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

Pages from the Book of Life


Displaying posts 91 - 95 of 95 in total
Mon, 09 Jul 2018 #91
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 207 posts in this forum Offline

(Abstracts of the Madras ) K Group Discussion 30th October, 1947

It is an (experientially) realisable fact that one can bring about an almost instantaneous perception of what is Truth and (the insightful perception of) Truth is the liberating factor.
(For starters?) One should (try to become choicelessly or 'non-personally'?) aware of our words, gestures and thoughts. When (for instance) there is an awareness of (inwardly being attached to?) an idea, let the ( self-inquiring ?) mind pursue it till the full implications of (adopting?) that idea are understood. For instance, consider the ( idea of ) nationalism : on account of an (ignored ) feeling of (inner vacuity or ) emptiness, which we dislike, we ( instinctively ) identify ourselves with a nation, creed or idea which offers ( the very realistic illusion of) security, prestige and position - to us. To dissolve this 'nationalistic' sense in us, we must become aware of the fact that we 'are' (collectively inclined to be 'tribal' or ) nationalistic and also (realise that on longer term) nationalism is detrimental to us all .

In daily life, most of us do not act up to our (true ) convictions because of fear to lose our social status etc.; they are therefore (becoming ) 'hypocrites' to their relatives and later on to the people at large also. Most of us merely follow the old routine of habitual action and thinking.

Group Discussion 1st November, 1947

A mind which is conditioned (accustomed?) to live (safely) in a mental pattern controlled by a (personal or collective) creed or ide(ology) , can never know itself (by direct experience) . The mind can discover itself only when it is free of (thought) control and when there is a certain ( self-awareness &) spontaneity.
Discovery of the truth (or falsehood of something) liberates us; we then transform ourselves with joy, clarity and quickness. For example, to find the truth about the need for ( a self-imposed inner) discipline or (about its redundancy) , we must investigate the ( actual truth of this ) matter. Some say that if you do not discipline yourself properly there will be confusion. Is there not confusion even though you are disciplined? When you have only directed your attention on a particular thing excluding everything else, you still continue to be confused all round. Discipline means training the mind to a desired pattern in order to produce a certain result.
However a (self-) disciplined mind is static, and a static mind cannot understand the living problems of life. Similarly, the practice ( of any spirtual discipline ) cannot lead to (self-)understanding either . You cannot 'concentrate' (integrate) your ( mental & emotional) faculties through any method or through any practice.
The problems of your inner life are dynamic and living; therefore, to understand them, you must have a mind which is also dynamic and not disciplined. Again, ( the 'enlightened' perception of) Truth (also known as 'insight'?) can only come to you, you cannot go to it. If (you assume that ) 'you' can go to Truth you can try to discipline yourself in order to reach it – but you would only move from the known to the known and not to the Unknown. Therefore, ( the thought imposed ) discipline cannot lead you to freedom. No effort or practice can lead you to ( a holistic self-) understanding. Also, ( reaching the inner) freedom is not a gradual process. ( Self-) understanding cannot be through (our common thinking in terms of) time. Such (temporal thinking) can not produce the timeless. ( a self-imposed inner) discipline is a mere ( process of becoming in ) time and so it cannot lead to the Unknown, to the Timeless (dimension of Reality . ( Hint:) When conditioned by a ( self-imposed ) discipline, the human mind is ( becoming) insensitive to its (actual) problems.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Jul 2018 #92
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 207 posts in this forum Offline

2-nd K Public in Madras 1947 (reader friendly edited)

I would like to continue from where I left off last Sunday. I was trying to show the (2-way interactive) relationship between the individual and society. How society having been created by (older self-centred ?) individuals smothers the ( present self-centred?) individual through systems, through organizations, through religion and so on. I think it is very important to realize very seriously and profoundly, ( the individual responsability involved in the ) relationship between the individual and society, as well as the transformation of society (through) the regeneration of the individual (mind) .
Although you may assert that our relationship (should be) based on brotherhood, love and religious ideas and so on, if you analyze it very carefully you will see that it is actually based on sensate values - made either by the hand or by the mind. Sensory values are not 'eternal' (human) values, and this relationship based on sensory values has produced the present chaos which you see throughout the world.

( The deeper consciousness of ) man is ( presently in a state of ) despair, confused, in a sorrowful (condition) . ( Our 1000 $ existential question is:) Does man's happiness lie in the ( material) 'things' made by the human mind? Through self-knowledge we can discover what is the truth and right happiness and whether our happiness lies in things made by the hand and by the mind.
Now, what is ( the 'bestest' approach to?) self-knowledge? You have to know the total process of your whole being, that is, to be aware of everything that you are (in terms of) thoughts, feeling and action - that is the very beginning of self-knowledge. We cannot think seriously about a (psychological) problem unless we are ( becoming fully) aware of it. Therefore the ( ages old residues of ignorance & ) confusion has to be cleared within your mind, which does not mean you must wait till all the confusion in yourself is cleared before you act.

I do not think we realize fully the extraordinary nature of the present human crisis . As I have said in my previous talk, a crisis like this happens only very rarely and we are all confronted with one of the rarest ( case of) of catastrophes and confusions. And what is needed is a complete revolution in ( our existing) values and you cannot create new (spiritual) values except by awakening the 'individual' (integrated consciousness). (For starters?) when you walk down the (Madras) streets you are aware of the poverty of the people, of the ill-fed families and of the utter callousness of everyone who's passing by ? ( Hint:) we have created all this, and since we are not aware of it how can we transform it? Surely it looks simpl(istic intellectually) ) , but the most profound ( experiential) beginning is to begin with ourselves.
( The first difficulty is that) we have become (inwardly) dull and that we must (ASAP?) revivify and quicken our whole sensitivity. You can become sensitive (the hard way?) , when you become aware of yourself in action, in thought and in feeling. Surely ( the liberating perception of?) truth is not far away but very near, only if we knew how (and where) to look for it, but we do not look for it because we are not (inwardly awaken or?) aware. So what is of primary importance (for our everyday homework) is to be aware, so choicelessly, so penetratingly aware of every thought, every feeling that is revealed.

Question: In a recent article by a famous correspondent it was stated that wisdom and personal example do not solve the world's problem. What do you say?

Krishnamurti: As there are many things involved in this particular question we must analyses it carefully. First of all we are told what to think by 'famous' correspondents, because like you, they have their own 'axes to grind'. So, we have stopped thinking (out everything for ourselves) as we absorb what they think and what they do. So, one has to be extremely alert, not to absorb other people's ideas and demands.
(2) The (famous) 'correspondent' says that wisdom and personal examples are not enough to solve the world's problem. Neither do I think wisdom and personal example will save the world. But (following) the 'personal example' invariably leads to imitation ; while wisdom cannot be realized through ( following any?) personal example. Wisdom is something living, Real and in constant moving. ( The direct perception of Truth) is not (limited to ) a fixed place; it is not learned through ( reading tons of philosophical ?) books. What is necessary at the present time is a ( timeless?) revolution in (the quality of our) thinking, a 'creative' thinking. And that (inward) revolution can only be gained through you, the ( holistically integrated?) individual.

So there must be a creative revolution in thinking and that is extremely difficult (for the self-centred thinker?) . There can be a ( qualitative?) revolution in thinking only when the (thinking mind of) man is free from its (time-binding) conditioning, not only of the conditioning one is conscious of?) , but the many (un-conscious) layers of consciousness in which ( traces of time-binding?) conditioning exists. To liberate oneself inwardly from that conditioning is ( the function of any authentic ?) revolutionary thinking. ( Hint : that may imply that you have to cease to (identify yourself as a?) Brahmin, Hindu, Christian, you have to 'transcend' all fallacies, class divisions. But (on a second thought?) if you do change, what will your neighbours say! You might even lose your job ! Therefore you will go on shaking your head (in assent) but the world will go on more and more miserably and you will go on talking about changing the world.

So the start is not in the ( consciousness of the?) world of which you are unaware, but the world's problem can be solved (from the inside out?) if you are becoming aware of the misery and confusion which exists in you and therefore in ( the collective consciousness of?) the world. I assure you that is the only way out, and what is of the highest importance ( to be dealt with?) is what you are, your is your thinking, feeling & action 'now'.

Question: What did you mean when you said that ''we use the present as a passage'' ?

Krishnamurti: Last Sunday I said that ''we use the present as a passage to the future''. We use the present as a means of achieving some result, whether it is a psychological result or a personal result, changing oneself to become something. We use the present as a means of the past for the future, that is, this (time-bound ?) 'present' is the result of the ( whole mankind's ) past. Surely that is obvious. What you think is based on the past, your (self-centred?) being is founded on the past.
Now, without ( bothering to?) understand (its  roots in the ?) past, (our self-centred) thinking (functioning in the safety of its past knowledge?) goes through the ( living) 'present' ( creating its temporal continuity ) into the 'future'. ( It follows logically) that as this 'future' is the result of the past, it can only be understood through ( our full awareness in ) the present. The 'psychanalysts 'look to the ( hidden memories of the ) past to find the present difficulties, the conditioning, the complexes, and so on. But to understand the (active memories of the?) past the 'door' (key?) is the present, which is also the door (keys?) to the understanding of the future. That is, to understand the significance of the past the ( time-free dimension of the eternal ?) 'present' must be (properly) understood and not sacrificed for (an imaginary?) future. The (communalistic?) idea of sacrificing the present for the future has thus led man to disaster, to chaos and misery. But also the religious people use the present as a passage to the future. "ln my next incarnation I will (hopefully) do something with my life, (as there's ) nothing to do right now. Give me a (redeeming?) chance." That is also a 'sacrificing' of the ( living ) present. Surely the timeless is ( the eternal) 'now' and to understand the timeless you cannot approach it through ( the mentality of) time. Yet, if you do not change now you will never change. Wisdom is being (a light for oneself?) in the present, which is 'now', and this ( living?) present can be understood when the mind understands the ( constant interferences of the?) past and thus becomes inwardly aware of the whole content of our being now, of what you are now and therefore to understand the ( living dimension of the?) Now, you must look (out ) to the (interferences of) past, because your ( self-centred) thought is based on the past : you cannot think ( about anything) without the (objective memory of the ) past. But to understand the ( active interefences of the?) 'past', examine what you are now, be aware of what you are now and becoming aware of what you are now, you will see we are using (our living in ) 'present' as a passage to get somewhere.

So ( to recap:) if you use ( thinking in terms of) time as a means to reach the 'timeless' ( dimension of Reality ?) you will never find that timeless-ness because (inwardly-wise?) using the wrong 'means' you will produce the wrong 'end'. War is a wrong means to achieve peace, since the 'end' is not dissociated from the 'means'. So if you would understand the timeless, (the thinking which ) is ( currently) bound in time must free itself and... that is extremely 'arduous' since it demands a constant awareness of every ( self-centred) thought and feeling and a 'becoming aware' of how one is caught up in it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Jul 2018 #93
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 207 posts in this forum Offline

3-rd K Public Talk in Madras 1947 (reader friendly edited)

K: I would request you to 'listen' to these talks, not so much with the idea of learning (something new) , but also by letting what I am saying to 'take root'. If it is true it will take root 'unconsciously', and if it is not it will just fall off and so you do not have to bother (about it anymore) . Because, what is (seen as) true is absorbed instantaneously by the 'unconscious' (layers of our total consciousness?) and what is not ( perceived as being) true, gradually falls off.
The other day we were discussing why each one of us, and therefore the world, is so consumed with the sense of property and class division. Why is it that each one of us gives such significance to acquisitiveness and to social, national and racial divisions? Why is it that they fill our minds? It would be worthwhile to discuss this with each one of you and really go into it but that is impossible because there are too many persons here. So I can only 'point out' the problem and I hope you will think about it afterwards (for homework) .

Now, why have these rudimentary demands taken such a deep hold of our minds? Is it not because we have no greater ( spiritual) values? If you are interested in something greater, the lesser would not have such predominating value. Secondary ( sensory?) values when given consuming importance bring disaster and misery as they are doing now in the world. So why is there no greater value (in our everyday life) though all the sacred books, say that there is a greater value? And if we did seek it, where has it led us to? Though you are (actively) seeking God and all the rest of it, the result is still the cultural division between the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Christian, the Muslim and so on.
So when the ( temporal) mind seeks security, certainty, there can be no greater value than the sensate. After all, our acquisitiveness and class divisions are 'psychological' factors. They are not materialistic values. They are psychological demands. So when 'psychologically' we are seeking security it only creates ( materialistic) values made by man's hand or by his mind and therefore there can be no ( place for ?) greater values and so the 'sensate' (hedonistic?) values become all important.

So, how is the 'greater' value to be found? (For starters?) if I am really interested in something greater (spiritually-wise?) , I will not give such significance to the lesser values. But how am I to find the greater? I can only find it by understanding ( the time-binding nature of my inner ) 'psychological' demand for security. I think this is the first problem which we have to face (inwardly)  : is there any 'psychological' ( self-projected?) security? We are all seeking (such ) security in ( academic titles & ) names, property, beliefs, definite ideas. This is the way in which the mind constantly seeks to be secure, to be certain, and we have assumed that there is such a thing as security and on it we are building our whole civilization, the whole structure of our thoughts, religious thoughts as well as those of every day existence. We have never asked ourselves, is there ( such a ) security? If there is not we will have to alter our whole existence.
So, is there psychological certainty? You are going to find it out only through self-knowledge. So, I come back to that point again with a different approach. I may tell you there is no such 'security' , but if you can discover ( the truth of) it for yourself, then it will become extraordinarily clear, which is not the result of our own projection. So, ( the direct approach to?) self-knowledge is important in the sense that while you explore your own mind you begin to discover whether such a thing as (an everlasting?) security exists.

( Hint:) Self-knowledge has an extraordinary creative significance, (only) if we treat it as a direct experiment – but not in order to achieve a result - if we experiment with ourselves and live experiment(i)ally then every relationship becomes a (potential) process of self-revelation; in my daily contact with you I am being revealed to myself, the way I think, the way I feel and act; if I am observant and aware of that relationship in daily life, the process of my thinking, my meditations, my demands become revealed to me. But I can only have self-knowledge if I am (inwardly?) aware. Then I can see that one of the major difficulties in the human relationships is our (ages old?) desire to be (totally?) secure ; and self-knowledge becomes extraordinarily significant when one begins to question the ( spiritual validity of a ) mind which is ever seeking, pursuing the ( illusory inner safety of living in the?) known.
I do not know if you have observed the process of your ( self-centred?) thinking, always moving from the known to the known, or ( optionally?) to an 'unknown' of its own creation which it then pursues until it becomes the worship of God. You have created ( a larger than life image of ?) God because it is ( providing) the ultimate security; and if you observe very carefully your own way of thinking & feeling, you will see that it is absorbed in ( the search for inward & outward) security. Yet truly, it is in 'uncertainty' that you can discover what freedom is, not in certainty, nor in possessiveness, nor in the divisions of beliefs or of names.
( To recap:) Property, belief have become all important because we have pursued certainty through sensory values that the human mind or hand can create, because in them there seems to be ( the solid proof of ) security. But, if you went deeply into this whole problem of security, then the sensory values would be of very small importance.

Question: Will you please explain further what you mean by 'meditation'?

Krishnamurti: First of all, what do we generally do when we sit down to meditate? Your ( superficial) mind wanders all over the place. So, because you have been told that you must concentrate on ( some serious stuff ? ) you try to concentrate on a picture or a (mantram) phrase or an idea taken out of a book. The mind being vagrant, wandering, disorderly, but still seeking some inner orderliness, pursues one exclusive idea, generally a verbal idea; and when someone can dwell completely in an idea and be identified with it, we call him a 'great man' . Yet... that ( great meaningful ) idea is a mere projection. Or the ( sacred?) word is ( constantly) repeated and you are putting yourself in a (self-induced) trance, and going far into that trance, you will call that (a successful) 'meditation', which is in fact only a ( subliminal) identification with a (self-) projected idea.

Now, since ( the Unmanifested ?) Reality is ( intrinsically) unknowable, you actually cannot 'think' about something unknowable, you can only think about the ( things that are?) knowable. And since what you 'know' is not the ( living ?) Truth, you only 'experience' a process of self-hypnosis. Is that Meditation? To go into a trance, to concentrate on a thing with which you are getting completely identified, which is a projection of yourself? Is that not what we are doing?

When your meditation is merely moving from the 'known' to the 'known', it is obviously not (allowing) the discovery of the Unknown. Then... what is the true 'meditative' process? How to discover (within one's own mind) the 'Unknown' is (crux of the ) the problem. After all the purpose of meditation is to discover ( the inward source of ) Reality, Beauty & Love.
Therefore, the ( ultimate experiential ? ) problem is : Is it possible to discover the Unknowable ? ( Hint:) If you try to experience it ( or 'enjoy it' ?) then it is not the Real ( .

How then would you find out (within yourself?) that which is not conceivable, that which cannot be formulated, that which is Immeasurable, the Real ? ( The meditating mind ) can only know the Eternal, the Timeless when (itself) it is not caught in time. (In other words) the ( meditating) mind can know the ( living dimension of?) Truth only when it is free from ( its psychological ties in the field of the?) known.

So the first problem is our (everyday ) mind which moves from the known to the known. This mind cannot see the Real unless it frees itself from the known. What is the 'known'? Our memory is constantly gathering ideas, possessions or distinctions. Can mind free itself from its own ( self-protective) creations? Can mind, which is the result of time, free itself from time? When it is free from (its thought-created continuity in ) time, the Timeless is. So, how can the (temporal) mind free itself from time, from the past, the present and the future? It can free itself only from time by becoming ( non-personally?) aware of all that it is doing now, of all its thinking & feeling. Now and not tomorrow ! For, the 'present' is the door to the understanding of time and in becoming aware of what you are thinking ( & feeling) now you will discover 'why' you are thinking and 'what' you are thinking. That is, in the constant awareness of what you are thinking, feeling & doing, you will find the beginning of self-knowledge, not only the knowledge of your conscious mind , but also of all the hidden activities. Therefore self-knowledge is the beginning of meditation and there can be no meditation without self-knowledge. To meditate there must be self-knowledge.

The question 'How to meditate' is a wrong question because it merely asks for a method, a technique which is (already recorded in the field of ) the 'known', in order to find the Unknowable. See how ridiculous it is ? If the means is the 'known' then the end also is the 'known' and therefore it is not the Unknowable, the Timeless.

So (to recap:) the right beginning of meditation is also the beginning of self - knowledge. That is the ( meditating) mind begins to be aware of its own activities ; and to know ( by total immersion?) the whole process of the ( self-centred) mind is not a question of time ; you just begin by being aware (non-personally & ) choicelessly, that is, without condemnation, without justification, without identification, and then (the meditative approach to ) self-knowledge becomes extremely creative. After all that is Creation, the Real

Question: I am beginning to realize that I am a very lonely person . What am I to do (in order to fix this 'psychological' problem) ?

Krishnamurti: Do you know what this 'loneliness' really means and are you aware of it? I doubt it very much because ( generally speaking?) we have smothered our ( deeper feelings?) in various 'activities', which really prevent us from being aware of loneliness. So, what do we mean by 'loneliness'? It is a sense of feeling inwardly empty, of having no anchorage anywhere, the sense of real inexhaustible pain, an (existential) pain that cannot be covered up, though we are constantly trying it.
So, when you start feeling lonely you try to 'escape' it by picking up a (thriller?) book, or going to a cinema, or you worship and pray, or... you write a poem about loneliness. (In short?) you seek an escape (a relief?) , and (therefore) that escape becomes more important - your (social) activities, your knowledge, your gods, your radios (& tweets?) all become important. As I said, when you give (primary) importance to secondary values, they lead you to ( an exponential increase of?) misery and chaos; and our ( materialistic?) civilization is founded on that and – this is an easily observable fact.
Have you ever tried to 'be' alone? How extraordinarily intelligent we must be to be (inwardly) alone, because the mind becomes restless, it busies itself by trying to fill that ( deep existential loneliness ?) which we do not know, with the things we know (namely, with ) knowledge, relationship or ( man-made ?) 'things' .

Now when you realize ( the truth regarding ) what you are doing , do you still think you can fill this 'inner void of loneliness' ? Have you succeeded in filling it or have you merely covered it up (temporarily?) ? If you have merely covered it up, it is still there. Therefore, it will come back ( one of those days?) and if you are able to escape it altogether then you must have become ( inwardly) very, very dull. Can this ( profound sense of existential) emptiness, this inner void be ever filled (with 'things' ?) ? If not, can we keep running away from it, escape from it? (Hint:) meditation can also be such an escape.
How will you find what to do about this ( inner sense of) loneliness? You can only find what to do when you have (wisely?) stopped escaping. When you are willing to ( intelligently ?) face 'what is', then that (existential ) loneliness is ( getting) completely transformed. If you understand (holistically ?) 'what is', then 'what Is' is the Real. But to see (the holistic aspect of?) 'what is', not only requires a great deal of awareness of one's ( inner) action, but it also means 'turning your back' to everything that you have built up ( for various physical & psychological reasons?) - ( the gut-attachment to ) your bank account, your name ( & form?) and to everything that we call (modern?) civilization. When you see ( the truth regarding?) 'what is' you will find how loneliness is transformed (ASAP?) .

Question: Are you not becoming our ( new spiritual) 'leader'?

Krishnamurti: First of all, why do you want a (spiritual) leader ? Because we are ( inwardly & outwardly ) confused and we want somebody to protect us. Politically ( this 'protection') may son be the tyranny of a dictator. That is what is happening and what is going to happen.
When there is confusion in the outer world (and also) misery, chaos, exploitation by the rich & by those who have got a ('fool proof') system and create a political party and because we do not want anarchy we let them lead us. We do not want to be confused, we want somebody to tell us what to do. And so, we create leaders. Now (psychologically-wise?) what happens? You not only create a leader but you become the 'follower'. And are you not destroying (the integrity of ) your own thinking when you follow a tradition blindly, or follow a leader or a party ? There is certainly a (generalised ) confusion but nobody is going to bring order except yourself.
So, exploitation exists not only between the worker and the (profit oriented ) owner, but also between the 'follower' and the 'leader' and here the exploitation is mutual. As the leader depends upon your vote and you depend upon the ( charismatic?) leader where are we going to be led to? ( Psychologically speaking) your desire to create (and follow) a 'leader' is a (sublimated ) form of self-fulfilment. You fulfil yourself in a leader and he fulfills himself in you, by seeking to guide you.

Now (speaking personally?) I do not believe in self-fulfilment, it leads to misery. And as I do not depend on you financially or for my psychological demands, I am not your (spiritual) leader. It does not matter to me whether there is one, many, or no none, to listen to me. I do not believe in mutual exploitation and therefore you are not going to make me your ( spiritual) leader. Because the true Reality is not found through following anybody - it comes into being only when the 'self' (consciousness ) is absent, when there is freedom from psychological demands, when the mind is free to act in pursuing anything ( true?) . This pursuit is indicative of creation and when all ( worldly?) desires cease then there is Reality.

Question: What is the difference between belief and confidence? Why do you condemn belief?

Krishnamurti: First of all let us see what is 'belief' and what is 'confidence'. Why do we have to 'believe'? Is it not because we have a desire to be certain, to be secure? So, belief is a demand to be (inwardly) secure made by the ( self-centred) mind and therefore the mind takes the beliefs of others and then what happens? Belief divides (people) . When you seek security in your particular belief you become separated from those who are seeking security in other forms of belief. Therefore, all organized beliefs are based on separatism, though they may preach brotherhood. That is exactly what is happening in the world because belief is a hidden psychological demand for self-fulfilment.
So (in a nutshell?) belief is formed because of a desire for self-fulfilment, for security; and because we demand security and strive for it, we have an end and the end is a projection of ourselves. If the 'end' were unknown we would not ( need to) 'believe' (in it) .

And what do we mean by 'confidence'? Most of us feel a certain confidence in something. If you have practised something, read books, etc., it gives you a certain self-confidence, done it over and over again with confidence. It is a (sublimated?) form of competitive aggressiveness - "I can do something and you cannot." Self-confidence in an (academic title, bank account or?) in another (lucrative?) capacity - such (self-) confidence is ( a sublimated form of) aggression. Is it not? Such confidence is also self-exploitation which again is akin to belief. Therefore belief and confidence are similar. They are the two sides of the same coin.
Now, there is another kind of (inner) 'confidence' which comes through self-knowledge. When there is a (non-personal inner ) awareness, when the mind is aware of what it is thinking, feeling, doing, not only in the superficial layer of consciousness but in the deeper hidden layers, when we are fully aware of all the implications, then there comes a sense of (inner) freedom, a sense of ( self-) assurance, because you 'know'. When you know something is 'poisonous' ( or 'fake'?) there is a (sense of) assurance, a sense of aliveness when the 'self' (consciousness?) has been explored and all its tricks and corners are known to the mind, then the mind is assured of its Creator. Therefore it ceases to create and in that cessation there is creation.

Sirs, please do not get ( subliminally influenced or ?) hypnotized, but (for a change ?) try to be in that receptive mood when the seed (of truth) is set in place and takes root. I hope sincerely that the 'seed' ( of truth) is being planted because what is going to free you, to deliver each one of us from 'sin & suffering' is the awareness of 'what is' (going on inwardly?) and to perceive it without (thought's ) obstruction brings freedom. This is (the ultimate ?) freedom and through that freedom alone can Truth be known.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 12 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2018 #94
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 207 posts in this forum Offline

K Group Discussions - abstracts

10th November, 1947

The ( thought-addicted?) mind can be understood only when it is 'slowed down' so that each thought, as it arises, can be followed out with a sense of inner freedom; the ( totality of our) mind has to dedicate itself to that understanding.
In order to slow down the (thought addicted ) mind to understand it (in real time?) , the ( holistically correct?) approach is to become aware of its restlessness and in the very process of following carefully each response up to its completion, the mind has already slowed down.
The ( holistic quality of the ) approach is therefore much more important than the problem. Through a part, the whole cannot be understood; and ( thinking patterns of the?) organised society and of organised religion are only parts. Understanding leads to right action. Being afraid to act (now) , most of us say that anyway, eventually, we shall find Truth. But, we will never see, if we do not see it now. If we do not (have free access to the intelligence of 'selfless?) love' now, will we ( have access to this) love tomorrow?

13th November, 1947

We saw that the mind has to slow itself down if its restlessness and vagrancy are to be understood. The ( meditative?) quietening of the mind was regarded as a problem outside; but in following each of its responses completely, the mind had become naturally quiet and alert – and it has to be (inwardly) quiet in order to understand each response fully.
Thus, the problem is (in) 'you' and not outside you and therefore, its (non-dualistic ) approach is very important. To understand Truth, the mind has first to free itself from the framework of organised society or religion.
A holistic understanding leads to right action and to an urge to speak of that understanding. A truth, probably heard by you (here) , ceases to be a ( living) truth when you merely repeat it; it will be a truth to you only when you, for yourself, have discovered it to be true. Propaganda is mere repetition of another's truth; it ceases to be propaganda when you yourself have discovered the truth.
As fear is one of the chief impediments to right action it has to be understood. In trying to understand fear - whether physical or psychological - we shall be making a wrong approach if we discuss fear as a problem outside us.
Physical fear: - Physical body is alert and the instinct of self-preservation makes the body act even without any ( self-) conscious effort of the person who experiences fear - e.g., the nearness to a ( rattle) snake.
Psychological fears: - Fear of losing (i) things, (ii) relationship, i.e., people connected to us and (iii) one's ( self-identified continuity or ) ideas, beliefs etc.
At the very moment of ( a 'psychological' reaction of ) fear, the person who experiences that fear and the quality of fear are one. It is a joint phenomenon. Immediately afterwards, there is a separation and you say that you must do something about it. The first moment of fear was unexpected and you met it unprepared; and at that moment (for an inwardly sensitive person) there is only a state of most heightened sensitivity, which contains no nameable quality. As it is physically impossible (for the temporal brain ?) to continue in that state without collapsing or without getting mad, the instinct of self-protection leads to ( the steady state of) the 'thinker' separated from that quality; in the case of fear, the 'thinker' wants to get rid of it by developing courage or developing a more philosophical attitude ; yet, the fear continues to lurk inside all the time.
Therefore, the ( holistically) correct approach to the 'fear' problem is not how to get rid of it but to realise that there will be (a lingering shadow of) fear as long as we are protecting ourselves (psychologically by getting identified with our) property, relationship, ideas, beliefs, etc. If we let go any of these, we feel that we are nothing; therefore, we (better be the lucky owner of our ) property, title, ideas, etc. Thus, (subliminally) frightened of being (as) nothing, we hold on to property, etc, and thereby create a lot of (collateral) misery in the world. (On the other hand?) if we would tackle (non-personally the abyssmal ) desire for self-protection, then, there will be a (qualitative inner) transformation, and property etc. will have altogether a different significance.

15th November, 1947

Life is a (cvasi-?) continuous ( process of) challenge and response. Whenever there is an (unexpected) challenge there is a direct (spontaneous) response which almost immediately becomes a conditioned response which almost immediately (is recognised, processed and recorded in memory and therefore ) becomes a ( 'known') conditioned response - fear, love, jealousy or something else. But at the very moment of a (spontaneous ) direct response there is only the (surge of an ) intense alertness, without any qualification whatsoever; in that state, there is no dissociation between the (self-conscious) 'entity' who experiences it and the quality which is being experienced. As it is extremely difficult (& inwardly uncomfortable ?) to live for any length of time in that state of heightened sensitivity, the ( survival oriented ) mind which is seeking self-protection (at all levels) , gives it a (verbal) qualification according to whether pleasure or pain is apprehended; and instantaneously there is a separation of the 'experiencer' from that (wanted or unwanted) quality. (On longer term?) this leads to a 'conditioned' response.
For instance, when ( a potential source of ) pain is apprehended, the mind gives that state the qualification of fear and, instantaneously, the person who is in a state of fear has separated himself from the quality of fear. Then the person (generates ) a conditioned response by thinking "how to overcome that fear" or " how to run away from fear." If we examine closely, we shall see how our whole education, culture, and philosophy are based on running away from conditioned responses (such as greed, envy, or) fear. The mind finds itself continually engaged in (the boring routine of) going from one escape to another - only to find ultimately that every such attempt is futile.
When (a sensory ) pleasure is apprehended, the experiencer identifies himself with the quality of joy, etc, and (stimulated) by the memory of what he experienced, seeks to have a similar experience again. Another experience of a similar nature only strengthens the memory and therefore strengthens the desire for that same experience again. Then, with a view to having absolute security, the conditioned mind projects the idea of God and seeks God. A conditioned mind can only think of the known and not of the unknown. Therefore, the conditioned mind can never find Reality, God.

(To recap) We are trying to understand ( the psychological nature of?) fear. We have seen how futile is the attempt made by the ( self-centred) mind to overcome fear or to run away from fear. We have also seen how fear is primarily based on the mind's desire for self-protection. This problem of fear has not been ( experientially) solved because we pursued (our particular ) fears which are of a secondary value, instead of pursuing 'the desire for self-protection' which is the primary (cause) value. We gave importance to the symptom and not to the cause, to the secondary values and not to the primary. When we are (becoming holistically?) aware of both fear and of the ( previously ignored) process of 'the desire for self-protection' the mind is free of fear.
( For further 'meditation homework':) In understanding ( & ending the psychological causation of) fear, one opens the door to the extraordinary (inwardly regenerative?) meaning of Death which is the Unknown, as God is the Unknown. ( Hint:) If we do not understand 'death', we cannot 'love'.

K Public Talk 16th November, 1947

It would be very interesting if we could take the journey together into self-exploration and it would be beneficial if we could all 'play the game' and be creative, and not only watch one person think, feel, live. The difficulty with most of us is that we got (inwardly unperceptive & ) accustomed to being told what to do, what to think and what the right action is.
So, if we can, let us not be mere 'spectators' but let us actually partake in what is being discussed; which means we must establish a 'fully communicable' ( duplex ?) relationship between you and me. The (experiential) difficulty is to go beyond that 'verbal' level to a deeper level (of our consciousness) so that we can understand the ( truth of ) things instantly.
We have been discussing the last few Sundays about the search for happiness and the overcoming of sorrow. We want ( a permanent state of) happiness and yet our constant companion is ( frustration & ) sorrow, (because) we seek our 'happiness' through (material) things, (and/or) relationship and (or) ideas, (not noticing that) when we seek happiness through something, those 'things' becomes important and not happiness.
Now, can ( the creative) happiness be found through anything? Things made by the hand or by the mind are obviously 'impermanent', so if we seek happiness through things we find that there is no ( abiding) happiness. If we examine a little bit more closely we will find that happiness does not come through ( possessing lots of?) things. If you observe it very closely you will also find that there is an extraordinary impermanency in relationship, though we try to anchor ourselves in relationship and make it a refuge and a security. Similarly with ideas. One system of ideas can be broken down by another system of ideas and so on.

( In a nutshell:) We do not seem to realize the impermanency of all things – (all material) things are impermanent; they wear out. In the case of relationships, there is a constant friction. The same is true for ideas and beliefs which have no stability. Yet we seek our happiness in them because we do not realize the impermanency of things, of ideas and relationships. And ( eventually ) sorrow becomes our constant companion – since orrow is inevitable as long as we seek happiness through something- and the overcoming of sorrow our (major existential) problem. Can I happy when I (have stopped) seeking happiness 'through anything'? Can happiness exist by itself? To find that out we have to explore the River of Self knowledge, which is in oneself. Our ( experiential) difficulty lies in that we have to follow not only our 'conscious', but also our 'unconscious', motives, demands and purposes.

Those of us who have listened earnestly, must have made the experiment of following their conscious 'thoughts and feelings' - and by becoming aware of our conscious thoughts and feelings and ideas, we may also begin to receive the 'unconscious' thoughts and intimations. So in order to begin following the Stream of Self-knowledge there must be a clarification of the conscious mind, that is to become aware of the conscious activities - which I assure you is quite difficult - the unconscious thoughts and hidden intentions and motives can be (exposed &) understood. So, as the conscious is the present, the ( whatever we are?) 'now', through the present the unconscious and hidden thoughts can (eventually surface & ?) be understood by becoming intensely aware of the present and by freeing ourselves from those complications, incompleted actions and thoughts that are constantly creeping into the conscious mind.

To make it still simpler, the conscious mind is surely occupied with the immediate problems, the job, the family, studies, politics, and so on. So, without our understanding those problems of the conscious mind and doing away with them, how can we proceed further? And to 'sweep them clear', is this not our constant problem of (modern) living? With these problems we are occupied, the state, nationalism, class division, property, relationship and ideas that constantly (are siphoning) into the conscious mind. And if we do not clear that up, surely we cannot go very far and follow up the stream of self-knowledge.
So what we want first is that extraordinary beginning of taking a 'first'step. So those of us who want to make the journey across to the 'other shore', to see and discover where self-knowledge leads them, must first become aware consciously of what they are thinking, feeling and their daily habits ; that ( first step?) will reveal how the mind is working and from there you can proceed further ( inwardly) and as you proceed you discover; the discovery of the Real is ( bringing its own?) happiness. It is not ( a happiness coming ) through something, but a ( sense of creative) happiness which 'is' in itself - as love is in itself – eternal.

Question: I have been told that you do not read any philosophical or religious literature. I can hardly believe this as when I listen to you I realize that you must have read or at least have some secret source of knowledge. Please (try to?) be frank.

Krishnamurti: I have not read any 'sacred' literature, and there is no 'secret' source of knowledge either, because (after all ?) you and I are the reservoir of everything and of all the knowledge. Because we are the result of the past, and in understanding ourselves we uncover the whole knowledge and therefore all wisdom. Self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom and we can find ( or have free access to?) that (universal) 'wisdom' without reading a book, without going to any leader or following any 'yogi'. ( Except that...) it requires enormous persistency and alertness of mind – but I assure you that through self-knowledge, through your 'self', you can discover the eternal. It is really a most arduous task, for self-knowledge has no beginning and no ending. You begin ( by seeing?) where you are, and you can only be awake when there is (an experiential) spontaneity. (Hint : there are moments when even the disciplined minds, are getting spontaneous and in these spontaneous moments (of inner clarity) we can discover, we can go beyond the illusions of the self-centred mind). ?

So, as there is no 'secret source' of Wisdom in any (man-made) book you will (eventually) find out that the Real is very near, for it is ( subliminally encripted?) in your 'self' - ( However, reading?) this Book requires an extraordinary inward activity, a constant alertness. Self-knowledge does not come by studying (the Masters of Wisdom?) in a room by yourself. If the mind is alert yet passive you can follow (reading this Book) every second of the day and even when one sleeps the mind is functioning. If during the day you are alert, extraordinarily awake, you will see that the mind has received intimations, hints which can be pursued during the night.

So really a man who wants to (independently) discover Truth, the Real, the Eternal, must abandon all books, all systems, all gurus, because 'That' (inner light?) which is to be found will only be found when one understands oneself.

Question: At present in this country our government is attempting to modify the system of education. May we know your ideas on education and how it can be imparted?

Krishnamurti: Sirs, in considering education we will have to find out the purpose of living. What are we living for? What are we struggling for? If that is not clear to you education has no significance. Are you merely being educated in order to get a job? Then you make living a means to a job and you make of yourself a man to fit into a groove. Is that the ( spiritual?) purpose of human existence ? And if there is any 'higher' purpose to our lives and if we do not discover it, then ( our everyday) life has very little significance; it is as if we committed suicide when we make ourselves into machines, either religious machines or political machines. So if we do not discover what the purpose of life is, education has very little significance.

Then, what is the (true) purpose of our living? ( In order to find it?) we must turn our back against ( man-made) divisions and distinctions, and (try to?) find what is the Real, what is God, what is Eternity and what is happiness; because a man who is already (inwardly free & ) happy loves everybody. For him there is no class distinction. If ( this creative?) happiness is the end, then what we are doing now has no ( spiritual) significance. To find Reality there must be (inner) freedom from conditioned thinking, so as to discover if there is something beyond the sensate values. Can parents, environment give freedom? If so, environment becomes extraordinarily important because parents must be (re-?) educated as well as the educators. If the (parent or the ) educator is culturally conditioned, narrow minded & limited, the ( holistic development of the?) child will suffer.
That means the parents and the teachers should be (re-) educated first. But...do they want to be (re-)educated ? Not in the least, for the very simple reason that they want (to keep their job) permanency.

You are asking what I would do ( for a new education?)
(For starters:) to (re-) educate the 'educator' -which is far more difficult than educating the child, because the (modern) educator is (inwardly unperceptive & ) dull for the very simple reason that he has not located the source of confusion which is ( to be found in) himself. How can such an (inwardly blind ?) man awaken intelligence in another? That is one of the problems (to be fixed... ASAP?) . And, what (about ) the child? He is already conditioned, is he not? He is the result of the past and the present. The idea that if given the full freedom (to express himself) , the child would develop naturally seems to be fallacious since in order to give freedom to a child you must first understand yourself, the 'giver of freedom', the educator. If I have to educate a child but do not understand myself, how can I awaken intelligence in him? So that is (the second) part of the problem.

Then there is the question of nourishment, care and love. Most of us have no real ( intelligent?) love for our children though we talk about it. Sirs, education is something tremendous and without (an intelligent & self-less affection) I do not possibly see how there can be education. The moment you love somebody you understand the person, your heart is in it. If we ( have the intelligence of?) Love there must be instantaneous communication, on the same level and at the same time and because we ourselves are inwardly dry & empty.

I am afraid you will say that I have said nothing 'positive' ( more specific that can be done ) about education. Is not the 'negative thinking' (by negation of what is false?) the highest form of thinking ?
Sirs, surely to transform the ( Consciousness of the?) world there must be (a spiritual) regeneration within ourselves. We have (standardised) blueprints to educate our children, but these blueprints have no (compassionate intelligence nor?) 'love'. Therefore you produce ( self-centred thinking ?) machines.
(For extra homework ?) Is there a (holistic?) efficiency inspired by ( selfless intelligence & ) love which is greater than the efficiency of machinery ?

Question: The traditional method of reaching Adepts or Masters by training given by them or through their disciples is still said to be open to humanity. Are your teachings intended for those who are on that path?

Krishnamurti: Sirs, let us really go into ( the truth or falseness of) the various paths leading to the Ultimate Reality. A ( pre-established) 'path' can only lead to that which is known, but that which is 'known' is not the (living spirit of ?) truth. The known, the (crystallised knowledge & experience of the ) past is caught in the net of time and therefore it is not the Truth, it is not the Real. You take (the shortest ) path to your village, or to your house, because you know where the house is in the village and there are many paths to your house, to your village. But ( the Ultimate?) Reality is the immeasurable, the unknown.
So, is there any path to Truth? We have thought so far that there are many (spiritual) paths lead to truth. But does the ( wordly?) path of the ignorant, or the path of the man with ill will lead to truth? A man who is addicted to the acquiring of knowledge cannot find truth because he is concerned with ( gathering & using that ) knowledge and not with (the living ) truth. Will the 'man of action' find ( the Ultimate?) Reality? Obviously not, for the simple reason that by following a particular (way of action) we cannot find the whole(ness of life) . That means knowledge and action (taken) separately cannot lead anywhere but to destruction, to illusion, to restlessness.

So a man who really seeks ( the Ultimate Inner?) Reality must have devotion, knowledge and action. (Hint:) They are not three separate paths.
It is only those who are (spiritually?) mature will ( eventually?) find the Truth. He who is (inwardly) mature never 'pursues' ( a prescribed 'path' ) because the particular path belongs to (thought &) time. If you love (selflessly?) , in that love there can be no contention and no conflict. Love is when there is no possessiveness, when there is no (desire for) self-fulfilment.
To the man who is seeking (God or Truth ?) , the search itself is ( an intelligent act of ) Love, that itself is devotion, that itself is knowledge. Through a little crack of the window we do not see the sky, the marvellous clear sky and the man who can see the sky clearly is the man who is in the open, away from all paths, from all traditions and in him there is hope and he will be the 'saviour' of ( the consciousness of) mankind.

Question: What profession would you advise me to take?

Krishnamurti: If you want a right answer we must go into it fully. What is happening in this world? Is there any choice of profession? You take whatever you can get. You are lucky if you can get work. This is so in all parts of the (Free?) World. Because we have lost all true values we have but one aim: to get money somehow in order to live. Since that ( survivalistic) value is predominating in the world there is no (real?) choice. By becoming a soldier can you solve the world's problem? And you know what it is to be a lawyer - a cunning man without much substance behind him. Can you join a man who makes money in the midst of this economic chaos? Can you know what starvation means?
So , the right thinking brings about right profession and right action. You cannot know how to think rightly without self-knowledge. Are you willing to spend the ( necessary quality?) time to know yourself, so that you can think rightly and find the right profession? Those of you who are not compelled to choose immediately a profession, surely you can do something (along this line?) . Therefore, those of you who have some leisure have the responsibility, those who have time to know and to observe. When our (global) house is already on fire you still want to hold on to a few ( personal) things.
( Parting words:) Through right thinking alone can there be right action. Right thinking is not achieved through (churning) past memories or through (projecting?) future hopes.

Group Discussion 18th November, 1947

Before we continue the discussion about fear, death and love, we should discuss quite an important subject - the 'art of listening'. Our (self-conscious ) mind is so filled with thoughts & problems, that it is almost impossible to really listen to somebody. When you 'love' ( or have selfless affection for) somebody, there is a sense of full communication. I think it is important during these ( group) discussions to listen with ease but yet with a a right 'psychological' tension, as the string of a violin must be tuned just right. Similarly, it is possible for us to listen in such a way that communication is possible instantaneously, at the same time and the same level.
We found that the desire to protect oneself ( physically & psychologically in time) projects (its own collateral) fear, and that merely dealing with the symptom and not with the the cause is utterly futile.

We came to the point of studying what Death means (inwardly) . We said that as ( the inward essence of ) Reality is unknown, so Death is also unknown. We have spent centuries in studying (the outward) Reality, but we have hardly spent five minutes in studying the (inner) significance of Death.
Let us try o become aware of the significance of death on all the different planes of our consciousness. We have seen the effects of death on a physical body, to a bird, to a falling leaf, the (irreversible?) wearing out of the physical organism. But that is only a part of awareness of death. Seeing that all that is known to it (sooner or later?) comes to an end, the mind apprehends its own 'coming to an end ' and seeks permanency by anchoring itself to something which it considers to be secure. As long as the mind is ( functioning exclusively in the field of ) the known, it translates the unknown or any new experience that comes, in the light of the known. However, in the Unknown, there is no such ( long lasting) security because we do not know it at all. The moment the mind is uncertain (about its 'unknown' ) future , it becomes anxious, and therefore it must have the (inner certitude of the?) known all the time.
But if our mind is moving from the known to the known, it cannot possibly become aware of the inner significance of Death ; so we put it away and think about God. We deny Death and hold on to God although we do not know what God is either.
( In a nutshell:) Our mind is ever seeking continuance through various means. To us, 'God' is the (ultimate guarantee of ) continuance and Death the ultimate denial of continuance. Because (our self-centred thinking) is the result of the past, it can only think in terms of time, today, yesterday and tomorrow, in terms of the known; and ( whatever is ) this 'known' it wants it to continue. When it proceeds to (thinking of) God, it is only projecting itself into the unknown and seeking (a higher form of) security there, therefore, its projection of 'God', is the ultimate guarantee of its continuance. As long as the (thinking) mind is moving from the known to the known, it is (inwardly?) 'dead' , and a 'dead' thing cannot understand anything. When the mind realises that it is (inwardly  ?) 'dead', there will be ( an awakening to?) life. We can discover something amazing when we realise (the sad truth?) that (inwardly) we are 'dead' and are 'alive' only verbally (& intellectually?) .

Group Discussion 20th November, 1947

I think it is important that we should understand the whole (inward significance of psychological) of death because, in it there is ( an opportunity of spiritual) renewal. That which ends has always a new beginning. That which continues without an end has no renewal.
As ( the self-centred) thinking moves from the known to the known, there is no ending of ( the movement of) thought; therefore, there is no ( empty inner space for?) renewal; and it is only in (thought's ending or in its ?) 'death' there is renewal. ( The self-identified) thought abominates coming to an end, that is, to be uncertain of anything, and it wants continuance.
In the physical sense, we desire to continue through ( identifying ourselves with whatever ?) property (we've got?) , with our job or through our ( daily ) routines. Psychologically, we continue through ( constantly recycling & updating?) our 'personal' memory  and also by thinking in terms of the ( after-life) continuity of the 'soul'. So thought is primarily concerned with its own (temporal) continuity and not with Truth or God. Continuity is a 'time- thought' process and there cannot be a renewal in the time-process.
Psychological memory is the (karmic) residue left in the mind of our incomplete experiences; when an experience is 'complete' there is no residual memory left .
Some say that the mind is the instrument of the Spirit. But the moment we say 'there is Spirit', this is a (verbalised) process of thought. When we are thinking about something 'beyond', it is also the process of the thinking mind and therefore it is 'unreal' (not an actual fact?) .

To say that God is (always present in) 'me' is ( technically ?) incorrect, as God or Truth cannot exist in a contradictory state ( of consciousness?) because we are in ourselves both the evil and the good. If God is ( already present?) in us, we would not need to purify ourselves or renew ourselves.
Every (incomplete) experience is leaving a residue and we call it memory. When we meet an experience anew, it will not leave any residue; that occurs when we meet the experience direct without a ( self-protective mental) screen. When we are thinking about death, because we are not looking directly at (the inner) facts but through a screen or a conditioning or a belief, we are not finding the truth of it. When we are facing a (first degree encounter with the?) Unknown, we withdraw and translate it in terms of the known. We think we can thereby have ( an after-life) continuance. But we cannot understand ( at first hand?) either Death or (the Ultimate) Reality through ( translating them in the field of) memory. There is no (authentic inner ) renewal through continuance. Because we are caught up within the ( self-protecting) walls of memory we are ( metaphorically speaking ?) 'dead'. Only when the walls break there is going to be renewal.

In order to bring about an ( authentic inner) renewal we must 'die' (to the known?) ; meaning that we must start (everything) anew by putting away completely all ( the 'dead ?) memories' of the past.

This post was last updated by John Raica 2 days ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
17 hours ago #95
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 207 posts in this forum Offline

 K Group Discussion 22nd November, 1947 (experientially-friendly edited )

We have been discussing the ( 'psychological' aspect of ) death and fear and we said that any form of (self-projected mental) continuity is (resulting in a form of psychological stalemate or creativity?) 'death' because continuity implies a constant movement of thought within the fortress of the 'known'. Thought is always moving ( within this field) from (something already?) 'known' to ( something 'new' but still within the ? ) 'known', from a memory to another memory, from continuity to continuity, as it cannot think of the 'unknown'.
Because the (self-centred) mind is (constantly) moving (back & forth?) within the field of the known, it also gives ( reality & temporal ) continuity to itself through family (ties) , through property, through responsibility, through the ( well oiled) machinery of (its daily) routines, ( and optionally?) through ideation and through belief. Memory is merely the residue of ( our knowledge & ) experience. We 'experience' ( everything new?) through the ( safe) screen of the past and therefore there is no new experiencing at all but only a modification of ( our past ) experience, so there is never an experience, free from ( our survivalistic?) conditioning. When (our temporal ?) continuity through the family, through the name, through relationship, etc. is threatened, there is fear; and the ultimate threat to our (psychological) continuity is death. There is no inner renewal or rebirth in that state; a (spiritual) renewal can only be effected in ending.

Meditation is ( creating the right inner environment for the self-identified process of?) ?) thought to free itself from ( its time-binding) continuity and then there is ( a real opportunity for inner) Renewal, Creation and Reality.( However, the hidden difficulty is that?) our whole structure of thinking is based on (our brain's survivalistic?) desire for continuity. In understanding ( the truth regarding the spiritual validity of this?) continuity we can understand the significance of (inner) rebirth or renewal.
Our process of (self-centred) thinking is based on 'time' - yesterday, today and tomorrow. ( The emotionally charged memories of) yesterday coming in contact with ( the ongoing realities of) today creates our 'present' thinking - which has its root in the past and so, the thinking process is a process of time and therefore a process of ( constantly updating & processing our past) memory.
As long as we do not understand the ( subtle intricacies of our ) process of thinking, which is ( both) the result (and the creator?) of time, merely to deny ( or trying to arrest its?) continuity is completely useless. If we want to understand ( by full immersion?) the truth of ( our pychological) continuity, we must watch it, go with it, every ( available?) moment of the day.

( Hint : ) We are not concerned (in the context of a time-free meditation with the daily worries regarding our  ?) physical continuity. We are primarily concerned whether through (getting subliminally identified with materialistic?) things (& values?) there is ( a residual) psychological continuity - we are concerned with the (psychological) value we give to the material world . We have seen that one of the causes of the havoc and destruction in this (materialistic) world is our extraordinary adherence to (personal) property. We certainly need a certain amount of food, clothing and shelter. But, the moment we bring our 'psychological' values into it - like when we use our social position or property as a means (to optimise our?) own psychological continuity, there is ( a 'trump'-enhanced ?) chaos.

When we feel a (physical) pain we take immediate action to arrest it. But we do not seem to take such (urgent?) psychological action with regard to property, which means ( that inwardly?) we are not aware of (the psychological) consquences what we are doing – our ( subliminal) desire for (psychological) continuity has made us inwardly insensitive and inactive . Psychologically we have given ourselves over to ( the hedonistic pleasures & values associated to ?) property and so we are ( creatively?) 'dead', because things are dead. So, we have (empirically?) discovered the truth that the moment we have (projected our psychological) continuity through property, we are ( creatively speaking, 'as good as ?) dead'. The same is the case with regard to our closest relationships. When we seek continuity through the family, we give importance to (our personal ) continuity and not to the family, and thus ( further down the line?) we are creating the (group identification ?) which leads to disaster or to death (which ever comes first?) . It is only when we ( humbly?) recognise (that inwardly?) we are (virtually ?) 'dead' that there can be ( an inner awakening to?) life. If we recognise ( the sad truth?) that (inwardly ?) we are (blind or?) 'dead', there will be a revolution in our daily life. There will no longer be the psychological attachment to name, to family and to position. There will be an (qualitative inner) revolution with regard to our beliefs, which implies the cessation of beliefs.

We have seen and heard about several (outward) revolutions which have all brought about (their own part of human) misery. But this (on-coming inner) revolution is a revolution of values, a revolution of thought, which can only come about by the recognition of 'what is'. There is a revolution in ( my way thinking?) when I come to know ( that inwardly?) I am 'blind'. Then I will be very tentative, very watchful; I do not accept, but listen, I move very slowly, (therefore the whole quality of my inner ) being is revolutionised. ( On the other hand?) if I do not realise that I am (inwardly) blind, I cannot find what Truth is , because truth may be (found) in ( the non-dualistic perception of ?) 'that which is' and not away from it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 95 of 95 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.)