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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?


Displaying posts 361 - 390 of 758 in total
Thu, 28 Jul 2016 #361
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

Daniel Paul. wrote:
I have seen for myself that whatever takes place the thinking process brings discontentment, so is discontent, and to get that only analytically or even logically is not enough and far from it, since I have seen that in many ways and experiments, then this is now behind.

Which reminds me of a very funny- yet rather profound remark made once by David Bohm- he was giving this real life example ( possibly proved statistically) that out of any 5 doctors, 4 will give you some good advice or medication that actually helps improving the patient's health , but there is one in five that by his ignorance, etc, is making the patient get sick. So that was the statistical medical fact. And Bohm draw a pretty realistic parallel to our own self-centred thinking (aka thought) which, if consulted in a personal problem is performing like the 'bad doctor' who's advice will make us get sick ...in 4 cases out of 5

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 28 Jul 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Jul 2016 #362
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 183 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
And Bohm draw a pretty realistic parallel to our own self-centred thinking (aka thought) which, if consulted in a personal problem is performing like the 'bad doctor' who's advice will make us get sick ...in 4 cases out of 5

Well John, even 4 out of 5 would not be that bad....I seem to know that all the time on some specific subjects thought is always wrong because in some fields it simply have not one single ability ...when it comes to what is unconscious, to dukkha, sorrow, etc etc unless I am an exception but between us for me there are no exceptions so I am not, nevertheless unless that, well thought had proven to myself to be wrong all the time when it is about suffering and more so about what is unconscious ...all the time so far..

it is not even a negative critic of thought it is just stating that in many non superficial fields it is not its business to go into..as we have lost many of our capacities, the one remaining so thought is perfectly incapable to cover the all field of "being alive" and so is now trying to deal with problems it does not know and have no capacity to deal with by nature so programming!!

so it is incapable to solve those ones and is now bringing more havoc to the existent ones..... then life is about machines and objects, values and divisions , war and war, and practical things only, this life currently according to me does not work..is it still a life ?? not sure...

whether we lost those capacities (my view) or whether we never had them turned on , does not change anything..we need them, back or for the first time..

so Bohm was optimistic ;-)....

cheers..

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Fri, 29 Jul 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Jul 2016 #363
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1976 (condensed )

K: I think there is a different between "dialectical questioning" and "dialogue". Dialectical questioning implies finding the truth through opinions. Whereas "dialogues" are (a creative sharing ?) in a spirit of real enquiry to find the truth - by an approach through careful, non-personal, objective investigation. That means we both of us start ( from a position of not knowing ?) with no opinions, no conclusions, no assertions, and perhaps (if lucky ?) coming upon what is truth.
Now what are the questions you would like to ask?

Q (1) : Very often I feel "closed in", and I wish to come out but I am afraid. My question is, is it possible to "naturally come out" of this and flower?

Q (2) : (In French) I am becoming conscious of my "sleeping state" , which is fragmentary.

Q (3) : I find that my fears are so huge, and the sorrow is so huge, that the body, the nervous system, says, "I can only take so much (at a time)".

Q (4) : I would like to discuss the 'me'. I would like to know whether it is ( more of a psychological ?) hunger (for experience ?) , not thought, not memories. For example, if I am hungry for food, I think of food. I am not referring to food hunger so much as to a "hunger for love" as being the 'me'. I think frustration of this "love-hunger" breeds fear, and they both breed thoughts and images and then they nurse the fear. S, is the 'me' merely the ( proverbial 'bundle of ?) past images', or do you think it is love-hunger?

K: Can we take among these questions one central question and work that out completely so that at the end of it you will know ( the right approach to finding out the truth ?) for yourself ? Can we do that? Now which of these do we take ?

Q: The one of being ( self-enclosed ?) enclosed and wanting to find freedom.

K: All right, let's begin with that, and perhaps we will include all the others: why human beings are ( self ?) enclosed, held in, and never free (to look at everything anew ?) .

Q: It is a lack of awareness.

K: That is a ( final ?) conclusion that stops all investigation - finished. But if we say, "look, why human beings are so "encircling themselves", why do they have (to carry ?) this burden of tremendous weight so that they don't ever feel free? Can we discuss, investigate it, not just say, 'Because you lack awareness' or this or that. So please we are going to go into this question, why human beings, practically everyone in the world, unfortunately are living (inwardly enclosed ?) within four walls ?

How would you approach this problem? I am (self-) enclosed. I have been hurt, I have had a great deal of pain, both physical and psychological, I have had a great many insults and I am (self-) enclosed. And I feel I am a prisoner (of my own desire for inner safety ?) . Now what is my approach to it? Is my approach ( motivated by ?) wanting to 'break free' from this? If I have already started with a 'direction', therefore I am not investigating (my condition objectively ?) .
So am I free of ( any 'personal' ?) motive in my investigation of why human beings are 'psychological' prisoners? If I am not free then I have already started with a tremendous (or even subliminal ?) prejudice. You will be free from it when you see the ( simple ?) truth that any (personal or collective ?) motive gives a 'direction' , therefore you stop investigating. And hence you say, "That's absurd, I'll drop it", it is a natural thing to drop that motive.
Are you in that position (of perceptive freedom ?) ? If you have dropped the motive then what is ( the causation of ?) this (inner ?) prison? My various hurts, wounds, all the things we go through life, make us shrink, become like a snail that draws in. So, that is the 'fact' : I have been 'hurt' from childhood, at home, school, college, university, all through life, being somewhat sensitive (inwardly) a human being is hurt. So he begins to withdraw, to enclose himself. So one of the causes of this withdrawal, with this isolation, with this sense of imprisonment, is ( the memory of having been ?) hurt - right?
( But one can also ?) see ( oneself that most, if not ?) all human beings are ( being psychologically) hurt - right? So when we generalize it to all human beings it gives us much more vitality - you follow? When I am hurt, it is a very small affair, but when I see that all human beings are hurt it becomes something tremendous. I wonder if you understand this.
So ( the 1000 $ question ?) is it possible not to be hurt - never? One has been hurt when one was young (and had 'high hopes' ?) and the ( active memory of that ?) 'hurt' remains through life with most people - right? We ( un-consciously ?) carry that burden, and therefore we isolate ourselves from the (outer ?) violence and so on. Now we are asking, is it possible to be(come) free of the past hurts and being (hurt-) free to be never (again) hurt - you understand? There is the 'curing' of the past hurts and the prevention (of the further ones ?) so that the ( total quality of our ?) brain is never hurt, so it remains young and therefore innocent. ( The root meaning of the word "innocent" comes from Latin: "incapable of being hurt").
So are you aware of this process (of psychological hurt ?) ?

Q (1) : It is very difficult to be aware because there is so much pain involved in it.

Q (2) : Would you say that a human being from childhood on experiences this being hurt? Apparently it is part of our existence. So I may have to cope in a more creative way with ( the possibility of ?) being again and again hurt. I feel being hurt is part of the process of ( our inner ?) growth.

Q (3) : There is a difference in being hurt and carrying that hurt over, making that hurt something psychological. If someone pushed me physically I am getting hurt at that moment, but that is a different hurt from psychological hurts.

K: That gentleman says part of human existence is to be hurt, it is natural. I am questioning that. Why should we be hurt? Look what damage it does psychologically, inwardly, how it affects our brain (and our outer behaviour ?) .

Q (2) : How can you prevent being hurt?

K: I am coming to that. We are coming to that: how to prevent hurt, and what to do with the hurts that we have. But if we say, hurt is part of life, war is a part of life, psychological disease is part of life, then that's the end of that argument. But if we say, is it possible to prevent being hurt and what to do with the hurts that one has, then we can go into the question.

Q: How do we know we are hurt?

K: Sir, look, when in the school, or in the family, the child is told, you are not as good as your brother, or your sister, you have already hurt that child - right? So where there is ( a cultural environment based on ?) comparison and competition there is ( a high probability of getting psychologically ?) hurt. This is so obvious. Now are you aware that you are hurt?

Q: Yes.

K: Thank God! At least somebody is fairly frank and comes to it. Do you see the result, are you aware of the result of this hurt, what happens? That is isolation, resistance, and the resistance implies violence, and a sense of gradual isolation. From that all kinds of bitterness, lack of love, lack of sense of freedom, all that arises. Aren't you aware of this?
( Now, action-wise ?) how do we wipe that out?

Q: One should change the focus onto something else ?

K: That would be an escape. This is a fact, that is non-fact.

Q: Isn't it only the "image" that we have of ourselves that is getting hurt?

K: We will come to that madam. What am I to do with the hurt which I have, and I see the results of it, what am I to do with that hurt?

Q: Experience it! If you experience it thoroughly it will disappear.

K: If I really paid attention at the beginning there would be no hurt, but I have not paid attention so I have got this hurt. What am I to do?

Q: Try and understand (analytically ?) why you are hurt.

K: ( Analytically ) I will tell you: I have got a marvellous image about myself and that image is hurt - right? I have an image that I am a very clever man, and you come along and tell me I am a fool, that hurts me. My image is hurt - right? But this "image" is ( identifying itself as ?) "me". I am not different from my image - right? Am I different from my image?

Q: What is the solution to it?

K: You want a quick way out of everything - a quick pill, quick Nirvana, quick meditation, quick everything. Please listen. When we say, "I am hurt", who is hurt? The "image" which I have about myself is hurt, isn't it? Now is that image different from 'me'? I 'am' (subliminally identified with ?) that image. I have created ( or just borrowed ?) that ( self-protective ?) "image", that image has been built through the (pressure of my ?) parents, society, through environmental influences and so on, so that image is (or has become ?) 'me', I am not different from that image. So when you say something which is not pleasant that image gets hurt, which is 'me'.

Q: Every time that we are (getting) hurt our ( self-protective ?) image ( is being updated or ?) changed: out of that older image is ( born) another one. Shouldn't we accept this (adaptative ?) change of images?

K: Images change after hurt, but the ( psychological memory of the ?) hurt remains. I may change my image, but the hurt remains. But you don't even investigate this thing.

Q: Isn't it possible that a small child is getting hurt even before they have images?

K: I am afraid I can't answer the question because I don't know enough children. But you can see for yourself madam whether you are hurt, you. If you are hurt, and we are asking who is hurt, the image you have about yourself, or you different from the image? You must answer this question.

Q: It is right what you say, but my past hurts...

K: Tell me how to be free of my hurt, if I have it. I may go to Japan and study the Zen Buddhism and all the rest of it, but the thing is there inside. I try to escape from it, but it is ( deeply buried ?) there. What am I to do?

Q: Observe it ?

K: I see the necessity of being free from ( the memory of that ?) hurt because that brings all kinds of ugliness. So I must be free from it, there must be freedom from it, what am I to do?

Q: (Ask myself the question :) why does (the subliminal memory of that ?) hurt continue?

K: It is part of (our active ?) memory. One cannot wipe out memory, the experience or the knowledge of it, you can't get rid of it, it is there.

Q: But when 'you' want to be free from it, it is (a contradiction right ) there: you also have a continuity.

K: Sir, what am I to do?

Q: I can only (try to) do something about the hurts when 'I' am feeling different from the hurts. But if we are not different from the hurts, so I can't do anything about the hurts.

K: The gentleman says, I 'am' the image that has been hurt. And as long as I try to do something about it I am creating another image - right? I wonder if you see that.

Q: The image is what is hurt, you if you can't separate yourself from your images, you can't separate yourself from the hurts.

K: Therefore what happens? If the observer "is" the observed, then what takes place?

Q: If I see that, I stop dividing my mind.

K: That's right sir, that's right. If I see the truth that I am the image and the image is me, therefore there is no division, then quite a different (integrative ?) process takes place. There is ( a non-dualistic quality of ?) observation when you observe without the "observer" (the "observer" is the personalised interference of the ?) past - the ( personal) memories, experiences, knowledge, which is the ( acting ?) past. So with the ( personal experience gathered in the ?) past 'he' is looking at ( whaterver is happening in ?) the present. Right?
Therefore between the ( what is happening in) present and the ( stand-by memory of the past ?) past there is a (subliminal ?) "division", therefore a ( constant potential of inner ) conflict between the observer and that which he observes. "I must change it, I must control it, I must suppress it, I must run away from it" and so on, but when (there is the inner realisation that ?) the observer "is" the observed, this conflict comes to an end. And it is the most important thing to discover, this truth that "the experiencer is the experience" The thinker "is" the thought. There is no 'thinker' if there is no ( background process of ?) "thought" (there's no 'actor' if there is no 'play' ?). So the thinker "is" the thought. Though the thinker (is safely assuming that ?) "I am different", in actuality the thinker 'is' (undissociated from the process of self-centred ?) the thought. Right?

(Psychological corolary: ) the experiencer 'is' the experience. (Proof:) Suppose that I experience "something". To know I have experienced it I must "recognize" it, otherwise I can't tell " what I have experienced". No, this "recognition" implies the ( memory of similar experiences I had in the ?) past, doesn't it ? So the experiencer 'is' (projecting itself forward through ?) his experience. (Eg:) Look, the "gods" that you have created, whether in Christianity, Hinduism or whatever it is, are the ( hyper-magnified ?) projections of one's own thoughts and desires. If once you see that, what happens? You deny ( drop ?) the whole structure of thought in religious matters.

So ( back to our topic:) the hurt is not different from me, the 'me' is the image, and that image gets hurt, so I am that image. That anger is not different from me, I am anger. I might think I am different but in actuality I "am" anger. Do you see the truth of it - not the 'idea' of it? The actual truth that when you are angry that anger is you ?

Q: It seems that "I am angry".

K: You don't see the (holistic ?) principle of this, sir. When you are ( feeling) jealous, is that jealousy different from you? It is only different from you when you say, "I am right to be jealous, if my wife..." - you follow? Then there is a division between the statement and the fact. So the fact is that you "are" ( subliminally identified with ?) that feeling,which you call 'jealousy'. That is simple. Now if that is an absolute truth which you see, then conflict comes to an end between the 'observer' and the (what is ?) "observed". You understand?

So ( to recap:) there is the hurt and the 'me' is not different from the 'hurt'. Therefore what is to take place (experientially-wise) ? All the energy which was used in the ( ongoing ?) conflict between the observer and the observed - is not wasted anymore - right? I have 'wasted' ( dissipated my inner ?) energy in dividing the 'observer' and the 'observed', the 'me' and the not 'me' - right? But when I see the truth that the observer 'is' the observed, then what takes place?

Q: The energy is available .
K: Then energy is ( getting fully involved in ?) observation - right? So I have found something: when there is ( this ?) complete energy there is no ( need for any psychological ?) recording. When I give complete attention to your insult , there is no recording. It is only when I am not completely attentive there is recording. Have you understood this simple truth?
( In a nutshell ?) when I discover the truth that I 'am' (the one who was giving continuity to ?) that hurt, then I have gathered all that (intelligent & compassionate) energy in observing 'what is'. In ( this non-dualistic) observing of 'what is' the thing observed undergoes a radical change, so there is no hurt from the past either. So with that complete attention next time you call me " something or other" it is not registered (not taken personally ?) . Where there is complete attention, where there is complete energy of all the senses, there is no recording.

Q: What is the source of this "attention"?

K: When there is a (non-dualistic ?) perception that the observer is the observed, then I don't waste any energy, with that ' integrated ?) energy I observe, which is "complete attention". Now can you give that complete attention at the very moment of the insult or flattery, not afterwards? You understand?

Q: (Inaudible, in Italian)

K: Sir, that means you have to go very deeply into the deep layers of your ) consciousness where the "image building" ( self-protective mechanism ?) is constantly going on. ( Intellectually ?) I may say, "Yes, I have no image", but "down there" there are ( a lot of collective ?) images. So can I be aware of the totality of my consciousness - the hidden as well as the open? The total field of my consciousness, can I be aware of the totality of it?
We are used to dividing our consciousness into the 'subconscious ' and the 'conscious', this division takes place because of ( the mechanistic functioning of our self-centred ?) thought. Thought is "fragmentary" (multi-layered ?) because thought is the result of time, time being the ( memory of our collective and personal ?) past. I wonder if you see that. So the fragment ( our fragmentary consciousness ?) can never see the whole. And we say, unless there is an (inwardly integrated ?) "observation of the whole" there can never be freedom from all that. Can the human (mind) observe "at one glance" the "totality" of this consciousness- all that it 'naturally' contains, - ( personal and collective ?) attachments, desires, the ( cultural ?) "images" which thought has put there, the sorrows, the pains, the anxieties - all human sorrow, misery, confusion, chaos, all that, ". Can you "see that as a whole"?
( In class exercise:) Can you see the see this tent as a whole? Look at it, look at that tent and see if you can "see the whole of it". I can see the whole of what is inside. but I can't see the whole of it on the outside. So I can only see something entirely when I have ( a silent inner ?) space - To see the whole of it I must not only observe the inside but the outside. Naturally.

Q: Can you see the whole?

K: So to see the human consciousness as a whole there must be (free inner ?) space, mustn't there? To look at anything, to look at you, I must have ( some physical ) space between you and me. If I am right up against you I can't see you - right? So I must have ( inner ?) space. What is ( the nature of this perceptive ?) "space"? If there is a "centre" (from which 'I' observe ?) the (inner) space is limited, but If there is no "centre" (the silent inner ?) space is immense. Right? When there is no "centre" there is no (need for any mental ?) measurement. So when there is "no (inner) measurement" what is ( happening to ?) your consciousness?
Look: there is a very nice (antique ?) table in my room at Brockwood, a beautiful table. I am not (personally) attached to it but if I am attached to it, there is a ( mentality based on its 'value' ? ) measurement: I don't want you to touch it, no sunlight must come on it. So ( likewise, inwardly) where there is a (mental evaluation or ) "measurement" (based my ?) attachment, the ( inward? ) "space" is very limited, because I am measuring ( everything starting ?) from 'my centre' of pleasure to that table, and that very measurement limits ( the free inner space ?) it. Right?
If there is no "measure", which is ( the constant mental movement) from the 'centre' to 'my (favourite ?) table' , then there is vast (inner) space - right? Is that so with you, that there is no ( attachment to a ?) centre? And if there is no ( such) centre you "see the whole" of consciousness. It is marvellous ! ( I am getting excited about this, I must calm down).
This ( mental activity of ?) "measurement" is a ( purely materialistic ?) process of time, from here to that table. That is, thought ( the 'self'-centred activity of the thinking brain ?) is a movement in time - as it constanly measures (the 'psychological' distance ?) from 'me' to that ( specific object of my desire ?) . Now, if that ( self-centred ?) movement is not ("on" ?) , then what is my consciousness made up of? No-thing (Not-a-thing ?) . I wonder if you "see" ( the inwardness of ?) all this ?

Q: If there is no centre, is there a whole, is there a part?

K: When there is no ( self-centred mental ?) "measurement" then there is the whole. I will show it to you in a different way : our human consciousness is (generally functioning ?) from an (identitary ?) centre, isn't it? I am attached to my family, to my house, to my ( high ?) hopes - from a (personalised ?) centre the whole (active content) of our consciousness is built. "I" am (getting) attached to that furniture, to that house, that belief, to that idea, and... to my sorrow - you follow? Always ( strting ?) from a centre moving in and out. That is "my" consciousness, and this consciousness is ( very conveniently ?) divided into the 'unconscious' and 'conscious', which the western world has done (in an over simplified way ?) , and the eastern world does it in a different (karmic ?) way, that is irrelevant. So as long as this division ( between 'me' and 'everything else' ?) exists there must be (a back and forth process of mental ?) "measurement" - right? Then "I" ( the self-conscious entity in control ?) begin to examine what is "underneath".
Now, when there is no ( mental ) "measurement" there is no centre, and therefore the ( self-centred ?) consciousness as human beings have known disappears and then there is a totally different dimension, a boundless dimension because there is no ( body there to ?) measure. But as long as there is ( this self-centred ?) measurement, ( the available inner ?) space is very limited, from 'me' to that (£££ ?) 'table', because it is very narrow. But if there is no table or the centre, ( the available inner ?) space is immense.
Now can the mind observe the totality of consciousness? And it can only observe when there is no ( self-conscious ?) "centre" saying, "This is right, this is wrong, this should be, this should not be" .

Have I answered your question? ( The gist of ?) your question was: why human beings are so self-enclosed, why they have built a wall around themselves, why they never flower and in the flowering bring an end to their attachments - why? And we took one part of that, which is (the fact that ?) human beings are "hurt", but they think that hurt is different from me. The 'me' then says, "I am different, therefore I am going to change it, I am going to suppress it, I am going to run away from it, this is ugly, this shouldn't be". But when there (is the realisation that ?) the 'me' "is" that image, and that image "is" the hurt then one has (integrated ?) all that ( intelligent ?) energy, which I have (previously ?) wasted, to (non-dualistically ?) "look" at that hurt. And when there is complete energy in that observation there is no hurt (left) , naturally.

Q: I don't understand that, sir.

K: I will try and put it differently. Is the (consciousness of the ?) "world" different from "you" (from yours ?) ? Don't answer me, please. It is not a school examination! Don't answer me please. The 'psychological' world which is ( going on ?) outside, the world of greed, the world of violence, the world of sorrow, the world of pleasure, the world of religious differences and beliefs, is that ( really ?) different from you? No. See the (inner ?) truth of it, not the verbal description, the truth of the matter. Go to India, or Japan, or America, human beings may put on trousers, kimonos, or dhotis, but there deep down they have (the same) sorrow, anxiety, misery, uncertainty - the agony of human existence is the same right through. So you "are" the world and the world "is" you. That is a truth. Do you see that? Do you know what happens when you (inwardly ?) realise that "you are the world and the world is you" ? It gives you tremendous strength, tremendous vitality, because then you are not ( a lonely ?) 'me' fighting ( with ?) the "rest of the world". You understand this? Then "you" are not. In this (holistic?) "generalization" there is vitality, if you know how to see the generalization actually.
In the same way when the (inner ?) experience is not different from the "experiencer", therefore there is no searching for ( a higher ?) experience. You are free of ( the desire for ?) experience. And only a mind which is free of ( the desire for higher ?) experience only when it is a "light to itself" - you understand? Which is truth. Got it?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: The questioner wants want to know about Transcendental Meditation. You know, please, we are looking at it objectively. We are not condemning it, we are not putting it aside, but looking at it. The word "mantra", which is involved in (the practice of) Transcendental Meditation, means a formula, a series of words that will help to bring about (or improve your powers of ?) concentration through ( contemplating ?) a picture, through a word, through repetition of something, a formula.

Q: It is not a "concentration".

K: Please, sir, I said the "root meaning" of the word. And this concentration is bringing all your energy to a certain ( high ?) point - right? But in various forms of concentration there is the 'controller' and the ( thoughts that are being ?) controlled. Right? But the controller is also part of thought. So when you see the truth that the controller 'is' the controlled, the whole phenomenon of concentration undergoes a total change.
Now this word "transcendental" is an unfortunate word because it means to transcend all human conflicts, transcend above everything else. That is the implication. To transcend, to go beyond. Now by repeating certain words, first loud, second silently, third repeat without the word so that the mind becomes more and more quiet. The idea being through being constant repetition of a certain ( magic ?) word you reduce the mind to be quiet. This is the idea of mantra and all the rest of it, to make the mind quiet. "Do this and you will get that". The authority and acceptance of authority and ( the transcendental hope of ?) gaining something. As we said earlier, in spiritual matters there is no authority because you have to be a light to yourself. There is no guru. There is no teacher. There is no leader.

Q: You don't need to accept any leader if you practise Transcendental Meditation. You become calm very soon and very naturally. And my experience is I was reading Krishnamurti many years before I was practising Transcendental meditation, and it was very beautiful. But then I read Krishnamurti after twenty minutes of Transcendental meditation it was much more quiet and beautiful. There is a probe of sensitivity during Transcendental meditation, you haven't got any goals during Transcendental meditation. You watch the mantra like you watch the river, and as the mantra has no meaning neither the past nor the future extends, so that you learn to live right in the moment. Then when I read Krishnamurti the first time I always wanted to tell him that it was just what he wanted us to live, we learn it very naturally, without accepting any authority if we practise Transcendental meditation. It is not something different from what Krishnamurti is teaching us. It is the same, it is not suppression, it is not control, it is very natural. There is nothing different.

K: I am afraid it is a great deal different, sir. Forgive me for contradicting you!

Q: You are a student of Transcendental Meditation, I am sure.

K: You are sure I did Transcendental Meditation?

Q: No, I "know it" by reading your books.

K: Sir, you are not getting what I am talking about. Look, the first (guiding ?) principle in any (authentic ?) religious life is "no authority", which implies that "you must be a light to yourself", therefore not dependend (inwardly) on anything - gurus, mantras, books, persons, ideas, nothing. That implies that you have to be "totally alone" (the word "alone" also means "all one") . You understand, sir? That word 'alone' means 'all one', 'all made into one'.
So when you are 'all-one' ( integrated inwardly ?) you have (free access to an ?) abundance of ( Intelligent ?) Compassion therefore you are a "light to yourself", then you can forget all the mantras, all the teachers, nothing matters. But we are ( subliminally ?) afraid to "stand alone", to make (go through the necessary ?) mistakes, failures (until you) are a "light to yourself". That demands a greatly (integrated ?) attention, great care, and you can't get this attention, love, ( and compassionate) care, through books, through people, mantras, nothing.

K: I think there is a different between "dialectical questioning" and "dialogue". Dialectical questioning implies finding the truth through opinions. Whereas "dialogues" are (a creative sharing ?) in a spirit of real enquiry to find the truth - by an approach through careful, non-personal, objective investigation. That means we both of us start ( from a position of not knowing ?) with no opinions, no conclusions, no assertions, and perhaps (if lucky ?) coming upon what is truth.
Now what are the questions you would like to ask?

Q (1) : Very often I feel "closed in", and I wish to come out but I am afraid. My question is, is it possible to "naturally come out" of this and flower?

Q (2) : (In French) I am becoming conscious of my "sleeping state" , which is fragmentary.

Q (3) : I find that my fears are so huge, and the sorrow is so huge, that the body, the nervous system, says, "I can only take so much (at a time)".

Q (4) : I would like to discuss the 'me'. I would like to know whether it is ( more of a psychological ?) hunger (for experience ?) , not thought, not memories. For example, if I am hungry for food, I think of food. I am not referring to food hunger so much as to a "hunger for love" as being the 'me'. I think frustration of this "love-hunger" breeds fear, and they both breed thoughts and images and then they nurse the fear. S, is the 'me' merely the ( proverbial 'bundle of ?) past images', or do you think it is love-hunger?

K: Can we take among these questions one central question and work that out completely so that at the end of it you will know ( the right approach to finding out the truth ?) for yourself ? Can we do that? Now which of these do we take ?

Q: The one of being ( self-enclosed ?) enclosed and wanting to find freedom.

K: All right, let's begin with that, and perhaps we will include all the others: why human beings are ( self ?) enclosed, held in, and never free (to look at everything anew ?) .

Q: It is a lack of awareness.

K: That is a ( final ?) conclusion that stops all investigation - finished. But if we say, "look, why human beings are so "encircling themselves", why do they have (to carry ?) this burden of tremendous weight so that they don't ever feel free? Can we discuss, investigate it, not just say, 'Because you lack awareness' or this or that. So please we are going to go into this question, why human beings, practically everyone in the world, unfortunately are living (inwardly enclosed ?) within four walls ?

How would you approach this problem? I am (self-) enclosed. I have been hurt, I have had a great deal of pain, both physical and psychological, I have had a great many insults and I am (self-) enclosed. And I feel I am a prisoner (of my own desire for inner safety ?) . Now what is my approach to it? Is my approach ( motivated by ?) wanting to 'break free' from this? If I have already started with a 'direction', therefore I am not investigating (my condition objectively ?) .
So am I free of ( any 'personal' ?) motive in my investigation of why human beings are 'psychological' prisoners? If I am not free then I have already started with a tremendous (or even subliminal ?) prejudice. You will be free from it when you see the ( simple ?) truth that any (personal or collective ?) motive gives a 'direction' , therefore you stop investigating. And hence you say, "That's absurd, I'll drop it", it is a natural thing to drop that motive.
Are you in that position (of perceptive freedom ?) ? If you have dropped the motive then what is ( the causation of ?) this (inner ?) prison? My various hurts, wounds, all the things we go through life, make us shrink, become like a snail that draws in. So, that is the 'fact' : I have been 'hurt' from childhood, at home, school, college, university, all through life, being somewhat sensitive (inwardly) a human being is hurt. So he begins to withdraw, to enclose himself. So one of the causes of this withdrawal, with this isolation, with this sense of imprisonment, is ( the memory of having been ?) hurt - right?
( But one can also ?) see ( oneself that most, if not ?) all human beings are ( being psychologically) hurt - right? So when we generalize it to all human beings it gives us much more vitality - you follow? When I am hurt, it is a very small affair, but when I see that all human beings are hurt it becomes something tremendous. I wonder if you understand this.
So ( the 1000 $ question ?) is it possible not to be hurt - never? One has been hurt when one was young (and had 'high hopes' ?) and the ( active memory of that ?) 'hurt' remains through life with most people - right? We ( un-consciously ?) carry that burden, and therefore we isolate ourselves from the (outer ?) violence and so on. Now we are asking, is it possible to be(come) free of the past hurts and being (hurt-) free to be never (again) hurt - you understand? There is the 'curing' of the past hurts and the prevention (of the further ones ?) so that the ( total quality of our ?) brain is never hurt, so it remains young and therefore innocent. ( The root meaning of the word "innocent" comes from Latin: "incapable of being hurt").
So are you aware of this process (of psychological hurt ?) ?

Q (1) : It is very difficult to be aware because there is so much pain involved in it.

Q (2) : Would you say that a human being from childhood on experiences this being hurt? Apparently it is part of our existence. So I may have to cope in a more creative way with ( the possibility of ?) being again and again hurt. I feel being hurt is part of the process of ( our inner ?) growth.

Q (3) : There is a difference in being hurt and carrying that hurt over, making that hurt something psychological. If someone pushed me physically I am getting hurt at that moment, but that is a different hurt from psychological hurts.

K: That gentleman says part of human existence is to be hurt, it is natural. I am questioning that. Why should we be hurt? Look what damage it does psychologically, inwardly, how it affects our brain (and our outer behaviour ?) .

Q (2) : How can you prevent being hurt?

K: I am coming to that. We are coming to that: how to prevent hurt, and what to do with the hurts that we have. But if we say, hurt is part of life, war is a part of life, psychological disease is part of life, then that's the end of that argument. But if we say, is it possible to prevent being hurt and what to do with the hurts that one has, then we can go into the question.

Q: How do we know we are hurt?

K: Sir, look, when in the school, or in the family, the child is told, you are not as good as your brother, or your sister, you have already hurt that child - right? So where there is ( a cultural environment based on ?) comparison and competition there is ( a high probability of getting psychologically ?) hurt. This is so obvious. Now are you aware that you are hurt?

Q: Yes.

K: Thank God! At least somebody is fairly frank and comes to it. Do you see the result, are you aware of the result of this hurt, what happens? That is isolation, resistance, and the resistance implies violence, and a sense of gradual isolation. From that all kinds of bitterness, lack of love, lack of sense of freedom, all that arises. Aren't you aware of this?
( Now, action-wise ?) how do we wipe that out?

Q: One should change the focus onto something else ?

K: That would be an escape. This is a fact, that is non-fact.

Q: Isn't it only the "image" that we have of ourselves that is getting hurt?

K: We will come to that madam. What am I to do with the hurt which I have, and I see the results of it, what am I to do with that hurt?

Q: Experience it! If you experience it thoroughly it will disappear.

K: If I really paid attention at the beginning there would be no hurt, but I have not paid attention so I have got this hurt. What am I to do?

Q: Try and understand (analytically ?) why you are hurt.

K: ( Analytically ) I will tell you: I have got a marvellous image about myself and that image is hurt - right? I have an image that I am a very clever man, and you come along and tell me I am a fool, that hurts me. My image is hurt - right? But this "image" is ( identifying itself as ?) "me". I am not different from my image - right? Am I different from my image?

Q: What is the solution to it?

K: You want a quick way out of everything - a quick pill, quick Nirvana, quick meditation, quick everything. Please listen. When we say, "I am hurt", who is hurt? The "image" which I have about myself is hurt, isn't it? Now is that image different from 'me'? I 'am' (subliminally identified with ?) that image. I have created ( or just borrowed ?) that ( self-protective ?) "image", that image has been built through the (pressure of my ?) parents, society, through environmental influences and so on, so that image is (or has become ?) 'me', I am not different from that image. So when you say something which is not pleasant that image gets hurt, which is 'me'.

Q: Every time that we are (getting) hurt our ( self-protective ?) image ( is being updated or ?) changed: out of that older image is ( born) another one. Shouldn't we accept this (adaptative ?) change of images?

K: Images change after hurt, but the ( psychological memory of the ?) hurt remains. I may change my image, but the hurt remains. But you don't even investigate this thing.

Q: Isn't it possible that a small child is getting hurt even before they have images?

K: I am afraid I can't answer the question because I don't know enough children. But you can see for yourself madam whether you are hurt, you. If you are hurt, and we are asking who is hurt, the image you have about yourself, or you different from the image? You must answer this question.

Q: It is right what you say, but my past hurts...

K: Tell me how to be free of my hurt, if I have it. I may go to Japan and study the Zen Buddhism and all the rest of it, but the thing is there inside. I try to escape from it, but it is ( deeply buried ?) there. What am I to do?

Q: Observe it ?

K: I see the necessity of being free from ( the memory of that ?) hurt because that brings all kinds of ugliness. So I must be free from it, there must be freedom from it, what am I to do?

Q: (Ask myself the question :) why does (the subliminal memory of that ?) hurt continue?

K: It is part of (our active ?) memory. One cannot wipe out memory, the experience or the knowledge of it, you can't get rid of it, it is there.

Q: But when 'you' want to be free from it, it is (a contradiction right ) there: you also have a continuity.

K: Sir, what am I to do?

Q: I can only (try to) do something about the hurts when 'I' am feeling different from the hurts. But if we are not different from the hurts, so I can't do anything about the hurts.

K: The gentleman says, I 'am' the image that has been hurt. And as long as I try to do something about it I am creating another image - right? I wonder if you see that.

Q: The image is what is hurt, you if you can't separate yourself from your images, you can't separate yourself from the hurts.

K: Therefore what happens? If the observer "is" the observed, then what takes place?

Q: If I see that, I stop dividing my mind.

K: That's right sir, that's right. If I see the truth that I am the image and the image is me, therefore there is no division, then quite a different (integrative ?) process takes place. There is ( a non-dualistic quality of ?) observation when you observe without the "observer" (the "observer" is the personalised interference of the ?) past - the ( personal) memories, experiences, knowledge, which is the ( acting ?) past. So with the ( personal experience gathered in the ?) past 'he' is looking at ( whaterver is happening in ?) the present. Right?
Therefore between the ( what is happening in) present and the ( stand-by memory of the past ?) past there is a (subliminal ?) "division", therefore a ( constant potential of inner ) conflict between the observer and that which he observes. "I must change it, I must control it, I must suppress it, I must run away from it" and so on, but when (there is the inner realisation that ?) the observer "is" the observed, this conflict comes to an end. And it is the most important thing to discover, this truth that "the experiencer is the experience" The thinker "is" the thought. There is no 'thinker' if there is no ( background process of ?) "thought" (there's no 'actor' if there is no 'play' ?). So the thinker "is" the thought. Though the thinker (is safely assuming that ?) "I am different", in actuality the thinker 'is' (undissociated from the process of self-centred ?) the thought. Right?

(Psychological corolary: ) the experiencer 'is' the experience. (Proof:) Suppose that I experience "something". To know I have experienced it I must "recognize" it, otherwise I can't tell " what I have experienced". No, this "recognition" implies the ( memory of similar experiences I had in the ?) past, doesn't it ? So the experiencer 'is' (projecting itself forward through ?) his experience. (Eg:) Look, the "gods" that you have created, whether in Christianity, Hinduism or whatever it is, are the ( hyper-magnified ?) projections of one's own thoughts and desires. If once you see that, what happens? You deny ( drop ?) the whole structure of thought in religious matters.

So ( back to our topic:) the hurt is not different from me, the 'me' is the image, and that image gets hurt, so I am that image. That anger is not different from me, I am anger. I might think I am different but in actuality I "am" anger. Do you see the truth of it - not the 'idea' of it? The actual truth that when you are angry that anger is you ?

Q: It seems that "I am angry".

K: You don't see the (holistic ?) principle of this, sir. When you are ( feeling) jealous, is that jealousy different from you? It is only different from you when you say, "I am right to be jealous, if my wife..." - you follow? Then there is a division between the statement and the fact. So the fact is that you "are" ( subliminally identified with ?) that feeling,which you call 'jealousy'. That is simple. Now if that is an absolute truth which you see, then conflict comes to an end between the 'observer' and the (what is ?) "observed". You understand?

So ( to recap:) there is the hurt and the 'me' is not different from the 'hurt'. Therefore what is to take place (experientially-wise) ? All the energy which was used in the ( ongoing ?) conflict between the observer and the observed - is not wasted anymore - right? I have 'wasted' ( dissipated my inner ?) energy in dividing the 'observer' and the 'observed', the 'me' and the not 'me' - right? But when I see the truth that the observer 'is' the observed, then what takes place?

Q: The energy is available .
K: Then energy is ( getting fully involved in ?) observation - right? So I have found something: when there is ( this ?) complete energy there is no ( need for any psychological ?) recording. When I give complete attention to your insult , there is no recording. It is only when I am not completely attentive there is recording. Have you understood this simple truth?
( In a nutshell ?) when I discover the truth that I 'am' (the one who was giving continuity to ?) that hurt, then I have gathered all that (intelligent & compassionate) energy in observing 'what is'. In ( this non-dualistic) observing of 'what is' the thing observed undergoes a radical change, so there is no hurt from the past either. So with that complete attention next time you call me " something or other" it is not registered (not taken personally ?) . Where there is complete attention, where there is complete energy of all the senses, there is no recording.

Q: What is the source of this "attention"?

K: When there is a (non-dualistic ?) perception that the observer is the observed, then I don't waste any energy, with that ' integrated ?) energy I observe, which is "complete attention". Now can you give that complete attention at the very moment of the insult or flattery, not afterwards? You understand?

Q: (Inaudible, in Italian)

K: Sir, that means you have to go very deeply into the deep layers of your ) consciousness where the "image building" ( self-protective mechanism ?) is constantly going on. ( Intellectually ?) I may say, "Yes, I have no image", but "down there" there are ( a lot of collective ?) images. So can I be aware of the totality of my consciousness - the hidden as well as the open? The total field of my consciousness, can I be aware of the totality of it?
We are used to dividing our consciousness into the 'subconscious ' and the 'conscious', this division takes place because of ( the mechanistic functioning of our self-centred ?) thought. Thought is "fragmentary" (multi-layered ?) because thought is the result of time, time being the ( memory of our collective and personal ?) past. I wonder if you see that. So the fragment ( our fragmentary consciousness ?) can never see the whole. And we say, unless there is an (inwardly integrated ?) "observation of the whole" there can never be freedom from all that. Can the human (mind) observe "at one glance" the "totality" of this consciousness- all that it 'naturally' contains, - ( personal and collective ?) attachments, desires, the ( cultural ?) "images" which thought has put there, the sorrows, the pains, the anxieties - all human sorrow, misery, confusion, chaos, all that, ". Can you "see that as a whole"?
( In class exercise:) Can you see the see this tent as a whole? Look at it, look at that tent and see if you can "see the whole of it". I can see the whole of what is inside. but I can't see the whole of it on the outside. So I can only see something entirely when I have ( a silent inner ?) space - To see the whole of it I must not only observe the inside but the outside. Naturally.

Q: Can you see the whole?

K: So to see the human consciousness as a whole there must be (free inner ?) space, mustn't there? To look at anything, to look at you, I must have ( some physical ) space between you and me. If I am right up against you I can't see you - right? So I must have ( inner ?) space. What is ( the nature of this perceptive ?) "space"? If there is a "centre" (from which 'I' observe ?) the (inner) space is limited, but If there is no "centre" (the silent inner ?) space is immense. Right? When there is no "centre" there is no (need for any mental ?) measurement. So when there is "no (inner) measurement" what is ( happening to ?) your consciousness?
Look: there is a very nice (antique ?) table in my room at Brockwood, a beautiful table. I am not (personally) attached to it but if I am attached to it, there is a ( mentality based on its 'value' ? ) measurement: I don't want you to touch it, no sunlight must come on it. So ( likewise, inwardly) where there is a (mental evaluation or ) "measurement" (based my ?) attachment, the ( inward? ) "space" is very limited, because I am measuring ( everything starting ?) from 'my centre' of pleasure to that table, and that very measurement limits ( the free inner space ?) it. Right?
If there is no "measure", which is ( the constant mental movement) from the 'centre' to 'my (favourite ?) table' , then there is vast (inner) space - right? Is that so with you, that there is no ( attachment to a ?) centre? And if there is no ( such) centre you "see the whole" of consciousness. It is marvellous ! ( I am getting excited about this, I must calm down).
This ( mental activity of ?) "measurement" is a ( purely materialistic ?) process of time, from here to that table. That is, thought ( the 'self'-centred activity of the thinking brain ?) is a movement in time - as it constanly measures (the 'psychological' distance ?) from 'me' to that ( specific object of my desire ?) . Now, if that ( self-centred ?) movement is not ("on" ?) , then what is my consciousness made up of? No-thing (Not-a-thing ?) . I wonder if you "see" ( the inwardness of ?) all this ?

Q: If there is no centre, is there a whole, is there a part?

K: When there is no ( self-centred mental ?) "measurement" then there is the whole. I will show it to you in a different way : our human consciousness is (generally functioning ?) from an (identitary ?) centre, isn't it? I am attached to my family, to my house, to my ( high ?) hopes - from a (personalised ?) centre the whole (active content) of our consciousness is built. "I" am (getting) attached to that furniture, to that house, that belief, to that idea, and... to my sorrow - you follow? Always ( strting ?) from a centre moving in and out. That is "my" consciousness, and this consciousness is ( very conveniently ?) divided into the 'unconscious' and 'conscious', which the western world has done (in an over simplified way ?) , and the eastern world does it in a different (karmic ?) way, that is irrelevant. So as long as this division ( between 'me' and 'everything else' ?) exists there must be (a back and forth process of mental ?) "measurement" - right? Then "I" ( the self-conscious entity in control ?) begin to examine what is "underneath".
Now, when there is no ( mental ) "measurement" there is no centre, and therefore the ( self-centred ?) consciousness as human beings have known disappears and then there is a totally different dimension, a boundless dimension because there is no ( body there to ?) measure. But as long as there is ( this self-centred ?) measurement, ( the available inner ?) space is very limited, from 'me' to that (£££ ?) 'table', because it is very narrow. But if there is no table or the centre, ( the available inner ?) space is immense.
Now can the mind observe the totality of consciousness? And it can only observe when there is no ( self-conscious ?) "centre" saying, "This is right, this is wrong, this should be, this should not be" .

Have I answered your question? ( The gist of ?) your question was: why human beings are so self-enclosed, why they have built a wall around themselves, why they never flower and in the flowering bring an end to their attachments - why? And we took one part of that, which is (the fact that ?) human beings are "hurt", but they think that hurt is different from me. The 'me' then says, "I am different, therefore I am going to change it, I am going to suppress it, I am going to run away from it, this is ugly, this shouldn't be". But when there (is the realisation that ?) the 'me' "is" that image, and that image "is" the hurt then one has (integrated ?) all that ( intelligent ?) energy, which I have (previously ?) wasted, to (non-dualistically ?) "look" at that hurt. And when there is complete energy in that observation there is no hurt (left) , naturally.

Q: I don't understand that, sir.

K: I will try and put it differently. Is the (consciousness of the ?) "world" different from "you" (from yours ?) ? Don't answer me, please. It is not a school examination! Don't answer me please. The 'psychological' world which is ( going on ?) outside, the world of greed, the world of violence, the world of sorrow, the world of pleasure, the world of religious differences and beliefs, is that ( really ?) different from you? No. See the (inner ?) truth of it, not the verbal description, the truth of the matter. Go to India, or Japan, or America, human beings may put on trousers, kimonos, or dhotis, but there deep down they have (the same) sorrow, anxiety, misery, uncertainty - the agony of human existence is the same right through. So you "are" the world and the world "is" you. That is a truth. Do you see that? Do you know what happens when you (inwardly ?) realise that "you are the world and the world is you" ? It gives you tremendous strength, tremendous vitality, because then you are not ( a lonely ?) 'me' fighting ( with ?) the "rest of the world". You understand this? Then "you" are not. In this (holistic?) "generalization" there is vitality, if you know how to see the generalization actually.
In the same way when the (inner ?) experience is not different from the "experiencer", therefore there is no searching for ( a higher ?) experience. You are free of ( the desire for ?) experience. And only a mind which is free of ( the desire for higher ?) experience only when it is a "light to itself" - you understand? Which is truth. Got it?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: The questioner wants want to know about Transcendental Meditation. You know, please, we are looking at it objectively. We are not condemning it, we are not putting it aside, but looking at it. The word "mantra", which is involved in (the practice of) Transcendental Meditation, means a formula, a series of words that will help to bring about (or improve your powers of ?) concentration through ( contemplating ?) a picture, through a word, through repetition of something, a formula.

Q: It is not a "concentration".

K: Please, sir, I said the "root meaning" of the word. And this concentration is bringing all your energy to a certain ( high ?) point - right? But in various forms of concentration there is the 'controller' and the ( thoughts that are being ?) controlled. Right? But the controller is also part of thought. So when you see the truth that the controller 'is' the controlled, the whole phenomenon of concentration undergoes a total change.
Now this word "transcendental" is an unfortunate word because it means to transcend all human conflicts, transcend above everything else. That is the implication. To transcend, to go beyond. Now by repeating certain words, first loud, second silently, third repeat without the word so that the mind becomes more and more quiet. The idea being through being constant repetition of a certain ( magic ?) word you reduce the mind to be quiet. This is the idea of mantra and all the rest of it, to make the mind quiet. "Do this and you will get that". The authority and acceptance of authority and ( the transcendental hope of ?) gaining something. As we said earlier, in spiritual matters there is no authority because you have to be a light to yourself. There is no guru. There is no teacher. There is no leader.

Q: You don't need to accept any leader if you practise Transcendental Meditation. You become calm very soon and very naturally. And my experience is I was reading Krishnamurti many years before I was practising Transcendental meditation, and it was very beautiful. But then I read Krishnamurti after twenty minutes of Transcendental meditation it was much more quiet and beautiful. There is a probe of sensitivity during Transcendental meditation, you haven't got any goals during Transcendental meditation. You watch the mantra like you watch the river, and as the mantra has no meaning neither the past nor the future extends, so that you learn to live right in the moment. Then when I read Krishnamurti the first time I always wanted to tell him that it was just what he wanted us to live, we learn it very naturally, without accepting any authority if we practise Transcendental meditation. It is not something different from what Krishnamurti is teaching us. It is the same, it is not suppression, it is not control, it is very natural. There is nothing different.

K: I am afraid it is a great deal different, sir. Forgive me for contradicting you!

Q: You are a student of Transcendental Meditation, I am sure.

K: You are sure I did Transcendental Meditation?

Q: No, I "know it" by reading your books.

K: Sir, you are not getting what I am talking about. Look, the first (guiding ?) principle in any (authentic ?) religious life is "no authority", which implies that "you must be a light to yourself", therefore not dependend (inwardly) on anything - gurus, mantras, books, persons, ideas, nothing. That implies that you have to be "totally alone" (the word "alone" also means "all one") . You understand, sir? That word 'alone' means 'all one', 'all made into one'.
So when you are 'all-one' ( integrated inwardly ?) you have (free access to an ?) abundance of ( Intelligent ?) Compassion therefore you are a "light to yourself", then you can forget all the mantras, all the teachers, nothing matters. But we are ( subliminally ?) afraid to "stand alone", to make (go through the necessary ?) mistakes, failures (until you) are a "light to yourself". That demands a greatly (integrated ?) attention, great care, and you can't get this attention, love, ( and compassionate) care, through books, through people, mantras, nothing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Aug 2016 #364
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1976 The nature of holistic understanding

K: As we said yesterday, we are having a dialogue, which means a (friendly ?) conversation between people who are interested, or concerned with certain problems of human beings and want to go into them deeply. And I am afraid there is a great deal of misapprehension that we are trying to find a technique (for reaching ?) truth . We are saying that Truth is a 'pathless' land (in the sense that ?) you can't lay down a direction, a path to it and discipline yourself by learning a technique.
So please bear in mind that we are not offering a technique, a method, a system. Our minds are already sufficiently mechanistic ( stuck in the known ?), and by ( diligently ?) practising silence you won't (necessarily ?) free the mind from all its ( self-centred ?) mechanistic activity.
But what we are saying is that you must have the interest, the drive, the intensity to find out ( the truth ?) for yourself, not be told 'how' to do it. Then what you discover is yours, then you will be free from all (spiritual ?) authority.
So what shall we talk about this morning?

Q (1) : Could we talk about the nature of ( insightful ?) understanding?

Q(2): We are afraid to be vulnerable, to be open, because the more you are vulnerable the more likely you will get hurt. Could we discuss that ?

Q( 3) : Could we discuss the responsibility of a human being with regard to the "images" he forms about another ?

Q (4): What is the relationship of speech, words, thought and the silent mind ?

Q (5) : How can we live in the real world without a motive ?

K: Shall we take only one of those questions and go to the very end of one questions which may include all other questions ?

Q: ( The insight-based ?) understanding.

K: I would take that too myself. To 'understand' something, what is implied in it? Is it an (intellectual, or conceptual ?) verbal understanding, or a comprehension through affection, therefore you understand what I am saying. Or is it an insight(ful understanding ?) into something which is rather complex and confused? Doesn't (such) understanding take place not merely in the verbal description, but in going beyond the word, which means both you and the other are free of the (limitations of the ?) verbal structure which is the nature of thought, and penetrating and having an insight? You understand?
To understand how the (motor ?) cars run, that is very simple. I have observed it, I have undone it, I have played with it and I know how it works. I understand how to climb that mountain, I know. But we are talking of understanding ( ourselves ?) 'psychologically', deeply, not the mere "worldly" (standardised ?) understanding but a (compassionate ?) understanding which brings about an insight. An insight means "having a sight into (the truth of ?) something", and I can never go back from it. When I understand ( the truth or falseness of ?) something, which means I have an insight into it, that very insight will wipe away any misunderstandings, you have a "clear sight" in that (arera or problem ?) .

Therefore ( an insightful ?) understanding implies that the (integrated ?) whole of one's mind listens not only to the ( literal meaning of the ?) words but goes beyond the words and sees the deeper meaning of that particular statement, and then there is a (flash of ?) insight and then you say, "I understand it", "I have got it". So "insight" implies a mind that is quiet, willing to listen, to go beyond the words, and observe the actual truth of something.
( In class work-out:) Say for instance, the 'speaker' makes a (holistic ?) statement like, 'The ending of sorrow is the beginning of wisdom." How do you receive it? What is your (inner) response to that statement? Do you ( instantly translate ?) it into a (nice sounding ?) idea, an abstraction, and with that 'abstraction' try later to understand what he said? Or you listen, that is, you listen to the words and go beyond them and see the truth or the falseness of that statement? Not (opportunistically split it into ?) 'how to end sorrow', (in order ?) to 'have wisdom', but whether that statement conveys a truth or a falsehood. To observe the truth or the falsehood your mind must be "quiet" and then you say, "By Jove, how true that is".

So (a holistic ?) understanding implies having an insight into a problem, so that you go beyond (or by-pass ?) all arguments, all 'dialectical' approaches, it is so. It is immovable. Like when the speaker says, "There is no (known ?) technique (to access ?) Truth, Truth is a pathless land". He has made that statement fifty years ago, and how do you receive that statement? Do you say "that can't be true" because everybody talks else about a method, the ( eightfold path ?) and this man comes along and says, there is no path, there is no technique to truth. So you say, well who is right in this, is this man right or is that man right. So are you arguing, judging, or do you listen to that statement, not knowing what is right and wrong, because you don't know, actually you don't know? Ten million people have said there is a technique, and some person comes along and says, there is no technique whatsoever. You understand? This man may be totally wrong. And he explains: a 'technique' implies time, a mechanistic process. Our minds are already mechanistic enough and you are making it more mechanistic. Do you receive what he said with complete objective silence, quiet, not knowing what is truth? And when you listen quietly, which means complete attention, then you discover, have an insight into ( the truth or falseness of ?) what is being said, then it is yours, not mine. That is, to find out what is true and what is false, your mind must be extraordinarily open, vulnerable.
You see, can you 'love' by practising being very nice, very kind, very gentle, and all the rest of it, and at the end of a year after having practised a method will you 'love'?

Q: No.

K: It is impossible, isn't it? What makes you say, no? You have an insight that any 'technique' (implies following ?) a method, it is an intellectual affair, and we said, how can that produce love? You follow? There is instinctive response. Now if someone says "the observer is the observed" - the 'observer' being the ( controlling memory of the ?) past, and what 'he' observes is seen from the background. The observer is the observed - he makes that statement. And you say, "I don't understand that - right? I can't see it, please tell me in a different way". So the speaker says, "the thinker is the thought". If there is no thought there is no thinker - right?

Q: Right.

K: And why do you say right? Because you see the obvious thing, don't you? And he says further, "the experiencer is the experience". And he says the experiencer must recognize the experience otherwise there would be no experience. So recognition implies the past. So the past experiences what it wants, or experiences that which he has projected. And you say, yes, quite right. So when it is put very clearly you say, perfectly right. So "understanding" takes place when both of us h and we are talking about the same thing, with the same interest, with the same intensity, then there is a "direct" communication - right?

( Story time: ) There is a very famous story of a ( clever ?) Monkey going to the Buddha, and the Monkey says to the Buddha, "I have practised meditation for the last twenty years and I can do most extraordinary things. I can go right round the world in a few seconds." And the Buddha, stretching out his hand, says, "Do it". The Monkey (closes his eyes and ) says, "I am going now to make a tremendous (mental) effort to go right round the world." And then he opens the eyes and says, "You are still there ?". You get it ?

One has built a ( self-protective mental ?) 'wall' around oneself, and one desires to jump over that wall, because that 'wall' becomes an (invisible inner ?) prison, which implies isolation, bitterness, lack of love and all the rest of it. And so the ( speaker's ) verbal description that you are a prisoner enclosed by your own desire not to be hurt, and he describes the (psychological side- ) effects of ( living behind ) that 'wall' - the sorrow, the isolation, the loneliness - and from that the violence, and you say, "I want to get over that wall". Which means you have no insight into what has made you build that wall (in the first time ?) . All that you are concerned with is "to get over it". And you will never get over it (this way ?) . Whereas if you had an insight into the whole "movement of hurt": resistance, isolation, if you see the whole picture, then the "wall" doesn't exist.

Do we understand, the whole "movement of hurt": why we are hurt, the "image" that we have about ourselves, and that image "is" me, and then I am hurt, and then I build a wall round myself not to be hurt any more because I see that if I am vulnerable I will get hurt more likely, so I build a wall round myself. And by building a wall round myself I become more and more self-enclosed, and from that isolation I feel desperate and if I see you who are not desperate, I am angry with you, I become bitter. And all the rest of it follows. Is there an awareness of this whole "movement of hurt"? Or you are only partially ( selectivelly ?) aware of it , and therefore you say, "Tell me how to get over it". Then the 'how' becomes the method. But when there is the total observation of this whole movement of hurt there is no ( need for asking ?) 'how', you see it. There is an insight into it, a direct perception in which there is no movement.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Look I say something which is very applicable to you and to me and you say then, "I understand it". That understanding is "non-movement": you have understood it.

Q: Here we part company.

K: I am sorry. Don't let's part company, which is what everybody does when they don't agree or don't understand each other . Don't let us ever come to that point when we say, "You go north, I go south", because what we are trying to do here is to understand our human problems, to find out what is true and what is false. Not 'my' truth or 'your' truth, but what is Truth, which is ( something) non-personal. So if you and I are concerned with the enquiry into what is Truth, there is no parting. You may go slower, somebody else may go faster, but we are ( going ) in the same direction.

Q: Insight and knowledge, can we discuss that please?

K: Yes. And also there is lots more to discuss. That lady pointed out the responsibility of image-making, and living without an image.
What is one's human responsibility with regard to another, when both of them are building (self-protecting ?) images about themselves ? Our relationship is based on those images - right? If you have observed yourself for two seconds this is an obvious fact. Now, if one of them is free of all (self-protective?) 'image making', what is his responsibility towards the other? That is the question as far as I understood it. Right?

Q: One is not free actually of such "images".

K: Yes, so we have to be concerned with that (in the first place ?) , not with the responsibility. If you have an "image" about yourself, why do you have it, and how does it come into being?

Q: Through thought ?

K: No, look at it simply.

Q: From childhood.

K: From childhood you are told you are not as good as your brother, that you are not as clever as your elder brother, so you begin slowly to build your ( social ?) image. Your friends "help" you, and you "help" your friends to build this image, society helps you, your parents help you. So gradually school, university, college, you build this tremendously (complex) image of yourself, that you are clever, not clever, that you are this or that, so you are (mentally identified with ?) an image. And one very rarely is aware of this - right? One is not aware of this image. That image 'is' me ( my psychological ID ?) , and one is not aware of it. Now to become aware of it is the first thing. Can you become aware of it?

Q: When I am hurt, yes.

K: Not "when you are hurt", but "now". So ( the first step is ?) to become aware of that "image"; then ( the second step:) are you aware of it as though it were different from (you ?) who are looking at it? Is the observer different from the image? Naturally not. So the observer 'is' the image - right?

Q: You can see this if...

K: Not 'if'. Do you see or have an insight that you are not different from the image ? When ( in step three ?) you have an insight you then say, "I am the image". Then what takes place? What takes place (inwardly ?) when the 'observer' realizes 'that wich he is observing' is himself? Go slowly. What takes place?

Q: I am feeling lost...

K: Please look at it. This is really most important. Once you have this (experiential ?) 'key', then you will find out so much. What has actually taken place? The 'division' between the two has come to an end, so when the observer sees he is the observed, the (inner) conflict comes to an end, the war is over - is that a fact with you? If it is a fact to you then you have come to ( discover ) a way of living in which there is no conflict whatsoever, which means no opposing desires, wanting to do this and not wanting to do that, which is in opposition to each other. Then ( in step four ?) you realize desire has different objects (but they) are still ( projections of the same basic movement ?) desire then the opposition goes. There is only desire. Then what is desire? Then ( in step five ?) you 'go into it' and see that desire can come into being only when there is sensation (processed by ?) thought and from that arises the ( desired ?) "image". I wonder if you follow all this?
( Recap:) Sensation, thought, desire, then the image-making. I see that car, observe it, sensation, then ( my self-centred ?) thought says, "How nice, I wish I could drive it" - desire, and the (desire projected ?) "image", of "me" sitting in the car and having fun.
So as long as there is this "image-making" there must be (personal frustrations and ?) hurts. But when there is no (active ?) "image-making" there is no possibility of being hurt at all. And to have an insight into that frees one from "image-making".
And the next question is, what is the relationship between two people when one has really no ( self-?) image and the other has one. It does happen. You may be married and your wife may be free of image-making. And she would call it marvellous if you had no ( self-protecting ?) image. So what is her relationship to you - she, who has no image, and you have image?

Q: She has "love" ?

K: Ah, ( but in fact) you don't know. That is the truth. Remain with that fact that you don't know, which is an extraordinary ( opportunity for self-?) discovery. You understand sir? When you start with certainty you end up in doubt. When you start without any certainty you end up completely certain. You understand? So you don't know. From there move, find out, whether you can be free of images and what is implied, and the responsibility to others - you follow? It is a marvellous thing that is growing, flowering, you discover it.

And the next question was: can one live without a motive? That is, we said, where there is a motive there is a direction - I have a motive of wanting to get ( medium ?) rich , therefore all my life is directed towards that particular thing - getting money, because then I can travel, I can have a house - you follow? So we are traditionally (culturally programmed ?) to have a direction in your life - economically, socially, religiously - we are trained to have direction. Right? And so we don't know how to live ( in the present ?) without a motive. Then we ask, why thought sets a direction in life. ( Inwardly following a ?) direction means non-comprehension of the whole. Right?

Why do we have a 'direction' in life? One of the reasons is that it gives security, at least thought assumes it gives security. If I have no motive (no personal or collective motivation ?) I don't know what to do, I feel lost. So there's a ( subliminal ?) fear of getting lost, fear of not being secure, psychologically and physically, so thought ( our safety based thinking ?) says, "I must have a direction in life". So it sets (or follows ?) a ( strongly recommended ?) direction, like those (fine ?) athletes in the Olympic Games, completely absorbed in one direction, diving, running, concentrated. And the rest of ( their) life is becoming a side issue. There he is completely secure (at least for the duration of the Games ?) . So thought sets itself a "direction" in order to be both biologically and psychologically secure. That is a fact. Right? So ( by the same stroke ?) it discards the whole map of human existence . It only sees one direction which is towards that particular ( Olympic ?) Village and the rest is denied. So when you ( inwardly ?) have a (preset ) direction, which is traditionally accepted as normal, then there is division between the one who has (chosen ?) the direction of "going north" and the other fellow (who chose to ?) go 'south' or 'east' . You follow the implications ? The moment you have a direction you are breaking up ( the totality of human ?) life into fragments. ( I have just seen it now. I have got an insight into it !) So your life has become a 'fragment' because you have a direction. You see it?
Then the question is: how can I live without direction? When I see the whole map (of human existence ?) , there is no (need for inner ?) 'direction'. When there is ( a going in a specific ?) direction there is a ( colateral effect of ?) fragmentation of ( human existence ?) - you go in that direction, I go in another direction, she another direction, so there is no ( genuine ?) co-operation, except "for profit" and there is always a conflict ( of interest ?) when there is fragmentation. Right?

And the (potentially intelligent ?) mind says, 'Is it possible to live (inwardly ) without (this sense of ?) 'fragmentation', without ( a preset ?) direction?' It can only say that when had an "insight" into the fragmentary way it is inner living because it has a ( preset) direction. Have you understood what I am saying? Where there is a (dominant 'psychological' ?) direction there is fragmentation, and therefore division and therefore conflict.
Do you have an insight into this factual daily reality: where I have a direction - I want to be the Prime Minister and so on, there is ( a large potential of ?) conflict between you (the people ?) and me. Where there is division there must be conflict, that is an (elementary spiritual ?) law. Have I an insight into that? Then only I can say, "Can I live without ( a preset psychological ?) motive?" Not before because it has no meaning. So I don't say, "I can", or "I cannot" but: I don't know. So I am going to enquire. I am watching, there is an observation in my daily action, in my speech, when I have a (psychological ?) motive. And I say "Yes, I have got a motive right there, why?" You follow? So I (contemplatively ?) begin to bring it all out. So at the end I can say, "I have no ( psychological ?) motive". You know what that means? No inner conflict, no fragmentation, a life which is whole, healthy, sane and holy. There is no (psychological ?) motive for living. You know what that means? That means real compassion, you understand?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Aug 2016 #365
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 183 posts in this forum Offline

Hello John,

after this last quite dense, tense and long talk to which I see no need to add anything, I want to bring this

Early Writings, Volume VII | Talks at Adyar, India 1932-33

Look at your own life: You may be a disciple, but is there not an incessant struggle in your mind, a lack of affection in your heart? You are continually pursuing progress, struggling after achievement and success, ever urged on by the fear lest you should fail, lest you use should lose opportunities; thereby you create the exploiter and the exploited. What is the value of a future reward or gain when you cannot live in the fullness of the present, when you have no depth of feeling, when your thought is circumscribed and suffocated by an idea? As long as you do not feel the utter falseness of this idea of progress, which is self-glorification in the future, you are creating prisons for yourself and for others. This is not dogmatism, examine it and come to your own conclusions with your heart and mind, and then action will follow.

this is something I deeply understand since long time...this kthing and more have left many of such understanding .

even the word evolution in its modern meaning of moving from the not great at all to the fantastic is for me totally false, in the sense that this is not a fact, does not exist.....evolution simply was another word for: change...originally.

what took place since le siecle des Lumières was that the violent and criminal thieves leading the world to its agony, were searching for an excuse for their behaviour...so they came up with this intellectual idea found by Darwin and Malthus and so on, of a pyramidal organisation of the universe, with a top value ...found in animals because the bird eats the worm...it is as stupid as that....then they would apply it to the social human interaction and here we are....justifying all crimes and horrors committed by a lie....

there is an obvious improvement of tools and means....well not a big deal at all when one understand deeply how that knowledge works ..

so it is about self glorification says k...how am I going to understand that when and if I have not seen revealed at least some of my own functioning ?

impossible it is !! as I'll then stay intellectual only, that is not good enough to see deeply about self glorifying ..so I'll keep that way, as nothing radical will bring any change in that matter

then yes the action follows....such action is not decided , put up by thought, thought is only the tool to organise it.

We are now missing that part of us which is not thought, that is clear...

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Aug 2016 #366
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 183 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
In fact we can see a lot of 'progress' in the technological world-

well John, yes I mentioned that here

Daniel Paul. wrote:
there is an obvious improvement of tools and means....well not a big deal at all when one understand deeply how that knowledge works ..

.....

John Raica wrote:
Remember another similar 'absolute' K statement that "he never dreams" (which I took for fact during quite a few years of following these teachings ) Now, it turns out from Mrs Zimbalist memos that he actually had dreams, even nightmares, but he was able to "tu

yes I do remember as I noticed that at the time too...

John Raica wrote:
Now, for the 'absolute' K quote above ... on devrait Y introduire quelques 'bémols'...at least from my personal point of view
the statement being:


  • As long as you do not feel the utter falseness of this idea of progress, which is self-glorification in the future, you are creating prisons for yourself and for others

well it happens that this statement speaks to me deeply as it is, if and so when it is understood that it speaks about the mental-psychological levels....only..

it happens that I agree with k here, I see that too...the idea of mental progress is for me a deadly trap too because there is not such thing, the so called mental progress we know is about means ,tools so about the intellect....my view only...

the heavy "innocent" propaganda had done a terrible job at this level for me...

hard to explain, it is more a seeing..the intellect cannot grasp that..

@+

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Aug 2016 #367
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

Daniel Paul. wrote:
I agree with k here, the idea of mental progress is for me a deadly trap too because there is not such thing, the so called mental progress we know is about means ,tools so about the intellect..

Agreed, Dan, and probably in older terms Buddhist this was called becoming ( then K just actualised it in the context of modern culture ) and it can be both 'real' and/or 'imaginary'

For instance, "becoming aware" of one's limitations, etc, can be the equivalent of a ' prise de conscience' which has its own intrinsical value . But in the context of a culture 'renfermée sur elle meme' (such as...?) it is basically the same kind of illusion as "the other side of the hill is...greener". So it may be that we're taking too personally the influence of the collective mentality.

So, indeed, K is 'hammering it down' (his own words ) this kind of insights in different ways, in every public talk or dialogue and if (and when) you see the truth of it, it's 'yours'. In my understanding he's acting much more as a ' light bearer ' and in that light of truth you can see some previously 'unconscious' aspects of your psyche, which are helping your move forward inwardly. But even non-comparatively I can see a big qualitative difference between being (knowledgeably) "stuck in the known" and inwardly 'moving on' and changing as you are moving . It is certainly not a 'linear' progress and possibly K was calling it 'reaching a certain inner maturity'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Aug 2016 #368
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 183 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
But in the context of a culture 'renfermée sur elle meme' (such as...?) it is basically the same kind of illusion as "the other side of the hill is...greener". So it may be that we're taking too personally the influence of the collective mentality.

Hello John..

Well that is a real possibility I have in mind but sort of too vaguely that you pinpoint here .

We may all have the same basic same program yes, with superficial variant yes, and we take those superficial variant for huge differences yes, that we use to create a pyramidal world yes,

but nothing is forcing anyone to get the collective mentality, you may adjust to some outer forms of it yes, but deeply no one is forcing anyone to be so called competitive for example , but the examples would be so numerous that I will not start a catalogue here and now..

SO "I" accept it ...I join the "club" !!

John Raica wrote:
So, indeed, K is 'hammering it down' (his own words ) this kind of insights in different ways, in every public talk or dialogue and if (and when) you see the truth of it, it's 'yours'. In my understanding he's acting much more as a ' light bearer ' and in that light of truth you can see some previously 'unconscious' aspects of your psyche, which are helping your move forward inwardly. But even non-comparatively I can see a big qualitative difference between being (knowledgeably) "stuck in the known" and inwardly 'moving on' and changing as you are moving . It is certainly not a 'linear' progress and possibly K was calling it 'reaching a certain inner maturity'

agreed yes ;-)

cheers.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Aug 2016 #369
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

Excerpts from the 3RD K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1976

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF DEATH

Q: Could we discuss "death"?

K: We are going to have a dialogue about death - "dialogue" being a conversation, an enquiry between two friends, so we are not dogmatically stating anything, we are enquiring. There must be ( some necessary inner ?) freedom to look: you cannot investigate if there is any kind of prejudice, ( self-projected ?) beliefs, hopes or fear. The mind must be completely empty ( inwardly) to look.
First of all, every human being has a desire for (personal) continuity - it is there in you, isn't it, look at it. So is there anything that continues? Is there anything permanent? Or everything is impermanent? Before I can go into the question of death Imust find out if there is anything permanent that continues. Continuity implies ( a sense of self- ?) permanency - right? Now is there anything in you as a human being that has a continuity?

Q: There is the desire for continuing.

K: No, sir, apart from this desire is there anything permanent - a (living ?) movement without an end?

Q: May be.

K: Not "may be"! There is the desire for continuity - we said very carefully, sensation, and thought is (giving continuity to this ?) desire and the desire creates the 'image'. Apart from ( our personal ?) desire is there something that is "permanent", which means time doesn't touch it ? That is what we mean by "permanent": that time will not change it. And therefore it is a ( self-sustaining ?) movement continuously. So is there anything in a human being which is permanent?

Q: What about the 'psyche' ?

K: We will include the 'psyche' and all that presently. But (for the moment) we are asking: is there anything in a human being, in you, in me, that is permanent?

Q: There is a feeling of existence, of the 'self'.

K: So what is the 'I', the 'me', the 'psyche', the 'personality', what is that? Is that 'I' permanent? The ancient Hindus laid down that that 'I' is evolving, life after life, until it reaches perfection, the 'Brahman'. So ( their idea is ?) that the 'I' has a continuity till it makes itself perfect and is absorbed into the highest principle. That is the whole idea of 'reincarnation' - being born over again. Now we are asking, is that 'I' (the self-consciousness ?) permanent? What is that 'I', how does it come into being? Is it a ( timeless ?) spiritual entity, or is it a momentary affair, in a flux, in constant change? Is it at its essence a spiritual thing which is a non material process? Or is it a material process? 'Material process' meaning built (subliminally by our self-centred thinking ?) through various incidents, impressions - a material process put together by thought, and that ( self-identified ?) thought says, "I am different from thought". You are following all this? So the 'I' and thought have separated themselves and said, " My thought will go on". Right?
So you have to find out for yourself, if ( within the field of our self-centred thought ?) there is anything 'permanent', or everything is in movement - movement being time, time being ( moving ?) from here to there, chronologically, time also being the cultivation of the psyche. Movement. So is there anything permanent, or everything in a human being is undergoing change?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: He says, there are certain moments in our life when there is a realization or a "happening" that is beyond time and that is permanent. When that thing happens, if it has become a memory...

Q: It isn't a memory, sir.

K: I said, 'if it becomes a memory' then it is ( incorporated in the ?) material process, and you can call that 'permanent'. Or if that extraordinary state of timelessness "happens", the (99 $) question then is, will it continue? That is, you have a (transcending ?) "experience" of something which is beyond time. When it is not registered as (our personal ?) memory it still remains beyond time: the moment it is registered it is made (part ?) of time. That is simple. Then is that "happening" a continuous thing? Or does it "end"? If it is continuous then it is of time. Please, we are going to go into something which requires great attention, real sensitivity to find out. We are asking, is there something permanent? It is for you to answer.

Q: We want something to be permanent.

K: There is the 'desire to have permanency' - a permanent house, a permanent name, a permanent (physical) form - you follow? - the ( string of personal ?) memories, the attachment, we want everything to be 'permanent'.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: For myself there is nothing 'permanent'. ( However?) I am not imposing this ( personal view ?) onto you. Then what is death? If there is a continuity of the 'me', the (self-consciousness ?) put together by thought: the ( identification with your ?) name, (with) the form of its body, the (psycho-somatic ?) organism, and the whole structure of the psyche is put together by thought, obviously. Do you see that? Or do you say, " There is something much more spiritual behind that"? If there is something 'much more spiritual' behind that, and if 'you' say that exists, it is still part of thought.
If "you" ( the self-centred entity created by the thought process ?) say that "behind the veil of time", that "there is something utterly timeless", (it implies that ?) "you" have recognized it - so it is (already becoming a ?) part of your (personal) memory, and if it is ( stored in your ?) memory it is a material process of thought. Now, if that "something" behind the veil of Time is true, it is therefore "unthinkable". Right? So you don't 'know' it. But when you (knowingly ?) assert "there is something spiritual", a 'spiritual essence', you have already (mentally ?) "contaminated" it, therefore it is no longer spiritual.
(For homework:) Grasp this (insight) once and (then) you will see.
This is an 'old trick' (ancient assertion ?) of a great many of the Hindus that "there is God within you", "Brahman is within you", and all that you have to do is to 'peel off' (the layers of your ignorance ?) , like onion skins. You understand? ( The ancient ?) thought established ( the spiritual concept that ?) 'God is in you', and then ( the modern ) thought says, "I must get at it, therefore let me operate". You follow?

So ( in a nutshell ?) if all ( the process of our self-centred thinking) is a material process, then whatever it has 'put together' (concluded through the ages ?) is still a material process, so, even though it says, "there is a permanent "me" , it is still part of the structure of thought.
Then what is (the spiritual significance of ?) an "ending", which is death? You understand? As most of us desire ( a self-conscious ?) continuity, therefore they are frightened of death, so then what takes place when there is an "ending" called death? Let me put it very simply: "I" desire to continue (forever ?) , that's my hope, that's my longing - I (personally ) don't, but I am just taking that as an example, as an ordinary human being, he says, "I must continue, I am frightened of death", but there is the (inevitable physical ?) ending. So when there is this (strong) desire for (self-) continuity and there is an ending, then what takes place? There is the death of the 'organism', and death of the 'psyche'. They are interrelated, psychosomatically.
So I am asking, all right my friend, what happens when that "end" comes, which is inevitable? To find out what happens you must (first) investigate if the 'psyche', the 'me', is a permanent thing, or impermanent thing. If it is 'impermanent' then in that 'ending' - what happens?

Q: It is a great shock ?

K: You are not answering my question because you are not facing it, you are not looking at it, not "putting your teeth" into it to find out.
I want to continue, that is my (secret) hope, my longing. I have continued for eighty years with my family, with my furniture, with my books, with all the things I have collected for eighty years and please give me another thousand years ( to play around ?) with the same things. But ( Mr ?) "Death" comes along and says, "No, my friend, you are going to die" - what happens to that ( sense of personal ?) "continuity" of all that one's mind has collected - knowledge, things, ideas, attachments, property, beliefs, gods, all that I want that to continue for the rest of eternity. But Death comes and say, "End it". So I am asking, what is it that ends?

Q: The "psyche" ?

K: Sir, be careful, don't just speculate. I really don't like to discuss this with many people because they are not serious. This demands great seriousness, not just ( cleverly ?) verbalizing all the time.
I want my (personal) thought with all its content, with all the attachments, with all the pain, with all the suffering, with all the misery and confusion, that I want to continue (for ever?) . When the physical body dies, the material process which is the brain structure, which is the thought process, dies. You understand. I wonder if you see this: the (self-conscious ?) 'me' is put together by thought. It is a material process. Thought is matter, a material process, because it is the response of memory which is stored in the brain as knowledge, and so when that brain dies the material process dies - right? Then what takes place ?

Q: The material process dies.

K: Madame, if I may point out( without being rude), when you say the material process dies, have you (psychologically ?) died to that (self-identified mental structure ?) now? Not when (the ultimate ?) Death comes. You understand, sir?
I'll show it to you: the content of 'my' consciousness is the content of the consciousness of the world. And that content is ( has been ?) put together by ( our self-centred ?) thought - my furniture, my name, my family, my bank account, my belief, dogmas, all that is in my consciousness, which 'is' the world's consciousness. Unless you see that you can't go further into what we are enquiring. Then when that ( wordly ?) consciousness, which is a material process, comes to an end, because the brain decays and so the thought process comes which has put together the 'ego', the 'me', has come to an end. So I say, is it possible to (psychologically ?) 'die' now to everything that ( this worldly ?) thought has put together as self-consciousness, which is 'me', and this me is the (selfish mentality of the ?) world. You understand my question? I wonder if you do.

Q: We can't accept what you say, that is ( sounding like a total psychological ?) "annihilation".

K: Why not, if that is the truth? So as my consciousness 'is' (internally undivided from ?) the consciousness of the world, and all that (active ?) 'content' of that consciousness is put together by thought - beliefs, dogmas, rituals, can all that 'die' (come to an end?) now, not fifty years later, now? Which means can that ( active psychological ?) 'content' empty itself now? The (liberating opportunity of a 'psychological' ?) death is (available ?) now, not fifty years later.

When you die your body withers away and your brain ends. And all the content of your consciousness cannot continue as it is, because it is the ( result of the brain supported ?) thought process.
So I am asking myself, seeing the truth that "your consciousness 'is' the consciousness of the world", then the things that have been put together by ( our self-centred ?) thought can all that come to an end, not fifty years later, but now? You understand the question?
(Eg:) Suppose I believe (in something ?) - this belief is part of my consciousness. Right through the world people believe in something - in God, in Jesus, in Buddha - therefore 'belief' is a common factor for man. That belief is put together by ( our collective ?) thought, which is an (ages long ?) material process. Can you end ( the 'psychological' attachment to ?) that belief now, as you ( probably ?) are going to do when you die? To end your belief in something immediately, and see what takes place. Not say, I am frightened to drop my beliefs, because my beliefs give me tremendous security. So you are seeking security in an illusion, therefore it is no security at all. So can you 'die' to that (attachment ?) now? Then only you can answer "What comes next ?" But before you can answer that you must 'act' now, when there is this perception that belief is one of the most common factors of human desire, which is, they find in belief great strength - I believe in god - that gives tremendous strength. It may be an illusion, and it is because it is put together by thought. So can I die to that?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: I said that sir. I said that. So can you die to that belief, to belief, not to a particular belief, to belief? And as most people have ideals, and it is one of the most extraordinary phenomenon in the world that wherever you go every human being has ideals - ideals of something or other, it doesn't matter what it is, noble, ignoble, actual and so on. Now ideals are obviously put together by thought, it is a material process in opposition to what I am. So can you die to that?
And unless you die to that, you cannot possibly answer the next question. And we want to find out the next before we die. That's what we are clinging to, you understand. If that can be told, verbalized and then made common, you will all believe in that. It becomes vulgar - I am using the word 'vulgar' in the ordinary sense, common, not insulting it, derogatory. Then it becomes a belief and we are all happy. But to die not knowing - you understand? No, you don't understand.
So we are only dealing with facts, not with theories, not with projected ideas, comforting or ennobling, but we are dealing with actual facts of daily life. Our daily life is made up of things put together by thought. Thought is a material process.
Q: (Inaudible)

K: He is talking about "ectoplasm" that is quite a different problem.
Look sir, let me put it round the other way. If a human being doesn't end ( the 'psychological' attachments to ?) his sorrows, his miseries, his confusion, then he is like the rest of the world (inwardly 'worldly' ?) . He dies, but his (personal and collective ?) sorrow, confusion, misery (actually) goes on. This is an (ongoing) "fact". Like a vast volume of water in a great river there is this immense ( Stream of selfishness &) sorrow of man.
For God's sake, do see all this ! There is such ( increasing ?) violence, hatred, jealousy, that is the vast Stream. And we human beings are part of that stream. Unless I 'die' to ( my psycho-attachments to ?) that Stream will go on, which is the world (the 'stream of the worldly' ?) .
So ( only) the human being who (endeavours to?) 'step out' of that ( worldly ?) Stream, will know what is beyond 'what is'. But as long as you remain ( inwardly drifting ?) in that stream, playing around , which most of us do, you will never find out "what is" beyond death. A man who ( inwardly ?) dies to ( his inner attachments to ?) everything will know what is Eternal. You understand?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Sir, it is one of the most difficult things to go into these things with tremendous attention right to the end. Only very few people can do it. This is a subject that demands all your ( integrated ?) attention. And if you are really captivated by this (serious enquiry) , wanting to find out (the truth of it ?) , you will give complete attention, constantly pushing (inwards ?) not knowing where you are going. And that is ( the psychological challenge of?) death: an ending to everything that you know. So can you not 'die now' to everything that you know? Then you will (eventually ?) find out for yourself what is the (inner dimension of ?) Truth in which there is no illusion, nothing personal, it is not 'my' truth or 'your' truth, it is Truth.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 #370
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

4TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1976 (reader friendly condensed)

BEING A LIGHT TO ONESELF

K: I think it is very important that one should "be a light to oneself" and not follow anybody. Truth is something you can't find through another, nor through any technique. And it is becoming more and more evident throughout the world that because the technological world has so extraordinarily advanced we think, or accept, that a technique of some kind is necessary for self- understanding, for having an insight, or coming upon that truth. So if I may point out again this morning that one should be most advisedly careful not to accept anything from anybody (in psychological matters ?) , but to investigate for oneself if one is at all serious. And from there one can learn a great deal because one's (consciousness ) is ( not separated from that of ?) the world, and if we know (or learn ?) how to 'read the book of ourselves', then everything is there.
Now what shall we talk about?

Q: Can we have a dialogue about "being a light to oneself"?

K: Shall we start with what does it mean to 'be a light to oneself'? So can we start from the beginning? We are not a light to ourselves now. That is a fact - right? We are confused - politically, religiously, in all our relationships with each other, there is a certain strain, confusion, conflict, and from that this question of sorrow and so on. There are so many guides, so many philosophers, so many gurus with their systems, asserting, persuading, hoping that you will follow and so on. So there is this immense confusion outwardly and inwardly. That's a fact. Can we start from there?
We may be sometimes see things very, very clearly, and once having that perception it becomes a memory and we want to capture it, hold on to it, and fight to get it back again. And whatever choice we make out of that confusion will still be confused - right? So ( experientially-wise ?) it becomes very important not to choose and follow a certain a path, or a system, or a method, or a guru, because it leads to much greater confusion and division in the world.

So ( for starters ?) are we aware that we are confused (inwardly ?) ? And if we are confused, is there an observation of this confusion which, by the very observation is the action?
Now I am asking myself: am I totally confused or is there a part of my consciousness which is not confused? There is ( in each of us ?) an unconscious desire, or a belief, or a longing, that there must be a way out from this confusion - right? So we have to go into that question. Please, we have to go into this question, which is: in the content of my consciousness, whether it is conscious or deep down, hidden, is there anywhere within the hidden area an actuality which is clear?

Now first of all why does this division exist into the unconscious and the conscious? A million people say there is a division - professors, highly qualified people, MDs and all the rest of it, they say there is a division - the unconscious and the conscious mind . I am not saying they are right or wrong, but why should one accept this division?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Yes, the human mind demands to know (everything about itself ?) , and there may be something in our consciousness which is hidden. Hidden, ( but not necessarily ?) divided - you understand? I am objecting to the division.

Q: It is due to our incapacity to see the whole.

K: So you say that because I am incapable of seeing the totality of my consciousness I resort to dividing it, thereby hoping ( that by analysing the unconscious part ?) I will see the whole. So first we divide and then we try to join them together. Now as an 'outsider' ( non-professional ?) I don't accept this division, because to see the whole of our consciousness there is no necessity for a division. Now is such a ( holistic perception ?) possible?

Q: As I ( enjoy living ?) a superficial life and ( only) occasionally I ( endeavour to ?) delve deeply, this gives me the ( very realistic ?) idea that there is the unconscious and the conscious - because I usually live a superficial life.

K: That is one of the reasons: one lives a very, very superficial life and occasionally one digs deeply. It may be a dream, or it may be a conscious act, then you realize there is something much deeper than the surface, and therefore (you assume that ?) there is a division.

Q: It gives a great strength if you believe ( that you have clearly understood ?) something.

K: If there is a neurotic belief, that very neurotic belief gives you an enormous vitality. So these are extraordinarily "vital" people.
So there are several reasons why there is this ( conscious vs unconscious ?) division, and having been made ( by psycho-scientists ?) mankind is now generally accepting it. But an "outsider", comes along and says: Is it not possible to see the whole of our consciousness?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: He says, in ourselves we are 'fragmented' (in specialised compartments ?) , in ourselves, so it is part of our whole (modern ?) way life, which has brought about this ( inner) division. Right? Now is it possible to see the totality of one's consciousness, including that which is hidden, including what you call the unconscious? I am just asking, is it possible?

Q: ( Theoretically, yes, but experientially - wise ?) the more I demand to find out such a 'total observation' the more inner conflict arises.

K: I understand. The general agreement is, that it is not possible - right? The psychologists, the 'professors', all of them say, it is only ( a gift ?) given perhaps to the few 'loonies', but actually that is not possible.
Now what do we mean by 'seeing the totality', by 'seeing the whole'? Do we observe anything wholly? Or is it only partial observation?

Q: Partial.

K: For instance take ( your own reactions of ?) greed, or envy, can you see the total movement (inner activity ?) of greed 'at once'? What do you say?

Q: I don't know.

K: The lady says, "I don't know". Then what? You are going to enquire, aren't you, first. You don't know, but it is important to find out what prevents us from an observation of the totality (of our own greed ?) ?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Madame, our ( 100$ ?) question is: can you observe, the total movement of greed: why greed arises, what is the source of its continuity, why is it (ethically ?) condemned, and so on, can you see at one glance not only the conscious greed, but also the hidden ( background of our ?) greed? Can you see the whole of that?

Q: What is the 'hidden greed'?

K: I may ( consciously ?) say, I am not greedy, but deep down I may still be terribly greedy. So, please listen to my question first. Can one see 'the total movement of greed'?

Q (1) : I can't and I don't even know why.

Q (2) : If you are (getting really ?) interested in something you can see the whole of it.

K: Yes. I am interested in seeing the whole movement of greed, but I haven't got the ( intelligent ?) energy to go fully into it - the vitality, the intensity is lacking. May I go into it? How can I observe the 'total movement' of greed, the hidden as well as the conscious ( joint activities of ?) greed?
Greed is isn't something static, it is constantly moving, wanting more, more, more. So can one observe this movement (non-personally ?)?
Now what do we mean by 'movement'? ( Physically ) it means moving from here to there. So this movement also means (requires ?) time.
Time whether chronologically or psychologically, ( is intimately related to ?) movement. So as long as I have ( inner mentality based on outward ?) movement, which is time, time is going to prevent me from observing the whole. You get some of it?

Q: You have moved away from the question - you have introduced a new factor which is 'time'. And how am I to stop time?

K: I am not ( trying to ?) stop anything. I am merely observing the whole "map of greed". And one of the ( inner limitations ?) which prevents me from "seeing the whole map of greed" is this movement ( attitude aiming ?) to end it, to pursue it, the movement which says, "I must stop it".
In this ( "holistic ?) observation" of movement, I am not denying it, I am not trying to stop it, there is only ( a non-directed ?) observation of this movement.
Now, "greed" is also a movement - it is part of ( the mentality of ?) time. "I haven't got it (yet) , but ( hopefully ?) I will get it".
So I have to find out if my mind (my whole mentality ?) is caught in this movement (of greed & time ?) . Can you see the origin of it and the ending of it? I may not be greedy for wealth, money, social status, but I am still terribly "greedy to find truth". You don't like to think that, but it is still greed.

So one can only see the total movement of greed when there is no ( mental movement in any ?) direction - to get rid of it, to stop it, to suppress it - all that prevents me from looking at greed totally (and objectively ?) . Right? Because when we have a directive (mentality ?) - 'I must get rid of my greed', then (following greed along that ?) direction prevents me from seeing the whole ( movement of greed, of which I am also a part ?) .
( In a nutshell:) When the human mind wants to see the totality of consciousness with its hidden layers, it must also have an insight into to the fact that wherever there is a (self-imposed ?) directive, it will prevent the perception of the whole.

Q: That's all there is to it ?

K: No, no, there is lots more to it. Greed is ( only a ) part of our consciousness, as is violence, as hope, despair, anxiety, all that is part of our consciousness. ( Not to mention that ?) your consciousness is ( subliminally connected to ?) the ( pretty messy ?) 'world consciousness', and so on.
( So, to recap:) Part of our consciousness is greed. Can you see the whole movement of greed not only the the obvious ( aspects of one's personal ?) greed but the hidden ( aspects ?) ? We are saying that "you can" see the totality of this movement of greed when there is no ( controlling ?) direction. Which means, only when there is no ( personal ?) motive (involved ?) , because motive gives direction.
Now if ( we extrapolate this 'non-directional' principle to ?) seeing the totality of consciousness then also (its) 'unconscious' (content ?) is ( freely exposed and integrated or ?) "revealed". And that demands a ( non-dualistic quality of one's integrated ?) attention, ( aka ?) "seriousness", because then you "end" ( transcend ?) greed - you follow? Then you don't play around with greed, you are then aware of the totality of it.
But ( for the moment...?) most people don't ( really ) want to give up their greed, they like ( the rewarding benefits of ?) their ( industrious ?) greed. It is a tremendous pleasure to possess (a lot of stuff ?) . So we are asking something quite different.
And also to see the whole ( hidden content of our consciousness ?) , it may reveal itself through dreams. Are you interested in it?

Q: I'd be interested...

K: So "fear" is (also a visible or a subliminal ?) part of our consciousness, and as long as there is fear, which is ( acting as ?) a 'directive', you can't see the whole.
Then we have the 'dreams' - during the day the brain is very, very active thinking, chattering, quarrelling, registering insults, registering flattery, the whole movement is going on during the day. And during the night the ( inner momentum of this daily activity ?) still goes on - unless there is an end at end of the day, the brain carries it on - right? This is a fact. So 'dreams' are the continuation of our daily activity, only in different forms, through pictures & symbols. So the same movement of ( our everyday ?) confusion, conflict, misery goes on.
Now, our ( 1000$ ?) question is: can this ( inertial ?) movement of our daily life, as we know it, the conflicts, end each moment? Not only at the end of the day because the brain can only function properly when it is absolutely in order, - you understand? So (for homework: ?) You can find this out for yourself, it is very simple.

Q: We don't have the time to go into the bottom of every question.

K: ( If we really want it ?) we have got plenty of time: as each thing happens, look at it and end it. You have got instantly plenty of time. But if we like to play with it...

Q: What about (dealing with it ?) 'psychologically'?

K: Even 'psychologically'. So, we were saying ( that most of our ?) dreams are a ( scrambled ?) continuation of our daily conflicts, miseries, confusions, carried over during sleep, during which the brain is still active because it is trying to bring order . You understand? Because it says, "I can only function if there is order. If there is disorder I get disturbed, I get neurotic, so I must find order." To have order means security for it.
So the ( totality of our mind & brain ?) demands order, which means security, for it to function healthily, normally. But as our daily life is so ( hectic and ? ) disorderly it tries during the sleep to find some kind of order. So is it possible during the day, as any psychological, human problem arises to ( allow it the inner space to ?) flower, end?
( eg:) Suppose I am getting angry (about something or other ?) to 'let it flower' (inwardly ?) , rather than say ( some very mean ?) words, I watch the anger flowering in myself and withering. So when there is such ( holistic atitude ?) of "appearance, manifestation, flowering and withering" as you go along during the day, at night the brain has order so it can "rejuvenate" itself - so that it is clear.

Q: I have a feeling that I need to understand more...

K: Understand who? Understand the speaker? The speaker is only (acting as?) a mirror in which you are seeing yourself - right? When you see yourself the "mirror" becomes unimportant, throw it away. And I mean it.
So ( to re-recap:) we are observing yourself and to perceive the totality of your consciousness there must be no directive. You understand? When there is an observation without a direction the "unconsciousness" is opening up. It is all revealed, with one breath you can see the whole thing.

Q: If I have no motive why should I do anything?

K: You have a ( pretty serious ?) motive when you want to have a shelter, a home, a roof on top of you. There is a motive when you want to be clothed, because it is cold. There is a motive when you are hungry, food. Is that same movement (directional attitude ?) carried over to the psyche: "I must have a motive to live, otherwise I can't act". And when in the psychological field there is any ( personal choice of ?) motive then you divide up life, break it up, and therefore you don't see the totality of fhuman life.

Q: We are fragmented.

K: You are still fragmented. So we are asking: can this totality of consciousness be observed? And we are saying, it can be observed totally, including the unconscious, all the travail that is going on in the unconscious, as well as in the conscious, a lot of worms squirming! And all that is revealed when we are observing without the "observer" - you understand? The observer is the past, the observer is the motive, the observer says, "I must not do this", etc., etc. The observer is the past and the observer gives motive for observation, and therefore it can never see the totality of it. The observer is the observed - right? That consciousness which is observing is himself, but he likes to divide it and say, "I am different from my consciousness", which is obviously silly. So ( a holistic ?) observation takes place only when there is no observer as the past, who gives direction. Then when there is perception of the whole there is action, not fragmented.
Are we in communication with each other, sharing something with each other, have you got something this morning? Or are we just carrying on in the same old way?

Q: (In Italian) You are at one level, we are at another level, can't you come down to us? Can't you see our difficulty and break through our difficulty and do something about it?

K: So you are putting the burden onto me ? As I have said many times, you are both the student and the teacher, you can learn everything about yourself if you know how to read your book, which is yourself. (Unless...) you won't take the trouble to look at it. But it is all there (waiting to be read ?) , the whole thing is buried in you - the agony, the suffering, and all the rest of it

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Aug 2016 #371
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

5TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1976 AWARENESS 101

K: This is the last discussion or dialogue, and if I may suggest, one should take these teachings as a whole, it is a "total package", if I may use the modern word. And considering what is happening in the world, unless one radically as a human being changes fundamentally we will not be able to help humanity. And to understand this enormously complex human problem, one has to be a "light to oneself". And this ( spiritual ?) "light" cannot be found through others , however popular they are, one has to be free from all the authority, fear and so on. And what is important (experientially-wise ?) is (to remember that ?) "the first step that one takes is really the last step".

Now, you have asked several questions: please talk about love, go into it much more deeply; what is the nature of energy that sustains constant discovery; what prevents observation and action; does aloneness imply freedom; and can there be, in relationship, freedom; and what it means to be aware without a technique. Now shall we go into this question of words, awareness, and include all the other questions which have been put to us?

What is the function of a word? We (generally ) use the words in order to communicate or to point out something. But (inwardly ?) we are prisoners of words - words condemn or help, and so on.
Now, ( experientially-wise ?) if there are no words, is there thinking? Is there a thinking without words, symbols, images ? Suppose I want to tell you something that can't that be ( adequately ?) communicated with words; it can be communicated without the word only if we are both at the same level, at the same intensity, with the same interest, then there is a ( quality of ?) communion which is non-verbal. We understand it instantly by a gesture, which is not a word.
So the verbalization is part of our thinking - to communicate what one thinks. I think about something and I want to communicate it to you. There is the possibility of a non-verbal communication (such as ?) a gesture, or a look and that of a verbal communication. Now, what relationship has the word to (the) actuality which it describes ? The word is not the thing. That's simple.
Now for ( most of ?) us the word is ( taken for the actual ?) thing. We ( mentally ?) identify the word with the thing, we don't separate the word from the thing (described). That's part of Awareness (101 ?) : To separate the word from the ( actual ) thing. For most of us when we use the word 'tent', the (associated verbal ?) "image" is there already when you see the tent, so there is no separation. So ( the experiential ?) part of Awareness (101) is to separate the word from the thing. And this makes a tremendous difference ( in our inner observation ?) as I am going to show you something in a minute: the word 'fear' is different from the actual feeling of it. So we have to find out if the word creates that fear, or the feeling of fear is independent of the word. That's part of Awareness (101 ?) . You understand? To separate the word from the (inner) actuallity. Then if the word fear is different from the actual, then what is the 'actual' (feeling ?) without the word (without the verbal labelling ? ) So does the 'actual' (feeling continue to ?) exist without the word 'fear'? If the actual feeling is independent of the word, it is just another "sensation" - right? There is nothing wrong with sensation. So all that is part of Awareness ( 101) - to separate the word from the actual (thing which is being observed) . ( For homework: ) To do this all the time. The word 'wife' (along with all its associated 'images' ?) is not the actual person , but ( for the average husband ?) the word 'wife' instantly is identified with the actual.
(In a nutshell:) To separate the word from the actual (thing observed) , then there is quite a different process of inner awareness. And to be (non-verbally ?) aware, does it need a ( mental ?) technique? That was one of the questions asked. Obviously not. Because if you "practise awareness", it is (soon becoming) a mechanical ( self-centred ?) process, rather than separating the word from the actual. ( For class work:) You can do that now as we are ( comfortably ?) sitting here.
So the whole significance of Awareness (101) , part of it, is to separate the word from the thing. And if I look at 'Mr Brown' without the ( images associated to his ?) name he is quite a different entity. So this (non-verbal) Awareness, needs no (self-preparation or ?) practice, no ( acquisition of any ?) technique, I can instantly see the truth of it.

Then in ( this non-verbal quality of ?) awareness is there (a need for any 'personal' ?) choice? The speaker is aware of all of you sitting there, with different coloured shirts and blouses or whatever it is. To observe the colours without saying, "I like", or "Don't like", "This is good,", just to observe.
So to be (choicelessly ?) aware implies the separation of the 'word' from the (actual) 'fact' (which is being observed ?) , and in which there is no choice whatsoever. (this choiceless awareness is not based on concentration. Concentration implies focussing one's observation on a particular thing, while excluding other things. )
Now what is the relationship of awareness to attention? You follow? We are moving further into Attention (201 ?) .
And is this "attention" (the result of my purposeful ?) concentration? It is not. Where there is attention there is no "centre" from which to attend. Whereas in concentration there is a ( self-conscious ?) centre and therefore (choice and/ or ?) exclusion. I wonder if you get it? ( Such integrated quality ?) attention implies no centre, therefore no border, therefore attention is tremendous, vast.

The other question asked was : does freedom imply aloneness? The (original ) meaning of the word alone means "all -one", "all made into one". Now how can there be freedom if there is any self-centred activity which prevents ( this sense of ?) "all-oneness"? If I am concerned everlastingly about myself - my problems, my worries, my wife, if my mind is occupied with so many things, which is "self-centred", there cannot be all-oneness, can there? So freedom requires a non-occupied mind. As long as there is this ( self-centred ?) occupation with something there cannot be freedom, obviously.
And when there is that (inner) freedom, the questioner asks, what is then my relationship ? First have that freedom and find out. The fact is, our minds are occupied with chattering, with vanity, arrogance, or self pity and so on. Can that mind be free of all that? And when it is free isn't it all-one?
So if a human being, is free from this tremendous (obsessive self-centred ?) occupation that is going on, then what is his relationship? To find that out ( experientially ?) he must "unburden" himself of all the content of occupation, the content of one's consciousness, which then is freedom. Then what takes place? You, as an (integrated ?) human being, may be free from all worries and all occupation, and the other is not, then what is your relationship between the two? What is the responsibility of the man who is free and the other who is not?
Now you wanted to talk about "love". What place has freedom, which is a man who is not occupied, burdened with tremendous occupation, problems and all the rest of it, what is his relationship with another who is not free, is there in that relationship love? Or it is (an authentic relationship ?) only then there is "love"? Now what do we mean by this word "love"? (Be careful to separate the ( emotional connotations of this ?) word from 'the' thing. Has love a (personal ?) motive? Please, don't shake your head, for us it has: possession attachment, jealousy, anger, hatred, a sense of anxiety, fear that you may lose that person, all that arises, and that we ( indiscriminately ?) call "love". Right? We are not being cynical, we are just looking at facts.

So, to discover what it means to "love", mustn't one be free of all that (personal content ?) ? Free of attachment - let's take that for the moment. When a human being is "attached" to another, what is going on? In that attachment there is ( a subliminal mixture of ?) pride of possession, a sense of domination, fear of losing that person, therefore anxiety, all that comes up. Now if there is no (personal sense of ?) attachment does it mean no love, no responsibility? You understand my question? For most of us "love" ( with it's associated 'chagrins d'amour' ?) means this terrible conflict between human beings, and so relationship becomes a perpetual anxiety (and/or a perpetual...boredom ?) . You know all this, I don't have to tell you. And that we ( generically) call "love". And to escape from this terrible strain of what we call love, we have all kinds of "entertainments" - the television entertainment, the "religious" entertainment. We quarrel and go off to church, or the temple, and come back and begin again. So all this is going on all the time.

Now is it possible to be free of ( any personal ?) attachment and yet feel responsible? To be 'free of attachment' doesn't mean its opposite : "I must detach myself from all this horror" . But if you observe, are aware of the 'fact' and there is freedom from the ('attachment') word , and observe that feeling ( of psycho-dependency ?) without any judgement - then you will see out of that "total observation" there is quite a different "movement" taking place, which is neither attachment or detachment.
( For class work:) Are you 'doing it' as we are talking, or are you just listening to a lot of words? You know you are attached, don't you - to your ( 'home sweet home' ?) house, to something or other, to a belief, to a prejudice, to a conclusion, to a person, to some ideal, tremendously attached. ( Incidently that ?) attachment gives (an inner sense of ?) great security, which is ( after all ?) an illusion - because that "something" (or "someone" ?) may go away. So what you are attached to is the "image" which you have built about that personal . Got it ?
So if can you be free of this "attachment" then is that ( an intelligent and compassionate ?) "love"? ( I wonder if you are getting it?) Attachment separates us - right? I am attached to "my" belief, and you are attached to "your" belief, therefore there is ( a subliminal sense of ?) separation and therefore there is ( a psychological potential for ?) conflict - so there cannot possibly be "love". And what is the relationship of a man and a woman when there is freedom from attachment, all the implications of it. Is that the beginnings of Compassion? You understand? When there is no attachment to any belief whatsoever, to any conclusion, to any ideal, then that human being is a free human being. And his relationship with another is out of freedom, isn't it, out of love, out of compassion.

So what is next (educationally-wise ?) ? You see all this is a part of Awareness (201 ?) . Now, part of our ( traditionally 'higher ?) education' is to analyse (ourselves ?) , and so we spend a lot of time on that. So we are proposing something quite different: to observe (being aware non-verbally ?) , then "see the totality", and then 'analyse'. Then it becomes very simple (since the existential issue is already solved ?) . But whereas if we analyse and try to reach the totality you may "go wrong" (or simply 'get stuck' ?) - which you generally do. But to observe the totality of something, which means no ( preset) 'direction', then you can analyse or not analyse.
Now I would like to go into something else: Is there something sacred in life, which is part of all this (inward journey ?) ? Is there something sacred in your life, holy? Remove the word, the image, the symbol, which is very 'dangerous' (or psychologically 'slippery' ?) , and when you do that, ask yourself, "Is there anything really sacred in my life?" Or is everything put together by thought? Do you (really ?) think that all the things that thought has ( very conveniently ?) put together are "sacred"? And yet we have been conditioned to (accept ?) that - as a Hindu, as a Christian, we are conditioned to worship, adore, pray, things that ( the ancient human ?) thought has put together. And that we call "sacred".
So one has to find out (for ourselves ?) if there is ( within us ?) something really "sacred", which is not put together by thought, as life becomes more and more superficial, more and more mechanical, and utterly meaningless at the end of one's life. You know we are so attached (addicted to ?) to thinking and worship the things that thought has put together. The "image" made by the hand or by the mind is the process of thought. And thought, we said, is (the joint result of our ?) memory, experience, knowledge, which is the "past".
Now what does it mean to enquire into oneself so as to find out if there is anything deeply "sacred", holy, in one's life, in living? Is there something marvellously, supremely, sacred - or there is nothing at all?

Are you interested in all this? Because we are becoming more and more ( subtly ?) materialistic, because ( our self-centred ?) thought wants security, and therefore it finds security in those things which it has created- the 'gods', you know, the whole business of it. Can one be free of the movement of ( self-centred ?) thought, put that aside ? So then what is the mind to do (in order ?) to find out (what is the truth ?) ? May I go into it? Please share it, for god's sake share it, otherwise it becomes another messy sentimental nonsense.
It becomes necessary to have a "very quiet mind", doesn't it. If there is no stillness in the mind, ( the time- thought ?) 'movement' takes place - right? Movement being time, thought. So can the mind be completely still, without movement?
And one ( may) find this terribly difficult because thought comes in immediately, so one says, "I must control thought. But when you see that the (controlling ?) "thinker" is the thought, the controller is the controlled, the observer is the observed, then there is no ( dualistic mental ?) movement. You understand? The 'thinker' who wants to control thought is still ( a controlling sub-process of ?) thought. When one realizes ( the inner truth of ?) that the movement of thought stops.
So when there is no movement of any kind, the mind is naturally still. So there is ( a space of inner ?) freedom and in that freedom there is silence. Then there is only "observation", not the "observer observing". Get it? So there is only observation out of that complete stillness of mind.

Then what takes place? I can go further into it, but if you won't, it becomes a ( speculative ?) theory. But if you have gone that far, which is, freedom from one's ( psychologically active ?) conditioning, and therefore no movement, and complete silence, quietness, which is what? Then there is the operation of ( a timeless ?) Intelligence, isn't there?
(To recap ?) We said attachment implies great pain, anxiety, fear and to see that is (already ?) part of intelligence, isn't it? To see the ( truth about the time-binding ?) nature of attachment and all its implications, to have an insight into it, is ( the action of that ?) "intelligence" which says, "How true that is". It is this (quality of compassionate ?) "intelligence" that is now in operation. You understand what I am talking about?

Q: Sir, I am afraid it is only theoretical.

K: Theoretical ? No, no. Listen sir - if you "see" all the ( time-binding ?) implications of attachment, and see the danger of attachment, that perception is ( the act of that timeless ?) intelligence. That's all.

Q: Why doesn't one realize (even the simple truth that ?) that the observer is the observed?

K: Why doesn't one realize it? Part of our ( cultural ?) tradition is that the 'observer' is (supposed to be ?) different from the ( stuff which is being ?) observed - right? That is part of tradition, part of education, part of our whole social, religious structure, that the observer is ( or should be ?) totally different from the observed. But can you see ( the actual truth that ?) the observer "is" the observed? Not only now because I am "pushing you into a corner", but actually do you realize it? That there is no "thinker" without thought? Is that terribly difficult to see?

Q: It is very difficult to see that for us.

K: Now please, just try this: "listen" to what is being said, don't ( mentally ?) 'translate' it, just listen. It may be wrong, but listen. The speaker says: the "observer" is the ( reactive memory of the ?) past, the "observed" is (what is taking place in ?) the present. The "observer" meets the (actual challenge of the ?) present with ( an "attitude": ?) "the eyes and understanding of the past", therefore there is no ( direct ?) meeting of the present. That is simple enough, right ? We said the "observer" is the ( self-identified memory of the ?) past, and all our (daily) life is based on the ( cummulative experience of our ?) past, because we remember, all our knowledge, all our experience is stored as the past. That ( "knowing" ?) background, meets the present, and ( conveniently ?) translates what is meets in terms of the ( "safe experience" of our ?) "past".
So ( by constantly doing this ?) the "observer" maintains its separation - right? But if there is no ( self-protecting interference of the ?) "observer" there is only the ( whatever is going on in the ?) "present". Right? That's ( intellectually pretty ?) simple. Now do you realize ( the truth of ?) that?

Q: If I am not the one looking who am I?

K: "You" are the ( self-focussing of ?) thought. You are all the "psychological build up" of thought - ( identifying itself with the ?) name, the physical form , the whole movement of thought. This is simple, sir.
So (to wrap it up ?) do you actually realize that the observer "is" the observed - we are talking 'psychologically', inwardly. ( For internal safety reasons ?) the 'observer 'separates himself, so he says, "I am different from the observed", but they are essentially one. Anger is not separate from the person who says, "I am angry". Anger 'is' the person, it 'is' ( an integral part of ?) his "psyche", and so on.
So do you see (the inner truth of ?) this "fact" that the observer 'is' the observed? If you don't see (the truth of ?) it, ( a subliminal or an obvious ?) conflict then will continue between the observer and the observed, anger and the entity who says, "I am different from anger". Then 'he' (will try to ?) control it, to change it, you know the whole ( self-improving ?) business you go through. That's ( resulting in ?) a wastage of ( our intelligent ?) energy. But there is no ( need for such a ?) wastage of energy, and therefore no conflict when the observer "is" (assuming full responsability for ?) the (inner stuff which is being ?) observed. What is the difficulty, I don't quite see.

Q: Why don't you see for us it is so difficult?

K: Because it is a simple fact: you are ( time-) bound to that ( mentality of self- ?) separation. You won't let go and say, "Let us find out".

Q: (Inaudible)

K: I don't know about individuals, sir. The word "individual" means an entity who is ( inwardly) "not divided", "indivisible", then only he is an individual. But we are (inwardly ) so fragmented, so broken up; we may call ourselves 'individuals', but we are not.
( So, ) the first thing ( to be done for homework ?) then is to eliminate ( the divisive mentality of ?) conflict which is ( basically) a wastage of (our intelligent ?) energy. And to eliminate that wastage is to realize ( experientially that ?) the observer 'is' the observed.

Q: But it is much more difficult to realize that the conditioning is ( impersonating itself as ?) the "conditioner".

K: That's right, sir. So much more difficult to realize our conditioning. Our ( whole cultural ?) conditioning is to live ( inwardly ?) in the ( safe memory of the ?) past - right? Our life is based on past memories, past hurts, past anxieties, everything is somewhere behind us. That is our life. And when we live ( safely installed ?) in the past we can never understand what is going on now inwardly. So unless one realizes that "the observer is the observed"," the thinker is the thought", or "the experiencer is the experience", there is no freedom from ( this duality ?) conflict. The "gods" that one worships are surely put together by thought, isn't it? But the man who says, "No, it is God", you can't argue with him, he is firmly part of the tradition, and bound by his ( cultural) conditioning. But with those who say, "All right, I am enquiring, going into it," then one has a ( possibility of ?) communication with them, which is ( in pointing out ?) to see that the observer is the observed and so to end conflict. The ending of ( this duality created ?) conflict means freedom. In that freedom is intelligence, it is intelligence which sees that. And that intelligence is part of this freedom, isn't it?

So to have this silent mind is necessary to find out if there is (within us ?) anything totally uncontaminated by thought. All the ( organised ?) religions have said "there is", and the priests all over the world have said, "We are the interpreters of that", and that is their market value and so on. So if you discard all that (as redundant ?) then your mind is completely still. Is it still now? If it is not, then find out why it is not quiet, spend some ( quality ?) time and energy, not 'how to make it still', but to find out why it isn't still : because you are attached to your ($$$ ?) shoes, and to what you are going to do tomorrow, or have for dinner - chattering, chattering, chattering. Now the chattering is part of the ( self-centred activity of ?) thought. The entity who says, "I am different" is actually the "chatterer". Now if you see that, actually see it, then it is finished. Then there is no conflict not to chatter. Unless you come to that point, which is, to be free and therefore the operation of intelligence going with it, then only you have a quiet, healthy, sane mind. And in that quietness you will find out if there is "something" really sacred , or nothing at all

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Aug 2016 #372
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE BROCKWOOD 1976 (reader friendly condensed)
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE OBSERVER "IS" THE OBSERVED ?

K: I would suggest, if I may, that we concern ourselves with the actual transformation of our own consciousness, how to do it, how is it possible to go into it very, very deeply, in detail. Could we take the "transformation of a human consciousness, which is (not separated from ?) the consciousness of the world". I hope you understand that the consciousness of each human being is ( containing ?) in essence the totality of human experience, knowledge, misery, confusion, of which we are (an interactive part ?) , each one of us. So if we can be deeply involved and committed seriously to this question: is it possible to bring about a deep fundamental change in the psyche? Could we stick to that or do you want to talk about something else? You are perfectly welcome to talk about anything you want.

Q: There is a lot of false morality, false assumptions, what it is to be moral, and when we wipe away all the false morality and there is true morality what is its place, and what is its relationship to truth?

Q: Could you go into the structure of thought?

Q: You have explained how the 'thinker' and the 'thought' are not separate and have said that when we accept this, a different creative process comes into being without a sense of ( the all-controlling ?) 'I'. Can we know more of this ( inwardly integrating ?) process and what happens (after ?) ?

K: So, as all these questions are concerned with the actual ( qualitative ?) transformation of our consciousness, which of these would you like to take as one question and go into it completely to its very end, deeply ?

Q: The last question.

K: I think it is a good question, may we take that up? The questioner asks, when we realize, not verbally, actually (the inner truth ?) that the observer "is" the observed, the thinker is the thought, and the analyser is the analysed, then what comes into being when there is no (inner) conflict whatsoever?

First of all let's take the fact that most of us have this sense of constant inward battle, with its outward expression in violence, in hate, in deep antagonism. Right? So where there is this division in oneself there must be deep rooted conflict. That's a ( psychological ?) law, and this inward conflict must invariably express outwardly - outwardly in relationship with each other, outwardly in violence, in wanting to hurt people, in wanting to defend oneself against somebody, 'we' and 'they', and all the rest of it. Now when you hear that, is it ( seen as ?) an idea, or is it (seen as ?) a fact? Do you ( conveniently ?) translate what you hear into an idea and then accept (or refute ?) the idea, or do you actually see your own conflict and the result of that conflict?

Q: Sir, speaking for myselfd, I can only realize it "intellectually".

K: That is exactly what I am trying to point out. Our (cultural) conditioning is to translate whatever we hear into an idea, into a concept, into a formula, which prevents us from actually seeing 'what is'. This is very important (to realise) because throughout the world we translate the 'facts' into (intellectual) 'ideas' and ( cleverly ?) avoid facing the facts.
So, now when you hear that (challenging statement that ?) you are in (living in a state of psychological ) conflict, and the ( visible ?) outward result is violence, brutality and all the rest of it - is that a fact, or is it a ( convenient intellectual ?) conclusion ? If we can face the fact, then we are dealing (experientially ?) with facts, not (intellectually juggling ?) with ideas.
Now if you really see for yourself that being in conflict in oneself you are bound to create conflict outwardly - bound to !- then (let us examine ?) what has brought about this conflict inwardly.
There are several ( ideological ?) factors involved in this. There is a whole group of people who say, change the environment, change the social structure and that will change man. This is (basically a ?) 'materialistic' theory: change the environment, the social structures through legislation, through parliament, through careful analysis and that will change ( the social behaviour of ?) man. Then he will be be kind, he will not (create further ?) conflicts, he will (eventually ?) become a beautiful human being. And they have tried this umpteen times in different ways, but they have (obviously ?) not succeeded in making man different; (on the other hand ?) the whole Christian world has proned the change of man into something else, as did the Hindus and so on, but the actual fact is we, the human beings, are living inwardly in conflict and out of that psychological conflict, he 'must' produce outward conflict.

(In a nutshell ?) if there is conflict inwardly there must be conflict outwardly. Now if a man is concerned seriously with the ending of conflict both outwardly and inwardly, we must find out why this (inner) conflict exists, why is there this ( wide spread ?) contradiction in human beings: say one thing, do another, think one thing and act another - you follow - why do human beings have this ( dualistic mentality ?) in themselves?
(a) One of the reasons is having ideals. The ideal which is the opposite of "what actually is", projected (into the future ) by thought so there is an (ongoing) contradiction between 'what is' and 'what should be'. That is one of the factors of this conflict.
(b) The other factor is that we do not know what to do (now ?) with 'what is', how to deal with it, therefore we use ( post-facto ?) conclusions hoping thereby to alter 'what is'.

And (c) also inwardly there are in us ( a lot of ?) contradictory desires - I want one thing and I don't want another. I want to be peaceful and yet there is violence in me.

Q: I think these things are products, not the actual causes.

K: All right. If you say, these are the results, the symptoms, not the cause, what then is "the" cause? What is the fundamental cause of this (inner) conflict of man ?

Q: Is it the lack of security?

K: One of the suggestions is, the lack of security. Look at it, please. You said one of the (basic) reasons of this conflict is that there is no security for us, deeply. That may be one of the basic reasons of conflict, the lack of security, both psychologically as well as biologically, physically as well as inwardly. ? Now what do you mean by 'security'? ( Being assured of having ?) food, clothes and (a decent ?) shelter. If that is not given to us then there is conflict - because you have it and I haven't got it. That is one reason (aspect) . The other is that 'psychologically' one wants to (feel) secure inwardly. In my relationship, in my belief, in my faith, in all my action - you follow? - I want to be completely secure. Now is that possible?

Q: Yes.

K: Careful now. I want to be secure with my wife, or with my girl friend . Why?

Q: Because without her I am ( feeling lonely and ?) lost.

K: So what does that mean?

Q: I am alone.

K: You are afraid to be alone. So I am using the other person , the woman or the man, as a means to find my ( psychological ) anchorage in that and I am geting frightened if that anchorage is loosened. Right? Why? Penetrate a bit more deeply.

Q: When I am with somebody I feel I have something, and when I am without this person, I feel like 'being nothing'. And I don't like to feel nothing because it just scares me.

K: Which means what, sir?

Q: Insecurity.

K: You say, I am frightened of being insecure, so you ( subliminally ?) exploit another to be secure, which you call 'love'. Please remain with this fact, put your teeth into it to find out. If you can find this out, you will find a great many things. So I want security out of you, and so I depend on you. Right? I am attached to you because I need to be secure, the brain demands it. And if anything happens in my relationship to you I get uncertain, I get frightened, I get jealous. Doesn't this happen to all of you?
So I am frightened to be alone - what is behind that fear? Is it that I am frightened to face myself ? I don't know what I am, therefore I think I know what you are therefore I depend on you because I don't know what I am, myself.

Q: Sir, I can see that somehow I have separated 'myself' from myself but apart from that I can't see why there is conflict.

K: Look, I don't know myself, all my ( psychological ?) structure, all my nature, my hurts, my ambitions, my greeds, my arrogance, and violence, all that. All that is "me". And I have not examined all that or I have not 'gone into myself' very, very deeply. So I want security in spite of all that in something - in furniture, in a house, in a belief, in a faith, in a wife or a husband. I want security. This seems so simple. Do you all want security?

Q: Is there any evidence that such security doesn't exist?

K: This is the structure of ( our self-centred ?) thought: that we want security because we ( subconsciously may ?) know very well there is no security. You understand, an earthquake can take place tomorrow we will all be wiped out. Or anything can happen. There is no such thing as ( a permanent temporal ?) security, ( inwardly or ?) 'psychologically'. If ( and when ?) we ( would) realize that very deeply then we will not be in conflict. But (if ) we don't realize it, we ( obsessively ?) want security in something or in somebody else - in having a house, money, position, prestige. And the other says, my security is in my faith - there is ( a sense of ?) security in ( even in) neuroticism.
So man is seeking all the time ( the continuity of his temporal ?) security, and we never realize there is no such thing. Right?

Q: It doesn't seem possible to be secure, but if this is causing disagreement then we ought to stop there.

K: First, can we see, observe, that there is no security at all psychologically, therefore no ( point in creating any 'psychological' ?) attachment? What are you (actually ?) attached to when you are attached to a human being? You are attached to the "image" that you have created about that human being, not to the person but to the image that you have about her or him. Please this is so obvious.

Q: Biologically it seems I need security.

K: Biologically I need security. I need food, I need clothes, I need shelter, but that is made impossible (for all of us) by my desire to be secure inwardly. Millions of people haven't got food, clothes. Why is it?

Q: When we have got nothing we change our minds.

K: That is just what I am saying, sir. So let's proceed. Do we see as an actuality, that there is no ( no permanent ?) 'psychological' security? Or are you frightened of ( contemplating the consequences of ?) this enormous (inner) fact? Do you see it?

Q: No.

K: That's just it, why don't you? When we come to the point that there is no 'psychological' security, then our whole (inner) activity changes. Why don't you see it as a reality? Is it part of our ( safety based ?) conditioning, part of fear - I have invested all my hopes and I suddenly realize there is no such thing as security. You know what it means? That's ( the other side of psychological ?) freedom. And we would rather know (and enjoy the domestic comforts of ?) a state of (psychological ) 'slavery' than the state of freedom.

So, I do not 'see' that there is no ( long lasting 'psychological' ?) security. I ( invest this temporal ?) security in another because it gives me comfort, it gives me a sense of being together, then I am not (feeling ?) lonely. For all these reasons I "cling" to you. And I call this whole process "love".
I am not being cynical, please. And that's ( the root of ?) our (inner) conflict: not realising deeply, inwardly ( the truth of ?) these facts, and holding on to "non-facts". Right? That's our ( 'existential' ?) problem: seeing something as being true and holding on to something which is not true.

Now ( action -wise ?) how do you bring about the cessation of this division between 'this' and 'that'? That is, I observe very clearly that I need security because I am so deeply uncertain in myself, I am so lonely, I am so lost, confused, and I cling to you. That's one fact. The other fact is you have heard somebody say, "There is no such thing as security, my friend", and also you say, "By Jove, that is so !", deeply, inwardly you ( kind of ?) 'know' it is so. So there are these two 'facts'. How will you bridge these two?

Q: I must look at my fear.

K: Right sir. We have come to that point now. You see that human beings are frightened (of the 'unknown' ?) . How are you becoming aware of that fear?

Q: Sir, when 'I' try to observe my fear, I can't observe it.

K: I am going to go into that, sir, follow it . How do you observe this ( fear ?) ? Do you observe it as something outside of you, or ( as being ) part of you? You understand the difference? If it is "outside of you" then you have to do something about it. Conquer it, explain it, analyse it and so on, which is all ( creating more ?) conflict, isn't it? But if there is no division, you "are" that, aren't you? (In a nutshell ?) I am asking you, how do you look at yourself? We have described what you are - fear, jealousy, vanity, arrogance, a ( self-conscious ?) bundle of God knows what. And you say, right, how do you look at this bundle? You "are" that bundle, aren't you? You are not different from that bundle, are you? We don't (like to ?) see that my anger, my arrogance, my vanity are (an integral partof ?) me - I like to think it is something outside of ( the real ? ) 'me' .
Now, when you see that all those (safety based) bundles "are" you, that is, the observer "is" (gettingg totally immersed in ?) the observed, what happens when this actually takes place?

Q: You have a good laugh.

K: Have a good laugh, then what? Sir, do let's be serious, this is not a joke.

Q: Then there is action.

K: If this a fact to you, then all ( inner ?) 'action' stops with regard to yourself - if you don't waste your (inner ?) energy in disciplining, in suppressing, what happens to all that energy? It is all ( being gathered ?) there now, isn't it? Instead of wasting it you have got it.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: ( Grand Recap:) (1) I started out by realizing that the inward conflict ( inevitably ?) expresses itself outwardly. That's a fact: as long as there is ( this dualistic ?) conflict in me I will have conflict with my wife, with my friends, with everything in life. I realize it, it is a fact. Then (2) I say, why does this conflict exist. Because there is an ongoing (inner) contradiction between my wanting ( psychological ?) security and not finding it . That's one factor. And another (subliminal ?) factor is that I am afraid to be left alone, to be lonely, therefore I escape (from it outwardly ?) through ( getting attached to ?) you, through pictures, through worship, through every form of entertainment, whether it is religious or otherwise. I escape.
So I see why this ( ongoing inner ?) conflict exists: the fear of being completely alone. (3) Now, how do I observe that fear? Is that fear out there and I am looking at it; or the fear 'is' part of me, of my (self-centred way of ?) thinking ?
(4) So, ( action-wise ?) what can I do about it ? Our ( biological and cultural) conditioning is to act on something which we see outwardly, which (in this case ) is ( my) fear. So I say, how do I look at it (non-dualistically ?) ? I look at it as part of me, it is 'me' who is afraid - me, my psyche. Can I look at it, can I observe it? I can only observe it if I have an (inwardly objective ?) "mirror". You understand? As I can observe my face in the mirror, so I can observe myself in my relationship with another: this is the ( magic ?) "mirror" in which I can see my fear (or not ?) .
So if I am ( the causative ?) part of that fear therefore I am going to just observe it, therefore ( 5) the (qualitative ?) factor is becoming really important, which is : the (inner) clarity of observation. That clarity is prevented when all ( the knowledge of ?) my "past", prevents me from looking. You understand? The "observer" is the ( psychological vector of this ?) past - his ( active) memories, his hopes, his fears. So as long as the "observer" is observing ( his ever eluding ?) fears, he will not go beyond fear, but when the observer "is" (not separating itself from ?) the (fear) observed then all that energy which you have previously wasted in struggle, in suppression, in anxiety and all that, is now collected: a tremendous energy which is not being wasted. (6) When there is ( the inward integration of ?) that tremendous energy is there fear? It is only when there is the ( dualistic) dissipation of ( our total ?) energy there is (psychological insecurity and ?) fear.
Then (7) out of that what comes next ? Then there is the total freedom to observe, and silence. ( Non-dualistic ?) observation means silence, doesn't it?

(In a nutshell ?) I must first become aware of my ( cultural ?) prejudices, put them away and then be free of them and 'look'. But you don't want to do all that, you want to reach instant Heaven! Which is ( the sales pitch of ?) Transcendental Meditation.

Q: I find it impossible, when I try to look at my...

K: Wait sir, look: At the moment when you feel (really ?) angry, "you" (the mental entity in control ?) are not aware that you are angry. Then, later on, comes the ( second wind ?) thought, "I have been angry" - the mental re-cognition that "I have been angry". Now how does that 're-cognition' take place? Because you (remember?) having been angry before. So then (your) past ( experience ?) is dictating what you should do. Now ( for a change ?) can you stop that ( interfering ?) movement of that past and not name it as 'anger' ?

Q: But one ( instantly ?) identifies with it.

K: Why does this identification with a feeling take place?

Q: Because that reaction of anger is felt as 'mine'.

K: Yes. And also it is 'my' house, it is 'my' name, 'my (physical) form, 'my' country, 'my' God - you follow - it is ( subliminal ?) part of all our tradition, culture, which says, 'me', 'mine'. So all the past comes over and takes charge (personally ?) . Now we are asking (in the context of a 'meditator-free' meditation ?) , are you aware of this movement of the past taking charge of things? Are you aware of it as an actuality ? Which means that you live in the ( shadow of your cultural ?) past ... you are (psychologically ?) "dead".

Q: But when you try to observe that anger, there seems to be nothing to observe.

K: That's all. It is gone (or... it hides backstage ?) . Don't be anxious about it, it is gone (for the time being ?) .

Q: But then, haven't you also said that one should "see the totality" ?

K: That's what I said, "to see the totality"
Say for instance (seeing ?) the totality of "hurt". Human beings are hurt ( starting ?) from childhood, school, the whole business of ( a brutal ?) existence. You are ( psychologically ?) hurt, because you have a (self-protective mental ?) "image" about yourself which is ( getting ?) hurt. If you see that as an actuality, that the very essence of you is hurt, then what will you 'do' about it? Can the ( sub-conscious memories of your ?) past hurts be wiped away so that you can never be hurt ?
'You' who are hurt, what is this 'you'? The (self-protective ?) "image" you have ( mentally created ?) about yourself, or thinking that there is a 'spiritual something' inside you which is above all this - which is again a process of ( our self-centred ?) thought. Right?
So ( basically ?) the ( self-identified ?) process of thought is hurt. So, if you want to be free of all hurts what will you do ? Is it possible to end this ( very process of ?) being hurt? Do you want to find out?

Q: Yes.

K: All right, sir, I'll tell you. But ( for homework you ?) 'do it'. You understand, not just live with words and ideas, but do it, because then you are free, you blossom in goodness, you flower in goodness then.

I am going to go ( quickly ?) into it: do you actually realize that you are hurt? And see the results of being hurt - (a) you want to hurt others, or (b) become more and more inwardly separate. So if you really, deeply realize that you are hurt, not only at the conscious level but deep down, then what will you do?
( A brief recap:) how does this "hurt" take place? Because you have ( created) a( self-protective ?) image about yourself. So as long as I have ( identified myself with this ?) "image ", that "image" is going to be hurt. Now (action-wise ?) is it possible to live without ( getting identified to ?) a single image? Which means no ( personal ?) "conclusions", no ( cultural) "prejudices" - you follow ? Then, at that moment when you are saying something that is (intended to be ?) hurtful, I give "total attention" to what you are saying, then there is no ( 'personal image'-related ?) registration is taking place. You understand this? It is only when there is inattention the ( subliminal ?) registration of a hurt or a flattery takes place.
Now when somebody says "you are a fool", can you at that moment give your total attention? If you do then there is no ( 'personal' ?) hurt. The past hurts have gone ( busted ?) in that attention. Attention is (acting ?) like a (healing ?) flame that burns out the past and the present 'hurts'. Have you got this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Aug 2016 #373
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K PUBLIC DIALOGUE, BROCKWOOD 1976 (reader friendly condensed )
AN EXPERIENTIAL APPROACH TO THE AWAKENING OF INTELLIGENCE

K: What shall we talk over this morning?

Q: When we do not waste our energy through the conflict of thought, through opposing desires and self-contradiction, how is that energy utilized? How does one live with that energy in daily life?
Q: When fear is so great one is paralysed, or there is a lack of capacity and one loses observation.
Q: Why do we find it so difficult to listen - the art of listening, and observing?
Q: Could we discuss the problem of sleep and dreaming?
Q: How are the minority groups in this country, or in various parts of the world, to survive, and what do you say about it?
Q: What is enlightenment, and what does it mean to you?
Q: What do you mean by communion? What is the relationship between communication and communion?

K: That's enough, please. Could we take that first question? Which was: when one understands the nature and the structure of thought, and the things that thought has put together in this world as racial minority, as colour difference, national division and so on, when thought recognizes its limitation and remains within that limitation and so there is freedom from thought, then what takes place? And what is the action of that in our daily life? Shall we deal with that question, perhaps we will include all the other questions in it? Can we go on with that question?

I wonder if one realizes, for oneself, how (our self-centred ?) thinking is very limited - in the sense that it is the ( mechanical ?) response of (our past )knowledge, experience and memory, therefore it is time-binding, and therefore limited? Do we see that? Thought is a fragment(-ary activity of the human brain ?). Shall we go into that first?
Can ( the ego-centric thinking ?) thought perceive the "whole" of human existence, both the conscious as well as the unconscious, the various divisions which it has brought about, the various divisions in religion, in political thought and so on and on. So thought is a (dominant ?) fragment because it is based on (our past ?) knowledge, and knowledge is experience stored up as memory in the brain. I think most of us would accept this, that ( the self-centred process of ?) thought, whatever it does, its action, its capacity, its inventions, are still limited, divisive. I think this is fairly obvious for those who (would) 'think' (objectively ?) about it.
The next question is: do we see that as a reality - in the sense, what actually ' is' - do we see the reality of ( this self-centred ?) thought which has created the divisions between human beings ? that's a reality.
Thought has not created nature, the trees, the mountains, the river. But thought has created the ''reality in which we live (inwardly ?) - jealousies, anxieties, fears, pleasures. So when you realize it, have an insight into it, into this ( pretty sad ?) 'reality', what takes place? .
What actually takes place when you 'realize' (see the truth of ?) something? Suppose I realize that I'm being bitten by a snake. It's a fact. So what has taken place then? ( You) experience the pain, the suffering, and so ( if one is still alive ?) intelligence arises and says, "Be careful of that snake". ( One's natural ?) intelligence arises, doesn't it?
( Now inwardly ?) the "awakening of Intelligence" is (coming with ?) the realization that thought, whatever it has created, is a 'reality' . So the having an insight into (the limitations of this ?) 'reality', is the awakening of intelligence. You get it? You see the (inner ?) limitation of thought.

So what is the relationship between 'reality', 'intelligence' and 'truth'?
Thought must function sanely, rationally, in the world of ( practical ?) knowledge, which is ( including the fast moving reality of ?) the technological world. But when that ( same capacity of outwardly efficient ?) thought operates in (the context of human ?) relationships, creating 'images' about yourself and about another, thought is creating disorder. And when thought operates in the field of knowledge it is ( prettty much ?) orderly.
So do we realize, have an insight into the ( fragmentary ?) operation of the whole movement of thought - its nature, its structure, its activity, both at the conscious level as well as at the deeper level, the whole movement of thought? Which is part of (an authentic process of ?) meditation - the awareness of this movement of thought, and seeing its limitation. Can we move from there?

Q: Sir, I think we can't go further until we see very clearly how an insightful perception can take place of the whole movement of thought.

K: How do you see the 'whole movement of thought'? How do you see the 'totality of yourself' - the dreams, the division between the 'conscious' and the 'unconscious', the innumerable prejudices, fears, anxieties, grief, sorrow, affection, jealousy, antagonism, do you see the totality of all that, not each fragment? ( Or the same question put 'negatively' ?) what prevents us from seeing the whole movement of this - my attachments, my prejudices, my beliefs, my experience, my desires, contradictory conflict, misery, confusion, you follow, the whole of that. Our life is 'fragmented' ('compartmentalised' and 'specialised' ?) - I go to the office, ( with my personal ) ambitions, and all the rest, then I come home I am ( acting as ?) a different person there, and (on Sundays ?) I go to church - I am a different person there, and so on. (So, consciousness-wise ?) I am 'fragmented', 'broken up'. And so our actions are also broken up, and therefore contradictory, and therefore each action brings its own (incertitude ?) , its own regrets, its own confusion. So to end all that I must 'see the totality' of it. Right? The totality of my ( inner & outer ?) life - my actions, my desires, my relationship, my longings, my fears, all the rest of it. Now what prevents it?

Q: Is it thought? When I look at my jealousy, I think the two things are different.

K: Yes, that's one point. That is, the 'observer' is ( considering itself as an entity apart from ?) the 'observed', which we went into.

Q: Then is it (some subliminal form of ?) fear ?

K: Yes sir. Fear. Does this fear ( that everything will get out of control ?) prevent you from seeing the totality of life, of your life?

Q: When I have gathered all my energy (together ?) then I see the totality.

K: Haven't you ( potentially ?) got the energy? You have taken the trouble, money, ( to attend these talks ?) and also you have got plenty of energy when you want to do something. So, what prevents you from seeing the total existence of your life, of your daily life?

Q: Maybe we don't (really ?) want to see the totality (of what we are ?) .

K: Is it that you don't want to see the totality of it, or is it that there is no ( inwardly integrated ?) capacity to see it?
( So, to recap:) Is it fear? Is it that you don't want to see it? Is it the ( routine of comfortable ?) habits, your ( British ?) tradition, your conditioning? You are still using (the same self-centred ?) thought in trying to see the whole, therefore you don't actually realize that thought is a fragment.
So do we realize that thought ( as the fragmentary response of past knowledge and experience ?) cannot 'see the whole'?

Q: I think I see the truth of what you are saying.

K: If you 'see the truth', it is the whole. Would you kindly look at it for a minute ? I am asking you, what prevents a human being, like yourself, from seeing the total movement of your (self-centred ?) activities which bring sorrow, pain, the whole of it, at one glance?

Q: I am confused in myself.

K: So you are saying: I am confused therefore I cannot possible see the totality.

Q: Not unless my mind is quiet.

K: Yes, that's right, the same thing. To (be able to clearly ?) observe something my mind must be quiet. So your mind is not quiet and therefore you are not observing. Then the question arises, how do you make the mind quiet?

Q: We are being ( inwardly ?) lazy instead of doing something about it.

K: May I put a question differently? Are you aware that you are conditioned ( psychologically )? Your language condition yous, your education conditions you, culture conditions you, the environment conditions you, the propaganda of two thousand years, or five thousand years, our priests have conditioned you. So you are conditioned 'right through'. Do we realize that this is a "fact": our 'total' conditioning? When you realize (the inner truth of ?) it what takes place? And if you say "I must uncondition it", that 'I' is part of your conditioning. So when there is the realization totally that I am ( psychologically ?) conditioned, then what "movement" takes place?
When I say, "Yes, I am conditioned, it is terrible, and I definitely must do something to 'uncondition' myself"? Then (begins a still deeper inner conflict ?) the 'I' thinks it is separate but it is part of that conditioning. So what takes place when you see (the truth of ?) that?

Q: No movement ?

K: That means what? ( The inwardly dualistic ?) action ceases, doesn't it? I go to the office work in the garden, or as a teacher or do something, but the ( dualistical ?) action to 'change my conditioning' is not there.
What happens when I realize totally this state? I cease to act in that state, don't I, there is no action. I am (psychologically speaking ?) a total prisoner (of my past conditioning ?) . I don't rebel against it, because if I rebel I am rebelling against my own conditioning, which has been put together by ( the self-centred ?) thought, which is me. I wonder if you see all this. So in that area of (inner) conditioning there is ( a meditative interval of ?) "no action".
Therefore what takes place?

Q: You get tired (and/or fall asleep ?)

K: Yes, sir, you are "tired of the whole thing". So you take a (break ?) from it, you go and lie down, sit quietly. So then only when the mind is quiet (and at peace with itself ?) you 'see the totality' of your life. You understand what I am saying? So the mind remains ( contemplatively ?) with the totality of its conditioning, it remains, it doesn't 'move'.

So then one sees ( the truth that ?) thought caught in the movement of time is limited. That's obvious. Whatever it is, whether it is a machine, anything that is caught (engaged ?) in the movement of time is bound to be ( spatio-temporally ?) limited. So thought is fragmentary and ( materialistically ?) limited.
( Recap:) If I can't see (inwardly ?) through my ( optical ?) eyes I become quiet. So thought (in its totality ?) becomes quiet. Then one can perceive the total movement of what actually is going on, the totality of it. As we said the other day, when you look at a map you see the totality of the whole map, various countries, the colours, the hills, you see the totality. But if you have a direction you don't see the totality. That is, if you want to go from here to Vienna you follow that line and you disregard the rest. But (in-) here as long as you have a direction, a motive, a purpose, you cannot see the totality. Are we meeting each other now?
So have you had a (personal ?) 'motive' for coming here ? I want to understand myself because I am terribly worried about ( the relationship with ?) my husband, and I hope by coming here I am going to ( see how to ?) solve it. Or I have lost my wife, or my father, or my son, but ( hope that) I am going to find out what it means to ( go beyond my ?) suffering, so I have a motive.. Or, I have read all the books that (K) has written and I can ( eloquently ?) repeat all of it, and obviously that also prevents one listening.
So ( in a nutshell ?) as long as I have a ( personal ?) "motive" I cannot listen properly. (And also) one cannot 'see the totality' of one's life because we have never given a serious look at this totality because we are caught in ( the safe comfort of ?) our little fragments. Right?
It is possible to see it wholly only when you have no direction, no motive, which is extremely difficult (in the modern world ?) because we want to be (ASAP ?) happy, rich, and want to have our pleasures (ASAP) fulfilled.

Now, what happens when you see actually the totallty of your existence as you see it in a map, when everything clear, everything in its place, orderly? The word 'art' also means 'putting everything in its right place', so having put everything in its right place (in your own life ?) , then what takes place?

Q: One lives in peace (with oneself ) ?

K: Do we? Have we put our inner house in order ? Out of the investigation of (the ongoing) disorder, order comes, through ( its very ?) negation comes order. So, if there is one thing which I completely see - for example, "attachment", what is involved in it, jealousy, fear, pleasure, clinging to each other, possessiveness - all that is implied in attachment - which is ( only ) one of the causes of my (inner ?) confusion. So can I instantly be free of it?
Freedom from attachment also means tremendous responsibility.
(Eg:) Look, we have built this place, Brockwood, for the last seven years. We have worked at it, several of us. Plenty of (donated £££ and ? ) energy and work, ( thoughtful ?) thinking to create this thing. But...if we are ( getting) attached to that thing then we are creating ( a lot of ?) confusion. The 'speaker' is not attached, completely: I can leave tomorrow. And I mean it, I have done it - not to Brockwood but other places. But being 'detached' means great consideration, great responsibility to see this operates properly.
(Because ?) when there is freedom from ( personal ?) attachment there is "love" ( along with compassion and intelligence ?) . That means responsibility, so that means order. So can you - realizing one of the factors of confusion in our own life is our attachment to ideas, to beliefs, to ideals, all that - can one be free of that ( addiction to ?) attachment - not tomorrow, but now? Can you break it ?

Q: The problem is when you say, "can you break it", who breaks it?

K: Can there be an ending to (one's ) attachment? Let's put it that way if you prefer it. When you see the whole 'movement of attachment' - jealousy, anxiety, hatred, division, possessiveness, domination, you follow, all that is implied in that word attachment - to 'see the whole of it' is ( an act of ?) intelligence, isn't it? So Intelligence says, "Be free of it", not "I must be free of it". So intelligence then tells what is the 'right' action, wherever you are. Whatever your life is, whether in the office, or at home, or anywhere, if there is this intelligence at work then there is no ( psycho-personal ?) problem, because this intelligence is supreme order, which has come because you have looked into disorder in your life. Out of that investigation into disorder, which is, one of the factors is attachment, in the observation of that disorder the awakening of intelligence comes.
( A quality of timeless ?) intelligence is awakened. And this intelligence is not yours or mine, it is this this marvellous ( universally open ?) intelligence, which is also love. You understand?

Q: Sir, this will take some time because...

K: Sir, when you say 'it is difficult' you have already made it ( impossibly ?) difficult. But if you say "I really don't know", then you are free to look. You understand - you have already come to it with a conclusion. And this 'conclusion' is the ( mental) bondage, the ( psychological block ?) which prevents you from actually seeing instantly.
( To recap:) When we are (inwardly ?) confused, to seek the light out of confusion is to further the confusion. So first is it possible to clear this confusion in myself? It is possible when there is freedom from these two (attachment and image making) there is clarity, absolute, complete clarity, therefore out of understanding what is disorder comes order. But to seek order when I am (still being ?) confused will lead to further confusion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Aug 2016 #374
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Raica wrote:
Thought has not created nature, the trees, the mountains, the river. But thought has created the ''reality in which we live

salut john comment vas tu?

ici est un point très important dans la lecture et la compréhension des propos tenus par K.

cette citation ici apporte une une confusion très prégnante et présente chez les lecteurs de K. dans de nombreux ouvrages, conférences etc...

il faut que les choses soient bien claires, car c'est un fait que la pensée ne créé pas (elle ne perçoit pas etc...) elle n'est pas autonome, c'est le cerveau qui sollicite la mémoire et se sert de la pensée qui est alors expulsée et ensuite le cerveau élabore (puis perçoit l'élaboration etc...).

donc dans cette phrase par exemple,


But thought has created the ''reality in which we live"

il faut comprendre que le cerveau avec tout son arsenal d'outils, créé avec la pensée, une réalité dans laquelle nous vivons.

ça peut paraître minime comme précision mais beaucoup de choses en découlent...

à plus ;-)

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Aug 2016 #375
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K: Yes sir. Fear. Does this fear ( that everything will get out of control ?) prevent you from seeing the totality of life, of your life?

Hi John, All,

One comes to this in 'meditation'...it feels as if there is a line here that 'might' be very dangerous to cross. One does not 'know' what is on the other side of it, what devils await there. The 'fear'/thought says "you could go insane, mad etc., how do you 'know' what will happen?", etc., etc. "Better to stay in a 'safe'"slavery" than to risk losing 'control'" etc....There are also a lot of 'images' that can (and do!) make their appearance here: the 'dragon' at the gate, the devils looking for a fat (naive?) soul to devour. It is a moment of feeling very much 'alone'. There is a whole other 'understanding' of how important/critical this idea of 'security'/ 'control' (false or not), is to oneself. (And how 'attached' one is to it.)

'Resistance' to those thoughts and images IS the 'fear'. Not seeing that one is that fear and not 'me' apart looking at it, IS the fear. That 'divide' between 'myself' and the images appearing is the non-realization that 'I' am those images, there is no division etc. "Thought is fear"

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 09 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Aug 2016 #376
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Raica wrote:
Quant a la vraie 'verité' dans tout cela, le cerveau de l''homme sensoriel moyen' ne s'en soucie meme pas, car ce qui compte c'est son sentiment intime de se sentir en securité

salut john,

tout à fait... mais il n'y parvient pas.

John Raica wrote:
Quand a cette apparente 'ellipticité' ( voir meme une certaine banalisation ?) du language utilise par K dans ses conferences publiques, c'etait probablement un choix instinctif et spontané; pour parler a des grandes audiences...

tout à fait john, je suis d'accord, le soucis c'est que les audiences sont beaucoup plus grandes et à domicile, les livres, les vidéos et l'écoute se fait au pied de la lettre.. la mémorisation des propos et l'élaboration se font sur des mots....

John Raica wrote:
J'essaye dans ces re-edition condensés de ses textes d'eviter tous ces 'lieux communs' - qui font souvent le bonheur des 'connaisseurs' mais qui peuvent serieusement destabiliser les authentiques chercheurs de la verité

je crois que je vois ce que tu veux dire john ;-)

à bientôt

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Aug 2016 #377
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

A K "DIALOGUE ON EDUCATION", OJAI 1975

K: We are going to talk over together this morning the question of education. I wonder why we go to schools, colleges and universities, what does it mean to be 'educated'. Is it merely to cultivate one part of the brain acquiring knowledge and therefore using that knowledge skilfully? That is what most of us are educated for, we are 'conditioned' (mentally formatted ?) for that. The wider (inner) entity of man is totally disregarded. And is it possible to "educate" the whole of man, including his brain, that is, having the capacity to think clearly, objectively, and act efficiently, non-personally, but also (being able to ?) enter into a field which is generally called 'spiritual'?

Because when you are acting in the field of the "known" all the time you are then acting according to the past patterns then the brain must become very conditioned, it has not the flexibility. And one can see the destructive nature of always operating (exclusively ?) within the field of ( our past ) knowledge. And our schools, colleges and universities ( are trying their best to ?) condition our mind to that. And seeing that, seeing the fact of that, what can we do?

Q: Do you think you can teach anybody to attain that (unconditioned ?) state if they don't want it?

K: Why don't "you" want it?

Q: Or even if they do want it ? We come here year after year to hear the talks, we want it, but we don't learn (too much ? )

K: You want it ? Then what do you 'do' about it? We want a new kind of education where the whole of man is concerned, the totality of man'(s consciousness ?) . There is no such education, no university, no school, no college offers that. So what shall we do?

Q: Mr Krishnamurti, you asked 'what can we do ?' . One thing we can do is to question within, we can question the authority of these ( 'standardised' ?) teachers, we can question why we are doing what we are doing and find out (the truth ?) for ourselves through ourselves in relationship by asking questions. That's how we 'can do it'.

K: Not only that, sir, if you had a son or a daughter and are deeply concerned, as you must be concerned, what will you do?

Q: In talking about education we need a 'structure' for how to be free. I don't understand how that can be done with a method or a structure.

K: You want a method ?

Q: I don't want a method, but I want to understand how it can be done without one.

K: We are going to find out, sir. (For starters ?) we can look into the problem before we ask what to do. If we can (see the totality of it ?) , then the problem itself will answer, we will find the way out of it. But without looking at all that we say, give us a method. And the ( following of a ?) 'method' is part of this deterioration.

Q: My children are growing, we haven't got time.

K: Yes, sir, children are growing but we have an hour (to spare ?) here. We can during that hour go into this question, to see the depth of this question.

Q: I experience the problem as a dichotomy. At the very moment when I am guiding the students towards searching themselves I find this dichotomy of (also ) needing to disseminate knowledge. To achieve the confluence of those two is what I am searching for. How does one do that?

K: The 'dichotomy' is ( due to ?) a division between knowledge and freedom from knowledge. As we talked about it the other day, the (root) meaning of the word 'art' means 'to put everything in its right place'. Now, to ( 'art'-fully ?) learn about the right place of knowledge and to learn (about the inner ?) freedom from it, then there is no dichotomy, there is no division. I wonder if I am making myself clear.

The word 'school' means a place where you are learning. Now here is a ( new kind of ?) school and we are learning, I am learning and you are learning. We are trying to learn (together ) whether man can be free (inwardly ?) totally and yet live with the (practical aspects of ) knowledge which doesn't condition us, which doesn't shape our minds and our hearts.

Q: Is not a real education only known from within oneself?

K: Are you saying, sir, you must have knowledge about yourself and not merely the knowledge outwardly?

Q: What good is knowledge about 'temporal' things, temporary things, the outside, if it is not going to carry you through after you are dead. In other words, are we only mortal beings and are we living on the earth only as mortal beings? Or can a person know other than that?

K: Sir, to have knowledge other than temporal knowledge you must understand the right place of temporal knowledge first, because that is what we have (to deal with) first. Then putting that (temporal) knowledge in its right place we can then proceed to enquire if there is a knowledge that is far superior, or there is no 'knowledge' at all except temporal knowledge. On Saturday we are going to talk about death, suffering and all that, then you can bring up this question, what is the point of having (acquired lots of ?) temporal knowledge if you are going to die pretty quickly.

So, for now let's confine ourselves to this (academical ?) question: as one observes in the world, ( the mechanical acquisition of ?) knowledge has conditioned the human mind to (follow) certain (standardised ?) patterns according to which you act (as required ?) . And where there is the cultivation of a particular segment of human life disregarding the rest it must inevitably bring about (a certain degree of ?) human degeneration. So we are asking, is it possible to (holistically ?) educate the human beings, to nurture the whole outward and inward totality of man? That is what is, for me, right education.
Is it possible (in the first place ?) to educate ourselves 'totally', both inwardly as well as outwardly?

Q: It seems to me that this might have to be done on a 'research basis' because you are saying we have to break out of the limitation to confine these things about education and do new things like create peace in the world and ourselves, and how can we create love in the world within ourselves, it seems we have to set up some "research programmes" to do that.

K: Sir, let us put it this (pragmatical ?) way: you have a son and a daughter, what are you going to do with those children, how are you going to educate them? What's your (inner ?) responsibility, which means care, attention, love, (involved in ) what are you going to do with those children?

Q: Sir, we're talking about schools and education; it seems to me that any school whether it be a 'Krishnamurti school' or any school no matter how 'ideologically' instituted, it becomes an authority and conditions.

Q: Sir, I have a daughter and one thing I have noticed is that I am conditioned, and I am (subliminally ?) conditioning her through my conditioning, I have to be aware of mine (in the first place) . I see that. It seems to me I have to help her understand the rest of conditioning, of the whole society around her in which she is growing up.

K: Are we saying, sir, in a school, both the educator and the educated are (starting from the position of being ?) conditioned (in various degrees ?) .

Q: Yes.

K: I have been at this game for fifty years, sir! I have 'helped' to form several schools in India, and this has been one of the major problems, how to deal with the (traditional mentality of the ?) parent (and/or teacher ?) who is conditioned, the child, the children also conditioned. Conditioned in the sense they are (culturally biased ?) prejudiced, class conscious, (mentally and/or physically ?) violent. Now how to deal with this ( snowballing ?) problem, both at home, and in the schools ? (Suppose that ?) you are a teacher and you are (becoming ?) aware that you are ( culturally ?) conditioned, and I, the student, am not aware of it because I am being ( voluntarily engaged in being ?) conditioned by the TV, by the magazines, and by my friends; now how will you deal with this? Now we have tried this (integrated approach ?) : should the (prospective ?) teacher wait until he is 'fully unconditioned' ? Or can he and the student in their (interacting ?) relationship in a school (endeavour to ?) uncondition themselves? You follow the problem? That is, in teaching or before giving the 'facts' about mathematics and so on, talk it over with the student and explain all the complexities of conditioning, the result of that conditioning, show him the real picture of (our cultural ?) 'conditioning', as ' being this' or ' being that', and (start a ?) dialogue with the student, every day, as part of the school work. Then ( hopefully ?) the teacher begins to uncondition himself and the student at the same time.

Q: But there is no method?

K: Of course, how can there be a 'method'? The (following of a ?) method is part of our conditioning. So (in the context of an open dialogue ?) the teacher and the student can establish a ( learning based ?) relationship. Not of one who knows and the other who doesn't know. So the (holistic role of the ?) teacher, the educator becomes tremendously important; he is ( spirituality-wise having ?) the 'highest' profession in society, it is not (next to the ?) the 'lowest', as it is now.

Q: As you said, the mother and father have no time because they have to work all day, go to the office, and that's a big problem, and I don't want to skip over it because that's what a lot of people think about who have children and there aren't all these ( 'holistic' ?) educators around and we do have to work and take care of the children at the same time, so we end up sending them to (public ?) schools. And that's a big problem.

K: I know, madam, that's the problem. So we are trying to find out how to deal with all these problems, whether the school should be a 'residential' school and not isolated. It is not that in one hour we can settle the whole problem, we can't. But if you are interested, we can together create this thing.

Q: I have found an answer for myself because I believe that I am responsible for my children. I have taken them every three to four years to a different environment, to a different culture, and I have experienced that culture with them and so I am released. To experience for myself with them, but I have found I have had to do a lot travelling!

K: That means you are a fairly 'well-to-do' man !

Q: No, but I am willing to live on 'a little'.

K: Sir, by showing him (how people are living in ) different cultures, different societies, their different ways of thinking, does that solve the problem?

Q: No. But the problem is solved by the experience of seeing and being involved with the situation then coming back for the inward education. Addressing myself to the question that you asked about the possibility in our life to educate ourselves inwardly and outwardly, the outward I find in the travelling, in the cultures, in the different religions or beliefs and ways of living. And then the 'inward' (aspect) is how we are able to relate to it between ourselves, or for ourselves individually.

K: I understand that, sir, but this is a much wider and deeper problem because one may be living in a village, or in an (overcrowded ?) town, confined and without too much money. You follow, sir, it is not just a problem that one ( lucky ?) human being has solved, it's a collective problem, it's a problem for each one of us, how to deal with this problem. We ( generally ?) say we are feeling responsible for our children. I question that 'responsibility'.

Q: In instructing the children we are learning about ourselves (in interacting ?) with them.

K: Madam, you say you are (feeling) responsible, are you? What does 'responsibility' mean?

Q: The ability to respond directly to what is happening.

K: That is, "adequately". That means if you don't respond adequately there is conflict. Responsibility means to respond totally to the problem of the child and the parent. So the question is this, sir: if you want to educate a child, for what reason do you want the child to be educated? Why are you all educated, what for?

Q: To be free of conditioning ?

K: So (a holistic ?) education implies cultivating the 'totality of man', the outward intellectual, emotional, sensitive, and also the cultivation of a mind that is capable of seeing something real, true, the 'reality'. And we are saying no (actual) school, no college, university is doing that.

Q: There seems to be a 'self-righteous' mental platform if you say, all the universities in the United States are not teaching right and I'm going to teach right.

K: Oh, no, no, I don't say that, sir.

Q: What you are saying is that through the admission that you don't know something we begin to learn about it. If a teacher says I really don't know how to deal with this problem...

K: Sir, look, to learn about physics, I must go to a man, a scientist who knows about physics, but is there anyone who can teach you the 'inner knowledge'? Or there there is no ( reliable ?) authority and threfore you will have learn about it yourself. You understand? A 'good' doctor tells you what to do if you are unhealthy because he has studied medicine, practised and has accumulated ( a lot of reliable ?) knowledge and he tells you what to do, and you follow it. Now is there - please listen - is there any ( need for such an ?) authority to inwardly understand yourself ? And if you have (found such ?) an authority then you are (taking the chance of ?) following his 'authority', not the understanding of yourself. Therefore I say, that there is no 'spiritual' authority under any circumstances - the gurus, the churches, the temples, the whole (organisational ?) thing is based on (the acceptance of someone's spiritual ?) authority. And that is one of the factors of degeneration of the ( individual ?) mind.

Q: To start with you had better learn not 'how to be free', but the importance of it from someone who is already free.

K: All right, sir, suppose you are (inwardly) free and I want to learn from you ( how to find ?) that freedom.

Q: I can't give it to you.

K: No, then what will I do?

Q: Together we can talk about the 'importance' of it.

K: We are doing it now.

Q: All right. But if I am not free and you are not free, how can both of us become free together?

K: By both 'realizing' (the inner truth ?) that "we are not free" and having a dialogue, discussing it, observing it in our relationship, in our action, everything, and find out (what freedom is ?) .

Q: Wouldn't this require an extraordinary energy to maintain an honest enquiry and not to degenerate?

K: It does, sir. It does. You are saying, doesn't this require a great deal of energy, it does. So how will you get that energy? If there is no 'how', what will you do?

Q: I understand there is no 'method' there but how does one achieve this (quality of a ?) moving relationship in an educational setting?

K: First of all, sir, let's be clear. I must be free of the (presumed 'spiritual' authority of the ?) guru, the priest, the psychologist, everybody and (simply ?) "learn to look at myself". And that (inner attitude ?) gives me tremendous energy because I have got rid of all the superficial, unnecessary and destructive barriers (psychological blocks ?) .

Q: Do you feel that if you really desired that (freedom strongly ?) enough you wouldn't have to ask 'how'?

K: Sir, again why haven't "you" got it? You see if you had that intensity, sir, you would have it. You are 'going off' (dissipating it ?) all the time.

Q: Sir, I don't understand in my life how a person doesn't have energy when all you have to do is to "look around" and go down a few miles (to Ventura ?) and see all the trash homes and the ( Hwy 101 ?) traffic, turn on television, just looking at that and seeing everybody destroying the earth right in front of your eyes, how can anybody sit back and not do something. I don't know.

K: Yes, sir.

Q: But if you want the knowledge of yourself then you must have some idea that that knowledge of yourself is attainable, therefore you need an "experience" of some kind to at least get you in that direction.

K: You see you are off on to something else when we are talking about education.

Q: I am talking about education, how do you show a child that that "experience" (of inner freedom ?) is attainable?

K: Sir, do you know what is implied in the word 'experience'?

Q: To 'go through something' ?

K: The word means "to go through", but also it implies "recognition", doesn't it ? Therefore when I "experience" something, I experience my (deeper cultural ?) conditioning projected (to the surface consciousness ?) .

Q: What happens when you take a ( psychedelic ?) drug and it so disrupts your conditioning, it just disturbs the ego structure so much that "you", as you have been and lead your life, are not anymore. You can see the world through a different set of eyes.

K: Sir, if you take marijuana or some other kind, so that it breaks down for the time being your 'ego structure' and at that moment you see something totally different. But after a certain period that (effect ) disappears and you take to drugs again.

Q: If you incorporate this experience into your day to day consciousness, you no longer need to take the drugs.

K: Sir, that is, you incorporate, include something you have experienced which is 'dead', into your living daily life ?

Q: What I mean to say is...

K: Suppose that I 'experience' something which is free, then that experience becomes a memory and I want to live according to that memory, or include that thing in my daily life. Integrating a 'dead' (memory) with a 'living' thing, how can you do it? This is what I have been saying: we are functioning all the time within the field of the "known" and never free from that. And that is one of the factors of deep degeneracy, whether you like it or not that's a fact.

Q: Sir, didn't you say once (in your youth ) that "it took the strength of a genius to overcome the circumstances of one's life"?

K: I don't know (remember ?) if I said that, but it doesn't matter.

Q: What if older people honoured the question of can we educate the 'total man'.

K: I know, sir, that's what I am saying. How can we educate the totality of man, in schools, in colleges, in universities, in the family, in our relationship intimately, how can this be done?

Q: I think that the schools can (efficiently) teach mathematics or history or something, but that one must learn on one's own self-realization, I don't think one can be taught that. And that brings up a point that I would like to discuss: why do we separate our educational environment from the so-called "real environment"? In other words why do we have schools which are separate from what is happening in real life? If you understand the question.

K: Real life is part of the school, isn't it?

Q: But in most cases it is not, sir, in most cases you go and you hear somebody talk about something and they are not doing it, they are not really involved with it.

K: Of course, sir. There must be freedom to learn, that is the essence of learning, surely. Now what does that ('freedom to learn' ?) mean? In a school or in a family where we are trying to learn about the cultivation of the whole human being, what place has 'freedom' and ( the acceptance of any psychological ?) 'authority'? Can the two go together?

Q: That's the question.

K: So what does 'freedom' mean? Does it mean every student doing what he likes? And (naturally ?) every (mindless ?) student wants just that, because he has been conditioned by ( the catchwords of ?) this permissive society, 'do what you want', 'individual expression' and all that. So he comes with that conditioning and says, 'I am going to do what I want to do, if not I am going to be violent, do vandalism', you know all (the chaos) that follows.
Does 'freedom' mean doing what you want to do? And what is it you want to do? Express your ( ages old ?) conditioning freely?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Madam, please listen to this first thing: Freedom is absolutely necessary, that is a human demand, historically it is so. But (inwardly ?) does freedom mean "doing whatever you want to do", or being allowed to choose (between being) 'this', 'that' or the 'other' ? Now ( psychologically speaking ?) 'choice' implies confusion. If I am (inwardly ?) "clear" there is no (problem of ?) choice. Does freedom mean (choosing to ?) be attached to this, that or the other (person or system ?) which is choice - I was ( born) a Hindu and I become a Catholic (simply ) because I am free to choose!

Q: But if you are born a Hindu and you stay a Hindu then you are conditioned to be one.

K: But I am just showing (this trivial example) to you.

Q: I understand that. What I am saying that if you were to remain a Hindu then it would be because of your (freely accepted ?) conditioning, just like it would be your 'free choice' to become a Catholic.

K: From one conditioning I go to another ( hopefully better ?) conditioning.

Q: Does freedom not involve "seeing"?

K: We are "seeing" now, madam, we are making the whole picture clear. So does all that mean freedom? Obviously not. Therefore can you as the educator, as a parent, be free of that, not just verbally?

Q: That's the problem.

K: If you "see" that, sir, you won't be.

Q: I see that for five years sir, I see that point but I can't sustain it.

K: Ah, you can't sustain it. I'm going to show you something, sir, once you see this, you will understand it very quickly. When you see a snake you react instantly. That ( 'get away' ?) reaction you don't have to sustain, because your parents, your society, your books, said, "snakes are dangerous". That's ( part of ) your ( active cultural ?) conditioning saying "that thing is dangerous" and therefore you react. ( So in this case ) that ( survivalistic ?) conditioning is the ( traditional ?) sustaining factor. Now is there a sustaining factor when you see ( the truth ) that "freedom is not to do what I want" or that freedom is not ( a matter of ?) "fulfilling myself" (or again) "Freedom is not authority". Seeing that not intellectually but as truth, because I have an insight into the fact that where there is ( the following of someone's ?) authority inwardly there is no freedom. Right? I see very clearly the truth that the demand for ( self-) fulfillment is ( in fact) the fulfillment of my (collective) conditioning, and that's not ( really a ) "freedom". Right, sir? I see the truth of it , the very "seeing of the truth of it" is the sustaining factor. I don't have any other (time-binding) factor. Got it?

Q: Didn't you repeat it just now?

K: Of course, if you are not paying attention, I have to repeat it ten times. If you pay attention you "see it" and it is finished, you don't say, 'I must pay attention to it again', you see the truth of it. When you see a bottle marked ( "Psychological ) Poison" (!) , finished, you see it, you don't take it.

So ( to wrap it up ?) the "total education of man" implies that there must be complete (inner?) freedom, not that which you have (traditionally ) called 'freedom'. Therefore can you have that (Spirit of ?) freedom in a school where the teacher really has seen the truth of it and therefore helps the student to see it, in conversation, at table? You follow? Every moment he "points it out", discusses it. And therefore out of that (inner sense of ?) freedom there is order. You understand, sir?

Q: What do you mean by "total education"?

K: I have explained that, sir: a total education implies the art of learning, to put everything in its right place: to put 'knowledge' in its right place. And total education also implies learning about authority. And also learning if there is something "sacred" in (our own ?) life, not invented by thought but really something "holy" in life. So all that is the cultivation of the whole (consciousness ?) of the human being. Right, sir?

Q: Can we remember that this is not dependent upon a specific place?

K: To have a school in this beautiful place, it's marvellous, I am glad we have got it, but it can be in other places.

Q: Sir, I am not sure this is completely relevant but I really hope it is. I heard you once say that freeing the mind is a different action. There are two different actions required, one if you are partially confused and one if you are completely confused. Two different actions.

K: Look, sir, there is no partial confusion and complete confusion.

Q: We discussed this in Switzerland. You talked about it.

K: Sorry, perhaps we didn't hear properly what I said. Either one is confused or not confused, there is no 'partial' confusion.

Q: Where do the parents, Mr Krishnamurti, fit in with what we have talked about?

K: I'll show you. We want the parent to be part of our school, the parent must be interested in what we are learning, what we are doing, otherwise he is not a parent responsible. It's like sending off a child and getting rid of it. We are saying the parent, the teacher, the student are all concerned with this. Is that enough for this morning?

Q: Isn't 'right' or 'wrong' a matter of social conditioning?

K: Of course it is. If you go to India, they think it is very bad to do certain things which you consider quite 'normal' here. And that is their conditioning, and that is your conditioning. But the "good" is not ( a matter of cultural ?) conditioning. What is "good" is good everywhere. And the flowering of that Goodness, the beauty of that, is not to be touched by thought. You understand, sir? Thought can't produce (or create ?) 'Goodness'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #378
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1975 (condensed)

THE STREAM OF SELFISHNESS

K: We are going to have together, these next five days, every morning a dialogue. So, what would be worthwhile to talk over together, as two serious, friendly people talking over their problems, not only of the world outside, but also inwardly.

Q: I think you were talking over about being free of selfishness and about the possibility of 'stepping out' of it. Evidently I, or the 'me', cannot step out of it, so what happens, or what takes place when something like that is going on?

Q: I do not find any urge to 'serve other people' or society at large. Is there anything wrong with me?

Q: How can I live with noise without suffering too much? I feel a physical pain when there is too much noise.

Q: When one suffers one loses all one's energy, and how is it possible not to lose that energy, and to meet the suffering?

K: Shall we take this question (on being free from selfishess?) , and perhaps the other questions will be included in it. How can one 'step out' of that stream (of self-interest?) in which all human beings live (inwardly?) ? And if one can step out of it, what then is the action in the world of reality, in the daily existence?
First of all, is one aware of this 'stream of selfishness' in which one lives (inwardly ) in one's daily life?

Q: I can only see my point of view.

K: Let's go into it. What is 'seeing'? There is visual perception, sensory seeing - right? That sensory seeing is transferred to the brain and it (processes it and?) responds according to its conditioning. Be simple about it : I see that red dress or shirt, I see it visually, then it is communicated through visual perception to the brain, the brain which says, it is red, I don't like red, or I like red. Right? It may be obvious, but if you go (deeper) into it, you will see how complex it becomes. So the 'appreciation' of the red (shirt) is conditioned by the culture, by the society, by my pleasure and so on. My ( mental) response is according to my conditioning (that is) I see through ( the cultural background of my ?) conditioning. Now, am I aware of this process - aware in the sense, ( of being) conscious ( as it is takes place?) ? Am I conscious that I am responding to things according to my ( cultural?) conditioning? And are you aware of it as an 'outsider looking in', or you are aware of it directly?

Q: One is aware of it directly but we react to it.

K: Am I aware of the responses of my (cultural?) conditioning - which I call my temperament, my opinion, my judgement ? Am I aware of this? Or I am aware of it because you ( K ?) are telling me about it? The two states ( of awareness) are entirely different. If the speaker didn't point it then it is your direct awareness; but if the speaker points it out and then you become aware of it, it is through the stimulation of the speaker, and therefore when that stimulation fades and you are lost.
Now if I am aware, 'who' is it that is aware? The 'observer'? And when the observer is aware there is a process of duality - the 'observer' and the (reactions) 'observed' ? Is there in that awareness a ( subliminal?) division as the 'observer' and the 'observed'?

Q: Why do we separate the two?

K: First see how our minds work, how we ( do usually?) respond : am I observing that conditioning as an (independent?) 'observer' watching a tree, a car, the stream? Or there is no 'observer' but only ( a total immersion in?) that state of conditioning?

Q: When I am aware of myself being conditioned it is usually because I am becoming aware of something that has just happened, and I look back on it and I see it. That is me looking from the ( knowledge of my?) past. But I can't describe 'being aware'.

K: Are you looking at ( whatever is happening in?) the present through the ( knowledge of the ?) past? This is the 'observer', isn't it - the memories, the remembrances, the hurts, the pains, the conclusions, all that is stored up in (the active memory of?) the brain - right? And that ( pre-programmed?) brain responds. And it responds according to the accumulated knowledge of pain and all the rest of it. So : are you 'observing from the past', or is there only 'observation'? Please, be simple (and honest?) about this.

Q: As I sit here I understand your words, but I don't have a sense of urgency to bridge the gap between the words that you say and seeing the meaning behind it.

K: First of all let's be clear that the verbal description, the explanation, is not the ( actual) thing. Right? I can describe the tent, I can describe the various colours, but the colours, the tent are not the words, are not the description, so the explanation is not the ( thing which is being) explained.
So when I use the word 'suffering', that is a word that contains all other factors, which we just now said. But the word 'suffering' is not its ( living) content - right? So am I looking with the ( mental support of all my) knowledge of the past, or am I ( directly?) aware that I live (inwardly immersed?) in this ' Stream of ( collective?) Selfishness'? Are you beginning to understand this?
Sir, please, this needs ( a quality of inner) 'discipline', in the sense of listening with attention and going on. So am I aware that I am looking from the ( safety of my knowledge of the?) past at this Stream of Selfishness, which is our daily occupation? Are you aware of it?

Q: I am aware intellectually only.

K: That means you are aware of (the verbal) information, that is you are only aware of the words, not of the fact. The fact being 'that which is' (going on?) . That which is, is the truth. So, if I am looking at the (ongoing) 'fact' through a verbal description there is a lack of communication between you and the speaker. ( Because) he wants to go beyond the words, beyond (the intellectual ) information, beyond the knowledge, and you say, 'I can't do it'. Which means ( that the symbolism of?) words have become tremendously important - right? For a Christian the (symbol of the?) Cross has become tremendously important. He is (inwardly ?) a 'prisoner' to that (symbolism) , but is he aware of that prison?

Q: It is a part of my culture.

K: Yes sir, so (more generally?) are you aware that you are caught in (a virtual reality made of ?) words? That you are a prisoner of words? The word 'communist' will make you shiver if you are a ( wealthy ?) capitalist. So one asks, are you aware how we respond to (these 'psychologically loaded' ) words?

Q: Sir, there is another factor : fundamentally I have organized my reality around such words.

K: Sir, when I ( realise that I ) am drowning (in this Stream of Selfishess?) I want to be saved, I don't say, 'Well, I hope I am going to be saved'. I want to find out what this whole process of living is about.
So, do we live (inwardly?) at the verbal level, are we caught in the superficiality of words ? So, are you aware that we are ( voluntary?) 'prisoners of words'?

Q: That is a 'fact', isn't it?

K: It is a fact but am I aware of it?

Q: We are.

K: All right. If you are aware of it, then words are necessary to communicate, but these words don't 'block' you. Do you recognize that your minds, your brains are conditioned ( to deal prioritarily on the verbal level with whatever is going on ?) ? If you say, 'Yes', are you aware of the description or the reality of it? You have understood? You hear the description and then you say, 'Yes, I am aware of the description,' but not the reality which is my ( background of cultural?) conditioning. So which is it?

Q: I find that when I try and look at something which is deeper, which is more into the past, then I can see the emotions get in the way.

K: Sir, I described to you the structure of the tent. Are you aware of the verbal description or of the tent itself?

Q: The tent itself.

K: That is very simple. So ( looking inwardly?) am I aware of my ( pro-active cultural?) conditioning, or (just of) the verbal (intellectual) description of this conditioning? Now proceed from there : how do I look at that conditioning? Am I looking at it from the outside, or I 'am' ( a central part of?) that conditioning? You have understood? So the ( intellectual )description has lead me to this ( major inner?) realization: I 'am' that. So the description has gone (is now redundant?) . So I am now living with the ( ongoing) reality of that conditioning because I am that conditioning. There is no observer saying. 'I am conditioned'. I 'am' that. Can we proceed from there?
Now this (racial & cultural?) conditioning is the result of my parents, the society I live in, the education, climate, etc., etc. How do I perceive it? As an observer looking in, or there is no 'observer' but only the 'fact' . So that conditioning we (generically?) called 'selfishness' - right?

Q: The word 'selfishness' is already suggesting a judgement.

K: (Indeed,) the word 'selfishness' is condemnatory, evaluating. But we said that in this word we include everything ( generated by the Stream of Self-interest?) - judgement, evaluation, suffering, pain, everything is included in that word, and I use this ( generic?) word to communicate with you, not using that word as a condemnation. I am just ( holistically?) describing it. Shall we proceed further?

Now the human beings living right throughout the world, whatever their position, whatever their status, whatever their culture, whatever their political points of view, economic and so on and so on, live (inwardly?) in this stream. Whether it is in India, Russia, America or China, this is the main (psychological ) stream(ing?) , the essence of human suffering, human greed, in which we are ( collectively or individually?) caught, in which we live. We are born in this ( psychical ?) stream, we are nurtured in it, we are sustained in it by society, everything. Now the (100$) question then is : am I (actually) aware of ( living in?) this Stream, of the reality that all my actions revolve round this centre of selfishness (of self-interest?) - are you aware of it?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: We will come to that, madam. That is the question he asked: being caught in this stream of selfishness, if one can step out it, then what is that human being to do in this 'world of reality'? - the world of reality being politics, (plus economics, plus ?) religion, and all that.
So are you aware, conscious, know, that you live in this stream? Are you aware of this (ongoing?) fact? If you are ( becoming responsably?) aware of it what happens? What takes place in you ( with the realisation that?) all human beings, whether black, white, yellow, brown are living in this everlasting ( loop of ?) suffering, selfishness, what is your response?

Q: Compassion ?

Q: You get a shock, a terrible shock.

K: When you perceive this whole movement, this whole stream of mankind, what happens to the brain? Before I have lived, my pleasures, my pains, my anxiety, my position, me first and everybody afterwards. So you suddenly realize you 'are' (inwardly as self-centred ) like everybody else - you may be a little be more clever, but the same suffering, the same anxiety, the great pressures and so on, it is a tremendous jolt to the brain, isn't it?
Before I lived in a little ( self-protected?) circle and the brain accepted it and said, I must adjust myself to this circle, to this suffering, to this ( general trend of?) selfishness, because in that I am (feeling ) secure. And somebody comes along and says, 'Look, this is happening to everybody', and you get a ( psychological?) shock, don't you. Now when you perceive ( the inwardness of?) this, the brain cells themselves undergo a ( major qualitative?) change.

Q: Is this a result of fear?

K: I have ( subliminally?) accepted ( to live with?) fear, like millions and millions of people, they have accepted suffering, like millions and millions of people, they have accepted ( to live with ) anxiety, pleasure, death, everything and the brain has 'conditioned' (inwardly adapted?) itself to that. Right? And you come along and tell me, 'Look, my friend, this is happening to everybody, whether they live in India, Japan, China, Russia, under tyrannies, under democracies, under whatever it is, the communists, this has happened to every human being.' If you are at all sensitive, awake, it must (somehow?) affect the brain cells. So the brain, which has accepted, which has become habituated, gets a shock, a jolt. That jolt brings about a change, a (qualitative?) transformation in the brain cell itself, so you can look at the whole thing totally differently.
So I am ( becoming fully ) aware that every human being in the world goes through this ( subliminal sorrow caused by ?) selfishness. And is it possible for a human being to 'step out' of that?
You come along and point out to me that ''as long as you live in that Stream there is no solution for human problems, whether economic, political, religious, as long as you live there, there is no issue''. And I realize ( the sobering truth of?) it, not verbally, it is a shock. You come and shake me., the root meaning of that word 'discussion', is to shake. You understand? And I hope you are 'being shaken'.
So is it possible for a human being to 'step out' of it? For you to step out? That is, if you see the ( sad?) totality of this stream, the whole implications of that stream - politically, religiously, economically, socially, as a person, as a human being, ethically, morally, the injustice, you know, the whole thing is monstrous?
Do you see it as a whole, do you see this fact as clearly as you see the tent, as you see your face in the mirror? Do you see it as clearly as that? That's what I mean by 'being aware' of this tremendous stream in which human beings are caught. Now, that is the 'reality' of world in which we live, that is the world which ( our self-centred?) thought has created - right? And the ( 200 $ ) question was: (a) 'who' is it that gets out, and (b) is it possible for me to make an effort to get out? You understand? I'll go into it.
I see that I am caught in that stream, not only (outwardly) visually but also inwardly, psychologically ; wherever I go I see the whole structure of it, the nature of it, the brutality. And I say to myself, I must 'get out of it' (out of this whole mentality based on self-interest?) because I want human beings to live happily, I want to live that way too, so I say I must get out.
Then the ( 1000 $?) problem is, how am I to get out? What am I to do? Come on sirs go into it with me.

Q: Whatever I would (think to?) do would already be from my thoughts, from the past, from the world of reality.

Q: I should be inactive ?

K: You see how our minds go (automatically?) to the opposite. I want to do something to get out of that stream, and somebody says, you are part of that stream, you have built that stream, and your ( self-centred process of?) thought says, 'get out of it'. So your thought is merely creating another ( direction within the same?) stream. And if don't do that what shall I do, be inactive? Does my brain realize that whatever 'I' do - join new religions, new meditations, new awakening, I am still within that stream, because that stream is created by ( the self-centred ?) thought and that thought now says, get out of it. So when I move with thought I am still (swimming?) in the (same) stream. I wonder if you see this.

Q: When I see this, the thought of getting out of it arises.

K: You come along and say, 'Look, whatever you do with regard to that stream is still in the stream, because that stream is created by thought'.
Do I see that as a fact, not as an idea? Then if I see it as a 'fact' what happens?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: We went into the whole question of suffering the other day. In ( remaining with?) that suffering there is a tremendous gathering of all energy in that suffering. So (similarly) do you see ( the inner truth?) that whatever 'you' (try to?) do with regard to that stream is still within the stream?
Before I made efforts, I said, I mustn't be selfish, I must devote my life to god, or I must serve others, or I must help others or I must retire from this monstrous world and go into ( the quiet of?) a monastery. Always ( some 'positive'?) action within that Stream. And you come along and say, 'Look what you are doing : you are still playing (roles?) in the stream - become a Catholic, go to Japan to learn Zen, etc., etc., (this) 'you' is still (struggling?) within this enormous stream which (the self-centred thinking in terms of?) time and movement created. If I see the totality of it, the brain then has a ( undergone?) great ( truth?) shock, and in that very shock there is a ( qualitative?) transformation of the brain cells, which then is out of the (self-centred mentality of the?) stream . If I don't see ( the truth of?) it I can go on discussing endlessly about this.

Then if the brain cells have 'shaken themselves away' from the ( temporal ?) tradition and are ( perceptively?) free. Shall we move from there?
If one happens to be 'out of that Stream', there is no ( self-conscious?) centre as the 'me' that 'steps out' of the stream. When the 'me' steps out of the stream the 'me' is still ( part of) the stream.
Now, if one sees the truth of that, then what shall one as a ( globally responsible?) human being ? Is political action, religious action, business action, economic action, separate? Or again is it the whole thing? You understand? I wonder if we are meeting each other.

Q: Surely it is necessary not to be attached.

K: To the stream?

Q: To anything.

K: We went that the other day. When you are attached can you love?

Q: If you are attached there is no love.

K: So, face the fact that when you are attached there is no love.
Attachment to the 'country', attachment to an 'ideal', attachment to a conclusion, attachment to a belief, attachment to a principle, are all the same, they still belong to the ( realities of the?) stream. So what shall a human being do when he is no longer selfish? How shall he act politically, how shall he act in relationship with each other ?

Q: We depend so much on the physical conditions . Our whole thought and psychology is based on the physical condition.

K: And so the 'physical' becomes extraordinarily important - the physical comfort, physical satisfaction, physical stimulation and so on . But we don't ( seem to?) realize also that thought is a physical phenomenon and a ( bio-) chemical process, as the physical organism is, so it is not separate. If you see this then quite a different action takes place between the physical and the psychological. If I see the whole structure, how the physical depends on food, clothes, shelter, and for that security we would do anything, kill anybody, wars. And psychologically, which is the movement of thought in (its self-created continuity in ?) time, is part of the process of the physical which is thought, and that has created that tremendous Stream (pro-active mentality of?) of Selfishness.
So ( to wrap it up for ?) this morning, the ( 1000$? ) question is: is one totally aware, cognizant, that we live and exist, act in this field? This stream is the past, this steam is the present, this stream is the future modified through the present. This is our life, this is our 'reality' and we think we can solve politically, economically, socially, all the problems, in the stream. And nobody has succeeded in the stream. So are you and I, aware of this stream completely, and that whatever ( mental) 'movement' we make is still within the stream? If you see this as a reality, as something true, then you will see how it affects the brain cells. Because the ( old?) brain won't accept anything which doesn't give it security. It has lived in the traditional world, which is the stream, and has accepted it and says, please, don't disturb me, let me live in that stream, with the followers, with the gurus, the whole business. And you come along and tell me, whatever you do in the stream is not going to free man from his misery.

Q: You seem to say in order to step out of the stream you have to live an ordinary life.

K: I did not say that. I have to live in the world of reality - food, clothes, shelter, money, I have to live there.

Q: That is a compromise.

K: I am not compromising anything. Most human beings live in that field of reality. And the problems are getting more and more complex, and they have not been able to solve them, they are getting worse and worse. What is a human being to do, confronted with all these facts, that the politicians, whoever they are, are not going to solve the problems, they pretend. The religious people are not going to solve this problem of human suffering, human selfishness. Nor the analysts, nor the psychologists, philosophers - they have all tried for centuries. And besides why should I accept them as my authority? They might be as foolish, as cunning, deceitful as I am.
So I say to myself, thought is in action all the time, thought has created this world in which I live, and my mind is caught in that stream of thought. And whatever thought does in that stream will pollute further the stream. That is the thing I have to be 'shocked into'. Then the brain operates differently. Right sirs ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #379
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

bonjour John,

ce post est remarquablement synchrone avec l'échange que nous avions hier avec Dan..; en tout cas merci.

ici K parle de cette division "observed observer", toutefois il le présente sur un plan de surface si on peut dire car c'est déjà très profond...

ce mouvement de la mémoire et donc la pensée vient conditionner la perception.

John Raica wrote:
That which is, is the truth.

ceci est encore une perception, directe certes mais une perception tout de même, pas la réalité telle qu'elle est... c'est une représentation partielle du cerveau de la réalité. cette perception là est saisie puis mémorisée comme étant la réalité et constitue le support d'un conditionnement, suopport sur lequel vient se poser la pensée pour caractériser ce qui est perçu de manière inné...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #380
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
thought is in action all the time, thought has created this world in which I live, and my mind is caught in that stream of thought. And whatever thought does in that stream will pollute further the stream.

Thanks John, I found this all very powerful ...made sense that, by not being aware of this constant "action" of thought, one is 'participating' in it, (one IS it), perpetuating it, strengthening it. (keeping the "stream" alive?) And condemnation, suppression, judgement etc. is only thought acting on itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #381
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
ici K parle de cette division "observed observer", toutefois il le présente sur un plan de surface si on peut dire car c'est déjà très profond...

Salut, Richard. A priori K essaye de 'mediter' en public, et encore a haute voix- Un exercice qui reussit a bien peu des gens- la plupart...preferant echanger des conclusions, certes 'solides' et bien organises mais...c'est du rechaufé. Ensuite il parait qu'il s'agit içi aussi d'un principe plus universel du 'libre arbitre' ( voir...a bon entendeur, salut !) donc chaqun dans le public a le libre choix de suivre l'enseignement jusqu'au dernieres implications ou de conserver l'info pour... plus tard. Dans ce dernier as on devient un 'expert' des histoire des religions , etc, mais en effet on sort de l'esprit du 'vrai' et on s'installe dans une 'connaissance erudite'

C'est probablement pourquoi les 'idees' de K ont seduit toute une intelligentsia 'progressiste' ou liberale ( surtout en France...) mais quand il s'agit de changer quoique ce soit tous se retirent prudemment et toujours pour les 'bonnes raisons'

richard villlar wrote:
ceci est encore une perception, directe certes mais une perception tout de même, pas la réalité telle qu'elle est... c'est une représentation partielle du cerveau de la réalité.

Personellement j'essaye de verifier, ou bien d'infirmer la verité les propos de K surtout dans le contexte de mes meditation- il s'agit d'attendre un certain degre d'integration interieure a partir du quel la verite ou la non-verité des choses est perçue dans la 'clé du Vrai' Dans ce cas, cette perception ne passe pas par la 'censure' du cerveau- c'est comme tu vois quelq'un te sourire, tu sais du premier instant s'il c'est authentique ou forcé
Mais en 'editant' ces textes, il y a aussi un exercice naturel de ma propre qualite d'ecoute- parfois on voit la verite au dela des mots, parfois pas. Mais deriére la grande majorité des textes de K il y a une certaine 'lumiére du vrai' qui, bien qu'ineffable nous permet d'y voir clair...avec la condition qu'il y a de notre part une correspondence d'ouverture interieure

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #382
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Raica wrote:
Personellement j'essaye de verifier

oui c'est ce qu'il faut faire pour ne par être dans du réchauffé comme tu dis

John Raica wrote:
mais quand il s'agit de changer quoique ce soit tous se retirent prudemment et toujours pour les 'bonnes raisons'

ça marche aussi pour les enseignement de K lorsqu'ils sont remis en question, on remarque très rapidement à quel point les fans de K se font son avocat, comme s'ils avaient peur que K ne soit pas un dieu ... ce qui montre aisément la position d'autorité que s'approprient les fans... preuve ultime du besoin de sécurité...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #383
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
by not being aware of this constant "action" of thought, one is 'participating' in it, (one IS it), perpetuating it, strengthening it

Very true indeed, Dan. And we can see this very powerful - yet already subliminal!- impact of our shared mentality of self-centredness- it is simply a 'given' in practically every human interaction. It is also the common ground on which our ' images' are created and freely exchanged. And yes, it is possible that this whole ('streaming' ?) process is sustaining itself by the vast number of people who at any time 'naturally' adopt the thinking patterns of a self-interest based 'individuality'

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 11 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #384
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
on remarque très rapidement à quel point les fans de K se font son avocat, comme s'ils avaient peur que K ne soit pas un dieu ... ce qui montre aisément la position d'autorité que s'approprient les fans... preuve ultime du besoin de sécurité..

En effet, Richard, et comme K le disait aussi, l'ego se cache derriere les choses les plus improbables - surtout si les apparences sont des plus altruistes. Mais deja y'a rien de vraiment 'personnel' dans tout ça - c'est un tres fort courrant de profondeur dans notre pensee collective

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #385
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Raica wrote:
l'ego se cache derriere les choses les plus improbables

tout à fait et le masque tombe rapidement quand on touche au bon endroit...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Aug 2016 #386
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1975. THE HOLISTIC NATURE OF LEARNING ( reader-friendly condensed)

K: I would like to remind you that this is a serious gathering; we are concerned with what actually is, not only 'out there' but also 'in here', in oneself; and the imperative necessity of a psychological transformation of man which will ( eventually?) affect the whole consciousness of human beings.
So what shall we talk over this morning which would be worthwhile?

Q: Continue with what we were discussing yesterday ?

K: We were saying yesterday our brains (subliminally?) cling to tradition, because in clinging to tradition the brain feels totally secure, safe, and it will go on functioning in that ( known?) area which becomes our tradition and hold on to that. Our responses to any challenge, whatever it be - political, economic, social, personal, or universal, are always from the remembrance of things, from the knowledge that one has gathered through generations, which is the background; from that background we respond to any challenge, and so we always remain within that limited area.
And that is what we were talking about yesterday, that one's brain always moves from the known to the known, which is our ( thinking ?) tradition.
And we were saying yesterday, that 'suffering' in its widest sense ( including every form of physical, psychological, neurotic, fearful suffering, the suffering of loneliness, despair, anxiety, death, or the suffering of a person who is ( mentally ) 'arrogant' and sees he cannot fulfil that arrogance) that ( causation of?) suffering which we (generically?) termed as 'selfishness', is (generating a collective ?) 'stream' in which human beings right throughout the world are caught in. And we seem to accept it, not knowing what (else we could ) do.
Now, what can one do? How does one affect by one's action the whole movement of (violence and?) degeneracy? In the ancient days that to be a soldier was the lowest rung in social order, but now it is (among ?) the highest. And this current ( shared mentality?) in which human beings are caught, is there any action from within that current which will affect the structure and the nature of the brain. You understand my question?
Can one affect this vast 'stream' through one's actions - politically, religiously, psychologically? Is there a way of looking at the whole (human existence) - politics, religion, psychology, inward struggles, relationship, the misery, the confusion, the anxiety, the arrogance, vanity, look at all that as one unitary movement?
How is one to 'see the totality' of anything? How is a human being, who lives a 'broken up' (compartmented?) life to see the total, the whole? Can ( the self-centred?) thought - ( based on our past ?) memories, experience and knowledge - see the totality of existence?

Q: Thought is always fragmentary because it is always moving from a 'centre', therefore it can never see the whole.

K: So you are saying thought cannot see the whole - right? Now, why is thought fragmentary?

Q: Because ( behind all its activities?) there is a 'thinker'.

K: Now who created this 'thinker'?

Q: Thought ?

K: Of course, obviously. So we are going round and round in circles.

Q: You said that thought created the 'thinker'. Can thought create anything?

K: Of course, thought has 'created' this tent. The tent, created (put together?) by thought, is ( becoming a 'reality' ?) independent of thought.
But inwardly, is the 'thinker' independent of thought?

Q: The 'thinker' thinks he is independent of thought.

K: But thought has 'put it together'.

Q: I don't agree that thought has created the 'thinker'.

K: Is there a 'thinker' if there is no ( ongoing activity of our self-centred ?) thought? Obviously not. So (to recap:) thought creates the tent and the tent is (becoming a material reality?) independent of thought. The (same industrious process of?) thought 'created' (a personal mental interface?) the 'thinker' and this 'thinker' says, 'I can identify myself with this and that (image?) ' , therefore I am ( becoming?) independent of thought.

Q: I agree...

K: Please, it is not a matter of agreement or disagreement. (In the same way as ?) thought has created this tent, and the tent is (then becoming a reality ) independent of thought, thought has created the (internal image of the?) 'thinker', and then this 'thinker' says, 'By Jove, I am independent, I am original. I am the soul, I am god,', or 'I am Brahman, I am everything'. But thought has put it together.

Q: Whether I think or not I have a feeling that 'I am'.

K: Is ( our self-centred?) 'feeling' different from ( the self-centred?) thought?

Q: There is still a 'sense of being'...

K: What do you mean by 'sense of being'?

Q: The same as the plant, the tree, the mountain, it is aware of 'being'.

K: I don't know what the tree 'feels'. Now, please, stick to why thought is fragmentary? You haven't answered that question.

Q: I do not know.

K: Thought can say, I do not know, and acquire knowledge and therefore know.

Q: When you see the truth you don't need to think.

K: What is truth? Is it within the area of 'reality' that thought has put together? Or is truth something totally outside this 'reality'?
So why is thought a 'fragment'?

Q: Time is involved in thought. Time is always in fragments.

K: You are saying thought is a movement in time, so thought is time, therefore it is fragmentary. But who created the yesterday, today and tomorrow ? Thought has created time, time 'is' thought.

Q: I do not know that, sir. I don't see thought as ( a process of?) time.

K: Sir, look : there is the 'chronological' time (as being measured?) by the watch - the sun rised this morning at 5:30 and the lovely pink of the mountains and the beauty of shadows, and there was a meeting (scheduled ) here at 10.30. Is there any other 'time' at all? We say there is ( the 'psychological' mouvement in time ) of the 'me' that is going to become (something or other?) of the desire that is going to fulfil itself - all that is the ( mental?) movement of thought in ( a virtual ?) time.
So we were asking : why is it fragmentary?

Q: Because it is mechanical?

K: You are saying thought is mechanical, but that doesn't yet answer my question.

Q: Thought is creating a 'centre', by identification.

K: Thought 'identifies' (creates a personalised identity for ?) itself - something called the 'me'. We were asking, as thought created all this, can thought 'undo' all this? And we said thought cannot solve it because thought itself is a 'fragmentary' (process) : whatever it touches it 'breaks up' . Now I say to myself, why is it a fragment? Thought creates a 'centre' around which one hopes to create an unified (integrated?) entity. This is what is currently happening (in the outer life): the 'family' is a centre, which means the father, mother and the children are forming one unit. So ( the collective stream of ?) thought creates the 'centre' - politically, religiously, in family life, or (within) the human being - hoping thereby to bring about unity. Because in any unifying factor there is a vitality, there is strength, there is stability - right? So thought has created that (self-unifying centre?) , and ( subsequently) that has become independent of thought and that 'centre' begins to ( control or?) dictate to thought - what it is to do, what it should not do, therefore thought becomes an 'outwardly' (oriented) thing and therefore it is fragmentary. So there are various (unifying?) 'centres' formed by thought - the Indian centre, the Italian, the Russian, the American, there is a centre in 'me', and a centre in 'you', and a centre in the 'family', all trying to 'unify' - like the sun is the unifying factor of this universe, without the sun we would all be gone. So it is ( becoming ?) the unifying factor. So (inwardly ?) thought having created that centre, and the centre feeling itself totally independent of thought, then thought becomes something ( directed) outside (of myself?). So thought itself becomes fragmentary because it cannot create unity. I wonder if you see that?
I am not going to move from there until we completely understand that, because it is a very important factor in life.

Q: Why does thought feel the necessity of creating a centre?

K: Thought can 'condition' itself to (adapt to ) any (thinking) pattern. It can become Catholic, Protestant, Capitalist, anything it can make itself. So thought realizes that it is in a (constant ) flux, but yet thought says there must be some (inner reference of?) security. So it creates the centre which it hopes there is security. The centre is 'me', 'my country', 'my god', you follow?
So thought cannot see the whole. Can we move from there?

Q: I don't see why thought cannot remain with ( the fact of?) its own insecurity.

K: Why does not thought remain and realize its own insecurity? What would happen to you if thought had no ( reference of?) security, no certainty, - could it function? Therefore it must have a ( back-up?) pattern, a centre, an ideal, a god, something which gives it safety. Now proceed from there.
So we were saying that thought cannot see the total movement of this Stream of Selfishness, with its (colateral?) suffering, anxiety and so on. Then what is it that can 'see the whole'? Because that may be the solution to all our problems - human, mechanical, political, everything. Is there such a thing? Or must we always live with this centre which creates fragments and all the rest of it, which is our ( ages long?) tradition: to live with the fragment, with the centre, and constantly modifying the centre by thought and never bringing about a human unity, never answering any fundamental problem of human beings - like relationship, whether there is Truth, whether there is God, whether there is a Reality, it cannot answer it. Therefore one asks is there a 'quality of mind' that sees the whole?
So I am asking, what does it mean to see the whole?

Q: I don't know.

K: I don't know, but I am willing to learn. And I can only learn if I have leisure - right? So I am going to learn what is meant by the 'whole' - to understand the word first. The word means sanity, health, rational, clear thinking (and also that word means 'holy' ). Now is the mind capable of seeing the whole - the whole being healthy, and also it means sanity, sane thinking, non-attachment, observing clearly 'what is' without any distortion, and therefore such a mind is ( becoming?) a 'holy' (holistic?) mind. So we have understood the meaning of that word.
I am also going to learn what it means to 'look at something wholly'. And this learning implies ( having some inner?) 'leisure'. I must have (free inner?) space, without all kinds of ( personal?) problems shouting at me. So I must have (this inner space of?) leisure and I create (this inner?) leisure in order to learn. That means also ( a genuine sense of?) 'curiosity'. You can only be curious when you (realise that you?) 'don't know'. I must also have a (self) sustained, driving interest. All this is implied in ( the holistic?) learning.
Then also (this inner?) learning implies never accumulating what you have learnt as ( static ?) knowledge.
What does it mean to perceive (directly?) ? To see you (as you really are?) there must be no 'screen' between you and me -no (mental) screen of prejudice, no screen of my (unfulfilled?) desires : there must be a 'space of freedom' between you and me. Then I can 'see' you . If there is no space (of freedom?) between me and the tree I can't (really) 'see' the tree. So is my mind capable of looking at this vast Stream of Selfishess with ( some free) space between me and that? Consider it, look at it. So to perceive (the truth about anything?) one must have ( some free inner?) space - no images, no conclusions, no prejudices . So is my mind capable of looking with this 'space of freedom' from all the structure of thought as 'images'? Can you do it?

Q: No.

K: You say you can't, why? Is it because you have never (endeavoured to?) learn about yourself? Therefore when a new thing is proposed, you say, 'For god's sake, I don't know what you are talking about.'

I am putting it round the other way : to perceive (the truth about anything?) there must be ( this elementary ?) self-knowledge : thought has created this (dualistic?) structure of the ('thinking) me' which has separated itself from thought and says, 'I am independent'. So I cannot look at myself because I have got so many ideas about myself or I see something of myself, but I say, that's wrong, I must change it - you follow? I am always 'clothing it' according to opinions, judgements, evaluations. So can I look at myself without any (cultural?) interpretation? You can, can't you?

Q: To see myself will take time.

K: Ah, that's another of our traditions. To look at myself will take time. That is one of the things that we have learnt from school, from professors, from analysts, from psychologists, that is the whole structure of tradition - you will learn gradually. I will learn gradually Algebra or Russian, but why should I say the same thing about myself? I may learn instantly about the whole of myself, but if I say, well it will take time, I am lost (in time?) . You follow?

Q: I see in myself more than one 'centre'.

K: Obviously, but they are all 'centres'. I may see a 'centre' in the morning when I wake up, rather joyful and clear eyed, having slept well, there is a marvellous centre, and later on, as the day goes on, I meet people whom I don't like, there is another ( self-protective?) centre, but it is all the same movement of ( focussing around a?) 'centre'. Don't waste time on this.

Q: Is there anything else in ( the mind of?) human beings except thought?

K: To find out if there is something (within us?) beyond thought I have to know the right place of thought, I have to know the limits of thought.
Look, sirs, we will stop in a little because you can't maintain this ( quality of integrated attention?) for a whole hour and a quarter.
( So, to recap:) We said thought is 'fragmentary' and it cannot 'see the whole' - the whole being healthy, sanity, holiness. And to 'see the whole' one has to learn about it. To learn about it is not the same as learning a language. Learning a language takes time, but this may not need time. So we break away from the tradition of (acquiring anything in?) 'time'. I wonder if you see that. This may require something totally different : there must be ( free inner) space. There can only be (such inner?) space when there is no 'image', (no naming?) , no movement of thought; then only I can 'see'.
So I have to ( experientially?) learn about it because I have always seen through interpretation, through memories, through images - my conclusions (or assumptions?) dictating what I ( should) see. So a ( free inner) space is necessary. That (silent?) space cannot exist if there is any form of image-(making) , any symbol, any word, any kind of prejudice. That means I must learn not according to 'professional investigators' and their ( scientifically standardised?) conclusions, I must learn about myself 'as I am'. I can only learn about myself in ( my inter-) relationship with you - how I act, how I behave, what my actual thoughts are. So in knowing myself I then learn to have an (inwardly free?) space which will bring about the ( insightful?) 'perception of the whole', which (happens when?) there is no 'perceiver' at all because the 'perceiver' (thought controlling entity ?) is put together by thought ( in its longing for temporal permanency ?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Aug 2016 #387
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

3RD K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1975.
THE DUALISTIC NATURE OF OUR REALITY (reader friendly condensed)

K: What shall we talk over together this morning?

Q: In the first dialogue there was a question, what would be the action of a man if and when he steps out of the stream, how would such a person act in the world of reality?Q: I have been listening to you for several years but I do not seem able to go beyond the words. I am a slave to words, one is caught in words, and one lives from a centre and how is one to act?

Q: Would you mind talking over together the energy that is necessary in daily life to maintain attention?

Q: Is there anything like positive and negative thought?

K: Now which shall we discuss or talk over together of all these questions?

Q: The first question.

K: Shall we begin by talking over together, what is the relationship between reality and truth, if there is such a thing as 'truth', and what is a man to do who lives caught in that world of 'reality', in the world of conclusions, ideologies, tyrannies, what is a human being to do?
( For starters : ) what is the difference, or what is the relationship (connexion?) between 'truth' and 'reality'? We said ( that 'our) reality' is all that thought has put together, all that which thought reflects upon, or remembers as knowledge, experience and memory, and acts in that area, and lives in that area, we call that 'reality'. The latin root meaning of the word 'reality' is 'res', meaning 'things'. So we live (inwardly and outwardly) with the 'things' created by thought : ideas, conclusions, which are all verbal, and we have various opinions, judgements and so on. That is the (inner) world of our 'reality'. And what is the relationship between this (virtual reality?) and 'truth'? Is there such a thing as truth, and if there is, is it ( to be found?) within this 'field of reality', or is it outside , and if it is outside, what is the relationship between 'that' and 'this reality'? Is the question clear?
What takes place in this 'field of reality'? Shall we begin with that, and see its meaning, its significance, and its value, and when we have understood completely or totally the field of reality, then we can enquire into the 'other' . When we are absolutely clear about the 'world of reality' then we can proceed to find out if there is truth.
So what is the human activity in the world of reality, both outwardly as well as psychologically, inwardly? In that world of reality there is always 'duality' - the 'me' and 'you', the 'we' and 'they'. This duality (dualistic mentality?) expresses itself in the world of reality as nationalities, as religious divisions, as political divisions all this is actually going on. So there is this activity of duality - the 'me' and the 'you', and the 'me' separating itself from the 'actual' (facts) and having a conflict with the actual. I wonder if you see that.
That is, this 'world of reality' is created by ( the self-interest embedded in our) thought. This thought is a 'movement' (a self-sustained activity?) in time and measure which has created a 'centre' that separates itself from thought, then that 'centre' creates the duality as the 'you' and the 'me' - right? Is this clear? Does one see the 'reality' of this? - I was just going to say the 'truth' of it- This is the truth, ( the clear perception of?) 'that which is' , is the truth. And do I see 'that which is'? That is, thought creating a centre, that centre assuming power, domination and all the rest of it, and creating division between the centre and ( whatever happens on?) the periphery, which is (the ongoing activity of?) thought. That 'centre' becomes not only a cohesive, unitary process, but also it acts as a dividing thing.

So we live outwardly and inwardly, psychologically, in this 'field of reality' which is basically not only fragmented but dualistically divided. That is ( everyday) our life. One of the symptoms of this divisi(ve mentality?) is the 'centre' trying to control ( its own ?) thinking, trying to control ( its own) desires and reactions. So the 'centre' (initially meant to be unifying?) becomes a factor of division. That is (why) in the field of reality conflict is always part of it, not only the conflict within myself, but outwardly, in my relationship to others.
So conflict is one of the principles of this 'reality', as division is one of the principles and from that division ( our inner?) conflicts arise : the centre separates itself from ( its inherited?) violence, and then that centre acts upon the violence, controlling it, trying to change it into 'non-violence' and so on, from the centre there is always the effort made to control, change. This is (also) happening (outwardly) politically : in the 'democratic' world world where the ( elected?) 'few' dominate the many, the few are the 'centre' (of power & control ?) and they want (order and?) unity, and therefore they must (control everything ?) , etc., etc.
So in the field of reality 'division' (and its associated conflicts?) is one of the basic principles. That is, the 'centre' trying to control (the individual or collective movement of ?) thought - we try to control anger, we try to control various forms of desires, always from the 'centre' - the 'centre' being that which thought has created (for survival & safety purposes ) , and which attributed to itself the quality of permanency.
So from (the understanding of ) that arises (a serious 'psychological' issue?) : is it possible to live in the world of reality without any form of ( thought?) control ?

Q: You can do this (only) in the privacy of ( your intimate ) thought.

K: If you are by yourself, are you saying, you can do this, but if you are with others you cannot live a life in which there is no control - is that it? Now, (inwardly speaking?) who are the 'others'? Divided by ( their self-centred?) thought as 'you' and 'me', but the actuality is, you 'are' (pretty much like?) me, ( inwardly) I 'am' (like the rest of?) the world, and the world 'is' ( like) me, ( the consciousness of?) the world 'is' (also manifested in?) you.

Q: That is not true.

K: You say, that is not so. Now let's look at it: whether you live in America, in France, or Europe, or Russia, China or India, basically we are (inwardly prety much ) the same - the same suffering, the same anxiety, the same (cultural) arrogance, ( with occasional fits of?) great anxiety, uncertainty - basically we are the same. Environmentally, culturally, we may have different ( mental infra)structures and therefore act superficially differently, but fundamentally you are the same as the man who is across the border.

Q: I need privacy.

K: Oh, you mean you want to be ( safely) enclosed by a house, by a garden, by a wall round your house, or ( inwardly) enclosed so as not to be hurt. So you say, I must have a wall around myself in order not to be hurt. ( Back to what ) we were saying, in the field of reality conflict and duality are the actual things that are going on - conflict between people, conflict between nations, conflict between ideals, conflict between beliefs, conflict between states, armaments - the whole 'field of reality' is ( sustaining itself by) that.
The Hindus would say, 'that is a maya', (in Sanskrit 'ma' means measure). So they said in the field of reality there is always measurement, and therefore that is illusory because measurement is a matter of thought, measurement is a matter of (space and) time, from here to there, and so on, and therefore they said that is 'illusion'. But the ( other) world they wanted is also an illusion created by thought.
So in the field of reality can one live (inwardly) completely without a shadow of conflict? I don't know if you have gone into this.

Q: It seems that when we are ( becoming) aware of all these (psychological) processes that thought tries to control, this brings conflict and then to control it, thought brings more conflict, and then control again brings more conflict, then there is ( a snow-balling) trouble. So why control?

K: If I may go into it a little bit : have you ever tried to act without control? You have (a lot of) sensory appetites. To live (& learn?) with those appetites, not yielding to them, not controlling them, to 'see' these appetites and end them as they arise. Have you ever done this?

Q: It's impossible.

K: No, sir, the human mind can do anything (it wants ) - they have gone to the moon, before this century they said, 'Impossible' - they have gone to the moon, technologically you can do anything. So why not 'psychologically'? Find out, don't say 'I can't, it's impossible'.
Go into step by step and you will see it. You see a beautiful house, lovely garden, a desire ( to own it?) arises, and how does this 'desire' arise? There is visual perception of that house, then that visiual thing is communicated to the brain, there is a ( pleasant mental?) sensation, and thought comes along and says, 'I must have it', or ( Too bad...) I can't have it. So there is the beginning of a desire ( sustained by ?) thought.
Now (try this for a change?) there is that beautiful house, the seeing, the sensation, the desire, can that desire end (there) , not 'move on' into the thought of possessing it and all the rest of it? You have understood my question? The perception, sensation, desire and the 'ending' - in that there is no (need for any supervising thought?) control. I wonder if you see that.
( To recap:) I am saying, can you live a life in the 'world of reality' without control? And I showed you how it is done : All ( worldly ?) action comes from a desire, a motive, a purpose, an (also they can ) end (right there?) . Surely this is simple: you eat a tasty omelette, what takes place? The brain registers the pleasure, and demands that pleasure be repeated tomorrow. But that omelette is never going to be (tasting) the same. You see what we are trying to point out ? Not register ( pre- program ?) the taste as a desire, as a ('psychological') memory, ( but being inwardly free to?) end it.

Q: We are not (inwardly ?) quick enough to stop the ( self-centred) thought.

K: Therefore 'learn' ! What we are saying ( about its routine actions ?) is very simple: the visual seeing, the (gratifying mental ?) sensation, and ( thought processing it into a conscious ?) 'desire'. You can see this in yourself, can't you? Now being (inwardly) alert and watching it (non-verbally ?) , you will see as you watch it, that ( this elementary action of?) thought has no place.
So I am suggesting that ( living responsably ?) in the 'field of reality' ( the 'real' world?) the ending of conflicts in oneself and therefore in ( your relationship with?) the world, this (qualitative?) radical change in you does affect the whole consciousness of man. For God's sake see this !

Q: How can we get this to work, if we're not having a 'dialogue' ?

K: I have tried to make it a 'dialogue'. Dialogue means conversation between people who are really serious to find out (the truth of the matter) . So if somebody wants to say something which we can't hear, please convey to somebody near who will tell us. But don't let you and I have a ( verbal) battle about it.
So we were asking ; can a human being live in the 'world of reality' without conflict? (If so?) he must understand the whole (inner) content of this 'reality', how thought operates, what is the nature of thought.

Let's (recap:) : we said the 'field of reality' is all the things that thought ( our survivalistic thinking?) has put together consciously, or unconsciously a ( controlling?) 'centre' , and a (wide spread) 'disease' of that reality is conflict - the divisions between nations, between social classes, between people, between you and me. ( This mentality of?) conflict (extends) outwardly and also inwardly : between the ( controlling?) 'centre' which thought ( the thinking brain?) has created ( for itself?) and ( the other activities of?) thought itself, because the 'centre' thinks it is separate from thought, so there is that conflict of duality between the 'centre' and the ( rest of?) thought; and from that arises the urge to control (one's) thoughts, to control (one's) desires.
Now (the 'psychological' challenge is : ) is it possible to live a life in which there is no 'control' (or...no thought-controlling entity?) - in the sense that a man who would want to 'live in peace' (with himself and with the world?) must understand ( transcend?) this problem of 'control'. And this ( constant effort of?) control is between the 'centre' and the ( desire-activated ?) thoughts taking different forms, different objects, different ( directions or?) 'movements'. So, one of the factors of (our inner) conflict is ( the sensory ?) desire, and its ( related need for?) fulfilment.
Desire comes into being when ( the self-centred activity of thought is taking charge of any ?) perception and ( its associated sensory) sensation. Now can the mind be totally aware of that ( unfolding of?) desire, as it occurs and 'end' it there ?

Q: You mean no recording ( of the rewarding sensation?) in the brain as memory, which then gives vitality and continuity to desire ?

K: That's right. Suppose I see a beautiful picture and the (instinctive ?) response is to 'possess' it; then that sensation as desire is registered in the brain, the ( acquisitive ?) brain then demands the possession of it and ( is projecting the perpetual ?) 'enjoyment' of it. This is fairly simple. Now can you look at that picture, see the picture, (the upcoming) desire, and the 'ending' ?

Q: Sir, usually I don't recognize that I have such desire until afterwards. In other words there is no (instant) recorder in my mind that tells me I am having desire.

K: Sir, that desire arises through sensation - (aka) the sensory perception. Sensory perception of objective things involving (our personal values or?) beliefs is ( creating or projecting ?) illusions. Therefore there is the ( latent ?) problem of conflict. So is it possible to live a life totally without conflict? Or we live ( safely immeresed?) in the (real?) world of tradition and accept that world, where conflicts are inevitable.

Q: Sir, I am not conscious of ( myself) living in conflict.

K: All right, you are not conscious that you live (inwardly) in conflict.
We were talking over together this question of 'reality' and 'truth' and we said that unless you understand the whole nature of (our man-made) 'reality', all its complexities, mere enquiry into what is 'truth' is (ending up in becoming?) an escape. And we are saying let us look into this 'world of reality' which ( the self-centred?) human thought has created: in that ( 'real') world of reality the conflict (of duality?) is the basic movement of our life. I may not be conscious of that (sublimated?) 'conflict' sitting here, but 'un-consciously' there is a ( duality?) conflict going on and it takes many forms : the man who is trying to live up to his ideals, is (subliminally living?) conflict: these 'ideals' are projected (to be achieved in the future ?) by thought, so as the 'centre' pursues that, there is a conflict (of interests ?) between the 'ideal' and the 'actual'. This is what is happening in the ('real') world : the few ( who assume they?) 'know' what is right and the rest (have no much choice except to?) follow. So this goes on all the time : the authority of the politician , of the scientist, the mathematician, the disciple who wants to achieve what his 'guru' has got ; but and whatever the guru has got is still in the world of 'reality' : he may talk about truth but he is using the methods of the 'real world', keeping ( a profitable?) division between himself and the disciple. This is so obvious.

Q: What is the function of a ( holistic?) teacher?

K: Am I teaching you anything? Be clear, don't accept, don't say, yes. Find out if I am teaching you anything. Please be serious for a few minutes. What is the function of a so-called teacher?

Q: You are not a ( traditional?) 'Professor' because you have not accumulated and therefore are not giving that accumulated knowledge to us.

K: There is much more involved : What is a 'teacher', and who is the 'taught', and 'what' is being taught? The (traditional) teacher has accumulated information ( and practical skills?) about mathematics, biology or physics, or whatever, and he teaches you, or hand you over that information.
But ( holistically-wise) 'what' is it to be taught? If both the teacher and the students are ( interacting in a process of shared ?) learning, - and I hope this is what we are doing here - then there is no 'teacher' and the 'taught', then there is no 'authority'. While ( teaching in the?) the field of reality has (a subliminal tint of?) 'authority' because the ( 'reality' based ?) teacher assumes a status. You understand ? Here we are not assuming any 'status' - I have made it perfectly clear right from the beginning that I am not your 'guru', you are not my 'followers', I am not your ( spiritual ?) 'authority'. But we are investigating (together ) , not offering one opinion against another opinion, I have no opinions, I have no belief. I don't rest on my laurels, I have no laurels. All that is ( educationally-wise?) 'stupid'.
So if both of us are ( interacting in a process of ) learning (about ourselves?) , then we are equal, and therefore we are free (of any spiritual authority?) . And it is only in freedom you can ( truly) learn.

So ( back to our topic?) we are learning together by investigating if it is possible to live in this ( 'real' ? ) world without ( the duality?) conflict. And I say : it is possible, but to find it out (for yourselves) you must investigate, you must look, you must listen, that means you must be 'serious'.
So we said that 'desire' (when taken over by?) thought, is one of the active factors of division, probably it is 'the' only factor of division, and as long as we don't understand the whole nature of desire, there will be the (subliminal pressure for the ?) fulfilment of it, and the despair of not fulfilling it and the ( colateral?) conflicts involved in fulfilling it, all that is involved in that word 'desire'. ( In a nutshell:) Desire arises (in this sequence) : perception, sensation, ( eye?) contact, desire. Can that ( natural movement of?) desire have no further ( thought sustained?) movement? What gives it vitality and the drive to fulfil ? What gives continuity to desire? The response of ( my personal ) memory, the ( dominating ?) thought says, 'I must have it'. This is the whole ( dualistic) movement.

So : is it possible to live a life without conflict? There is much more involved in this : our brains function in ( solidly rooted in ?) tradition, in 'knowing', because the brain functions effectively when it is completely secure. You can watch this in babies, you can watch any professional technician, because he knows perfectly the motor there is no problem (that can't be solved?) . And since our brain (instinctively?) demands security, certainty, it finds it in (its past knowledge and ) experience and (implicitly) is afraid to move out of that realm.
So when ( such a major?) challenge is put to it: 'Can you live without conflict?' , the immediate response is, 'I can't because I have ( become accustomed to living the (good old ?) way'. Therefore it is a 'Please, don't disturb'. So the brain ( in its instinctive?) seeking security, finds it in ( a dualistic mentality of?) conflict, and accepts it ( with all its colaterals) as suffering, pain, other things.

Now, ( for a change?) can the brain perceive (the time-binding cycle of?) sensation and (thought taking over ) desire and not keep operating in the traditional way? Which means : can the brain register only those things that are 'technological' (or 'practical' in terms of our material survival ?) and nothing else? That is, the ( traditional) brain registers (everything that is happening ?) , because it has to function efficiently and to function efficiently it must be sure, certain (of its inner and outer environment?) . And it has found its ( inward?) safety in holding on to memories, in holding on to its past experiences.
Now we are asking : can the brain only register the activities in the field of the known and nowhere else? That is, no movement of thought outside its own area. You understand?

Q: Can you give an example?

K: We'll try: Look, sir, I see that ( brand new?) Mercedes car - there is perception, sensation, desire. The next ( subliminal) 'movement' is thought registering it ( in its 'personal' files) in the brain and saying, 'I must have it'. Now can there be no interference of ( this 'personalised'?) thought but only observation, sensation and no interference of thought? Have you understood?

Q: How do you..

K: We are learning (about the 'general' approach?) not 'how'. You see it (the actual challenge ?) is much more complex than this because we are ( subliminally?) registering everything, every influence, anything that we see - the television, the books as well as you are registering now what I am saying. And in that (pre-?) 'registered' state the brain is completely secure, and it constantly demands security. So it says, I can live (pretty safely?) in my tradition, in knowledge. Now we are 'challenging' the (traditionalistic?) brain, saying : look, you have lived for millenia in ( this dualistic state of?) conflict, find out how to live without conflict.
And the brain ( subliminally?) refuses (a potentially destabilising chalenge?) , which you are doing: You don't (really) want to find it out (experientially?) . So you say, 'Tell me (all about it?) quickly' (and I'll think about it ?) .
But we are only pointing out (the deeper implications of this challenge?) . The brain demanding security lives ( self locked?) in the field of knowledge which is tradition, and that ( living in the collective ?) tradition is going on, being added to, modified, all the time. Now we are saying, look at 'yourself' - which is your brain, your mind, your feelings, and all that- and find out if you can live without a single conflict. ( As a potential bonus : ?) in that there may be complete security. So find out what is the right place of thought? Has it any other place except in the field (of the practical outward life) ?

Q: No.

K: Don't ( glibly?) say, 'No'. Learn ! So 'freedom' is not in the field of reality because ( a total?) freedom implies freedom from conflict. And if there is this 'freedom from conflict' such a mind will know how to live in ( the field of?) 'reality'.
( In a nutshell?) If ( the totality of?) my brain has grasped the full significance (value?) of living a life without conflict, which means discovering the (spatio-temporal?) limitation of thought, its narrow (egotistic?) boundaries, then the brain will know how to live in the world of reality and act in freedom from conflict.

( Parting insight:) Our whole ( modern) society is based on 'buying' and 'selling'. And I am (also naturally?) greedy because that is my ( cultural?) tradition. But I can also see in this (pretty materialistic?) world of reality that I need clothes, shoes, a house, a shelter, but ( eventually) my need becomes 'greed'. So if I realize, the whole nature of the 'world of reality' in which the ( inner activity of our) brain is ( implicitly?) involved- a human brain that has functioned ( exclusively) in the field of ( its past?) knowledge because that is the only thing it can be secure in. But ( to optimise?) that (inner sense of?) security it seeks it in ( the world of?) ideas, in images, in beliefs, in opinions, in value judgements and so on.
So to live (holistically?) in the field of reality is to (make good use of one's practical ?) knowledge and also be free to act there without the interference of ( traditional?) beliefs, dogmas and all the rest of it. So then (the right) 'action' in the field of reality is immediate. If I (am addicted to?) smoke – and see the whole implication of it, end it instantly. Do it. Alcohol, anything. That is, see actually 'what is' and then the (right) 'action' is (now) not tomorrow.
So when there is a total comprehension of the ( intrinsical limitations of our self-centred ?) movement of thought as ( functioning exclusively in the field of?) 'time' and 'measure', which is the 'world of reality', then we can begin to enquire into Truth.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Aug 2016 #388
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 12 posts in this forum Offline

Interesting text. Thanks John.

(Diegesis (Greek ???????? "narration") and mimesis (Greek ??????? "imitation") have been contrasted since Plato's and Aristotle's times.)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Aug 2016 #389
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

4TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1975 (reader friendly condensed)
THE BEGINNINGS OF MEDITATION

K: (...) Now let's go on to the next thing : meditation and the perception of the whole (aka 'insight'?) , which we said transforms the (perceptive quality of the?) cells themselves which have followed (the ways of?) tradition.
One's human brain functions (routinely ?) within the field of knowledge because that is the safest field – right? So the brain is accustomed to function in a ( mental) groove - traditional, conceptual, or believing in something, there the brain is ( feeling) safe. One can see this in everybody. And we are asking whether this 'mechanical' brain which has its own volition, it has its own independence, it has its own inventiveness, is such a brain is capable of transforming itself? You have understood the question?

Q: You talk about security but the problem is not that for me. It is the lack of energy always.

K: Why do you lack energy? Is it because you're having the wrong food, being oversexed, habits, worries, thinking about something that is dead, you follow? You have got plenty of energy when you want something.
So, if you have observed your own activities, your attitudes, your desires, your anxieties and so on are constantly being repeated. There is never an ending to them, there is always something new to be worried about, something new to get excited about, something new that will give you a new appetite, and so on. Do we understand, realize, see it, that your own life is utterly 'mechanical' (repetitive?) ? Now we are asking: can the brain, which is ( programable?) computerized, which is mechanical, following tradition, can that brain change itself, and how does this change come about?

Are you aware that your habits, your attitudes are mechanical? Then how is that mechanical habit to ( come to an?) end, not gradually, take ten years, end it? You understand? If you smoke, as many of you do, which has become a habit, the nicotine dulls the nervous system, and so on, can you end that habit instantly? I am taking the most obvious thing first. The body demands the 'nicotine' poisoning, that poisoning that has been going for years and years; and you realize it is mechanical, and can you end it instantly now, never smoke again? That is intelligence. But to carry on day after day, saying, 'I know it is bad for me' and carry on, it is the most unintelligent way of living. So now move to a different level. Psychologically the ( thinking?) brain has created a centre, hoping it will be the unifying factor that brings together the family, the nation, the group and so on. Now that 'centre' functions and reacts mechanically - my country, my god, my saviour, my belief, my ambition - you follow? ' Now, can that mechanical, traditional attitude and activity stop (inwardly?) ? And what will make it stop?

Now this is the beginning of a meditation, which implies the total ( integrative?) transformation of the energy which has been dissipated. It is the salvation of total comprehension.

Q: If there is no centre what is the 'focus' of this energy?

K: When I am (subliminally?) focussing my energy on myself - which you are doing most of the time - 'my' quarrels, 'my' appetites, 'my' hopes, 'my' ambitions, 'my' fears, my ( total?) energy is self-centred. Right? And that self-centred energy is very limited. Right? Now we are saying, when there is no centre as the 'me', what happens to that energy?
So ( the first task of ?) meditation is the understanding of the whole structure and nature of thought. I am using the word 'understanding' (in the experiential sense of?) an awareness of the total 'works' of thought, what it manufactures, what is false, what is true in our thinking - the whole of it.
So one has to understand very, very deeply the nature and the structure of thought. If you have not understood it you can't meditate.

Q: What do you mean by the 'structure of thought'?

K: By 'structure' I mean the movement (whole activity?) of our thought which imagines, which builds, which foresees, which lays down a structural path to follow. Unless one understands the 'reality' of thought, and its activity in the world of reality, meditation then becomes merely an escape, or it 'invites ( psychic?) experiences' in which you will be held. You will say, 'I have had a marvellous experience', and that holds you for the rest of your life.
So in meditation there is no ( search for ESP ?) 'experience'. Right? I wonder if you see that. The word 'experience' means 'to go through' (something?) and finish (with it?) . The meaning of that word. And also when you (mentally evaluate that?) experience, you must know what it is, no?

So, ( in a nutshell?) if I don't recognize it, there is no(-thing that can be recorded as personal ?) 'experience'. When I recognize it, then it is already (being processed in terms of what was previously?) known.

Q: What if you suddenly see something new ?

K: When you say : it is 'something new' - finished. When you say, it is the new, it is already ( been incorporated into?) the old (bank of personal experiences) . So you have to understand the whole nature of thought, its nature and structure, and all the things that are involved in experience - which all of you want, new experiences. And in that is implied memory, the past, recognition, and the attachment to the memory of that experience. And then you are lost (in 'time'?) .
So the first (experiential step ?) in meditation is the total awareness of the movement of thought as time and measure. If you have not grasped that deeply you won't know what ( an insightful ?) meditation is. Then ( in phase 2) we can proceed to find out whether that ( mental) moulding, that shaping (pre-formatting?) of the brain, that ( self-centred?) conditioning, can be broken instantly?

Q: I see I am conditioned but thought is independent of that conditioning.

K: We said ( that our collective?) thought has created the ( self-centred) conditioning, and then this conditioning says, 'I am independent of thought'. Thought has created this tent, and then the tent is becoming a reality independent of thought. Thought has put together our ( self-centred?) conditioning, the centre. The centre is the essence of that conditioning, and this centre feels it is independent. Therefore feeling independent, it says, 'I will control, shape, adjust thought.' And the ( core mental ?) conditioning goes on. But thought 'is' the conditioning, not the division between conditioning and thought, the observer is the observed, and all that.
First of all, is this possible for a (culturally formatted?) brain that has evolved upon centuries of time, to radically transform itself instantly?

We have to go into the question: is there an (inner?) 'observation' which is totally different from the 'usual' observation (which consists of sensory seeing objective things through an interposed mental 'image' ? ) .
So my brain is attached to something, and can that brain see it without (creating an?) illusion? Do you understand what I am saying? Look: I believe in God - if I do - and because of that belief I look at life from a peculiar, distorted point of view, which is the (generally accepted cultural?) tradition - the politicians talk about God, practically everybody. So 'illusion' comes about through a sensual observation involving our personal beliefs. Now the brain functions inwardly that way, lives that way. Now to see totally the implication of this belief, and the illusion, to see it totally, is to break ( free from ?) the (traditional thinking & feeling?) patterns of the brain. You understand?

All right, sirs. (As a parting insight?) I'll show you something.
That is, the brain can only function in security because then it is efficient, whether it is a neurotic belief or 'rational' one , it is the same. Now is it possible to see the whole nature of belief (including its causation of?) fear, attachment, and 'hold it' ? When you 'see the totality' of it then it is a ( major existential ?) shock to the brain, and ( the full impact of?) that 'shock' changes the structure of the cells - got it? No, (better?) 'do it'!

Suppose one lives in the ( illusory safety of the ?) belief that I am a Hindu. And it functions, operates, moves in that field all the time. You come along and say, 'Look, that way of looking at life distorts your 'human' action which should be comprehensive, whole, it becomes limited, therefore breeds conflict'. You point out all that to me. I listen to you, I listen, that means I pay attention, that means care, respect to what you say. And because I 'listen' it is a great shock to the brain, and that very shock, that challenge (of truth?) , brings about a totally different movement in the brain. Do it, you will see. That's only ( the upper) part of meditation. There is much more involved in meditation. Perhaps we will go into it tomorrow.

Q: Does it mean the child must wait until it grows up to see this?

K: It is the responsibility of the parent, the teacher, to see that this takes place in the child. That is ( part of a holistic?) education, not everlastingly (cultivating the ) mechanical ( activities of?) memory. That is also part of education but fundamentally this is the basic thing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Aug 2016 #390
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 706 posts in this forum Offline

5TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1975 (reader friendly condensed)

THE INWARD ASPECTS OF MEDITATION

K: As this is the last dialogue, conversation between us, what shall we talk about ?

Q: Should we continue with meditation?

K: So perhaps if we began talking over together what we were talking about the meaning of meditation and what is the mind that is meditative, whether it has any experience at all, whether it is capable of acting in this world of 'reality'. And also (en passant?) bring in the question of awareness, attention, love and compassion.

Let us talk over together the question of (having inner and outer ?) space : outwardly the world is getting over populated, one lives more and more in towns, in cities, where there is hardly any space, living in little flats. And the outward space becoming rather scarce, various problems arise like violence, a sense of inescapable pressure of so many thousands around you. And when one lives very close to another there is no ( private?) space, there is no sense of freedom in that life. I don't know if you have lived in New York for a little while, or in London, or any of these places, one feels cramped, held in.
So outwardly there is less and less space. And ( also ?) inwardly we have hardly any ( free?) space at all - our everyday problems - jealousy, envy, not having sufficient money, despair, loneliness, all the ( colateral?) neurotic problems, and ambition, ruthless violence. All that gives very little ( free ) space within oneself.
Now talking about 'awareness', is one aware of that fact, that in oneself one has very little space inwardly , that one has so many ( unsolved?) problems, at all levels, conscious as well as unconscious? One's consciousness is so crowded in, and there is hardly any space - is one aware of it?

As we said the other day, thought has created the ( 'me'-thinking?) centre, and the centre thinks it is independent so that centre creates for itself a ( self-enclosed?) space - 'me' and 'my family' and 'me' and the 'nation' which is a little larger enclosure. And within that little limited ( mental?) space we live.
So it is important to find out for oneself ( in the context of meditation?) what is the true meaning of ( having inner ) space? Because a mind that is crowded, a mind that is self-enclosed, such a mind must inevitably (sooner or later?) become violent – right?
Now is there any other kind of ( available inner?) space? (To go into that question we must also understand the importance of ( listening to?) sound. When you listen to some great classical music, you can only listen to the sound if you have ( the free inner?) space to receive that sound. ( More specifically:) if you listen to it without any (mental?) association, without any image, then that (pure sound of the?) music itself creates a great ( inner) space. Haven't you noticed this? And so we try to create artificially that ( free inner) space, through sound and listening to that sound, and producing that space in which that sound can continue ( to reverberate?) . Do you know what I am talking about? (I have my doubts...)

You see freedom is ( having ) space, outwardly and inwardly, specially inwardly. And as the outward space is becoming more and more difficult, more and more crowded, the search for inner space becomes important, and so one takes a drink, smokes and all that. And there are those people who come from India talking about ( the virtues of?) 'transcendental meditation' (achieved?) through ( listening to the ?) sound (the 'vibes' created by?) repeating certain ( magic?) words. Those are all the activities of ( our self-centred?) thought trying to produce an (inward?) space in which whatever is heard is a total movement. That is an artificial process brought about by the desire to have space. And then the (vibration conveyed by the?) 'word' becomes then very important. So they introduce Sanskrit words, and that sound creates a little ( silent inner?) space. And you think that space is freedom to 'go beyond' (the 'transcendental' element ?) .

Now, (our self-?) 'consciousness' is ( generated by?) its (active memory?) content. Your (self-) consciousness is made up of what you think, what you feel, what you desire, what your tradition, of what your demands are, it is a whole ( dynamic?) content, and that 'conten't makes your (self-) consciousness. And that very content limits the (totality of our ?) consciousness. And so therefore in that there is no ( free inner) space.

So is one aware of this crowded 'content' of our consciousness? Now, in that consciousness there is a little (free) space and we wander in that little space. So is one aware of it? By 'being aware' I mean, to observe it (purely?) without (any personal?) choice, without discrimination - just be totally aware of that consciousness with its content, which is also (encompassing?) the 'unconscious' (deeper layers) . Here the problem arises: how can one be aware of the unconscious, of the deeper (dormant content?) . What we are saying is, if you are ( becoming?) totally ( non-personally?) aware, then in that totality the 'unconscious' is also (getting exposed?) .

I will go into it a little bit. I do not know why the 'unconscious' has become so tremendously important (in modern culture?) . The psychologists, the psycho-analysts, the ( self-developpment?) professionals, everlastingly talking about it. They have written volumes about ( the symbolism of?) dreams, which is the ( expression of the?) unconscious. And to uncover the deeper layers, one ( naturally?) thinks one has to go through (a diligent process of self-) analysis. But (in the context of the dualistic mind?) analysis implies the ( knowledgeable?) analyser and the ( hidden stuff being?) analysed. So since there is (a subliminal?) duality one can go endlessly investigating into duality and never reaching anything. Now if you are ( holistically?) 'listening' to what is being said, (implying that the 'analyst' is also listening), then in that total awareness you ( can eventually ?) see the whole of consciousness. I'll explain this because you are looking 'puzzled'.
How do you 'see the totality' of anything? How do you 'see the totality' of a tree? If you were a lumberman, you (obviously) can't see the totality of the tree, since you are thinking what you can do with it, how many houses you can build, what kind of paper you can produce and so on. So you never see the ( living?) totality of anything if there is a previous ( mercantile evaluation or scientific ?) 'conclusion' about it. That's fairly simple, isn't it ?
So ( similarly) I do not know what the 'totality' of my consciousness is. Actually when you look at yourself do you see the whole content, or parts of it? 'You' only see parts of it, don't you ? So this observation of the parts denies the (perception of the?) whole : If I am concentrated on (solving?) my (personal?) problems I can't see the whole (of myself ) .

I can only 'see the whole' when I am not concerned ( obsessed?) with the part, which means that my mind is 'free to observe'. And it is not 'free to observe' if I have already come to some ( reassuring?) conclusion about it.
You know we were talking once to a very well known writer, superb ( Huxley?) style, a great friend. He said, you know I find it terribly difficult because I have read so much. He was a scientist, an artist, he could play the piano, and he could draw, he could talk about Vedanta, Tibetan Buddhism, any subject on earth. And he said, 'I have read so much, my mind is so full of words, knowledge, and how can I experience something original?' You follow. So to see something 'originally', that is (in our case) , the (living?) totality of your consciousness, don't ( subliminally?) bring in your knowledge, your mental associations - look at the whole thing. So ( inwardly speaking, our bank of ?) knowledge becomes a ( potential?) danger which can prevent you from 'seeing the whole'.

So freedom implies ( having free inner?) space. So (this inner space of ) freedom implies 'emptying' the ( self-conscious?) consciousness of its ( 'psychologically' active ?) content. Please, this is ( part of the?) real meditation. (Don't fool yourself, you know nothing about it!) .
( Holistically put:) One's (self-centred?) consciousness 'is' ( the self-conscious display of?) its content. Right? This ( self-) consciousness can expand or contract but it is still held by its ( active?) content. That is, one is ( thinking of oneself as being?) a 'Christian', or a 'Buddhist', or a 'communist', one has so many ( culturally acquired?) opinions, (value) judgements, problems- and in that ( active?) content there is no ( free inner?) space and no (authentic sense of?) freedom.

Are you aware that in that (self-locked?) limited consciousness there is no freedom and therefore no space? And without space the inevitable process is that one's thought fills (or populates?) that space. (On the other hand?) have you ever noticed when you are by yourself, walking along the woods quietly, that your mind when it is not 'thinking' (about itself?) at all, when no thought is there, there is an extraordinary sense of deep wide quiet space? But (our self-centred?) thought is ( subliminally?) frightened of that (inner) space (of no-thingness?) because it is feeling uncertain, so it begins (ASAP?) to fill that space.
So our question is: is it at all possible to empty (dump?) this 'psychological' content of our consciousness? We are going to learn about it together if you are interested : as we said yesterday, our brains can only function (safely?) in areas of ( mental?) certainty and it is ( subliminally?) frightened of the 'unknown' – of its death, or of what will happen tomorrow. So it functions and operates (instinctively?) within the area of the known, which is ( our collective cultural?) tradition, old or new. But in this 'field of the known' there is hardly any (free ) space (left). I wonder if you see that.

So how can the mind create, bring about ( this free inner?) space? Is there a possibility for our consciousness to empty itself? Suppose my consciousness is filled with a ( subliminal background of ?) arrogance, what it has achieved, the cultural tradition, the nationality, all that occupies ( the core of?) my (self-) consciousness. And therefore in that consciousness there is very little (free inner ) space - there is no (sense of ) freedom there. And I ask myself (in the context of meditation?) can this content naturally 'fade out'? Naturally, not willed out, can it naturally empty itself (let go off?) of its content?

Now we are going to find out (in a few easy steps?) .

(a) First of all, am I aware of my ( psychological ?) 'content'? That I am (outwardly defining myself as?) a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or a communist, socialist, and I have ( inwardly) got various other ( personal) problems of sex, pleasure, ambition, greed, I must be beautiful, I must know more, you follow, all that. Can all that be 'emptied'? Have you ever asked this question? No. So, we are asking it now. And how shall I set about ( doing) it?

(b) ( By realising that this?) 'content' of my consciousness is ( also) the content of your consciousness. So my ( human) consciousness deeply is (the same) like yours. And I am asking, can (my personal attachment to this collective ?) 'content' end instantly, not gradually because through a gradual process I am accumulating (new stuff) . If I am gradually emptying the well, the water is filling up ( from its communicating underground sources?) all the time. So if I am gradually, layer after layer, problem after problem, ideal after ideal, remove (the 'psychological' stuff) it takes time, and in that time some of those factors arise ( from the collective streaming underneath?) which bring further complications - like they are doing in (the domain of socio-?) politics. So my question ( to be meditated upon?) is: can that end 'instantly', otherwise it has no meaning.

( c) Now how does it 'end'? Am I aware of this whole movement of the consciousness? If I am (becoming aware of it?) then what is the meaning of (pure) 'attention'? When there is no 'observer' then there is 'total attention'.
( Brief pointer for homework: ?) who is this 'observer' (entity) ? The 'observer' is the ( impersonation of all one's ?) past, which is 'time'. So as long as this 'observer' is trying to be attentive, there is no ( pure ) attention. If I am trying to practise ( to develop my powers of?) attention, as many do, then it is still the ( subliminal) process of thought : the centre says to itself, ' (In my daily meditation?) attention may be something most useful and so I'll practise it' But that is still within the 'area of reality' which is thought. So we are saying that 'attention' comes about when there is no 'observer'. (For homework again ?) think it out, learn about the 'observer'. That is, if I am observing you (from the background of my cultural or personal?) prejudices, I never see ( the real?) you. I see you through the (judgemental?) screen of my conclusions. So can I look at you without any conclusion, that is, without the 'observer'? Which means only observation and therefore total attention.

Now let's go the next step (d) how do I 'see the totality' of myself ? How do I find out? Come on sirs, it is your (in class?) problem. Are you all paralysed (or psychologically mesmerised by the holistic eloquence of the speaker ?) by any chance?

Q: What has sensitivity to do with the perception of the whole?

K: Obviously unless you are sensitive you can't see. You must have a fairly sensitive body, sensitive perception, eyes, sensitive feeling, you know, the whole thing must be sensitive. That is necessary.
Do you ever see yourself as a (living?) whole, not as a fragmented human being?

Q: I can't see the whole (of mysef) .

K: Obviously the 'I', the centre, can't see the whole.
Now when I ask you 'do you see yourself as the whole?' how do you respond (experientially?) to that statement? Either when you listen to that statement, you say, ' (By Jove?) I have really never put that question to myself', or you say to yourself, 'How can I look at myself as a whole when I have lived (for ages?) , (safely ) functioning in ( the various specialised?) fragments?' So, what does it mean to 'see the whole of yourself'? Are you separate from your thought? Is your desire separate from you? Is your anger separate from you - your ambition, your greed, your violence, arrogance and so on, are they separate from you? Or you 'are' all that? Right? Surely you 'are' that (whole fragmentary mentality?) . Now if you see (the actual truth that?) that you 'are' all that, then there is no (inward?) 'observer'. Before, traditionally, I said, 'I can control my thoughts' – see the trick thought is playing (on itself?) . So when you are ( becoming) aware of this process of living a fragmentary (compartmented, specialised?) life - your life at home different from your life at office and that whenever you hear something new, a new statement, you draw a conclusion from it, make an idea of it, and try to comprehend the idea, not the statement. Right? Do you give ( a non-personal?) attention to this?

When you give attention - which means no 'observer' - you can see the whole movement (at one glance?) - how you live fragmentarily, never looking at a new challenge, and drawing a (reassuring) conclusion. This is the total movement of thought.
Now in the same way, to see the totality of your consciousness, ( can happen only ?) if there isn't any kind of (personal preferences or?) 'choice' in your observation or if there is any kind of (personal) 'attachment' to any content in that consciousness. So then you see then the totality of your consciousness and therefore in that totality the part, the 'unconscious', is (also being) exposed there clearly. You don't have to 'plunge'( into the depths of yourself?) and go into all kinds of miserable (tricky?) business of examining the unconscious, it is ( potentially accessible right?) there.
So there must be (free) space inwardly, and that space can only come about 'naturally' when there is a a complete observation, seeing the whole of the ( self-interest based?) content.

And ( e) we can move on from there and ask: what is love and compassion? Is the love that we have 'spacious' (all inclusive?) ? Or is it terribly limited? Is it a compassion without border and therefore infinite space? So ( in the context of a thinker-free meditation?) we have to examine that. The love that we have in the world of reality, that love is ( based on?) pleasure. Right?

Q: That 'love' is called sentimentality.

K: I 'love you' because you give me sexual satisfaction, or you give me comfort, you support me, you help me fill my loneliness, I depend on you psychologically, emotionally and physically. So I am ( getting) attached to you, and ( further along the line?) when there is any trouble between you and me there is antagonism, there is jealousy, being wounded, there is hate. All that we call love. So in that 'love', as we (love to?) call it, which is both divine and not divine, the 'divine' love is the invention of (sublimated?) thought - I don't know if you see that in that 'love' there is no ( free inner?) space. Right? Because there is no space there is ( a potential for hate and ?) violence, therefore that 'love' is really irresponsible. And responsibility comes into being only when there is compassion. Compassion not for 'you' (only) - compassion. Like the sun, it is not shining (only) for 'you'. So where there is vast space there is ( an Universal sense of ?) Compassion. And ( as a reminder?) that vast (inner) space cannot come into one's being if there is a centre as the 'me'. Right?

So without ( this sense of univeral?) compassion there is no ( authentic?) meditation. Compassion, means 'passion for everything', care for everything, respect for everything, so, without compassion that which is 'sacred' can never be found. You understand? You know, the human thought has created ( the visible symbols of?) something sacred - the temples, the churches, and we worship those symbols, and call those 'sacred'. Once in India, the speaker was asked by the followers of Mr ( 'Mahatma') Gandhi : 'all ( chastes of?) peoples should be allowed to enter into those ( ancient) temples, for God is there for everyone'. And they asked me, 'What do you say to that question?'
And I said, 'It doesn't matter who goes in because God isn't there'. You understand?( The common concept of?) 'God' is an idea put together by thought. But one has to find ( within oneself?) That which is eternally, incorruptibly sacred. And that can only come when there is ( this free inner space of?) Compassion, which means when you have understood the whole significance of 'suffering' - not only the suffering of yourself, but the suffering of the world. The suffering of the world is (an actual?) truth, it is there. And to live with that suffering, go to the very end without escaping from it, when you don't escape you have a tremendous energy to meet that suffering, and then only you go beyond it. Out of that comes Compassion.

So ( a final global insight: ) Meditation is none of the ( commercial ?) 'things' that have been brought from India to this country - those are all the activities of ( an oportunistically clever?) thought. ( An authentic) Meditation is (dealing with ?) the total comprehension of the movement of thought, and giving it (or puting it in?) its right place. - The practical, objective aspects of human?) thought has its correct place, and that correct place can only be understood when you (have a total insight into?) the (self-centred activities?) of thought - all its cunning (calculations?) , its deceptions, its illusions. Then when you understand pleasure and the whole significance of fear, out of that there is this whole thing called 'suffering', which man has never been able to solve. Christianity has made a ( respectable?) parody of it, we have never been able to solve it, and therefore we have never been 'compassionate'. And Compassion comes only when you have understood the whole meaning of suffering, and no longer suffer, and therefore out of that comes ( the holistic intelligence of?) Compassion. It is only the compassionate mind that can meditate and find that which is eternally sacred.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 361 - 390 of 758 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.)