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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 391 - 420 of 552 in total
Fri, 02 Jun 2017 #391
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 58 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
Now education and schools should bring about wellbalanced people so that living in society may allow us to find reality but it is just as Krishnamurti says, people are getting more and more competitive and violent.

So more and more schools are going for the 'education' that helps students adjust, cope, succeed in a competitive and violent world. The aim of "well-balanced" seems to be getting scarcer and scarcer (even if there were the teachers, or the willingness to go about it.)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 03 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Jun 2017 #392
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


Q: I have always been haunted by some kind of fear. As a child I was very shy and sensitive, and now I am afraid of old age and death. This fear has become quite a problem to me; I wake up in the middle of the night with frightful dreams, and all of them are in one way or another concerned with death. The ( 2-nd world) war was a continual nightmare to me, and ( even) now I am really very disturbed. It is not a neurosis, but I can see that it might become one. I am not just superficially afraid of death, but there
is a very deep fear of it.

K: Do you want to know the truth of what is beyond death?

Q: From everything I have studied and from the few materializations I have seen at séances, there is obviously some kind of continuity after death. Thought in some form continues, which you yourself
have ( vaguely ?) asserted. This is all fairly clear and can be experimented with and understood; but even though I have gone into this matter fairly deeply, there is still an unfathomable fear which I think is definitely connected with death.

K: Death is an inevitable (fact of life ?). The continuity (of our self-consciousness ?) can be ended, or it can be nourished and maintained. Thought is continuous movement in time; this movement cannot enclose within itself a state ( a dimension of our ? ) being which is not of time. Thought as a movement of the past through the present to the future, is the ( projected ?) movement of memory, of the (self-) image , of the symbol.
The ending of ( the psychological continuity of ?) thought is the beginning of the new; the death of ( our identification with ?) thought is ( the beginning of an inner ?) life (which is ?) eternal.

(In a nutshell:) There must be constant ending for the 'new' to be. ( However ?) the (experiencing of the ?) "new" is not continuous and never be ( found ?) within the field of time. The 'new'(ness of life) is only in death from moment to moment. There must be a ( psychological 'ending' or ?) 'death' every day for the Unknown to be. The ending (of the known) is the beginning (of the new ?) , but the fear ( of leaving the known ?) prevents this 'ending'.

Q: I know that I have this ( subliminal ?) fear, but I don’t know what is beyond it.

K: What is ( the origin of ?) this fear? It comes into being only in relation to something. So, you're saying you are afraid of death. What do we mean by death? Though we have theories, and certain ( ESP ?) observable facts, (what happens beyond our physical ?) death is still (in ) the Unknown. Whatever we may 'know' about it, (the direct experience of ?) death itself cannot be brought into the field of the known; we stretch out a hand to grasp it, but the unknown cannot be made familiar; ( the mind entrenched in ?) habits cannot capture it, so there is fear.
You want, while living, to know what ( the mystery of ?) death is. But do you know what ( the mystery of your ?) living is? You know life only as ( an endless series of ?) conflicts, passing joys and pains and (entrenched in ?) this state which we call 'life' we
want to experience something that is not in the field of our (temporal ?) consciousness. The knowlegeable (mind ?) craves to experience the 'Unknown'; but, do what it will, it cannot experience death, therefore it is fearful. Is that it?

Q: You have stated it clearly. If I could know or experience what ( the inner experience of ?) death is while living, then surely my fears would cease.

K: (The direct inward ?) experiencing is not within the field of the
experiencer; but as 'experiencing' fades, the ( sense of separation between the ) 'experiencer' and the 'experience' come into being, and then experiencing is brought into the field of the known. The 'knower', the 'experiencer', craves for the state of (non-dualistic ?) experiencing, the 'unknown'; but as the 'experiencer', the 'knower', cannot enter into the state of (holistic ?) experiencing, he is afraid (of what might happen to him in the future ?) . He (actually) 'is' this fear, he is not separate from it.

Q: I know I am afraid of death, but I don’t feel that I 'am' fear, but I am fearful of something. I am the 'observer', and my fear is the 'observed'. How can the observer and the observed be (seen as being ?) one?

K: Are 'you' a (separate ) entity apart from your qualities? Are 'you' not identical ( 'identified' ?) with your qualities? Are 'you' not ( the creator of ?) your thoughts, emotions, and so on? You 'are' ( constantly created and sustained by ?) your thoughts.
Thought creates the ‘you’, the supposedly separate entity; but without ( the backing of its own ?) thought, the 'thinker' is not.
Seeing the (spatio-temporal ?) impermanence of itself, thought creates the 'thinker' as the permanent, the enduring; and
the 'thinker' then becomes the 'experiencer', or the 'observer' (safely ?) separated from the transient.

( To recap:) We all crave some kind of permanency, and seeing (a lot of ?) impermanence about us, thought creates ( projects an image of itself as a fool proof ) 'thinker' who is supposed to be permanent. The 'thinker' then proceeds to buildup other higher states of permanency: the 'soul', the atman, the higher self, and so on. Thought is the foundation of this whole structure.

But...we were concerned with fear. You said you are afraid of death. Since you cannot experience it (here & now ?) , you are afraid of it (happening sometimes later ?) .
Death is the ( 3-rd degree encounter with the ?) Unknown, and you are afraid of the Unknown. Is that it?
Now, if something is (completely ?) unknown to you, how can you be afraid of it? Therefore you are really afraid of the loss of the known, because that might take away your ( everday ?) pleasures, your gratifications. So, it is the ( loss of the ?) known that causes fear, not the unknown. How can ( entering into ?) the 'unknown' cause fear? It is not (something material ?) measurable in terms of pleasure and pain: it is Unknown. But because you (subliminally ?) cling to the (continuity of the ?) 'known' you are frightened of what your 'future' might be. But this ( image of your) 'future' , is merely the opposite of 'what is'. This is so, is it not?

Q: Yes, that seems to be right.

K: But do you (really) know the 'what is'? Have you opened the cupboard of the known and looked into it? Are you not also afraid (of being destabilised by ?) what you might discover there? Have you ever inquired into ( your attachment to? ) the known, to what you possess?

Q: No, frankly I have not. I have always taken the 'known' for granted. I have accepted the (reality of the known ?) as one accepts
sunlight or rain. One is almost 'unconscious' of (the subliminal attachments to ?) it, as one is ( unaware ?) of one’s shadow. But now that you mention it, I suppose I am also afraid to find out what might be (hidden down ) there.

K: Are not most of us (subliminally ?) afraid to (insightfully ?) look at ( the deeper facts regarding ?) ourselves? We might discover unpleasant ( destabilising ?) things, so we prefer to ignore (the deeper layers of ) 'what is'.
We are not only afraid of what might be ( waiting for us ?) in the (unknown ?) future, but also of what might be (waiting for us here & now ?) in the (continuous ?) present.

(In a nutshell:) we are (subliminally ?) afraid to (discover the facts about ?) ourselves as we are, and this avoidance of 'what is' is making us afraid of what might ( or will ?) be. We approach the so-called known with fear, and also the unknown, death. This "avoidance of what is" is (created by ?) our own desire for gratification ( or 'greed' ?) . We are seeking ( an all-time ?) security, constantly demanding that there shall be no disturbance; and it is this ( secondary ?) desire not
to be (inwardly) disturbed makes us avoid (responsibly facing ?) 'what is' and fear 'what might be'.
Fear is the (the direct result of the ?) ignorance of 'what is', and our life is spent in a constant state of fear.

Q: But how is one to get rid of this fear?

K: To get rid of something (for good ?) you must first understand it (non-dualistically ?) . Is there (a justifiable ) fear, or only the ( colateral result of our) desire not to see? It is the (subliminal ?)
desire 'not to see' (something potentially destabilising ?) that brings on ( the corelated ?) fear. So, when you don’t want to understand (responsibly ?) the full significance of 'what is', the (psychological ?) fear acts as a preventive.

You can lead a gratifying life by deliberately avoiding all inquiry
into 'what is', and many do this; but they are not ( that ) happy, nor are those who 'amuse' themselves with a superficial (intellectual ?) study of 'what is'. Only those who are earnest in their inquiry can be aware of ( the creative ?) happiness; to them alone is there freedom from (psychological ?) fear.

Q: Then how is one to (insightfully ?) understand 'what is'?

K: The ( psychological compexity of ?) 'what is' is to be seen in the mirror of relationship - in our relationship with all things. The 'what is' cannot be understood in ( a life of self-) isolation; it cannot be understood if there is the 'translator' (controlling entity ?) who denies or accepts. The 'what is' can be understood only (directly ?) when the ( temporal ?) mind is utterly passive, when it is not operating on 'what is'.

Q; Is it not extremely difficult to be so passively (choicelessly ?) aware?

K: It is, as long as there is ( a self-identified ?) thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Jun 2017 #393
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

'Unzipping' the Commentaries on Living


The sensitive mind is not an imaginative mind. The faculty to create (mental images ?) limits the (perceptive quality of the ?) mind; such a mind is bound to ( function in the framework of ?) the past which (eventually ?) makes it dull. Only the still mind is sensitive. Accumulation in any form is a ( heavy psychological ?) burden; and how can (such ?) a mind be free ?
Only the free mind is sensitive; open to the imponderable, to the implicit, to the unknown.


He had spent many years in search of Truth. He had been the round of many (spiritual) teachers, many gurus, and being still on his pilgrimage, he had stopped here to inquire. Bronzed by the sun
and made lean by his wanderings, he was an ascetic who had renounced the world and left his own faraway country. A scholar, with ready quotations, he was good at argument and swift in his conclusions. All this had given a certain 'sharpness' to his mind; but a mind that is made sharp is not pliable free.


K: To understand, to discover (the Unknown ?) must not the mind be free (from self-imposed constraints ?) at the very beginning? Can a mind that is disciplined, suppressed, ever be free? Freedom is not (just ?) an ultimate goal; it must be at the very beginning, must it not? (A self-imposed ?) discipline with its fear is (motivated by ?) the greed of (self-) achievement.

Q: I am beginning to realize that there is something fundamentally wrong with all these ( spiritual) disciplines. Though I have spent many years in trying to shape my thoughts to the desired pattern, I find that I am not getting anywhere.

K: If the 'means' is imitation, the 'end (result) must be a copy. If the mind is shaped in the beginning, it must also be conditioned at the end; and how can a conditioned mind ever be free? The means is (determining ?) the end; it is an illusion to think that through a wrong means the "true" can be achieved. When the means is suppression, the (psychological) 'end' also must be a product of fear.

Q: From childhood my education has been a process of
conformity, and discipline has been almost instinctive with me ever since I first put on this (sannyasi) robe. Most of the books I have read, and all the gurus I have been to, prescribe (self-) control in one form or another, so what you say seems almost a blasphemy; it is really a shock to me, but it is obviously true. Have my ( wandering ?) years been wasted?

K: They would have been wasted if your practices would have prevented the receptivity to truth. The very urge
to understand it is the beginning of (our inner) freedom. So what is your problem?

Q: I am seeking Truth and my deepest instinct urges me to seek and find It , and I am not interested in anything else.

K: Let us begin near to go far. Can It ( the living spirit of Truth ?) be found by seeking? Is Truth something to be known, gathered and held (within a system ?) ? Search also implies a (dualistic ?) process, does it not? And must not the mind be (completely ?) still for Reality to be? Search is a form of negative or positive acquisitiveness; and as long as the mind is the focus of effort, of conflict, can it ever be still? It can be made still through compulsion; but what is (artificially ?) made (still) can be unmade.

Q: But is not a mental effort of some kind essential (to start with ?) ?

K: We shall see. Let us inquire into the truth regarding (any dualistic ?) search. There is the 'seeker', an entity ( considering itself) separate from 'that' which it seeks. But is there such a separate entity? Is the 'thinker', the 'experiencer' (really) separate from its thoughts and experiences? Without inquiring into this whole problem (of duality ?) , meditation has no meaning.
So we must (go back to square one and ?) understand the nature of our "self (-centred ) thinking ".

Q: I have never approached the problem in this way, and I am now rather confused; but do please proceed.

K: Thought is (a form of ?) verbalized sensation , is it not? Through (sensory) perception and contact there is sensation; from this arises desire, desire for this and not for that. Desire is the beginning of (self-) identification, the ‘mine’ and the ‘not-mine’.
Thought is the (mental) response of (our past ?) memory - words experiences and images. ( However the responses of ) thought are transient, changing, impermanent, and it (the thinking mind ?) is seeking ( a higher level of ?) permanency. So thought
creates the 'thinker', who then becomes the 'permanent' and assumes the role of the controller, the moulder of thought. This illusory 'permanent' entity is the (virtual ?) product of thought, of the transient. This entity 'is' (the virtual projection of ?) thought; without ( the background activity of ?) thought it is not. The controller 'is' the controlled, he is merely playing a
deceptive (mind- ?) game with himself. Till this false (separation ?) is seen as being "false", as long as there is a (self-conscious ?) 'experiencer' remembering the experience, Truth is not.
( The direct experiencing of ?) Truth is not something
to be remembered, stored up, recorded, and then brought out. What is accumulated is not Truth.

( To recap:) ( The mental interference of of ?) desire makes for the (apparently safe ?) separation of the 'thinker' from 'his thoughts'; the desire to 'experience' ( enjoy more exciting stuff ?) , to be or
become (something) 'more' makes for division between the experiencer and the experience. ( The integrated ?) awareness
of these ( devious ?) ways of desire is (an important part of ?) self-knowledge. ( Further down the line, tis non-dualistic ?) self-knowledge is the beginning of meditation.

Q: How can there (take place ?) this fusion of the thinker with his thoughts?

K: ( For starters, by denying the 'false' :?) Not through the action of will-power, nor through (self-imposed) discipline, nor through any form of (mental ) effort, control or concentration, nor through any other (imaginable ?) 'means'. The use of any such 'means' implies ( the dualistic mentality of an ) 'actor ' who is (scheming & ?) 'acting', does it not? The (integrating ?) fusion takes place only
when the mind is utterly still without trying to be still. There is such a (meditating ?) stillness, when (the temporal continuity of) thought itself has come to a natural end.
There must be freedom from the ( compulsory ?) responses of (our cultural ?) conditioning, which is thought. Each problem is (holistically ?) solved only when the (cultivated ?) agitation of the mind - ideas, conclusions- is not (active). How can there be (an insightful ?) understanding when the (inner space of the ?) mind is agitated? Earnestness must be tempered with the swift play of spontaneity.
If you have 'heard' all that has been said you will find that Truth will come in (the rare ?) moments when 'you' are not expecting it. The bliss of ( seing the ?) truth comes when the mind is not
occupied with its (temporal) activities and struggles.
(For homework: try to ?) be open, sensitive, fully aware of 'what is' (going on inwardly & outwardly ?) from moment to moment. Don’t
( bother to ?) build around yourself a 'wall of impregnable thought'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Jun 2017 #394
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 58 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K.:... a 'wall of impregnable thought'

As we get deeper into this, it's realized that that 'wall of impregnable thought' is our psychological 'security'. The constructed 'self' is the 'stabilizing' entity that relates to the world around. Easy enough to talk about its deconstruction (people make a lot of money doing just that) but as we see not easy to 'do'. And it maintains itself with great tenacity. As far as it is concerned, what is the alternative to itself, madness? So there is a great fear of 'meddling' too much. Yet without the 'destabilization' (abandonment?) of the ego, there can never be 'freedom'. And this 'dissolution' of the thought maintained self could only come about through 'self-knowing'. But it seems for me there is a period of 'destabilization' that one goes through here as what was 'unquestioned' comes into question and 'loses' its previous 'power'. Perhaps there are 'spaces' now where before it was all filled? Unknown ( unfamiliar ) territory.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 04 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Jun 2017 #395
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 9 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Easy enough to talk about its deconstruction (people make a lot of money doing just that) but as we see not easy to 'do'

you cannot deconstruct it. There is nothing you can do to dissolve the ego. Every effort to do or not do something is still continuity of the ego, process of time. But when you become aware of the whole ego-process, of the walls created by thought, desire, fear, security etc, then you have to power not to give thought its continuity. And then there is renewing of the mind. We are not even aware how dead, hard and small our minds are. Once you break through the walls created by thought, there is regeneration of the mind. Then the mind is young, pliable, like the fresh mind of children who are not burdened by knowledge. But we have to become aware in our daily living, not as an abstract theory, but in all our relationships - at home, at work, everywhere. All philosophising and speculating about the K teachings is vacuous if we do not put it into practice. No act of will can dissolve the ego. The will is the prison-creating mechanism.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Jun 2017 #396
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 58 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
you cannot deconstruct it. There is nothing you can do to dissolve the ego. Every effort to do or not do something is still continuity of the ego, process of time. But when you become aware of the whole ego-process, of the walls created by thought, desire, fear, security etc, then you have to power not to give thought its continuity. And then there is renewing of the mind. We are not even aware how dead, hard and small our minds are. Once you break through the walls created by thought, there is regeneration of the mind.

I agree with this and I did put 'do' in quotes to signify that 'will' as we know it has no place here. But what about this 'fear'? Have you not come across it? Isn't it what holds our whole 'act' together?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Jun 2017 #397
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 9 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But what about this 'fear'? Have you not come across it? Isn't it what holds our whole 'act' together?

of course. Will = fear. Fear is omnipresent in our lives, even unconsciously. In every effort there is fear, in every relationship there is fear. Attachment = fear. The Ommen 1938 talks are mostly about fear as a root cause of will. Without becoming aware of the fear (and most people are not aware) there is no way of going beyond.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Jun 2017 #398
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 58 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

...That what is necessary for us to have is a "faith of certainty" that we have in us the "potentiality" for this transformation.

JP:On the contrary, for as long as we 'know' that we have the potential, it can never materialize.

Dan: This was from his early writings and struck me that such a "faith" would be very necessary to go deeply into oneself:

K: "The body wears out, as a coat wears out, but young and old, at any time, may achieve, may realize, if they are willing to concentrate, if they have this intense faith. As I said before, do not misunderstand what I mean by faith. It is not the faith in something external, but the certainty that within yourself lie the potentiality and the totality. That liberation everyone can achieve; it is not reserved for the few. So, achievement does not depend on age or environment, but on your effort, on your interest, on your desire -of which you alone can judge."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Jun 2017 #399
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 58 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
The real 'psycho-problem' here is for the brain to find for itself an 'alternative' stability other than in the field of the known-

Yes, it can experiment with this in a 'meditative' setting. It is a 'new' way for the brain to look at itself, letting go the 'traditional' searching for results or rewards, or more 'security', it can become aware of 'escaping', choice, like/dislike, and see without suppression, the almost constant process of thought, etc. It can experiment without 'fear' for its own sense of security which is all important for it to preserve.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 04 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 #400
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


He was a member of the government and was shyly aware of his importance. He talked of his 'responsibility' to his people; he explained how his party was superior and could do things better
than the opposition, how they were trying to put an end to corruption and the black market, difficult it was to find incorruptible and yet efficient people, and how easy it was for outsiders to criticize and blame the government for the things that were not being done. He went on to say that when people reached his age they should take things more easily; but most people were still greedy for power, even the inefficient.

Q: Deep down we were all unhappy and out for ourselves, though some of us were clever at hiding (or masking ?) our unhappiness and our craving for power. Why was there this urge to

K: We all want some (to achieve some) kind of 'power' (to be in control of everything ?) , whether over ourselves or over others. This urge to power brings a (sense of inner) gratification, and the ease of achieving some form of satisfaction blinds us (to the deeper issues ?) . But why do we seek this power?

Q: I suppose primarily because it gives us the physical comfort of a social position, and (some) respectability along recognized channels ?

K: Is this craving for power only at (the outer) level of our being? Do we not seek it inwardly as well as outwardly? Why do we worship the authority of a book, of a person, or of a belief? Have you not noticed how (deferently) you treat a man with a title, the powerful executive? Power in some form or another seems to dominate our lives: the power of one over many, or the mutual using of one by another.

Q: What do you mean by 'using another'?

K: This is fairly simple: we (consciously or not ?) use each other for mutual gratification. The present structure of society, which is our relationship with each other, is based on 'need' and 'usage'.
But such a relationship is inherently (becoming) violent, and as long as the social structure is based on mutual need and use, it is bound to be violent and disruptive; as long as I use another for my personal gratification, or for the fulfilment of an ideology with which
I am (pretending to be ?) identified, there can only be fear, distrust and opposition. Our mutual relationship is then a process of ( covered up ?) self-isolation and disintegration. This is all painfully obvious both in the life of the individual and in world affairs.

Q: But it is impossible to live without mutual need!

K: Our ' psychological' needs creates the search for (a position of ?) power, and (once obtained this ?) power is used for gratification at different levels of our being. The man who is
ambitious for himself or for his party, is obviously a disintegrating
factor in society.

Q: Is not ambition inevitable?

K: It is 'inevitable' only as long as there is no fundamental transformation in the individual. Why should
we accept it as inevitable? Is the cruelty of man to man (or to animals ?) inevitable? Does not accepting it as inevitable indicate utter thoughtlessness?

Q: If you are not cruel to others, someone else will be cruel to you, so you have to be on top.

K: To 'be on top' is what every individual, every group, every ideology is trying to do, and so (implicitly) sustaining ( a mentality of ?) cruelty, violence. There can be Creation only in peace; and how can there be peace if there is mutual usage? To talk of peace is utter nonsense as long as our relationship with the one or with
the many is based on 'need' and 'use'.
( In a nutshell :) The power of a (divisive ?) 'idea' and the power of the 'sword ' are similar; both are destructive. Such ideas and beliefs set man against man, just as the sword does; they are the very antithesis of love.

Q: Then why are we consciously or unconsciously consumed with this desire for power?”

K: Is not the 'pursuit of power' a respectable escapes from ourselves, from 'what is'? Everyone tries to escape from his own insufficiency, from his inner poverty, loneliness, isolation.
Facing the 'actual' is (definitely looking) 'unpleasant', but the (projected) escape is (to the future looks ?) glamourous and inviting. Consider what would happen if you were about to be stripped of your power, your position, your hard earned wealth. You would resist it with violence, or with a rational and cunning argumentation. If you were able to voluntarily set aside
all your many acquisitions at different levels, you would be (feeling inwardly) 'as nothing', would you not?

Q: I suppose I would - which is a very depressing (thought) . Of course, nobody wants to be 'as nothing'.

K: So therefore you have all the 'outer show' (of being & becoming something) without (realising ?) the incorruptible inward treasure. You want your outward show, and so does another, and from this conflict arise hate and fear, violence and decay. And as
almost everyone craves to 'be on top' (of whaterver they can get ?) , we have built a society of violence, conflict and enmity.

Q: But how is one to eradicate all this?

K: By not being (personally ?) ambitious, by being (inwardly ) what you are: 'not-a-thing' . Such thinking ( by 'negating' the false ?) is the highest form of ( compassionate ?) intelligence.

Q: But the cruelty and violence of the world cannot be stopped by my individual effort. And would it not take infinite time for all individuals to change?

K: This question springs from the desire to avoid ( the challenge of an ?) immediate (inner) transformation,
does it not? You are saying, in effect, "What is the good of my changing if everyone else does not change?" The 'other' is ( thinking exactly as ?) 'you'. The (consciousness of the ?) world 'is' (undivided from ?) 'you'; the 'world' is the projection of yourself ( and of other 'selves ?) . The (consciousness of the ?) world cannot be (qualitatively ?) transformed till you are.
( The authentic ?) happiness is in (this) 'transformation' and not in (the countless hedonistic ?) acquisitions.

Q: But I am moderately happy. Of course there are many things in myself which I don’t like, but I haven’t the time or the inclination to go after them.

K: Only an ( 'inwardly ?) happy' man can bring about a new social order; this (inner state of creative ?) happiness is not an end in
itself. It comes with the (integrated ?) understanding of 'what is'. Only when the human mind is free from its own projections
can there be this happiness. The ( conditioned ?) 'happiness' that is bought ( & sold ?) is merely a gratification of sensation; and as (the rewarding ?) sensations soon wither, there is craving for more and more.

(In a nutshell:) As long as the 'more' is our means to ( hedonistic ?) 'happiness', the ('psychological' end result ?) is always (frustration ?) conflict and misery.
( The state of Creative) Happiness comes into being with (the direct perception of ?) Truth, ( which is ?) ever New , never 'continuous' .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #401
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Continuing to 'unzip' K's Commentaries on Living


Q: My work is a matter of routine and does not demand too much attention. I am interested in what I do, but my difficulty is not at the office or with the people with whom I work, but it is within myself. I have lost interest in life, and I don’t quite know what is the matter with me.

K: Is it because you have no children (to occupy your life ?) ?

Q: I don’t think it is the lack of children that has brought about this dullness .

K: Is it due to your wife’s sadness, to her sense of frustration?

Q : You see, sir (said his wife) I would be supremely happy to have children , but for him it would merely be a distraction; his dullness has been creeping upon him for the past two years like some (unknown) internal disease. He used to talk to me about everything, about the birds, about his office work, about his ambitions, about his regard and love for me; he would open his heart to me. But now his heart is closed and his mind is somewhere far away. I have talked to him, but it is no good.

K: Do you think this 'dullness' is a cover-up, an escape from some unfulfilled inner longing?

Q: I don’t quite understand what you mean.

K: You may have an intense ( existential ?) longing for something which needs fulfilment, and as that longing has no release, perhaps you are escaping from the pain of it through becoming dull.

Q: It is strange, but I have never asked myself what is the cause of this stupid 'dullness'. I have never put that question to myself.

K: Now that you are asking yourself that question what is your response?

Q: I don’t think I have any. But I am really shocked to find how very dull I have become. I was never like this. I am appalled at my own state.

K: After all, it is good to know in what state one actually is. At least that is a beginning. You have never before asked yourself why you are dull, lethargic; you have just accepted it and carried on, have you not? Do you (like to ?) paint or write?

Q: I have always wanted to write, on my walks I used to get some ( great ?) ideas, but now even that has gone.

K: But to go back: do you want to find out what has brought on this dullness, or do you want to remain as you are?

Q: I would like to go away somewhere by myself, renounce everything and find some happiness.

K: Is that what you want to do? Then why don’t you do it? Are you hesitating on account of your wife?

Q: I want to live, but I don’t want to continue as I am.

K: The nature of the 'self' (- centred consciousness ?) is to isolate itself, its very nature is exclusiveness. (Besides ?) the effort to become something (different from what you are ?) only brings problems, conscious or unconscious. You cannot be dull without some cause and is it not essential to uncover the whole process and see the truth of it?
The truth (about oneself ?) is something that cannot be (given) by another. One must be able to come to it openly, freely and unexpectedly. Shouldn’t you (figure out) for yourself what is making you dull?

( As a "psychological rule of thumb" ?) any inner conflict makes for dullness. We accept ( living in the field of ?) conflict as inevitable, and build our whole structure of 'thought and action' upon this inevitability. But is ( a life of ?) conflict inevitable? Is there not a different way of living? There is, if we can understand the process and significance of conflict. So, why have you allowed yourself to become (inwardly) dull? Is there a deep-seated (ongoing) conflict in you?

Q: If there is, I am totally unaware of it.

K: But is it not essential for you to discover it ? Please see the (experiential) importance of this : one can help another (by pointing into the right direction ?) , but you alone must undertake the journey of (self-) discovery.
Our (inner) life is not easy (to understand ?) ; it is very complex, but we must approach it simply. We 'are' the problem; and we can understand the problem which is 'ourselves', only if we know how to approach it. The ( non-dualistic ?) approach is all important, and
not the problem.

Q: But what am I to do?

K: If you have actually 'listened' to what was being said, then you will see that only ( the direct perception of ?) truth brings freedom. Please don’t worry, but let the Seed (of Truth ?) take root.

( Happy End : After some weeks they both came back. There was hope in their eyes and a smile upon their lips...)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jun 2017 #402
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


THE DAILY PATTERN of life was repeating itself around the only water tap in the village; the water
was running slowly, and a group of women were awaiting their turn. Three of them were noisily and
bitterly quarrelling; they were completely absorbed in their anger and paid not the slightest attention
to anyone else, nor was anyone paying attention to them. Other women came and went, but the quarrel went on, and it seemed as though it would never
end. Suddenly the three stopped filled their vessels with water, and went away as though nothing
had happened. Once the vociferous quarrel was over, one could hear the roar of the sea beyond the houses, the gardens and the palm groves.

We carry on like machines with our tiresome daily routine. How eagerly the mind accepts a (safe) pattern
of existence, and how tenaciously it clings to it! The (self-centred ?) mind, with its incessant weaving ( and optimising ?) of patterns, is the maker
of (psychological) 'time'; and ( getting trapped in this mentality of ?) 'time' leads to ( a slow form of ?) death.


Q: I have eagerly worked for the 'proletarian revolution', but it failed (miserably ?). Look at what had happened in the very country where this revolution was so gloriously accomplished!
Dictatorship, with its police ( & labor camps ?) and its (omnipresent ?) army, had inevitably bred new class distinctions, and within a few years what had been a 'glorious promise' had come to (less than ?) nothing.

K: What do you mean by 'revolution'?

Q: A complete change of the present social structure, according to a clearcut plan, organized in every detail and scrupulously executed. There is no other way out of the present chaos.

K: But won’t you have the same results again - compulsion and its (enforcing ?) officers?

Q: It may at first result in that, but there will be an independent group outside the government to watch over and guide it.

K: You want an (outward) revolution according to an (utopian ?) pattern, and you are willing to sacrifice yourself and others. Can there be a fundamental revolution (in the human consciousness ?) if it is based on such ideals? Wouldn't it be (better to consider first ?) the deeper significance of revolution?

Q: I don’t think that I will change my views, but let us see what you have to say. What you will say has probably already been said by Buddha, Christ, and
other religious teachers, and where has it got us? Two thousand years and more of preaching about being good, and look at the mess the 'capitalists' have made!

K: A society based on (social ?) 'ideas' , shaped according to a particular pattern, breeds violence and is in a constant state of disintegration. The 'group' ( consciousness ?) , can never be in a state of revolution; only the 'individual' can. For such
a fundamental and lasting revolution (in human consciousness ?) we must ( take some quality time to ?) understand the (thinking ?) 'mind' and the 'idea'.

Q: What do you mean ?

K: 'Ideas' are the projections of the (thinking ?) mind; the outcome of (thinking about our past ?) experience, and 'interpret' ( or translate it ?) according to the conscious or unconscious conditioning of (our thought addicted ?) mind. The (time-bound ?) mind is not separate from the quality of the (self-centred process of ?) thought - the response of all our experience, memory and ideas.
Until we understand the (intricate ?) workings of our consciousness (or 'mind' ) , there cannot be a fundamental (qualitative) transformation of the human mind and of its relationships, which constitute society.

Q: If ( according to you ?) the human mind is (so intricately ?) linked with the past and whatever it may plan (for the future ?) is the outcome of the old, how can there ever be any change at all?

K: Let us see. ( The human mind ?) is (presently) held in a pattern (of continuity in time ?) ; its very (sense of isolated ?) existence is the frame within which it works and moves.
( Its temporal ?) pattern is (in terms of ?) 'what has been' and the 'what should be'. With this we are all familiar. You want to break the old pattern and
substitute a ‘new’ one, the new being the modified old. The so-called 'new' has its roots in the old: greed, envy, violence, hatred, power, exclusion. ( Safely ?) embedded in these, you want to produce a 'new world'. It is impossible.

You may deceive yourself and others, but unless the old patterns ( of self-interest ?) are broken completely there cannot be a radical transformation.
The breaking of this ('known' ?) pattern, both the old and the so-called new, is of the utmost importance if order is to come out of this chaos. That is why it is essential to understand the ( intricate ?) ways of the ( self-centred ?) mind.
( In a nutshell : our thinking ?) mind functions only within the field of the 'known', of (its past knowledge &° experience , whether conscious or unconscious,
collective or superficial. Can there be ( a directly perceptive ?) action without a ( preset ) pattern? Until now we have known action only in relation to a pattern, and such action is always an approximation to 'what has been' or 'what should be'. Action so far has been an adjustment to hope and fear, to the past or to the future.

Q: If action is not a movement of the past to the future, or between the past and the future then what
other action can there possibly be? You are not inviting us to inaction, are you?

K: It would be a better world if each one of us were aware of true 'inaction' (perceptive non-action ?) , which is not the opposite of 'action'. But that is another matter. Is it possible for the human mind to be free of this backward and forward swing of (thought & ) desire? It is definitely possible. Such action is living in the now.

To live (in the timeless Now ?) is to be without ( worrying about what might happen ?) tomorrow; and this is not (a state of ?) 'hopelessness' or 'indifference'. But we are not "living", we are always pursuing (the dead things of ?) the past or the future. Living (inwardly free of 'time' ?) is the greatest
revolution. Living ( creatively in the eternal Present ?) has no ( 'known'?) pattern, but death has: the 'what has been' or the 'Utopia'.
If you are living for the (brave new world or ?) Utopia you are inviting ( a condition of spiritual ?) death and not Life.

Q: That is all (sounding) very well, but it leads us nowhere. Where is your 'revolution'? Where is the 'new manner of living'?

K: Not in 'death' but in 'life'. You are pursuing the ( utopian ?) 'ideal' and this pursuit you call 'action',
or 'revolution'. But your (egalitarian ?) 'ideal' is obviously a (mental) projection away from 'what is'.
Your 'new' life is the same as the old one in different clothes.
The 'past' and the 'future' do not hold life; they have
the remembrance of life and the hope of life, but they are not the 'living'. The action of a (time-bound ?) mind is not "living". Such a mind can act only within the frame of death (within the 'known' ?) , and any revolution based on death is only bringing more
darkness, more destruction and misery.

Q: You leave me (inwardly) utterly empty, almost naked. It may be doing (spiritually) some good for me, there is now a 'lightness' of
heart and mind,
but it (does not seem very ?) helpful in terms of a collective revolutionary action.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Jun 2017 #403
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


To live alone without the 'walls' of self-enclosing gratifications, needs a great (inner integration & ?) intelligence; to live alone and yet be pliable is arduous. Wisdom is (found in being inwardly ?) alone (all-one ?) , but wisdom is not found in withdrawal. There is no (preset ?) path to Wisdom; Wisdom comes with the (non-dualistic ?) understanding of one’s relationship with the field, with the passer-by, with the fleeting thought. Such relationship leads to an 'all-oneness' that is not (to be found in ?) isolation. There must be an all-oneness of (inner ?) freedom.


She had been a writer, and her books had quite a wide circulation. She managed to come to India only after many years. When she first started out she had no idea where she would end up; but now, after all this time, her destination had become clear. Her husband and her whole family were interested in religious matters but nevertheless she had made up her mind to leave them all, and had come in the hope of finding some peace. She hadn’t known a soul in this country when she came, and it was very hard the first year. She went first to a certain 'ashram' about which she had read. The guru there was a mild old man who had had certain religious experiences on which he now lived, and who constantly repeated some Sanskrit saying which his disciples (seemed to ?) understand . She was welcomed at this retreat, and she found it easy to adjust herself to its rules. She remained there for several months, but found no peace. Then she went to an ashram among the mountains ( Rishikesh ?) and stayed there for some time, happily at first, for it was beautiful with trees, streams, and wild life. The discipline was rather rigorous, which she didn’t mind; but again the disciples were worshipping a dead knowledge, dead tradition, a dead teacher. She then went to a very well known retreat where they repeated various religious assertions and regularly practiced prescribed meditations; but gradually she found that she was being entrapped and destroyed. Neither the teacher nor the disciples wanted freedom, though they talked about it. They were all concerned with maintaining the centre, with holding the disciples in the name of the guru. Again she broke away and went elsewhere; again the same story with a slightly different pattern.


Q: I assure you, I have been to most of the serious ashrams, and they all want to grind one down to fit their pattern of thought which they call 'truth'. Why is it that they never give freedom but only promise freedom?

K: Conformity is gratifying; it assures security to the disciple, and gives power to the teacher. But conformity also makes for ( a form of psychological ?) dullness, which they call '(inner) peace'. Conformity anaesthetizes the mind to ( avoid facing its inner ?) conflicts. The teacher and the disciple thrive on mutual exploitation. You really don’t go to an ashrama for freedom, do you? You go there to be comforted, to live a life of enclosing discipline and belief, to worship and in turn be worshipped - all of which is called the 'search for truth'. Imitation as a means to freedom is the very denial of freedom, for the means is (determining ?) the 'end' . But we like to deceive ourselves, and that is why compulsion or the promise of reward exists in different and subtle forms.

Q: I am now avoiding all ashramas like the very plague. I went to them for (inner ) peace and I was given compulsions, authoritarian doctrines and vain promises. How eagerly we accept the guru's promise! At last, after these many years, I am completely denuded of any desire to pursue their promised rewards. physically I am worn out, as you can see; for very foolishly I really did try (all) their formulas.

I have come here because I want to talk over something that is gripping my heart. I hinted at it to one of the teachers, and his reply was that I must control my thought. It is this: the ache of solitude is more than I can bear; not the physical solitude, which is welcome, but the deep inner pain of being alone. What am I to do about it? How am I to regard this (inner) void?

K: Let us understand the nature of this (inner) pain rather than try to overcome it, avoid it, or go beyond it. Till there is a 'complete' (non-dualistic ?) understanding of this ache of solitude, there can be no inner peace, but only an incessant mental struggle. Now, this ache is only in relation to the (memory of our ?) past, and not in ( our present ?) relation to 'what is'. 'What is' has to be directly experienced and to understand it must you not come to it freely, denuded of your past knowledge concerning it? Must you not come with a fresh mind , unclouded by memories, by habitual responses? Please do not ask how is the mind to be free and see the new, but listen to the truth of it. ( The perception of ?) truth alone liberates, and not your desire to be free. To understand the new (aspects of 'what is' ?) , must not the (thinking) mind cease its (time-binding ?) activities? Must it not be still, without seeking a way of escape from this 'ache of (inner) solitude' ? Is it not this very movement of 'despair and hope' that makes for (this inner) solitude and its fear?

Is not the very activity of (our self-centred ?) mind a process of isolation, resistance? Is not our everyday relationship a way of separation, withdrawal? Is not ( our self-centred ?) experience itself a process of isolation? So the ( experiential ?) problem is not the 'ache of solitude', but the (self-centred activities of our ?) mind which (create ?) the ( 'solitude' ?) problem. The (non-dualistic ?) understanding of this ( self-centred ?) mind is the beginning of (inner) freedom. This (experiential ?) 'freedom' is not something ( to be arrived at ?) in the future, it is ( necessary in taking ?) the very first step. The activity of the (self-centred ?) mind can be understood only in (observing) the process of response to every kind of ( sensory or mental ?) 'stimulation'. ( A response based on ?) 'accumulation' in any form - as gathering more knowledge, or experience - prevents (the directly perceptive ?) freedom; and it is only when there is freedom that ( the seeing of ?) truth can be.

Q: But is not some effort necessary ( from our part in order ?) to understand?

K: Do we understand anything through ( an inner attitude of ?) conflict? Does not ( the insightful ?) understanding come when the mind is utterly 'still' (at peace with itself ?) , when the action of effort has ceased? The mind that is (mechanically ?) made still is not a 'tranquil' (transparent ?) mind; it is a dead, insensitive mind. ( In a nutshell) When desire is (at work ?) , the (inner) beauty of 'silence' is not.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 09 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #404
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Unzipping the Commentaries


There is a 'sadness' of which we are so little aware. We (may ?) know our (personal) sorrow, but we are not aware of the sadness of the other. How can we be when we are enclosed (tied up ?) in our own misfortunes and trials? When our hearts (and minds ?) are weary and dull, how can we feel the weariness of another? How quickly the smile fades! Everything seems to end (up) in sorrow, the ultimate isolation. She was very well read, capable and direct. She had studied sciences and religion, and had carefully followed the 'modern psychology'. Her studies had opened her mind to possibilities beyond the conscious and the collective gatherings of the past. She had attended several of the (K) talks and discussions, and had felt that a "source" common to all the great teachers was active; she had listened with care and had understood a great deal, but she had now come to discuss ( still deeper stuff:) the "inexhaustible" and the problem of "time".


Q: What is the (inner) Source beyond time, that state of being which is not within the reasoning of the thinking mind? What is the 'timeless', that Creation of which you have spoken?

K: Is it possible to be aware of the 'timeless' (dimension of our consciousness ?) ? How would you recognize it? By what would you measure it?

Q: We can only judge by its effects.

K: But are the effects of the 'timeless' to be judged by the measurement of time? If we can (experientially ?) understand what we mean by 'time', perhaps it may be possible for the timeless to be; but it can never be communicated (verbally) through the means of time. Timelessness is a state ( of our consciousness ?) which comes only when ( the constraint of ?) time is not. So let us rather consider what we mean by 'time': there are different kinds of time: time as growth, time as distance, time as (necessary for any physical ?) movement.

Time is (a) 'chronological' (objectively measurable ?) and (b) 'psychological' (as perceived by our 'psyche' ?) . (a) The 'chronological' is the time of growth - the baby becoming the man (and the latter getting old and dying ?) or the time for the 'bullock cart' evolving into the 'jet plane' . The heavens are filled with growth , and so is the earth. However, the time as (involved in covering a ) 'distance' is more complex (since inwardly speaking ) thought can wander far afield while the 'thinker' remains (stuck ?) in one place.

(b) Now, the 'psychological' time (is a movement created by the still active ) memories of 'yesterday' using 'today' as a passage to 'tomorrow': it is a process of (mental) becoming . I am 'this' and I shall become 'that', using time as a passage, as a means for the 'what has been' to become the 'what will be'. We are very familiar with this process. So thought is both the product (and the creator ?) of this 'psychological' ( personal & collective ?) time, and without the (background working of our ?) thinking (brain) , this 'time' ( and its self-created constraints ?) is not. ( In a nutshell:) Our (thinking) mind is the maker of time, it 'is' ( a movement in) time.

Q: That is obviously true. Our mind is both the maker and user of time. Without the mind-process, time is not. But is it possible to go beyond the mind? Is there an (inner) state which is not (the creation ?) of thought?

K: Let us together discover (experientially ?) whether there is such a state or not. Is "love" ( created by ) thought? We may 'think ' of someone we love, but the ( sense of our ) separation makes for that (loving ?) thought.

Q: Do you mean that when there is 'oneness' (the self-centred process of ?) thought ceases and there is only love?

K: Our point is: Is (our) love (the result of ?) a thought process? ( Our self-centred process of ?) thought is of time; but is love time-binding? You were asking if it is possible to be free from the binding quality of time?

Q: It must be, otherwise there could be no creation.

K: ( The inner newness of ?) Creation is possible only when the process of (thought's temporal ?) continuity ceases. Creation is the new, the new vision, the new invention, the new discovery, the new formulation, not the continuity of the old. ( Inwardly speaking ?) continuity is death to creation.

Q: But how exactly is it possible to put an end to this continuity?

K: What makes for this continuity? What is it that joins moment to moment, as the thread joins the beads in a necklace? The ( experiencing of the present ?) moment is the new, but this 'new' is (subliminally ) absorbed into the ( memory bank of the ?) old and so the chain of continuity is formed . Is there the (pure experiencing of the ?) New, or ( are we aware of it ?) only (after the mental ?) recognition of the new by the old? ? The 'new' is a state of non-recognition, without any mental association.

(To recap) The 'old' gives itself continuity through its own (mental ) projections; it can never know ( or have the direct experience of ?) the new. ( As an experiential rule of thumb:) The new cannot be with the old. The ( direct ?) experiencing of the new is ( occuring only in ?) the absence of the old. Thought translates the new in (the psychologically safe ?) terms of the old. It is the (constant recycling of our ?) old (knowledge & experience ?) that gives (the sense of our temporal ?) continuity; the 'old' is memory, the word, which is time.

Q: How is it possible to put an end to (this constant interference of ?) memory?

K: The (dualistic ?) entity that desires to put an end to ( the interferences of ?) memory is himself the forger of memory; he is not apart from memory. That is so is it not?

Q: Yes, the 'maker of effort' is born of memory, of thought; thought is the outcome of the past, conscious or unconscious. Then what is one to do?

K: Please "listen", and you will do naturally, without effort, what is essential: desire is ( the driving energy behind our ?) thought; it is (the) desire ( for our own continuity in time that ?) forges the 'chain' of memory. Accumulation ( of rewarding experiences ?) is the way of desire; to accumulate is (synonimous with ?) to continue. Gathering experience, knowledge (money ?) power or 'things', makes for ( the strong sense of a 'winning' ) continuity. The 'gathering centre' is desire, the desire for the more or the less. This centre is the 'self (-consciousness' ?) , placed at different levels according to one’s conditioning. Any activity of this centre only brings about the further continuity of itself. Any move is time-binding; it prevents ( any renewal of ?) Creation.

The ( experiencing of the ?) 'timeless' is not (to be found ?) through the time-binding quality of memory. There is the "Unnameable" only when ( the desire for more ?) experience and knowledge, has wholly ceased. ( The perception of this ?) truth alone frees the mind from its own (temporal) bondage.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 11 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #405
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


Q: Meditation is of the greatest importance to me; I have been meditating very regularly twice a day for more than twenty-five years. At the beginning it was all very difficult, I had no control over my thoughts and there were far too many distractions; but I gradually cut them out pretty thoroughly. More and more I gave my time and energy to the final end. I have been to (check out the ?) various teachers and have followed several different systems of meditation, but from all these experimentations I have learned to master my thoughts completely, and my emotions also are entirely under control. I have practiced deep breathing to quiet the body and the mind. I have repeated the 'sacred' word, fasted for long periods and morally I have been 'upright' since the worldly things have no attraction for me. However, after all these years of self- discipline and denial, there is not that (Inner) Peace, that Bliss of which the Great Ones speak. On rare occasions there have been enlightening moments of deep ecstasy, the intuitive promise of greater things; but (soon after I get ?) caught back in the 'illusions' of my own mind. A cloud of confusing despair is descending upon me and there is increasing sorrow.

(We were silent, and he had closed his eyes; his stern face was calm, but (deeper down) there was an intense struggle going on (inspite of ?) the timeless silence covering the earth)

K: During all these years, have you ever stopped striving after the 'final end'? Do not ( self-centred ?) will and effort make up (for the egocentric consciousness of the ?) ‘I’, and can this process of (self-becoming in ?) time lead to the Eternal?

Q: I have never consciously stopped striving after that for which my heart, my whole being longs. Isn't in the very nature of all things to struggle ever upwards, and without my purposive striving, I could never go beyond and above myself.

K: Can the ‘I’ ( the 'self-identified' consciousness ?) ever free itself from its own 'bondage' (temporal attachments ) and (self-created ?) illusions? Must not the ‘I’ cease for the Nameless to be? And does not this constant striving after the 'final end' only strengthen this self (consciousness ?) ? Your efforts may (seem) ennobling, but (behind them) there is still the desire to gain, is it not?

Q: Indeed, I have overcome all my desires, except this one, which is more than desire; it is the only thing for which I live.

K: Then you must also 'die' to this one, as you 'died' to other longings and desires. Through all these years of struggle and constant (self imposed ?) limitation, you have strengthened 'yourself' in this one purpose, but it is still within the field of the ‘I’. And you want to experience the Unnameable - that is your longing, is it not?

Q: Of course. Beyond a shadow of doubt I want to know the 'final end', I want to experience 'God'.

K: The (greedy consciousness of the ?) 'experiencer' is ever being conditioned by his (self projected ?) experiences. If you (would consciously ?) know you are experiencing 'God', then that 'God' is the (mental) projection of your own hopes and illusions. There is no (authentic ?) freedom for this 'experiencer' for he is the maker of 'time' and he can never experience the (time-free dimension of the ?) Eternal.

Q: Do you mean to say that that which I have diligently built up, with considerable effort and through wise choice, must be destroyed? And must I be the instrument of this destruction?

K: Can the (self-conscious ?) 'I' positively set about abnegating itself? If it does, its (hidden) motive is to gain 'That' which is not to be (personally ?) possessed. However noble its aim, any (psychological) effort on the part of the ‘I’ is still within the field of its own memories, idiosyncrasies and projections, whether conscious or un-conscious. The 'I' may divide itself into the organic ‘I’, and the ‘non-I’ or 'transcendental self'; but this dualistic separation is a (mental) illusion in which the (self-centred ?) mind is caught. The 'I' may go from stupid to more intelligent choices, but its (evolutionary ?) movement will always be within the sphere of its own making.

Q: You seem to cut off all (personal ?) hope. What is one to do?

K: You must be (inwardly free of ) the 'weight of the past' or of the enticement of a hopeful future - which does not (necessarily ?) mean 'despair'. You can and must be (inwardly) still, without any longing, or desire; but this (integrate state of inner ?) silence is not the opposite of ( mental) noise.

Q: But in my present state, what is to be done?

If it may be pointed out, you were not really 'listening'.

(Early next morning he came back)

Q: In spite of my outward impatience and anxiety, inwardly I must have been alert to what you were saying yesterday, for when I woke up this morning there was a certain sense of freedom and a clarity that comes with understanding. I did my usual morning meditation for an hour before sunrise, but I am not at all sure that my mind isn’t caught in a number of widening illusions. May we proceed from where we left off?

K: We cannot begin exactly from where we left off, but we can (try to ?) look at our problem afresh. The outward and inward mind is ceaselessly active receiving impressions; caught in its (past) memories and reactions; it is a (complex ?) aggregate of many desires and conflicts. It functions only within the 'field of time', and in that field there are (a lot of ?) contradictions (created by our) will or desire, which is (resulting in various conflicts of interest & ?) 'effort'.

This 'psychological' activity of the " me and mine " must cease (in meditation ?) , for such activity causes 'problems' (or 'temporal constraints' ?) and brings about various forms of (mental) agitation and disorder. And any (mental) effort to stop this activity only makes for greater activity and agitation.

Q: That is true, I have noticed it. The more one tries to make the mind still, the more (subliminal ?) resistance there is, and when one’s efforts are spent in overcoming this resistance, it becomes an unbreakable vicious circle.

K: If you are (becoming ?) aware of the viciousness of this circle and realize that 'you' cannot break it, then with this (insightful ?) realization, the 'observer' ceases to be.

Q: That seems to be easier said than done; how is one to do it?

K: Are you still thinking in terms of the ‘I’ and the ‘non-I’? Are you not maintaining this dualistic (attitude ?) within your mind by the constant repetition of experience and habit? After all, the 'thinker' and 'his thought(s) ' are not two different processes, but we (mentally split) them in order to attain a desired end. The 'censor' comes into being with (the controlling ?) desire. Therefore our (next ?) problem is to understand ( our multi-level process of ?) desire.

Q: There must be (some 'intelligent ?) entity' which is capable of understanding, a state ( of mind ?) which is apart from ignorance. Otherwise, I do not see how this (all-controlling ?) "observer" can be eradicated. And... can it be?

K: Let us see. We were saying that it is essential to understand ( the joint process of thought & ?) desire. Desire can and does divide itself (in order to optimise its action ?) - the more profitable desires are getting in conflict with the less profitable ones , and so on. But though it may separate itself for various (open or obscure ?) reasons, ( our thoughts driven by ?) desire is (are) in fact an indivisible process, is it not?

Q: This is a difficult thing to grasp. I cannot (as yet) be fully aware of desire as a single, unitary process; but now that you have pointed it out, I am beginning to feel that it (might be?) so.

K: ( The thought process sustained by ?) desire may break itself up into many opposing and conflicting (interests and/ or ?) urges, but it is still (thought driven by ?) desire. These many 'urges' go to make up the ‘I’ ( the self-identified consciousness ?) , with its (bank of personal & collective ?) memories, anxieties, fears, and so on, and the entire activity of this ‘I’ is within the field of (thought & ) desire; it has no other field of activity. That is so, is it not?

Q: Do please go on. I am listening with my whole being, trying to go deeply beyond your ( verbal description ?) and without any effort.

K: Our (experiential ?) problem, then, is this: is it possible for the activity of ( mentally sustained ?) 'desire' to come to an end voluntarily, freely, without any form of compulsion? It is only when this happens that the mind can be (in peace with itself and completely ?) still. If this is a fact, does not the (joint ?) activity of (thought & ) desire come to an end?

Q: It does, but only for a very brief period; then once again the habitual activity begins. How can this be stopped (for good ?) ?.. But as I ask, I see the absurdity of asking (you this question ?)

K: See how 'greedy' we are ? We want (to acquire ?) ever more and more. The (thinking desire behind the ery ?) demand for the cessation of the 'I' becomes the new (updated & upgraded ?) activity of the 'I' ; but it is merely another (devious ?) form of ('psychological' ?) desire. Only when the 'mind ( and the heart' get integrated and ?) spontaneously still, the Other (dimension of our Consciousness ?) , that which is not of the ( result of the self-centred ?) mind, can come into being.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 12 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #406
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Continuing to 'unzip' K's Commentaries on Living


Q: As far back as I can remember, I have had endless conflicts, mostly within myself, though sometimes it manifests outwardly. I am not greatly worried by any outward conflict, as I have learnt to adjust myself to circumstances, but what I cannot understand is the nature of this inward (state of ?) conflict which I am unable to control and frequently explodes in my more intimate relationships.

K: What do you think is the nature of it ?

Q: I have noticed that when my mind is occupied with my work, my inward conflicts are forgotten; but as soon as there is a lull in my work I am back in my conflicts. These inner conflicts are of varying nature and at different levels. I want to be successful in my work, to be at the top of my profession, with plenty of money and all the rest of it but at another level, I am aware of the stupidity of my ambition. I love to enjoy the good things of life, and opposed to that, I want to lead a simple, almost an ascetic existence. I hate a number of people, and yet I want to forget and forgive. Outwardly I give the appearance of being calm and steady, but I am agitated and confused by my inward conflicts. I am well over thirty, and I really want to break through the confusion (generated by ?) my contradicting desires. Can you tell me whether it is possible for me to have some kind of inward serenity?

K: Our first problem is to see the nature of desire for it is ( the thought-sustained activity of ?) desire that causes conflict. Desire is ( sustained and ?) stimulated by (mental) association and remembrance; The recollection of the pleasant and the unpleasant memories nourishes desire and breaks it up into opposing and conflicting desires. Our mind identifies itself with the pleasant as opposed to the unpleasant; and through the choice of pain and pleasure the mind separates ( the activity of ?) desire, dividing it into different categories of pursuits and values.

Q: Though there are many conflicting and opposing desires, all desires are essentially one (unitary process) . Is that it?

K: That is so, is it not? And it is really important to understand this point, otherwise the conflict between opposing desires is endless. The ( observer vs observed , good vs bad ?) dualism of desire, which the (self-centred ?) mind has brought about, is ('psychologically' speaking a self-created ?) illusion. There is no (intrinsical) dualism in desire, but merely ( when choosing between ?) different types of desire. There is (an objective separation or ?) 'dualism' only between ( our thinking in terms of ?) 'time' and eternity. Our concern is to see the 'unreality' ( the illusory nature ?) of the dualism of desire. ( The self-centred process of thought and ?) desire does divide itself into 'want' and 'non-want' , but the avoidance of the one and the pursuit of the other is still desire. There is no escape from (the constant inner ?) conflict through any of the opposites of desire, for desire itself breeds its own opposite.

Q: I can see rather vaguely that what you say is a fact, but it is also a fact that I am still torn between my many desires.

K: If it is seen as a fact that all our desires are (part of ?) one and the same (process ) and we cannot (mentally manipulate or ?) alter that fact, if we see it to be true then (this insightful perception ?) has the power to set the mind free from breeding further illusions. So (experientially-wise ?) we must start by being aware of ( how the unitary process of ) desire (is) breaking itself up into separate and conflicting parts. (Psychologically speaking ?) we 'are' these opposing and conflicting desires, the whole bundle of them, each pulling in a different direction (and generating its own time-line ?)

Q: Yes, but then...what can we do about it?

K: Without first catching a ( choiceless & non-personal ?) glimpse of desire as being an unitary process , whatever we try to do will be of very little (experiential ?) significance, for desire only multiplies desire and the (self-centred ?) mind is (hopelessly ?) trapped in this (subliminal ?) conflict. There is freedom from this inner conflict only when desire, which (en passant ?) also makes up the ‘I’ with its personal remembrances and recognitions, comes to an end.

Q: When you say that all our inner conflicts cease only with the cessation of desire, does this imply an end to one’s (greed motivated ?) active life?

K: It may or it may not. It is foolish on our part to speculate about what kind of life it will be without desire.

Q: You surely do not mean that our organic (physiologic ?) wants must cease ?

K: Our organic (physiological ?) wants are (subliminally ?) moulded and expanded by our 'psychological' desires; we are talking of these desires.

Q: Can we go more deeply into the functioning of these 'inner' cravings?

K: Desires are both open and hidden, conscious and concealed. The concealed are of far greater significance than the obvious; but we cannot become familiar with the deeper ones if the superficial are not observed and quieted. With the calming of their superficial agitation, there is a possibility that the deeper desires, motives and intentions will come to the surface of our consciousness.

Q: How is one to quiet the surface agitation? I see the importance of what you are saying, but I do not quite see how to approach the problem, how to experiment with it.

K: (For starters ?) the truth of this (non-duality) fact must be seen : the 'experimenter' is not separate from that 'with which he is experimenting'. 'You' (the 'observer' ?) who are experimenting with (trying to quench ?) 'your desires' are not an entity apart from those desires, are you? The ‘I’ who says, ‘I will suppress this desire and go after that’, is himself the (controlling ?) outcome of all the process of (thought & ?) desire, is he not?

Q : One can feel that it might so, but to actually realize it, is quite another matter.

K: ( A suggestion for more meditative homework: ) If as each desire arises there is an awareness of this truth ( that the observer is not separated from what is observed inwardly ?) , then there is freedom from the (wide spread ?) illusion of the (objective nature of an ?) 'experimenter' as being an (independent & ) separate entity from ( the total process of ?) desire. As long as the ‘I’ exerts itself (or its will power ?) to be free from desire, it is only strengthening desire in another ( more subtly ego-centric ?) direction and so perpetuating the (same dualistic ?) conflict (in the field of moral righteousness ?) .
( To make a long story, short ?) If there is an awareness of this (non-duality ?) fact from moment to moment, the (all controlling ?) will of the 'censor' ceases; and when the experiencer "is" the experience, then you will find that (the time binding process of ?) desire with its many (colateral ?) conflicts comes to an end.

Q: Will all this help one to a calmer and fuller life?

K: Certainly not at the beginning. It is sure to arouse more disturbances, and deeper (mental & psychosomatic ?) adjustments may (or will ?) have to be made; but ( on the long run ?) the deeper and wider one goes (in meditating ?) into this complex problem of desire and conflict, the 'simpler' it becomes.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 13 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #407
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


(...) The rain-trees were massive against the darkening sky, and of fantastic shape. They had very small leaves, but their branches seemed huge, and they had a strange majesty and aloofness in that overcrowded city of noise and pain. But the sea was there, everlastingly in motion, restless and infinite. There were white sails, mere specks in that infinitude, and on the dancing waters the moon made a path of silver. The rich beauty of the earth, the distant stars, and deathless humanity. Immeasurable vastness seemed to cover all things.


He was a youngish man, and had come from the other side of the country, a tiresome journey. He had taken a vow not to marry till he had found the meaning and purpose of life. He worked in some office from which he had taken leave for a certain period to try to find the answer to his search. He had a busy and argumentative mind, and was so 'taken up' with his own and other people’s answers that he would hardly listen. He quoted endlessly what the philosophers and teachers had said concerning the purpose of life (but inwardly he seemed ?) tormented and deeply anxious.

Q: Without knowing the purpose of life, my existence has no meaning, and all my action is destructive. I earn a livelihood just to carry on; I suffer, and death awaits me. This is the way of (everybody's ?) life but what is the purpose of it all? I have been to the learned (pundits) , and to the various gurus; some say one thing, some another. What do you say?

K: Are you asking in order to compare what is said here with what has been said elsewhere?

Q: Yes. Then I can choose, and my (thoughtful ?) choice will depend on what I consider to be true.

K: Do you think that the understanding of what is true is a matter of personal opinion and dependent on personal choice?

Q: How else can one find the Real if not through discrimination, through choice? I am most earnest in my desire to find out what is the true purpose of life.

K: Before going any further, is it not important to ask yourself if you are capable of seeking out ( and having an insight into what is ?) the 'true'? Is ( the pereption of ?) truth a matter of personal opinion, of pleasure, of gratification? You seem prepared to go through pain, through compulsion, in order to gain that which in the end is ( totally satisfying and ?) pleasurable. You are seeking ( an elevated form of ?) pleasure, not truth. Truth must be something beyond ( our ersonal) like and dislike, must it not? ( An authentic inner ?) humility must be the beginning of all ( spiritual ?) search.

Q: That is why I have come to you, sir, to tell me what is true, and I shall follow you in a humble and contrite spirit.

K: To follow (another ?) is to deny ( your inner ) humility. You follow because you desire to succeed, to gain an end. An ambitious man, however subtle and (well) hidden his ambition, is never (inwardly) humble. To pursue ( someone's spiritual ?) authority and set it up as a guide is to destroy ( your own capacity of ?) insight and understanding. The pursuit of a (spiritual) ideal prevents humility, for the ideal is the (projected) glorification of the ego. How can he who in different ways gives importance to the ‘me’, ever be (inwardly) humble? Without humility, Reality can never be.

Q: But my whole concern in coming here is to find out what is the true purpose of life.

K: Wanting to know the true purpose of life, you have read many (famous ?) philosophers and sought out many teachers. Do you want to find the truth of what they say, or the truth of your own inquiry?

Q: When you ask a straight question like that, I feel rather hesitant in my reply. Each of them speaks according to his own experience and understanding, and they sometimes contradict each other. The Marxists say one thing, and the 'religious' people say something quite different. Please help me to find the truth in all this.

K: To see the false as 'false', and (what is ?) the truth in the 'false', and the true as the 'true', is not easy. To perceive clearly, there must be freedom from (the process of our thought sustained ?) desire, which conditions our mind. Your very 'eagerness' becomes a hindrance to your own inquiry. ( For starters :) If you want to know the truth (or falsehood ?) of what your teachers have said, then you must be able to find out for yourself what is true (and what is not ?) in all these statements. Therefore, your mind must be capable of direct perception; if your mind has not the capacity to see what is true, you will be like a driven leaf. So what is important for you to 'have insight' into what is true. Is this not most essential?

Q: I think it is, but how am I going to have this gift?

K: ( Insightful ?) understanding is not a gift reserved for the ( self-selected ?) 'few', but it comes to those who are earnest in their self-knowledge. For the ( direct perception of the ?) 'Truth' to (happen ?) the (totality of the ?) mind must be quiet, without comparison, without evaluation. An mind (constantly ?) occupied (with its own self-interest ?) is incapable of clear, (direct) and simple perception.

Q: Does it mean that I must strip myself of all the values that I have built up, the knowledge that I have gathered?

K: Must not the mind be free (of its tethers into the known ?) to discover? Does the (dead ?) knowledge, conclusions and experiences of others, this vast accumulated burden of (collective & personal ?) memory - bring freedom? Is there freedom as long as there is ( thought's core identification as the 'thinker' or ?) the 'censor' who is judging, condemning, comparing? The mind is never quiet if it is always acquiring (evaluating, optimising, projecting ?) and calculating; and must not the mind be ( meditatively ?) still for 'truth' to be?

Q: I can see that, but aren’t you asking too much of a simple and ignorant mind like mine?

K: Are you (really) "simple and ignorant"? If you really were, it would be a great delight to begin (from scratch ?) a true (inner ) inquiry; but... unfortunately you are not. Wisdom and truth come to a man who truly says, ” I do not know”. The simple, the innocent (minds ?) , not those who are burdened ('loaded' ?) with knowledge, will see the Light, for they are humble.

Q: I wanted (from you) only one thing: to know the true purpose of life, and you shower me with things that are beyond me. Can't you tell me in simple words what is the true significance of life?

K: Sir, you must begin 'very near' (from what you are ?) to go far. You want (to know ?) the Immense without seeing what is close by. You want to know the significance of Life? Life has no beginning and no end; it is (including ?) both 'death' and 'life'; it is in the green leaf, and (in) the withered leaf that is driven by the wind; it is Love and its immeasurable Beauty, (in) the sorrow of (one's) solitude and the bliss of All-Oneness. It cannot be measured (and described verbally) , nor can the (self-centred ?) mind discover it.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 14 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #408
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


The small duck was coming up the wide canal like a ship under sail, alone and full of quacking importance. The canal wound in and out through the town. There were no other ducks in sight, but this one made enough noise for many ducks. The few who heard him paid no attention, but that didn’t matter to the duck. He felt himself to be a very prominent person on that canal; he owned it. Beyond the town the countryside was pleasant with green pastures and fat 'black and white' cows. There were masses of clouds on the horizon and the skies seemed low, close to the earth, with that light which only this part of the world seems to have. The land was as flat as one’s palm, and the road climbed only to pass over the bridges that crossed the high canals. It was a lovely evening; the sun was setting over the North Sea, and the clouds took on the colouring of the setting sun. Great streaks of light, blue and rose, shot across the sky.

She was the wife of a well-known man who was very high up in the government, almost at the top, but not quite. Well-dressed and quiet in manner, she had that peculiar atmosphere of power and wealth, the assurance of one long accustomed to being obeyed and getting things done. From one or two things she said, it was evident that her husband had the brains and she the drive.

Q: I have read some of your talks and have attended one or two of them. While I was listening to you, what you said meant a great deal. But these things quickly escape one, and now that I am really in great trouble I thought I would come and see you. My husband is fatally ill, and all the things we lived and worked for are falling to pieces. I have thought and thought about all this, and I am almost sick with anxiety.

K: Do you really want to talk seriously and go into things?

Q: I don’t believe I am capable of serious thinking; but I must come to some kind of clarity within myself.

K: Do you love your husband, or do you love the things which came about through him (or... both ?) ?

Q: I love...

K: Please do not think the question ( is meant to be ?) brutal, but you will have to find the true answer for yourself, otherwise sorrow will always be there. In uncovering the truth of that question there may be the discovery of what (the intelligence of ?) 'love' is.

Q: In my present state I cannot think it all out.

K: But has not this problem ( about the true nature of your) 'love' passed through your mind?

Q: Once, but I quickly got away from (analysing ?) it. Did I love him because of the position and power that went with him, or did I simply love him? I really don’t know in what way I love him. I am too confused, and if I may, I would like to come back another time, perhaps after I have accepted the inevitable.

K: If I may point out, (such ) 'acceptance' is also a form of (psychological) death.


(Several months passed before we met again. His death had left marks on her face, and some bitterness and resentment were showing themselves in her talk.)

Q: I haven’t talked to anyone about all these things. I just withdrew from all my past activities and buried myself in the country. It has been a terrible (experience). All my life I have been tremendously ambitious, and before marrying I indulged in good works of every kind. Soon after I married, and largely because of my husband, I left all the petty wrangling of good works and plunged into politics with my whole heart. It was a much wider field of struggle and I enjoyed every minute of it, the ups and the downs, the intrigues and the jealousies. My husband was brilliant in his quiet way, and with my driving ambition we were always moving up. As we had no children, all my time and thought were given over to furthering my husband. We worked together splendidly, complementing each other in an extraordinary way. Everything was going as planned, but I always had a gnawing fear that it was all going 'too well'. Two years ago, when my husband was being examined for some minor trouble, the doctor said there was a 'growth' which must be examined immediately. It was malignant. For a time we were able to keep the whole thing a dead secret; but six months ago it all began again, and it has been a pretty terrible ordeal. When I last came to see you I was too distressed and miserable to think (straight ?) , but perhaps I can now look at things with a little more clarity. Your question disturbed me more than I can tell: you asked me if I loved my husband, or the things that went with him. I have thought a great deal about it; but is it not too complex a problem to be answered by oneself?

K: Perhaps (it is ) ; but unless one finds out what ( a compassionate & intelligent ?) "love" is, there will always be pain and sad disappointments.

Q: You were asking if my 'love' for my husband was not mixed with my love for position and power. Did I love my husband only because he gave me the means for the fulfilment of my ambition? It is partly this, and also the love of the man. Love is a mixture of so many things.

K: Is it ( an intelligent form of ?) love when there is complete identification with another? And is not this 'self-identification' a roundabout way of giving importance to oneself? Is it love when there is the sorrow of loneliness, the pain of being deprived of the things that seemingly gave significance to life? To be cut off from the things that the 'self' has lived on, is the denial of self-importance, and this brings about disenchantment, bitterness, the misery of isolation. And has this misery (anything to do with ?) love?

Q: Are you trying to tell me that I did not (have any ?) love for my husband at all? I had never thought about all this, and only when the blow struck was there any real sorrow in my life. There is a frightening finality about death. Suddenly I find myself alone, without anything to work for, put aside and forgotten. I now realize the truth of what you say; but if you had said these things to me three or four years ago, I would not even have listened to you.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 16 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #409
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

WHAT IS THE TRUE FUNCTION OF AN AUTHENTIC TEACHER ( The 'Do's and the Don't's of holistic education )

He was a teacher with little pay and a large family, but he was interested in education. He said he
had a difficult time making ends meet, but he managed somehow, and poverty was not a disturbing factor.

K: What is the function of a teacher? Is he merely a giver of information, a transmitter of knowledge?

Q: It is part of the function of a teacher to impart knowledge to the student so that he may have a job when the time comes, and may also, perhaps, help to bring about a better social structure. The student must be prepared to face life.

K: That is so, sir, but aren’t we trying to find out what is the function of a (holistic ?) teacher? Has the teacher no greater and wider significance?

Q: Of course he has. By the way of his life, by his conduct, attitude and outlook, he can influence and inspire the student.

K: Are there not already enough examples, heroes, leaders, without adding (your own ?) to the long list? Is 'example' the way of ( an all-comprehensive ?) education? Is it not also (a still deeper ?) function of education to help the student to be (psychologically ?) free, and to be creative? When the student is encouraged to follow an 'example', is not fear sustained in a deep and subtle form? If the teacher becomes an example (to be followed ?) are we not then encouraging the everlasting (subliminal ?) conflict between 'what he is' and 'what he should be'? Is it not the function of an (authentic ?) teacher to help the student to understand (and deal with ?) 'what he is'?

Q: Mustn't the teacher also guide the student towards a better and nobler life ?

K: To guide (someone towards a nobler life) , you must know ( what it is ?); but do you? What do you know (from your own experience ?) ? You know only ( second hand stuff ?) what you have learnt through the screen of your own prejudices, which is your (socio- cultural) conditioning as a Hindu, a Christian, or a Communist; and this form of 'guidance' only leads to greater misery and bloodshed, as is being shown throughout the world.
Is it not the function of an authentic teacher to help the student to free him(or her)self intelligently from all these conditioning influences so that he will be able to meet life deeply and fully, without fear, without (an attitude of ?) aggressive discontent? Discontent is part of intelligence, but not the easy pacification of acquisitive discontent which pursues the (ages old) pattern of acquisitive action. Is it not the function of a ( responsible ?) teacher to dispel the gratifying illusion of guides, examples and leaders?

Q: But at least the teacher can inspire the student to greater things.

K: Are you not approaching this whole problem (of a holistic education ?) wrongly, sir? If you as a teacher infuse 'thought and feeling' into the (vulnerable mind of the ) student, are you not making him psychologically dependent on you? When he looks up to you as he would to a leader or to an ideal, surely he is (becoming) dependent on you. And does not ( this psychological ?) dependence breed fear? And does not fear cripple ( the unfolding of ?) intelligence?

Q: But if the teacher is not to be either an inspirer, an example, or a guide, then what in heaven’s name
is his true function?

K: The moment you are none (inwardly free ?) of those things what are you? And what is then your relationship with the student? If you cease to (surreptitiously ?) act upon his mind, you'll have to understand him and not 'expect' that he should understand your ideals, which are 'phony' (artificial ?) anyway. Then you have to deal with 'what is' and not 'with what should be'.

(In a nutshell:) When the teacher regards each student as a (potentially ?) 'unique' individual and not compare him with any other, his sole concern is with
‘helping’ the student to understand the (complex ?) conditioning influences about him and within himself, so that he can face the complex process of living intelligently, without fear, and not add more problems to the already existing mess.

Q: Are you not asking of the (average school) teacher a task that is far beyond him?

K: Your question has meaning only if teaching is regarded as a 'career' (opportunity) , a job like any other. I feel that ( in the context of a holistic education ?) nothing is 'impossible' for the true educator.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #410
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
Awareness of emptiness brings about a heart of compassion.'

A very inspired poet indeed, Jess. Now, your observation is quite pertinent in the experiential context of K's Teachings: that only when Life is confronting us with challenges that we can't avoid or manipulate we can take its (timeless ) 'lessons' really seriously.
I think it's part of our whole cultural evolution to try to avoid those issues that are challenging us totally . And it is what the politicians, economists, sociologists are doing all the time- except that by dodging them- for instance the central issue of an integrated education - they are facing a multitude of far more costly colateral issues

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #411
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

( continuing to 'unzip' K's Commentaries on Living)

A K DIALOGUE ON 'THE URGE TO SEEK' (as remembered by K himself )

P: Why do we seek? What is the purpose of our search? How weary one gets of this everlasting seeking! Is there no end to it?

M: If we did not seek all living would come to an end, life would stagnate and have no meaning.

R: 'Seek and ye shall find’, (as the old saying goes, but ) we usually find what we consciously or unconsciously crave for. We have never questioned this urge to seek; we have always sought, and apparently man shall always go on seeking.

I: The desire to seek is inevitable, you might just as well ask why we breathe, or why the hair grows. The urge to seek is as inevitable as day and night.

K: When you assert so definitely that the urge to seek is inevitable, the ( experiential ?) discovery of the truth of the matter is blocked, is it not? We accept certain dogmas and beliefs for various psychological reasons, and through the (joint) process of (thought & ) time what is thus accepted becomes ‘inevitable', a ('spiritual ?) necessity' for man.

M: If the 'I' accepts as inevitable the urge to seek, then he will go on seeking, and for him it is not a problem .

K: We are always seeking (something or other) but
it seems that we never asked ourselves 'why' we seek. We are not discussing the object of our search, but why we seek at all? What is this urge, this everlasting compulsion? Is it inevitable? Has it an unending continuity?

Y: If we would not seek, won't we become lazy and just stagnate?

K: Conflict in one form or another appears to be the (generally accepted ?) way of life, and without it we think that life would have no meaning. To most of us, the cessation of struggle is death. ( Our psychological ?) search implies struggle, conflict, and is this process essential to ( the spiritual evolution of ?) man, or is there a different ‘way of life' in which search and struggle
are not? Why and what do we seek?

I: I seek ways and means to assure, not only my own survival, but that of my nation.

K: Is there such a vast difference between national and individual survival? Is not the (self-centred ?) 'individual' ever seeking to survive, to have continuity, by being identified with something greater or nobler than himself?

M: Is there not a point or a moment at which we suddenly find ourselves without search, without struggle?

R: That moment may be merely the result of weariness, a brief pause before plunging again into the vicious circle of search and fear.

M: Or it may be outside of time ?

K: Is the 'moment' you were talking about outside of time, or is it only (temporary ?) a point of rest before starting to seek again? Unless we discover
for ourselves 'why' we seek and struggle, the state in which ( our dualistic ?) search has come to an end will remain for us a (self-projected ) illusion, without significance.

B: Is there no difference between the various objects of search?

K: Of course there are differences, but in all ( dualistic ?) seeking the urge (of self-interest ?) is essentially the same, is it not? Whether we seek to survive individually or as a nation; whether we go to a teacher a guru ; whether we follow a particular discipline, or find some other means of bettering ourselves, is not each one of us (subliminally ?) seeking some form of personal satisfaction, continuity, permanency?
So we are asking not 'what' we seek, but 'why' do we seek at all? And whether it is possible for all (dualistic ?) search to come to an end, not through compulsion but because the urge has wholly ceased?

B: We are caught in the habit of search, and I suppose it is the outcome of our dissatisfaction.

K: Being (inwardly) discontented, dissatisfied , we seek (their opposite as ?) 'contentment', 'satisfaction'. As long as there is this (subliminal ?) urge to be satisfied, to fulfil oneself , there must be search and struggle. ( Not to mention that ?) with the urge to fulfil (oneself ?) there is always the shadow of fear (of the things that could impede it ?) is there not?

B: How can we escape from this fear?

K: You want to 'fulfil' (your life) without the 'sting' of fear; but is there ever an enduring fulfilment? Surely, the very
desire to fulfil (oneself) is itself the cause of further frustrations and fears. Only when the ( truth about the psychological ?) significance of ('self-) fulfilment' is seen is there a (possibility for ?) ending (the momentum of ' ?) desire'. 'Becoming' and 'Being' are two widely different states, and you cannot go from one to the other; but with the ending of (psychological ?) becoming' the 'other' is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #412
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 58 posts in this forum Offline

If our 'conditioning' is anything, it is this 'urge' to seek. First in the physical, better food, water, shelter, As it manifests in the psychological, it is the desire for happiness, excitement, variety, novelty, recognition, to 'be somebody', to 'make it', to 'do it my way', enlightenment, etc. But why does the urge exist and persist when it is seen that it is ultimately the cause of sorrow? I would say that it can only cease when it is seen totally, in all its subtle guises. I come to K. because I want what I think he has found and persist until I realize that the image I have of what I think he is, has found, is totally false in every way. My image is based on my experience, on my 'urge' to find the most pleasureful, completeness, enlightenment and that is the image of K. that attracts. I 'want' to attain what I think he has. I project a 'false' image and without realizing it, I chase it. When that is seen clearly, then it is over.

It makes his supposed statement " Nobody has the foggiest idea what I'm talking about" I think (hope?), a little less foggy.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #413
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 58 posts in this forum Offline

I know nothing of the workings of computers but is this 'urge' to 'become' something like a virus? It creates a false psychological 'future' where the images projected can 'become' a reality. It creates a 'glamour', a luminescence that 'outshines' the present?

And inevitably creates sorrow.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 17 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #414
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 58 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
this feeling that there's something wrong about humans

That we somehow don't seem to fit in here like everything else around us. I mean we understand we have the big brain but that should be a help not a hindrance, right? I think the 'problem' is thought/time.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 18 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Jun 2017 #415
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 58 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
And at this very point comes the challenge: to assume full responsability for all this 'psychological' past (in older terms, for the present consequences of the 'sour grapes' that our ancestors ate, way back in the night of time.)

I guess that's right John, we can't 'kick it down the road' when it starts to become obvious what the problem is.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 18 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Jun 2017 #416
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

(continuing to 'unzip' the Commentaries on Living)


Q: I see the importance of listening, but I wonder if I ever really listen to what you say. Somehow I seem to make a great effort to listen.

K: When you make an effort to listen, are you (freely) listening ? Is not that very effort a (self created ?) distraction which prevents listening? Do you make an effort when you listen to something that gives you delight? Surely, this 'effort to listen' is a form of (subliminal ?) resistance, is it not? And this resistance
breeds (personal) problems, and listening becomes one of them. Listening itself is never a 'problem'.

Q: But to me it is. I want to listen 'correctly' because I feel that what you are saying has deep significance, but I can’t go beyond the verbal meaning.

K: If I may say so, you are not listening even now to what is being said. You have made 'listening' into
a (personal) problem, and (struggling with ?) this problem is preventing you from listening. Everything we touch becomes a problem, one issue breeds many other issues. Perceiving this is it possible not to breed (any psychological ?) problems at all?

Q: That would be marvellous, but how is one to come to that 'happy' state (free of all problems ?) ?

K: The ‘how’, the manner of achieving a certain state (of inner freedom ?) , becomes still another problem.
We are talking of not giving birth to (psychological) problems. If it may be pointed out, you must be aware
of the manner in which the (self-centred ) mind is creating this (new) problem: you want to achieve the state of 'perfect listening'; but you are not listening (now) , so you (think that you ) need time and interest to gain that or any other state. This (very) need for 'time and interest' generates (its own ) problems. You are not simply aware (of the truth of the fact ?) that you are not 'listening' ( totally ?) . When you are becoming aware of it, the very (perception of the ?) fact that you are not listening has its own action; the 'truth' of that fact acts, (rather than ) 'you' acting upon the fact.

( In a nutshell:) Your (personal) effort to act upon the fact breeds problems, whereas seeing the truth of the fact brings its own liberating action. And you are not aware of the 'truth', nor do you see the false as 'false', as long as your mind is (keeping itself ?) 'occupied' with comparison, with justification or condemnation.

Q: All this may be so, but given all the conflicts and contradictions that go on within oneself, it still seems
to me that it is almost impossible to 'listen'...

K: Listening itself is a complete act(ion); the very act of listening brings its own freedom. But are you really
concerned with listening, or with altering the turmoil within? If you would just 'listen' - in the sense of being aware of your inner conflicts and contradictions without forcing them into any particular pattern of thought, perhaps they might altogether cease. You see, we are constantly trying to achieve a particular state, to capture one kind of ( totally rewarding ?) experience, so the (conscious layers of the ?) mind is everlastingly occupied with something; it is never 'still' to listen to the noise (or disturbances ?) of its own struggles and pains. ( (So, for homework:) Be 'simple' (inwardly ) , sir, and don’t try to ( compensate 'what is' by trying to ?) become something (else) or to capture some "experience".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Jun 2017 #417
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


Q: I have always been a seeker, I have read so many books on so many subjects. I was a Catholic, but left that Church to join another; leaving that too, I joined a religious society. I have recently been reading oriental philosophy, the teachings of the Buddha, and added to all this, I have had myself psychoanalysed; but even that hasn’t stopped me from seeking, and now here I am talking to you. I nearly went to India in search of a Master, but circumstances prevented me from going. I have seriously tryed to meditate but got nowhere, my mind is as silly and vagrant as before. What you said about meditation and prayer has greatly puzzled me, but through all this wearisome confusion, I really want to find Truth and understand its mystery.

K: Do you think that by seeking Truth you will find it? You have never fathomed this urge to seek, have you? Yet you keep on seeking going from one thing to another in the hope of finding what you call "Truth" and make a
mystery of it.

Q: But what’s wrong with going after what I want? I have always gone after what I wanted, and more often than not I have got it.

K: That may be; but do you think that you can collect ( the mystery of ?) Truth as you would gather money or paintings? Do you think Truth is another ornament for one’s vanity? Mustn't the mind that is acquisitive wholly cease for the other to be?

Q: I suppose I am too eager to find it...

K: Not at all. You will find what you seek in your eagerness, but it will not be the Real (thing) .

Q: Then what am I supposed to do, just lie down and vegetate?

K: Is it not important to find out 'why' you are seeking?

Q: Oh, I know very well 'why' I am seeking: I am thoroughly discontented with everything, even with the things I have found. This pain of discontent returns again and again; now I think I have got hold of something,
but it soon fades away and once again the pain of discontent overwhelms me. I must find something
- 'Truth', or whatever it is - that will give me peace and contentment.

K: Should you not be thankful that you have not succeeded in smothering this "fire of discontent"?
You have sought ( a lasting state of ?) 'contentment', but to find it is to stagnate, vegetate. Most people are discontented (with one thing or another) are they not? But their restlessness of discontent is superficially turned into 'achievements' that gratify. So we live on the surface (of Life) and never fathom the depths of discontent.

Q: Then how is one to go below the 'surface' of one's discontent?

K: To live with that pain, without trying to escape from it or to alter it, is to penetrate the depths of discontent. To
be (inwardly) integrated with (your) discontent, without the ( all controlling) 'observer' forcing (or redirecting ?) it into the grooves of satisfaction or accepting it as inevitable, is to allow That ( sense of Wholeness ?) which has no opposite, no second, to come into being.

Q: I follow what you are saying, but I have fought discontent for so many years that it is now very
difficult for me to 'be part of it'.

K: The more you fight a (bad ?) habit, the more life you give to it. Habit is (psychologically speaking ?) a 'dead thing' , so do not fight it, with the (non-dualistic ?) perception of the truth ( about your ) discontent, the 'past' will have lost its (apparently overwhelming ?) significance.

( To Recap:) It is a 'marvellous' thing ( or a great redeeming opportunity ?) to be (inwardly) discontented without smothering that 'flame' by ( accumulating second hand ) knowledge, or (material ?) achievements. There is a "Mystery" ( of Truth ?) that is beyond the capacities and powers of the (self-centred ?) mind, but 'It' must come without 'your' asking, and with it comes a Benediction.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 18 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 #418
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


Imagination perverts the perception of what is; the speculative mind, with its intricate thoughts, is not capable of fundamental transformation; it has (safely) clothed itself with 'what should be' and follows the pattern of its self-enclosing projections. The (inward unfolding of the ?) Good is not in (the pursuit of ?) 'what should be', but in the understanding of 'what is'. Imagination prevents the (direct) perception of 'what is', as does comparison. ( In a nutshell:) The mind must put aside all ( psychologically motivated ?) imagination and speculation for the Real to be.


He was quite young but looked very worried and miserable, and was eager to say something.


Q: Some time ago I had a most remarkable experience, and as I have never before talked about it to anyone. It was an experience which completely ravished my heart; but it has gone, and now I have only the empty memory of it. Perhaps you can help me to get it back? I woke up one morning very early; the city was still asleep, and its murmur had not yet begun. I felt I had to get out, so I dressed quickly and went down to the street. Even the milk truck was not yet on its rounds. It was early spring, and the sky was pale blue. I had a strong feeling that I should go to the park, a mile or so away. From the moment I came out of my front door I had a strange feeling of lightness, as though I were walking on air. The building opposite, a drab block of flats, had lost all its ugliness; the very bricks were alive and clear. Every little object which ordinarily I would never have noticed seemed to have an extraordinary quality of its own, and strangely, everything seemed to be a part of me. Nothing was separate from me; in fact, the ‘me’ as the observer, the perceiver, was absent, if you know what I mean. There was no ‘me’ separate from that tree, or from that paper in the gutter, or from the birds that were calling to each other. It was a state of consciousness that I had never known.

On the way to the park there is a flower shop. I have passed it hundreds of times, and I used to glance at the flowers as I went by. But on this particular morning I stopped in front of it. The plate glass window was slightly frosted with the heat and damp from inside, but this did not prevent me from seeing the many varieties of flowers. As I stood looking at them, I found myself smiling and laughing with a joy I had never before experienced. Those flowers were speaking to me, and I was speaking to them; I was among them, and they were part of me. In saying this, I may give you the impression that I was hysterical, slightly off my head; but it was not so. I had dressed very carefully, and had been aware of putting on clean things, looking at my watch, seeing the names of the shops, including that of my tailor, and reading the titles of the books in a book shop window.

Everything was alive, and I loved everything. I was the scent of those flowers, but there was no ‘me’ to smell the flowers, if you know what I mean. There was no separation between them and me. That flower shop was fantastically alive with colours, and the beauty of it all must have been stunning, for time and its measurement had ceased. I must have stood there for over twenty minutes, but I assure you there was no sense of time. I could hardly tear myself away from those flowers. The world of struggle, pain and sorrow was there, and yet it was not. You see, in that state, words have no meaning. Words are descriptive, separative, comparative, but in that state there were no words; ‘I’ was not experiencing, there was only that state, that experience.

Time had stopped; there was no 'past', 'present' or 'future'. It was as though the earth, with everything in it and on it, were in a state of benediction, and I, walking towards the park, were part of it. As I drew near the park I was absolutely spellbound by the beauty of those familiar trees. From the pale yellow to the almost black-green, the leaves were dancing with life; every leaf stood out separate, and the whole richness of the earth was in a single leaf. I sat down on a bench, and tears were rolling down my cheeks. There was a silence that was utterly unbearable, but that silence was cleansing all things of pain and sorrow. As I went deeper into the park, there was music in the air. I was surprised, as there was no house nearby, and no one would have a radio in the park at that hour of the morning. The music was part of the whole thing. All the Goodness, all the Compassion of the world was in that park, and God was there.

I am not a 'religion' person and I cannot stomach all that nonsense that goes on in churches. But in that park there was a Being in whom all things lived and had their being. My legs were shaking and I was forced to sit down again, with my back against a tree. The trunk was a living thing, as I was, and I was part of that tree, part of that Being, part of the world. I must have fainted. When I came to, the sun was up. It generally takes me about twenty minutes to walk to the park, but it was nearly two hours since I had left my house. As I slowly walked back home, the whole of that experience was with me; it lasted two days, and faded away as suddenly as it had come.

Then... my (psychological) torture began. I wanted that strange living experience back again, I wanted to live once again and forever in that beatific world. All this happened two years ago. I have seriously thought of giving up everything and going away into some lonely corner of the world, but I know in my heart that I cannot get it back that way. I considered making my way to India, but that too I put aside. Then I tried a certain drug; it made things more vivid, and so on, but an opiate is not what I want. So here I am, I would give everything (or...almost ?) to live again in that world. What am I to do?

K: It came to you, sir, 'uninvited' (as a Heavenly Gift ?) , but as long as 'you' are seeking (to re-capture) It , your very desire to live again in that ecstatic state is preventing the New, that fresh experience of Bliss. See what has happened ? You have had that experience (2 years ago) , and now you are living with the dead memories of yesterday. ( The memory of ?) 'what has been' is preventing the (perception of anything ?) New.

Q: Do you mean to say that I must forget all that has been, and carry on with my 'petty' ( yet safe and rewarding ?) life while inwardly I'm starving?

K: If you do not look back and ask for more, which is quite a (meditative?) task, then perhaps That ( Universal Consciousness ?) 'thing' over which 'you' have no control may act (or not ?) as it will. Greed, even for the Sublime, (eventually ) breeds (frustration & )
sorrow; the psychological urge for 'more' opens the door to (thinking in terms of ?) time. That ( state of) Bliss is not a (personal) reward, a result (of Time) . It comes when 'it' will; (so) do not seek it.

Q: But (at least ) was that experience the 'real (thing') was it of the Highest?

K: We want another to confirm, to make us certain of (the authenticity of ?),what has been, and so that we can find shelter in ( treasuring the memories of ?) it. To be made certain or secure in ( the memory of) that which has been, even if it were the Real, is to strengthen (our psychological) unreal(ity) and breed illusion. (The Ultimate ?) Reality has no (temporal) continuity. It 'is' (creating ?) from moment to moment, timeless and measureless.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Jun 2017 #419
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 58 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
if you don't expect something more or better than what you already 'have' or what you already 'are', a certain inner & outer deterioration may follow

I think this is so. The opposite state imagined is a kind of vegetativeness. "you're not 'progressing'". "You're not 'getting anywhere'!"

'Being as nothing' is maybe the key? 'Nothing' doesn't 'want' anything. 'Nothing' doesn't 'choose'. 'Nothing' isn't interested in 'becoming' anything. 'Nothing' is nothing. Do you think we should (could?) 'be as nothing'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 20 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Jun 2017 #420
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

( Unzipping K's Commentaries on Life)


THE MONKEYS WERE on the road, and in the middle of the road a baby monkey was playing with its tail, but the mother was keeping an eye on it. They were all well aware that someone was there, at a safe distance. They were all eating some kind of berries that had fallen on the road from a large, shady tree with thick leaves. The recent rains had filled the river, and the stream under the
narrow bridge was gurgling. The monkeys avoided the water and the puddles on the road, and when
a car appeared splattering mud as it came, they were off the road in a second, the mother taking the baby with her. Some climbed the tree and others went down the bank on each side of the road, but they were back on it as soon as the car had sped by. They had now got quite used to the human presence. They were as restless as the human mind, and up to all kinds of tricks.
The rice fields on either side of the road were a luscious, sparkling green in the warm sun, and
against the blue hills beyond the fields the ricebirds were white and slow-winged. A brilliantly blue kingfisher had
alighted on the bridge and was readying itself for another dive. It was a lovely morning, not too hot, and the solitary palms scattered over the fields told of many things. Between the green fields
and the blue hills there was communion, a song. Time seemed to pass so quickly. Among the newly-sprouted grass there were large red ants; they would race jerkily forward, suddenly stop, and then go off in the opposite direction. Life was so rich, so abundant - and unnoticed, which was perhaps what all these living things, big and little, wanted.


What one 'does' and what one 'has' gives one importance and prestige; but man in himself as a total being seems to have hardly any significance at all. He came with two of his friends. Each of them had a good college degree, and they were doing well in their various professions.


They were all married and had children, and they seemed pleased with their life, yet they were disturbed too.

Q: I would like to ask a direct question: you keep saying that competition and ambition are destructive urges which man must understand and so be free of, if he is to live in a peaceful society. But are not struggle and conflict part of the very nature of our modern existence?

K: (Our modern ) society as at present constituted is based on ambition and conflict, and the 'individual' is conditioned to its inevitability; if he is to fit into this society at all, he must accept the conditions it lays down, otherwise he has a pretty bad time. We seem to think that we 'have to' fit into this society; but why should one?

Q: If we don’t, won't we just 'go under' ?

K: I wonder if that would happen if we saw the whole (psychological ?) significance of the problem? We might not live according to the usual ( rat-race ?) pattern, but we would ( give ourselves a chance to ?) live creatively and happily, with a wholly different outlook. Such a state ( of holistically integrated mind ?) cannot be brought about if we accept the present social pattern as inevitable.
But to get back to your (contention) point: do ambition, competition and conflict constitute the inevitable way of life? Why do you take this competitive way of life to be the only process of existence?

Q: Because I simply don’t know of any other way of living;
and even if I did, I suppose I would be
gravely concerned about the future of my family and children if I broke away from the usual routines of life.

K: You may be responsible for others, sir, but have you not also the ( global) responsibility to bring about a peaceful world? There can be no peace, no enduring happiness for man as long as we accept this 'competitive' existence as inevitable.
Competitiveness, ambition, implies conflict within and without, does it not?

Q: I can see that, but what is one to do? Being caught in this net of competition, how is one to get out of
it? And even if one does get out of it, what assurance is there that there will be peace between man and man? Unless all of us see the truth of the matter at the same time, the perception of that truth by one or two will have no value whatever.

K: We are not now thinking in terms of success or failure, but rather in terms of the elimination of conflict; and does it follow that without conflict, stagnation is inevitable? Surely, peace comes into being when 'you' ( the self-centred consciousness ?) are not (around ?) - it is 'you' who are the agent of conflict with your ambitions and frustrations.
Your other point, sir, that all must see the truth of this problem at the same time, is an obvious impossibility. But it is possible to see it individually ; and when you do, that "truth" which you have seen and which brings freedom, will ( also ?) affect ( the consciousness of ?) others.
Basically it must begin with 'you', for you are ( the manifested consciousness of ?) the world, as the other is.

( To recap:) (Our personal) ambition breeds ( a standardised ?) mediocrity of mind and heart; ambition is superficial, for it is everlastingly seeking a (material)
result. The man who wants to be a successful politician, or a big executive, is concerned with personal achievement. Whether identified with (or hidden behind ?) an ideal, a nation, or a religious or economic system, the urge to be successful only strengthens the ego, the self-(consciousness ?) , whose very structure is brittle (artificial ?) , superficial and limited. All this is fairly obvious if one looks (non-personally ?) into it, is it not?

Q: It may be 'obvious' to you, sir, but to most of us conflict gives the sense of ( a purposeful) existence, the feeling that we are alive. Without ambition and competition, our lives would be drab and useless.

K: Since you are maintaining this competitive way of life, your children and your children’s children
will bread further antagonism, envy and war; neither you nor they will have (inner, or outer ?) peace. Having been
conditioned (culturally standardised ?) to live within this traditional pattern of existence, you are in turn educating your children to accept it; so the world goes on in this sorrowful way.

Q: We may all want to change, but...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 391 - 420 of 552 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

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