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

Pages from the Book of Life

Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 285 in total
Wed, 05 Aug 2015 #61
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

K to himself: on the ebb and flow of life

At last you came to the blue Pacific. It was like a pond this morning, so quiet, so extraordinarily still, and the morning light was on it. One should really meditate on on that glittering water. If you can look at that sea, the sparkle of the dazzling light, and the clear water, with all your senses highly awakened to their excellence, in that observation there is not the ( self-conscious ?) centre as 'you', watching. It is a beautiful thing to watch that sea, and the sand, clean, washed every day. No footprint can remain there, even the little birds of the sea never leave their mark, the sea washes them away. Sitting on the shore watching the birds, the sky and hearing the distant sound of passing cars, it was a most beautiful morning.You 'went out' with the ebb and 'came in' with the tide. You went out far and came back again - this endless movement of in and out and out and in. You could see as far as the horizon where the sky met the waters. It was a big bay with blue and white water and tiny little houses all around it. And behind you were the mountains, range after range. Watching without a single thought, watching without any reaction, watching without identity, only endlessly watching, you really are not awake, you are absent minded, not all there; you are not 'you' but watching. Watching the thoughts that arise and then fade away, thought after thought, thought (the 'thinking' brain?) itself is becoming aware of itself.

Sitting on the beach watching the people pass by, two or three couples and a single woman, it seems that all nature, everything around you, from the deep blue sea to those high rocky mountains, was also watching. We were not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. In that watching there is a 'learning' which is not the accumulation of knowledge but watching closely, deeply, with a swiftness and a tenderness; then there is no 'watcher'. When there is a 'watcher' it is merely the ( acting memory of the?) past watching, and that is not (pure?) watching, that is just remembering and it is rather dead stuff. Watching (free of the past?) is tremendously alive, every moment a vacancy. Those little crabs and those seagulls and all those birds flying by are watching. They are watching for prey, for fish, watching for something to eat; they too are watching. Somebody passes close by you and wonders what you are watching. You are watching nothing, and in that 'no-thingness' everything is.

The other day a man who had travelled a great deal, seen a great deal, written something or other, came - an oldish man with a beard, which was well kept; he was dressed decently without the sloppiness of vulgarity. He took care of his shoes, of his clothes. He spoke excellent English, though he was a foreigner. He said he had talked to a great many people, discussed with some professors and scholars, and while he was in India he had talked to some of the pundits (local wise-men?) . And most of them, according to him, were not concerned with society, not deeply committed to any social reform or to the present crisis of ( the Falklands?) war. He was deeply concerned about the society in which we were living, though he was not a social reformer. He was not quite sure whether society could be changed, whether you could do something about it. But he saw what it was; the vast corruption, the absurdity of the politicians, the pettiness, the vanity, and the brutality that is rampant in the world.

Q : What can we do about this society? - not petty little reforms here and there, changing one President for another, or one Prime Minister for another - they can't do much because they represent the mediocrity, or even less than that, the vulgarity; they want to show off, they will never do anything. They will bring about potty little reforms here and there but society will go on in spite of them.' He had watched the various societies, cultures. They are not so very different fundamentally. He appeared to be a very serious man with a smile and he talked about the beauty of this country, the vastness, the variety, from the hot deserts to the high Rockies with their splendour. One listened to him as one would listen to and watch the sea.

K : Society cannot be changed unless man changes (inwardly) . Man, you and others, have created these societies for generations upon generations; out of our ( self-centred?) limitation, out of our greed, envy, brutality, violence, competition, and so on. ( Therefore ) we are responsible for (accepting?)
all the tribal nonsense and religious sectarianism. Unless each one of us (inwardly) changes radically, ( the outer human) society will never change. It is there, we have made it, and then it shapes us, it puts us in a mould and the mould puts it into a framework which is the society. So this action-reaction is going on endlessly, like the sea with a tide that goes far out and then comes in, sometimes very, very slowly, at other times rapidly, dangerously. In and out; action, reaction, action. This seems to be the nature of this movement (of time?) , unless there is (established a ) deep order in oneself. That ( inward) order will bring about order in society, not through legislation, governments and all that business - though as long as there is disorder, confusion, the law, the authority, which is created by our disorder, will go on.

So the inner (world) , the 'psyche', creates the outer (society) according to its limitation; and the outer then controls and moulds the inner. ( However) the inner always overcomes the outer, for it is far more vital, than the outer. Can this ( time-based?) movement ever stop - the inner creating the outer environment psychologically, and the outer, the laws, the institutions, the organizations, trying to shape (condition?) the human brain, to make it act in a certain way, and the brain, the inner, the psyche, circumventing the outer limitations? This movement has been going on for as long as man has been on this earth, crudely, superficially, sometimes brilliantly - but it is always the inner overcoming the outer, like the sea with its tides going out and coming in. One should really ask whether this (interactive 'evolutionary'?) movement can ever stop - action and reaction, hatred and more hatred, violence and more violence. It has an end when there is only a 'watching' without motive, without direction. Direction comes into being when there is ( a process of psychological ?) accumulation. But the watching, in which there is attention, awareness, and a great sense of compassion, has its own intelligence. This (time-free?) 'watching' and its intelligence act. But this requires a great alertness, to see things directly without the word, without the name, without any (mental) reaction; in that 'watching' there is a great vitality, passion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Aug 2015 #62
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

1948, second public talk, Bangalore, India; Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti, Vol V, CD-Rom code BA48T2

Obviously what causes war is the desire for power, position, prestige, money; also the disease called nationalism, the worship of a flag; and the disease of organized religion, the worship of a dogma. All these are the causes of war; if you as an individual belong to any of the organized religions, if you are greedy for power, if you are envious, you are bound to produce a society which will result in destruction. So again it depends upon you and not on the leaders – not on so-called statesmen and all the rest of them. It depends upon you and me but we do not seem to realize that.

If once we really felt the responsibility of our own actions, how quickly we could bring to an end all these wars, this appalling misery!

But you see, we are indifferent. We have three meals a day, we have our jobs, we have our bank account, big or little, and we say, “For God’s sake, don’t disturb us, leave us alone”. The higher up we are, the more we want security, permanency, tranquillity, the more we want to be left alone, to maintain things fixed as they are; but they cannot be maintained as they are, because there is nothing to maintain.

Everything is disintegrating.

We do not want to face these things, we do not want to face the fact that you and I are responsible for wars.

You and I may talk about peace, have conferences, sit round a table and discuss, but inwardly, psychologically, we want power, position, we are bound by beliefs, by dogmas, for which we are willing to die and destroy each other. Do you think such men, you and I, can have peace in the world? To have peace, we must be peaceful; to live peacefully means not to create antagonism. Peace is not an ideal. To me, an ideal is merely an escape, an avoidance of what is, a contradiction of what is. An ideal prevents direct action upon what is - which we will go into presently, in another talk. But to have peace, we will have to love, we will have to begin, not to live an ideal life, but to see things as they are and act upon them, transform them.

As long as each one of us is seeking psychological security, the physiological security we need – food, clothing and shelter – is destroyed. We are seeking psychological security, which does not exist; and we seek it, if we can, through power, through position, through titles, names – all of which is destroying physical security. This is an obvious fact, if you look at it.

To bring about peace in the world, to stop all wars, there must be a revolution in the individual, in you and me. Economic revolution without this inward revolution is meaningless, for hunger is the result of the maladjustment of economic conditions produced by our psychological states – greed, envy, ill-will and possessiveness.

To put an end to sorrow, to hunger, to war, there must be a psychological revolution and few of us are willing to face that. We will discuss peace, plan legislation, create new leagues, the United Nations and so on and on; but we will not win peace because we will not give up our position, our authority, our money, our properties, our stupid lives. To rely on others is utterly futile; others cannot bring us peace. No leader is going to give us peace, no government, no army, no country. What will bring peace is inward transformation which will lead to outward action. Inward transformation is not isolation, is not a withdrawal from outward action. On the contrary, there can be right action only when there is right thinking and there is no right thinking when there is no self-knowledge.

Without knowing yourself, there is no peace.

Dan: in the net of "uncoveries" this seems to be so far ,a most vital point,yet not the only one,as before this happens BY ITSELF to properly understand sorrow even only partially seems necessary as it brings what is unconscious to the conscious..and turns on as it wishes our missing capacities.

To put an end to outward war, you must begin to put an end to war in yourself. Some of you will nod your heads and say, “ I agree”, and go outside and do exactly the same as you have been doing for the last ten or twenty years. Your agreement is merely verbal and has no significance, for the world miseries and wars are not going to be stopped by your casual assent. They will be stopped only when you realize the danger, when you realize your responsibility, when you do not leave it to somebody else.

If you realize the suffering, if you see the urgency of immediate action and do not postpone, then you will transform yourself; peace will come only when you yourself are peaceful, when you yourself are at peace with your neighbour.

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Thu, 06 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Aug 2015 #63
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

A meditative outlook on death and sorrow (from The only revolution)

Meditation is the unfolding of the New. The New is beyond and above the repetitious past - and meditation is the ending of this repetition. The 'death' (the ending of our attachment to the old?) that meditation brings about is the (timeless) immortality of the new. The New is not (to be found) within the area of thought, and meditation is the silencing of thought. Meditation is not a (personal) achievement, it is like the river, not to be tamed, swiftly running and overflowing its banks. It is the music without sound; it is the silence in which the 'observer' has ceased from the very beginning. The sun wasn't up yet; you could see the morning star through the tree. There was a silence that was really extraordinary. Not the (interval of) silence between two noises or between two notes, but the Silence that has no reason whatsoever - the Silence that must have been at the beginning of the world. It filled the whole valley and the hills. And this Silence spread, and seemed to go beyond the hills. Towards the end of the evening, as the sun was setting over the western hills, the Silence came in from afar, over the hills, through the trees, covering the little bushes and the ancient banyan. And as the stars became brilliant, the Silence grew into great intensity; you could hardly bear it. The little lamps of the village were put out, and with sleep the intensity of that Silence grew deeper, wider and incredibly overpowering. Even the hills became more quiet, for they, too, had stopped their whisperings, their movement, and seemed to lose their immense weight .


Q : l lost my husband four years ago. He was a doctor and died of cancer. He must have hidden it from me, and only in the last year or so did I know about it. He was in agony although the doctors gave him morphine and other sedatives. Before my eyes he withered away and was gone. I somehow cannot bear this loneliness, this meaningless existence without him. I loved my children; I had three of them, a boy and two girls. One day last year the boy wrote to me from school that he was not feeling well, and a few days later I got a telephone call from the headmaster, saying that he was dead. I don't know what to do. This death has shaken the very foundations of my life. Like a house, our marriage was carefully built on what we considered a deep foundation. Now everything is destroyed by this enormous event.

K : Do you want to talk about this seriously - go to the root of it all? Or do you want to be distracted from your sorrow by some satisfying words?

Q : I'd like to go into it deeply, but I don't know whether I have the capacity or the energy to face what you are going to say. When my husband was alive we used to come to some of your talks; but now I may find it very difficult to go along with you.

K : Why are you in sorrow? Is it for your husband - or is it for yourself? If you are crying for him, can your tears help him? He has gone ( in the next world?) irrevocably. It is a fact which you have to accept; you can't do anything about it. But if you are crying for yourself, because of your loneliness, your empty life, because of the sensual pleasures you had and the companionship, then you are crying out of self-pity? Perhaps for the first time you are becoming fully aware of your own inward poverty. You have 'invested' ( emotionally?) in your husband, and it (the resulting attachment?) has given you comfort, satisfaction and pleasure. All you are feeling now - the agony of loneliness and anxiety - is ( basically?) a form of self-pity, isn't it? His death has shaken you and shown you (brought to the surface?) the actual state of your mind and heart. You may not be willing to look at it, but if you observe a little more you will see that you are ( actually) crying out of your own loneliness, out of your inward poverty - which is, out of self-pity.

Q : You are rather cruel, aren't you, sir? I have come to you for real comfort, and what are you giving me?

K : It is one of the (psychological) illusions most people have - that there is such a thing as (a lasting) inward comfort; that somebody else can give it to you or that you can find it for yourself. I am afraid there is no such thing. If you are seeking ( this illusory?) comfort you are bound to live in ( the comfort of?) illusions, and when the (material support of these?) illusions is broken you become sad because the comfort is taken away from you. So, to understand sorrow and/or to go beyond it, one must 'see' ( acknowledge ?) actually what is inwardly taking place, and not try to cover it up. When you see ( the truth about?) this (sad inner situation ?) , very clearly, then you ( may?) come out of it immediately, without a scratch, unblemished, fresh, untouched by the events of life. ( Recap :) Death is an inevitable fact (of life) for all of us; one cannot escape from it. We try to find every kind of explanation, cling to every kind of belief, but do what you will it is always there; tomorrow, or many years away - it is always there. And ( psychologically ) one has to come into touch with this enormous fact of our life.

Q2 : But the Atman (the eternal soul?) is in every one of us! It is reborn and continues until it realizes that it is (one with) Brahman. We must go through sorrow to come to that ( eternal) Reality. We live in illusion; the world is an illusion. There is only one Reality.

K : There is nothing 'permanent' either on earth or in ourselves. Thought ( the 'thinking brain'?) can give continuity to something it thinks about; it can give 'permanency' to a word, to an idea, to a tradition. Thought thinks itself permanent, but is it permanent? It can build a (mental) image and give to that image a continuity, a permanency, calling it Atman or it can remember the face of the husband or the wife and hold on to (the memory of) it. All this is the activity of (a self-centred ?) thought which creates fear, and out of this fear there is the drive for (seeking some) permanency - the fear of not having a meal tomorrow, or shelter - the fear of death. This fear is the result of thought, and ( the concept of?) 'Brahman' is the product of thought, too.

Q2 : Memory and thought are like a candle. You put it out and re-light it again; you forget, and you remember again later on. You die and are reborn again into another life. The flame of the candle is the same - and not the same. So in the flame there is a certain quality of continuity.

K : But the flame which has been put out is not the same flame as the new flame. There is (must be?) an ending of the old (flame ?) for the new (one) to be. If there is a constant modified continuity, then there is no 'new' thing ( flame) at all. The (memory of) thousand yesterdays cannot be made new; even a candle burns itself out. Everything must end for the new to be.

Q1 : I am not concerned about all these (metaphysical issues?). I am utterly miserable. I have lost my husband and my son, and there are these two children left. What am I to do? K : If you are ( truly) concerned about the two children, you can't be concerned about yourself and your misery. You have to look after them, educate them without the usual mediocrity. But if you are consumed by your own self-pity, which you call "the love for your husband", and if you withdraw into isolation, then you are also destroying the other two children. Consciously or unconsciously we are all utterly selfish (self-centred ?) , and so long as we get what we want we consider everything is all right. But the moment an event takes place to shatter all this, we cry out in despair, hoping to find other comforts which, of course, will again be shattered. So this process (of time and sorrow?) goes on, and if you want to be caught in it, knowing full well all the implications of it, then go ahead. But if you see the ( spiritual ?) 'absurdity' of it all, then you will naturally stop isolating yourself, and live with a new light and with a smile on your face.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 08 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 #64
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

Hello John, in this last talk, the continuity factor is more than interesting.

for myself I have insightfully lived, in times of properly living the so called sorrow , that the craving for continuity is huge, enormous,powerful...then I unexpectedly saw that the seeing of it immediately ends any will of continuity for some short time,then some of the bliss is right there....

when there is no craving for absolute continuity by insightfully seeing its malicious results then there is the immediate relief from the fear of death, then there is a sort of bliss invading you.....relief from the fear of death because as I have seen that when the craving for continuity is not the fear of death is not, this may be why up to some age little children are not concerned with that question, yet some would from very young...

then at some stage when the analytical brain(me) takes the all brain over preventing the awakening-turning on of other capacities...I remain child minded with a much bigger potential than the one of a I am 2 years old and try to pilot an Airbus...impossible it is !!

when this analytical brain reaches it full potential and is now capable to foreseen some of what is going to happen to itself in the future as it is its only field of competence, not knowing that it is not capable to deal with any end as such by set up,as in practical field it main mission is to make thing able to last as much as possible, to try to built them with a sense of....continuity ,when it is about death this program is just not only useless but dangerous...and make its first big and last mistake which is to try to change the reality of facts like there is no continuity as such but still crave for it..... then I go cuckoo for a lifetime..and death will free me from such pain, some make it happen before its natural end by killing themselves, an analytical way to try to escape from the sorrow of a no life....I know the subject quite deeply here, otherwise I would not talk about suicide in that manner.

but again here, as long as enough of all the dangers and lies brought up by this poor analyser have not been sufficiently uncovered-revealed so solved, there is a constant back into the trap, but each time something is uncovered in such unexpected and indirect ways, the trap becomes less and less difficult to be dealt with somehow...

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sat, 08 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 #65
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

From K's 1973 Journal on: meditation, order and...pleasure

Darkness of the night is as necessary as the light of day. In the
quiet darkness, there is growth and flowering, gathering strength to meet the
vibrant day; night and day are essential; both give life, energy, to all living
things. Only man dissipates it.
Sleep is very important, since in sleep many things happen both in the physical organism
and in the brain (the mind is (the energy of?) the brain; they are one, a unitary movement). To
this whole (mind-brain) structure sleep is absolutely essential. In sleep order, adjustment
and deeper perceptions take place; the quieter the brain the deeper the
insight. The brain needs ( a deep feeling of protection and?) security and order to function harmoniously, without any ( inner fragmentation and?) friction. Night provides it and during quiet sleep there are states (levels of consciousness?) , which thought (the thinking function of the brain?) can never reach. ( Then) dreams are 'disturbance' ( distractors?) ; since they distort
total perception. In sleep the mind rejuvenates itself.
Dreams are the expression (reflexion?) in different forms and symbols of
our daily life. If there is no harmony, no (profound ) order in our daily life of relationship,
then dreams are a ( compensating?) continuance of that disorder. The brain during sleep tries to
bring about order out of this confusing contradiction. ( With age?) in this constant struggle
between order and disorder the brain is (getting) worn out. But it must have ( an inner feeling of protection and?) security in order to function at all, and so beliefs, ideologies and other 'neurotic '
concepts become necessary. Turning night into day is one of those neurotic
habits, but the inanities that go on in the 'modern' world after nightfall are (just) an
escape from a daily life of routine and boredom.

A total awareness of disorder in our relationships both private and public,
personal and distant, a choiceless awareness of 'what is' during the day, brings ( a new) order out of (the existing ?) disorder. Then the brain has no need to seek (a deeper feeling of ) order (through dreams) during sleep. Order in the whole of consciousness, not merely at the
conscious level, takes place (only?) when division between the 'observer' and the
'observed' ceases . The 'what is' ( the temporal 'reality'?), is transcended when the 'observer' who
is the ( active knowledge of the?) past, who is ( the result of?) time, comes to an end.
The ( perception in the?) 'active present' is not in the bondage of time as the 'observer' is.
Only when the mind, the brain and the (psychosomatic?) organism during sleep has this total
order, is there an awareness of that wordless state, of that timeless movement.
This is the very summation of meditation. The brain is constantly active ( registering ?) , waking or sleeping, but the constant conflict between ( living inwardly in a state of ?) disorder (and trying to establish some compensatory feeling of?) order, wears down the brain. (Inner ?) order is the highest form of virtue, sensitivity, intelligence. When there is this great beauty of (inner) order, harmony, the brain is not endlessly active (thinking ?) ; certain parts of it have to carry the burden of ( practical) memory but that is a very small part; the rest of the brain is free from the noise of ( material?) experience. That freedom is the order, the harmony, of silence. This freedom and the noise of memory move together, intelligence is the action of this movement.
Meditation is this 'freedom from the known' and yet ( intelligently?) operating in the field of the known. There is no 'me' as the (self-conscious?) 'operator'. In sleep or awake this ( inner quality of?) meditation goes on.

It is the oldest living tree on the earth. It is gigantic in proportion, in its
height and vast trunk. Among other redwood trees, which were also very old,
this one was towering over them all; other trees had been touched by fire but
this one had no marks on it.
The noisy ( groups of) tourists had not come yet and you could be alone with this great 'silent one'; it soared up to the heavens, vast and timeless. Its very age gave it
the dignity of silence- it was as silent as your mind was, as still as your heart, and living without the burden of ( the memories of?) time. You were aware of a compassion that time had never touched and of innocency that had never known hurt and sorrow. There was immortality, for death had never been. Nothing ( seemed to ?) exist except that immense tree, the clouds and the earth. You went to that tree and sat down with it, and every day for many days it was a
benediction of which you were only aware when 'you' wandered away. You
could never come back to it asking for more; there was never the 'more', the
'more' was in the valley far below. There was unfathomable sacredness which would never again leave you, for it was not yours.

In the early morning when the sun had not yet touched the tops of the
trees, the deer and the bear were there; we watched each other, wide-eyed
and wondering; the earth was common to us and fear was absent. The blue
jays and the red squirrels would come soon; the squirrel was tame and
friendly. You had nuts in your pocket and it took them out of your hand; when
the squirrel had had enough the two jays would hop down from the branches
and the scolding would stop. And the day began.

In the world of pleasure sensuality ( the pursuit of sensations?) has become very important. Taste
dictates and soon the habits of pleasure takes hold; (and even) though it may harm the
whole organism, pleasure dominates. Pleasure of the senses, of a cunning and
subtle thought, of words and of the images of mind and hand (plus?) the pleasure of violence and the pleasure of sex, are (sustained by of our?) culture and education. (The total consciousness of?) man is moulded into the shape of pleasure, and all his existence, religious or otherwise, is the pursuit of it. When the mind is not free and aware (of the bio-cultural pressures?), then 'sensuality' (living on the sensory level?) becomes a factor of corruption which is what is going on in the 'modern' world (where the ) pleasure of money and sex dominate. When man has become a secondhand (conditioned?) human being, the expression of sensuality is his (only available?) freedom. Then love is (translated in terms of?) pleasure and desire. ( The joint efforts of?) organized entertainment, religious or commercial, makes for social and personal immorality; (and eventually) you cease to be responsible. Responding wholly to any challenge is to be responsible, totally (humanely?) committed. This cannot be when the very essence of human thought is fragmentary and the pursuit of pleasure, in all its obvious and subtle forms, is the principal movement (motivation?) of existence.

Pleasure is not joy; joy and pleasure are entirely different things; the one is
uninvited and the other cultivated, nurtured; the one comes when the "me" is
not and the other is time-binding; where the one is the other is not. Pleasure,
fear and violence run together; they are inseparable companions. Learning
from observation is action, the doing is the seeing.
In the evening when the darkness was approaching, the jays and the
squirrels had gone to bed. The evening star was just visible and the noises of
the day and memory had come to an end. These giant sequoias were
motionless. They will go on beyond time. Only man dies and the sorrow of it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #66
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
continuity- long as we happen to live- is probably the central root assumption within the mainstream human consciousness

Well John as far as I sense-see-understand something here based on the analytical program revealing, continuity comes straight from the program itself, it is not a conditioning, nothing to see with some past, it is part of the program itself.

It is not really an assumption , but a misunderstanding , one more can I say.
I try to make clear what I am saying.

The analytical program or "me" or whatever, always thinks about the future by set up so capacity,using the past too yes but its field of "expansion" is the future, and in our nut case our future glory and whatever!! This is where come from by the way our flawed vision that the universe is expanding and that we have something to accomplish, which is basically false for me, apart from feeding the body and protect it in order for it to keep functioning..I even sense now that there is no sense of survival instinct at all cost but only the set up that all this must work in some sort of order, must properly function, that is all. This again would be a misinterpretation and assumption made by the too limited analyser ,interpreting the reality of what it in its far too limited ways. Where Nature of things is that all functions well, the analyser sees survival instinct..this plus the false assumption that we have something to accomplish are basically the roots of all violence and wars as well as stealing and destruction when added with the analyser not knowing that it is the analysed too.

We are just malfunctioning...and this is a disaster,personal and global...

thinking about the future is including a split of a second ahead, it is never the present that it is concerned with but with the analysing of what it superficially get from it,what it has recorder and is now watching..

As such superficiality is not a problem yet , but a vital need, without such program we could not exist as we would not be able to function in any environment,especially for mankind who is terribly not anymore adapted to nature, like all other animals are..but they are not under the analyser main control but under Mother Nature "protection-control" other words ,what they do and how they behave is not our business at all, we are totally strangers to that.

So continuity is part of the "me" program...not directly as such but in the sense that when dealing with practical vital needs, in order to make them properly work, it is not a matter of thinking in terms of their end but only a matter of making them work as properly as possible, I am saying that the analytical program cannot deal with any ending because it is not part of its programming...

So when it meets anything with an end, like when it meets anything not recorded so unknown to itself it just cannot even look at it so cannot deal with that, simply because it should not be concerned with that by set up....its program does not include to deal with something containing any end or previously superficially recorded, that is one of its limitation that it does not get at all, in the absence of any supposedly or factually program capable to live what has an end and is unknown....

All its plans do not contain any end by set up........a side effect of this in the absence of some real global Intelligence( if there is such intelligence) is that it is going to ignore what it is really up to. It does not understand what it does, why? how ? etc

All its world does not contain any end by set up because it has no capacity so no right to go there,but the life of the body contains an end, which will be perceived now that we mentally have regressed so much,as a threat to ALL my goal which do not contain any end at all...

From there starts the unconscious refusal of life as it is, man refuses what is and tries to replace it with something of his own will be machines, a world of numbers, so called rationality, big cities etc etc...anything which is not nature in fact..

this is the basic thinking which is at the creation of the so called "Age of enlightenment"(siecle des lumieres) , where man decided that Mother Nature is not good at all, and that man was going to put his own order into all that...the glorification of science taking roots back to the ancient Greece and Rome perceived as absolutely right and the negation of a possible Blissful Origin to all what is entered into being as our fundamental nature..

we still are living that today as this perverted society is the child of the refusal of nature as it is...of course it will collapse , here I have not one clue..

Perhaps this is what k meant when he said that we were living a time which was not before...mentioning that before the thieve was a thieve, and the killer a killer and now the thieve is trying to be the only GOOD MAN.......and the killer get praised when killing 10, 100 or 1 000 000 human, yet killing only one brings you to a lifetime jailed or to be murdered yourself in some countries,so creating more murderers...which should be murdered too etc etc...when those get paid for such job..

Definitively the non understanding of the analytical program is closing the door to any awakening of all sort...

If I may: the Origin for me is aware of that "problem" as it is its creation..( if not it is even worse), it is a necessity for some reasons I have seen i think, it is so meant to happen to any human being as a sort of "path of initiation" with mother nature in charge to help if and that is a big if, if and when we do the right thing, which we obviously don't apart from some here and there,I guess usually unknown from most(thinking about some real sort of shamans for example etc etc)...

All this inevitable malfunctioning is signalled by what we call sorrow, pain, suffering, frustration, discontentment etc which are lighter up to a point when there is still a balance between my attained cravings and the pain of such a life which is a fact for all, yet usually denied because of some fear to go into that corner..

Apart in the Buddha’s time when it seemed to have been clearly tackled as a-the main subject before all others, apparently tackled as such,I say apparently as he wrote nothing, well such topic like sorrow ,even in k is flooded in the middle of so many other subjects that there are enough other topics to keep avoiding this one...

Now this may be a right approach but at some stage it is necessary to now such thing.....

Yet regarding k, what he says about sorrow, yet hidden in so many other topics , seems not different from Mr B words like this one:

  • Without understanding sorrow, there is no wisdom; the ending of sorrow is the beginning of wisdom. To understand sorrow and to be completely free of it demands an understanding, not only of the particular individualistic sorrows, but also of the enormous sorrow of man. To me, without being (totally) free of sorrow, there can be no wisdom, nor is the mind capable of really inquiring into that immeasurable something which may be called God, or by any other name.

So he made it very clear too........I juts would make it less absolute,this is why i put totally into brackets, i allow that as in some other talks k had been less absolute about it.

It seems to me that we are all meant to "analytically" go wrong to sublimate somehow this program that is part of being alive and we have been given all needed tools to solve that...which we don't do..

In this case we have been exploring the sorrow taking roots within this specific part of the analytical set up, giving the inability to deal with anything containing any end.

By extension now the analyser is refusing anything with an end so is refusing life as it is for a human with a beginning and so an end...

It has created its own mental illusory world which basement is non existant...where we go cuckoo......

John Raica wrote:
I guess that our very instinct of survival is occulting the very perception of this powerful psy-factor. From where we can easily grasp the related K paradox "Sorrow is time". In less 'holistic' words, if our brain is ordering its existence by assuming a constant growth, success, etc it is bound to 'suffer' quite a lot of upsets- which being cumulative by nature ( we seldom forget our hurts or failures) is getting us to the present wide spread self-saturated consciousness

Then I think that your words do naturally find their place here..

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #67
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

Meditation and Space

In a small boat on the quiet slow current of the river all the horizon was visible; there wasn't a tree or house that broke the horizon; there was not a cloud floating by. The banks were flat, stretching
on both sides far into the land and they held the wide river. The sky and the earth met and there was vast space. In this measureless Space the earth and all things had their existence,
even this small boat carried along by the strong current. There must be this Space for beauty and compassion. Everything must have (its own ) space, the living and the dead, the rock on the hill and the bird on the wing. If rats are enclosed in a restricted space, they begin to
destroy each other; human beings living in crowded cities are becoming (increasingly?) violent. Where there is no ( free) Space, outwardly and inwardly, every form of mischief and degeneration is inevitable.

Conditioning the mind through the so-called 'education', 'religion', 'culture', gives little (inner) space to the flowering of the mind and heart. When there is no such space there is (decay and) death
Music creates the space it needs; the sound of a word not only makes space: it needs space to be heard. The interval between two thoughts is ( confined within?) the (mental) space that thought makes. The continuous extension of ( the psychological ?) 'time' movement and the interval between two movements of thought need space. Our consciousness is ( contained?) within the movement of time and thought. This consciousness, wide or narrow, exists where there is ( the identification with?) a centre , the "me". This "me" has its being and its activity within this small space it has created for itself. All its problems and sorrows, its hopes and despairs are within its own (self-protecting ?) frontiers, and there is no (free inner) space (left). The 'known' occupies all (the free inner space of our) consciousness. Consciousness 'is' the known and within its frontiers there is no solution to all the problems man has created. And yet he won't let go; clinging to the known hoping that (an extensive knowledge?) will bring the solution his problems. This (mental) space which the "me" has built for itself is (generating ?) its own sorrow and the pain of ( its endless search for?) pleasure.
The vast, measureless Space lies outside the measure of thought, and thought is the (natural activity of the?) known. Meditation is the emptying of consciousness of its (psychological?) content, the known, the "me".

Slowly the oars took the boat up the sleeping river and the light of a house
gave it the direction. It had been a long evening and the sunset was gold,
green and orange and it made a golden path on the water.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #68
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

salut à tous! et... désolé pour le français!

John Raica ---> krishnamurti wrote:
Meditation is the emptying of consciousness of its content, the known...

ok, on a bien compris qu'ici K. ne suggère pas que la méditation c'est devenir amnésique...

ça veut dire quoi "vider la conscience de son contenu" ??

il s'agit bien de vacuité... les choses, les phénomènes , le monde, l'individu, apparaissent à la conscience d'une certaine manière et la façon dont elles apparaissent est une REPRESENTATION de ce qui n'est pas de l'ordre de la mesure.

cette représentation est fonctionnelle mais n'est pas la réalité telle qu'elle est, c'est à dire au delà de la mesure, du temps incalifiable.
toute fois, les choses apparaissent ainsi (de manière duelle) et c'est sur ce mode d'aparition qu'il "faut" méditer afin d'en voir l'aspect fictif.

vider la conscience de son contenu, de ce qu'elle connaît, c'est ça. on ne peut vider la conscience de son contenu, de ce qu'elle connaît, que si on le laisse apparaitre afin qu'il soit vu, observable dans sa dualité.

affirmer que l'on médite sur la non dualité est un non sens...
observer la dualité (tout ce qui apparaît, tout, autravers les 5 sens et le mental) et en voir l'élaboration c'est méditer...

à plus!


vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #69
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
ok, on a bien compris qu'ici K. ne suggère pas que la méditation c'est devenir amnésique...

Ou bien, Richard, devenir 'ego' amnesique? Mourir a son propre 'passé'? Et donc garder une conscience ouverte vers l'universel ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #70
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline


He was a sannyasi and he spoke of himself as of a third person. While still young he had renounced the world and its ways and had wandered all over the country, staying with some of the well known religious teachers, talking with them and following their peculiar disciplines and rituals. He had fasted for many a day, lived in solitude among the mountains, and done most of the things that sannyasis are supposed to do. He had damaged himself physically through excessive ascetic practices, and although that was long ago, his body still suffered from it. Then one day he had decided to abandon all these daily practices, rituals and disciplines as being vain and without much (spiritual) significance, and had gone off into some faraway mountain village, where he spent many years in deep contemplation. The usual thing had happened, he said with a smile, and he in his turn had become well known and had had a large following of disciples to whom he taught simple things. He had read the ancient Sanskrit literature, and now that too he had put away. Although it was necessary to describe briefly what his life had been, he added, that was not the thing for which he had come.

Q : Above all virtues, self-sacrifices, and the action of dispassionate help, is meditation. Without meditation, our knowledge and action become a wearisome burden with very little meaning; but few know what (true) meditation is. If you are willing, we must talk this over. In meditation it has been the experience of this speaker (aimed) to reach different states of consciousness; he has had the experiences that all aspiring human beings sooner or later go through, the visions embodying Krishna, Christ, Buddha. They are the outcome of one’s own thought and education, and of what maybe called one’s cultural (conditioning?). There are visions, experiences and 'powers' of many different varieties. Unfortunately, most truth seekers are caught in the net of their own thoughts and desires, even some of the greatest 'exponents of truth'. Having the power of healing and the gift of words, they become prisoners to their own capacities and experiences. The speaker himself has passed through these experiences and dangers, and to the best of his ability has understood and gone beyond them - at least, let us hope so. What then is (true?) meditation?

K : Surely, in considering meditation, the effort (to achieve something higher?) and the ('meditator' or the ?) 'maker of effort' must be understood. ( Psychologically speaking?) 'good' effort and 'wrong ' effort are both (time) binding, and it is this (time) bondage that must be understood and broken. Meditation is the breaking of all bondage; it is a state of (inner) freedom, but not 'freedom from anything' . To be conscious of 'being free' is not freedom. Self-consciousness is the experiencing of freedom or of bondage, and that self-consciousness is the 'experiencer', the maker of effort. Meditation is the breaking down of the 'experiencer' (self-identification?) , which (unfortunately?) cannot be done 'consciously' ( by a conscious effort?) . If the 'experiencer' is broken down consciously, then there is a strengthening of the will, which is also a part of (self-) consciousness. Our problem, then, is concerned with (seeing through ?) the whole process of our consciousness, and not with one part of it, small or great, dominant or subservient.

Q : What you say seems to be true. The ways of (our self-centred?) consciousness are profound (hidden?), deceptive and contradictory. It is only through a dispassionate observation and careful study that this tangle can be unravelled and order can prevail.

K : But, sir, the 'unraveller' is still there; one may call him the Higher Self, the Atman, and so on, but he is still part of consciousness, the maker of effort who is everlastingly trying to 'get somewhere' (to a desired state) . Effort is (the dualistic action of?) desire. One desire can be overcome by a greater desire, and that desire by still another, and so on endlessly. Desire breeds (self-) deception, illusion, contradiction, and the 'visions' of hope. The all-conquering desire for (attaining) the ultimate (truth), or the will to reach 'That' which is nameless, is still the way of (a self-centred) consciousness, of the 'experiencer' of good and bad, the 'experiencer' who is waiting, watching, hoping. Consciousness is not of one particular level, it is the totality of our being.

Q : What has been heard so far is excellent and true; but if one may inquire, what is it that will bring peace, stillness to this ( ordinary) consciousness?

K : No-thing ( not-a-thing?) . Surely, the (human) mind is ever (instinctively) seeking a result, a way to some 'achievement'. It is a (mental) instrument that has been 'put together', it is the fabric of time, and it can only think in terms of result, of achievement, of something to be gained or avoided.

Q : That is so. It is being stated that as long as the ( mental) mind is active, choosing, seeking, experiencing, there must be the (identification with the?) 'maker of effort' who creates his own (self-) image, calling it by different names, and this is the net in which thought is caught.

K : Thought (the 'memory based' thinking?) itself is the maker of the net; thought is the net. Thought is (time) binding; thought can only lead to the vast expanse of 'time', the field in which knowledge action, virtue, have importance. However refined or simplified is our thinking, it cannot breakdown all thought. (The self-identified?) consciousness as the 'experiencer', the 'observer', the 'chooser', the 'censor', the 'will', must come to an end (in the inner space of meditation?) , voluntarily and happily, without any hope of reward. The 'seeker' (de- ?) ceases. This is (the beginning of?) meditation. Silence ( Inner Peace?) of the mind cannot be brought about through the action of will. There is Silence (only) when 'will' ceases. This is ( the key to?) meditation. ( The timeless dimension of ?) Reality cannot be sought; it 'is' when the 'seeker' is not. The (self centred?) mind is (the result of?) time, and ( the time binding process of ) thought cannot uncover the Measureless.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #71
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Raica wrote:
devenir 'ego' amnesique? Mourir a son propre 'passé'? Et donc garder une conscience ouverte vers l'universel ?

et bien en fait amnésique voudrait dire que la mémoire ne fonctionne pas or ça n'est pas le cas...

en laissant apparaître ce qui apparaît à la conscience, cela devient observable afin d'y voir (même d'entrevoir fait basculer) le caractère fictif (que ce soit agréable désagréable neutre).

ce qui "meurt" (attention avec les mots ;-)) ce qui cesse, c'est la l'attribution que nous donnions à ce qui apparaît et ce même si cela continue d'apparaître sur un mode représentatif... c'est justement ainsi que tout apparaîtra et sera considéré, comme une simple perception...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Aug 2015 #72
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
ce qui cesse, c'est la l'attribution que nous donnions à ce qui apparaît et ce même si cela continue d'apparaître sur un mode représentatif... c'est justement ainsi que tout apparaîtra et sera considéré, comme une simple perception..

Parfatement d'accord Richard, donc exprime d'une maniere moins 'scolastique' - ce qui cesse c'est notre propre identification avec nous meme, ou bien l'identification du cerveau avec l'entite virtuelle du 'penseur'. Mais, sans macher nos s'agit bien d'une 'petite mort' vecue en direct dans l'espace interieur de la meditation. Certains 'meditateurs' du type Club Med pourraient trouver l'experience plutot perturbante.... Je suis presque sur qu'au moments precedants notre mort physique- si on n'est pas entierement stupefie par les medicaments ou la maladie, il s'agit du meme defi- de decrocher de l'espace mental du connu. Va expliquer ça a la Sorbonne...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Aug 2015 #73
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Raica wrote:
Va expliquer ça a la Sorbonne...

:-) oui c'est bien pour ça que certains mots peuvent heurter...

John Raica wrote:
Je suis presque sur qu'au moments precedants notre mort physique- si on n'est pas entierement stupefie par les medicaments ou la maladie, il s'agit du meme defi- de decrocher de l'espace mental du connu.

Je te le confirme John... Durant les premières expériences de vacuité, un "sentiment" de peur peut même s'élever, c'est comme si on ne savait pas si on survit à cela.... mais en même temps, l'événement est tel que tout se dissout.

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Aug 2015 #74
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

richard villar:
ce qui cesse, c'est la l'attribution que nous donnions à ce qui apparaît et ce même si cela continue d'apparaître sur un mode représentatif... c'est justement ainsi que tout apparaîtra et sera considéré, comme une simple perception...

Salut ma poule ...

Oui, une perception et pas un fait brut intégral,mais la surface d'un fait dont on ne prends que la superficialité, la pensée analytique ne peut faire autrement par programmation, et qui de plus est transformé pour plaire à mes désirs probablement inconnus à leur source , la plupart n'étant meme pas dans le champs de la conscience de la pensée ,qui est superficielle par nature.

Cette superficialité pour moi est vitale dans le champs ou la pensée doit s'exercer qui est donc dans la vie du mouvement du corps par rapport à l'environnement global incluant tout ce qui est sur cette planète en général, et de son "entretien" dans la vie de tous les jours (malbouffe,abris,vêtements etc..) ,dans la routine de tous les jours que la pensée fini par ne meme plus vouloir faire,tant elle se voit elle meme promise à de grandes choses dans ce monde..ceci résume la pensée unique et simpliste de toute personne de pouvoir..

Dans mon cas ,ceci est donc le descriptif d’événements involontaires qui ont commencé à se reproduire il y a 6 ans environ, lorsque j'ai "redécouvert" ce que je faisais naturellement jeune à partir de environ l'age de 10 ans pour situer dans le temps d'une vie et qui est de laisser cette "peine de vivre" etre, car à chaque fois "je" suis vaincu par cela.. parce que il est perçu qu'elle est clairement la plus puissante des deux forces en présences (illusoire ou pas à ce stade n'est pas encore le point) qui sont "moi je" d'un coté et la peine de vivre de l'autre ...

"je" arrogant, sur de lui ,ayant toujours raison etc etc est en fait dans ma vie factuelle sans arrêt vaincu par énormément plus fort que "moi je"....

ensuite ce minimum vital réalisé,arrive ce qu'il arrive bien sur...à partir de là ça va partir dans tous les sens, là ou rien ne va pouvoir etre prédéterminé ni apparemment souhaité ..par la volonté , le désir...."je reste" alors à la cuisine ,au jardin, etc etc uniquement là ou sa compétence est n'envahit plus l'univers de sa démence..

c'est vrai que à partir de là il est possible, d'entendre le bruit incessant de la pensée tout en ne l'écoutant pas (vraiment,pas) , ce: "je t'ai entendu mais naturellement je ne t' écoute pas car j'en vois le mal, le danger" etc de la pensée est certainement un événement "fondateur d'autre chose dans la vie..

comme je disais avant : un minimum........


schusssssss ;-)

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Aug 2015 #75
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

paul daniel wrote:
Oui, une perception et pas un fait brut intégral

salut dan,

et oui... tout ce que nous prenons pour la réalité y compris ce ressenti d'exister, J'existe..., est une perception. le "contenu de la conscience" est perception on ne "connaît" qu'au travers la perception...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Aug 2015 #76
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica :
Je suis presque sur qu'aux moments précédant notre mort physique- si l'on n'est pas entièrement stupéfié par les médicaments ou la maladie, il s'agit du meme défi- de décrocher de l'espace mental du connu. Va expliquer ça à la Sorbonne...

Salut John,

bonne chance pour la Sorbonne :-))..là c'est sur que çà n'est pas du tout cuit !!

Dans ma carrière en tant qu' humain j'ai connu trois fois un tel moment de plus que prés, dont une fois deux heures sous la menace d'une arme ...ou pour moi c'était fini...étrangement l'ayant vécu et non fuit , je n'en ai gardé aucune trace mentale traumatisante, je peux voir et revoir cet événement sans problemes, comme je le fais là en écrivant..une fois cela aurait du etre la bonne ....mais non..

Ceci se rapproche énormément de ce dont je parle à propos de "sorrow" , mon sujet fétiche comme tu dis.

Comme la seule chose sur laquelle "je" peux agir est de laisser les choses non liées au matériel être ce qu'elles sont, je peux toujours repeindre la cuisine si je veux, donc comme la seule chose ou "je" peux agir dans les domaines ou "je" n'a aucune compétence est de les laisser etre ce qu'ils sont, comme bien sur pour la souffrance mais pas seulement cela évidemment, je peux alors sentir ceci: je laisse les événements arriver sans les solliciter en étant conscient que cela va se produire,est de la nature des "choses" ,c'est comme çà et je les laisse etre ce qu'ils sont si je suis apte à cela au moment ou ils se produisent..."je" se soumets volontairement sans rien en attendre parce que il en a plus que marre de cette souffrance indicible, se soumet donc aux événements et non plus les crée, sauf là ou c'est physiquement vital bien sur comme pour faire à manger bien sur et traverser la rivière, na pas tomber de la falaise , na pas manger une grosse pierre etc etc

En clair et sans décodeur ce que je veux dire est que le mouvement de la pensée qui analyse est un mouvement vers le futur qui est son unique champs d'expansion réel,qui en science amène la croyance en une expansion, une évolution, genre "avant c'était nul, aujourd'hui c'est bien mais alors demain vous allez voir , ça va etre génial !!

Dans le futur l'analyse, qui analyse toujours le futur pour le modeler à sa façon, rencontre par analyse du dit futur la mort qui rode et essaye bien sur de la toucher, de la modeler à sa manière pour la rendre plus vivable analytiquement!! Là est pour moi une de nos plus grande FAUTE MAJEURE......

en fait l’analyse de la pensée ou "je" , ne vivra jamais le moment de la mort,comme je ne vis jamais le moment ou je m'endors non plus, à cause de ce décalage nécessaire et vital cependant qu'elle a par rapport au présent ou elle n'est pas sauf en tant que enregistreur machine non conscient de faire cela, tel une caméra en fait, tel une machine .

La mort physique a donc un rôle mental ailleurs car "je" ne peux la ...vivre...
la mort est dans le présent or "je" suis dans mon passé ou dans mon futur, sauf mécaniquement actif dans le présent pour les taches usuelles de survie moment par moment et plus....

Ayant vécu ces moments proche de la mort qui ne pouvait etre la mort, ceci est en fait assez banal, mais cependant c'était léger voir plus ,bien plus , dans le sens ou ce moment mettait théoriquement fin à quelque chose d'insupportable que je traduirais en piquant un peu d'un titre de Milan Kundera : l'incroyable banalité de l’être.

Mais pour moi tout ceci ne mène à rien de bien profond ni de vitalement intéressant si il n'y avait pas eu cette découverte de par elle meme et involontaire du fonctionnement de cette sorte d'ordinateur qu'est la pensée ...

Et le point crucial, dans ma propre vie, se confirme de plus en plus comme étant ce que l'on appelle la souffrance mais en tant que symptôme d'erreur, souffrance mot que je réfute mais utilise par soucis pratique, et qui est une réaction allergique incluse dans ce fonctionnement de la pensée elle meme car je vois nettement, sans le chercher,sans penser,sans réfléchir ,c'est juste là, dans ce fonctionnement que à partir du moment ou la pensée est parvenue à une conclusion X ( à des milliers de conclusions-désirs en fait..), quelle que soit cette conclusion, juste ou démente,vraie ou mensonge total , il y a un petit "add-on" programme qui fait que ce que j'ai conclu doit absolument se produire il n'arrive pas, alors la souffrance en tant que signal arrive de suite et est meme là pendant la tentative d’exécution ,toujours pour pousser à la réalisation..sans cela je deviens larvaire...c'est donc vital et ça peut aussi tuer l’humanité....

De cela nous ne savons rien,sauf x ou y .

cela fait parti des outils qui nous..(=pensée analytique) poussent à faire quelque chose, des motifs de faire...sans cela le programme d'analyse ne marchera pas, je dois nécessairement avoir des motifs de me bouger "le cul" si je puis me calculatrice doit avoir des raisons de calculer.....d’où le désir entre autre...

K indique bien que pour lui le désir ne peut pas etre supprimé mais seulement compris dans sa totalité, pas par la pensée analytique bien sur, ,alors il peut rester a sa place là ou il est vital et nécessaire..cela implique d'autres capitées enfouies ou endormies ..

ce sont ces motifs-désirs, la plupart sont inconnus de la pensée superficielle qui est tout ce qui nous reste, qui créent le trouble ,la peine, la lourdeur, la souffrance, le dé leur exact opposé comme mon malheur devient quête du racine du problème est enlisée sous des tonnes de gravats..mais mais mais elle est toujours très active,jamais perçue,jamais solutionnée.

ces motifs ,désirs, add-on , sont à la fois nécessaire pour analyser et un danger en meme temps...

ce sont ces petits add-on(motifs) qui nous rendent "fou" , ils n’atteignent pas leur en eux ils contiennent cette nécessité absolue d'arriver au but...toujours dans le meme soucis de faire que le programme analytique ait une raison de fonctionner, sinon il ne va plus analyser...

j'ai bien vu dans le cas de mon père après un A.V.C (stroke) , il avait perdu clairement une partie de ces "motifs" et passa à une sorte de stade larvaire , ou les motivations de meme penser n'étaient globalement plus, seul il serait mort en peu de temps....incapable de meme survivre ce qui ne devait sans doute n’être pas un motif..non plus

comme nous avons perdu une partie de nos capacités, ces "motifs" ont le champ libre pour tout envahir le mental illusoire des concepts,et tout le reste , Univers entier inclus si cela etat possible d'autant plus qu'ils passent dans le champs dit inconscient ,inconscient pour l'analyse superficielle..

Bref , la mort en tant que sujet d'analyse à une action spécifique qui est de nier la possibilité de la continuité qui est une des bases du programme de la pensée qui n’inclut pas de fin en soi dans ses analyses,mais inclut seulement le fait de faire quelque chose qui va durer dans le temps, ce qui est nécessaire pour faire quelque chose qui fonctionne..

Cela dit,sans nos autres capacités , je ne vois pas pour moi meme ni pour les humains comment on pourrait s'en sortir pour simplement vivre,car là nous ne faisons que survivre.....en s' auto félicitant pour certains...en pleurant sur soi meme pour d'autres, ce qui revient aux mêmes motivations profondes en fait..

décrocher de l'espace mental du connu , oui , est alors une nécessité vitale pour vivre ,comme le connu est une nécessité vitale pour survivre..

c'est ma vision en ce moment.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Aug 2015 #77
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:

paul daniel wrote:

Oui, une perception et pas un fait brut intégral

salut dan,

et oui... tout ce que nous prenons pour la réalité y compris ce ressenti d'exister, J'existe..., est une perception. le "contenu de la conscience" est perception on ne "connaît" qu'au travers la perception...

oui...ainsi cela susurre quelque chose en nous quand pour une fois ou plusieurs la perception laisse champs libre à autre chose qui est clairement dans le pré force de "pénétration" en interaction de tout est alors ressentie avec une intensité très forte et disons le totalement apaisante de la torture habituelle de la survie..etc...

ceci devient non descriptible bien sur, le vrai poète qui peut etre un total inconnu n'ayant jamais rien publié pourrait suggérer quelque chose au delà des mots bien sur, déjà que meme la description analytique de ce qui se passe avant est plus que difficile l'analyse elle meme est plus que compliquée....

Ciao ma poule..

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Aug 2015 #78
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

K : No-thing ( not-a-thing?) . Surely,
the (human) mind is ever
(instinctively) seeking a result, a
way to some 'achievement'. It is a
(mental) instrument that has been 'put
together', it is the fabric of time,
and it can only think in terms of
result, of achievement, of something
to be gained or avoided.

Hello John, back to English..

Yes indeed and this can only be done in the future,including within the next split second...

So there is this instrument forever caught in the future because it is its nature and a vital need...then what ?(not a "and so what" questioning k or yourself, but a general "and so what"? ) This instrument can play many plays and characters at the same time,fooling itself in the sense that what it thinks, it declares-believes all of it to be real and true..when it is not...some of it will become tools ,means, etc some will never ever exist ,all what is not practical indeed..

John Raica wrote:
Meditation is the breaking down of the 'experiencer' , which cannot be done 'consciously.

If so ,the i am sort of meditating, well, still, I do not like that word. ;-)

John Raica wrote:
However refined or simplified is our thinking, it cannot breakdown all thought. consciousness as

the experiencer, the observer, the chooser, the censor, the will, must come to an end , voluntarily and happily, without any hope of reward. The seeker ceases. This is meditation.

Silence of the mind cannot be brought about through the action of will. There is Silence when will ceases. This is meditation. Reality cannot be sought; it is when the seeker is not. The (self centred?) mind is (the result of?) time, and thought cannot uncover the Measureless.

well that is clear.
But far from being sufficient for a radical change in from stopping invading as much as possible the outer world to be now into some understanding as much as it will about the "me" functioning, my relation to me, my desires, others, the world,cooperation, sharing, competition,war ,violence, destruction, survival, how to act against the thieves etc etc

As long as whatever this "me" is is not uncovered enough, our world is not going to change nor will I...

If such insane life is not painful, as it is painful, no chance that we would change, yet as we would not suffer we would not be insane not at war with each others..

but this is not what is happening at all, we suffer, this should have made us cry out for understanding of that with the intention to find ways to solve that....and our ways remain the one of running away from it...

We have only one main huge problem to solve ...the pain of our insane life, what is that,what are the roots, what is going on etc etc ...

then surviving is really a piece of cake when voluntary cooperating equally sharing...

we do not clearly want that, apart from exceptions, so we choose the bitter life..insecurity,wars, etc etc...

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Tue, 11 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 #79
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline


You (should?) not 'invite' ( give continuity to?) joy; if you do, it becomes (another?) pleasure. ( Seeking the satisfaction of ?) pleasure is the (motivating?) movement of thought, but ( the self-centred) thought can in no way, cultivate joy ; if it pursues that which has been joyous, then it's only a remembrance, a dead thing. Beauty is never time-binding; it is wholly free of time and so of culture. It is there when the 'self' (-identification?) is not. The self (-consciousness) is put together by ( the personal memories of?) time, by the ( self-centred?) movement of thought, by the known, by the word (naming process?) . In the abandonment of the self-(identification ) , in that total attention, the essence of Beauty is there. The letting go of the self (centred consciousness?) is not the result of a calculated action of desire-will. The dissolution of the self is not ( found along the accumulation of?) self- knowledge; time does not enter into it at all. There is no way or means to end it. The total inward 'non-action' is the positive attention of beauty. You ( the collective consciousness of mankind?) have cultivated a vast network of interrelated activities in which you are caught, and your mind, being conditioned by it, operates inwardly in the same manner : ( personal and collective) 'achievement' becomes the most important thing and the fury of that drive is the skeleton of the self. That is why you follow a Guru, a Saviour, or your ideals; 'faith' (spiritual wishful thinking?) takes the place of insight, of awareness. There's no need for prayer when the self is not. You fill the empty spaces of the skeleton with knowledge, with images, with meaningless activities and so keep it 'alive' (busy?). In the quiet stillness of the ( emptied ?) mind, that ( universal feeling of?) everlasting Beauty comes, uninvited, unsought, without the noise (need?) of recognition.

How lovely it was that morning, the purity of light and the golden path the sun made on those living waters. You were (one with?) the world, the Cosmos, the deathless Beauty and the joy of Compassion. Only 'you' weren't there; if 'you ' were all this would not be. 'You' (the self-identified consciousness?) bring in the (time fragmentation of?) beginning and the ending, only to begin again in an endless chain. In the process of self-becoming there is uncertainty and instability. In 'nothingness' there is an absolute (inner) stability and so clarity. That (essence of our consciousness?) which is wholly stable never dies; corruption is in the becoming (part ?) . ( Unfortunately?) the world is bent on (biased by the illusion of?) becoming, achieving, gaining and so there is fear of losing everything and dying.
The mind must go (inwardly) through that small (fox?) 'hole' which it has put together, the 'self', to come upon this vast No-thingness whose stability thought cannot measure. Thought may wish to capture it and put it on the market- making it acceptable and so respectable, to be worshipped. Thought cannot put it (the inner no-thingness?) into any category and so we think that it must be a delusion, or it must be for the few, for the select. And so (the self-centred?) thought goes about its own mischievous ways, (inwardly) frightened, vain and never stable, though its ( intellectual?) conceit asserts there is stability in its actions and in knowledge it has accumulated. The dream (of inwardly and outwardly becoming 'somebody'?) becomes a reality which it has nurtured. But what thought has made real is not truth. 'Nothingness' is not a reality but it is the truth . That small (fox-) hole, the self, is the 'reality' of thought, the 'reality' of its (self-isolating?) fragmentation, the pain, the sorrow and its 'love'. In this 'reality' ( created by thought) there is no stability or pure clarity. The knowledge of the self can be accumulated, used as a 'ladder' to become, to improve, to achieve, but it will in no way free the mind of the (psychological) burden of its own 'reality'. 'You' are the burden; the truth of it (is revealed) in the very 'seeing' of it and the freedom (from the known) is not the 'reality' of thought. The seeing is the doing. The doing comes from the stability, the clarity, of no-thingness.

Every living thing on earth has its own sensitivity, its own way of life, its own consciousness, but man assumes that his own is far superior and thereby he loses his 'love' ( the feeling of all-oneness?) and becomes insensitive, callous and destructive. ( Man's evolution in the material world dominated by ?) time has bred (his personal content-colored ?) consciousness with its 'content'. Its ( 'psychological') content makes up consciousness; without it, consciousness, as we know it, is not. Then there is no-thing. We ( keep ourselves busy by?) moving (shifting) the little pieces in this ( time-bound) consciousness from one area to another according to the pressure circumstance but this is happening in the same field of pain, sorrow and knowledge. This movement is ( a process of?) time, of thought its measurement. It is a senseless (psycho-illusory?) game of hide and seek with yourself, the 'past ' and the 'future' of thought. Thought cannot hold the (present) moment for it is not of time. This is the ending of time : time has stopped at that moment, there is no ( mental) movement and so it is not related (linked) to another moment. It ( the timeless dimension of the present ? ) has no cause and so it has no beginning and no end. ( The problem is that the 'content' generated?) consciousness cannot contain it. ( So, the actual purpose of?) Meditation is the emptying of this 'consciousness' of its ( conditioning conditioned) content. In that (timeless) moment of (inner) no-thingness everything 'is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 #80
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 123 posts in this forum Offline

Hello John,

Thank you for posting that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #81
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

Hello John , Richard, the other Dan ...

I am away for some weeks, so i will talk to you when back..

cheers ..

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #82
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

Think about these (other) things

Any form of ('self'-) conscious (dualistic ?) meditation is not the real thing; it can never be. The deliberate attempt to meditate is not (a living?) meditation. It must happen; it cannot be invited. Meditation is not the play of the (intellectual?) mind nor of desire and pleasure. All (effort?) to meditate is the very denial of it. Only be (passively, choicelessly ?) aware of what you are thinking and doing and nothing else. The seeing, the hearing, is the doing (has its own action?), without rewards and punishments. The skill in (a holistic) 'doing' lies in the skill of seeing, hearing. Every form of (premeditated ?) meditation leads inevitably to deception, to illusion, for desire blinds (inwardly) .

It is good to be alone. To be far away from the world and yet walk its streets is to be alone. To be alone walking up the path beside the rushing, noisy mountain stream full of spring water and melting snows is to be aware of that solitary tree, alone in its beauty. The loneliness of a man in the street is the pain of (a self-centred?) life; he's never alone, far away, untouched and vulnerable. To be full of ( wordly?) knowledge breeds endless misery. The demand for ( self-) expression, with its ( rewards?) frustrations and pains, is ( causing the loneliness of?) that man who walks the streets; he is never alone (all-one?) . Sorrow is the movement of that loneliness. He ( the young K) only discovered recently that there was not a single thought during these long walks, in the crowded streets or on the solitary paths. Ever since he was a boy it had been like that, no thought entered his mind. He was watching and listening and nothing else. Thought with its ( mental) associations never arose. There was no 'image-making'. One day he was 'suddenly aware' ( had the insight?) how extraordinary it was; he even attempted often to 'think' but no thought would come. On these walks, with people or without them, any movement of thought was absent. This is to be (inwardly) alone.

He (young K) always liked machinery; he dismantled the motor of a car and when (put back) it ran as new. When you are driving, meditation seems to come so naturally. You are aware of the countryside, the houses, the farmers in the field, the make of the passing car and the blue sky through the leaves. You are not even aware that meditation is going on, this meditation (of the Cosmic Mind ?) that began ages ago and would go on endlessly. Time isn't a factor in (such) meditation, nor the word which is the (verbal interference of the?) 'meditator'. There's no 'meditator' in ( the universally integrated?) meditation. If there is, it is not meditation. The 'meditator' (mental interface?) is the word (naming process?) , thought and time, and so subject to change, to the coming and going. Meditation is not a flower that blooms and dies. You are sitting on the bank of a river, watching the waters, the current and the things floating by, but there's no 'watcher'. ( The essence of?) Beauty is not ( to be found) in the mere (artistic) expression, it's in the abandonment of the words and ( artistic) expression, ( forgetting about ?) the canvas and the book.


He was a short man, lean and hard of muscle: he had come from a far away country, darkened by the sun. After a few words of greeting, he launched into criticism.

Q : You may be free and live really all that you are talking about, but physically you are in a prison, padded by your (wealthy?) friends. You don't know what is happening around you. People (such as... ?) have assumed authority, though you yourself are not authoritarian.

K : I am not sure you are right in this matter. To run a school or any other thing there must be a certain responsibility and it can exist without the authoritarian implication. ( Acceptance of someone's psychpological?) authority is wholly detrimental to ( an authentic) co-operation, to talking things over together. This is what is being done in all the work that we are engaged in. This is an actual fact. If one may point out, no one comes between me and another.

Q : What you are saying is of the utmost ( spiritual) importance. All that you write and say should be printed and circulated by a small group of people who are serious and dedicated. The modern world is exploding and it is passing you by.

K : I am afraid again you (or we?) are not fully aware of what is happening. At one time a small group ( R&R?) took the responsibility of circulating what has been said. Now, too, a small ( but better organised and funded ?) group has undertaken the same responsibility. Again, if one may point out, you are not aware of what is going on.

He made other various criticisms but they were based on assumptions and passing opinions. Without defending, one pointed out what was actually (supposed to be?) taking place. But how strange human beings are....

The hills were receding and the noise of daily life was around one, the coming and the going, sorrow and pleasure. A single tree on a hillock was the beauty of the land. And deep down in the ( Saanen) valley was a stream and beside it ran a railroad. You must leave the world to see the beauty of that stream.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #83
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline


You have only one head (brain?) and look after it for it's a marvellous thing. No machinery, no electronic computers can compare with it. It's so vast, so complex, so utterly capable, subtle and productive. It's the storehouse of experience, knowledge, memory. All thought springs from it. What it has put together is (technologically) quite incredible, but one thing it apparently cannot do: change (or integrate?) completely its (inherited self-centred?) behaviour in its relationship to another human beings. Neither punishment nor reward seem to change this behaviour; knowledge doesn't seem to transform its conduct. The (dualistic mentality of the?) 'me' and the 'you' remain. It never realizes that the 'me' is the 'you', and that (inwardly) the 'observer' is the 'observed'. Its freedom is its 'known' prison; it is educated to live in this (psychological) prison, only making it more comfortable, more pleasurable. You have only one head, care for it, don't destroy it. It's so easy to poison it.

He (K) always had this strange lack of 'distance' (separation?) between himself and the trees, rivers and mountains. It wasn't something he cultivated: you can't 'cultivate' a thing like that. There was never a (mental?) 'wall' between him and another. He was like the waters of a river. He had no thoughts at all when he was alone. His brain was active (thinking) when talking or writing but otherwise it was quiet and active without (inner) movement. He wakes up often with that (silent) activity of meditation; something of this nature is going on most of the time. He never rejected it or invited it. The other night he woke up, wide awake. He was aware that something like a ball of light, was being put into his head, into the very centre of it. He watched it objectively for a considerable time, as though it were happening to someone else. It was not an illusion, something conjured up by the mind. Dawn was coming and through the opening of the curtains he could see the trees.

Have you ever wondered why human beings go wrong, become corrupt, aggressive, violent and cunning? It's no good blaming the (wrong) environment, the culture or the parents. Then there are others, born (naturally) generous, kind, responsible. They are not changed by the environment or any pressure. They remain the same in spite of all the clamour. The what (one) 'is' can be totally transformed with the (gathering of all the inner) energy usually wasted in explanations and in searching out the causes. Love is not (to be found ) in (the materialistic field of) time nor in analysis, in regrets and recriminations. It is ( may be?) there when the cunning deceits of the 'self' (-centred consciousness) are not (active?).

(The psychological challenge of?) death is everywhere but we never seem to live with it. The beauty of Love is ( brought by the?) death (dying to the past?) and one knows neither. Death is ( commonly associated with?) pain and 'love' is ( confounded with?) pleasure and so, the two can never meet; they must be kept apart and their division is (inwardly generating) pain and agony. This has been from the beginning of ( mankind's?) time, the division and the endless conflict. There will always be death for those who do not see that the observer is the observed, the experiencer is the experienced. It is like a vast river (of continuity in time?) in which man is caught, with all his worldly goods, his vanities, pains and knowledge. Unless he 'leaves' ('dies' to the attachments to ?) all the things he has accumulated in the River and swims ashore, death will be always at his door, waiting and watching. When he leaves the River has left everything, the river and the bank. For the River is time and the 'banks' are the thoughts (debris?) of time: the river is the movement of time and thought is of it. When the observer leaves everything which he is (attached to or identified with?), then the 'observer' is not. This is the Timeless. (However?) 'you' cannot know (or experience ) it, for what is known is of ( the River of?) Time. Freedom from the 'known' is freedom from ( the River of?) time. When time is not then death is not. Love 'is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 #84
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

Other Excerpts from K's journal (1973-75)

Coming back from the airport on a shaded road with the parrots, green and red, screeching around the trees, one saw across the road what appeared to be a large bundle. As the car came near, the 'bundle' turned out to be a man lying across the road, almost naked. The car stopped and we got out. His body was large and his head very small; he was staring through the leaves at the astonishingly blue sky. We looked up too to see what he was staring at and the sky from the road was really blue and the leaves were really green. He was malformed and they said he was one of the village idiots. He never moved and the car had to be driven round him very carefully. The camels with their load and the shouting children passed him without paying the least attention. A dog passed, making a wide circle. The parrots were busy with their noise. The dry fields, the villagers, the trees, the yellow flowers were occupied with their own existence. There were open gutters, filth and crowding humanity and the sacred river went on its way. The sadness of life was everywhere and in the blue sky, high in the air, were the heavy-winged vultures, circling without moving their wings, circling by the hours, waiting and watching.

What is sanity and insanity? Who is sane and who is insane? Are the politicians, the priests, those who are committed to ideologies, are they (holistically) sane? We are controlled, shaped, pushed around by them, and are we sane? To be (inwardly) whole, non-fragmented in action, in life, in every kind of relationship that is the very essence of ( a holistic) sanity. Sanity (having a sane mind) means to be whole, healthy and holy. To be ( holistically speaking ?) insane, unbalanced, is to be fragmented, broken up in one's actions and in the ( interactive) movement of relationship which is human existence. The artists, the intellectuals, the scientists, admired and flattered so much are they sane ( inwardly integrated ?) Or do they live in two different worlds - the world of their ideas and imagination with its compulsive self-expression, wholly separate from their daily life of sorrow and pleasure? The world about you is fragmented and so are you and its expression is conflict, confusion and misery: you are ( like) the world and the world is (not different from ) you. ( A holistic?) 'sanity' is (implies) to live a life of action without conflict. ( Our daily ) actions and ideas are contradicting each other. Seeing (the truth or falseness of someting ?) is ( undivided from ) the doing - not ideation first and action according to the (intellectual) conclusion. This (psychological gap ?) breeds conflict. The analyser himself is ( actually not separate from) what is analysed. When the analyser/observer/thinker/experiencer/ separates (considers?) himself as something different from what is analysed/observed/thought/ experienced/, he begets ( a state of inner) conflict, and (living with a mentality based on ?) conflict is the area of the unbalanced. The observer is the observed and therein (in perceiving the inner truth of it?) lies sanity, the ( being) whole, and with the holy (wholeness?) is ( coming a sense of?) love.

It is good to wake up without a single thought, with its (time-related?) problems. The brain can only function efficiently, objectively, where there is ( a deep sense of order and?) security, not in contradiction and confusion. Order is the transformation of all this mess. When the observer 'is' (not separating itself from?) what is observed, there is complete order. Can the human mind never be hurt or wounded? Not to be hurt is to be innocent. If you are not hurt you will naturally not hurt another. Is this possible? The 'culture' in which we live does deeply wound the human mind and heart : the noise and the pollution, the aggression and competition, the violence and the (standardised ) 'education', all these and more contribute to this (psycho-) agony. Yet we have to live in this world of brutality and resistance. What is (actually) hurt? The ( identification with a protecting self-) 'image' that each one has built about himself, that ( identification?) is what is ( getting) hurt. The essence (content?) of the (self) image you have is the same as of the man who lives a thousand miles away. So you 'are' ( inwardly very much like?) that man or woman. Your hurts are the (shared) hurts of thousands. Is it possible never to be hurt? Where there is ( a psycho-) wound there is no love. Where there is hurt, then love is ( translated in terms of?) mere pleasure. When you discover for yourself the beauty of ( living without a self-image and therefore ?) never being hurt, then only do all the past hurts disappear. In the full (intensity of the) present the past has lost its burden. He ( K) has never been hurt though many things happened to him, flattery and insults, threats and (upper class?) security. It is not that he was insensitive, unaware: he had no ( need for a self-protective ?) image of himself. ( having a self-) image is (a form of?) resistance and when that is not, there is vulnerability but no hurt. You need not seek to be come vulnerable, highly sensitive, for that which is 'sought and found' is another (improved version?) of the same image. Understand this whole (hidden ) movement (of image creation) , not merely verbally, but have an insight into (the illusory value of image making?) Seeing the truth of it is the ending of the 'image' building process.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Aug 2015 #85
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

'Think on These Things'

what it means to learn?

When you are really learning you are learning throughout your life and there is no one special teacher to learn from. Then everything teaches you - a dead leaf, a bird in flight, a smell, a tear, the rich and the poor, those who are crying, the smile of a woman, the haughtiness of a man. You learn from everything, therefore there is no guide, no philosopher, no guru. Life itself is your teacher, and you are in a state of constant learning. 

What does it mean to be free?

Is freedom a matter of doing what happens to suit you, going where you like, thinking what you will? This you do anyhow. Merely to have independence, does that mean freedom? Many people in the world are independent, but very few are free. Freedom implies great intelligence, does it not? To be free is to be intelligent, but intelligence does not come into being by just wishing to be free; it comes into being only when you begin to understand your whole environment, the social, religious, parental and traditional influences that are continually closing in on you. But to understand the various influences - the influence of your parents, of your government, of society, of the culture to which you belong, of your beliefs, your gods and superstitions, of the tradition to which you conform unthinkingly - to understand all these and become free from them requires deep insight; but you generally give in to them because inwardly you are frightened. You are afraid of not having a good position in life; you are afraid of what your priest will say; you are afraid of not following tradition, of not doing the right thing. But freedom is really a state of mind in which there is no fear or compulsion, no urge to be secure.

What is intelligence?

Most people are satisfied with a definition of what intelligence is. Either they say, "That is a good explanation", or they prefer their own explanation; and a mind that is satisfied with an explanation is very superficial, therefore it is not intelligent.
You have begun to see that an intelligent mind is a mind which is not satisfied with explanations, with conclusions; nor is it a mind that believes, because belief is again another form of conclusion. An intelligent mind is an inquiring mind, a mind that is watching, learning, studying (life) Which means what? That there is intelligence only when there is no fear, when you are willing to rebel, to go against the whole social structure in order to find out what God is, or to discover the truth of anything.
Intelligence is not knowledge. If you could read all the books in the world it would not give you intelligence. Intelligence is something very subtle; it has no anchorage. it comes into being only when you understand the total process of the mind - not the mind according to some philosopher or teacher, but your own mind. Your mind is the result of all humanity, and when you understand it you don't have to study a single book, because the mind contains the whole knowledge of the past. So intelligence comes into being with the understanding of yourself; and you can understand yourself only in relation to the world of people, things and ideas. Intelligence is not something that you can acquire, like learning; it arises with great revolt, that is, when there is no fear - which means, really, when there is a sense of love. For when there is no fear, there is love.

Why don't you do miracles?

Krishnamurti: When 'that which is', is perceived without distortion, there is understanding; and that understanding brings a healing quality. But understanding can come only through your own individual awareness and not through the miracle of another, not through the impression, the influence, the compulsion, or the imposition of the idea of another. Surely, miracles do happen. They are happening all the time, only we are not aware of it.
Physically and psychologically, inwardly as well as outwardly, you are not the same today as yesterday. The body is undergoing transformation all the time, and so is the inward nature, the mind; and if we can follow it easily and swiftly, then we will see what an extraordinary miracle is happening in us and about us - the miracle being the constant newness, the freshness of life, the infinite beauty, the pliability, the depth of existence. For the man who asks nothing, to him life is a miracle, a miracle of constant renewal; and we shall miss that renewal if we are merely seeking a result, an end.

What is self-knowledge, and how can we get it?

Krishnamurti: Self-knowledge comes when you watch everything in you and around you and see yourself as you see your face in a mirror. When you look into the mirror you see yourself as you are, don't you? You may wish your head were a different shape, but the fact (of what you are) is there, clearly reflected in the mirror, and you can't push it aside and say, "How beautiful I am!" Now, if you can look into the mirror of relationship exactly as you look into the ordinary mirror, it is like entering a fathomless ocean which has no shore. Most of us want to reach an end, we want to be able to say, "I have arrived at self-knowledge and I am happy; but it is not like that at all. If you can look at yourself without condemning what you see, without comparing yourself with somebody else, without wishing to be more beautiful or more virtuous; if you can just observe what you are and move with it, then you will find that it is possible to go infinitely far. Then there is no end to the journey, and that is the mystery, the beauty of it.

What is the soul?

Krishnamurti: Now and then there may have been one or two people who have discovered for themselves something about this extraordinary thing called 'immortality', a state in which there is no death. The very word 'soul' embodies the idea of a state which is indestructible, timeless, does it not? But, you see, you never find out for yourself whether or not there is such a state.
The man who really wants to find out whether or not there is a state beyond the framework of time, must be free of ( the conditioning of the) 'civilization'; that is, he must be free of the collective will and stand alone. I or another may tell you there is a timeless state, but what value has that for you? If you are hungry you want to eat, and you don't want to be fed on mere words. What is important is for you to find out for yourself. You can see that everything about you is decaying, being destroyed. This so-called 'civilization' is no longer being held together by the collective will; it is going to pieces. Life is challenging you from moment to moment, and if you merely respond to the challenge from the groove of habit, which is to respond in terms of acceptance, then your response has no validity. You can find out whether or not there is a timeless state, a state in which there is no movement of the 'more' or of the 'less', only when you say, "I am not going to accept, I am going to investigate, explore" - which means that you are not afraid to stand alone.

Will you please teach me how to love?

Krishnamurti: What is important is not to let ( the reactions of) hate take root in your mind. Your mind is like rich soil, and if given sufficient time any problem that comes along takes root like a weed, and then you have the trouble of pulling it out; but if you do not give the problem sufficient time to take root then it has no place to grow and it will wither away. If you encourage hate, give it time to take root, to grow, to mature, it becomes an enormous problem. But if each time hate arises you let it go by, then you will find that your mind becomes very sensitive without being sentimental; therefore it will know love.

What is the real life?

Krishnamurti: Real life is doing something which you love to do with your whole being so that there is no inner contradiction, no war between what you are doing and what you think you should do. Life is then a completely integrated process in which there is tremendous joy. But that can happen only when you are not psychologically depending on anybody, or on any society, when there is complete detachment inwardly, for only then is there a possibility of really loving what you do. If you are in a state of total revolution, it does not matter whether you garden, or become a prime minister, or do something else; you will love what you do, and out of that love there comes an extraordinary feeling of creativeness.

Are you happy or not?

Krishnamurti: I don't know. I have never thought about it. The moment you think you are happy, you cease to be happy, don't you? When you are playing and shouting with joy, what happens the moment you become conscious that you are joyous? You stop being joyous. Have you noticed it? So happiness is something which is not within the field of self-consciousness.

Why do we cry, and what is sorrow?

Krishnamurti: A little boy wants to know why we cry and what is sorrow. When do you cry? You cry when somebody takes away your toy, or when you get hurt, or when you don't win a game, or when your teacher or your parents scold you, or when somebody hits you. As you grow older you cry less and less, because you harden yourself against life. Very few of us cry when we are older because we have lost the extraordinary sensitivity of childhood. But sorrow is not merely ( due to) the loss of something, it is not just the feeling of being stopped, frustrated; sorrow is something much deeper. You see, there is such a thing as having no understanding. If there is no ( self) understanding, there is great sorrow. If the mind does not penetrate beyond its own barriers, there is misery

How can we become integrated, without conflict?

Krishnamurti: Integration does not come when you seek it by avoiding conflict. It is only through conflict, and the understanding of conflict, that there is integration.
Integration is one of the most difficult things to come by, because it means a complete unification of your whole being in all that you do, in all that you say, in all that you think. You cannot have integration without understanding relationship - your relationship with society, your relationship with the poor man, the villager, the beggar, with the millionaire and the governor. To understand relationship you must struggle with it, you must question and not merely accept the values established by tradition, by your parents, by the priest, by the religion and the economic system of the society about you. That is why it is essential for you to be in revolt, otherwise you will never have integration.

Does the soul survive after death?

Krishnamurti: You must first find out, surely, whether there is a soul to survive. What is the soul? Do you know what it is?
The word 'soul' implies something beyond mere physical existence, does it not? There is your physical body, and also your character, your tendencies, your virtues; and transcending all this you say there is the soul. If that state exists at all, it must be spiritual, something which has the quality of timelessness; and you are asking whether that spiritual something survives death. That is one part of the question.
The other part is: what is death? Do you know what death is? Can you know death while you are living? What significance has it if someone tells you that there is or is not survival after death? You still do not know. But you can find out for yourself what death is not after you are dead, but while you are living, healthy vigorous while you are thinking, feeling. Death is the unknown, and what matters is to know of the unknown while you are living.

Will the rich ever be prepared to give up much of what they have for the sake of the poor?

Krishnamurti: Whatever they give up, it will still not satisfy the poor . You who are well-to-do, and who therefore have the opportunity to cultivate intelligence, can you not create a new society? it depends on you, not on anybody else; it depends on each one of us, not on the rich or the poor, or on the communists. You see, most of us have not this spirit of revolt this urge to break through, to find out; and it is this spirit that is important.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Aug 2015 #86
Thumb_3135 Jo D United Kingdom 12 posts in this forum Offline

Hello John, I really like the style of the last post 'Think on These Things'. I found it very relaxing to read. Thank you.

One of the bits I like:

John Raica wrote:
K: if you can just observe what you are and move with it, then you will find that it is possible to go infinitely far. Then there is no end to the journey, and that is the mystery, the beauty of it.

Yes, it's like a beautiful complex puzzle that can't be solved, but it can be fun and compelling working bits out along the way.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Aug 2015 #87
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

More excerpts from the K journal 1973)

Listening is a (living) art when you listen out of complete quietness, out of total silence. Listening to one's thoughts or to the blackbird on a branch or to what is being said, without the (verbal) responses of thought ( the responses of the known?) , brings about a wholly 'new' significance from that which the movement of thought brings. This is the art of listening ; in listening with total attention there is no (self-conscious) 'centre' which listens. The silence of the mountains has a depth which the valleys have not. Each has its own silence; the silence among clouds and among trees is vastly different; the silence between two thoughts is timeless; the silence of pleasure and of fear are tangible. The artificially (created) silence which thought can 'manufacture' is dead; the silence between noises is the absence of noise but it is not silence, as the absence of war is not ( necessarily) peace.

The man had been sitting there on the bank of the beautiful river, motionless; he would come there every morning, freshly bathed, he would chant in Sanskrit for some time and (eventually) he would be lost in his thoughts; he didn't seem to mind the morning sun. One day he came and began to talk about meditation. He did not belong to any school of meditation, he considered them useless,
without any spiritual significance. He had put away the ways of the world long ago. He had controlled his desires, shaped his thoughts and lived a solitary life. He was not bitter, vain or indifferent; he had forgotten all these some years ago. Meditation and Reality were all his (interests in this?) life. As he talked the sun was setting and a deep ( loving?) Silence descended upon us.

Q : That is the Silence I have been looking for everywhere, in the books, among the teachers and in myself. I have found many things but not this. It came unsought, uninvited. Have I wasted my life in things that did not matter? You have no idea what I have been through, the fastings, the self- denials and the practices. I saw their futility long ago but never came upon this Silence. What shall I do to remain in it, to hold it in my heart? Sitting here I am conscious of this sacred silence; through it I look at the stars, those trees, the river. Though I see and feel all this, I know I'm not really there. As you said the other day, the observer 'is' (one with ) the observed. I see what it means now. The benediction I sought (in my meditations) is not to be found in the seeking. It is time for me to go.

You watched the stars and the dark earth and the world was far away. ( A deep sense of ) Beauty, which is Love, seemed to descend on the earth and the things of it.


He ( the young K) was standing there with no one around, alone, unattached and far away. He was about fourteen or less. They had found his brother and himself quite recently and all the sudden importance given to him was around him. Standing there alone, lost and strangely aloof, was his first and lasting remembrance of those days and events. He doesn't remember his childhood, the schools and the caning. He was told years later by the very teacher who hurt him that he was caned because he couldn't study or remember anything he had read or been told. All those years passed without leaving scars, memories, on his mind; his friendships, his affections, none of these events, friendly or brutal, have left marks on him. In recent years a writer asked if he could recall all those rather strange events, how he and his brother were discovered and the other happenings, and when he (K) replied that he could not remember them and could only repeat what others had told him, the man openly stated that he was putting it on and pretending. He never consciously blocked any happening, pleasant or unpleasant, from entering into his mind. They came, leaving no mark and passed away.

Consciousness is its content: the ( streaming) content (of our collective memory) content makes up (our own self-centred) consciousness. There is no 'you' and 'another', only this content varying according to the culture, the racial accumulations, the techniques and capacities acquired. This ( collective) conditioning is the content of our consciousness. This again is broken up as the conscious and the hidden. This fragmentation takes place when the observer is not (realising it is not separated from?) the observed, when the 'experiencer' is considering itself as different from the experience. The hidden is as the open; the observation the hearing of the open is the seeing of the hidden. ( But this direct?) seeing is not analysing. In analysing a fragmentation which leads to inaction, a paralysis. In 'seeing', the observer is not, and so the (perceptive) action is immediate; there is no (time delay?) interval between the idea and action. The idea, the conclusion, is the (product of the) 'observer' (assuming it is) separate from the thing seen. ( Self-) identification is a (self-protective) act of thought and thought is ( the result of the inherited self- ?) fragmentation.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 18 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 #88
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

Excerpts from the K Journal (1973-75)

A new ( and compassionate?) Consciousness and a totally new morality are necessary to bring about a radical change in the present culture and social structure. One sees the necessity of a social, economic and moral change but our response is from the old consciousness ( in which the self-centred) thought is the principle actor. The confusion and the misery that human beings have got into within the area of the old consciousness, and without changing that profoundly, every human activity, political, economic and religious, will only bring us to the destruction of each other and the earth. This is so obvious to the sane.

One has to be a light to oneself; this ( inner) light is the law (the ordering factor) . There is no other (inner) 'law'. You cannot be a light to yourself if you are (safely enclosed) in the dark shadows of authority, of dogma, of conclusion. ( an authentic) Morality is the child of love and love is not ( related to) desire or sensory enjoyment. Freedom is to be a light to oneself- freedom from dependency, attachment, from the craving for ( new and rewarding) experiences. Freedom from the very structure of thought is to be a light to oneself. In this light all action takes place and it is never contradictory. Contradiction exists only when that (inner) light, is ( absent or?) separated from action, when the 'actor' is separate from action. The barren movement (mental activity?) of thought cannot co-exist with this light; where the 'observer' is, this (inner) 'light', this love, is not. The ( self-conscious) structure of the 'observer' is put together by thought, which is never new, never free. You have to see (what is true and what is false?) but not through the eyes of another. This light, this ( spiritual ) 'law', is neither yours nor that of another, only (intelligent and compassionate ?) light. This is Love.

It was a pleasant and lovely morning, all around there were these enormous clouds against a blue and dazzling sky. He had not a single thought and was only looking at the beauty of the world. He must have been at that window for some time and 'something' took place, unexpected, uninvited : everything seemed to withdraw and be giving space only to That, the 'unnameable'. You won't find it in any temple, mosque or church or on any printed page. 'You' will find it nowhere and whatever 'you' (the 'experiencer' ,) find, it is not That. If you ever walk by yourself high in the mountains among the pines and rocks, leaving everything in the valley far below you, when there is not a whisper among the trees and every thought has withered away, then it may come to you, that 'otherness'. If try you 'hold' it, it will never come again; what you 'hold' is the memory of it, dead and gone. What you can hold is not the Real; your heart and mind are too small, they can 'hold' only the things of thought and that is barren. You must be alone (all-one?) with the trees, meadows and streams. You are never inwardly 'alone' if you carry the things of thought, its images and problems. The mind must not be filled with the 'rocks and clouds' ( debris?) of the earthly (life) . It must be empty as the newly-made vessel. Then you would see something totally new, something that has never been. You can't see this if 'you' are there; 'you' must die to see it.You may think 'you' are the most important thing in the world but you are not.You may have everything that thought has put together but they are all old (stuff) , used and beginning to crumble.
It was a temple in ruins, with its roofless long corridors, gates headless
statues and deserted courtyards. It had become a sanctuary for birds and
monkeys, parrots and doves. The whole place was surprisingly clean
and one could sit on the ground to watch the monkeys and chattering birds.
Once very long ago, the temple must have been a flourishing place with
thousands of worshippers, with garlands, incense and prayer. Their
atmosphere was still there, their hopes, fears and their reverence. The holy
sanctuary was gone long ago. This old ruined temple was too far away for the
villagers to further destroy it. Had they come they would have desecrated the

Religion has lost the beauty of truth; instead of direct perception there is in its place the image carved by the hand or the mind. The only concern of religion is (should be?) the total (inner) transformation of man. That's why ( the living?) Truth is not to be found in any temple, church or mosque, however beautiful they are. The (inner) beauty of truth and the (outer) beauty of stone are two different things. One opens the door to the immeasurable and the other to the ( spiritual) imprisonment of man; the one to freedom and the other to the bondage of thought. Knowledge in the area of (practical) action is necessary to function efficiently
and objectively, but knowledge is not the means of the transformation of man;
knowledge is the very structure of (self-centred) thought, the dull repetition of the
known, however modified and enlarged. There is no freedom through the ways
of thought, the known. The long snake lay very still along the dry ridge of the

The (living) beauty of Truth and its subtleties are not in belief and dogma, there is no path to its beauty; it is not a fixed point, a haven of shelter. It has no market value to be 'put aside' (stored) and used later. It is there when the mind and heart are emptied of the things of thought. The one who says he 'knows' it has never come near it. Be ( inwardly) 'far away' from the world and yet live in it.


He ( K's father?) was sitting with a cloth over his head, weeping; his wife had just died.
He did not want to show his tears to his children; they too were crying, not
quite understanding what had happened. The mother of many children had
been unwell and lately very sick; the father sat at her bedside. He never
seemed to go out, and one day, after some ceremonies, the mother was
carried out. The house had strangely become empty, without the perfume that
the mother had given to it, and it was never the same again for there was
sorrow in the house now. The father knew it; the children had lost someone
forever but as yet they did not know the meaning of sorrow.
It is always there, you cannot just forget it, you cannot cover it up through
some form of entertainment, religious or otherwise. You may run away from it
but it will be there to meet you again. You may lose yourself in some worship,
prayer or in some comforting belief but it will appear again, unbidden. The
'flowering' of sorrow is bitterness, cynicism or some neurotic behaviour. You
may be aggressive, violent and nasty in your conduct but sorrow is where you
are. You may have power, position and the pleasures of money but it will be
there in your heart, waiting and preparing. Do what you will you cannot escape
from it. The 'love' that you have ends in sorrow; sorrow is ( being caught in?) time, sorrow is (being caught in self-centred ?) thought.
The new technologies and machines are taking over the toil of man but you may not end sorrow through the things that (human) thought has put together. ( The self-centred) thought with its
memories, with its images of pleasure and pain, with its loneliness and tears,
with its self-pity and remorse, is the ground of sorrow.
Listen with your heart, with your whole being to what is now being said : Your dependence and attachment have prepared the soil for your sorrow. Your neglect of the study of oneself and the beauty it brings, have given nourishment to your sorrow; all your self-centred activities
have led you to this sorrow. Just stay with it, don't wander off. Any movement of thought is the strengthening of sorrow. Thought is not (bringing) love. Love has no sorrow.

The temple overlooked the blue Mediterranean; it was in ruins and only the
marble columns remained. In a war it was destroyed but it was still a sacred
sanctuary. One evening, with the golden sun on the marble, you felt the holy
atmosphere; you were alone, with no visitors about and their endless chatter.
The columns were becoming pure gold and the sea far below was intensely
blue. A statue of the goddess was there, preserved and locked up; you could
only see her at certain hours, but she was losing the beauty of sacredness.
The ( beauty of the?) blue sea remained.

What is sacred? Not the things made by the mind or hand or by the sea.
The symbol is never the real; the word 'God' is not God. The word 'sacred' has no meaning by itself; it becomes sacred only in its relationship to something, illusory or real. What is Real is not the words of the mind; Reality, Truth, cannot be touched by thought. Where the 'perceiver' is, Truth is not. The 'thinker' and his thoughts must come to an end for Truth to be. Then  that which is (seen in the light of truth?) is sacred - that ancient marble with the golden sun on it, that
snake and the villager. Where there's no Love there is nothing sacred. Love is 'whole' (holy?) and in it there's no ( personal?) fragmentation.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 20 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Aug 2015 #89
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

Selected excerpts from the K Journal (1973-75)

The word is not the thing (it describes); the image, the symbol is not the Real. To put Truth into words wipes its (living content?) away and illusion takes its place. Reason is the order of thought and thought is the response of the outer (world) . Because it is the ( result of the ) outer, thought puts together an 'inner' (life) . No man can ever live only with the outer, and the inner becomes a necessity. This ( mental) division is the ground on which the battle of "me" and "( what is ) not me" takes place. The outer (activity of thought) is ( creating) the God of religions and ideologies; while its 'inner' (part) tries to conform to those 'images' and conflict ensues. ( Psychologically speaking ?) there is neither the 'outer' nor the 'inner' but only the whole. The (inner) experiencer is ( not separated from ) (what is) experienced (in the outer world) . ( This) fragmentation is ( a psychological form of?) 'insanity' . This wholeness is not merely a word; it is ( an integrated state of being?) when the division as the outer and inner utterly ceases. The thinker 'is' (not separated from ) the (process of) thought. Suddenly, as you were walking along, without a single thought but only observing without the 'observer', you became aware of a ( sense of?) Sacredness that thought has never been able to conceive. You stop, you observe the trees, the birds and the passer-by; it is not an illusion or something with which the mind deludes itself. It is there in your eyes, in your whole being. .

Straight ahead, towering in the clear sky was the second highest peak of the Himalayas. You could almost touch it but it was many miles away; you forgot the distance for it was ( a presence) there, in all its majesty so utterly pure and measureless. By late morning it was hidden in the darkening clouds from the valley. Only in the early morning it showed itself and disappeared a few hours later. No wonder the ancients looked to their gods in these mountains, in thunder and in the clouds. The divinity of their life was in the benediction hidden in these unapproachable snows.

His disciples came to invite you to visit their guru; you politely refused but they came often, so it was decided that their guru would come with a few of his chosen disciples. The guru came, carrying a small, polished stick. Several of us were sitting on a thin mattress on the floor when he entered the room and we got up and offered him the mattress. He sat cross-legged, putting his cane in front of him; that thin mattress seemed to give him a position of authority. He ( was assuming he) had found Truth, experienced it and so he, who knew it, was opening the door for us. You might be lost in your search and he would help you along the way, but you must obey. Quietly you replied that all the ( spiritual) 'seeking' and the 'finding' had no true meaning unless the mind was free from its (past) conditioning; that freedom is the first and last step, and obedience to any authority in matters of the mind is to be caught in illusion and action that breeds sorrow. He looked at you with pity and concern, as though you were slightly demented. Then said, "The greatest and final experience (of Truth) has been given to me and no seeker can refuse that."

K : If Reality or Truth is ( something) to be ( recognised and personally ?) 'experienced', then it is only a projection of your own mind. What is 'experienced' ( by the self-centred consciousness ?) is not (the living?) truth but a creation of your own mind.

His disciples were getting fidgety. Followers destroy (deny the freedom of?) their teachers and themselves. He got up and left, followed by his disciples.

There is no ( pre-established ) path to ( a living ?) Truth. It is not to be (personally?) 'experienced' or found through dialectics. You will come upon it when the human mind is free of all the things it ( the self-centred thought?) has put together.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #90
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

More excerpts from the K journal

He was a thin, wiry man, with a well-shaped head and eyes that had known laughter. We were sitting on a bench overlooking the river in the shade of a tamarind tree, the home of many parrots and a pair of small screech-owls which were sunning themselves in the early morning sun.

Q : I have spent many years in meditation, controlling my thoughts, fasting and having one meal a day. I used to be a social worker but I gave it up long ago as I found that such work did not solve the deep human problem. There are many others who are carrying on with such work ( in India and elsewhere) but it is no longer for me. It has become important for me to understand the full meaning and depth of meditation. Every school of meditation advocates some form of self- control, but somehow there seems to be no end to it.

K : Control(ling one's thought) implies ( a hidden ) division, the (identification with the ) 'controller' and the things (that have to) to be controlled; this division (separation) , as all division, brings about conflict and distortion in our actions and behaviour. This (dualistic) ,fragmentation is the work of ( our survival oriented self-centred) thought, one fragment trying to control the other parts, call this one fragment the controller or whatever name you will. ( Although it is deeply rooted in most cultures?) this division is artificial and mischievous. Actually, the controller is (not separated from) the 'controlled'. Self-centred thought in its very nature is fragmentary and this ( duality conflict?) causes confusion , and sorrow. Thought is the response of ( active) memories (of our past?) experiences and knowledge, stored up in the brain; it (the thinking brain ?) can only function efficiently, sanely, when it hasa deep sense of security, order. To survive physically it must protect itself from all dangers; the necessity of outward survival is easy to understand but the 'psychological' (component of this ) survival is the survival of the (self-) image that thought has put together (and identified with?) . Thought has divided existence as the outer and the inner and from this separation conflict and (the need for ) control arise. For the survival of the 'inner' ( self or group-consciousness ? ) beliefs, ideologies, gods, nationalities become essential and this also brings about untold wars, violence and sorrow. The desire for the survival of the inner (psycho-structure) , with its many images, is ( eventually producing) is disharmony. ( The self-identified?) thought is disharmony. All its images, ideologies, its 'truths' are self-contradictory and destructive. Thought (brain's self-centred thinking patterns ?) has brought about, both outwardly and inwardly, chaos, and pleasures that soon become agonies. To 'read' all this in your daily life, to see this movement of ( self-centred) thought is the transformation that meditation brings about. This (is an integrating?) transformation of the ( psychological) content of consciousness. The consciousness of the world is ( also) your consciousness; you are the world and the world is you. Meditation is the complete transformation of ( the self-centred programming of human? ) thought and its activities. Harmony is not the fruit of (a 'self'-controlled) thought; it comes with the perception of the whole (universal ? Consciousness ).


One day, a man asked if he would like to see a baby elephant and naturally we went to see it. It was about two weeks old and the big mother was nervous and very protective, we were told. The car took us out of town, past the squalor and dirt to a river with brown water, with a village on its bank; tall and heavy trees surrounded it. The big dark mother and the baby were there. He stayed there for several hours till the mother got used to him; he had to be introduced, was allowed to touch her long trunk and to feed her some fruit and sugar cane. The sensitive end of the trunk was asking for more, and apples and bananas went into her wide mouth. The newly-born baby was standing, waving her tiny trunk, between her mother's legs. She was a small replica of her big mother. At last the mother allowed him to touch her baby; its skin was not too rough and its trunk was constantly on the move, much more alive than the rest of it. The mother was watching all the time and her keeper had to reassure her from time to time. It was a playful baby.


The woman came into the small room deeply distressed. Her son was killed in the war.

Q : I loved him very much and he was my only child; he was well- educated and had the promise of great goodness and talent. He was killed and why should it happen to him and to me? There was real affection, love between us. It was such a cruel thing to happen.

K : We spend so much money on educating our children; we give them so much care; we become deeply attached to them; they fill our lonely lives; in them we ( hope to ) find our fulfilment, our sense of continuity. Why are we educated? To become technological machines? To spend our days in labour and eventually die in some accident or with some painful disease? This is the life (pattern offered by?) our culture.. Every wife or mother is crying when war or disease has claimed the son or the husband. Is this sorrow ( due to our) attachment? Is it self-pity and the pain of separation? If you loved your son, you would see to it that no son was ever killed in a war. There have been thousands of wars, and mothers and wives have never totally denied the ways that lead to war. You will cry in agony but still support, unwillingly, the systems that breed war. Love knows no violence.


The man explained why he was separating from his wife.

Q : We married quite young and after a few years things began to go wrong in every way, sexually, mentally, and we seemed so utterly unsuited to each other. We loved each other, though, at the beginning and gradually it is turning into hate; separation has become necessary and the lawyers are seeing to it.

K : Is love (the pursuit of) pleasure and the insistence of (fulfiling our ) desire? Is love a physical sensation? Is ( sexual?) attraction and its fulfilment 'love'? Is love a commodity of thought? A thing put together by companionship, kindliness and friendship? If any of these take precedence then it is not 'love'. Love is as final as death.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 285 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

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