the only 'remedy' for this situation is for there to be an "awareness" of its arising and through seeing its arising, "negating" the self-image or self-concept. 'Self' annihilation or 'self' destruction in other words...
This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 23 Feb 2017.
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 23 Feb 2017||#356|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
More excerpts from Mrs Jayakar's K a Biography
On August 13 (1959) Vinoba Bhave and his followers came to see Krishnamurti. The Gandhian pilgrim asked,
“How old are you?”
Krishnaji answered, “Sixty-four.”
“So you are my younger brother. I have come to pay my respects and seek your blessings. Rao and Achyut Patwardhan, Dada Dharmadhikari, and Vimala Thakar have told me about you several times. But I am always on the move and so are you. So we have never met.”
After the pleasantries were over Vinobaji asked Krishnaji to speak to him of his wisdom. Krishnaji appeared shy and was silent. A record of the discussions were kept by Nirmala Deshpande, who was present during the meetings and who took down notes as the conversation took place.
Vinobaji said, “How do we start?”
“It depends on what you are interested,” answered Krishnaji.
“Life, everyone is interested in life. But discussion depends on words, and words are necessary,” said Vinoba.
“Not too many words, otherwise discussion loses significance,” K replied. “Discussion implies...”
Vinobaji said, “Sharing experiences.”
“Yes, and also to penetrate deeply. Experience is limited—I distrust basing action on experience.”
“Is that because experience conditions man?” asked Vinobaji.
“Yes, that is why it is important to have a free mind, a mind that is not full of experience, but free to see beyond experience. One has to die to experience every day. One is always translating experience in terms of the old. As a Hindu I translate it in terms of Shiva, Krishna—but they are just words. The division taking place as Hindu, Muslim, Christian has to be wiped out,” said Krishnaji.
Vinobaji responded, “Yes.”
“You say ‘yes,’ but it is a verbal statement. Do you cease to be a Hindu? In science, one drops past experience, to discover a new insight. From the very beginning one should be taught to be free of conditioning—as a Hindu, Muslim, Christian. None of us let go. We only pretend to do so. One has to cease to be Hindu or Muslim; one has to be a human being. But that is very difficult. Thinking about being free leads you nowhere. First, one must be free. Freedom first, not through thinking about freedom.”
The discussion moved away from the serious, and Vinobaji asked Krishnaji, “How much time do you spend in India?”
“Do you take exercise?”
“A little, I walk.”
One of Vinobaji’s followers asked, “What is the meaning of self-realization?”
“What does it mean to you?” was the reply.
“Union with Brahman—with God,” said one of Vinobaji’s disciples.
“God is a phrase. To realize God, you must have a free mind, a good mind that does not follow anybody. A mind that has no guru, no system. Try it.”
“How does one get such a mind?” came the reply.
“There has to be self-knowledge. Not knowledge of the Atman, but how one thinks, why one thinks—how one acts. What is the ‘oneself?’ I am not speaking only of the conscious self, but of the deep levels of the unconscious. What is needed is a revolutionary mind. You cannot have that by sadhana. If you see only through one window, your view is limited.”
“Is it not possible for philosophy to be taught?” asked one of Vinobaji’s followers.
“There is a right way of thinking. Does it matter who listens?” said Krishnaji.
“Perhaps he feels that you should come out as a preacher,” Vinobaji intervened.
“Me, Sir! I am talking—that is my life. Do you want me to do it traditionally?”
“Perhaps you are doing in your way what he wants you to do.”
“Sir, there is no my way, your way, his way. There is only one way.”
“When you speak this way in the U.S.A., people must appreciate what you say,” said Vinobaji.
“In the West the welfare state looks after minimum needs. People are turning to belief, to Christianity, as people here turn to Hinduism. What is the difference? In India economic reform has become all-important—reform and the welfare state is the function of government. But a reformer has nothing to do with
“What do you conclude from this?” asked Vinobaji.
“Not conclude, but observe,There is a deep contradiction in the Indian mind. We talk about ideals and do the opposite. We are inhibited from becoming something because we feel we should not be ambitious. So frustration leads to superficial reformation and we pursue that with passion. I say, act and observe the result. But tradition and the gurus say the opposite. In this country one sees frustration, contradiction, and the sense of being a very old race. We search for God, but we have not lived life. That may be the reason we turn to the superficial, which we call ‘reform.’
“Are you more appreciated in Europe?”
“I abhor appreciation.”
“Do they grasp your thought more?”
“It is the same as in India,” replied Krishnaji. “Some minds are serious. People take politics very seriously in India. Politics is most destructive. When people say they are working for peace, for reform, it is always the ‘I’ that is important. People who touch politics cannot have a fresh mind. The world needs fresh minds, clear minds, not minds that are conditioned by being Hindus or Muslims.
“I don’t know why they are my followers,” commented Vinobaji.
In India there is a desire for the authority of a guru. They feel that with guidance, they will not fail to find truth. They are not prepared to make mistakes. It is all childish,” said Krishnaji.
“But children, as they are, to be as children becomes them,” was Vinobaji’s comment.
“Then let Vinobaji deny the follower,” swiftly came the reply.
“Every man thinks his search is unique.”
“The search for God isn’t linked to success. God may be a being without end. The mind abhors the sense of no ending,” said Krishnaji.
“You mean there is no object of search? You cannot search to find God?!” Vinobaji was aroused.
“Yes, otherwise it would be a trivial God. People go to Amarnath to find God. What does it mean? We have banished love, beauty; banished individual thinking, every form of intellectual, emotional curiosity and replaced it with acceptance of authority, systems; denying the mind the space to enquire. What have we done with real creation? We say that to realize God we must don the saffron robe, deny sex, deny the senses, refrain from looking at the clouds, at nature. We say we must meditate. Such meditation is mesmerism.”
“What is the place of religion in the progress of a nation?” asked one of Vinobaji’s followers.
“What is a nation? What is society?—a relationship social, cultural? If that relationship changes, society changes.” Krishnaji paused for a while, then said, “The discovery of reality and its relationship to our daily life is religion. There is no one today who says, ‘I am not a Hindu, not a Muslim, but a human being, concerned with the whole problem of man, with the ravaging of the earth, with the atom bomb, with brotherhood.’ These are very serious problems and there are not six people who are concerned about them.”
“But I have found that the Indian mind has been ready as never before, to grasp new ideas, to shed nationalism and come out of a narrow life.” Vinobaji was on the defensive.
“I understand. But, it requires more than that. The mind has become so mechanical. It needs and seeks a goal in life. We follow paths to a goal. We never question. We are too respectable. But one must have a free mind, not a mind burdened with tradition, with the past. Extreme freedom is needed. But the moment you think you are free, you are not free. One has to unearth oneself, unravel oneself, delve into the corners of one’s mind—ignite the mind.”
“I am told that you have not given public talks for one year,” said Vinobaji.
“Yes, I have not given public talks for one year. I have kept quiet. But that is not because I have taken any vows.”
“I am glad I have seen you today. I have been longing for this. Do you know any Indian language?”
“I tried to learn Hindi. My native tongue is Telugu, but I left speaking it when I was a boy.”
“You are not too old to learn an Indian language,” said Vinobaji.
“I am trying to learn Sanskrit—for the fun of it,” Krishnaji responded.
“If you speak English, few people in India will understand,” said Vinobaji.
“I know. But, if you use traditional words, they have traditional connotations and you cannot proceed.”
“Connotations are attached even to English words,” Vinobaji said.
“Break them, I find that when you translate Sanskrit words into English, you have to really understand. But if you translate Sanskrit into Hindi or Marathi, you can keep the same word without understanding its depth.”
Krishnaji and Vinobaji parted with smiles and pranams, and the next day Krishnaji returned Vinobaji’s call. Vinobaji spoke of his Bhoodan Yatra pilgrimage.* He said,
“God, whom I seek, is everywhere—I am not going to Amarnath. People say I am not doing the right thing, I should go. Swami Vivekanand went there.” The previous day’s discussion had touched some instinctive responses. He said, “Yesterday, we had a very good talk. It was so illuminating. These thoughts have guided me for many years. It was long before I went to Gandhiji. I went to see him when I was twenty. I went to see and hear. He never told me or anybody to accept his thoughts.”
“Quite,” said Krishnaji.
“You also had an occasion to meet him?”
“Thrice—once in London with Dr. Besant.”
“I get very little time to read. Still I read,” said Vinobaji.
“I hardly read, except one or two casual books. You leave early in the morning?”
Half past four. I walk ten miles a day,” said Vinobaji. “You write books?” he enquired
“Yes,” replied Krishnaji.
“Who publishes these books?” asked Vinobaji.
“The talks and discussions are published in India.”
“There are many people in the Bhoodan movement who have read your books,” said Vinobaji.
“That is what Rao and Achyut tell me.”
Vinobaji pointed to Mahadevi Tai. “She doesn’t know English.”
“Too bad. I don’t know Hindi—so we can’t converse,” said Krishnaji.
“But you are learning Sanskrit—for the fun of it.”
“It is very beautiful, a marvelous language, Every word in Sanskrit is based on some root word. Latin and Sanskrit belong to one family. Your word ‘ignite’ in Sanskrit is agni, as flame. The root meaning of both are the same.”
They parted in friendship.
Later, on the evening of August 14, Vinobaji spoke to crowds that had gathered to hear him at Pahalgam. A different direction was present in his talk, and he acknowledged that this was the influence of Krishnaji’s meetings with him. He said that men like Krishnaji were the sentinels—their voices and statements were warnings, and must be listened to with gravity. Some months later, a friend was to tell Vinoba Bhave that Krishnaji had remarked, “Vinobasa ys he agrees with me, but goes on doing his work as before. So his saying that he agrees has no meaning.”
Vinoba responded, “Krishnaji is right.”
Many years later Nirmala Deshpande told me that Vinobaji had said, “Krishnamurti may deny the role of the World Teacher, negate the church built for him, deny his role as the supreme guru, deny being the divine Krishna; but Dr. Besant could not be denied her role as Yashoda, the foster mother of Krishna, the divine cowherd.”
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 24 Feb 2017||#357|
|david sharma Ireland 11 posts in this forum Offline||
Hi John , thanks for the above post ,Vinoba did come to our town on his journey , as a child we all went to see him , did not know much about him or. his work in India, Now no body knows him , or his work , I tell you a story , there was a slogan on the wall that read , Vinoba ki Jay , I used to read this every day on my walk to school , just remember it now , many thanks lots of love david
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 24 Feb 2017||#358|
|david sharma Ireland 11 posts in this forum Offline||
Oh I do copy and paste some of your post on Facebook, is this ok with you?
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 25 Feb 2017||#359|
|John Raica Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline||
More from Mrs Jayakar's K -a Biography
(cca 1969) One night at supper, at which Nandini, Asit Chandmal, and I were present, Krishnaji started talking about the Theosophical Society and Annie Besant. This was the first time in twenty-one years that he had spoken to us at length of the Theosophical Society.
Krishnaji said that the Masters had told C. W. Leadbeater to find a boy who was a Brahmin, who came from a good family, and who had a “face as described.” It was the duty of the Theosophical Society to protect the body of the child, and to provide an atmosphere of complete security for two years. If the body was prepared and ready, Lord Maitreya would give the boy the mind.
When Leadbeater saw Krishnamurti on Adyar beach, he perceived that there was no selfishness in the boy’s aura.
Krishnaji then advanced several theories to explain how the boy remained untouched. Was it that, through birth and rebirth, the child had evolved to perfection? Or had the Lord Maitreya protected the body till it was mature? Had the boy been born without a formal character or personality, allowing him to remain vague, untouched by his earlier years with his father, the school, the doctrines of the Theosophical Society, the luxury of the life he lived in England?
The boy, who was totally innocent and unaffected, still had to be protected so that evil could not touch him, could not enter him.
Krishnaji continued. Mrs. Besant had insisted that two initiates accompany Krishnaji all the time. She said, “Since you are always alone within, you must never be physically alone.” There was a reservoir of the good in the boy that should not be contaminated. He said he needed protection even in 1969, for his character was still unformed. “The other night, while meditating, I could see that the boy still existed exactly as he was, nothing had happened to him in life. The boy is still as he was. The body still needs to be protected from evil.” He paused again, and said, “I still feel protected.”
He then spoke of the early years, when the boy Krishnamurti’s body had to be completely protected and given security for two years; but the mind was not to be touched, for “the Lord would give him the rest.” There were long silences between his sentences. K said the body had to go through a lot of pain (as in Ojai and Ootacamund) because there were still imperfections in the brain.
We then asked Krishnaji about the many undesirable people who through the years had come around him. Asit Chandmal asked, “How does the good allow evil in the form of a human being to come near?”
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 26 Feb 2017||#360|
|david sharma Ireland 11 posts in this forum Offline||
Well k was 75 when this is narrated, this does not go well with the teachings, ?
|Back to Top|