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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?


Displaying posts 391 - 420 of 574 in total
Wed, 10 Aug 2016 #391
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

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

salut john,

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

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

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

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

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

à bientôt

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Aug 2016 #392
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

A K "DIALOGUE ON EDUCATION", OJAI 1975

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: You want a method ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Yes.

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

Q: But there is no method?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: To be free of conditioning ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: I can't give it to you.

K: No, then what will I do?

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

K: We are doing it now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes, sir.

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

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

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

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

Q: To 'go through something' ?

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

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

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

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

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

Q: What I mean to say is...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: That's the question.

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

Q: (Inaudible)

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Does freedom not involve "seeing"?

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

Q: That's the problem.

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

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

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

Q: Didn't you repeat it just now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #393
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1975 (condensed)

THE STREAM OF SELFISHNESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: I can only see my point of view.

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

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

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

Q: Why do we separate the two?

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

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

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

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

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

Q: I am aware intellectually only.

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

Q: It is a part of my culture.

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

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

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

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

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

Q: We are.

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

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

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

Q: The tent itself.

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

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

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

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

Q: (Inaudible)

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

Q: Compassion ?

Q: You get a shock, a terrible shock.

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

Q: Is this a result of fear?

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

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

Q: I should be inactive ?

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

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

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

Q: (Inaudible)

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

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

Q: Surely it is necessary not to be attached.

K: To the stream?

Q: To anything.

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

Q: If you are attached there is no love.

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

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

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

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

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

Q: That is a compromise.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #394
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

bonjour John,

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

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

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

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

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

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #395
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 126 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #396
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #397
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Raica wrote:
Personellement j'essaye de verifier

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

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

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

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #398
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #399
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #400
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

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

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

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Aug 2016 #401
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

Q: Continue with what we were discussing yesterday ?

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

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

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

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

K: Now who created this 'thinker'?

Q: Thought ?

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

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

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

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

K: But thought has 'put it together'.

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

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

Q: I agree...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: I do not know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Because it is mechanical?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: I don't know.

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

Q: No.

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

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

Q: To see myself will take time.

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Aug 2016 #402
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

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

K: What shall we talk over together this morning?

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

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

Q: Is there anything like positive and negative thought?

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

Q: The first question.

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

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

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

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

Q: That is not true.

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

Q: I need privacy.

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

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

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

Q: It's impossible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Can you give an example?

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

Q: How do you..

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

Q: No.

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

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Aug 2016 #403
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 12 posts in this forum Offline

Interesting text. Thanks John.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Aug 2016 #404
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: What if you suddenly see something new ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Aug 2016 #405
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

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

THE INWARD ASPECTS OF MEDITATION

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

Q: Should we continue with meditation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: That 'love' is called sentimentality.

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Aug 2016 #406
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 12 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks for the passages john. Even with a glaucoma one cannot understand what tryophobia is, seems to be the word of the day in the newspapers.;)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 Aug 2016 #407
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1974 (reader friendly condensed) .
AN EXPERIENTIAL APPROACH TO 'HOLISTIC UNDERSTANDING'

K: This is supposed to be a discussion - the word 'discussion' means, I have just looked it up in the dictionary, 'through argument find what is truth' - and what we are trying to do in these dialogues, or discussions, all that is to expose certain problems which one may have, and understand those problems by looking at them - in this (inner) exposure one discovers what is their truth, what is their meaning.
So what shall we together talk over this morning?

Q: There must be total understanding to go beyond anything. Our understanding is only partial. How is a mind that is always looking, or thinking partially, to understand totally?

Q: Would you talk over together the question of (what is a holistic?) education?

Q: How is thought to end completely, without conflict?

Q: Please talk over relationship.

Q: Thought and feeling.

Q: Everyone contributes to the horror of war.

Q: Talk about fear.

K: Can we put a question that will ( 'holistically'?) cover most of the questions that have been put this morning ? Now, which question, which one of these questions could we ask so that it will give us a comprehensive understanding of all the questions that have been asked so far?
I have all these problems as a human being - ( the global spread of?) violence, ( the local?) wars, an education which is really no education at all. One understands them sometimes, a partial understanding, and it is never complete, so it is all fragmented, isn't it?
Now why is the mind fragmented, broken up? I see something very clearly for ten minutes and the rest of the day I don't see anything at all. Why is your mind broken up?

Q: It all depends on our laziness, because we are indolent.

K: Is that so? I may be ( outwardly?) very active, full of energy, not lazy, but yet I am (inwardly compartmentalised ) ?) fragmented. Why is our mind so broken up, contradictory, saying one thing, doing another, thinking something else, acting in another direction, why is our mind like that? It is the result of a culture created by the past generations (and relayed by ?) the present generation, a culture which breaks up ( the wholeness of human life?) life into ( specialised?) fragments – the 'businessman', the 'artist', the 'scientist', the religious person ? What is the (rotten?) cause behind this culture? Do examine it, go into yourself please.
The culture has created it and we are asking, why is the culture, which we have created as human beings, what is the reason of it, what is behind it?

Q: This division comes about because man is seeking security.

K: I am not saying it is not so. Security in religion, security in belief, security in experience, security in knowledge, security in relationship, and the desire to be secure brings about this fragmentation. Examine yourself please.
First of all, let's take the 'security' ( invested) in a belief - is that belief real, or an invention of thought?

Q: Is it that we are fundamentally, deeply frightened (of the unknown?) and therefore we are trying to find security in every (known ) direction?

K: Is that demand for (psychological?) security born out of fear ? Fear of what?) Of the uncertainty of life, of the future, of this impermanency (of our material existence?) , and therefore the mind seeks permanency in a belief?

Q: Is every religious man insane?

K: I think I am dreadfully religious, am I insane? I don't think so. But a religious man who 'believes' in God, is somewhat neurotic. We are talking about the demand for (psychological?) security, and how that 'security' brings about fragmentation of our mind and life. And it is suggested that our fear ( of the unknown?) is the root of this desire to be secure.

Then if fear is the cause of this fragmentation, can that fear be completely wiped out? Not (put to sleep?) for a few days and then come back to it again, but completely be free of fear?

Q: Is not fear ( biologically) necessary for survival, as animals have that (instinctive?) fear which makes them aggressive and therefore survive?

K: Let's put it this way: fear of 'self' survival, fear of not being able to survive (psychologically?) brings about (its own mentality of ?) division. If I am living in a Catholic country and I am not a Catholic, that becomes rather difficult ; and so on and on - we have (opportunistically?) adjusted our (whole mentality) to the communist world, to the Maoist world, to any world as long as we can be secure. And this desire for security is based, we have said, on fear. Now can we be free of ( this subliminal?) fear, which means no (inner necessity for ) fragmentation, and out of the ending of that fear another factor comes in, which in itself becomes security. Now can the mind be free of fear?

Q: To end fear we must have total understanding of it.

K: That's right. But... we haven't got that 'total understanding'. So we are examining, sir, to find out if there is a total understanding of fear, not a partial understanding. We are answering your first question: can this fear be observed 'totally' and not partially?

Q: How is it possible to examine fear 'totally' when it has so many factors?

K: Fear of death, fear of losing money, fear of public opinion, fear of so many ways of fear. But is there a central root of fear? And these are all factors, manifestations of that central root: it is like a tree, having many branches but it is only the trunk that makes all the branches. So can we find out the central root of fear and in the discovery of it to 'see the totality' of fear ?
I am asking myself and therefore you are (supposed to be?) asking yourself, what is the central factor of fear?

Q: It is thought, (except that?) it can be 'unconscious'.

K: Give it a little minute, madam, don't be so impatient. Let me look, let me be silent for a minute, let me look inside to find out what in me is the root of this fear.

Q: We are ( subliminally?) frightened to find out.

K: Yes. What is the cause of your fear?

Q: It is the 'me' separating itself, and the separation causes fear.

K: Please, would you mind for two minutes go into yourself, if you can, and find out without (instantly?) verbalizing what it is your are frightened of, and see what is the root of that fear. (…) Have you found out? Yes?

Q: I am afraid of death.

K: Is that the root of fear? So you haven't found out, you are just talking round it.

Q: How is one (supposed to?) to 'find out'?

K: I am going to show it to you sir, if you have the patience to 'listen'.
I want to find out (non-analitically?) why there are so many fears in myself - conscious as well as unconscious – of losing your job, of public opinion, of being crippled physically, afraid of death, afraid of life, afraid of so many, many things. I am asking myself, what is the central factor of it?
I am investigating (into) myself, so I am also trying to show how to investigate. I know there are deep fears which I have not even looked at, and there are the obvious superficial fears. Now I want to find out the fears, both that are hidden and open, how they come into being, what is the root of them. Now I can only find it out if the mind sees that to live in fear is (inwardly) very, very destructive. The mind must see that first, that a mind that is 'frightened' (dominated by fear?) is never honest (to itself ) , a mind that is frightened will invent anything to hold on to.
So one must first see the necessity (to be free of fear?) clearly, wholly, that as long as there is fear there must be 'misery' (a pretty miserable life?) . Now do you see that? That is the first requisite. That is the first truth to realise, that as long as there is fear there is (inner) darkness, and whatever I do in that darkness is still darkness, is still confusion. Do I see that very clearly, wholly, not partially?
Now the next step is not 'analysis', but (a direct inner) observation only - is my mind capable of 'observing' what that fear is, and the depth of that fear?
Can the mind observe the whole movement of fear, the whole of it, not just bits of it? One cannot possibly 'see the whole' of it if there is any kind of desire to go beyond, rationalize, so can I observe without any ( pro-active?) movement of thought? Do listen to this. If I observe fear through the movement of thought, then it is partial, it is obscured, it is not clear. So we are not analysing, but we are just observing this extraordinarily complicated 'map of fear'. When you look at the map of fear if you have any 'direction' you are only looking at it partially. So can you look at the map of fear without any movement of thought? Don't answer, take time.

That means (experientially?) when the mind is observing, can thought be silent? 'How is thought to be silent ?' Is a wrong (a redundant?) question : if my (total) concern now is (focussed on direct ?) observation, that is prevented (diverted?) when there is any any 'wave' of (self-centred?) thought. So one's attention is given totally to the map and therefore (hopefully?) thought doesn't enter into it. When I am (really?) looking at you completely nothing outside exists. So ( in a nutshell:) can I look at this map of fear without a wave of thought? Can it stop voluntarily, without conflict ? Can thought come to an end? Are you doing it? Can ( one's self-centred?) thought quietly 'go to sleep' (or take a break?) for the time being? And ( apparently?) it can't, because it is so vital. So what is the mind to do, knowing that thought interferes in the total perception?

And inevitably ( this is creating another colateral detour : ?) I must understand, observe, the total movement of thought - right? - not fear, but the total content of thought. You follow, sir, what has happened? I started out by asking, why am I afraid of death, of public opinion, of this attachment, why are there so many, many fears the mind is caught in. And I am observing that, this whole field of fear, and the observation is prevented by thought, by the movement of thought. So now my attention is given to the understanding of ( the self-centred process of?) thought not of fear. Are you moving with me?

Now I want to find out experientially?) why does (my self-centred thinking?) interfere in everything I do - sexually, morally, religiously, every movement is there, of thought, why? Is it that the culture, religion, all the activities and education say (think, think, think!) thought is the most important thing?

Now, what is this thing called 'thought'? And and if the mind can be 'without thoughts' what happens ? We have seen ( the medical) explanations when there is no thought the mind becomes a vegetable - right? Amnesia, you don't know a thing. Now what am I to do?
I see everywhere around in India, in Europe, in Asia, in America, the movement of (our subliminally self-centred ?) thinking : in our human relationships, in ( the organised ?) religions ( all the inventions of their gods are the product of thought) all our (existential?) 'philosophies' are based on thought, the philosophy of knowledge, the philosophy of action, everything around us is based on thought - thought being ( a mental activity based on outward ) measure and therefore ( on) time. And we call this measurement of time 'progress'. ( as in the constant?) growth of national products (GNP) , everything. So what is ( metaphysically?) wrong with this kind of thinking? The ancient Hindus said, thought is (an outward?) measure, and to find the (inwardly?) immeasurable, thought must end. Because they said, to live (safely enclosed in one's self-centred ?) thinking is ( pretty much like?) to live in a prison, and ( this self-created inner ?) prison is (the result of?) 'measurement'. See the beauty of it ? And to be free of that ( self-centred mentality of ?) measurement is to come upon that which is 'Brahman', which is Immeasurable. Therefore ( their bestest idea was to?) control thought, and since it is brought about through the senses, don't go near a woman, don't look (outwardly at?) anything, but close your eyes, suppress thought and work at it (diligently ?) .
And the western world has said, thought is absolutely necessary outwardly , there is no ( actual need to look inwardly for the?) Immeasurable. You can invent (or believe in the recorded manifestations of ?) the Immeasurable, as the Christ and so on.
So ( the bottom line is:) thought has become the (virtual ?) foundation (of our outer and inner existence?) Right?

Now what am I to do? In (my inward?) observation thought is (constantly?) interfering therefore there is the (traditional) conclusion: 'thought shall end !' Why do you come to that? Because it interferes with your observation? Therefore there was a (hidden) motive behind your desire to observe, and that motive is ( based on a value?) measurement. Therefore that motive is ( part of the same process of thinking projecting itself in ?) time. I wonder if you see the subtleness of it.

So is your (inner quality of ?) observation without a single motive? It is not if thought says, I want to go beyond it. (This self-centred process of ?) thought has a cause, the cause being the desire to go beyond it, therefore it is 'measurable' and therefore you are still (more subtly?) caught in thought.
So what is the mind to do (meditation-wise?) ? It is not interested in the observation of fear. Now it has turned its attention to the enquiry into the whole movement of thought. Not that it won't stop it, not that it wants to control it, just to observe it.
Why has man, right through the ages, all cultures, ancient or modern have given importance to thought. Why? Find the (true?) answer, don't give it up.

Q: It is the only instrument that we have .

K: Is that so? You people don't know how to 'investigate'. Everyone says, thought is the only instrument we have, and we abide by that. But I say, aren't there other ( available?) instruments? So I am asking, is there another (perceptive?) instrument other than (our common self-centred?) thought?

Q: I'd want to know the answer quickly.

K: Sir, the quick answer is 'to observe without the movement of thought'. Observe yourself, everything about you, nature, the clouds, the beauty of the hills, the flowing waters, and the bird on the wing, everything including (inwardly observing?) your own desires, without a single movement of thought. That is the 'final answer'.

Q: I am locked inside a room, and the key is on the other side of the door, and you are asking me to open the door, which is a (practical?) 'impossibility'.

K: That is a good simile but not (100%?) real. By stating that the key is on the other side you have already blocked yourself. I have no key, I have no door, I have only one problem.

Q: You have talked (extensively) for fifty years, is it merely an intellectual philosophy, or is it something that is real?

K: You know the original meaning of the word 'philosophy' means 'love of truth'. Right, sir? The love of life, not the invention which our intellect creates, that has nothing to do with reality.

Q: We all want to change.

K: Change to what?

Q: For instance, to be a little 'free-er' ?

K: I am not interested in being 'a little free-er'. Sir, you haven't taken the time or the trouble to read or find out what the speaker has to say.

Q: I have read all your books.

K: Then, sir, you know it 'by the mind' (intellectually?) , but we are talking of ( a transformation at the level of?) 'living'.
We came to the point when we said, why do we limit ourselves to one instrument? If your daily (everyday?) life is based on ( your self-centred?) thought, then you are going to create such havoc in the world, which you have. And any change that ( this kind of?) thought brings about is still within the same area, whether communist, socialist, Catholic, or any other religion, it is still within the same 'area of confusion'. So you have got to find out if you want to radically change.

Q: We seem unable to consider ourselves as a whole.

K: How can you 'consider yourself as a whole' when you are looking at life partially? - my country, my god, my desires, my ambitions, all the rest of it - how can you see the whole?
As the gentleman pointed out, the speaker has talked for fifty years, and as he says, "Has the speech produced one single human being, apart from yourself, who is really free?"
I am not interested if after fifty years I have produced one single human being who is free. This is not (a matter of?) propaganda, this is not something meant to convince you. If I really want to understand myself, I want to change totally myself, then give care, attention, affection. But if you are not, it doesn't matter.

Q: I have a question about thought. When you have a new thought after...

K: Is there any 'new' thought? Or thought is always old? Thought (our self-centred thinking?) can never be free. It may come up as a 'new thought' but it is still (part of the same self-centred process of?) thought.
So I am left with this: ( my self-centred?) thought is (controlling?) my life, my actions, my relationships, thought is ( creating?) my 'god'. And I can see ( that my self-centred ?) thinking divides: 'my' country and 'your' country, 'my' god and 'your' god, 'my' ideals and 'your' ideals, and so on. So how can a mind whose essence is thought, how can it change radically? To change radically (this self-centred process of?) 'thought' must be understood, otherwise there is no escape. And if you ( experientially?) understand your thought then it is the 'thought' (the self-centred thinking?) of everybody. Right?
Now ( to recap : ) thought being at the basis of our action and our life, it has produced such mischief, and also it has produced great architecture, great painting, but it is still ( the same self-centred activity of human?) thought. It can go from one corner of the field to another corner, but it is still within the same field (of self-centred human experience?) .
So thought is not the instrument of change. To bring a change in the world I must find out something (a new perceptive instrument?) which is not based on thought because ( our traditional self-cenred way of?) thinking will not solve all our misery. Right sir?
We must find a way which is not the way of thought. Right? But to find a way which is not the way of thought, you have to understand the whole business of (our self-centred thinking?). So you must understand (experientially?) what 'thought' is. Right? If I understand how to run a car, there is no problem. But because we don't understand the nature of our own thinking we go on employing it. So we are going to find out.

There are three questions involved in this: What is 'thought', what is 'thinking'? And what is the necessity of thinking.
The very words you and I use is ( the communicational aspect of?) thought. So thought has its place in the 'functional' field - speaking a language, driving a car, in the business world, the technological world, which is all based on knowledge, experience, memory ( a creative & oportunistic?) thought - must operate. But has it any other place except in that (outward?) area only? Right? ( The objective function of?) thought is necessary to write, to speak, to communicate - there (exercising our?) thinking capacity is necessary otherwise you can't go to your home, otherwise you can't travel, otherwise you can't speak and so on.
But where (our direct?) observation is involved why does thought move into this field? I want to observe those hills, the beauty of light and shade, and the depth of shadows, and the movement of leaves, but thought comes in and says, "That is a lovely (Saanen?) hill", or "I don't like this one , I like that better ", "That is a ( beautiful) bird" - you follow? Why does thought do all this?

Now when I say, 'why does thought keep interfering ?', I have put that question to find a cause, haven't I? So there is a (personal ?) motive in my looking for the cause. Right? So it is still the (controlling ?) operation of ( my self-centred ) thought, so I am not looking, I am (analytically?) investigating the cause. So the cause becomes the 'time' ( looking for a cause generates its own time-binding process ?) . I see that, therefore I won't ask that ( analytical trick?) question, because the moment I have put that question I am investigating the ( within-the-box?) cause which is within the field of time. I wonder if you understand this.
If I say, 'I love you', and I (start analysing) 'why' do I love you? What have I done? I have brought in a (redundant?) intellectual process which says there must be a cause (to anything we do ?) . But where there is a ( materialistic?) cause there is no love, is there?
So when I put the question, "Why does thought interfere, or 'weave itself ' into observation", I am really putting a wrong question. I want ( to find ) the cause, and I want to 'destroy' the cause. So, I am caught again in the (time sequencing ?) process of thought.

So (ro recap:) see what I have done. I wanted to observe the map of fear, and thought interferes with it and I said, "I must find the cause", I am still within the same area, I haven't moved away from it. Right? So I play this (mind? ) game with myself all the time, thinking that I am changing.
Whereas ( the experiential option is to ?) put the question and don't seek a cause. Just put it, and don't look for it. Then you will see how the whole thing unfolds itself without your asking, why. You understand? When you put the 'why ?' and you try to find a ( root cause) cause, that is ( mentally moving along?) a direction. Where there is direction there is time, there is ( your personal?) will, and therefore you are back again in the movement of thought. But if you say, "Yes, why is thought doing this?", and just observe it, not saying, 'what is the reason for all this ?' - don't you ever do this when you (are in?) love, do you say, "Why am I loving you?". (Or again?) why I am talking for fifty years, and I say, my God, why am I doing this (and for whom?) ? Then I (may be able to?) find a cause but it is not the 'real thing'.

Now look ( retrospectively?) at what we have done (today): we have said all our culture, past and present, is based on ( our self-centred process of?) thought. And this ( self-centred?) 'thought' is the principle activity in our everyday life, as we know it – and in that life it has created 'fragments' - I am a Hindu, you are a Christian, and all the rest of it. And can the mind observe this whole phenomenon of (our self-centred?) thought without another (subliminal interference of the same?) thought? To look (nonverbally ?) at the whole structure of it, sir, the 'beauty' (ingenuity?) of this ( mechanical?) thing, how it works.

( In a nutshell : ) To 'see the whole' there must (inwardly) be no (fragmentary?) 'parts'. And there is ( such a residual?) 'part' as long as thought interferes. Right? 'Seeing the whole' means there must be no attachment, no root, no cause. If there is a cause you can't see anything (holistically?) . (Eg:) If I say, "I love you" and I have a ( personal?) cause like 'I want your money or your body (or both?) ', it is not (really being in?) 'love'.

So (as a parting insight : ) if we see that ( our self-centred ?) thinking divides, brings conflict, and that all our life is (seriously affected by?) that, don't 'do' anything but just look (or...'contemplate' ? the whole issue). Just 'look' (contemplate non-personally?) at this whole phenomenon of not ( being able of?) seeing the whole, fear, security, and always the ( intellectual ?) mind searching for 'the' cause, as though finding 'the' cause you will be ( automatically?) out of it.
Man has had five thousand ( of local and regional ?) wars within the last two thousand years : two and a half wars every year, and we may all see the ( ongoing) cause - man's greed, man's desire for power, man's desire for (reaching a safe?) economic position, man's desire to (ideologically ?) dominate the world - we know the cause but yet we are still going on with it. So the discovery of the cause doesn't eradicate ( the 'warrior' mentality in ourselves ?) . What brings 'eradication' is to 'observe' (to mindfuly contemplate?) this extraordinary phenomenon, just to observe it. And if you can 'do that', then you are completely beyond it. And the 'speaker' has (just?) shown how to observe it (out of the temporal context?) .

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 18 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 Aug 2016 #408
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 126 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K: What brings 'eradication' is to 'observe' (to mindfuly contemplate?) this extraordinary phenomenon, just to observe it. And if you can 'do that', then you are completely beyond it. And the 'speaker' has (just?) shown how to observe it (out of the temporal context?) .

Thank you for this John.

It is very interesting...I have a current example of how I understand what is being discussed here. I have just now sat down to a bowl of cereal and as I am eating I become aware that I am 'thinking' about something and am not paying attention to what I am eating. I think that rather than think, I should be present to the cereal, its taste etc. because it will soon be finished and I can do this 'thinking' then or anytime but it definitely seems 'out of place' here...but it continues and I continue eating...but then there is the realization that there is a 'conflict' going on and I don't want any conflict in my life and especially when I should be enjoying my cereal...so I begin to 'think' about the cause of the conflict! Then I see that what is going on is a kind of 'suppression'; I 'envisioned' a scenario where I could enjoy my cereal in 'peace and quiet' without all the 'chattering' but the real scenario is that I am eating and thought IS 'interfering'...that is 'what is'. My 'wish' to have something else take place: me eating in peace i.e., is what is creating the conflict,... the thinking, the 'desire' for 'what should be' rather than 'what is'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 18 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #409
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline

Hello John, not much to say those days, but I keep reading your interesting contributions here ;-)

about k's teaching


  • Frognerseteren, Norway | 2nd Pulic Talk, September 8, 1933

If there is [this] divine revolt in you, then you will understand when I say that life is not a school in which to learn; life is not a process of constant accumulation, a process in which there is continual want which is blinding. Then that very revolt in which you are caught up, that very suffering, gives you understanding because it awakens in you the flame of awareness. And when you are fully aware that want is blinding, then you will see its full significance, which dissipates want. Then you will have freedom from want, from gathering in. But if you are unconscious of such a struggle, of such a revolt, you can but continue your life as you are living it, in a half-awakened state. When people suffer, when they are caught up in conflict, that very suffering and conflict should keep them intensely aware; but most of them only ask how to get rid of want. When you understand the full significance of not desiring to gain, to accumulate, then there is no longer the struggle to get rid of something.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The set up of thought needs desire to function is what I know now, (OK I know, the word knowing is not good according to k, well it depends on what extract of his entire work is quoted,) otherwise for me thought does not work, does not push itself nor will it bring a relative good enough survival life, as it would be unable to provide such doing...for me without this other not perceived complementary adds on of desire which is self rewarding, self pride, self congratulation etc etc..thought will not work...we would not even be here having dialogues..

Oh my god and so what ?

again one more time k brings suffering into this.

this is clearly one the basement in k work and words ..

It is a general wide view of that question, remains to do something and not think...

Let us say that I know by experiments, lucky one may I insist on that, that when this energy called suffering which hurts wins, then thought is by passed, all this takes place by itself without searching for it...nor am I searching for

Repeating endlessly myself yes I know..

thought and so called suffering can not be two items as thought sees it, thought sees everything that way, that an outcome of its job as an analyser to provide facts ,views , guesses, concepts etc otherwise we again would not survive incapable to do so..

It is one item but this is a conclusion after at least one experiment about that....thought is suffering, suffering is thought, the observer is the observed, the analyser is the analysed..OK and so what ?? It sounds great or incomprehensible.. ..

The action of suffering could be, not sure about that but it sounds like it, could be that it is forcing such two items according to thought to be what it is so one item the one item being that thought is in pain, that pain is the state of thought..and not a stranger to thought..if one sees that clearly it is then understood that this is the path to suicide-war, both having the same root in the psyche ..escaping oneself is not possible unless the body is not anymore, that is where thought logic can lead ...wow :-((

as long as though is attempting anything about pain and I mean absolutely anything , including facing pain, well nothing else will take place...but same old routine of thought trying to fight pain, so fighting itself in a non existent situation...

thought is dealing with something which is not real, does not exist, there is not on one hand me and on the other pain..

I guess this was meant to happen as I often say...

This is a sort of first lesson by Mother Nature as a teacher...that is a start...only a start...and then who knows what will be there, I think it is then not predictable...

all the best ;-)

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #410
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

Daniel Paul. wrote:
again one more time k brings suffering into this.

this is clearly one the basement in k work and words ..

Hi, Dan, perhaps one's personal 'suffering' is the only serious starting point in any spiritual quest: if we all would be 'happy' ( or think we are ?) then ... why look further ? But I was just thinking that K 'en rajoute un peu...'or a lot. For instance this morning I was working at a 'reader friendly' editing of a Brockwood 1974 Q&A session- pretty grey on the whole- and at a certain point K is interpelling his auditory with ' After all, you are living in the past, aren't you ?' Possibly it was meant to have the awakening effect of an electro-shock ...but with some hindsight it may sound petty much as an insulting statement...

Of course, on a second wind, I could see his point if the same statement could be rephrased into:
' You are living inwardly in a constantly refreshed continuity of the past' - which would at least offer to the keen listener a 'grasping point' or something he would be able to deal with- namely the 'continuity' factor. But apparently in most of his live public talks K chose to use the simplest non-explicit terminology: thought, conditioning, fear, desire, pleasure, and of course, 'sorrow'- and in all likehood this was how his 'holistic' (global) perception was working in order to non-verbally (sic!) convey the 'direct' meaning to a human brain pretty much conditioned by its ancestral thinking habits.

Daniel Paul. wrote:
thought is dealing with something which is not real, does not exist, there is not on one hand me and on the other pain..

I would perhaps put it this way, Dan : our pain is pretty much real, and our thinking brain too- no matter that it acts through the 'expert advice' of the 'thinker' or is just trying to deal directly with 'whatever is'. But - to use one of Dr Bohm's favourite 'scientific' terms, there may be one or more 'hidden variables' enfolded in this whole story -and the one I'm pretty sure of is a certain inner fragmentation and/or specialisation of our 'consciousness' energy . And unless this 'fragmentation' is not resolved, nothing is being solved on a 'durable' basis although the brain keeps trying and trying.

The way I'm seeing this 'K solution' ( the total opposite of the Coué method !) is the act of (psychological) 'ending' (une 'petite mort' interieure ?) through which- if we get lucky ?- the energetical integration is achieved 'negatively'. But then, this 'negative' approach of action belongs naturally to the field of a 'thinker-free meditation' in the sense of 'silently abiding with 'what is'

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #411
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
The way I'm seeing this 'K solution' ( the total opposite of the Coué method !) is the act of (psychological) 'ending' (une 'petite mort' interieure ?) through which- if we get lucky ?- the energetical integration is achieved 'negatively'. But then, this 'negative' approach of action belongs naturally to the field of a 'thinker-free meditation' in the sense of 'silently abiding with 'what is'

Using different ways of formulating all this I think we talk about the same "thing" ..

One point is in my own "adventure" on this planet, now I willingly do not search in this matter..I play by ear will the signals I perceive...

before It was painful and now they are just signals that I perceived ,when other would not is what I see all around me, very early so they do not amplify themselves to reach pain for one or war for a more global propagation of this signal

so yes it is kind of passive, negative passive approach...

thought stay where it belongs too yes...the sort of "mapping" of this is complex to be put in words ..

John Raica wrote:
But I was just thinking that K 'en rajoute un peu...'or a lot.

Possibly, not sure about that yet ?? ....in times when I had to deal with my own children quite heavy personal problems,very disturbing for them, too disturbing so that something had to be done right away on the spot , and they obviously had not one idea about what.... I had to push them hard to force them in a corner where they would not naturally go, at his own "level" k may act this way ?..it worked...

well....

cheerio...;-)

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #412
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 12 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks all for the inputs, especially john. I see anyway that i have nothing here to add. The stream is living. ;)

-
cheerio

This post was last updated by Richard Lewis Sun, 21 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Aug 2016 #413
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE BROCKWOOD 1974 (reader friendly condensed )

A HOLISTIC LOOK INTO THE 'MAP OF PLEASURE'

K: This is supposed to be a discussion, but the word 'discussion' isn't really the right word. Discussion implies argument, opposing ideas, opposing beliefs, opinions and so on. Whereas a 'dialogue' is something where we can talk over together the many problems that one has with a sense of ( mutual ) care, attention, and a sense of affection, all that is implied in a conversation between two friends.

Questioner: Could we discuss pleasure and fear? Pleasure seems to predominate over fear.

Q: Could we talk over what is the relationship between health and sanity?

Q: If we cannot 'reach out' to truth then what is one to do?

K: Could we go into this question of 'pleasure and fear', and perhaps the other questions can be included in that one principal question?
The question is, 'why is the mind pursuing pleasure all the time?' The whole religiously traditional mind says, pleasure must be avoided. If you go to India, there you see certain people who never consider anything outside which must be pleasurable, which might distract from their central pursuit of what they call ( the ultimate?) 'truth', or 'enlightenment', or 'Brahmin', or whatever word they use. But in spite of their determination, in spite of their will, this principle of pleasure continues, it is burning in them - that is a fact.
Now what is wrong with pleasure? Why have people denied pleasure? If you deny pleasure you must deny all beauty, whether in the form of a woman or a man, sculpture, painting, the beauty of a tree, the delight of a sunset, a poem and so on and so on. And we are asking what is desire, what is the source of desire, how does desire arise? Not how it expresses, what is the content of desire, or the object of desire, but what is desire, how does it happen?
You see a nice dress in a shop. You observe it with your eyes, then you touch it, you feel the material. And so there is the seeing, the contact, the sensation, then ( thought is taking charge of that?) desire - the desire to possess, or to or something better, and so on. So desire begins (right) there: the seeing, the sensory contact arouses the desire - doesn't it?

Now, the ( peculiar thing about?) desire is (that it becomes disproportionately?) strong when you try suppress it, and the more you yield to it the more it demands. So we have to go (deeper?) into this question of what is the source of desire? And where does one begin to free oneself from all this - neither caught in pleasure, nor denying pleasures? That is the real question.
So what is wrong with pleasure? We are destroying the earth, we have reduced everything (to economics?) because of our pursuit of pleasure, the over population, one country sells armaments to another country, knowing it is ( eventually?) going to create war because there is pleasure involved in having money of a particular group (of interests) . And when one is confronted with all this what is one to do?

Q: Look at it ?

K: I see it. What takes place after that? I see a sunset, there is great delight in it. It is registered in the brain, as memory - please follow this - as memory, the repetition of the memory, the demand for the repetition according to that memory, is the continuance of pleasure. Isn't it? I see that beautiful thing, the brain has registered it, and the memory of it remains. This (subliminal?) memory then says, "Repeat, have more of it". So pleasure begins at the very root of memory. Right?
So can I ( for a change?) just look at that sunset and end it? I see that sunset. There is great delight in it. And the brain retains that, has recorded that delight, and it has become a ( psychologically active?) memory. Now, can one look at that sunset with all the beauty, the colour, the quality of a sunset, and end it, not carry it over?

Q: What do you mean by 'end it'?

K: I look at that ( beautiful?) sunset and I know the tricks of memory and I realize the (pursuit of that?) memory is after something which is 'dead' which will give me, I hope, more pleasure. At the very moment of delight of that extraordinary sunset there is no ( temporal?) desire; there is only the observation of that great colour - right? And if I pursue pleasure as a memory it is a 'dead' thing I am pursuing. So, why does the mind demand repetition? To us ( living safely in the area of our past?) memories , remembrance, is far more important than the direct observation at the moment. Our whole culture is that - live in the ( safety of our?) past (knowledge and experience ) .
Aren't you living (inwardly?) in the past - your remembrances, your images, your ideas, your concepts, your knowledge, all that is past.

Q: We can't do anything else.

K: We can't find anything new, therefore we live in the past - is that it?
You know, one has to go very deeply into this question of ( the psychological role played by our ?) memory. Most of us have cultivated it through culture, through education, through tradition, through custom, through ritual, through everyday happenings, this enormous field of memory (of what is already 'known'?) - right? That is a fact. And without memory we cannot operate. Memory is always in the past - right? Like knowledge is in the past - scientists can only tell you what they 'know', they cannot tell you ( very much about?) what they 'don't know'. So knowledge, experience, memory, is the essence of the past. And from that background (of the 'known'?) we operate, whether in the factory, business, in education, learning facts, and so on, always with that background. I want to go into it a little more, please.
So the seeing of that sunset, the remembrance of that sunset, the seeing of it, enjoying it, then it (subliminally?) becomes ( our experiential ?) memory, and that memory then says, "I must have more of that delight" - whether it is the sunset or sex, whether it is (anti-depression?) pills, whatever it is. So I am asking myself: if (the active content of my?) mind is the result of the past, through evolution, through time, through all that, then what place has joy, what place has love ? Is our feeling of love (the result of a pleasant?) memory, because you have given me pleasure, you have been my companion, a memory of all that makes me love you? The ( emotionally loaded ?) image of all that, held in ( my 'stand-by'?) memory, says, "By Jove, I love that person". So, is love (the conditioned response of our ?) memory? Apparently for most people it is. And is joy the result of a memory? Or is joy something totally independent of memory? You cannot invite joy. You can invite pleasure, you cannot invite joy.

I am not categorizing - physical pleasure, or psychological pleasure, you know what 'joy' is, don't you ? It suddenly happens to you. You are walking along in a wood or a street and you suddenly feel such a delight about everything. You have never invited it, you have never even thought about it - it happens. And as it happened there is a memory of it and you say, "By Jove, I must have more of it".

Q: (Inaudible)

K: I am trying to point out, sir, ( that the gap ?) between perception and ( the interference of ?) memory is so instantaneous. Now be aware of that instant and see whether that instant can be prolonged (stretched?) .

(Recap) We were trying to look at this whole 'map of pleasure', not where it will lead us , or where it will go, but to 'look'. And to look at the whole of it is to be(come?) aware of this whole content of pleasure, with its ( stored as 'personal'?) memory.
So one goes back and says, is it possible to observe that ( subliminal?) functioning and not register it as a ( psqychological?) memory which demands 'more'? Can I look at that ( top of the line?) car - the colour, the shape of it, the line, the power, and so on, and not immediately arise (the thought:) , "I must have it"? Then I just enjoy looking at it and not the cultivation of that memory.
So one has to go into this whole problem of (our 'psychological'?) memory - memory as pleasure, memory of the things one has done of which one is anxious and frightened and about which one lies, memory of the things that have caused hurts, deep wounds, the ( temporally projected?) memory of a future delight, or of a future (highly paid?) position and so on and so on.
So this 'memory' is in the brain cells and (our self-centred) thought is the response of that memory, obviously. Right, may I go on? ( Content-wise?) memory is ( storing all our?) experience and knowledge. That is in the brain cells, contained there. Right? And (the process of our self-centred ?) thought is material , obviously. Isn't that so? Thought is 'material' and all our existence, all our activities, all our culture is based on thought .

Q: And feeling ?

K: Obviously. I feel and then ( that feeling is stored in?) memory, thought, of course. I am including in ( this word ) 'thought' the whole field (of human knowledge and material experience?) everything . So our (whole) culture is based on thought, which is matter (a materialistic process?) - right? And when thought tries to 'go beyond itself' by saying, "There is God, there is a Mystery, there are (people who have?) visions of God", it is still the operation of thought, and therefore the operation of matter. I wonder if you see this.

Q: Are you saying that we live a very materialistic life?

K: Absolutely. It is all a materialistic life. I said thought is the response of memory, memory is experience, knowledge, contained in the tissues of the brain. Damage those tissues, you have no memory, or you have memory distorted. So thought is matter. And look what we have done: thought creates a (spiritual?) ideal and tries to live according to that ideal, which is still within the area of thought, which is still within the area of matter. We invent our gods - right?
So one lives in this field - right? If you are really clear about this, from there we can ask: is there any area ( of our consciousness?) which thought cannot possible enter ? Is there any field where thought has no place at all? This has been one of the problems for people who have gone very, very deeply into the whole question of 'meditation' : they say, look, thought has its ( intrinsical material?) limitations, but is there something beyond? You can't answer that question, ( just by saying?) 'yes' or 'no'. One must understand completely the whole area of thought - the thought that has created the psychological 'me', the thought that has created the ( racial and class?) divisions between people and which prevents ( an authentic ?) co-operation of all nations to solve all our problems. So from the ancient of days, thought is ( an outwardly oriented process of ?) time, and ( there ) you need to measure. All our technological development is based on ( an our materially oriented capacity to ? ) measure, (and) on (a very elaborate?) thought. And one sees ( the outward validity of?) this entirely.

But one can also see that as long as one lives in that ( materialistic?) area, no human problems will be solved - right? I don't know if you see that we shall have more inflation, more wars, more division - and there will be no ( authentic?) 'co-operation' between nations. And you need such co-operation to solve this problem of human existence because we are ( actively?) destroying the earth. You understand, sirs, all this?
So if one is serious, then one says, as long as the human mind lives (trapped in?) in that area there is no (inner sense of?) freedom. Therefore one asks: is there an area of the brain, or an area ( of our consciousness?) where thought cannot possibly enter? And if thought can 'recognize' that area, therefore it is still part of thought. So confronted with this problem that human beings have created a ( deeply materialistic?) culture where the ( mental ?) operation of thought is of the highest importance - right? And that area is the 'known' area, in which the scientist can endlessly investigate, dissect and analyse, and all the rest of it, it is still within the area of the 'known' ( of the 'knowable'?) - right? Please let's proceed.
And ( the fundamental inner challenge is : ?) can the mind be (inwardly independent or ?) 'free of the known', and yet operate (efficiently when necessary ?) in the field of the known? Can thought be controlled and not allowed to enter (into the inner dimensions of being?) ? And they (the 'old school' meditators ?) have gone into this saying that you must control your thought completely so that it can't enter into the 'other' thing - if there is such a thing. So the whole question of 'meditation' is (or has been reduced to achieving an efficient thought ?) control - right? But you see, in controlling thought there is involved the ( hidden variable of the ?) 'controller' ( entity?) , and who is this 'controller'? Is he different from the (thoughts he's?) controlling ? Obviously not, because it is still part of ( a supervising sub-process of the same thinking brain?) thought - you follow?
So ( our psychological challenge is?) can there be a living, existing, living an everyday life, without any ( interference of the mental entity who?) controls? Oh, you don't see ( the qualitative value of ?) this: no (inner) conflict whatsoever. (Thought-) 'control' is part of our cultural tradition. "Don't be angry, control your yourself". So we live in a world which has been built by ( an all-controlling process of ?) thought, and (having reached its material limits the same all controlling ?) thought now says, "Somehow we must solve this problem", so thought says, "There must be an 'outside agency' - God - which will solve our problem", and that outside agency is invented by thought - you follow all this? So thought is still in operation (in the 'metaphysical' domain ?) .
So is our mind aware of this 'whole content' of what we have said - pleasure, fear, memory, joy, attachment – and that ( our all-controlling?) thought has created this confused, miserable, mad world.

Q: Why has thought done that?

K: Why ? Look at it a little more closely, not at why has thought done this, but at what is ( the nature of this all controlling ?) thought? Thought, being ( the response of all our?) memory, is (in itself a process?) of time, isn't it? Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Thought in itself is 'divisive' (divides and conquers?) - right? Do you understand? Thought in itself makes 'fragments'. Thought is never whole. Thought itself is a fragment(ary activity of our brain?) .

Q: You mean, it's the result of ( an inner) fragmentation ?

K: Of course sir, but thought in itself, is the maker of fragments. You are ( brainy?) British, I am a 'stupid' Hindu. Our (self-centred?) thinking has done this. Therefore thought in itself is the ( active) factor of fragmentation.

Q: I hear what you are saying, but this verbal communication is not sufficient, the deeper communication, where does it take place?

K: I see that our verbal communication has an (intrinsical?) limitation, it doesn't completely communicate very, deeply, so where is the deep communication? ( When ) I 'listen' to what you are saying, there is no (need for?) disagreement, or agreement, just (for an attentive?) observation of what is going on. So our verbal communication is necessary, otherwise you wouldn't understand (the language) . But where is the area at which this deeper communication ( the 'insight sharing'?) can take place? We will have to investigate it together.

First of all, sir, it is ( psychologically?) stupid to say, "I agree with you", or 'I disagree with you', because we are just looking (at 'what is'?) . So in ( a holistic quality of ?) observation then there is neither agreement nor disagreement, but 'seeing' – right? No opinion, no (value) judgement, just observation. Right? This is important if both of us now are capable of looking - right?
Now when you look are you looking (verbally supported by ?) the (speaker's eloquent ?) description, or you are looking without the word?
This is ( experientially a little more?) difficult, go slowly. I say, 'look at that pole'. The word 'pole', you have an image of what a pole is. So you are looking through ( being aided by?) the (mental) 'image' which that word 'pole' has created. Now can you look at that (same) thing without the 'image' the word has created? You understand? So you are no longer caught in the network of (associations related to that?) word. Right? You are no longer caught in the (mental) network of (related) opinions, judgements, translating, but you are only looking.
Now in that ( quality of non-verbal?) looking, there is ( the actual possibility of a?) communication ( at a deeper level?) which is non-verbal, then there is a real 'togetherness' - we are both seeing the (actual) 'fact' and doing the exact thing which the fact demands.

So we come back to (the starting topic of our discussion?) - the whole field of human activity is based on pleasure, knowledge, experience, and thought has created this technological world, the relationship between nature and myself, between god and myself, and yourself, thought has created all this, and ( in a more 'thoughtful mood', the same?) thought says, "My God, what a mess it is!" And it says, "I can't solve this problem, I know those who are playing tricks with these serious human problems" - the politicians, the businessmen, (not to mention the TV 'spin doctors'?) but they cannot solve it, so it says, "Now I must go beyond ( transcend myself?) and find 'something' which solve this problem" – a super ideology, o super consciousness. It is still within the field of thought. Thought having created the mess, thought ( in the 'serious' mood ?) says, "I must clear it", and invents a new system, new philosophy ( new forms of socio-cultural diversions?) .
Then the (holistically inclined ?) mind says, 'Is there something which thought cannot touch ?' Human beings have always operated on this shore, on this (river) bank. And we never realized there is no (true) answer here. Thought cannot find an answer to this because thought in itself brings fragmentation. You understand?

So ( looking from the 'other' shore?) is thought ( related to Compassion and?) Love? Is thought still trying to find an answer within that area? The politicians are, the economists are, everybody is trying to find an answer within this area - the priests, all are. And one must be absolutely clear that there is no (true?) answer through thought. So can the ( holistically inclined?) mind, becoming totally aware of this, seriously realize that thought cannot answer it? You understand, sir, how serious this is?

Q: I don't know...

K: Is that a mere verbal statement, or an actual (insight ) ? When you say, 'I don't know', you are expecting (the right?) answer from the speaker? Or you say, 'I really don't know what to do' - a tremendous statement to make from your heart, not intellectually. If you really 'feel it' then you will have the (keys to the experiential?) answer. Then your mind becomes extraordinarily sharp, aware.

Q: You say 'the world is in a terrible mess' – but we say, isn't this your conditioning?

K: No, I don't think so. You can just see what they are doing in ___( your pick ?)

Q: That is a 'moralistic' approach.

K: It is not 'moralistic'. It is just 'seeing what is going on' (in the world) .
So we have come to this point where (our more thoughtful?) thought says, "I must find an answer to all these problems", which itself has created. So it is going round and round in ( spiralling concentric?) circles. But ( being time - bound ?) thought cannot find an answer. It can complicate the problem much more, as they are (happily?) doing. So there must be a totally different approach and that approach is only possible when we understand the movement of thought as time, as matter, and as action. If we understand that we can begin to investigate if there is another possibility.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Aug 2016 #414
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 12 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks, John. I condense a little bit more:

"K: It is not 'moralistic'. It is just 'seeing what is going on' (in the world) .
So we have come to this point where (our more thoughtful?) thought says, "I must find an answer to all these problems", which itself has created. So it is going round and round in ( spiralling concentric?) circles. But ( being time - bound ?) thought cannot find an answer. It can complicate the problem much more, as they are (happily?) doing. So there must be a totally different approach and that approach is only possible when we understand the movement of thought as time, as matter, and as action. If we understand that we can begin to investigate if there is another possibility."

I take the opportunity to quote the quote of the day:

"Demand it! Don't say: ''Where does it come from?'' There may be a motive, but the very demand washes it all away."

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day | Aug 22, 2016

( Wholeness of Life, The
J. Krishnamurti The Wholeness of Life Part III Chapter 2 Small Group Dialogue Ojai California 24th March 1977)
http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teach...

This post was last updated by Richard Lewis Mon, 22 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Aug 2016 #415
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 12 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks for the post, john. Yes, i think we know both about 418. So i let the other be.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 Aug 2016 #416
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K PUBLIC DIALOGUE BROCKWOOD 1974 (reader friendly edited)

K: What shall we talk over together this morning?

Q: Where we left off last time. Can the mind be aware of all that's happening within the field of thought and what then are we to do?

K: I think we were saying the last time that ( our self-centred?) thought is in itself divisive and brings about a 'fragmentation' of our life into nationalities, classes, religious sects and groups, and has created chaos in the world, economically, socially and morally. I think we all are aware of this ( ongoing?) mess round us. And perhaps also we are aware of this mess inside of us, this confusion. And if we are aware of it, what are we to do? I think that is where we left off.

I think we should be very clear about the whole structure and nature of thought before we can answer what to do - right?
Thought is the ( verbally processed?) response of memory. If there was no memory there would be no thought. Memory is ( storing all our ?) experience, ( as?) knowledge, and this knowledge is always in the past - right? And also thought is ( based on ?) measure (-ment) and thought is ( generating its own continuity in?) time. And from the ancient Greeks to the present time, measurement has played an extraordinary part in our life - technologically, because without measurement (accurate calculations?) there would be no technology, (and inwardly?) there is (also) measurement as comparison, as conformity, (projecting?) the ideal, the perfect example, and 'measuring' ( comparing?) ourselves to that example. This has been the ( outward-inward?) process of thought right through the world. Again, there is no question about it, it is a 'fact'. In India and other parts of Asia they have a special word in Sanskrit, 'maya' ( to measure), and they said that (inwardly ) measurement is illusion. And to find the immeasurable one must go beyond this ( mentality based on?) measure, and therefore control thought. You follow this? They thought they could get away with it through meditation, through ( self?) control, through suppression, all through ( using the same) the process of ( self-centred ) thought.

Now, seeing what ( our self-centred?) thinking has done in this world - wars, the dividing of nations against nations, man against man, ideologies against ideologies, the ( ever increasing?) violence, the suffering, the starvation, the lack of (an intelligent and compassionate?) co-operation right through the world to solve the human problems, what is a mind to do when it is ( becoming?) aware of ( the gravity of?) all this? So is our mind capable of 'seeing this whole (challenge?) as a whole, not in parts?

Is my mind, your mind capable of seeing, being aware of the whole structure and nature of ( our self-centred?) thought of all that it has done, and see it as a whole? Can the mind see this whole movement of (our self-centred?) thinking as 'time and measure', having its roots in the (distant?) past, going through the present and therefore modifying the future, all that is involved, and more, in observation. Can the mind observe the whole (dynamic?) of it?
I feel it is rather important to understand that our minds are (traditionally) educated to see, or to feel, 'partially' : one thinks ( prioritarily?) about oneself and thinks of another according to the (reference?) 'image' that one has (created) about oneself. And therefore it is our (common thinking) habit to draw a circle round ourselves and (eventually?) to include the other in our circle. So we are accustomed to look at life (personally?) , as a fragment, and we are asking whether the mind can see non-fragmentarily?

Q: It has to recognize (in the first place?) the fact that it is fragmented, because the question can't be answered from ( our available experience of?) the past.

K: The gentleman says, can the mind be aware that it is looking fragmentarily at life? I look at life as a (culturally standardised?) 'Englishman', with his particular training, education, culture, environmental influence, economic conditioning and the ( culturally standardised?) 'Frenchman' or 'German' looks at it in his own way, and so on . We are trained from childhood to look at life that way. Are we aware of this ( background cultural?) conditioning? Unless we are (becoming?) aware (of it) we cannot possibly ' see the whole'.
That implies the question : what is the relationship of the individual to the whole humanity? ( The consciousness of?) humanity being ( impersonated by?) the human being over there, not (necessarily at?) ten thousand miles away. If I know (or see the truth about?) what my relationship is to the man over here then I know what my relationship is to the man ten thousand miles away.
So can a human mind that has lived in a culture that maintains ( the mentality of our 'individualistic'?) division, not only ( professionally) as an artist, as a writer, as a businessman, as an economist, as a scientist, but also division in ( the field of?) belief - 'my' God and 'your' God - can my mind, your mind, become aware of this fact, not trying to change it, as one is aware that it is raining?

Then (the next experiential?) question arises: 'who' is it that is aware? Is it one of the fragments that is aware of the other fragments and so assumes the authority of direction?

Q: Could you please repeat that?

K: Just a minute, I'll have to 'think it over'...
We are ( inwardly?) fragmented (compartmentalised?) human beings - right? I am ( thinking of myself as being ?) an 'artist', then I am ( thinking of myself as ?) a businessman, I am (by turns ?) a dozen things, broken up. And among these ( specialised?) fragments one ('supervising' ?) fragment assumes a position of authority and then it 'dictates' ( is trying to coordinate and optimise?) what the other fragments shall do.
That is what we are doing (consciously or subliminally?) , if you observe it. Now, is that (controlling?) fragment, which has assumed the authority, is it any different from the other fragments? It is still the product of thought, no ? And the other 'fragments' are also the product of thought - my (family life?) , my country, my god, my belief, my progress, my conflicts.
So can one 'be aware' without the ( subliminal control or ?) 'authority' of one fragment - you follow? Do go into it, and you will see it. It is an 'extra-ordinary' thing when you go into it.

Q: If one were totally aware there would be no fragments.

K: 'If' one were totally aware... there would be no fragmentation. That is a 'conditional' (self-centred approach to?) awareness. Either you 'are' (aware) , or you 'are not'strong text.
So can the mind observe itself 'non-fragmentarily'? Which is, to observe ( non-personally?) the whole movement of (its self-centred?) thought.
And that brings up the question: is not the observer, (the one who says, "I must be aware"), is that (controlling?) 'entity' ( an integral part of what is being ?) observed?
Is not the (identification with an?) ideal projected by thought, and in trying to adjust myself adequately to that ideal, am I am not playing a trick upon myself ? So I have to solve ( experientially?) this question: is not the 'observer' ( part of the same field as what is inwardly ?) 'observed'? Is not 'my god' , projected out (by) myself? And for the mind that is seeking ( a new & exciting?) experience, the experiencer 'is' (the one projecting?) the experience.

So if you can be clear for yourself that the observer 'is' the observed, you can be aware non-fragmentarily. The 'fragment' ( or the inner fragmentation?) comes about when there is the 'observer' ( considering itself as?) different from the 'observed'.
There are whole 'schools' (of thought?) in Asia, and perhaps in Europe and America, where people are training themselves to be aware, and get a 'degree' in being aware. So they (like to think they) practise 'awareness', but they never have questioned who is the 'entity' who is aware. Is the entity who is aware different from the (inward?) things he is watching?
This is a fundamental ( experiential) question which you must answer for yourself. And if you 'see' the absolute truth of this, then you eliminate altogether this frightful (subliminal ?) conflict that goes on in oneself and outside.
So can the mind be aware of itself, which is the result of centuries of thought and its divisive activity, can the mind be aware without ( the interference?) of a ( self-identified controlling ?) 'entity' that is ( assuming to?) be aware?

If you are so ( observer-less?) aware, then in that awareness there is no fragmentation at all, obviously. From that arises (a quality of awareness in which?) ) there is 'no choice' ( no prioritary directions ?) : just being aware of all the things that are happening outside and inside, without judgement, without justification, without rationalization, just to observe. Then what takes place? ( The mental activities of ?) 'rationalization', 'suppression' are forms of dissipation of energy - aren't they? (Eg: Suppose I am becoming aware of my (cultural) conditioning, as a Brahmin, as a Hindu, and all the rest of that, and I try to 'rationalize' it by saying : it is necessary to live in this ( real?) world, otherwise you are ( psychologically?) destroyed - all those reasons. ( But experientially-wise?) that is 'wasting' ( 'puting on a loop' the intelligent?) energy which is necessary to be totally aware.
( So, a the 'choiceless'?) awareness means an intensification of attention, complete attention, therefore any ( colateral ) dissipation is a wastage of ( one's total?) energy.
And ( since we're here?) it is (also) a ( subliminal?) wastage of energy when I say, "I must uncondition myself". Because ... who is the (thinking ) 'entity' who is saying "I must be unconditioned"? This (self-conscious) entity who is trying to uncondition himself is also conditioned - like the (psycho-) analyst who analyses you also needs being analysed (by fellow psychanalysts?) .

So it is absolutely necessary (experientially-wise?) , if you go much deeper into this question, to realize the ( holistic?) truth that the observer, the experiencer, the thinker 'is' the thought, 'is' the experience, 'is' the observed.

Q: It is possible for me to say that the observer 'is' the observed but the moment I say it, it is no longer so.

K: You don't have (to state?) it (verbally) , sir. One has the (inwardly integrating?) insight into this question. That is, when I try to imitate, adjust myself to this ( holistic?) 'ideal', is the ideal different from the 'me' who has created the ideal? Obviously it is not, but I have created it (in the subliminal desire to achieve it ?) so in trying to conform to it there is a (constant, ongoing?) battle going on between 'what I am' and 'what I should be'. And therefore when one realizes ( the fallacy of?) it you eliminate altogether this conflict between 'what is' and 'what should be'. Then you can deal directly with 'what is'. I wonder if you see this.

Q: When I look at the colour of that cloth that you are seated on, there is no 'observer' there.

K: Seeing a colour outside you doesn't demand ( the active intervention of?) an 'observer', but when you are hurt, when somebody says something ugly about you, or to you, then there is ( an instant split between?) the observer and the observed. Obviously.

Q: If I stay with the pain then it is the same.

K: I am not saying you are not right, if it is so, it is so. But when you want to maintain that attention, who is the entity that wants to maintain that attention? See what has happened? One can be totally attentive for a few seconds, or for some time, then the ( attention dissipates but the ?) memory of it remains, the ( subliminal) memory of that 'attention'. Then my ( self-centred?) thought says, "I should have that attention all the time" - right? So there you are. Then you being to practise attention, never realizing (the truth?) that at the very moment of attention there is no ( interference of the?) 'observer'. But what has happened is that (holistic quality of?) attention has passed, the memory remains, which is dead, and you want to revive this 'dead thing' to life. And we (may even enjoy?) playing this (mind?) game.
Now (after) being ( choicelessly?) aware, being totally attentive, it doesn't matter if it is for a few seconds, 'end' it, forget it. Then ( spend some quality time in ?) be(coming) aware of (one's) inattention - and that very 'awareness of inattention' is ( bringing a new quality of?) 'attention'. You understand this? So you don't have to battle (to stay continuously attentive?) .

So ( to sum it up:) we have come to the point, when the mind which has been educated to waste energy in (dealing with?) 'non-facts' – (such as) the ideal of 'what it should be' and to struggle to achieve that- realises that it needs all its energy to ( experientially ) go beyond 'what is'. (Eg:) As a human being I have inherited this sense of violence from the animal (and/or) from the society I live in, from the economic environment, from various urges, unsatisfied urges, comparison, all that has made me violent. And I need a great deal of ( intelligent?) energy to go beyond it, but if I waste my energy by either 'expressing' that violence fully, or by 'following the ideal of non-violence', that very energy which the mind needs to 'go beyond' this ( heritage of?) violence. So to ( non-dualistically understand and?) 'go beyond' the fact that I am violent implies the 'summation' of all energy, intellectual, emotional, physical, complete attention. When the mind is so completely attentive with its energy, is there violence? Do go into this (for homework?) .

Q: You need a lot of energy to see, but you don't actually use up the energy when you see?

K: Do you waste energy when you observe? Obviously not when you observe without the observer.

So (to re-recap:) can the mind observe (live?) the whole phenomenon of ( the self-centred?) thought which has created this monstrous, ugly, brutal world, as a human being who has (karmically?) contributed to this? We have made this (real?) world, with our ( collective?) greed, with our ( collective and individual?) demand for security, we have made this. And can my mind, which has made this world, see the whole phenomenon as part of me ? To see that you 'are' the world, and to 'go beyond' that 'fact' you need all your energy.

Q: Would you say that if you don't 'think about' these things but just stay watching that ( self-centred?) thought, then you are not concerned with the 'observer'?

K: When you are doing a (physical) job you are not concerned with the observer and the observed. But to do excellently whatever you are doing - needs ( total?) attention - in a factory, in an office, washing dishes, gardening, and when there is this extraordinary quality of attention the work doesn't become mechanical.
Now having said all this, where are we? What is the place of this (non-dualistic?) mind in relationship?

Q: Is that the same question as about the 'observer'?

K: Not quite. What is 'diligence' in relationship, you understand? I am related to you - my wife, husband, mother, sister, neighbour, what is the quality of 'diligence' in that relationship? I think that is related also to religion - negligence, diligence, religion. The root is the same, I think. So I am related to you and I see one cannot live (in this world ) without relationship - right? I may withdraw into a monastery, but still I am related. I may renounce the world as many monks do in the west or in the east, but (inwardly) I am still the world. And I cannot deny the world so I have to find out what is my relationship to the world, what is my relationship to you - wife, husband, friend, companion, whatever it is? And what is the place of 'diligence' in that relationship, or have we accepted a relationship (loaded with ) 'negligence'?
And what part in that relationship, which means responsibility, has 'diligence'? That is a good word.

Q: Sir, I find the amazing thing about oneself is that one doesn't know where he comes from.

K: One doesn't know where he comes from ? Reincarnation.

Q: It is quite amazing, I found with my son that I didn't know where he came from. It is quite an amazing...

K: Sir, I have a son, whether I want it or not there he is - or a daughter. I am taking facts as they are. Now what am I to do? I see the absurdity, the total irresponsibility when I want him to be something other than what he is. I don't know what he is, but I want him to be something, to conform to the monstrous world he lives in.
I am starting anew: in any relationship responsibility is implied - responsibility to what? To the child? Or to the 'image' that I have subliminally created ?) about the child?
I feel responsible for my family, if I have one, and what is my responsibility? It is a very difficult question to answer,it is not just something you play with. My wife wants this, that, you follow, all those 'things'... And I want also lots of ( other?) 'things'. And my responsibility is to live with the family and comply, or disregard trivial things, and be responsible not to the image that I have about her, or him, but responsible to 'behave' without the sense of being (self-) conscious of behaviour - you understand?
So, ( the authentic sense of?) relationship implies a responsible co-operation - you understand this? Not only to my wife, to my children, but the essence of co-operation.

Q: If someone doesn't understand themselves how can there be relationship?

K: Obviously, sir. How can there be ( an authentic sense of?) relationship if one doesn't understand oneself. To understand oneself means to be aware of the 'images' that you have built about yourself and about another. And if you are aware then you begin to enquire, see how you have built the image - either inherited, acquired, or cultivated.

Q: What creates the 'image'?

K: Very simple! You say something hard, brutal, you hurt me. Right? You have hurt the ( self-protective?) image which I have (instinctively?) built about myself. That is very simple.

Q: Why do I protect that?

K: Why does one create an image at all? It is a form of self-protection, it is a form of self-security, it is a form of resistance, it is a form of not wanting to be 'invaded' by you, it is a form of wanting to maintain myself within the walls of resistance, and so on. So I have created an image about myself and you hurt me, hurt that image. And in that relationship between you and me, in which there has been hurt, and I have hurt you, consciously or unconsciously, so there is a 'wall' ( of non-communication?) between us, and we say ( on paper?) we are 'related'. So can we prevent the hurt and can we prevent also the 'image building'? You follow? If the mind doesn't build an image about itself it can never be hurt – right?

Q: Is that not creating another 'image'? The 'mind that can't be hurt'?

K: No, sir, look: in my relationship with you, you have hurt me, by (saying or ) doing something. ( Psychologically-wise?) what is getting hurt - the 'image' I have ( created in order to protect?) myself obviously.

Q: How can an 'image' be hurt?

K: Well, sir, don't you know? If you call me a fool, wouldn't you be hurt?

Q: Would I be hurt ? But you said the 'image' is hurt?

K: The image 'is' you. The 'I' is you. The 'I', which is an (identitary self-?) 'image', put together by words, by thought, by incidents, accidents, all that, that is 'me', which is a (thought sustained self-?) 'image'.

Q: How can such a thing 'come to an end'? Or is it just some kind of weird 'monkey talk'? Where does it 'end'?

K: I am showing you sir. I am related to you, as a brother, as a wife, or a husband, or a girl friend, boy friend. And in that relationship you nag me, you possess me, you hurt me. And that hurt is in the image I ( already) have about myself - right? So the point is this: can the mind stop building a (self-protective psychological?) 'image', and if it stops building an image there is no hurt at all. Now is it possible to stop building ( such psychological?) images?

Q: I have only just thought about it. What starts it is fear.

K: We said that security, fear, uncertainty, all that is implied. I have built an 'image' about myself, and I see why I have built it; in order to protect myself because I am afraid, I am lonely. I have not only one but a dozen 'images' about myself,. Now is it possible for the mind not to build (these) 'images'? Is it possible? You say something which is pleasurable, or painful and instantly my ( self) 'image' is ( responding ?) . Can one be (choicelessly?) aware at that moment of flattery or insult? When one is being totally attentive at that moment, is there the building of an image at all? You follow. It is only the mind that is 'inattentive' at the moment of action that builds a (self-protecting?) image, but when the mind is attentive at the moment of challenge and response, at that precise moment when it is attentive there is no formation of any image.

Q: As a (professional) actor, it forms a part in normal life spontaneously where you actually produce 'images' without being ( necessarily) bound by them.

K: Sir, did you listen to what I said just now? That where there is ( a non-dualistic?) 'attention' there is no ( need of?) forming ( self-protective?) images. Because in that attention all your energy is there, therefore you listen to the hurting words (or to the flattery) without a single response of either pleasure or pain. You just observe.

Q: Even an actor has to be very attentive to act.

K: Sir, I am not talking about 'actors', I am talking about you and me and relationship. Sir, this is really a very serious ( psychological?) matter because in our relationship with each other we are always in conflict, husband, wife, girl, boy, it is an everlasting fight. And a man who is serious wants to find out what it is to live without conflict has to understand what it means to be related.

Q: If you are a teacher you have to form ideals for the children.

K: That is what I am trying to say, sir. Why? When you were children you had 'ideals' formed for you - why? Sir, you are all 'Christians' - and your ideals have been to 'love your neighbour', 'not to kill' you neighbour, whether that (planetary?) 'neighbour' is ten feet away, or ten thousand miles away, not to kill him. You have this marvellous ideal: (still?) you have had the greatest number of wars, the greatest number of people you have killed. And what value has your 'ideal' been? Why don't you face the fact that human beings are violent ( deal directly with it?) and change that?

Q: That can ( become?) another ( form of?) 'ideal'. You are doing the same thing for us that the teachers do for the children.

K: No, you are missing the whole point. This is not an 'ideal'
I have very carefully explained: ( our self-centred?) thought is (naturally?) self divisive, and as long as this thought creates an 'image', an 'ideal', that factor of ideal brings about ( further?) division. Having an insight into the ( divisive) nature of thought is not an 'ideal' - it is seeing the (truth of this?) 'fact'.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 23 Aug 2016 #417
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 126 posts in this forum Offline

Hi John

I was part way through this talk, when something that has been 'dawning' on me, 'dawned' a bit more? It is this 'sensation' of 'me'. Regarding this talk of "fragment" and "fragmentation", this what I call 'sensation of me' is what perhaps gets left out of the (our) picture. What is interesting about it to me is that no matter how different or contradictory a thought may be to some other thought, the 'unchanging' sensation of me as 'author of those thoughts 'stays' the same ( the 'permanent', 'controlling' 'I'?) In my case this feeling physically seems to reside in the head and more specifically behind the eyes. And it seems as if no matter what thought issues from the brain, it comes 'personified' with this sensation. And I thought this worth mentioning because, if there is ever to be a 'holistic' seeing of ourselves, this 'abiding' sensation of a 'permanent' 'me', needs to be included into the picture. (where it seems always to be 'outside' looking in?)

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 23 Aug 2016 #418
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 126 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
"But that is your 'natural' I ! "

Hi John,

I've never heard or read of K. using this term "your natural I"...I went back and picked this out of the talk, i.e. :

"a ( subliminal?) wastage of energy when I say, "I must uncondition myself". Because ... who is the (thinking ) 'entity' who is saying "I must be unconditioned"? This (self-conscious) entity who is trying to uncondition himself is also conditioned"

Now is this the 'natural 'I', do you think, that he is referring to here? The one that never includes or sees himself as being 'totally' conditioned?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Aug 2016 #419
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 126 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks for sharing that John...looked at in this way, psychological fear, sorrow, anxiety etc. also are 'just' "overlays", 'personas', a 'mask', which takes on "the sense of its own 'self-existence' (or I-ness)"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Aug 2016 #420
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
looked at in this way, psychological fear, sorrow, anxiety etc. also are 'just' "overlays", 'personas', a 'mask', which takes on "the sense of its own 'self-existence' (or I-ness)"?

Hi, Dan, I would rather say that all these are side effects of a subliminal identification with one or several collective and personal overlays. But my point was the essential role of that 'nameless' intelligent energy which is giving life to any personal 'choice' of consciousness we would make. In one of K's dialogues with his Indian friends about the 'I' being a mere focalisation of our total consciousness, K was asked point blank: : ' But your consciousness doesn't focalise ?' And he answered ' Yes, but it doesn't work in focalisation'

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 24 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 391 - 420 of 574 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.)