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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 391 - 420 of 650 in total
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 #391
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 #392
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #393
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #394
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 #395
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline


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 #396
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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' ( 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 #397
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 #398
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

4TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1975 (reader friendly condensed)

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 #399
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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


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 #400
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 #401
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1974 (reader friendly condensed) .

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 #402
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 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 #403
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 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 :-((

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 #404
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #405
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 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 ?? 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 ? worked...



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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #406
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. ;)


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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Aug 2016 #407
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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


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 #408
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)

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Aug 2016 #409
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 #410
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #411
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 #412
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 #413
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 #414
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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
Wed, 24 Aug 2016 #415
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
' But your consciousness doesn't focalise ?' And he answered ' Yes, but it doesn't work in focalization'

The "focalization" process goes on but there is nothing there (in K.)to focus the 'energy' on? No 'I' is created (present?) as it is in us? No "overlays"? No 'prism' of personas?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 24 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Aug 2016 #416
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1972 (reader friendly edited)


K: If we could seriously, with consideration, with a great deal of affection, and naturally, attention - talk things over, then perhaps we could come to some kind of resolution of our problems. So what shall we talk over this morning - one problem, you know, one thing, let's go to the very end of it, each day, you understand - then it will be worthwhile.

Q : I'm wondering what it is that prevents a person from being aware of his own inward state. He says he is going to watch himself and he's not going to escape. And one wants to run away, smoke a cigarette or whatever it is and he says, "I won't run away; I'm going to watch myself." And yet one still doesn't watch oneself, one doesn't see...

K: Now we can take this question: how is it possible for me to watch myself, not force myself to watch myself, not deliberately avoid escapes, but just watch myself. What is the necessity of 'watching oneself'?

Q: To learn about oneself?

K: I watch myself in order to learn what is actually going on in myself. I want to learn. Now what does this 'learning' mean ? First of all, 'myself ', the 'me' is a living thing: adding, taking away, it is always moving. Are we clear on that?

Q: Why do we want to be concerned with ourselves at all?

K: To learn (about oneself) , is different from being (self-) concerned, surely. I am concerned about my property, to hold it. I'm concerned about my dog. I'm concerned about my garden. But here we are trying to learn, which is entirely different from being 'concerned' in a self-centred way.
Now ( supposing that?) I want to learn about myself, isn't there a ( qualitative?) difference between 'knowing' and 'learning' about myself?

Q: To me there is - knowing is something dead, final, and learning is a constant movement.

K: That is, I 'know' you because I met you yesterday, I have (created) an 'image' about you and I can add to that image, then I say, I 'know' you. But in the meantime you might have changed (...or not really ?) but I retain the picture of you which I have had for the last five years. So when I say, I 'know' you, I am judging (re-considering?) you from my dead conclusion about you. So we can leave that word 'know' aside. Now what does it mean then to learn?

Q (1) : To be aware of what you are thinking and feeling every moment ?

Q: I guess ( the common meaning of?) 'learn' is to collect information.

K: 'Myself' (my self-consciousness?) is a 'living' thing, though (at the same time it is?) the result of my various ( personal or collective?) experiences, memories, conclusions, to which one adds (or takes away?) all the time, it is a 'living' (a dynamic ?) thing. So I have to learn about a 'myself' who is all the time changing (superficially?) , adjusting, conforming, denying, pushing, aggressive . And to learn about it I must have some (genuine) 'curiosity', therefore I must come to it without any conclusion, without any ( evaluatory?) judgement, I must come to it afresh, because I know nothing about it.
Now this is going to be our (first?) difficulty : I mustn't come to it with a ( judgemental?) 'conclusion'. Because when I look at myself and say, "How ugly", "How beautiful", "This is right ; this is wrong " I am not learning (anything new about myself?) . Right?

Q: We must approach without pre-set limitations.

K: That's right, sir, without prejudice, 'for' or 'against'.
( So, motivation -wise?) I want to learn about myself because there is a division (a sense of inner separation?) between 'you' and 'me', which brings about a division therefore there is a (subliminal?) 'battle' ( conflict, competition?) between 'you' and 'me', 'we' and 'they' and so on. And to learn implies, doesn't it, that it is a constant movement and therefore it is not an accumulation of knowledge about myself. Please see the difference. Right?

Q: (Inaudible)
K: I'm coming to that, madam - go slowly. I want to learn about 'myself'. First ( thing I have to?) I see (is) that this 'myself' is a living thing. And if I come to it with any prejudice, I can't learn.

Q: To learn about myself, I feel I wish to be myself. If there's learning, then there's a separation and that's what's painful, the separation.

K: I have then to see for myself why there is a division between the 'observer', who is trying to learn about the 'observed'. Now is there a division between the observer and the observed? We must be clear on this because then we can proceed quickly.

Q: When we say 'I am a living entity', we have an assumption right there.

K: When I say 'I am a living entity', is that assumption or is it a fact?

Q: How do you know when you're seeing a 'fact' and how can you distinguish that from 'coming to a conclusion'? I don't see the difference between seeing a fact about yourself and coming to a conclusion.

K: I'll tell you ( using an outward example ?) a 'fact' is that I have a toothache. Right? The conclusion is, 'I must go to the dentist'. One is a fact, the other is a conclusion. But (inwardly, reaching ?) a 'conclusion' about myself prevents me from looking at the fact.

Q: But that is an (outward?) example.

K: I don't like (giving ) examples, but he wanted to know the difference between a conclusion and a fact.

Q: I can understand that any (cultural) prejudice (I have?) about myself will prevent the actual 'seeing' of myself.

K: That's all. Now let me begin again. (a) I want to learn about myself. (b) I cannot learn about myself if there is any form of ( culturally conditioned ?) conclusion. And © I see I have got a great many such conclusions about myself - that I am 'great' (or 'not so great'?) , noble, this or that. Now who is the 'entity' (in charge?) that is gathering ( and using?) all these conclusions ? So these ( evaluatory ) conclusions divide ( are distracting the mind ?) from (actually seeing) the (ongoing) facts. Right ?

Q: Sir, when I say 'I'm bad', is that a fact or a conclusion?

K: How do I know that my (reaction of?) anger is a fact and the opinion about anger is a conclusion. Don't you know ? My angry (reaction) is a 'fact'. My (moral) judgement about this anger is a 'conclusion'.
( But deeper down?) there are two things involved, aren't there - the 'observer' and the 'thing (the reaction?) he observes'. When the 'observer' says, "I must learn about myself" there is a ( subliminal separation ?) division between the observer and the observed. That's an (experientially observable?) fact. That 'observer' says (or assumes that?) 'I' must accumulate knowledge about 'myself'. Please look at it. Is there an (factual?) division between the observer and the observed?

Q: To my mind there is.

K: Isn't the 'observer' the entity that concludes, that says, "I must learn about myself"? This 'observer' (active mental interface?) is the (impersonation of the?) past, isn't it? The 'observer' is saying ( implicitly assuming ?) "I already know a great deal (about a lot of stuff ?) and ( at this point in time?) I ( realise that?) must learn more about myself."
This 'observer' doesn't say, "I know nothing about myself" , but " I do know something about myself : I know that I've been angry before , I've been prejudiced, I've been hurt, I've got a great many images." And with those ( knowledgeable?) 'judgements' he's trying to look at the thing he calls 'himself'. So who (or... what?) is this 'observer'? Until I'm very clear about that I can't move any further.

Q: It is our own 'self' ?

K: Wait, go slowly - who is the 'observer' in you?

Q: Maybe it depends of how you say it, but usually if I (ask myself this rather disturbing?) question it is just another 'observer' saying it.

K: No, just look at it slowly : I have an (inner) make-up which is (already) divided, fragmented - the 'body', the 'heart', the 'mind'. I have the image I have been hurt and I love – I am (my consciousness is ?) 'broken up' into a great many ( interacting?) fragments. Now who is the 'observer' among those fragments.

Q: It seems to me that the division between the observer and the observed arises just when I 'think about myself'.

K: Look at yourself, sir, don't put it into words yet. You are (inwardly?) fragmented, aren't you? Now which of the fragments is the observer?

Q: Why do you come to this 'conclusion' that we are (inwardly) fragmented?

K: Aren't you?

Q: I do not feel fragmented.

K: Then you're a happy person. Finished ! (problem solved?) .
But when you say 'I want to learn about myself', it is a statement of fragmentation, because one fragment has assumed the authority as the 'observer'. I am ( my consciousness is?) fragmented because I 'hate & love'. I am ambitious, I am greedy - you follow, fragmented, I am - it's not a question of 'why do I say it ?', it is an (inwardly observable?) fact. We are not (inwardly speaking?) a 'harmonious whole' - that's a fact.
So, ( our consciousness?) being 'fragmented' (in specialised compartments?) , one of the 'fragments' assumes the ( controlling?) power as the 'observer', and therefore he maintains the division. Now, see the (truth of this ) 'fact': that as long as one of the fragments assumes authority, as 'the' observer, that 'observer' (mental attitude?) maintains the (inner) division.
Now, our next ( experiential?) question is, how is this 'observer' not to divide himself apart from the other fragments?

Q: By seeing himself as the cause of the division ?

K: Do you see yourself as the cause of division? I'm not asking an impudent question but is it an intellectual concept, or as an actual fact, that you see that the observer is the cause of division. Do you 'see' it? Do you 'feel' it?

Q: I feel it, sir.

K: Then there is no 'observer'. If I see the cause of ( our global) division is my 'nationalism', if I actually see the danger of it, its finished, isn't it? - I'm no longer (identifying myself as?) a 'nationalist'. Now in the same way, if I see (inwardly ) very clearly that the 'observer' maintains, sustains, nourishes this division, the danger, then the 'observer' is not. There is only the 'observed'.

Q: Yes, but ( this works ) only momentarily - tomorrow it comes back again.

K: Now is that so? Do you 'momentarily' see the danger of a ( such a psychological?) 'precipice', or you see ( or are aware of it?) it at all times?

Q: I don't feel this is just my 'opinion', I feel that ( the everyday) life is demonstrating this everlastingly.

K: Yes, sir. So we never (come to fully ) realize the danger of this 'observer' (mentality?) who maintains the division. That's all I'm saying - do you see the danger?

Q: No.

K: You don't see the danger. Why? Go into it, take time. Why don't you see the danger of division?

Q: Because we...

K: Wait, don't please find 'excuses'. See the 'facts' first. ( In the outer world?) there is Germany ( EU?) and England, Italy, India and Pakistan, divided, divided, divided. That causes (all kinds of?) conflicts. And one feels that (outer) division is a most destructive thing. Now, why don't you feel this (inwardly) ? Why don't you see it?

Q: As soon as we see that you come to a ( reasonable?) conclusion about it...

K: I understand, sir. So, see it without a conclusion. The moment you conclude, that conclusion becomes ( an active part of?) the 'observer'. You follow this?

Q: The conclusion 'observes' ?

K: Be simple, sir - step by step.
(Recap:) I was asking, who is the 'observer' who says, "I must learn about myself." ? The 'observer' is one of the fragments (of our total consciousness?) so when there is an 'observer' (in command?) , he maintains this division. That's an (inwardly observable ) 'fact': as long as there is an (obvious or subliminal?) division in myself there must (sooner or later?) be a conflict.

Q: When I feel very unhappy I say, "I must work on it; I must see why I am unhappy..."

K: That's a good (example) . When I am unhappy I say to myself, 'Why am I unhappy, what is the cause of it?' So that is the division (right) there - the 'observer' (dualistic mentality?) who says, "I must examine why I'm unhappy." Now, is this 'observer' (really) different from the thing he observes?

Q: Actually it is the 'observer' himself who is unhappy.

K: Look, suppose there is a (spontaneous) reaction of anger. At the moment of anger there is no 'observer', but a second later there is the (self- controlling action of the?) observer who says, "My anger was (not really ) justified, I mustn't get so angry."

Q: Isn't this an automatic thing?

K: Madam, look at it - at the ( very ) moment of happiness there is no ( self-conscious ?) 'observer', is there? Same thing when you are (getting really?) angry, or when there is a tremendous sense of ( personal loss or?) sorrow.

Q: But it doesn't last, always something happens.

K: It's only a moment after that you (are becoming self-conscious and?) say, "I have been happy. I have been angry." So ( the 'observer-observed' ?) division arises (right there?) . Watch it - please go slowly. At the moment of enjoyment, at the moment of great delight, there is no observer. That delight has moved, gone. Then 'you' remember that delight. The ( personal?) remembrance is the 'observer'. That memory is ( taken over by?) the observer who says, "I would like to be more happy." So memory as ( the response of our self-centred?) thought is the dividing factor.
So the ( global response of our 'personal'?) memory is the 'observer'.
Please look at it for yourself. When you have an (experience of?) great joy you don't think (about it?) , do you? It is there, the full delight. Then it's gone, but the ( emotionally charged?) memory of it remains, and 'you' want more of it.

Q: Not necessarily. You don't always long for it.

K: Madam, don't you long for something?

Q: Sometimes yes.

K: Now why do you long for it? Because you have a (subliminal?) remembrance of something that was pleasant. That remembrance is the ( creating the?) 'observer' who says, "I wish I could have that experiennce again."

Q: I say that it's possible to have such a memory and not long for it - one can have it or not to have it. Why make a problem of it?

K: Who is making a problem?

Q: Well, you - that's what we're talking about.

K: I was asking something very simple: who is the 'observer' and is there an observation of a fact without the 'observer'. You've got it, sir, up to now?

Q: Yes, for a moment, for example yesterday, for an instant, there was an observation of myself without any 'observer'

K: That's good enough - it happens to all of us, it's not something mysterious. Now, what takes place, after that? Once for a minute you observe without the observer, what then takes place next?

Q: Thought ?

K: I'm going to show you something, sir. You have a memory of that (inner freedom?) , haven't you? And then you say, "I wish life could be lived that way." Which is, that 'experience' has left a memory, and that memory says, "Life should be lived that way." which is a ( dualistic?) conclusion. Therefore ( sticking to?) that conclusion prevents you from experiencing that thing next time. That's all. So don't 'conclude', don't say, "I must have more of it." The ( wanting?) 'more of it' is the 'observer' who makes it into a problem. Yes, sir?

Q: I watched a movie on television - there's no 'observer' at that time. Is that all we are talking about?

K: No, no. Sir, when you watch a film what is taking place?

Q: There is no 'observer'. You're completely absorbed.

K: You are absorbed by that incident, by the things that are happening on the screen. The (action of the?) film ( momentarily) drives out all your ( self-centred?) thinking, all the 'observer', because it's so exciting, if it is exciting - as the boy is absorbed by the toy. Now ( our real) life isn't that film.

Q: At that moment it is.

K: Wait - because that's an (entertaining?) escape. You're being 'absorbed' (fascinated?) by something (happening?) outside of you.

Q: There's no 'you' that's absorbed.

K: Wait, go slowly. The scene is so exciting that , for the moment, 'you' ( forget about yourself?) That scene has pushed away all ( your self-centred?) thinking, for the time being. When you have finished with that film and gone home, it is 'what you are at home' that we are talking about, not about the film.

Q: Well, how can we discuss this together, because I'm saying that at that time there is no 'observer'. We reached that point in conversation.

K: Quite right, I agree with you, sir.

Q: Now my next question is, are we talking about something more than that?

K: Much more, much more.

Q: That's what we ( would?) want to know.

K: Much more. My life is what I am (inwardly?) when I am not at the cinema, when I am not reading a book. I'm just watching myself (directly, as I am now?) , that's all.

Q: It is your idea, about the 'observer' and the 'observed' - it's not part of our learning, it's not our factual spontaneous idea.

K: When (you are trying to?) look at yourself, to watch yourself - is there not a (subliminal?) 'observer' who ( thinks that he?) is different from the things he observes ? That's an (inwardly observable?) fact, isn't it? When you look at yourself in the mirror, what takes place? The (virtual?) image is not (the real?) you. And if you look at yourself inwardly (as) in a mirror, there is the 'image' (of which you are self-consciously aware?) and the 'maker of the image' ( the background 'image making' mechanism?) .

Q: May I suggest that ( in the real life) we are inundated by environmental pressure ?

K: Sir, of course, that's one of the ( distorting?) factors. We are inundated by external pressures. But who has created these external pressures? Society? The politicians? The (spin?) doctors? The scientists?

Q: All of us.

K: Which is, 'you'.

Q: No, not necessarily.

K: So you're saying there are external pressures all the time forcing us (to behave in a conditioned way?) . And these external pressures are created by the politicians you have elected, by the (socio-political ) world - of which you are part. So you are compressed by the pressures which 'you' have (collectively?) created.

Q: Sir, I see many (conflicting?) motives in myself, and each motive (temporarily) becomes the 'observer'.

K: I quite agree, sir.

Q: And when I see that and I see that all these 'observers' are ( my identifications with ?) these motives. So, the 'observer' is always false.

K: Yes, sir, I understand. Now look, we have listened to each other for an hour – and what have you learned ? Have you learnt for yourself as a fact that the 'observer' is the ( expression of a subliminal identification with our?) past (experience ) ? Have you seen the ( truth of the?) fact that when there is an 'observer-observed' (duality ) there must be division, there must be conflict? Do you see it as 'factually' as you see a real danger, or it's ( just another psychological ?) idea?

Q: We don't (really?) 'see' it. What is it that prevents us seeing it?

K: What prevents you from seeing this 'fact' as you would see the danger of a (psychological?) precipice, what prevents you from not seeing this as clearly as that? Is it (a comfortable psycho-somatic?) laziness, or is it that you don't (really ?) want to see it, because if you see (all the impliations of?) it, your ( 'bourgeois' way of?) life may be (forever?) changed. So you are (subliminally?) frightened to see it, so you say, "I don't (really) see (the point of?) it''
If you can't see it, forget it , but (try to?) find out if you mind is (inwardly speaking?) 'secondhand' (or 'thrifty'?) . And even to see (the truth of?) that you must have ( a certain amount of free & intelligent?) energy, mustn't you?
So why is it that I don't see this thing which is so prevalent (in the outer world ) - all my life is that way. I'm a Hindu, I'm a Buddhist, I'm a Christian, I'm a Communist, I'm young, I'm old, I'm good, I'm bad, Jesus is right and I'm wrong - this division. And why don't I see that this division in any form, outwardly or inwardly it's a 'deadly' thing ?

Q: Is it because we are (unconsciously?) 'subscribing' to it, but won't accept ( the conscious?) responsibility for this 'subscription'.

K: That's right, sir, I'm saying that. And yet this (self- divisive mentality?) creates wars, this thing is going to destroy you.

Q: Because we have not learnt to think (holistically?)

K: We are not able to think?

Q: We have never practised it.

K: We are doing it here. You see - do it, sir, find out, take time. You're here, sitting down, talking over - why do you not see this ? Are you (inwardly?) lazy? Yes, and why are you lazy? You've overeaten, over indulged or you've not eating the right kind of food - find out.

Q: But deeper down, isn't (this apparent laziness?) due to the (constant inner) conflict that the 'observer' brings about ?

K: Then why don't you find out how to stop it ? Therefore, enquire, go into it. That is, as long as there is an 'observer' ( self-separative mentality?) , there must be conflict. As long as there is 'nationalism' there must be conflict, as long as you are a Christian and somebody else is a Muslim, there's going to be ( a potential or open?) conflict.

Q: So why is it so hard to enquire?

K: Because you have never done it before, because you've always accepted what others have said, what the 'psychologists', what the 'religious' people, what the 'Professors' say - you don't say, "I know nothing and I'm going to find out. And I'm not going to repeat a word which I don't know."

Q: Sir, it makes it difficult for me to understand (the inner dynamics of?) this : at the moment as you say, it is dangerous, there is a second observer saying that the first observer is dangerous. It seems like there is always a new observer saying, that previous observation was wrong.

K: No, no - that's a 'conclusion'. Suppose one is married – or you have a relationship with a man or a woman. There are two 'entities', aren't there? As long as there is this 'psychological' division between the two, there must be conflict. You have a (perfect?) 'image' (about yourself) and she has a (perfect?) image (of herself) , and ( sooner or later?) there must be a conflict. These 'images' are (based on?) your 'conclusions' (or assumptions?) - that she's good, that she's bad, or she thinks you're an idiot or whatever .

Q: Where does this 'awareness' go when the body dies?

K: We haven't come to that point. Please stick to this thing; if you once understand this deeply, when you see this fact, you don't depend (psychologically?) on anybody.

Q: What happens to (one's) memory without having had an 'observer'?

K: Yes, sir, that's a 'good question'. Can you have (factual) knowledge without that knowledge being used by one of the (psychological?) fragments. Have I correctly 'translated' your question?

Q: Will you please repeat it, I couldn't follow you.

K: There is all this (practical) knowledge which human beings have gathered, through millenia - which is the (result of our evolutionary?) past. All knowledge is (coming from?) the (experiences we've had in the?) past. I can add to it, more and more, but it is always in the past. Now when the ('psychological' components of that?) 'knowledge' is (are being) used in our relationship with each other, there is ( an open potential for?) conflict. No?
I have lived with you, as a friend, as a wife, etc , and I have accumulated the memories of various incidents in our relationship. Those incidents, those experiences, those 'images' are (my 'psychological'?) knowledge. That 'knowledge' divides you and me.

Q: Why should it?

K: Why should it? Because I'm living (inwardly in the safe enclosure of my experience of?) the past.

Q: But everybody isn't living in the past- you seem to take it for granted that we are living in the past.

K: I don't say you (personally?) are living in the past - I'm just pointing out that our knowledge can be used totally impersonally. But when that knowledge is used 'personally' ( the chances are that?) it creates a division. That's all.

Q: Who uses that knowledge?

K: Tell me, who uses that knowledge.

Q: You can't say 'who' uses that knowledge. It can be said, 'what' is using that knowledge.

K: We're going to find out if it can be said or cannot be said.

Q: It's a trap to ask the question.

K: Wait - he has asked it. Either you say, 'Look, that question is not valid,' or it is valid.

Q: It is an improper question.

K: We'll find out.

Q: I see it.

K: You see it. If he saw it he wouldn't ask it. But since he has asked it we must find out if that question is valid or not. His question was, ''Who uses that knowledge?''.
There is the (psychologically active ?) knowledge, (stored) consciously and unconsciously, which is the 'me'. The (collective knowledge of the?) culture in which I have been brought up, the traditions, the religious beliefs, the superstitions - all those things ( plus the 'personal' knowledge?) are the ( psychologically active?) knowledge which I have ( which is defining 'me') . Now 'who' uses that knowledge? It's ( lurking ?) there - I can't deny it, I can't say it doesn't exist - it is there. When does that knowledge come into operation?

Q: When the 'observer' takes that memory out of (its bank of personal) knowledge.

K: Make it much simpler, sir. When does this knowledge precipitate in action?

Q: When my action needs it - when action needs this knowledge it comes into action through my speech.

K: Sir, I ask you what is your name. Don't you tell me?

Q: The answer comes from an external stimulation.

K: I ask you what's your name: the (personal?) memory responds. You know your name very well, you have repeated it a thousand times. There is the (factual) knowledge - it only responds when there is a challenge. Now, go a step further: I ask you something more complicated, and you take time between the question and the answer, don't you? What takes place between that question and answer – in that time lag - what takes place?

Q: Thought ?

K: I ask you what is the distance between here and Geneva - what do you say? What takes place inside you? You are trying to remember, is it 90 kilometres or is it 80, I'm not quite sure - you follow? The mind is investigating, isn't it, looking at it, trying to find out. And you say, yes, (my 'bestest' answer:) it's 90 kilometres . Now I ask you something much more complex and you say, I really don't know. That is, immediate answer because you are familiar with it, with the question what's your name; a more complicated question and you take time. It may be one day, you look at books, you ask people - you take time. Then there is a question to which you say, "I really don't know how to answer it because I have no knowledge." So ( our 'stand-by' bank of ?) knowledge responds according to a challenge.
( Now back to the area of our psychologically active knowledge?) if our response is not complete, then the 'observer' comes into being ( trying to compensate the damage ?). You see what I'm talking about? If I ask you something to which your answer is not adequate, complete, what takes place? There's conflict (the need for compensating action?) , isn't there?

Q: Or...I 'give up' ?

K: But if it is a question that has to be answered, a 'crisis' situation , if you don't answer completely in that crisis, there is conflict, isn't there?
And (the origin of?) that conflict is the inadequacy (of my response?) , which is the (divisive attitude of) 'observer' , who depends on memory.

So ( to recap:) to any challenge (of life) , if there is 'complete' (intelligent & compassionate?) response, there is no 'observer' in operation. To me it's a fact. So I say to myself, is there a (way of ) living in which to every challenge in (our human) relationship the mind can respond totally ? Then if it can respond totally, there is no conflict and therefore there is no 'observer'. Just see ( the living truth of?) this fact, sir, let it be part of you.
So in your daily life, can you live in a way in which you respond 'totally' to every relationship? That means you have to be extraordinarily sensitive, energetic and ( non-personally?) 'aware' in that relationship.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Aug 2016 #417
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K PUBLIC DISCUSSION SAANEN 1972.(reader friendly edited)


K: What I propose is that we take the problem your daily, monotonous, lonely, unacceptable (pretty sad daily ?) existence. Can we start from there? Wouldn't that be much wiser?

Q: In the process of learning about myself there arises something which distorts it eventually - an active movement which seems to be fear, which seems to turn round the whole thing, as I watch that

K: I want my life to go easily, quietly, happily, with great energy, vitality and so on, but certain factors enter and distort the whole movement of life. There are certain seeds in one, conscious or unconscious, that bring about chaos, misery. So, what are the factors that distort ( the inner quality of our?) life? What are the seeds conscious or unconscious in one that brings about a disgraceful (self-centred ?) existence? Is it a factor of heredity, the genes? Is it that there is a 'seed' (of disorder?) in me that has been so overlaid by environment, by the culture in which I live, and that seed begins to grow and distorts everything, all my life? I've seen this happen, with people of my own age - begin beautifully, you know, and gradually finish, destructive, cruel, brutal, self-centred, ugly.

Q: For me it's ( all about falling in grooves of?) habit.

K: Habit? But at the same time there is a 'flowering of ( violence and triviality?) ' - the religions have called it the 'evil one', and the Hindus explain it as karma – your present action is conditioned by your past actions.
So I want to find out why a human being who (for starters?) wants to live a straight & harmonious active life, gradually 'goes to pieces'?

Q: In birth itself is the propensity to respond (adaptatively?) to the existing environment.

K: Sir, I don't want 'explanations' - there are about one thousand people here, and if we'll all ( start to ) give explanations - that doesn't solve my problem. My ( experiential approach to this ?) problem is : there is in me some 'seed' ( of violence ?) which begins to 'flower' and over which I have no control, and that destroys my life. And I'd want to find out if that seed in me can be understood, resolved, so, don't give me (these ) 'ashes' which are explanations. What am I to do?

Q: Sir, when things start going wrong it's because one starts to compare oneself with others.

K: Yes, sir, you compare yourself, you imitate others, you ( subliminally ) conform to the existing social patterns, or react against them and try to form your own pattern. We know all this. But the seed goes on.

Q: Does one recognize what it is?

K: Look, sir – my question is what was is origin of it, (and also?) what is the ( active psychological?) factor in human beings that brings about this catastrophic activity.

Q: It seems to me that people don't see that it destroys.

K: I know - yes, sir. You see it ( when looking from the?) outside, but I don't see it. Why don't I see it? It comes to the same thing.

Q: It seems that the ( root) cause is this 'centre (of self-interest ) ' which is separating me from everything and makes one's existence so intolerable, ( that by taking to drink or drugs?) he tries to put himself out of his misery.

K: That's another 'explanation', isn't it? I want to find out why it happens, why do I do this thing? Is it inevitable because the seed has been (karmically?) planted (in one's consciousness?) ?

Q: The 'seed' can be a conditioning of the past.

K: The 'seed' can be the ( cultural) conditioning of our ( collective?) past, or some ( personal?) weakness in the character, some unsolved desire – but after 'explaining' ( the 'unconscious' causes of?) all this, what am I to do?

Q: Become aware of your 'negative side' and it would disappear ?

K: Isn't this ( dualistic mentality?) one of your ( hidden?) problems? I want to be kind, generous, I want to have deep affection. At the same time in its wake comes jealousy, antagonism, hate. Haven't you noticed all this? Now how does this happen?

Q : Pursuing pleasure brings about all this.

K: You're not meeting my point. I want you to 'help' me (exit this dualistic mentality?) .

Q: Nobody can help you .

K: Can't you help me?

Q: How?

K: I come to you with a ( serious ) problem, "Please, for god's sake help me." Have you a ( moral?) right to say, "No, it's your own job, you have to go through it."? Because (perhaps unawarely?) you are also exactly in the same position, in you there is (also) that seed, in you there is the 'opposite' of what you would want to be. So don't say you can't help me - that's an easy way out.

Q: It might be the 'right' way out. Why is my solution (supposed to be ?) also good for you?

K: Let's settle this first - aren't you exactly in the same position as the questioner? Haven't you got this 'duality factor' active in you? Wanting to be kind, generous, affectionate, full of beauty, and at the same time there is an ugly thing going on. Haven't each one of us got this? So your problem is his problem - don't say, "Well, I can't help you." We have to (share and?) solve this problem together, that's why you are there and we are sitting here.

Q: I feel that this destructiveness comes from a fear of not being perfect, of searching for perfection in oneself.

K: I understand this. I can also give explanations: (a) one of the reasons is the desire to be secure, (b) another reason is the pursuit of pleasure, (c) another reason is fear, (d) the desire to have somebody to help you or to lead you, I can give a dozen explanations. the end of it I'm still (stuck) there. Look sir, haven't you been through all this before, haven't you seen your friends going to (self-) destruction - haven't you observed all this (psychological trend?) of which you are (not exempt) ?
So what will you do, how will you stop the seed from operating, by only one movement, not double movement? How is this (ongoing ) duality of the opposites to stop, (and become?) only one continuous activity?
I'll show it to you in a minute: First of all, is there this (inner) dualism an actual reality? Or there is only one 'factor', not its (mental?) 'opposite', because the ( mental?) 'opposite' contains (the very thing it's?) opposing. Do you see it as a fact that two 'opposite' (desires?) contain each other? Therefore (experientially-wise?) there is no ( point to postulate any?) 'opposite' at all. Right?
Look - I am jealous, because my girlfriend or my wife goes away from me. I become angry, jealous. And I ( consciously try to?) fight with jealousy, I 'rationalize' it (try to reason it out ?) "How stupid of me, let her go, what does it matter." But the thing is boiling.
Now I (may see for) myself, the (true) fact is that I have never 'loved' her. (Otherwise I wouldn't be jealous!) We have just taken for granted ( that our selfish sense of ?) jealousy is part of 'love'.
Now take that - 'love' and 'jealousy' : are they 'opposite' (factors on the same level of consciousness?) ? Or (there is only) only one (true ) factor ( one's self-centred drive?) and because I do not know how to ( deal with it directly and ?) 'solve' that one factor, I introduce other ( mentally compensating ?) factors.
(A simpler example:) When I am (getting really ?) angry, that's the only ( ongoing psychological) factor, isn't it? When ( a few moments later?) I say to myslf , I must not get angry, that's an (after the fact mentally compensatory?) 'conclusion', a (psychological?) abstraction. But the fact is I'm angry. If I would know how to 'resolve' (or go beyond being trapped in?) that (violent surge of?) anger, (the struggle to achieve its?) 'opposite' wouldn't arise. Now, (experientially-wise?) that comes only when I can't understand the whole structure of anger and go beyond it.
So can I have an 'insight' (an inner perception ?) into the whole structure of anger? If I do, then the ( need for a culturally induced ?) 'opposite' doesn't exist.

Q: If I don't control my anger, I might hurt someone.

K: Look: we're trying to find out if you can ( holistically) resolve the anger. Trying to control it is creating the opposite ( ideal of non-violence) , and therefore (there's an subliminal?) conflict (set going ) between 'must not be' and the fact of getting angry. Now, how is the mind to go beyond it, without creating its opposite? Look what is taken place: when I tried to control it, which is a wastage of energy (through internal frictions?) . If I don't try to rationalize it, all that energy is 'concentrated' (gathered together) , isn't it? So I have got all that ( potentially intelligent?) energy to deal directly with one fact, which (at that specific moment is the violent reaction of ?) anger. Your cultural tradition says, "Suppress it, control it, or rationalize it." I say, that is wasting ( time-spreading?) your (total mind -?) energy which prevents you from observing the only (ongoing) factor, which is anger. So there is only that, and you have the energy (to deal with it directly?) .
Now, next step. Why do you call it 'anger'? Because previously you have been angry, by naming it as 'anger', you have emphasized the value of your previous experience (in dealing with it efficiently?) . Therefore (your personal) conditioning (is becoming now ) the factor (to deal with) .
So the 'naming' (factor) is also a wastage of energy ( in terms of inner transformation ). So you you have the energy (to look at it directly?) . Then, is there (any) anger (left )? So, when you are facing completely that ( violent) 'factor', it doesn't (continue to?) exist, because it (continues to?) exist only when you are controlling, suppressing. Right, you've got it?

So, ( the cultural 'seed' of our psychological decay?) is this duality. And I ask myself, "Is there inwardly such a duality at all?" Or only ( our collective?) thinking invented the opposite because it could not solve the one factor. Have you got it? And this requires ( an integrated quality of ?) attention, doesn't it?
So ( in a nutshell:) thinking (what to do?) about the factor ( of anger , greed, jealousy, fear?) is (from the holistic point of view?) a 'wastage of (our intelligent ressources of ) energy'. There is no wastage of energy when there is only (pure, non-dualistic ?) observation.

Q: Do you mean by 'observation' ( the realisation?) that you 'are' that?

K: Aren't you that anger? It's part of you. So it is (the supevising process of?) thought says, "I must do something about that part." So to observe without ( the controlling interference of?) thought. You've understood, sir?

Now can you listen to that rain - please listen quietly - can you listen to that rain without thinking about the rain? You can only listen to the rain completely when you are not resisting it - when you say, "I can't hear it, I must hear." So you can purely listen, observe, when there is no (mental?) resistance of any kind. Now (similarly) are you free of the (mental) opposite (of your anger, greed, etc?) ? Are you free at the end of this talk, are you free of it, never enter into the ( psychologically hopeless?) field of the opposites? Yes, sir?

Q: When I see my anger or my confusion very clearly - the thing that I see very clearly is ( giving place to a sense of inner?) clarity, then it's not confusion, it's clarity. Clarity is the end of confusion.

K: When you see it clearly, then there is clarity, obviously, not ( the old?) confusion.

Q: But even when I see the brutality of war clearly, it is not the end of that brutality.

K: I see the brutality of war, very clearly, all the reasons, the whole structure, the army and the navy, the investments, the whole of it. In that perception there is clarity, but war still goes on. Then what is your relationship to the war? First of all, to see it clearly you cannot belong (psychologically?) to any group politically, religiously, economically - to any group. Then if you see clearly, what is your relationship to the fact of (the ongoing violence and ?) brutality, which is war?

Q: I was not talking about the brutality within. When I see that brutality clearly, that ( sense of competitive?) brutality is finished.

K: Yes, I have no brutality because I see the whole business of it and I've finished with it, not just 'intellectually'. Then what is my relationship to the ( real world?) brutality, to the war, to the killing?

Q: You have none - none - it is finished.

K: Obviously not. But I (may ) have to do something about it, I can't say it has nothing to do with me.So what shall I do? Are you in that position?

Q: Yes.

K: Don't say so easily that you are. It means that you (may have to?) stand completely alone, because your (psychological?) attachment to a group, to an idea, to a person (such as...???) , breeds ( a sublimated sense of?) antagonism (and/or suspicion, arrogance and ?) brutality.
So what is your (responsible?) relationship if you see this clearly ? I can't just sit back and say, well I have nothing to do with this beastly world." So what shall I do?

Q: Sir, if the understanding is clear I think the (right) action also would take place.

K: Yes, what is that action?

Q: It would be an individual action.

K: Wait - will it be 'individual'? Or will it be 'human' - you see the difference between an individual and an (inwardly integrated?) human being? The 'individuality' is one's temperament, his character, his idiosyncrasy, depending on his ( genetic or cultural?) conditioning.
So the (inwardly integrated?) human is a much wider (concept?) : you belong to the whole collective human race, human beings. But the moment you separate yourself as an 'individual', you are creating a division, and hence conflict and all the rest of it.
So what are you to do as a 'human being' when there is this war going on.

Q: You identify with it ?

K: How can I identify myself with it? That has been created by nationalism, by the military, by the ( rocket?) engineers, by the ($$$) scientists, all the rest of it - they have invested a tremendous lot of money in the ( top of the line?) materials of war. Each nation does this (except Costa Rica, Vatican, etc?) .
So, what shall I do, as a 'human being' - you understand?

Q: I don't see the point of trying to decide the way I am now what to do about that. When I got there, I would do whatever is corresponding to that understanding.

K: What do you mean by 'you are not there'? You mean, you do not see this thing clearly?

Q: That's correct.

K: Therefore why don't you see this thing clearly. People are shedding tears, you understand, sir? Children are being burnt, whole forests are being destroyed; what is wrong with me when ( metaphorically speaking?) my house is burning, and I don't see it. Is it an avoidance?

Q: It is very easy to become pessimistic about it.

K: Sir, don't tell me, 'wait till it happens to you', then I can wait till I die. It's happening now.

Q: If one is really gentle inside oneself, then doesn't this bring about a 'healing action' in one's everyday life?

K: Yes, I can probably talk to you or to a friend and say, "Look, let's understand all this business", but is that all I can do?

Q: You have to 'die' to this 'individuality', but we don't know how...

K: Isn't this a problem for you?

Q: Yes, of course.

K: Then what do you do about this problem? Just let it remain and go on with the problem till you die?

Q: Can one find a different kind of life without any brutality?
K: I am leading a different kind of life when I don't belong to any country, when I don't belong to any group, when I don't have any kind of relationship with any kind of brutality - I'm leading a different life. And yet round me the misery is going on. What am I to do?

Q: Just try to do as you are doing as far as we have understood.

K: All right, as far as we have understood, we'll do, but have you understood this thing totally? Why don't you see totally, that as long as you have any feeling for nationality, you are breeding war. Why don't you see clearly, that as long as you belong to any sect, any group, any religion, you're breeding war. What prevents you from seeing this? Lazy?

Q: Survival - the necessity of survival.

K: Now let's come back - what is my action? Action means the doing, doesn't it? Which is always in the present.The 'acting' is always in the present. Now what is my action based on? On the past, on my memories , on my experiences, on my ideas of what I should do, on my conditioning? Therefore there is no action taking place 'now' . Then I'm asking myself, what is my action in relation to war, though I'm not related to it. What is my responsibility?

Q: Isn't it to be what you are, having shed these things, then you are free to be what you are?

K: That's not the question. My question is, when I say what am I to do, am I thinking in terms of what to do with regard to the past, or with regard to the future, or only what to 'do now'? You see the difference?

Q: If you just live so intensely you're not asking the question what to do but you are living.

K: Yes, quite, that's quite right. I want to - the lady says, if you are living, then there is no question of 'what you are going to do'. But do we live, or do we live in the past, or in the future and therefore our action based on an ideal, or a principle, which I have established as a concept and according to that, act. Now is that action? Or is 'action' only when there is neither the future nor the past. Therefore there must be an insight into the past, and also an insight into the future, therefore then only there is action. Then when there is that action, I will then relate it to the present.
Has somebody understood?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Yes, Signora, I understand that. Please apply this to yourself : do you 'act' or are you acting according to a (pre-programmed?) memory? Do you act or you are acting according to a concept, belief, a conclusion, a principle, an ideal - find out. And when you find out you will see that's not ( the authentic?) action, it's either a continuity of a 'dead' thing, or ( the projection of?) a 'future' thing which is not now. Now, if you see that very clearly, then what is 'action' - what you are doing now ? What you are doing now, is it related to ( the world of economic competition &?) war? Or is it something of a totally different dimension? Till I find that (inner dimension of action?) , I can't answer what shall I do with regard to the (ongoing?) 'wars'.
Because if I act according to the (collectively shared mentality of the?) past, the whole (psychological?) inheritance of our race says 'you must fight to survive'.
So (in a nutshell?): if I act according to (my survivalistic inheritance of ?) the past I am (directly or indirectly?) contributing to war. Or if I'm acting according to the 'future' ideal, I'm contributing to war, because the culture in which I've been brought up emphasizes these two. So I have to find out for myself what (the inward dimension of my?) action is. I see these two are not action, so my action then doesn't belong to this dimension.

Q: Then, this 'action in the present' Love?

K: It may be, but unless you actually live it, don't call it anything.

Q: I don't even call it 'war'.

K: Don't call it war. (Inwardly) war means conflict - give it another name but it's there. Now, sirs, have you seen the beauty of this? Have you a mind that doesn't belong to all this? Then if you have, you are 'doing the right thing'. You are 'acting'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Aug 2016 #418
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

3RD K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1972 (reader friendly edited)


K: What shall we talk over together this morning?

Q: How does one to bridge the gap between the individual life which is so superficial and narrow, and the vast complex life ?

Q(2) When one observes the mountains, the trees, the river, or oneself, when you give sufficient attention, the 'observer' is absent. But can one sustain that sense of total attention continuously?

K: What do you mean by giving total attention ? When I look completely at that mountain with all my energy, interest, vitality, intensity, then the (psychological activity of the?) past as the 'observer', with all its content as words, and (cultural?) conditioning is not (interfering) . Now, what is (bringing?) that attention?

Q: It comes sometimes fortunately, and other times it doesn't come.

K: Is it a matter of chance, or is it a matter of insight, perception? Is it a matter of chance, or there is a complete insight into what you are observing ? When you look at a tree, do you look with total attention or only give a very, very partial, passing interest. When you look at the blue sky, do you see the vast space or only a coloured (postcard ?) , say is a rather beautiful morning, isn't it, and pass on (to perform your daily chores?) . Which is it you do?

Q: The moment we answer that question we are not attentive.

K: I'm asking whether you are attentive, which you can answer for yourself. Look sir, let us take something which is much nearer. Most of us have fears of various kinds and unless you comprehend the whole structure and the nature of ( the psychological process of?) fear, it will go on. Now can we investigate into the whole structure of fear attentively, investigate in the (experiential?) sense, observing the nature of fear. Shall we go into that?

Q: Yes.

K: So, we are non-analytically observing what is fear. 'Analysis' - the very meaning of that word means to 'break up' (divide & conquer?) . We are not trying to 'break up' (the total process of?) fear into various causes and how to get rid of them ( in an orderly way?) but merely watching the whole nature of fear. Look, I am frightened, consciously and unconsciously, deeply I'm frightened of 'superficial' ('real' life ?) things (such as:) losing a job, having no money or ( simply ?) afraid of death Now if I say to myself what is the cause of this fear? (Chances are that it ) is an investigation into the cause, therefore an analytical process. But here we are trying to find out (experientially?) the nature of fear and to see if the mind can go beyond it.

Q: I think that basically we are afraid of the 'unknown' ( of what we don't know or don't have any possibility to control ?) , afraid what the other person's going to think of us or what's going to happen to us in the future.

K: We're frightened of the unknown whether it's in the distant future or in the immediate – (for instance ) I don't know what you are going to say, you might hurt me, and so on. How is one (becoming) aware of this fear? Why do you call it 'fear'?

Q: There is a physical reaction.

K: There's physical reaction - you sweat, you get nervous, you kind of tighten up.

Q: That's how you know - you just asked 'how do you know it ?'

K: Proceed a bit further, don't stick at the obvious (psycho-somatic responses) - It has happened before, so you 'recognize' it - press it further, move.

Q: I know that I'm afraid often because I have a compulsion to escape in various ways, in various kinds of pleasures and (trivial) pursuits. And the compulsion seems to prove that I'm running away.

K: That means you want 'run away' from it, because you don't know what to do with it - is that it? Therefore one one explains it away, or one tries to control it, suppress it, develop its 'opposite' as is courage - we go through all those processes, don't we. But yet ( the gnawing sense ?) fear remains.

Q: It seems to remain because I'm not aware that I am (creating this?) fear myself.

K: I think it's very important to understand this, because fear is ( inwardly) a destructive thing, it 'blinds' you, both physically and psychologically. So one has to go into it very, very deeply, understand the conscious as well as the unconsciousness fears.

Q: But even when one really tries to face fear, its useless trying to look at it because then thought comes in. So thought is ( the controlling factor) there more than the 'total awareness' (you are talking about?) .

K: I'm afraid of various things - public opinion, what you might say to me, I'm afraid of death, the unknown, I'm afraid of losing my job, I'm afraid that next year you won't all turn up, I'm afraid that I might get ill - I've got dozens of fears. I'm as good as you at explaining why all these fears come into being.
But I want to find out (experientially?) how to be free of it, how to go beyond it. I see how destructive fear is and I'm asking myself, how is it possible to go beyond it - that's my whole concern, you understand - that's all I'm interested in. I'm giving my total attention to it, because it's a ( major factor of?) crisis in my life, because I see how it perverts every activity, So my concern is: can the mind, this mind, be totally free of fear and whenever fear arises in the future to meet it totally? That's all I'm concerned about and nothing else. Are you?

Q: But when you give your whole attention to fear you are not afraid.

K: I understand, madam, but I don't know how to give my - that's again, if you give your total attention to fear, then you're not afraid. But I don't give total attention.

Q: Didn't we go into a (similar routine?) two days ago instead of 'fear' we used the example of 'anger' ?

K: Yes, sir, I'm doing the same thing in different ways.

Q: Why?

K: Why? Because the gentleman raised a question, how am I to maintain a continuous, total attention. To him that was a problem.

Q: Was his problem fear or attention?

K: Both are involved in attention.

Q: Fear is involved in attention?

K: Obviously - if I am deeply unconsciously frightened (of the disturbing things that might come up ?) I can't (and I won't?) give attention.

Q: Yesterday we went into anger, today we are going into fear, are we performing (some sequential ?) analysis or by going into one are we in reality going into all of them?

K: Sir, aren't you frightened? Isn't there (any dormant?) fear in you?

Q: Sir, the other day we paid attention to anger and we came to a point where anger or confusion or whatever it was, was gone. Now the attention has turned upon itself and said, "How can I maintain myself?" So, a new (element) has come in, 'attention' which has now split itself and looked at itself.

K: Sir, you are saying : I can give total attention (to anything) but I can't maintain it. How am I to do it? I have a (subliminal?) feeling that it's a marvellous thing if I could give total (loving?) attention to everything I'm doing.

Q: And now the attention has turned upon itself - attention is now part of thought, not pure attention.

K: That's quite right. So ( that holistic?) attention gave him pleasure, or rather, in that state of attention there was nothing, there was attending. Then thought comes in and says, "That was a marvellous state - I'd like to have more of it, a continuous momentum of it." Which is, thought has made that (experiential?) 'attention' into a 'pleasurable thing' which must be continued. That's all.

Q: It doesn't seem quite that way - the other day I had a certain insight into fear, I saw that I was afraid and I saw that I was the fear, and now it's gone. But it was only for (the time of?) a flash. Now I'd like to learn more about my fear - it wasn't enough, the attention wasn't long enough so that I could learn about it.

K: Now, all right, I won't (academically?) discuss 'fear'. Is it possible to maintain continuously attention? Now 'why' do you want to maintain it?

Q: To 'learn' - I am becoming aware of a lot of thoughts which destroy the ( quality of authentic) attention and prevent me from looking.

K: Yes. When one is not attentive, the whole momentum of thought comes into being, and there is a (subliminal) division between the thinker and attention. How is one to maintain attention? Can 'you' sustain, continuously, attention? That involves ( thinking in terms of?) time, doesn't it. Right? I have been attentive now for a few minutes and it's gone, but I would life that attention to last longer , to go on (forever?) . Now when you are (not self-consciously?) attentive, is there any question of time? No. Then who is asking that it must last a long time?

Q: Either there is attention or there is no attention ; when there is attention there is no time. But at the same time I wish I could continue in that state of attention.

K: Why aren't you merely attentive at that one (timeless?) moment - that's enough, why do you want to have more of it?

Q: Because most people have moments of attention, flashes of attention, and then the rest of the time they are inattentive and in conflict. And those flashes for just a moment, for a second once a week, is not enough to transform your life. You go on in the same old way. So therefore one asks, how can one be attentive more and more.

K: I see, at that moment of (pure?) attention there is a sense of vast change, but that doesn't last, and one falls back into the old rut, into the old routine, the old habits, and therefore there is no change in life, in one's ways of living. Now what are you concerned with, attention or with bringing about a revolution in your life, psychologically - which are you concerned with?

Q: Are not the two not connected?

K: I don't know.

Q: I think they are.

K: Sir, are you really concerned with psychological revolution, deeply, will you give your life to it? Or is it just a theory? So you want to give your life, your energy, your whole being into bringing about a psychological change. Do you, sir?

Q: Yes, sir.

K: Do you know what it means to give your life, your attention, your love, your energy, your whole life to find out if you can change yourself radically? Do you want to do that? Or do you say, "If I have attention then this will happen"? You understand? "I have attention at rare moments, and it's marvellous. If I had that attention, then it will bring about a deep psychological change." So your concern is to have (more of ) this (holistic quality of?) attention- not the bringing about psychological revolution in yourself.

Q: That would be an 'ideal'.

K: Yes, that would be an ideal.

Q: (Italian)

K: They are all very clever, these (Italian?) birds. What he's saying is, if I have that attention, then I will change psychologically.

Q: (Italian)

K: If there is that state of attention, then I can cancel with that attention, fear. You see, what is important, attention or fear?

Q: Attention to wipe out fear.

K: Look, I'm going to show you something. You say, attention is important because through attention you will bring about this revolution inside. You don't know anything about (how that holistic ) attention (occurs) , it happens very rarely, occasionally it bursts, but it soon goes away. But the constant (ongoing) thing is your daily, miserable, suffering, petty life.
( So, dealing with?) that is important, not attention. If you want attention, then it becomes an ideal, and then you have to fight for it, seek a method to achieve it and all the rest of it.

So (at this point?) I am not concerned with attention. My (inner ) life is petty, narrow, jealous, fearful, competitive and all the rest of it – (coverd up by a lot of?) pretensions. Now in understanding that, the very nature of this understanding is 'attention'. I don't have to seek attention.

Q: Sir, is it the (pursuit of) attention that prevents the psychological revolution?

K: If you are making attention into an 'ideal' (a condition to be achieved?) , then it is preventing psychological revolution. You won't let go (this concept of?) attention, you got (subliminally ?) attached to that word because perhaps I've (charismatically?) talked a great deal about it.
But (transformationally -wise) that's not important – (if?) I am concerned with the world, what's happening in the world, the wars, the brutality, the appalling things that are going on. And from there (looking inwardly) I see what I am. I 'am' (inwardly what?) the world (is outwardly?). I am the world, because I ( the 'old mentality' of man?) have created this 'monster'. No? It's so obvious. Right. And without a radical revolution in myself, I can't do a thing outside. So my concern is: is it possible to bring about this deep revolution in myself? That's all my concern, not 'how to be aware'.

Q: I say, in order to change...

K: Find out first if 'you' can change, and then see what is implied in this (inner) revolution.

Q: Can we say that every person in this room is really responsible for the whole world situation?

K: Aren't you?

Q: We are 'sharing' the responsibility.

K: Yes, but first of all aren't 'you' responsible? I 'am' the world.

Q: Who is this 'I' who 'is' the world?

K: The ( word) 'I' is (used) only a means of communication. When I say 'I am the world' (it means that) the (formative consciousness of the?) world and the ( consciousess of any particular ?) 'I' are not different, (consciousnessly-wise) they are one.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Yes, sir, we are going off always from the central issue. You don't face the fact, of what you 'are'.

Q: May we come back to the point where we were talking about attention and of being aware of inattention.

K: Sir, let us once and for all drop ( the ideal of ?) 'attention', shall we? If I had that energy, that interest, that vitality, I would do this ; so, let's forget the 'if's, the 'attention', the 'ideals'. Take one (psychological ) thing which is common to all of us, and go through right to the end of it, and see if the mind can be free of it. I'm going to take one ( elementary?) thing, which is, we're always comparing , aren't we? No? Both outwardly and inwardly. And this comparison breeds a sense of inferiority, imitation, conformity, acceptance, depending on what I think is much better than (my own ) 'what is'. Right? Shall we take that one thing and go to the very end of it, and see if your mind is completely free from all comparison. You understand my question? Shall we go into it?

Q: It's no question, it is a fact that you have to be free.

K: Right. Why does my mind compare? Is it ( because) from childhood we have been taught to compare (ourselves with a 'standardised' personality?) ? That's one factor. All our social structure is based on that too. So you are always measuring, comparing, conforming. Are you aware of it? Do you know you are measuring yourself all the time? - 'I must be, I will become, I should not, I have been happy,' measure, measure, measure. Now can you look at it - which is a fact. Now, when you look at it, what takes place?

Q: I think I find excuses.

Q: We don't (really?) want to look at it.

K: I know I'm comparing myself with others, or compare myself with what I have been (or hope to be?) . Compare in the present, in the future, and in the past. And when I am (becoming) aware of it, I find excuses for it - why shouldn't I compare, what's wrong with comparison, all the world compares.
Or I condemn it - how terrible to compare myself, why can't I be 'myself', I won't compare any more. Then you say, "Who is myself, what is myself?" Myself is this ( self-image brought through?) comparison. Your (good old?) 'self' is part of this momentum of comparison. Now when you don't compare, what takes place?

Q: There's a sense of detachment.

K: Is this 'detachment' (synonimous to inner?) freedom? Sir, what takes place in your mind?

Q: You're experiencing directly 'what is'.

K: What are you experiencing?

Q: There's no centre. No 'I'.

K: Wait a minute, madam - I want to find out what (actually?) happens to my mind when there is no comparison at all - and I don't say, "I will be myself" - all that's part of comparison. What takes place there?

Q: Silence ?

Q: That's the 'psychological revolution' we're talking about.

K: Listen quietly for two minutes, please. The mind is free of one burden, isn't it? By examining, being aware what the content of comparison implies, suddenly realizes the futility of it, the stupidity of it, the utter unintelligence of it. Therefore the mind has become 'intelligent'.

Q: Before you spoke about comparison, I saw this in myself and I realized the comparison by sort of 'embracing' it, going with it - I 'am' it. And then it disappeared.

K: Sir, by looking at comparison I have an insight into comparison, haven't I. I have an insight, I see it has no ( inner?) value, it has no meaning. This seeing is the ( action of a holistic ?) intelligence. That's all.
Now (in the same way) I want to have an insight into 'fear', into 'attachment', so I just look at it, I want to learn about it. Therefore when I want to learn, I'm curious, I don't say, "I must have no fear, I must go beyond it, fear is this and fear is that," I want to look at it. Therefore when I look at it with that curiosity, with that affection, I begin to see things very clearly. Therefore the mind, unburdening itself of something it's carried for years and years, is free of it.
Now are you free of this (redundant process of self-?) 'comparison'?

Q: No.

K: No. Why not?

Q: We always want to do something about it.

K: Psychological 'measurement' (self-evaluating and comparing ?) comes into being when ( my self-centred?) thinking says, "You look so much more beautiful than I am, you are clever, I am dull," so I ( in the hope to become like you?) compare myself with you and I have made myself dull (got stuck?) . Now, am I 'dull' if I don't compare myself with you ? I (really) don't know.
So ( for starters?) I won't call myself 'dull' any more. So is your mind, after listening to this, free of (this 'psychological'?) comparison? And if it isn't, why isn't it? Is it because through comparison ( your personal?) 'ambition' takes root. And 'ambition' is part of ( the wide spread mentality of our ?) social structure, religious, all the rest of it.
So if I compare myself with somebody who is successful, has a bigger car and all the rest of it, this gives me the drive to be like him , or go beyond, which is ambition. Is that why you cling to comparison, because in that there is ( the promise of a?) greater (long-lasting?) pleasure?
So ( the bottom line is:) when you don't compare (yourself with others?) there is no 'ambition'. Which doesn't mean you become a (psychological?) vegetable, or you accept things as they are - on the contrary. Now, are you (in this position?) when you see something ( as false?) you've dropped it.

Q: Right now, as I hear you say this I'm looking at your (charismatic presence?) on the stage and I say to myself, "This man's wiser," It doesn't simply stop for me.

Q: We don't know we are ( still measuring ourselves?) because we do not experience and know it, so we talk about it (while ) we identify ourselves with the (same cultural) conditioning.

Q: Listen, I want to ask you something, because I've heard thousands and thousands of people for years talking, and this is a very vital question.

K: It is.

Q: When I talk to you, I (keep) identifying myself with (my cultural) conditioning, don't I? Because I have to work by intellect, I am forced to do that. Now, the instant when I look into myself and I don't identify myself with my intellect, in that second I am free. When you look into yourself when you are not identifying, comparing, you are free.

K: When you're not identifying yourself you're free. Then the question arises, why does the mind identify, why do you identify yourself with your furniture, with your house, with your belief - why do you identify?

Q: Another habit.

K: Is it a habit? If it is a habit, seeing it is a habit - drop it. Why don't you?

K: Look, madam, you've stated one basic thing, which is, If I don't identify, then there is freedom. But (practically?) all the time I am identifying myself with something (or other) .

Q: I am not identifying all the time.

K: Some of the time I'm identifying, at other times I'm not identifying. The times when ( the promise of a gain ?) becomes very important, I identify. Other things I don't identify (with) with because they have no importance, so I'm playing this game all my life. Now, I say to myself, "Why does the mind identify itself with something or other , with my country, with my god, all the rest of it?" If I put that ( perrenial?) question to myself it brings about an awareness of 'why' I identify myself. Why do you identify yourself?

Q: Because I want a continuity of 'me' ?

K: What would happen if you didn't identify yourself? I am not looking for the cause of my identification, and when putting that question there is not only the intellect operating, but also my emotional nature comes in, and says, 'Why am I doing this?' - which is a total awareness, both intellectual understanding and all my emotional feelings enter into it. So, ( experientially-wise?) why why do I identify myself with something?

Q: Security ?

Q: I also get (some) pleasure out of it...

K: So watch it, sir, go into it. I 'identify' myself ( with something) because it gives me pleasure, gives me security, makes me feel certain, gives me comfort, satisfaction and so on, and also if I don't identify with anything that is uncomfortable, not pleasurable. That's a simple (observable?) 'fact', isn't it?
So I see that (any psychological) 'identification' takes place when there is (an expectancy of ) 'pleasure' ( pleasure is also involved in security and all the rest of it) and there is no identification when there is pain. The one I want, the other I don't want.

Q: Isn't it the same thing?

K: It may be the same thing (movement?) . Now what is my mind to do when it has been educated, brought up in a culture which says, "Identify yourself with everything that is pleasurable & rewarding, and discard everything that gives you pain." Go on, sir, this is ( creating colateral psychological) problems : the more you 'identify' with those 'things' that give you pleasure, the more you are attached to it - it gives you a sense of stability, security, gives you a sense that you are living (long and prosper?) . Now, do you see this as a fact? Then what takes place if I see the (true) meaning of (self) identification, and therefore of attachment? Do I see that where there is attachment, identification, there must be also ( a potential for psychological?) pain ? I might lose my property, I might lose the person I'm attached to, or I must protect the belief to which I am attached therefore I'll fight you.
So I see where there is identification, however pleasurable it is, there is also in it ( a potential of ) pain. I can't keep one and discard the other - they both go together. Do you see this? When you see (the truth of?) this, are you still (being?) attached to a person, or to a property? When there is no identification, no attachment, what takes place in the mind?
You've got rid of another ( psychological) burden, haven't you?

Q: It is a shock when you stop (being attached ) .

K: If the mind has no (psychological) 'identification', what takes place? It is free to deal (directly) with 'facts', and that will give you a tremendous vitality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2016 #419
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K: If the mind has no (psychological) 'identification', what takes place? It is free to deal (directly) with 'facts', and that will give you a tremendous vitality.

Does the brain/mind 'believe' in the 'self'? Has it entangled itself in its own creation? Is it "identified' with the 'self' (the 'center',the 'me'), and sees itself as being this 'individual' self?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 29 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2016 #420
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
and the main emphasis is to be placed on a 'learning process' which is not subservient to our 'previously known'. It is very possibly what K meant from 'starting from the other shore'

The art of learning is a movement along with the 'self', the 'what is". Quite different from our ordinary 'learning process' where everything is geared to a result and conclusion fact you can see that the 'picture' gets a bit 'dark' when there is no 'holding onto' yesterdays precious 'insight'. We are used to 'storing' up knowledge and 'coming to' conclusions, 'knowing' where we stand...the 'learning process' is not that. I associate it with that poetic line translated and attributed to Christ : "...but man hath not where, to lay his head".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 391 - 420 of 650 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.)