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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 552 in total
Fri, 11 Sep 2015 #1
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

With some support and feedback from our fine readers, we'll try the 'impossible' task of putting together a more coherent version of these Teachings for which K- in his own words- was the 'speaker'. It is a rather delicate task especially since most -if not all- the K talks, dialogues and writings are all contained in one day's work, and...tomorrow is a new day, with a new insight. And since tomorrow's perception may take place in another area or depth, the 'K-Works' seem to be lacking a certain coherence, although they may be 'holistically' consistent if Truth is a living, timeless dimension of Reality

In fact these K-Teachings are deeply insightful perceptions of the open and hidden complexity of human consciousness, throwing light ( from many different angles) on the very actual possibility of a qualitative (psychologically time-free) mutation. Unfortunately, this is generally seen as a major challenge...for the future generations of truth seekers. Now, such open minded new generations may be just around the corner ( leisurely surfing the web while sipping a 'latte' at the nearest Starbucks ?) or many many generations away, after the human race finally succeeds to make peace with itself.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Sep 2015 #2
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Meditation as a non-dualistic learning

Questioner: I would like to go into the deeper sense, of meditation. I have practised many forms of it, including a little Zen. There are various schools which teach (a mechanical) awareness so, can we go into it more deeply?

Krishnamurti: We must also set aside the whole meaning of ( accepting a spiritual ?) authority, because in meditation any form of authority, prevents a freshness, a newness. So authority, conformity and imitation must be set aside completely. Then only can one go into this very deep and extraordinarily important thing called meditation. Meditation is the essence of ( awakening one''s total) energy.

Questioner: When you say that meditation is the essence of energy, what do you mean ?

Krishnamurti: Every movement of thought, every action demands ( a certain amount of intelligent ?) energy, but this energy can be dissipated through conflict, through various forms of unnecessary (self centred ?) thoughts, pursuits and sentimental activities. ( Our inner) energy is wasted in conflict which arises in duality - in the division between the observer and the observed, the thinker and the thought. When this wastage is no longer taking place there is a quality of ( intelligent ) energy which can be called ''awareness' - an attentive observation, a seeing of things exactly as they are, both inwardly and outwardly, without the interference of (our self-centred ?) thought, which is the ( conditioned response of our ?) past.

Questioner: This I find very difficult to understand. Recognition is necessary, isn't it, when you look at a tree or the woman next door?

Krishnamurti: When you observe a tree is ( a verbal recognition?) necessary? If you begin to recognise ( and label it as ?) an oak or a mango tree then the (memory of the ?) past interferes with direct observation. In the same way, when you look at your wife, if you look with (through the ?) memories of annoyances or pleasures you are not really looking at her but at the ( vitual ) ''image'' which you have in your mind about her. That prevents a direct perception (and a direct contact?); such direct perception does not need recognition. When you condemn something, that prejudice distorts observation.

Questioner: Yes, I see that all these ( self-enclosing ?) interferences of thought are actually waste of energy, but there is the next point which is the (sense of ?) division, of separateness - the 'psychological ''distance'' that exists between the observer and the thing observed which creates duality; you say that this also is a waste of energy and brings about conflict. I find what you say logical but I find it extraordinarily difficult to remove that 'distance''. How is this to be done?

Krishnamurti: The ''observer'' is always casting its shadow ( of personal expectations ?) on the thing it observes. So one must first understand the structure and the nature of the ''observer'' and in that understanding perhaps the ''observer'' comes to an end. Let's examine what this ''observer'' is: it is the ( active memory of the ?) past, conscious and unconscious, its racial inheritance, its accumulated experience which is called knowledge, its reactions. The observer is really a conditioned ( psychic ?) entity. He asserts that ''I am'' and in protecting himself, he resists, dominates, seeking comfort and security. To be aware of this ''observer'' of his self-centred activity, his assertions, his prejudices, one must become aware of all these un-conscious movements which build the self-separating feeling that he is different. It must be observed without like and dislike in daily life, in its relationships. When this observation is clear, isn't there then a freedom from the ( psychological identification with the ?) ''observer''?

Questioner: So this ''observer''( entity ) is really the ego; you are saying that it must dissolve through an observation in which there is no sense of like or dislike, no opinion or judgement, but only the observing of this "I" in action? And you say this is part of meditation?

Krishnamurti: Of course. This is meditation.

Questioner: Surely this demands an extraordinary self-discipline?

Krishnamurti: The word ''discipline'' ( latin discere ) means to learn and when there is learning, not accumulating, when there is actual learning, which needs attention, that learning brings about its own responsibility, its own activity, its own dimensions: so there is no discipline as something imposed upon it. Where there is ( such free) learning there is no imitation, no conformity, no authority. If this is what you mean by the word discipline, then surely there is this (inner) freedom to learn?

Questioner: From what I have understood you are saying that learning is a constant movement without ( any psychological) accumulation. Is that so? Can learning be without accumulation?

Krishnamurti: Learning is ( can be ?) its own ( rewarding ?) action. But what generally happens is that having learnt – we try act upon what we have learnt. So there is ( a time?) division between the past and action, and hence there is a conflict between what should be and what is, or between what has been and what is. We are saying that there can be action in the very movement of learning: that is, learning is doing; it is not a question of having learnt and then acting. This ( psychological ?) acting from accumulation, is the very nature of the "me", the "I", the ego or whatever name one likes to give it. The "I" is the (active ?) essence of the past and the ( memory of the ?) past impinges on the present and so on into the future. In this there is constant division. Where there is ( an integrated ?) learning there is a constant movement; there is no ( need for psycho- ?) accumulation which can become the "I".

Questioner: But in the technological field ?

Krishnamurti: Of course sir; such practical knowledge is absolutely necessary. But we are talking about the ( inward ) ''psychological'' field in which the "I" operates. The "I" can use technological knowledge in order to achieve a social position or status. So the "I" ( the ego-identified consciousness ?) is not concerned merely with knowledge in scientific fields; it is using it to achieve something else. It is like a musician who uses the piano to become famous. What he is concerned with is fame and not the beauty of the music in itself or for itself. We are not saying that we must get rid of technological knowledge; on the contrary, the more technological knowledge there is the better living conditions will be. But the moment the "I" uses it, things begin to go wrong.

Questioner: I think I begin to understand what you are saying. You are giving quite a different meaning and dimension to the word ''learning'', and say that meditation is a free movement of learning .

Krishnamurti: Also we said that the essence of energy is ( to be found in ?) meditation. To put it differently - as long as there is a ''meditator'' ( a controlling ego ?) there is no (authentic) meditation; he will attempt to achieve a state described by others, or some flash of experience.

Questioner: If I may rephrase what you are saying,( this inward) learning must be constant, a flow without any break, a constant movement, and the moment there is a break ( a time delay ?) between learning, action and meditation, that break is a form of inner conflict. In that break there is the ( separation between the ?) observer and the observed and hence the whole wastage of ( one's intelligent ?) energy; is that what you are saying?

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is what we mean. Meditation is not a ( static) state ( of being) ; it is a ''movement'', as action is a movement. And when we separate ( the inward ?) action from learning, then the ''observer'' comes between the learning and the action and uses action and learning for ( personal) motives. When this is very clearly understood as one harmonious movement of acting, learning and meditation, there is no wastage of ( inner) energy and this is the beauty of meditation. There is only one movement. Learning is far more important than meditation or action. To learn there must be complete freedom, not only consciously but deeply, inwardly - a total freedom. And in freedom there is this ( integrated ?) movement of learning, acting, meditating as a harmonious whole. The word whole not only means health but ''holy''. So ( ''non-dualistic'' ?) learning is holy, acting is holy, meditation is holy. This is really a sacred thing and its ( timeless ?) beauty is ( to be found?) in itself and not beyond it.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 18 Sep 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Oct 2015 #3
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Paris meditations ( selected from the K Notebook, 1961)

To deny ( the psychological need for?) power, in every form, is the beginning of virtue; this virtue is ( bringing its own inner?) clarity; it wipes away conflict and sorrow. This corrupting energy (of self-centred thought?) with its endless cunning activities, always brings its inevitable mischief and misery; there is no end to it; however much it is reformed and fenced in, by law or by moral convention, it will find its way out, darkly and unbidden. For it is there, hidden in the secret corners of one's thoughts and desires. It is these ( subconscious recesses?) that must be examined and understood if there is to be no inner conflicts, confusion and sorrow.

To see the 'what is', is the ending of that which is. With the complete ending of this (hidden craving for?) power, with its confusion, conflict and sorrow, each one faces what he 'is' , a bundle of ( active) memories and a deepening loneliness. The desire for power and success is just an escape from this loneliness and the ashes which are memories. To go beyond ( to transcend this psychological condition?) , one has to see them, face them and voluntarily and easily put aside power and success and then in being passively aware, the ashes ( of ) loneliness have a wholly different significance ( are seen in a different light?). To live with the ashes of loneliness there must be great energy and when you have gone through this loneliness, as you would go through a physical door, then you will realize that 'you' and the 'loneliness' are one, you are not the ( isolated?) observer watching that feeling which is beyond the word (non-verbal) . You 'are' that loneliness; there is no way to avoid it and nothing can cover it or fill it. Then only are you living with it; it is part of you, it is the whole of you. The brain can no longer devise ways and means of escape; it is the creator of this loneliness, through its incessant activities of self-isolation, of defence and aggression. When it is aware of this, 'negatively'- without any choice, then it is willing to 'die' ( to its own past and?) to be utterly still.

Out of this loneliness, out of these ashes, a new movement is born. It is the movement of the 'all-one' - a state where all (outer) influences, every form of search and achievement have naturally and completely stopped. It is the 'death of the known'. Then only is there (the new beginning of?) the never-ending journey of the unknowable. Then is there ( the inner) 'power' whose purity is creation.

There was a beautifully kept lawn, not too large and it was incredibly green; it was well watered, carefully looked after, rolled and splendidly alive, sparkling in its beauty. It must have been many ( several?) hundred years old; not even a chair was on it, isolated and guarded by a high and narrow railing. At the end of the lawn, was a single rose bush, with a single red rose in full bloom. It was a miracle, the soft lawn and the single rose; they were there apart from the whole ( Parisian?) world of noise, chaos and ( psychological?) misery; though man had put them there, they were the most beautiful things, far beyond the museums, towers and the graceful line of bridges. They were splendid in their splendid aloofness. They were what they were, grass and flower and nothing else. There was great beauty and quietness about them and the dignity of purity and one could almost smell the perfume of the solitary rose.

On waking so early, with the full moon coming into the room, the quality of the brain was different. It was aware of itself as a part of a whole movement of the Mind. The brain functions in ( compartmented?) fragmentation; it is never the whole; it tries to capture the whole, to understand it but it cannot. By its very nature, ( its self-centred ) thinking is always incomplete, as is ( its self-centred?) feeling; thought, the ( mechanical) response of memory, can function only in the 'known' or interpret (translate?) everything from what it has known. The brain is the product of ( man's evolution and ) specialization; it cannot go beyond itself. It divides and specializes - the 'scientist', the 'artist', the 'priest', the 'lawyer', the 'technician', the 'farmer''. In ( its self-centred?) functioning, it projects its own status, the privileges, the prestige. Function and status go together for the brain is a self-protective organism. From the demand for ( a socially recognised?) status begins the opposing and contradictory elements in society. The specialist cannot see the whole.

Meditation is the flowering of ( self-?) understanding. This understanding is not within the borders of time, time never brings ( a transcending self-?) understanding. ( This self-) understanding is not a gradual process to be gathered little by little, with care and patience. Understanding is now or never; it is ( coming in ?) a destructive ( cleansing?) flash - and it is this ( inner) 'shattering' that one is afraid of, since such 'understanding' may alter the course of one's life; it may be pleasant or not but ( self-) understanding is a danger to all ( conventional) relationship. But without (this self-transcending?) understanding, sorrow will continue. Sorrow ends only through self-knowing, the awareness of every thought and feeling, every movement of the 'conscious' and of that (part of one's consciousness?) which is hidden.

Meditation is the understanding of ( one's self-centred?) consciousness, the hidden and the open, and of the ( creative?) movement that lies beyond all thought and feeling. The specialist ( the specialised brain ?) cannot perceive the whole; capacity, gift, is obviously detrimental, for it strengthens self-centredness; it is fragmentary and so breeds conflict. Capacity has significance only in the total perception of ( one's) life which is in the field of the Mind and not of the brain. ( Mental) capacity breeds pride (and/or) envy, its fulfilment becomes all important and so it brings about confusion, enmity and sorrow; it has its meaning only in the total awareness of ( one's inner ?) life.

Life is not merely at one fragmentary level, bread, sex, prosperity, ambition; life is not fragmentary; when it's made to be, it becomes a ( potential?) matter of despair and endless misery. The human brain functions (safely?) in specialization, in self-isolating activities and within the limited field of time. It is incapable of seeing the whole of life; the brain is a part, however educated it be; it is not the whole. The Mind alone sees the whole and within the field of the mind is the brain; the brain cannot contain the Mind, do what it will. To see wholly, the brain has to be in a state of 'negation' : it must not interfere, with its evaluations and justifications, with its condemnations and defences. It has to be still, not made still by compulsion. When it is in a state of 'negation' ( non-action?) , it is choicelessly still. Only then is there a total 'seeing' . In this total 'seeing' which is the quality of the Mind, there is no 'observer', no 'experiencer'; there's only seeing. The Mind then is completely awake. In this fully wakened state, there is no ( division between the?) 'observer' and the 'observed'; there is only light, ( inner) clarity. The contradiction and conflict between the thinker and thought ceases.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 07 Oct 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Oct 2015 #4
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Roman Meditations (From the K notebook 1961)

Meditation, in the still hours of early morning, with no cars rattling by, was the unfolding of beauty. It was not thought ( the thinking brain) exploring with its limited capacity nor the sensitivity of feeling, it was not the movement of 'time', for the brain was still. It was total negation of everything known, not as a reaction but a denial that had no cause; it was a movement in complete ( inner) freedom, a movement that had no direction and dimension; in that movement there was a boundless energy whose very essence was stillness. Its action was total inaction and the essence of that inaction is freedom. There was great bliss, a great ecstasy that perished at the touch of thought.

To look with (the aid of?) thought and to look without thought are two different things. To look at those trees by the roadside and the buildings across the dry fields with ( the back up of ?) thought, keeps the brain tied to its own moorings of time, experience, memory; the machinery of thought is working endlessly, without rest, without freshness; (and eventually ?) the brain is made dull, insensitive, without the power of recuperation (self-regeneration?) . It is everlastingly responding to life's challenges and its response is inadequate and not fresh. To look with thought keeps the brain in the groove of habit and recognition; it sluggish; it lives (safely?) within the narrow limitations of its own making. It is never free. This freedom takes place when thought (the memory based activity of the?) brain is not looking; to look without thought does not mean a blank observation ; there is only (pure) observation, without the mechanical process of ( verbal) recognition and comparison, justification and condemnation; this ( direct) 'seeing' does not fatigue the brain for all mechanical processes of ( living and thinking in terms of?) time have stopped. Through complete rest the brain is made fresh, to respond without reaction, to live without deterioration, to die without the torture of problems. To look without thought is to see without the interference of time ( of one's past ?) , knowledge and conflict. To see without the mechanism of thought is a total seeing, without particularization and division, which does not mean that there is not dissimilarity. Seeing without thought does not put the brain to sleep; on the contrary, it is fully awake, attentive, without friction and pain. This attention without the borders of time ( without the psychological component of the past?) of time is the flowering of meditation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Oct 2015 #5
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

More Roman & Florentine Meditations ( from the K Notebook 1961)

In the middle of the night meditation was pure delight, without a flutter of (the self_centred) thought, with its endless subtleties; it was a movement that had no end and the brain was still, watching from emptiness. It was an emptiness that had known no knowing; it was emptiness that had known no space; it was empty of time. It was empty, past all seeing, knowing and being. In this emptiness there was a fury; the fury of a storm, the fury of exploding universe, the fury of creation which could never have any expression. It was the fury of all life, death and love. But yet it a vast, boundless emptiness which nothing could ever fill, transform or cover up. Meditation was the ecstasy of this emptiness.

The subtle interrelationship of the Mind, the brain and the body is the complicated play of life. When there is harmony between the brain and the physical organism the Mind can consent to abide with them; it is not a plaything of either. The whole can contain the particular but the little, the part, can never formulate the whole. It is incredibly subtle (tricky?) for the two to live together in complete harmony, without one or the other dominating. The intellect can and does destroy the body and the physical body can bring about the deterioration of the intellect. The neglect of the body with its self-indulging and demanding appetites can make the body heavy and insensitive and so make for a dull thought. But ( on the other hand?) thought becoming more refined, more cunning can and does neglect the demands of the body which then ( in a feedback loop?) sets about to pervert thought. ( Bottom line:) The body and the brain have to be sensitive and in harmony to be with the incredible subtleness of the Mind which is ever explosive and destructive. The Mind is not a plaything of the brain, whose function is mechanical. When the absolute necessity of a complete harmony of the brain and body is seen, then the brain will watch over the ( needs of the?) body, not dominating it and this very watching sharpens the brain and makes the body sensitive. With the seeing of the ( truth of the inner ?) fact there is no bargaining; it can be denied, avoided but it still remains a fact. The understanding of the fact is essential and not the evaluation of the fact. When the 'fact' is seen, then the brain is ( becoming?) watchful of the habits,f the degenerating factors of the body. Then thought does not ( have to?) impose a discipline on the body or control it; for discipline, control makes for insensitivity and any form of insensitivity is deterioration, a withering away.

It was deep in the night when meditation was filling the spaces of the brain and beyond. Meditation is not a (silent?) war between 'what is' and 'what should be'; there was no contradiction between the 'thinker' and the 'thought' for neither existed. There was only a 'seeing' without the observer; this seeing came out of emptiness and that emptiness had no cause.

How strange love is and how neatly it has been divided, the profane and the sacred; the priests talk of it and so do the politicians and ( while) the housewife everlastingly complain about ( the lack of ) it. ( Trying to give?) continuity to love is ( transforming it into?) pleasure and with it comes always pain. This continuity is the ( result of the brain's need for?) stability and security in relationship, and in ( such) relationship there must be no change for in habit there is security and also sorrow. To this unending machinery of pleasure and pain we cling and this thing is called 'love' and to escape from its weariness, the ultimate refuge and hope is God. But all this isn't love. Love has no ( temporal ?) continuity; its (memory?) cannot be carried over to tomorrow; it has no future. What has continuity is the memories (of it) and (these) memories are ashes of everything dead and buried. Love has no tomorrow; it cannot be caught in time and made respectable. It is there when ( the mentality of?) 'time' is not. It lives and dies each minute. It is a 'terrible' thing, for love is (also implying ?) a destruction (of 'yesterday'?) , without ( expecting a?) tomorrow. Love 'is' (undivided from this psychological ?) destruction ( of past memories?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Oct 2015 #6
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Rishi Valley meditations ( From the K Notebook)

Time ( the spatio-temporal human consciousness?) is always repeating its problems; its responses and answers are concerned with the immediate . The immediate answer to the immediate call is ( resulting in?) worldliness , with all its indissoluble problems and agonies, following the pattern of likes and dislikes, of prejudice and malice.
To turn your back on it all is not to end it. It is there whether you deny it or not; whether you have critically analysed it or whether you say the whole thing is an illusion, maya. It is ( the attachment to?) these immediate answers to a series of immediate calls that has to come to an end. Then you will answer from the inner emptiness of no time ( of a time-free consciousness?) to the immediate ( pressures and?) demands of 'time' or you may not answer at all
which may be the true response. All reply of ( the self-centred?) thought and emotion will only prolong the agony of ( trying to solve) problems that have no answers; the final answer is beyond the ( limitations of the?) immediate (reality) . In the (knowledge of the?) immediate is all your hope, vanity and ambition, whether that immediacy is projected into the 'future' of many tomorrows or in the 'now'. This is the way of sorrow. The ending of sorrow is never in the immediate response to the many challenges. This 'ending' (of time ?) is in seeing ( the truth of ) this fact.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Oct 2015 #7
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Madras Meditations ( From the K Notebook, 1961)

Walking and talking, meditation was going on below the words and the beauty of the night. It was going on at a great depth, flowing outwardly and inwardly; it was exploding and expanding. One was aware of it; it was happening; one wasn't ( consciously?) 'experiencing' it, it was taking place. There was no (personal?) participation in it; thought could not share it nor could emotion get entangled with it; it was too disturbingly active for either. It was happening at such an unknown depth for which there was no measurement. But there was great stillness. It was quite surprising and not at all ordinary. Waking, the Otherness was there and waking up was necessary, not sleep; it was deliberate, to be aware of what was happening, to be aware with full consciousness of what was taking place. Asleep, it might have been a dream, but fully awake, this strange and unknowable Otherness was a palpable reality, a fact and not an illusion, a dream. It had a quality of weightlessness and impenetrable strength. It was there with such incorruptible strength that nothing could destroy it for it was unapproachable. You can approach something with which you are familiar, there must be a mutual recognition. There was none. This Otherness is without relationship to any thing and so there was no understanding of it or relationship with it. It was an unapproachable flame and you could only look at it and keep your distance. And with it came an unexpected ecstasy, an unreasonable joy and continued for a lengthy period of time.

Of a sudden it happened, coming back to the room; It was there with an embracing welcome, so unexpected. One had come in only to go out again; we had been talking about several things, nothing too serious. It was a shock and a surprise to find this welcoming Otherness in the room; it was waiting there with such open invitation that an apology seemed futile. Several times, along a path that was used by so many, it would be waiting just as the path turned; with astonishment one stood there, near those trees, completely open, vulnerable, speechless, without a movement. It was not a fancy, a self-projected delusion; the other (person) , who happened to be there, felt it too; it was there, with an all-embracing welcome of love, something totally new and wholly unexpected. It was its beauty that made the entire mind still and the body without a movement; it made the mind, the brain and the body intensely alert and sensitive; it made the body tremble and in a few minutes that welcoming otherness was gone, as swiftly as it must have come. No thought or fanciful emotion could ever conjure up such a happening; the thought-feeling can play every kind of clever and fanciful trick but they cannot invent or contain the otherness. It is by itself and nothing can touch it.

Sensitivity is an integral state, there is no 'partial' ( cultivated ?) sensitivity, either it is the state of one's whole being, a total consciousness or it is not there at all. It is not the result of experience and thought, it has no overtones of romanticism and fancy. Only the sensitive mind can face the actual, only the sensitive mind can be alone ; this all-oneness is stripped of all (expectations of? ) pleasure and so it has the austerity of seeing and understanding. Sensitivity and refinement are two different things; one leads to isolating death and the other to life that has no end.

The (dinner table) conversation was not too serious, but in the midst of this casual atmosphere, something tremendous was taking place. One went to bed with it and it went on as a whisper during the night. There is no 'experiencing' of it, since to experience there must be a (knowledge loaded?) 'experiencer' but when there is neither, it is simply there, as a fact. This 'fact' ( of the Unknown?) had no value in terms of utility and profit, it was there and by its very existence there was love, beauty (and a sense of?) immensity. Without It, there is nothing. Without rain the ( life on?) earth would perish.

( Thinking of one's life in terms of continuity in?) time is illusion. There is (a physical) ) tomorrow and there have been many yester-days; this ( objective?) time is not an illusion. But ( the self-centred process of?) thought which uses ( this ) time as a means to bring about a continuity of what has been; such thinking
takes shelter in the illusion of gradualness, in ideals, in time. Through ( an inner mentality based on?) time ( an inward?) mutation is not possible. The very denial of 'time' is ( the way of?) mutation; when the things which (our evolution in?) time has brought into being : habits, traditions and (utopian?) ideals, are denied. Deny ( this inner process of ?) time and ( a qualitative?) mutation has taken place, a 'total' (holistic?) mutation. ( Nevertheless) acquiring knowledge, learning a technique, do require a time which cannot and must not be denied; they are essential for existence. The time necessary to go from here to there is not an illusion but every other form of time is illusion. In this (time-free?) mutation, there is ( the awakening of a total?) attention and from this attention there is a totally different kind of action. Such action does not become a habit, a ( routinely) repetition of a sensation, of an experience, of knowledge which dulls the brain (making it?) insensitive to ( the possibility of a qualitative inner) mutation. Virtue then is not ( the result of cultivating?) better habits and a better conduct; it is not a tame thing of society. To love then is a revolution of ( one's?) total consciousness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Oct 2015 #8
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Rishi Valley Meditations ( from the K notebook 1961)

Every prayer is (basically a form of ?) supplication, but there is no (need for such ?) asking when there is ( a total inner?) clarity and the heart unburdened (of psychical-problems?) . With the fury ( urgency?) of ( an insight- based ?) understanding only can sorrow end but the other ( the way of prayer) is easier, respectable and less demanding. But ( the accumulations of?) personal and collective ?) sorrow wears away the brain and the ( psycho-somatic) body, makes it dull, insensitive and weary. Understanding (the nature of this sorrow?) demands a self-knowing which is not an affair of the moment; this learning about oneself is endless and the beauty and the greatness of it is that it is endless. This self-knowing is only in the active present; it has no continuity as ( an accumulation of self-?) knowledge. What has continuity is the mechanical ( repetitive?) process of ( self-centred?) thought. ( Insightful?) understanding has no ( time-binding?) continuity.

There is a red flower among the dark green leaves, so gay, so full of colour (that) it fills the whole sky and the valley; it will fade and fall away, but this morning it was (a moment of?) eternity, it held all love and joy; it was the complete Meditation of life, and illusion exists only when the impact of fact ceases. That cloud so full of light is a reality whose beauty has no furious impact on a mind that is made dull and insensitive by its everlasting search for security. ( The search for psychological ) security in our relationships, or in knowledge destroys sensitivity and deterioration sets in. That flower, those hills and the blue restless sea are 'the' challenge of Life and only the sensitive mind can respond to them totally; such a total response leaves no marks of conflict, and conflict indicates a partial response. Sensitivity is absolutely essential to look deeply within; this movement of 'going within' is not a reaction to the outer; going within has its own action, expressed outwardly but it is not a reaction of the outer. Awareness of this whole movement is sensitivity.

The sun was setting in a tumultuous fury of clouds. To the east, clouds shot up full of evening light; each one was a different shape with a light of its own, towering over the hills, immense, shatteringly alive, soaring up into high heavens. As the road turned, there was an altogether different beauty and feeling about it, for the Otherness was there, coming as a ( psychic?) breeze , soft and gently and it was there inside and outside. Each time it is so new and amazing, the pure strength and vastness of It that there is astonishment and joy. It is something totally Unknown and the known has no contact with it. The known must wholly die for it to be. Experience is still ( rooted ) within the field of the known, you can only recognize as an 'experience' something which you have already known. But this was not experienceable, knowable; the totality of consciousness must be free of the known and be empty without any form of effort. It was there, inside and outside; one was walking in it and with it.

Meditation is not a 'practice', the following of a system or a method; these only lead to a (mental?) movement within the boundaries of the known; there is ( lurking?) despair and illusion within that activity. Meditation which began at unknown depths and went on with increasing intensity and sweep, carved the brain into total silence, scooping out the depths of ( self-centred) thought and feeling, emptying the brain of the 'known' and its shadow. It was a (like a surgical?) operation but there was no 'surgeon'; and it was going on, cutting out every ( psychic) 'tissue' which has been contaminated, lest the contamination should again spread. It was a meditation without a ( contolling?) 'meditator'. The 'meditator' is ( the active interface of?) thought, but in meditation ( the self-identified?) thought must totally cease. This is the foundation for ( the authentic?) meditation.

The brain is essentially (usually dealing with the?) superficial (aspects of life) ; its ( daily) activities are superficial, almost mechanical; its activities and responses are ( mostly?) on the surface, though it may think and feel far into the 'future' and way back into the 'past'. But this brain being still and turning upon itself, it was no longer 'experiencing' outwardly or inwardly. ( The self-centred human?) consciousness (containing ) the fragments of many past experiences, compulsions, fears, and despairs of the past and (its projections of the?) future, the contradictions of the race and its own self-centred activities, was not there. The entire 'being' was utterly still and as it became intense there was an entering into a depth (or a depth which came into being?) which ( the self-centred?) thought, feeling and consciousness could not enter into. It was a dimension which the brain could not capture or ( verbally ?) understand. Every part of one's whole being was alert, sensitive but intensely still. This depth was expanding, exploding, but out of time and beyond time and space.

It was a beautiful evening and along that quiet and deserted road Meditation came like a soft rain over the hills; it came as easily and naturally as the coming night. There was no effort of any kind nor any continuity of memory in this meditation. The brain was aware of its (natural) environment, recognizing without responding. It was very quiet and words had faded with thought. There was that strange 'energy', call it by any name ( such as...kundalini?) , deeply active, without object and purpose; it was ( the energy of?) Creation, not the thing of human brain, of self expression and decay. It was not approachable : thought and feeling are not the instruments of its comprehension. It was completely unrelated to everything and totally alone (All-one?) in its vastness and immensity. And walking along that darkening road, there was the 'Ecstasy of the Impossible' (of the Uncreated?) , the all-oneness of the impossible. ( Recap:) The 'possible' is ( material and?) mechanical and its 'impossible' can be envisaged, tried and perhaps achieved which in turn becomes mechanical. But that Ecstasy had no cause, no reason. It was simply there, as a fact, not to be accepted or denied, to be argued over and dissected. It was not a 'thing' to be sought after for there is no path to it. Everything has to 'die' for It to be, a destruction which is ( an act of Creation and ?) Love.

It was a 'meditation in emptiness', an (inner) Void that had no borders. Thought could not follow; it had been left ( behind) where ( its ) 'time' begins, nor was there feeling to distort love. This was an emptiness without ( time and?) space. The brain was in no way participating in this meditation; the totality of the Mind was being aware of what was taking place and it was not 'outside' of itself, something foreign. ( Self-centred?) Thought is an impediment in meditation, (however?) only through meditation can this impediment be dissolved. For ( the 'thinker' and its?) thought dissipates energy, while the ( spiritual?) essence of energy is freedom from ( the self-centred?) thought and feeling.

It was a pleasant ( country) road with hardly any cars and the villagers with their oxdrawn carts going from one village to another; in rags but these people had a smile, though their eyes were weary. The road went on and joined at the mouth of the valley the big road with few buses and cars but here on this open road, there was solitude and the many hills, full of age and indifference. Meditation is the emptying the mind of all thought, for (the self-centred?) thought and feeling dissipate energy; they are repetitive, producing mechanical activities ( a necessary part of existence though...), but they cannot possibly enter into the ( inner?) immensity of life. ( For this) quite a different approach is necessary, not the path of ( mental) habits, association and the known; there must be freedom from these. ( Put in a nutshell?) Meditation is the emptying of the mind of the known. It cannot be done by thought nor by desire or through the "self"-effacing hypnotism of words and images. All these have to come to an end, easily, without effort and choice, in the flame of awareness. And there walking on that road, there was complete emptiness of the brain, and the mind was free of all the 'knowing' of yesterday. Time ( the 'time' creating engine?) of thought, had stopped; literally there was no 'before' and 'after'; no 'going' or 'arriving' or 'standing still'. The totality of the Mind, in which is ( contained ) the brain with its thoughts and feelings, was empty; and because it was empty, there was a deepening and widening Energy without measure. The 'Otherness' was this mind without time; it was the breath of innocence and immensity. (These) words are only means of (literary?) communication but they are not ( conveying?) the innocence and the immeasurable. This emptiness was alone (All-One?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Oct 2015 #9
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

More Rishi Valley Meditations ( extracted from the K Notebook)

How easy it is to degenerate, in every way, to let the body become sluggish, and the mind allowing itself to become shallow, petty and dull. A, (intellectually bright or ?) 'clever' mind is a shallow mind- it cannot renew itself and so it decays by its own ( selfish) thought. Every thought shapes the mind in the mould of the known (and then) every feeling, every emotion, becomes wasteful and empty and the body loses its sensibility. It is ( the self-centred activity of?) thought which is the disintegrating factor; for thought has its roots in the (memory of what has been previously?) 'known'. A life based on ( self-centred?) thought becomes (repetitive and predictibly ?) mechanical; however smoothly it may run, in that life there is no (spiritual?) renewal. Freedom from the ( illusory psycho-safety of living in the?) known is the ending of ( self-centred?) thought; to die to thought, from moment to moment, is to be free from the known. It is this (psychological) 'death' that puts an end to decay.

Meditation is not a ( process of) self-hypnosis by word repetition or imagery; all these must be set aside and then Meditation is the understanding of the facts and so going beyond them. Self-knowing (knowing the inner facts?) is the very beginning of meditation. It was early and the ( Rishi's?) valley was asleep. The brain was watchful, without any sensation; neither feeling nor thought existed. And a timeless (inward ) movement began. This 'movement' was not born out of the known; and because it was (non-directed?) , it was the essence of action. This 'energy of love', has its own movement.
( Recap:) There is only the (contemplation of this inner ?) fact : freedom from the known. Meditation was the ( unfolding ?) 'explosion' of the fact.

Sensitivity and sensation are two different things. Sensations, emotions, feelings always leave a ( psychical?) residue, whose accumulation dulls the mind, and perverts (the direct ) perception. Because sensations and feelings (eventually?) breed conflict, discipline and self- control have been advocated and to make the mind more stupid and dull, (the psycho-) 'ideals' and conclusions are invented and spread around. However, ( the total?) sensitivity is ( found in?) the 'dying' to every residue of sensation; to be sensitive, utterly and intensely, to a flower, to a person, to a smile, is (requiring) to have no scar of memory, for every ( psychological wounds or?) scars destroy sensitivity. To be (to become?) choicelessly aware of every sensation, feeling, thought as it arises, is to never allow a scar to be formed. (Recap:) Sensations, feelings, thoughts are always partial, fragmentary and ( potentially psycho-?) destructive. Sensitivity is a total (integration?) of body, mind and heart.

It was an evening of light pink and dark clouds and the moment one stepped out of the house, that Otherness, that Unknowable, was there. It was so unexpected and with such urgency that all talk came to an end, very easily and naturally. We walked that whole mile almost without a word and we walked with it and in it. It is wholly ( a first degree encounter with?) the Unknown ; all recognition has stopped for recognition is still the way of the known. Each time there is "greater" beauty and intensity and impenetrable strength. This is the nature of Love too.

Questioning (authority ?) has become merely a ( form of social ?) revolt, the refusal to accept the norms, (expecting ?) to break through the ( limitations of) economic and class bondages. Instead of the old patterns, new patterns are created in the mind and so destroying it, This endless revolt within the (perimeter of one's inner ?) prison is the reaction of the immediate, and remodelling and redecorating the prison walls seems to give us such intense satisfaction that we never break through the walls. This questioning discontent within the walls ( of the known?) doesn't get us very far; it would take you to the Moon and to the neutron bombs but all this is still within the field of sorrow. The questioning of the ( inner) structure of sorrow is far more urgent than going to the moon and it is this (inner) questioning that tears down the structure of our ( psychological) prison, with its gods and saviours, with its economists and leaders. This questioning destroys the very machinery of (self-centred) thought not the substitution by another thought, conclusion, theory. This (inward) questioning explodes the respectable self-centred activity; what has a ( psychological) causation or motive inevitably ( sooner or later ?) breeds agony (frustration?) and/or despair. We are ( subliminally?) afraid of this total destruction of the ( safety of living in the?) 'known'- the( psychological) ground of the 'me' and the 'mine'; ( living in?) the known seems better than ( what) the unknown (may bring) ; freedom from this ( comfortable living in the?) 'known' may destroy what we call 'love', 'relationship', 'joy' , but freedom from the known, the explosive ( self-) questioning ends sorrow, and Love is then something that ( the self-centred?) thought and feeling cannot measure.
( Recap : ) Our (inner) life is so shallow and empty, petty thoughts and activities, ( intricately ? ) woven in conflict and misery, always journeying from the known to the known, psychologically demanding security. There is no ( authentic?) security in the known however much one may want it. The (psychological) security is ( our own projection in?) time, but this 'psychological' (subjective?) time is an illusion ; there is nothing 'permanent' now or in the future. By right questioning and listening, the ( temporal?) pattern moulded by ( the self-centred?) thought and feeling, the pattern of the known, is shattered. Knowing the ways of one's thought and feeling, listening to every movement of thought and feeling, ends the ( psycho-attachment to the?) known. (Living in ) the known breeds sorrow, while love is ( to be found in?) the freedom from the known

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Oct 2015 #10
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Highlights from a K Talk in Stockholm, Sweden (1956)

I feel it is important to know how to listen (non-verbally?). Very few of us really listen or see anything really clearly, because what we are observing or listening to is immediately translated by our own minds in terms of our particular ideas and ( cultural background?) . We think we are understanding, but surely we are distracted by our own opinions and knowledge that we never see the ( truth of the?) problem. But by ( a simultaneous?) listening and following the operation of our own minds we can actually see the fact, then I think we shall find that quite a different (intelligence based?) process is taking place which will enable us to look at our (inner) problems freely and clearly. That is listening totally. Surely a free mind is the mind that is empty of all beliefs ( wishful thinking?) , of all (crystallised?) patterns of thought - there is freedom only when the entire thought process is understood and transcended, and only then is it possible for a new mind to come into being ( to be activated?) . So, can the human mind free itself from its own conditioning and look at its problem anew? We have masses of information, knowledge but really we ( our lives?) are very shallow and unhappy.

Although in some ( developped) countries there is an economic security, inwardly the individual remains uncertain, unsure. And a global physical security which all human beings want and need, is made impossible because of this (irational?) demand for inward, 'psychological' security. Only when the mind is no longer acquisitive, no longer seeking or demanding anything, that it is free to find out what is true, what is God. That is why it is very important to understand ourselves - to be aware, without judgment or condemnation, to look at ourselves dispassionately, so that the hidden emotions are not ( re-)pressed back but invited forth and understood, then the mind becomes really quiet; and only then there is the possibility of leading a full life. We can help each other to find the door to ( a higher?) Reality, but each one must open that 'door' ( of inward Perception?) for himself; and this is the only positive action. So there must be in each one of us an inward 'religious' (spiritual?) revolution which will totally change the way of our thinking. There must be a silent (non-verbal) observation of the responses of our (self-centred?) mind, put together through the accumulations of ( our personal and collective) memory. This process of self-( exposing and?) understanding is an enormous task - not to be done casually, later on, but every day, every moment, so that we begin to see all the hidden motives and intentions which lie behind our thoughts, and thereby bring about the liberation of the mind from its own (time-?) binding processes. Then the mind is ( becoming naturally?) still; and in that stillness 'something' which is not of the ( man-made?) mind can come into being of its own accord.

There are some questions, but to any of the big, fundamental questions - of love, of life, of death and the hereafter - are there any (final?) answers? The difficulty is not in asking a question, or receiving an answer; it is to see the ( nature of our?) problem clearly. When there is ( this inner) clarity, there are no questions and no answers.

Question: We Swedes do not like to tackle the problems of life only with the mind, leaving the emotions aside. Is it possible to solve any problem only with the mind, or only by the emotions?

Krishnamurti: That is a very difficult thing to do - to look at something totally, fully and freely. It is very difficult to look at the ( vital problems such as?) death, love, or... sex, since most of us are trying to understand our problems with a mind that is confused; and when one is confused, whatever his actions may be, they will only lead to further confusion and misery. So we must first discover and acknowledge to ourselves ( the unpleasant truth?) that we are ( inwardly) confused ; only when one stops and faces the fact of one's confusion with the total (attention?) of one's being, is there the possibility of 'dissolving' ( transcending?) that confusion. No one can do this for us; we must do it ourselves.

Question: Juvenile delinquency is increasing. What is the reason and what is the remedy?

Krishnamurti: We all want to be somebody in this society; we are all trying to achieve success to have the best or to be the best, and in this process there is fear, envy, greed, ambition, ruthlessness. Our whole (collective mentality) is based on this process. We want our children to fit into this societyn to conform to the ( established?) patterns of our 'culture'. There is revolt, among the children as among the grown-ups. The problem is ( getting) even more complex when we consider the purpose of education? Is it to make us fit into society? -or does ( a spiritually friendly?) education consist in helping the child to become aware of all the conditioning influences ? If we are serious about this we will really study the ( mind of the?) child, observe him constantly and carefully - be aware of the books he reads, with their glorified heroes, watch him in his work, in his play, in his rest - and ( hopefully?) will help him to be unconditioned and free. But ( this educational endeavour?) implies that we must be aware first of our own ways of thinking. After all, we are also everlastingly battling with each other and within ourselves. This battle, this struggle, projects itself into society; and into ( the mentality of?) the child. ( Unfortunately?) we cannot change the whole of our society; only the individuals can change. But we are not ( truly) individualised , are we? We are caught up in the ( group ?) mentality; and so long as we do not understand ourselves and free ( our own?) mind from its self-imposed limitations, how can we help the child?

Question: Can one live in the world without any ambition? Does it not isolate us, to be without ambition?

Krishnamurti: I think this is a fundamental question. We can see what the ambition ( to become rich and famous ?) makes of the world. Everyone throughout the world is forcing himself to be important. Even in our education, the boy who is not clever is compared with the boy who is clever - and we can see the result of this ambition projected in the( geo-political) world. Each nation is seeking to maintain itself at all costs.
Now, the questioner wants to know whether without this ( collective drive of ?) ambition we shall not be isolated from society. Why is there this fear of being alone? Can ambition and love go together? The mind that is seeking all the time to be something, to become great, surely does not know what love is. So long as we are pursuing ambition, we are isolated. We are isolated already, are we not? But, you see, to be respectable, to be known, to have power, position, money, virtue - all these things give us a sense of self- importance. So it is very difficult not to be ambitious.
The man who is ( inwardly?) 'as nothing' is alone (all-one?) , but not isolated. To free oneself from ambition requires a great deal of insight, intelligence and love.

Q: Does suffering ultimately lead one to inward peace and awareness?

Krishnamurti: I am afraid not. We think suffering is a means to something else - to heaven, to the attainment of peace, and so on - and hence we have made suffering into a virtue. How does suffering arise? Suffering is an inward, psychological disturbance. I am not now talking of physical suffering, but of the psychological suffering which comes when we are frustrated, when we are lonely, when we do not understand the process of our own being, the complexity of our own thinking.
What happens when we suffer? We try to use it as a means to ( reaching?) something else, do we not? - we say it makes us more intelligent, that it leads to peace, to awareness; or we immediately seek to escape from it through ideas, through amusements, through every form of distraction. Suffering comes, does it not?, when there is ignorance, when there is a lack of knowledge of the workings of one's own mind, when the ( deeper layers of the?) mind is torn by contradictory desires, by loneliness, by comparison, by envy. But when we understand the whole process of ignorance, of envy, when we look at it, face it totally, without any desire to escape or condemn it, then perhaps we shall see that there is no necessity for suffering at all. Inner peace cannot be found through suffering, it comes only when there is understanding of the workings of one's own mind and when, through that understanding, the thought process comes to an end.

Question: Why do you go about the world giving talks? Is it for your self-fulfilment, or because you think you can help people in that way?

Krishnamurti: We all want to be 'helped', but that leads to ( subtle forms of?) exploitation, does it not? As long as we depend upon another for ( finding an) inward peace, we shall not find it, for such dependence only breeds fear. Then why is one talking? I do not think there is any answer to that question, any more than there is an answer if one asks of a flower, "Why do you glow in the sunshine?"
If I were trying to help you, or trying to fulfil myself, it would put me in the position of being the 'one who knows', and you in the position of 'not knowing'; so I would be using you, and you would be using me. Whereas, what we are trying to do here is to understand ourselves, for self-knowledge alone brings Reality. We know very little about ourselves, about the ways of the mind and the urge of ambition, envy. Only the mind that is aware that it does not know, that is totally aware of its own ignorance - only such a mind can be at peace (with itself) . The mind that has merely gathered experience, accumulated knowledge, or acquired a lot of technical information, is everlastingly in ( a state of?) conflict.
When the mind is willing to die to all the ( psycho-?) knowledge it has accumulated, only then can it know what it is to have inner peace. This is a state which most of us have experienced occasionally, a state when the self is entirely absent. But we are so occupied most of the time with ( the complexity and?) superficialities that the true things of life pass us by.

Question: I have read an American book which certainly seems to prove through hypnosis that reincarnation is a fact. What comment will you make on this?

Krishnamurti: This is rather a complex question : the physical organism will come to an end and we want to know if there is ( a psychic?) continuity after death. The things that we have known and experienced will all come to an end, and we want to know whether reincarnation is a fact. I do not know if you have ever felt that thought is independent of the body, independent of the physical organism. We have the organism, the nervous responses, and thought; and so we ask if thought continues after death.

Now, ( the actual experience of?) death is something totally unknown, it is something completely new, and however anxiously we inquire, we cannot find an answer that will satisfy. So, can we discover what is the truth about death? We know that ( now ) we seek the continuity of the 'me' and so long as there is the desire to continue, we give strength to the idea of the 'me' and 'my importance'., this ( self-identified ) thought may continue, it may take another shape and form, which is called 'reincarnation'; but ( the metaphysical issue is ) does that which continues ever know the immeasurable, the timeless? Can it ever be creative? Surely, God, or Truth, or what you will, is not to be found in the field of time. It must be entirely new, not something created out of our own hopes and fears.

So you see, the problem is not whether or not there is reincarnation, but ( seeing the truth of?) the fact that we are all seeking permanency, security, here and hereafter. So long as the mind is seeking security in any direction,suffering must continue. Only the mind which dies from day to day, from moment to moment, to all that it has accumulated, can know what the Truth is. And then perhaps we shall discover that there is no division between life and death, but only a totally different state (dimension of Consciousness?) in which time, as we know it, does not exist.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 17 Oct 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Oct 2015 #11
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Inner highlights on Meditation ( From the K Notebook,1961)

Time is ( becoming an?) an illusion ( when the self-centred process of ?) thought uses it as a means to bring about an inward, a 'psychological' change ; such a change is only a modified continuity of what has been; such thought takes shelter in the illusion of a gradual progress in time. The very denial of such 'time' is (the way of a qualitative inner ?) mutation in which the ( residual psychic?) 'things' which ( man's evolution in?) time has brought : habit, tradition, reform, the ideals, are denied. Deny (the inward thinking in terms of?) time and a mutation has taken place, a total mutation, not the substitution of one pattern by another. In this ( psychical?) mutation, there is ( the awakening of a total) attention and from this attention there is a totally different kind of action, which does not become a habit, an (accumulation of?) knowledge which dulls the brain, making it insensitive to a mutation. Virtue then is not then an ideal to be pursued, put together by time ; to love is a ( qualitative?) revolution of our total consciousness.

Meditation, which began at unknown depths , went on with increasing intensity and carved the brain into total silence, 'scooping out' the depths of ( self-centred?) thought & feeling, emptying the brain of the known and its ( dark?) shadow . It was a « meditation without the meditator ». The "meditator" is ( a self-controlling process of ?) ?) thought, nurtured in ( its daily) conflicts and hurts . In meditation ( the interference of self-centred ?) thought must totally cease. This ( understanding ?) is the foundation for ( an authentic) Meditation.

The silence grew and became intense, wider and deeper. The (already quiet?) brain which had listened to the silence of the hills, fields and groves was itself now silent; it had 'folded' upon itself and entered into depths which were beyond itself. The brain is essentially a superficial (survival instrument?) ; its activities and responses are ( related to the ?) immediate (challenges of reality ?) Its thoughts and feelings are on the surface, though it may think and feel far into the future and way back into the past. But the same brain turning upon itself is no longer experiencing (anything) outwardly or inwardly. ( Its self- centred ) consciousness, the fears, hopes and despairs of the past and the future, the contradictions of the race and its own self-centred activities, was absent; it was simply not there. The entire being was utterly still and as it became intense, it was not more or less; it was intense and there was an entering into a depth (or a depth came into being?) in which thought, feeling and (self-) consciousness could not enter into, an inner dimension which the brain could not 'understand'. There was no 'observer', witnessing this depth. One`s whole being was alert, sensitive but intensely still. This 'new', this 'depth' was expanding beyond ( the limitations of?) time and space.

Walking along that darkening (country) road, there was the « ecstasy of the Impossible », the all-oneness of the Impossible. The 'possible' is mechanical ( can be duplicated?) but this ecstasy was simply there, not as an experience but as a fact. It was not a thing to be 'sought after' for there is no path to it. Everything has to 'die' for It to be, (an inner ending ?) which is ( also creation and ?) love.

It was a 'meditation' in emptiness, ( entering into?) a void that had no borders. Thought could not follow; it had been left ( behind) where ( its self-created ?) 'time' begins, nor was there a feeling to distort love. This was emptiness without space. The brain was in no way participating in this Meditation; it was completely still and he totality of the Mind was being aware of what was taking place. Thought is an impediment to Meditation and only through ( a 'meditator'-less?) meditation can this impediment be dissolved. For ( the self-centred?) thought dissipates energy and the essence of energy is ( to be found only in?) the freedom from 'thought & feeling', for ( self-centred?) thought and feeling are 'mechanical' activities - which are a necessary part of ( our physical) existence. But 'thought & feeling' cannot possibly enter into the ( inner?) immensity of life. Quite a different approach is necessary, a meditation ( which) is emptying the mind of the (psychical burden of the?) known. Walking on that ( country) road, there was a complete emptiness of the brain, and the mind was free of the 'knowing' of yesterday, Time, the 'thing' of thought, had stopped; there was no 'going' or 'arriving' or standing still. The totality of the Mind, in which is ( contained?) the brain with its thoughts and feelings, was empty; and because it was empty, there was ( only pure?) energy, a deepening and widening energy without measure. This (inner dimension of?) of 'otherness' was the ( Universal?) Mind without time; it was the breath of innocence and immensity. This ( inner?) emptiness was alone (All-One ?) .

Habits and Meditation can never abide together; an ( authentic ?) meditation can never follow the pattern laid down by (the self-centred process of?) thought which forms habit. Thought shattering itself against (the realisation of?) its own 'nothingness' is the explosion of meditation. This meditation has its own (creative?) movement, directionlessand so, causeless. In that peculiar silence meditation was a movement in which the brain emptied itself and remained still. It was a movement in emptiness of the totality of the mind and there was ( a sense of?) Timelessness. (Recap: The self-centred activity of) thought is a material (brain process ?) held within the bonds of time; ( such) 'thought' is never free, never new; every experience only strengthens the bondage and so there is sorrow. However astute, however experienced, thought can never end sorrow; it can ( manage to constantly?) escape from it but it can never end it, since the ending of sorrow is (also implying?) the ending of (the self-centred activity of ?) thought. The ending of thought is the ending of sorrow.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Oct 2015 #12
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Neither time nor space exists for the man who knows the Eternal.
Space and time are "real" for the man who is yet imperfect: space is divided for him into "dimensions", and time into past, present and future. He looks behind him and sees his birth, his acquisitions and all that he has rejected. That 'past' is being continually modified by the 'future' which is ever being added to it. From the past man turns his eyes to the future where death and the Unknown await him. Life is not to be approached through the past, nor through the mirage of the future. Its discovery can only be made in the immediate present - by the individual for himself and not for others - by the individual who has become the eternal "I". That eternal "I" is created by the perfection of the 'self' - an (integrated all-oneness ?) in which all things are contained, even human imperfections. Man, not yet having achieved that ( timeless) condition of "life in the present", lives in the ( memories of a ?) past which he regrets, or in the (expectations of the ?) future of his hopes, but never in the present which he ignores. This is the case with all men ( and/or women ?) .
In this (eternally new ?) moment of equilibrium between the past and the future, the ( eternal ?) "I" is poised as a tiger ready to spring, as an eagle ready to fly, as the bow at the moment of releasing the arrow. This ( is the timeless act of ?) Creation, the fullness of all life, it is immortality. The wind of the desert sweeps away all trace of the traveller. The sole imprint is the footstep of the present. The past, the future... sands blown by the wind.


This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 18 Oct 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Oct 2015 #13
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Highlights from the last K Talk in Stockholm (1956)

To those of us who are serious it must be a real problem to find out how to bring about a fundamental change in ourselves. It is obvious that such a change is necessary but the difficulty with most of us is, I think, that we do not know how to change. The question is, can the mind be free from its own self-centred activity? Is it possible for the mind not to be self-centred? There are those who maintain that such a thing is impossible, but if we would seriously inquire into whether it is possible to free the mind from all conditioning, how are we to set about it? Can we discuss and go further into this problem? Questioner: I think one must begin by discovering a means. Krishnamurti: Can we not dispose of all the 'means' which the mind invents in order to free itself? One means is using the action of will to break down our conditioning. Another means is psycho-analysis. You go to an analyst, or analyse yourself; you try to interpret your dreams, you carefully investigate each layer of memory, you examine every reaction, and so on. That is not the way, surely. And when we try to break down our conditioning through the ( disciplining?) action of will, what happens? One desire becomes dominant and resists the various other desires - which means that there is always the whole problem of suppression, resistance, and so-called sublimation. So will cannot help us to free the mind. Let us take a 'simple' example and go into it : we are all consumed with something, whether it be envy, fear, ambition; can the mind be totally free of these ( compulsory drives?) or must we go on chopping at them little by little until we die, and still not be free at the end of it all? We said yesterday that each one of us is (inwardly a self-energising?) 'bundle' of (accumulated memories of past ) experiences and reactions; I am taking only one thing out of that 'bundle' and look at it. ( let us take?) an experience which we all have: ( greed and/or?) envy. By what process can this experience be totally eradicated?

Questioner: One can learn to accept oneself.

Krishnamurti: But ( supposing ) one is still envious ?

Questioner: Truth will make us free.

Krishnamurti: But to see what is true (and what is false?) the mind must be very alert, vivid, sensitive - it must be in such a state to see the truth.

Questioner: We must be able to 'conquer' that envy by some sort of feeling of brotherhood. Krishnamurti: 'Conquering' is like putting a bandage over a wound. The wound is still there.

Questioner: How about understanding our envy and seeing how it inhibits us ?

Krishnamurti: But we have created a society in which envy ( the greed for have more?) is very dominant, have we not? Our education, our religious ambitions, our whole lives are based on this process - which breeds a competitive, ruthless society. Envy is an extraordinarily strong feeling, and having it, we function from ( getting identified with?) that centre. If there were no envy at all, what would be the state of the mind? And would it not then be possible to create quite a different society, quite a different kind of education? As individual human beings, is it not important that we should find out for ourselves if it is possible for the mind to be free of envy in its entirety?

Questioner: If we stop wishing, stop desiring...

Krishnamurti: How is one to stop desire? By will? By self-disciplining? If you do any of these things, there is a conflict.

Questioner: By studying it in all its forms ?

Krishnamurti: You can intellectually study all the various forms of envy and still suffer from it. Questioner: We must try to look at envy very calmly when it comes into our minds, and not bother too much to get rid of it.

Krishnamurti: If I am envious, how am I to look at it?

Questioner: Very calmly, I said.

Questioner: Is this not the main difficulty, that we never really meet envy? We are envious, but we do not see our envy, actually.

Krishnamurti: ( Exactly) Do we know envy as a living thing, or merely as a word, a verbal statement? Do we know it as an intimate fact? Questioner: I am afraid most of us know it only as a word and not as a fact. Krishnamurti: Of what significance is a verbal knowledge ( which is) unrelated to the feeling?

Questioner: I think we must accept envy and give it its right place in our lives. If we can see, without condemning it, that envy does not lead anywhere, we shall get rid of it.

Krishnamurti: To say one must accept envy does not help us. The ( immediate?) cause of envy we know, but I am talking of the totality of it, the cause and the effect. After all, I know why I am envious; I am not as beautiful or as clever as you are; I compare myself with you, and I am envious. But is it possible to be free from that whole complex process? Questioner: If I dwell in the ( sphere of the known?) 'self', it is not possible. But by meditating every day I can find out that the self has no value, and be free from envy.

Questioner: But after all, life has made us envious. We can try to be a little less envious; but even if we do not achieve that aim, life will still go on for many more years.

Krishnamurti: Those for whom envy is not a real problem can 'chop away' at it slowly; but that will never resolve our struggle and sorrow. The problem needs a lot of penetration, and one's life is based on envy to a very large extent. From childhood we are brought up in envy, encouraged in it, consciously or unconsciously. On the surface I may be able to brush it aside; but deep inside, ( the self-identified component of this?) envy is still biting and burning. How is that fire to be completely quenched? It may be that we have to look at the problem in an entirely different manner. Can we leave 'envy' for a moment and go into the question of what it is to be free? If there is (already a self-identified?) centre, what kind of action or non-action must take place? So long as 'you' are fighting 'greed' one part of the mind is resisting another part, so envy will continue, will it not?

Audience: Yes...

Krishnamurti: So long as there is this ( dualistic) conflict, one part of the mind dominating another part, there can be no freedom. Do you 'see' that fact? Audience: Yes. Krishnamurti: So my actual problem is (this inner?) conflict, the fact that 'I' am always striving in order to arrive somewhere. This 'striving' is the (core?) process of ( greed and/or ?) envy. I am discontented, and I am striving to reach 'contentment'. I think that if I can go to some other place, or reach some end, I shall be content. I am unhappy, and I am envious, always wanting more, more, more. My whole outlook on life is based on (psychological and material?) accumulation, because in myself I am discontented, unhappy, lonely, empty. Being empty, I want somehow to enrich my life. I try painting, writing, worshipping, and many other avenues of self-expression - hoping to cover up this sense of emptiness. Is this not a fact?

Audience: Yes.

Krishnamurti: But can this 'emptiness' ever be filled? Surely, the moment I try to fill my emptiness, there is again the whole problem of struggle, of how to make myself richer. Then I look around to see who is richer, more beautiful, more talented than I am, and immediately I am caught in the ( mental) field of self-comparison and struggle. What then? I know there is an inner ( state of ) insufficiency; and can it be looked at without the desire to run away from it?

So now we are no longer concerned with the question of ( greed and?) 'envy'; we are considering the question of this inner 'emptiness'. Is the mind really aware of its emptiness? When the mind is no longer caught in the mere ( verbal acceptance ) that it is empty, then there is only ( the actual fact of?) emptiness, this (uncomfortable?) sense of insufficiency, of being inwardly poor. To become fully aware of it is important, not the ( dualistic?) question of what to do about it – since when I ask what to do about it, 'I' am again in the ( dualistic ) field of ( 'me' and my?) 'envy'. But when one is aware of the (truth of the?) fact that the totality of one's being is 'empty' then one no longer seeks to escape from this emptiness. So, can the mind be aware of the 'fact' of its emptiness ?

If the mind is only concerned with the (truth of the?) fact that it is empty, then it no longer cares about who is more beautiful, or more intelligent. When the (insight into the truth of the?) fact operates, it is the (very seeing of?) truth that operates. But by being afraid of this emptiness or we trying to do something about it we create a ( separative?) hindrance between ourselves and the fact. ( In a nutshell : ) If the mind can be completely still in front of the 'fact' of ( its own inner?) emptiness, loneliness, envy, if it does not 'translate' that fact or wish it were different, then (the insight into the truth of?) this fact operates. But so long as we operate upon the fact, we cannot be free. To be silently aware of the fact without condemnation, without wanting (expecting?) a result, ( is the inward non-action that ?) reveals the truth, which is freedom. (May 25, 1956)

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 19 Oct 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Oct 2015 #14
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

More meditative highlights from the K Notebook

The Otherness

The Otherness is 'mysterious' in the sense that it is something ( from a dimension ?) beyond time and thought. ( Therefore?) a mind that is caught (entangled?) in 'time and thought' ( thinking mainly about its own time-continuity ?) can never comprehend it. Without (an awareness of?) that Immensity human existence becomes trivial and sorrowful. There is an 'absoluteness' about it, it is an 'absolute' energy : self-existent and without causation; it is not ( just?) the 'ultimate' energy for it is (the spiritual essence of?) all (living?) energy. ( However, the practical difficulty is that?) every form of ( fragmentary, self-enclosed ?) energy and action must cease for it to be : there must be a total 'destruction' ( of the accumulations of psycho-memory?) for it to be, a total destruction of the 'known' in which all ( 'psychological') shelter and existence is cultivated, a total emptiness and only then the Timeless comes. This destruction (ending) of 'time' is not a ( time-spread) process, but the total ending of ( self-centred?) thought and feeling.

Inner Beauty and Meditation

( The sense of inner ?) beauty is never personal. The "personal" cultivation of beauty is a self-centred activity which ( in time ?) leads to insensitivity.
Every (living?) thing was ( still?) asleep and the beauty of the morning was magic; it was the beauty of the earth, heavens and of man, of the sleeping birds and the fresh stream in a dry riverbed; it was incredible that this (inner sense of beauty?) was not 'personal'. There was an 'austerity of completeness', so utterly complete that it knew no corruption ; the fury of ( this inner?) Beauty wiped away the defences of 'time'. Meditating there, beyond the limitations of time, Beauty was not the personal pursuit of pleasure, of the images and visions of the brain with its thoughts and feelings. ( Inner) beauty has nothing whatsoever to do with the pleasurable feelings aroused by a concert or a painting. It is the beauty beyond time and beyond the aches and pleasures of thought. ( Unfortunately, the self-centred process of ) 'thought & feeling' dissipate ( our total?) energy and so this Beauty (of Creation ?) is never seen. ( An integrated inner ?) energy, with its intensity, is needed to see this beauty – a beauty that is beyond the eye of the 'beholder'. When there is ( the egotistic interference of ?) the 'observer', then there is no (inner) beauty.

There on the perfumed verandah, when dawn was still far away and the trees were still silent, (the essence of) 'what is' was Beauty. This ( spiritual) essence is not 'experienceable', for ( the desire new?) 'experiences' only strengthens the ( psychological anchoring in the ?) known. The 'known' is never ( containing?) the ( spiritual?) essence. Meditation is not only the 'ending' of ( desire for the extraordinary?) experience, but it is the opening of the door to ( one's spiritual?) essence, opening the door of an (inner) 'furnace' whose fire utterly destroys ( the psycho-residues of the known?) , without leaving any ashes; there are no remains. ( Psychologically ?) we are ( stuck with ?) the remains of many thousands of 'yesterdays', ( creating the perfect illusion of?) a continuity of endless memories choices and despairs. The ( accepted concepts of the eternal ?) 'Self ' and of the little ( egotistic?) 'self' are the ( result of our self-centred ?) pattern of existence with ( its) never ending ( colateral accumulation of?) sorrow. In the flame of meditation ( the ego-mental pattern of ?) thought ends and with it ( the ego-?) feeling, for neither is Love. Without Love, there is no ( spiritual?) essence; without it there are only ashes (active sub-programs of memory ) on which is based our ('psychological' ) existence. Out of the ( inner) emptiness love is

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Oct 2015 #15
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

More meditations from the K Notebook

To deny (what is false in our own consciousness?) is essential. To deny ( the psychological accumulations of?) 'today' without knowing what "tomorrow" will bring is to keep awake. To ( inwardly) deny the ( authority of?) social, economic and religious patterns is to be 'alone' ( an integrated all-one?) , which is to be sensitive. Not to be able to deny totally is to be (inwardly ) mediocre. Not to be able (willing?) to deny ( the collective mentality based on ?) ambition and all its ways is to accept the 'normality' of ( an) existence which (also) breeds conflict, confusion and sorrow. To deny the politician's (mentality?) in us, the ( mechanical) responses to the immediate is to be free from fear. Total denial is the negation of the ( so called) 'positive', of the imitative urge and conformity. This denial itself is positive, for it is not a reaction. To deny the accepted standards of beauty is to discover ( the inner source of?) beauty which is beyond thought and feeling; but, to discover it, ( a special?) energy is necessary. This energy comes when there is no inner conflict, contradiction, and one's action is no longer partial.

The humility ( of not 'knowing'?) is the essence of all virtue. ( However, its creative ?) order is never permanent; it has to be maintained every day, as a room has to be cleaned every day. This order is not (self-centred or?) 'personal', an individual adjustment to the ( established?) patterns of conditioned responses, of like and dislike, pleasure and pain. This ( holistic?) order is ( found in?) the understanding of sorrow and the ending of sorrow . Such order is not an end in itself; ( if it becomes an end in itself ?) it leads to the ( psychological ) 'dead end' of respectability, which is deterioration and decay. Learning is the very essence of this 'humility', learning from everything and from everybody. There is no hierarchy in this learning. (Accepting someone's spiritual?) authority denies learning ; a 'follower' will never learn.

There were several people in the room, some sitting on the floor and some on chairs; there was the quietness of appreciation and enjoyment. A man was playing on an eight-stringed instrument. He was playing with his eyes closed, as delighted as the little audience. It was pure sound and on that sound one 'rode' far and deep; each sound carried one deeper. The quality of sound that instrument produced made the (listening) journey infinite; from the moment he touched it till the moment he stopped, it was the sound that mattered not the instrument, not the man, not the audience. It had the effect of shutting out all other sound, even the fireworks that the village boys were setting off; you heard them crash and crack but it was part of the sound and the sound was everything - the cicadas that were singing, the boys laughing, the call of a small girl and the sound of silence. He must have played for over half an hour and during that entire period the journey continued; it was not a journey on the wings of thought or in the frenzy of emotion. That sound carried one through and beyond the confines of time, and quietly it went on into great immense emptiness from which there was no return ( to what one was before?) . What is 'returning' always is ( a self-conscious?) memory, but here there was no (such) memory, no ( 'personal'?) experience. ( Seeing the truth of a?) fact has no shadows of memory.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Oct 2015 #16
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Selected Q & A's from the 1956 K Talks in Brussels

Question: Is there such a thing as real happiness? Can anyone ever find it, or is our pursuit of it an illusion?

Krishnamurti: I think if we pursue ( personal?) happiness, one's life becomes very shallow. After all, ( creative?) happiness' is a thing that comes to you, it is a by-product; when you go after happiness, it eludes you, does it not? If you are ( self-) conscious that you are happy, you are no longer ( genuinely ?) happy.
So happiness is something that cannot be pursued, any more than you can pursue (inner) peace- if you pursue it, your mind becomes stagnant. For ( inner) peace is a living state; and to understand what this peace is requires a great deal of intelligence and 'hard work'. Similarly, happiness requires immense insight (inward clarity?) and as much (meditation-wise?) hard work as you give to earning a livelihood, and far more. But if you are merely seeking ( instant?) 'happiness', then you might just as well take a drug. Only when the mind is no longer pursuing its own gratification, its (self-) fulfillment, which is a self-centred activity - only then is there the cessation of all (inner contradictions and?) conflict. (This state may be called ( creative?) happiness). Where there is an inner conflict (between contradictory desires?) , there must be tension, misery; so, to live a life without conflict one has to understand the 'psychological' process of this movement which we call ( struggling with oneself or inner ?) conflict; and we cannot possibly understand it so long as there is the 'motive to achieve' something. To understand deeply the inward nature of effort, requires a great deal of self-perception. That is why it is very important to know oneself. In the very process of self-knowledge, perhaps there will be (a colateral?) happiness on the side - which is very unimportant (as a goal in itself?) .

Question: You seem to deny yoga (although you practise it daily?). Do you think it has no (spiritual?) value at all?

Krishnamurti: We think that by right breathing, by having the right kind of yoga, by practising meditation, controls, discipline, we shall arrive at that state of mind in which it is possible to find out what God is, or if there is God. Many people think these systems will lead to that. But I think that Truth or God has no path by which you can approach it; merely doing a particular exercise or struggling to control all one's thoughts won't makes the mind really alert, pliable, intelligent, perceptive. How can the mind discover what is ( eternally?) true if it is caught in ( following a guru or ?) a system? By taking a drink, or one of these ( magic?) pills, or by doing yoga, you can have a certain temporary alleviation, satisfaction, peace; but (on the downside?) you will have to keep on taking your drug.

( Recap:) Taking a pill or practising some method of making the mind quiet, does not bring about that ( enlightened?) state of deep comprehension of what is (or what is not?) true. Yoga (as well as) all the other various stimulants, produce their own ( psycho-somatic?) results; but they cannot possibly make (awaken?) the mind into that astonishing instrument of inner inquiry and discovery. The ( psychological aspect of the?) problem is not whether ( practising ) yoga is 'right' or 'wrong', but whether the human mind can be freed from creating a (new and rewarding?) habit and living in that habit. A mind that seeks 'peace' and establishes itself in the routine of ( "seek and find" ?) peace has merely disciplined itself according to a pattern ; but such a mind is not a living mind, it is not innocent, fresh. Only the mind that is innocent, fresh, free to discover, is creative.

Question: How is it possible to live in this world without any kind of security?

Krishnamurti: I do not think it is possible to live in this world without ( a deep sense of ?) security. If you did not know where you were going to get your next meal, where you were going to sleep tonight, you could not call it 'living'. Modern society is gradually bringing about that physical security - the 'welfare' state. But surely that is not ( solving ) our (inner?) problems since we also want to be secure inwardly, psychologically. Therefore we invent 'things' (ideals and concepts?) in which we seek psychological security - and thereby bring about physical insecurity (on the global level?) . ( Eg:) As I find delight in being an 'Indian' - or what you will - and depending on that ( identification?) for my inward security - I create the division of nationalities, frontiers which will invariably bring about insecurity, psychologically as well as physically.

So, is it possible for the mind to be 'psychologically' free of this demand to be secure, this demand for ( self-) permanency? We are always seeking 'permanency' in our relationships, are we not? We want permanency in our relationship with society, with a particular person, and if that is once ( legally?) established, then we want permanency in another directions - we want to become well-known, famous ( and/or?) we want permanency after death, or permanent peace, a permanent state of happiness; or we want to be permanently 'good' ( be on the 'right' side of History?) . I think this is ( gist of ) the whole (psychological?) problem - to free the mind of this constant urge to seek a ( static ?) 'permanent' state. For does not this very demand for permanency lead to ( spiritual?) mediocrity? Surely it is only the mind has no ( desire for an illusory self-?) continuity in the 'known' is capable of renewing (regenerating?) itself; not the mind that is merely (safely?) moving from the known to the known. After all, what we want is the ( mechanical?) continuity of the 'known' – of the 'known' (and rewarding?) experiences and pleasures. Also, as the mind is ( actively) seeking that state of ( self-centred ?) permanency, we are bound to create division ( individualistic competition ?) between man and man.

The problem is, then, can the mind live without seeking ( an illusory psycho-?) permanency at all? After all, the human mind is the result of time, of innumerable experiences and it cannot brush all that aside. But need ( our strong attachment to?) those memories, to the 'known', interfere and make the mind incapable of ( self-) inquiring? The mind is capable of (self-) discovery only when there is freedom from the known. All this is not a matter of acceptance or rejection. You have to experiment with this if you are at all seriously interested. You have to go ( meditatively and?) deeply into yourself so profoundly that the mind becomes capable of renewing itself, of remaining innocent in spite of the innumerable experiences and accidents of life. For only the innocent mind is open to receive that which is Eternal (eternally new?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Oct 2015 #17
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

More Rishi Valley Meditations from the K' Notebook

How easy it is to degenerate, in every way, to let the body waste, become sluggish, the mind allowing itself to become shallow, petty and dull. An (intellectually trained?) 'clever' mind is a shallow mind and it cannot renew itself and so ( it eventually?) withers away in its own ( success and/or?) bitterness; it decays by the ( mechanistic?) exercise of its own brittle sharpness, by its own ( self-centred) thought. Every (such ) thought shapes (or sinks?) the mind in the mould of the known; every ( self-centred) feeling & emotion, however refined becomes wasteful and empty and the ( psycho-somatic?) body fed on ( self-centred?) thoughts and feelings loses its ( natural) sensibility.

It is not the 'physical' energy, though it is necessary, that breaks through this wearying dullness; it is not enthusiasm or sentimentalism which bring about ( the total?) sensitivity of one's whole being . It is ( the self-centredness of?) thought which is the disintegrating factor; for thought has its roots in the 'known'. A life based on thought and its ( well-known routinely ?) activities, becomes ( repetitive and?) mechanical; however smoothly it may run, it is still a mechanistic action. Action with a ( psychologically biased?) motive dissipates energy and so disintegration sets in. All motives, conscious or unconscious, generate from the 'known' and a life of (in the field of?) the 'known' is (subjected to a temporal?) decay; in that (choice of?) life there is no renewal. Thought ( as a fragmentary mental activity?) can never bring about innocency and humility and yet it is innocency and humility that keep the mind young, sensitive, incorruptible. The freedom from the 'known' is the ending of ( this self-centred?) thought; to 'die' to ( one's identification with?) thought, from moment to moment, is to be free from the known. It is this (psychological ) 'death' that puts an end to decay.

There was not a sound in the valley; it was dark and there wasn't a leaf moving; dawn would come in an hour or so. Meditation is not self-hypnosis, by words or thought, by repetition or ( by concentrating on an?) image; all these (props?) must be set aside and then meditation is the ( non-dualistic?) understanding of the facts and so going beyond them. Self-knowing is (has to be ?) the beginning of meditation; otherwise it leads to every form of immaturity and silliness. On waking, the body was quiet, the brain was watchful and a timeless (non-directional?) movement began. Words are of the past or the future but the 'active present' has no words. The dead (memories?) can be put into words but the living (present) cannot. Every word used to communicate about this 'living' ( dimension) is a denial of the living. ( Nevertheless?) it was a movement that passed through and between the walls of the brain and the brain was incapable to pursuit or recognising (it) . This ( timeless?) movement was not born out of the known; the brain can follow the known as it can recognize it, but here no recognition, of any kind, was possible. Because it was without direction, this 'movement' was the essence of (one's?) total energy. This energy (of) 'love', has its own movement. ( Recap:) There is only this (observable ?) fact : the freedom from the known. Meditation is the ( time-free?) explosion of ( seeing the truth of?) this fact.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 24 Oct 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Oct 2015 #18
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

On the conflicting nature of desire and sorrow ( highlights from a K Talk in Brussels 1956)

One of our great ( 'psychological' ) difficulties is how to free ourselves from the complex problem of 'sorrow'. Unfortunately the intellect has no real solution to this problem. But if we can very seriously examine this problem of 'suffering' – by actually experiencing the whole process of it - then perhaps we shall discover its cause, and find out whether that discovery brings about the ( dis- ?) solution of it. Obviously, this problem of 'sorrow' is one of the fundamental (psychological) issues in our life. Most of us have some kind of sorrow, secret or open, and we are always trying to find a way to go beyond it, to be free of it. But unless we begin to understand for ourselves the really deep workings of the ( self-centred?) mind, sorrow will inevitably continue. Consciously or 'unconsciously' we all know that we suffer because we have in us the (dualistic?) contradiction of desires, one ( dominant form of?) desire trying to dominate another. This inner contradiction generates an (inner state of ?) conflict which ( eventually?) leads to the state of mind which we call 'suffering'. The whole complex (inward activity of?) of desire which create conflict is ( at least to me) the source of all sorrow.

Most of us are caught up ( or will eventually get stuck?) in this mass of contradictory desires, wishes, longings, fears ( as long as ) we are concerned about ourselves. And I think this ( core movement of desire manifested as?) 'self-concern' is the real source of our inner conflict and misery. So it seems to me very important, if we would (ever want to?) free ourselves from sorrow, to go into this whole complex which we call 'desire', ( the drive behind?) this ( pro-active?) 'bundle of ( personal) memories' which we call the 'me'. Is it possible to live in the world without ( being constantly driven by?) this 'complex (multi-level activity ?) of desire' from which all suffering arises? Can ( an intelligent human?) mind free itself from suffering? This must be a problem to all of us who 'think about these things', because all of us suffer, acutely or superficially. If it is our human (condition?) to ( be constantly driven by desire and?) suffer endlessly, then we must accept it and live with it. But I think that no ( reasonably intelligent?) man wants to be in that state. So, is it possible to end ( this inner dynamic of?) sorrow?

Surely, sorrow is the result, not only of our lack of self-knowledge, but also of this enormous (collective mentality of ? ) 'effort': that everyone is making to be ( or become 'someone' an/or?) to acquire 'something'. That is what we are doing all the time, is it not? . But it must be obvious to most of us that so long as I desire to become successful, for example, either in the material world or 'psychologically' (spiritually) , I must make ( pay the price in terms of?) effort, I must exert myself to achieve and that suffering is inherent in the very nature of that effort. I am not saying that we should 'reject' or 'sustain' ( physical?) effort, but whether effort is necessary 'psychologically', and whether (at that level?) it does not produce the seed of sorrow. Now, this ( 'psychological'?) effort, surely, is centred in the 'me' ('me'-first mentality ?) , the 'self' concerned with itself and its own activities.

Can the human mind free (untangle?) itself from this complex 'bundle of desires' without effort, without a motive? This is a very complex problem (since) my (whole inner?) life is made up of many wants and frustrations, many hopes, longings and aspirations : all that is the 'me', the self (centred consciousness ?) , which is the source of sorrow. Surely, any move this 'I' makes in order to be free of sorrow, furthers sorrow, By making an effort to get rid of sorrow, I build a resistance against it, which breeds further sorrow. If I see this, then what am I to do? How is a mind which is caught in ( the inner dynamic desire and/or ?) sorrow to free itself from sorrow? Can it do anything? Because any action on its part has a (self-continuing ) motive behind it; which invariably breeds conflict, which again begets sorrow. (Eg : ) I think I shall be 'happy' (happier?) if I have plenty of things, position, power, money. So I struggle (compete, etc ?) . In this very process there is ( a continuity of my inner ?) conflict, frustration; so ( the causation of?) 'sorrow' is set going. Or, if I am not worldly-minded, I turn to more 'spiritual' things, but there also I try to 'realize God', Truth, and all the rest of it; I cultivate virtue, follow yoga or some other system to the end that my mind may be at peace. So again there is a (still more subtle ?) struggle - which seems to me utterly futile, without meaning.

So what is the mind to 'do'? I know now the whole 'pattern of suffering', the causation of suffering and I see that escaping from suffering is no answer. One may escape momentarily, but suffering is still (awaiting) there, like a lingering poison. So how do I know that I suffer? Do I know it merely because I feel ( constantly) frustrated, or because I have lost someone ? Or do I (realise?) with my whole being that suffering is ( inherent in?) the nature of all desire, of all becoming? Surely, there must be suffering so long as one does not totally comprehend ( the process of?) desire ; whether we desire superficial things, or the deep, fundamental things, an ( implicit ) conflict (between 'what I want' and 'not want' ?) is always involved. So, can we find out whether the mind is capable of being free from ( this internal conflict of?) desire - from the whole 'psychological' process of the desire to be something, to succeed, to become, to find God, to achieve (and the possibility of not getting it) ?

Can the mind understand all that (duality of 'want & not want'?) and be free from it? Otherwise life is a process of continuous conflict, misery. You may find a 'semi-permanent' escape ; throw yourself into some activity, take refuge in a belief, find various ways of forgetting yourself; but conflict is still there. So, can the mind understand the (dualistic nature of this ?) process of desire?

An ( insightful?) 'understanding' comes only when the mind sees the ( truth about this ?) whole process of desire and, realising that it cannot do anything about, it becomes silent with regard to that problem? I think this is the fundamental ( transformational ?) issue : if the mind can look at this enormous problem of desire without any ( mental?) movement, you will find that when the mind is no longer contaminated by ( the dualistic conflict of?) desire and all the problems connected with it, then the mind itself is Reality - not the ( self-centred?) mind as we know it, but a Mind that is completely without the self, without desire.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Oct 2015 #19
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

More Meditations du Jour from the K Notebook

( Inwardly speaking?) there are only facts and the (insight into the truth about these ?) facts teaches ; but to follow this teachings, the listening, the (inward ) observation must be acute (accurate?) ; such total attention is denied if there is ( a personal ?) motive for listening ; the (psychological?) action with a motive is leading to confusion and sorrow. Sorrow has been put ( gathered?) together by ( our self-centred ?) thought and this ( very process of?) thought, by feeding upon itself forms the 'I' and the 'me'. As an ( artificial intelligence?) 'machine'( appears to ?) have (its own ?) life, so has the 'I', the 'me' ( and/or the 'us'?)- a 'life' which is fed by thought and feeling. ( Seeing the truth about this inner ?) 'fact' destroys this machinery. The ending of sorrow is the ( insightful ?) understanding of the ( ongoing inner ) 'facts' from moment to moment. There is no system or method which will give this understanding but only the choiceless awareness of the fact. The 'meditation' according to a system is the avoidance of ( seeing the?) the ( actual ) fact of 'what you are'; it is far more important to understand 'yourself', the constant changing (re-shuffling?) of the facts about yourself, than to meditate in order to find God, have 'visions', ( hightened?) sensations and other forms of (spiritual?) entertainment.

The trees are beautiful in life and in death; they are always renewing themselves. ( However,) how easy it is ( for the human mind?) to degenerate, in every way, to let the body waste, become sluggish, fat; to allow ( the naturally generous ?) feelings to wither away; the mind allowing itself to become shallow, petty and dull. A 'clever' ( materialistic?) mind is a shallow mind- it cannot renew itself and so (it eventually?) withers away, decays by the exercise of its own ( self-centred?) thought. Every ( such?) thought shapes (entangles?) the mind in the mould of the 'known'; every feeling, every emotion, however refined becomes empty and the (physical) body fed on ( self-centred?) 'thought and feeling' loses its sensibility. ( To reverse this entropic trend?) it is not physical ( energy?) that breaks through the wearying dullness; it is not enthusiasm or sentimentalism either ( the element) which bring about sensitivity of one's whole being. It is ( the insight that ?) this ( self-centred process of?) thought is the disintegrating factor; for thought has its roots in the 'known'. A life based on thought and its (well known self-centred?) activities, becomes ( repetitive and predictible, therefore?) 'mechanical'; however smoothly it may run, it is still a 'mechanical' action- it dissipates ( our total?) energy and so disintegration sets in. All ( our psychological?) 'motives', conscious or unconscious, originate from the 'known' ; such a life of the 'known', though projected into the future is ( a slow form of inner ?) decay, since in such a life there is no renewal. ( The self-locked process of the 'thinker' and its ?) 'thought' can never bring about innocency and humility and yet it is innocency and 'humility' ( the humbleness of not-knowing?) that keep the mind young, sensitive, incorruptible.
( Recap :) Freedom from the known is ( coming through?) the ending of ( self-centred ) thought; to 'die' to thought (to an existence based exclusively on the previously 'known'?) , from moment to moment, it is this ( psychological ) 'death' that puts an end to (the mind's ?) decay.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Oct 2015 #20
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

More Meditations du Jour from the K Notebook (1961)

Questioning (authority ?) has become merely a reaction to 'what is' and all reactions have little meaning (since) in the very breaking of the old patterns a new one is formed and so destroying ( the expected freedom ?). This endless revolt within the prison is the reaction of the immediate, and redecorating the prison walls seems to give us such satisfaction that we never (envisage to ?) break through the walls. The discontent of questioning is within the walls (of the known?) , which doesn't get us very far; it would take you to the Moon and to the neutron bombs but all this is still within the call of sorrow. Questioning the (inner infrastructure ?) of our sorrow and going beyond it is far more urgent than going to the moon or to the temple; it is this questioning that (eventually may?) tear down this structure. This ( inward) questioning destroys the machinery of ( self-centred?) thought, it shatters the authority of ( past?) experience, word (verbal knowledge ?) and power. This (inward) questioning, which is not born of ( personal?) choice and motive, 'explodes' the self-centred activity. ( Unfortunately?) we are ( sub-consciously?) afraid of this total destruction of ( our psychological?) 'known', the ground of the 'me' and the 'mine'; the ( inner safety of the?) known is better than the 'unknown' ; freedom from this known may destroy what we call 'love', 'relationship', 'joy' and so on. Freedom from the known, the explosive ( inward) questioning, ends sorrow, and then 'love' is something that thought and feeling cannot measure.

(Recap:) Our ( inner) life is so shallow and empty, petty thoughts and activities, woven in conflict and misery and always journeying from the known to the known, psychologically demanding security. There is no (authentic ) security in the 'known' however much one may want it. Security is ( related to a "psychological' continuity in?) time, but there is no ( such) 'psychological' time; it is an illusion, breeding fear. There is nothing 'permanent' now or in the future, (or even in?) the hereafter. By right questioning and listening, the (time-binding?) pattern moulded by ( self-centred?) thought and feeling, the pattern of the 'known', is shattered. Listening ( inwardly?) to every movement of ( our self-centred?) thought and feeling, ends the ( psychological infrastructure of the?) 'known'. ( An inner living based on ?) the known ( sooner or later?) breeds ( frustration and?) sorrow, love is (to be found in ?) the freedom from the known.

Every thought and feeling must ( be allowed to?) 'flower' , (this inward?) 'flowering' of everything in you, the ambition, the greed, the hate, the joy, the passion; in their very 'flowering' there is their 'death' (ending?). (However?) it is only in (a climate of inner ) freedom that anything can flourish, not in control and discipline; these ( may seem to work but inwardly they?) only corrupt. ( This inner?) flowering in freedom is ( the essence of?) all virtue. To allow our 'envy' to flower is not easy, since it is usually condemned or cherished but never given (allowed this?) freedom (to reveal itself?) . It is only in ( a climate of inner?) freedom that the fact of 'envy' reveals its depth, its peculiarities; if suppressed it will not reveal itself fully and freely. When it has 'shown itself' completely, there is an 'ending' of it, only to reveal another ( still deeper ?) 'fact' : 'emptiness', 'loneliness', 'fear' (of the unknown?) , and as each fact is (wisely?) allowed to 'flower in freedom', the ( dualistic?) conflict between the 'observer' and the 'observed' ceases; then there is no longer any 'censor' but only observation, only 'seeing'.

( Recap:) ( Inner?) freedom can only be (found?) in ( inward self-exposure and?) completion; there is 'completion' only in flowering and dying; there is no 'flowering' if there is no ending. The flowering of ( self-centred?) thought is (also ) the 'ending' of thought; for only in 'death' is there the ( birth of the?) new. The New cannot be if there is no freedom from the known. ( The continuity of a self-centred?) thought, of the 'old', cannot bring into being the New; it must 'die' for the New to be. What ( is inwardly allowed to?) flower must (naturally?) come to an end.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Oct 2015 #21
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Meditation du Jour (from the K Notebook, 1961)

The car was going fairly fast and it was a good place to (drive and?)
meditate. To be free of the ( 'psychological' load of ?) words , to see that ( inwardly) the word is not the thing, not to get caught in the ( cultural) overtones of the word and yet use words with care and understanding; to be sensitive to words and not to be 'weighed down' by them; to (perceptively ) 'break through' the verbal barriers and to consider the actual facts; to avoid the 'poison' of ( vain and glamorous?) words and still feel the beauty of them; to put away all ( personal) identification with words and to ( objectively) examine them (is a meditation 'must'?) , for words are a trap and a snare. They are the symbols and not the real. The ( self-protective?) screen of words acts as a shelter for the 'lazy' and (self-) deceiving mind.

( The intellectual?) 'slavery' (dependency on ?) words is the beginning of an (inner state of?) inaction which may appear to be action (very active?) but a mind caught in ( words and?) symbols cannot go far. Every ( verbalising?) thought shapes the mind and without understanding ( the self-centred core of?) thought, the mind becomes a 'slave' to words and sorrow begins. Conclusions and explanations do not (can not ?) end ( this) sorrow.

Meditation is a movement in time and out of time ; the beginning of meditation is a 'choiceless' (non-personal?) awareness of every thought and feeling, understanding their motives, their mechanism, allowing them to blossom . And when this 'thought and feeling' ( eventually ?) flourish and die, meditation is the ( inward ?) movement beyond time. In this movement there is ecstasy; in its complete 'emptiness' (inner transparency?) there is love, and with this love there is ( psychological?) 'destruction' and Creation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Oct 2015 #22
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Highlights from a K Talk on thinking in Athens (1956)

We are trying to find out what lies behind the superficial activities of our daily existence ; so please examine your own thought process as I am talking, and ask yourself what thinking is. Thinking is a process or ( memory's?) reaction, is it not? It is a (verbalised?) reaction according to our ( cultural?) background and without understanding this 'background', we shall never find out whether it is possible for the mind to go beyond the process of its own activities.

What happens when we  think ? Without realizing it, the ( thinking?) mind divides itself, and then one section of the mind ( controls and/or ?) investigates the other, giving an answer out of its own ( memory bank of?) accumulated experience, or according to the accepted experiences of others. This effort makes up what we call thinking, and the resulting answer is ( more often than not?) the ( predictible?) projection of a conditioned mind.

Surely ( the gravity of?) our present problems demand quite a different approach, they demand a new 'psychological' outlook; but we must understand the (limitations ?) of our own thinking before we can go beyond it. That is why it is important to inquire for ourselves into how the thinking (process) begins, and where it stops; because if we do not ( care to?) understand the activity of our own thought, we shall only create more problems, and perhaps bring about our own destruction.
When we think, we do so within the ( 'known') framework which society has imposed on us and so long as we think within a (given) framework, our problems, whether social or individual, will remain unsolved. I feel it is very important that you and I as two ( responsible?) individuals should investigate for ourselves the process of our own thinking.

Is there freedom in thinking, or is all thought limited? If you ( sincerely?) look into yourself, you will see that all thinking is is the result of time, the residue of various cultures, of centuries of knowledge and experience. The totality of our (self-?) consciousness derives from this residue of the past, both individual and collective. So our 'consciousness' is the outcome of many influences: climate, diet, various forms of authority the « do's and dont's » of society, and of the religion in which we have been brought up, the books we have read, the reactions we have felt, and so on. All these influences do condition and shape the mind, and from this ( cultural) background comes our thought. Furthermore, ( the 'personal' component of?) our thinking is based on the desire to become something (and the associated fear of not being able to?) , which is encouraged and stimulated by the competitive ( mentality of the?) society in which we have been brought up.
So the question is, can such 'thinking' solve our many problems?

There is no 'unlimited' thinking, thinking is always limited; and to find out what lies beyond ( the self-centred process of?) thought, it must first 'come to an end' (or...take a break?) . N can thought inquire into something which is ( non-material and?) measureless? ( Eg :) If I want to find out what 'love' (truly?) is I must first see whether my mind is conditioned (or not?) by the ( accepted?) ideas which society or the organized religion calls 'love'. Only when my mind is free from all conditioning that I shall be able to find out what love is. In the same way, to find out if there is truth, if there is God, my mind must be free from all the beliefs and prejudices in which it has been brought up.

So, to discover something true, not conditioned, not contaminated, you must cease (in a psychological sense?) to 'think'- and the mind can free itself (of the its conditioning influences?) only when it is (standing?) completely alone and through (an integrated ?) awareness it can begin to understand its own functioning; then an extraordinary ( quality of ?) silence comes about, a stillness in which there is no movement of thought. Then the mind is 'free' (that is?) no longer anchored to an ideology or aiming at a purpose. Unless you undergo this actual experience life remains very superficial and ( predictibly?) sorrowful. So what is important is to understand the process of your own thinking. In that direct understanding of one's own thinking, a radical (qualitative?) change in one's living will take place and only then will it be possible for the external ( cultural infra-?) structure of society to change also.

A number of questions have been sent to me, and I shall try to go into some of them.

Question: Psychoanalysts offer (for a reasonable fee?) the 'panacea' of analysis, asserting that by just knowing what it is all about, one is cured; but this does not always hold true. What is one to do when in spite of knowing the cause of one's trouble, one is still unable to get rid of it?

Krishnamurti: You see, in this problem there is involved the 'analyser' and the 'analysed'. You may not go to a psychoanalyst, you may analyse yourself, but in either case there is always the (inner splitting into the?) analyser and the analysed. When ( the self-conscious?) 'you' tries to examine the unconscious, or interpret a dream, there is the ( subliminal mental splitting as?) examiner and the examined, with the analyser trying to reshape ( improve and/or?) or control that which he has analysed. The ( kernel of the?) question is not only whether the analyser is capable of ( a totally objective?) analysing, but more deeply whether there is actually such a division between the analyser and the analysed. We have assumed that there is such a division; but is there in actuality? The 'analyser' (part) surely, is also the result of our thinking. So if we realize the fact that the 'thinker' is not separate from his thought, that there is only ( a global process of?) thinking and no 'thinker' (to control it?) then our whole approach to the problem of inner conflict changes. After all, if you do not think, where is the 'thinker'? The qualities of thinking, the memory of various experiences together with the ( identification created by the ?) desire to be secure, to be permanent, have created the 'thinker' (as a separate entity?) apart from (the rest of our?) thinking. We say that 'thinking' is passing, but that the 'thinker' is permanent. In reality there is no 'thinker', but only the process of thinking. And if there is only thinking, and not a ( controlling?) 'thinker' who thinks, once we fully understand (the truth of the fact?) that there is only 'thinking' there is a tremendous (qualitative?) revolution in your whole approach to life; because you have 'at one stroke' removed the very source of ( the duality?) conflict. It is the division between the thinker and the thought that creates conflict; and if one is capable of removing that division, there is no 'problem'.

Question: What would happen to the world if all men and women were to arrive at a state so far removed from attachment that 'marriage' and 'love affairs' became unnecessary?

Krishnamurti: Should we not rather ask ourselves whether there is ( authentic?) love when there is attachment? Our 'attachments' are based on (the shared desire for?) mutual satisfaction, mutual support, are they not? Each one 'needs' the companionship of another. So is there is ( any true?) 'love' at all when there is attachment ? Is there love when we are attached, when we (think that?) possess somebody? And why are we attached? To really go into it, to inquire why one is attached demands a great deal of hard inner work, since if you were not attached, what would happen? You would be at a loss, would you not? We are attached because ( with)in ourselves we are ( feelin ?) insufficient, psychologically dependent, and therein lies our misery.

Question: How is one to deal with a very small child if one is to avoid influencing him in any way?

Krishnamurti: What is important is to understand the whole problem of influence, and then perhaps we shall approach differently the education of the child. We know that we are being ( constantly?) influenced in some degree by everything around us; and to be free of such ( conditioning) influences, we must be(come) aware of the many factors which create them.

Take, for instance, the influence of the word 'patriotism'. We accept that influence all over the world, for every school, every government is sedulously conditioning us to accept it; and that is one of the basic (implicit?) causes of wars, because it separates man from man. So can we, the 'grown-up' people, free ourselves from this influence? This demands a great deal of insight, ( of a responsible?) understanding, for there is the possibility that you may be ostracized, you may lose your job (or not find any?) , and you will be a 'nobody' in that society.

Let us take another example. The worship of ( money and?) 'success' is also an influence throughout the world, is it not? And can one free oneself from this influence? Can you as an individual do it? If you really see the truth that ambition is ( inwardly?) destructive and deeply understand the whole process of 'influencing', you will be a different person; and then perhaps you will be able to help the child to understand and be free of all influence.

Question: Is it possible to live without any attachment?

Krishnamurti: Why don't you find out of 'what' you are attached and 'why'. You are attached to your family, to your property, to your name, to your beliefs and ideas, to your business - to a dozen things. To be free from this (multi-leve3?) 'attachment', you must first become aware that you are attached, experience the "fac" that you are attached, and understand 'why'. ( Eg:) You are attached, for instance, to some ( person?), belief or ideal, because without that concept and the feeling it evokes, your life would be empty, miserable; you would have nothing to rely on. That is why it is very important to study the process of one's whole being, and not merely try to ( ideologically) clarify what to believe and what not to believe, which is all so superficial. The key to freedom is within 'ourselves', but we are always expecting someone else to come and open the door and let the light in.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Oct 2015 #23
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Meditation du Jour: On Choice

All ( dualistic?) existence is (involving?) choice; only in aloneness (all-oneness ?) there is no choice. Choice, in every form, is (breeding its own?) conflict. This ( perceptive?) contradiction ( between the 'inner' ( the'observer'?) and the the 'outer' (the 'observed'?) breeds confusion and misery, despair and sorrow. Choice, selection, must always exist as long as there is the 'chooser' , the (self-identified bundle of ?) accumulated memories of pain and pleasure, and every 'experience' (born of ?) 'choice' only strengthens ( the identification with that ?) memory whose response becomes 'thought and feeling'. This memory has only a partial significance, to respond mechanically ( to life threatening situations?); ( otherwise?) this response is ( manifesting itself as ?) 'choice'. There is no ( true?) freedom in ( the psychologically motivated?) choices. You 'choose' according to the cultural background you have been brought up in, according to your social, economic, religious conditioning. Choice invariably strengthens this ( background?) conditioning; there is no 'escape' from this conditioning, it only breeds more suffering.

It was a beautiful evening and there on that road so
close to town, there was deep silence and not a sound disturbed it,
not even the moon and the passing lorry. It was a ( visitation of ?) 'silence' that no thought could touch, a 'silence' that went with the frogs and the cycles, a silence that followed you; you walked in it, you breathed it, you 'saw' it. It was not shy, it was there insisting and welcoming. It went beyond you into vast immensities and you could ( eventually?) follow it if your thoughts & feelings were utterly quiet, losing themselves as the frogs in the water; they had no
importance and could so easily 'lose' themselves. It was an enchanting evening, full of clarity and fast-fading smile.

(Back to the main topic: ) ( The 'self'-sustained process of ?) choice is always breeding misery. Watch it and you will see it lurking, demanding, expecting, and before you know it, you are caught in its net of inescapable 'duties', 'responsibilities', ( plus the associated  frustrations ?) and despairs. Watch it and you will be aware of the fact. Be aware of this 'fact'; it is there. If 'you' will let it alone, not interfering with it with your calculated and cunning ( value) judgements, it will 'flower' and show all its intricacies, its subtle ways, its seeming 'importance' and 'ethics', its hidden motives and fancies. If 'you' (the 'observer' ?) will leave the 'fact' alone, it will (eventually reveal?) all these and more. But you must be 'choicelessly' aware of it Then you will see that (the process of personal?) 'choice', having flowered, dies and there is freedom, not 'you' are free, since 'you' are the maker of choices! . ( In that newly found freedom?) there is nothing to choose. Out of this choiceless state there flowers a (consciousness of?) 'all-oneness' which is always flowering and it is always new.
All ( personal or collective ) 'choice' is in the field of the known; action in this field always breeds ( personal or collective?) sorrow. There is the ending of ( this) sorrow in 'aloneness' (all-oneness?) .

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 31 Oct 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Nov 2015 #24
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Last K Talk in Athens (Sept 1956)

It seems to me that one of the most difficult (psychological) problems is how is the mind to bring about a change in itself. If we want to create a world that is without hatred, a world in which there is ( a spirit of selfless cooperation and ?) love, I think it is essential that you and I as individuals should contribute to the realization of such a 'revolution' by a fundamental transformation in ourselves. This is the subject on which I am going to talk this evening, and I hope you will be patient enough to listen with attention.

To find out if it is possible to bring about such an inner revolution, one has to begin by experimenting with oneself. If we look into ourselves, we can see that the mind is capable of improving the (outwardly directed ?) part of itself, but even if that one part manages to dominate all the rest, the mind will be in a state of continuous (hidden /subliminal?) conflict.Such conflict is inevitable so long as one part of ourselves is trying to improve or to control the other part and it arises, surely, from this ( safety based?) division in the mind.

Now, to change fundamentally, completely, without one part of the mind seeking to dominate another parts and thereby creating further conflict, we must give our total attention to it ; and there can be such ( inward ?) attention only when there is not the conflict of wanting a result, or pursuing an ideal. there is any sense of achieving an ideal, of bringing about a change through compulsion, there cannot be complete attention. To bring about a fundamental ( qualitative inner ?) change one must understand the necessity of a total ( undivided?) attention which is, after all, a state of love. Love is (involved in?) total attention in which the contradictory impulses, with all their accumulative memories, completely cease.

To put it differently, what most of us are trying to do is to change (improve ourselves?) through time. Being ( inwardly frustrated and?) envious we (like to?) think that through time we shall (go beyond it?) - which to me is an escape, a distraction from the actual fact. So, can one give one's total attention to the problem of 'envy', without any distraction? That is, can one approach the problem of envy completely anew? It is true, is it not?, that we generally move from the known to the known; our ideals are still within the field of the known, and does not bring about a fundamental transformation. So the problem is : can this ( controlling and greedy mentality of the ?) mind come to an end without compulsion, without any form of discipline, which means that it has understood itself completely?

Truth (or Love ?) is something totally Unknown and the mind must come to it completely free of all the things it has known; and (inwardly) this 'knowledge', is the accumulated memories and problems of everyday existence. So if there is really to be a radical change, a fundamental transformation, the mind must move away from the known. For Love is not something which 'you' have experienced yesterday and are able to recapture at will tomorrow; it is (an inner dimension which is?) totally New, Unknown.

Many questions have been sent in, and I cannot go into all of them so if your particular question is not answered, you will know why. Also, I am not 'answering' these questions, but we are together trying to investigate the problem. The problem is yours, and you have to find the answer within the problem itself, not away from it.

Question: In what way can self-knowledge help to solve the many pressing problems of the world - for instance, starvation?

Krishnamurti: Is not the world, with all its lies, its corruption, hatred and starvation, brought about by human beings (very much like us?) ? You (too may ?) want to be 'somebody', and therefore you identify yourself with the country (and/or with the property?) which gives you a sense of ( self-) importance; so, through ( shared mentality of greed and?) envy you have created a society based on ( competition and?) acquisition. Unfortunately most of us think that politics, or various forms of legislation will solve our problems. But what the individual ( mentality?) is , the ( mentality of the?) world is, and to bring about a fundamental change you must understand yourself.
Self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom; and to know yourself is not something to be learned from books. You can see yourself exactly as you are in the ( inwardly transparent?) 'mirror' of relationship, once you realize (the truth?) that to understand something, you must not ( label, compare or?) condemn it. Through this self-knowledge which comes when there is observation without condemnation, the whole mind, the 'unconscious' (the forgotten layers?) as well as the 'conscious' (ones) , can be understood. Only then is the mind completely quiet, and therefore able to inquire further.

Question: If a man has no ( personal) ambition, how is he to live in this world of competition?

Krishnamurti: I wonder why are we envious, ambitious? Is it because there are a hundred ( outward?) motives encouraging us to be ambitious? Or is it that without ambition, without trying to 'get somewhere' or to 'be something', we feel that (inwardly we?) are nothing? If we were not ambitious, what would happen? We would be 'nobody', we would be 'unrecognized' ( within our community?) , and we would merely 'live'; but just to live in that way does not seem (to the self-centred mind?) very gratifying. So we create (and/or 'accept' the collective mentality of?) a society in which ambition is encouraged (higly prised?). I am not talking of ambition only in the worldly sense. The man who strives to have some so-called ( mystical or ?) 'religious' experience is also anxious to become or to have ( or to get ?) something.

Now, seeing the havoc that ( competition and?) 'ambition' is causing in the world today, and realizing that a man who is ambitious can have no love, the question naturally arises ( for a spiritually inclined mind?) : is it possible to be completely free from ( this mentality of?) ambition? I cannot answer for you; you will have to find out for yourself. But you see, the fact is that most of us want security, safety and ( 'psychological' insurance policies or ?) 'guarantees'; therefore we live with ambition. Such people are not serious, though they may ask 'serious' questions.

Question: What is the real meaning of brotherhood?

Krishnamurti: It is fairly obvious, is it not? This is our world, it is yours and mine - not to live in it as 'Greeks', or 'Americans', or Russians, but as 'human(e?) beings'. But unfortunately we have ( accepted these?) national, economic and religious barriers (divisions?) , and living behind these barriers we talk about brotherhood, we talk about love, peace, God. To really know what Love is we must abolish all these barriers, and each one of us must begin with himself.

Question: Should one give any importance to one's dreams or not?

Krishnamurti: To investigate this question directly we must understand the process of ( fragmentation of ?) our own consciousness, the 'totality of one's being'; most of us are concerned with cultivating our ( self-?) 'conscious' mind, and every school is ( keeping itself?) 'busy' with the same thing. Society gives great importance to the education of this ( self-?) conscious ( part of the?) mind, and it tries to make us ( 'programmable' and/or ?) efficient, citizens by giving us ( the opportunity of ? ) a job.

Now, while the (self-?) conscious mind is concerned with our daily activities, there is at the same time a 'hidden inner activity' going on of which 'you' are largely unconscious ; this 'unconscious' being not only the hidden personal motives, but also the racial influences and the ( pressures of the accumulated ?) collective experience of centuries. So, when the 'conscious' mind goes to sleep (is on 'stand-by'?) and relatively quiet, the 'unconscious' urges then become dreams. This is because during the day our ( self-) conscious minds are so taken up with our superficial motives and pursuits that there is no ( leisurely?) time to receive the promptings of the (personal and/or collective?) unconscious. So we 'dream', but the ( revolutionary?) problem is not how to interpret dreams, but whether it is possible not to dream at all. Please do not reject this (distant possibility?) since a mind that is (split between?) perpetually active (outwardly?) during the day, and unconsciously ( inwardly?) active when it is asleep, can never be creative. It is only when the mind is completely ( integrated and?) still, without movement, without (jumping into?) 'action', that there is a possibility for a new state ( of awareness?) to come into being.

So, can the ( self-?) 'conscious' mind be in such close relationship with the 'unconscious' (counter- part?) during the day as well as during the night, that there is never this state of 'confusion' which necessitates the projection of dreams? Surely, when the 'conscious' mind (becomes aware of?) the (subliminal?) 'movements' of the unconscious, it is possible not to dream at all. That is, if you are ( becoming?) aware of your motives, of your prejudices, of your conditioning, of your fears, of your likes and dislikes - if you are aware of all these ( 'psychological' interferences?) during the day, then when you go to sleep the mind is not everlastingly disturbed by 'dreams'. That is why it is important to be aware of (the 'psycholgical' components of?) one's thinking, of one's ambition, of one's motives, urges, jealousies - not to 'push them aside', but to understand them completely. Then the mind is very quiet, silent, and (by meditating?) in that silence it can be free from all its conditioning. Such a mind is a 'religious' (holistic?) mind, and only such a mind is capable of receiving « that which is true ». When the mind is completely still, without any movement, without any ( push of?) desire, then it is possible for the Immeasurable to come into ( one's?) being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Nov 2015 #25
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Selected (themes for) Meditation from the K Notebook (I961)

The bullock carts and the worn-out villagers were there beside you but you were (delving inwardly ?) so deep that no thought could follow; every feeling stayed far away. You were aware of everything that was happening around you, the darkening of the moon by masses of clouds, the warning of the cycle bell, but this ( meditation into the ?) depth went on more profoundly past the limits of ( time and ) space. It was ( a state of?) total (inner) freedom and ( from those ?) deepths there was a was bursting of energy, an 'ecstasy' which thought could never capture or pursue. Thought is a barren thing and could never communicate with 'that' which is timeless.

The essence of ( self-?) control is suppression. The pure ( inner?) 'seeing' ( the in(ner)sight?) is infinitely more subtle than the mere ( thought?) control which is doesn't need much ( self) understanding. The pure act of 'seeing the fact', whatever the 'fact' ( happens to ?) be, brings its own understanding and from this, ( a qualitative inner?) mutation takes place.

It was none of the common sights that made the evening enchanting, but a deep widening intensity, an imminent clarity of that 'otherness', with its impenetrable strength and purity. What ( before) was 'beautiful' , was now glorified in splendour; there was ecstasy and laughter not only deeply within but among the palms and the rice fields. ( Such visitations of?) Love is not a common thing but it was (present) there in the hut with an oil lamp, with that old woman, carrying something heavy on her head; with that naked boy, swinging on a piece of string a piece of wood which gave out many sparks- his 'fireworks'. It was everywhere, so 'common' that you could (almost ?) pick it up under a dead leaf or in that jasmine by the old crumbling house. It was there filling your heart, your mind and the sky; it remained and would never leave you. Only that 'you' would have to 'die' to ( your psycho-attachments to?) everything, without roots, without a tear. Then 'It' would ( possibly?) come to (visit?) you, ( if you were lucky?) and ceased to run after it, being 'indifferent' to it, but without sorrow, and thought left far behind. The (inward) flowering of meditation is ( the flowering of?) Goodness. It is the beauty of meditation that gives perfume to its flowering. However, how can there be joy in your 'meditation' with the (constant?) coaxing of desire and pain; how can it blossom in the corrupting ambition and smell of success; how can it bloom in the shadow of 'hope' (psycho- expectations ?) and/or despair? You will have to leave all these far behind (and without regrets), since meditation blossoms only in freedom and ( comes with?) the 'withering' (karmic quenching?) of that which is (or...was?) . Without freedom there is no self-knowing and without self-knowing there is no meditation.

( Recap:) ( Self-centred?) thought is always petty and shallow however far it may wander in search of knowledge . Meditation flowers only in the freedom from the known, and it withers away in the ( barren field of the?) known.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 02 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Nov 2015 #26
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

To "be" or "not to be" ? That is the psychological Question (from the K Notebook)

It is strange, the desire to 'show off' or to 'be somebody'. Envy is ( a derivative of?) hate and (its) vanity corrupts. It seems difficult to be ( inwardly?) simple, to be what you 'are' and not pretend. You can always put on a mask but to be what you are is an extremely complex affair; because 'you' are also changing; you are never the ( exactly the?) same, each moment reveals a new facet, a new depth, a new surface. You can't be all these at one single moment for each moment brings its own ( modified?) change. So if you are at all intelligent, you give up ( the effort to inwardly become or be?) anything. You may ( like to) think you are clever, well-read, artistic, moral, but turn round the corner, you ( may ) find that ( deeper down?) you are ambitious, envious, insufficient, brutal and anxious. You 'are' all these things turn by turn, but you want (prefer?) to be permanent only that ( self-image?) which is profitable, pleasurable. So you run after that and all the many other 'you' 's are clamouring to have their fulfilment. So 'you' ( your consciousness?) becomes a battlefield and generally ambition, with all its pleasures and pains, is gaining. So to « be what you are » (to be true to yourself?) is an extremely arduous (tricky?) affair; if you are at all awake (inwardly?), you know all these things and the sorrow (sadness?) of it all. So you 'drown' yourself in your work, in your beliefs, ideals and meditations and become already (almost?) 'dead' inwardly.

To put away all these ( illusory?) things, with their contradictions and increasing sorrow, and « be as nothing » seems the most intelligent thing to do. But before you can be (inwardly as ?) 'nothing', you must have unearthed all the (already existing) hidden ( identifications with ?) 'things', exposing them and so understanding them. To understand these hidden urges and compulsions (surfacing from the streaming of collective consciousness?) , you will have to be aware of them without choice and in the pure act of seeing, they will ( perhaps ?) wither away and you will be without ( any personal?) sorrow and so « be as nothing ». The very denial (letting go ?) of everything you have been (attached to?) is the most 'positive' action. This positive action gives (releases a latent intelligent ?) energy, while ( intellectually dealing with concepts and ?) ideas dissipate that energy. Ideation is ( a material process of?) time and living in time is (an entropic form of spiritual?) disintegration and sorrow.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 03 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Nov 2015 #27
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

paul daniel wrote:
Well the psy books, I prefer not to comment here on that....coaching,money making yes well as much more!
As to the rest,yes why not?

Then, join us on the newly started thread. Perhaps the concept is more of a 'work-book' rather than a 'real' book or textbook - the difference would be its interactive character- we learn and share our learning and this goes both ways. So it is about creating a synergy of learning and the end-result may not be as valuable as the actual interaction in writing it. As for who will read it, I have noticed in these last 6 years that whenever you write something that sounds and feels right someone will eventually read it

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Nov 2015 #28
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Sorrow and love cannot live together ( from the K notebook)

Everywhere there was sorrow and pain, decay and corruption, but that light ( of the green parrots) among the leaves, moving, restless beauty knew no pain; they would die, killed or put in a cage but there was no 'time' for them; they just lived, the green delight of heaven. Death is time; every thought intensifies (our sense of continuity in?) time and the ( memory of the ?) many yesterdays had shaped our thought, moulded it to fashion tomorrow. But love had no tomorrow nor had it a yesterday. It was the only thing that had no time and it was there, green among the wintry leaves. Sorrow and love cannot live together. Sorrow has a ( personal?) motive, self-pity and memory; every tear is of time and sorrow grows in the soil of time. You cannot be free of sorrow if you are not free of time; they are inseparable as the shadow of that electric pole. Sorrow is in ( living with?) the shadow not in the 'fact', in the what 'is'. Fact has no time but thought about the fact has. As you were aware of those parrots, the traffic, the pain, in that expanding attention, only ( the truth of the ?) fact remained and 'time' was not and even the fact was gone, ceased to have meaning, and [there was] only this 'attention' in which everything was, for it was beyond time and measure.

But 'you' (the self-conscious entity?) could not get to it through any door; there is no way to it. Neither tears nor time will open the door to the Eternal. 'You' must die (inwardly?) without effort, without a cry and then perhaps as you turn along the road it will be there.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #29
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

K speaking of the thinker-thought duality ( in Madras 1947)

The 'thinker' (the 'self'-identication?) plays an insidious and clever trick on himself and separates himself from the thought and then does something about thought. To discuss (or go deeper into?) this, you must find out what desire is and how desire or craving arises. Desire comes through perception, contact, sensation and identification. The 'me', the 'thinker', is born our of desire, and he does not exist previous to desire.
But in your everyday experience, the thinker is separate from the thought, i.e. the thought is outside 'you' as it were, and you can do something about it, you can modify it and recondition it. Is the thinker really separate from the thought?
How does the ( identification with the ?) 'thinker' come into being? You are the ( bio-genetic ) result of your father and mother. How did you begin to think and feel as a child? You wanted milk, there was a sensation of hunger; then the ( sensory) contact with the bottle or the breast, and the struggle to feed, to grow, and then the toy, the ( cultural) impingement of society on the mind, and gradually, the 'I' comes out. Therefore, it is perception, sensation, contact and desire, from which 'my' mother, 'my' toy, which grows to 'my' bank account, 'my' house, and so on. So the thinker, the 'me' comes through perception, contact, sensation and ( the choices and attachments of?) desire from which arises ( self-) consciousness; the 'thinker' who then separates himself, for his own further security, as the high and the low, the high becoming the Paramatman and the low becoming this existence. When this ( physical) existence is threatened, the thinker can always retire into the more permanent.

(Recap:)You are the sum total of all the human existence. As you are a Hindu, you are the result of all Hindus; you are the result of your father, not only biologically, but in thought, in your beliefs, and so on. The 'I'( the 'self'-identification ?) comes into being through desire; then, once the 'I' feels established it creates the desire which is ( directed ?) outward, the desire and 'I' thus becoming two separate entities, which means that the 'thinker' and the ( desire propelled process of ?) 'thought' are separate. Craving continuity, the thinker ( the self- identified thinking activity?) separates himself from the thought, and thinks that ( its own ?) thoughts are changeable, modifiable, can be destroyed and replaced.

However, if the thinker is (just the 'core' of a self-centred process of?) thought, then he has to admit his impermanency - which he does not like. All our actions in society are based on the idea that the 'I' is the permanent and the thought is the impermanent. We know very well the impermanency of matter (of the structures of the material world?) so, thought is seeking ( a higher level of ?) permanency, it says "I will go to a higher level of consciousness or a deeper level which is my belief, which is my God". When this ( mental ?) trick is understood, it is gone, and the thinker and the thought are one, there will be a ( qualitative psycho-?) revolution in our daily life.

Now, here you admit ( the idea ?) that « the thinker and the thought are one » and yet there is no change in your way of living. Why? Either you are 'asleep' (safely in the self-locked mode?) which means you don't want to be disturbed, or there is an inward resistance. Now, how can we dissolve the resistance? The moment you understand it, it drops away. ( But why this inner ?) 'resistance'? You accept the idea on the superficial layers of your consciousness and the rest of your consciousness is resisting it. You are resisting the acceptance of ( not seeing the truth of?) 'what is'; namely that the thinker and the thought are one. You superficially say "Yes", but the rest of your consciousness is resisting it, because the unconscious sees the tremendous ( disturbing?) implications in the ( seeing the truth?) of 'what is'. You are afraid to lose 'yourself' - ( the attachment to?) your property, your social status , your belief and your son. So you are resisting in order not to lose what you are ( psychologically ?) protecting, in order to guard it. This means you are resisting the dissolution of the 'identification' with things, with name, with property, and so on. ( The inner attachment to ?) the house, the property, is the value which the mind gives.

You (subliminally?) are afraid that, by not identifying with the valuations of the mind, there will be an ending ; and so, you are resisting the destruction of valuations which have come into being through ( the process of sel-centred?) thought, the thought being the result of the desire - i.e. the desire creates the thinker, the thinker evaluates and then offers resistance to the destruction of those things which he has built up. So the thinker is resisting 'what is' and the impingement of new desires. The ( psychological) 'values' are created by the mind whether of things or of ideas. So, it is afraid to lose the valuation which it has created and to which it is attached. You bring a new idea and the mind does not want to have it because it is disturbing the things which it has already built.

The thinker is resisting, not with things but with ideas which are transitory in themselves. So, your resistance is transitory. You are resisting the dissolution of valuations which are thoughts and thought is transitory. Things have no significance except what the mind gives; in their very nature they are transitory; and yet the mind clings to them and to the significance it gives them. In other words, the thinker creates evaluations and then, in examining them, finds that these evaluations are transitory, and that he is resisting the destruction of the transitory because he is seeking permanency in them. In other words, you recognise that they are all impermanent and yet you are seeking permanency in them because, by your valuation, you have given them permanency. When you recognise the absurdity of giving permanency to things which have no permanency, it drops away - just as when you know that all the banks are bad, you don't go to any bank. All things made by the hand or by the mind are in their very nature transitory because the mind alone gives values to them, transitory for the simple reason that thought is transitory and thought is the thinker. Now, you, the thinker, are asking,"Is there permanency?" because it is what you want. 'You' are the result of 'desire & thought' which is impermanent. The impermanent is asking to find out the truth of permanency. The mind which has been seeking permanency has vested permanency in things made by the hand or by the mind, and it finds that they are impermanent; and yet it says it must have permanency.

Can the impermanent find the permanent? If I am ( inwardly ?) 'blind' can I see the light? If I am ignorant can I know enlightenment? There can only be 'enlightenment' when ignorance ceases. The transitory cannot find the permanent; it must cease for the permanent to be. The 'entity' who is seeking permanency is obviously impermanent; you cannot say he is permanent. He is the outcome of transitory desire and therefore, in himself, he is transitory - which he does not like to acknowledge. Property is impermanent. Relationship is impermanent. Belief is impermanent.

Seeing everything around as impermanent and as transitory, the mind says that there must be something permanent, though there is no inherent permanency. Your ( desire for ?) 'permanency' is born out of impermanency and is therefore the opposite of impermanency; therefore it has the seed of its opposite which is transitory. When you treat impermanency as impermanent then there is nothing; but you are resisting the acknowledgment of the fact that whatever you do, think and feel is impermanent, though you know very well that they are impermanent. Being transitory yourself, you can never find permanency, because you will evaluate "permanency" and all your valuations are transitory. the impermanent can never find the permanent.

When you realise this, you do not seek ( 'self'-?) permanency through things, through relationship and through ideas. Therefore, there is no valuation (no value judgements ?) and you accept them at their level. Therefore you have no conflict with them. There is a great relief if the mind is not giving values of permanency to things which have no permanency. If you say property, family and things are necessary but not as a means for ( self-) permanency, then there is no conflict. It does not matter who owns the house; you use it merely as a means of physical protection, not as a means of self-expansion. Therefore the the 'thinker', the 'evaluator', is non-existent. When the thinker ceases to create (its own psychological) values, perhaps something else will come into being. But, as long as the thinker exists there must be the evaluation. His values are impermanent. Therefore, if the thinker is seeking permanency, he must cease, because he is the mischief-maker and is reducing to chaos the relationship with society and with property. So your problem then is how the thinker can come to an end, how can the ( self-centred) thinking process end?

As the (identification with the ?) 'thinker' is the result of desire, this means that desire must come to an end. What do we mean by 'desire'? Perception, contact, sensation and desire. I must have food, clothes and shelter. Those are imperative 'musts'; though there are certain desires involved in them, they are necessary. But the desire or the 'craving' for things, for name, for beliefs must cease. If it ceases, what will happen to my relationship? ( Thought sustained ?) desire is the very expression of attachment. When I use 'my' wife as a means of psychological necessity, then there is attachment; she helps me to cover up my loneliness and then I am attached. So desire can come to an end only when there is no attachment. And can one live in the world without attachment? Obviously one can. The moment I am attached it is an indication of desire - desire which is impermanent and which creates the 'thinker' who evaluates. It is only when it ends, that you can find out if there is ( a timeless ?) 'permanency' or not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Nov 2015 #30
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

On the true signficance of Meditaton (from the K Notebook 1961)

The road went on, past the palm trees, the casuarinas, rice fields, huts and on and on and suddenly as ever unexpectedly, that 'Otherness' came with that purity and strength which no thought could possibly ever formulate and it was there and your heart seemed to explode into the empty heavens, with ecstasy. The brain was utterly still, motionless, but sensitive, watching. It could not follow into that emptiness; it was of time but time had stopped and it could not 'experience'; experience is ( based on?) recognition and what it recognized would be time. So it was motionless, merely quiescent, without asking, seeking. And this totality of Love entered into everything and was 'lost'; do what you will you will not find it. It is not on the market nor in any temple; everything has to be destroyed, not a stone left unturned, no foundation to stand on, but even then this emptiness must be without a tear, then perhaps the Unknowable might pass by. It was there and Beauty.

All deliberate pattern of (inward) change is like changing clothes on a doll but it still remains, mechanical, lifeless, brittle, to be broken and thrown away. Economic, social revolution is not a 'revolution' at all, it is a modified continuity of what has been. Mutation, a total (inner?) 'revolution', takes place only when ( the idea of a ?) change, (within?) the pattern of time, is seen as false and in its total abandonment mutation takes place.

The cruel sea was close by, thundering away and the luscious green rice fields were beyond the village, peaceful, full of promise in the evening light. Clouds were coming across the sea, unhurriedly, with the sun upon them ; everywhere there was activity and no one looked up at the sky. Walking on that road in the dark with the light of the city in the clouds, that inviolable Strength comes with such abundance and with such clarity that it took literally your breath away. All life was that Strength. It had no 'quality', no description could contain it and yet it was there ( a Presence ?) as those dark distant hills and those trees beside the road. It was too immense for thought to speculate upon. It was a Strength that had no cause and so nothing could be added to or taken away from it. It cannot be 'known'; "knowing" is recognition but It is always new, something that cannot be measured in time. It had been there all day, like a whisper but now it was ( present ?) with an urgency and with such abundance that there was nothing but That. The word 'love' had a totally different meaning, walking on that empty road. It came with that impenetrable Strength; the two were inseparable, like the colour of a petal. The brain, the heart and the mind were totally consumed by it and there was nothing left but That. It continued, walking alone or walking with others, and it went on during the night until the morning came among the palm trees. But it is ( still in-?) there like a whisper among the leaves.

What an extraordinary thing meditation is, but the 'silence' which is desired ceases to be illuminating. Only in the 'flowering' and in the 'ending' of thought does meditation have significance; thought can only ( be exposed and ?) 'flower' in the freedom (from the known?) not in the ever widening patterns of (past) knowledge. Knowledge may give you newer experiences of greater sensation but a mind that is seeking ( new?) experiences of any kind is immature. Maturity is the freedom from all ( need to?) experience; it is no longer under any influence to be and not to be. Maturity in ( the context of ?) meditation is the freeing of the mind from knowledge, for it shapes and controls all ( inner) experience. A mind which is a 'light to itself' needs no experience.

(Recap:) Meditation is the wandering through the world of knowledge and being free of it to enter into the unknown.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 552 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.)