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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 391 - 420 of 767 in total
Tue, 16 Aug 2016 #391
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 10 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 #392
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #393
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 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 #394
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 123 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 #395
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #396
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 123 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 #397
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 10 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 #398
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #399
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 10 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 #400
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 10 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 #401
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #402
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 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 #403
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 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 #404
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 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 #405
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #406
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 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 #407
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #408
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #409
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #410
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 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 #411
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 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
Tue, 30 Aug 2016 #412
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline



K: We have two more discussions altogether. So what shall we talk over this morning?

Q: Sir, I spend approximately a third of my life sleeping every (eight hours of a ?) twenty four hour period. And as I have got older I have found that the natural ability to sleep in harmony with myself seems to be less and less so that the quality of the rest that I get doesn't really prepare me too well for my day.

K: Would you like to discuss what is the function of sleep?

Q: And how can we gather enough energy for meditation.

K: How to gather enough energy to meditate. Do you want to discuss meditation? Be quite sure, please, because it is a very serious subject, and don't kind of say, "Well, that's a nice subject to talk about". If you are really interested in it, we have not only to go into the question of energy, harmony, and what is the function of sleep - all these are involved in meditation, not just sitting cross-legged and going off into some fantasy. So do you really want to discuss this?

Q: Can we talk about death ?

K: Now how can we put all these together - health, disease, death, education, thought killing feeling, sleep, meditation, and death? How can we put all this together ?

Q: Isn't it all (involved ) in meditation?

K: Look, sir, all these things are involved, aren't they - curiosity, death, education and sorrow, sleep, the whole mechanism of thought, feeling, and so on - all these things have a central issue, they have a central point from which we can start. Now what do you think is the central issue?

Q: Love ?

K: It may be love, but consider it for a few minutes. I want to find out if my mind can live both at the level of knowledge and also at the same time, move into the unknown, so that both of them are living together in harmony? You have understood my question? How to deal with the 'known' - the accumulated knowledge of centuries, and also at the same time, enter or allow the 'unknown' to move also, so that the two together function, in harmony. Would that (holistically?) answer all our questions?

Q: Yes.

K: One has a problem, which is, sleep, death, education, strong emotions, passions, controlled by thought and thought gradually getting stronger, and destroying all one's feelings, sensitivities, intuition, curiosity - all these are the problems of life. If I have a mind that's very clear, not distorted, then such a mind will answer all these questions.
Now what is that (quality of?) mind (such) that whatever problem it faces it resolves it and goes on, it doesn't become a burden, it doesn't become something to worry about endlessly.
So, can we together this morning find out what is the quality of that mind - 'mind' being, the brain, the feeling, the whole physical organism, the total entity. Now how shall I find out, a mind so clear, a mind that has no conflict - not an ideal, actually has no conflict - a mind that can be completely quiet, a mind that when it sleeps, makes itself new, that lives in complete absence of the 'me', which is the essence of conflict.
Now where am I to begin to discover this (holistic?) 'mind' that can respond without contradiction, without effort, without denial, sacrifice, forcing? Where am I to begin?

K: Look, sir, to find out I must start ( from a position of?) not knowing. Are you also in that position, that you don't know if such a mind exists, and if it is at all possible to come upon it. A mind that says, "I don't know", is therefore free to enquire. That is the 'first step and the last step'. Therefore such enquiry demands that you be free (of the known?) first. Free first, not at the end - free from your Zen, free from your meditations, your systems, your gods, your myths, your gurus, your concepts - out, out of the window all that. That means the mind is not afraid to be (to stand?) alone.
Now what am I enquiring into? Sleep? You're all very silent.

Q: When there is something true that you see immediately that creates space.

K: When you (honestly) say, "I don't know" the mind is empty. When it says, "I'm enquiring," it says, "What am I enquiring into." Am I enquiring into death, which is part of living? Am I enquiring into sleep, which is part of living? Job, fear, what am I enquiring into?

Q: The fact that I'm bored and I'm asking myself whether it is possible to live differently, and I really don't know (how) ?

K: Why don't you start from 'I don't know how to end my inner conflict' ? Yyou start with 'not knowing', and therefore you start with (in a spirit of?) freedom.
We had all these questions, life, death, sleep, conflict, suffering, education, thought opposing feeling, feeling opposing thought. We've had all these questions. I said, where am I to start, in the resolution of all this - in the understanding of all this - where am I to start? I say I really don't know whether I should begin here or there, therefore by 'not knowing', I can meet them all. You get it?
I don't know what meditation is, I don't know what death is, I don't know if life can be lived without any kind of strife. But (at least?) I am free to enquire. Now what is the significance of sleep? I'm taking that (for starters ) . The 'sleep' which most of us have is ( creating a lot of inner) disturbance- dreams, pictures, nightmares, all kinds of things are going on (in our personal and collective consciousness?) , aren't they?

Q: There are other kinds of sleep, like when I did not know anything about dreams and all that.

K: So, when the brain gets tired of 'dreaming' it becomes quiet, is that it?

Q: Yes, I suppose.

K: You're enquiring, you can't 'suppose'.

Q: He has to 'suppose' because you can't ask him while he's asleep, he's awake now and he has to answer you.

K: Look, we're enquiring into the question of sleep : during the day, my whole day is a disturbed (a 'war zone' ?) existence : I've got a job where I'm insulted, I accept great confusion during the daytime. And at night the same movement is going on (trying to compensate for it?) which is translated into dreams.

Q: You asked if there is another kind of sleep.

K: So I say to myself, " Can I during the day bring order in my life, because when I sleep dreams are a means of bringing about order." Have you noticed, just before you go to sleep sometimes the brain says, "What kind of day have I had? It's time to bring about order before going to sleep." Have you noticed that before you (fall a)sleep, the brain tries to put order. If you don't put order, then while you sleep the brain is trying to create ( its own imaginary) order, which are dreams (that need) interpretations, all the rest of it.
Now ( the 1000$ question is?) can I bring order during the day in my life - if not I'll dream, if not my brain will have no (inner space to ) rest? And it must have it , otherwise it's (working) like a (pre-programmed?) machinery that's working for seventy years, it (eentually) wears itself out. So it must have complete rest.

Q: I think what you are asking is, there is a third kind of sleep ?

K: Yes. I put my life in order during the day. I have - not you. To me it's tremendously important this, not to have conflict. So I have the order and this order can be brought about only when I see how chaotic the disorder (created by our eeryday conflicts?) is. Through the enquiry into (the inner nature of this?) disorder, order is brought about. (A holistic?) order is something that comes out ( spontaneously out ?) of the insight (into the time binding nature ?) of disorder. Therefore, if my life during the day is now orderly, then at night, what takes place? Sleep then is without 'dreams'. Is it a fact to you?

Q: (Not really) that's why we can only talk about the day, the waking state.

K: That's all - so my enquiry goes much further than yours. The brain then, when it sleeps, is absolutely 'rested'. And what happens during rest, and further, that's my enquiry therefore I won't go into it. I know it's exciting for you to listen to what happens (then) but that's of no (experiential ) value. So my question is, have you put order during the waking hours of your life?

Q: Obviously not because I still dream.

K: Obviously not, therefore why don't you put order?

Q: I don't know how.

K: Wait, I'm telling you.

Q: But there's so much (ongoing disorder?) to cope with.

K: Our inner disorder has many forms but (holistically speaking ?) it is 'disorder' - sexual disorder, mental disorder, disorder in our relationship with each other, disorder in my body, disorder - psychological, physiological, psychosomatic, whatever it is - disorder. Why don't I bring order into all that?

Q: Sir, because I don't know 'how' and I want you to tell me.

K: I'll show it to you, sir. Are you aware of this 'disorder'?

Q: Yes.
K: Now watch it, sir. What is (the cause of our inner ?) disorder - contradiction, isn't it? I think one thing, do another, say one thing, act in a different way, I want (global) peace, I'm (locally?) violent, which are all contradictions. Therefore my life, which is disorderly, is the result of (many layers of?) contradictions. So (basically this) contradiction (is due to) not seeing actually the 'what is', and wanting to change 'what is' into something else. That is (all we need to know about the origins of psychological) disorder.

Q: I am also aware of a (controlling?) 'centre' which is the essence of disorder. And I want to get rid of it and find (an authentic inner?) order.

K: Disorder basically implies contradiction, which is, not facing 'what is', not looking and moving away from 'what is'. When you move away from 'what is', that is ( creating its own?) disorder. When you try to go beyond it, that is disorder. When you try to suppress it, that is disorder. But when you (spend some quality time to?) look at 'what is', you've all the energy to go beyond it. That is order. Have you got it actually, have you got your teeth into it ?

Q: Sir, what about compromises? It is sometimes necessary...

K: All right, I have to 'compromise' when I have to put on leather shoes. But why do you make a problem of compromise - because one has a principle that you mustn't compromise? One can compromise about little things, but is there any compromise when you see the fact that war is caused by nationality, one of the causes. Is there any compromise there?

Q: Yes, the consequence if you won't fight is that they take your passport and nationality.

K: Then let them take my passport, but fortunately they've given me (an Indian ?) one. And if they say you can't travel, all right, I don't travel, I stay where I am.

Q: But I might starve.

K: If I starve, I starve - you people are so (mentally ?) frightened. Let's move. So (if?) I've brought order in my life, daily living, waking hours, there is order and therefore the brain is absolutely quiet, incorruptible in that state. And when it wakes up, it's got vitality - that is what I am saying.
Now I am enquiring into 'meditation'. I see first, that the mind must be absolutely quiet, because if it is not quiet it cannot 'see' (anything ) clearly. That's all. If I (really) want to listen to you, my attention is effortless, because I'm curious, eager to find out what you want to say. Therefore there is no effort. I see very clearly that to listen, to see, the mind must be completely quiet. That's all. And my interest is to listen to you, my interest is to see clearly, therefore the mind is (getting naturally?) quiet.

Q: I think we're going to enter some difficulty...

K: Lots of difficulties.

Q: this point because that's a slight contradiction in terms - 'quiet for listening'.

K: No, sir. To force the mind to be quiet is absurd - it's not quiet. Or to follow a system which will make the mind quiet, is absolutely silly - whether it is offered by the greatest guru or the lowliest of the gurus.
So in my enquiry into meditation, there is an insight into the quality of a mind that is quiet. If you want to see the tree, your girlfriend , the mountain, hear what others are saying, you have to be quiet, haven't you? What is the difficulty? Therefore your difficulty is, you don't (really) want to listen, you don't want to see.

Q: You see (clearly) for an instant and then it disappears.

K: All right, let it disappear. You want to have the 'whole thing' (right away) , don't you? You're so (psychologically?) greedy. Just one second of insightful?) perception is enough.
So I'm (further) enquiring into meditation. I see my body must be quiet, relaxed. Then in that state of relaxation, the blood goes much easier to the brain. Therefore they advocate sitting cross-legged, or you can lie down or walk, it doesn't matter. So the (physical) body must be sensitive, alive, quick, supple, mustn't it? Is your body quick, supple, sensitive? Obviously not, because you overeat, not having enough exercise, smoke, drink - just 'carry on' ; you want all your pleasures and ( as a bonus?) get the other pleasure. Too childish all this! Now, the(still deeper) problem is, can thought be still? Mind also includes the whole mechanism of thinking. How is thought to be still?

Q: You just said that thought is still, when you are really interested to observe.

K: Yes, sir, I'm examining - is your thought quiet?

Q: No.

K: Therefore you're not enquiring.

Q: That's right. There is a part of me which just 'sits there'.

K: Therefore you're not enquiring - I say I'm enquiring. I say, can thought be quiet, operate when necessary, logically, sanely, impersonally, vitally, and the rest of the time - quiet, not all the time operating?

Q: Sir, if you are 'enquiring', it is already quiet.

K: But you're not doing it, are you? No, therefore I'm enquiring for you. Look, all our life is spent in thinking, isn't it? Most of our life is the activity of thought. Thought is going on endlessly, consciously or unconsciously. Is that so or not? Now how do you bring this (self-sustained mental?) mechanism to an end for a while? Is there a (silent?) interval between two thoughts ? Or is thought one continuous movement taking different forms?

Q: There's an interval between thoughts.

K: The lady says yes, I know that interval. Now what happens in that interval? Is it an interval caused by tiredness, by boredom, by daydreaming, or is it a conscious interval?

Q: Are we moving together?

K: No, we're not, for the simple reason, you have never gone into this question: whether the mind, which is the instrument of thought, which is, thought being (the response of one's stand-by ?) memory, experience, knowledge and all that - all the time operating? Do you find any (quality?) time when this thought naturally comes to an end? Or is there a (silent) 'interval' between two thoughts? And is that interval (due to mental?) slackness, tiredness, or are you (consciously) aware of this interval? And if you are aware of this interval, then what takes place?

Q: There's ( a quality of silent?) energy in that interval - that's what energy is.

K: Are you guessing? Unfortunately - this is our trouble - you've not gone into this.

Q: We recognize (the holistic validity of your) solution : if I give my whole mind and everything I've got to this enquiry, then my mind is still.

K: I simply said, if you want to listen to somebody you have to be fairly quiet, haven't you? And is there a (quality of?) listening without a word?

Q: There may be.

K: I give it up. Experiment, sir, do it now, find out if you can listen without a word. Find out what is the quality of that listening, and find out whether that quality is imagined or real.

Q: Sir, when one tries to do this, the weakness I have is that the mind gives instructions to itself.

K: Yes, sir, that's part of ( our self-centred?) thinking. You see, I wish you had never heard the word 'meditation'. That's why I said: could you start with 'not knowing'. I really don't know if there is a mind that is capable of seeing what is sacred. Is there anything sacred in life? Will you enquire into this? Can we go together into this to find out if there is anything sacred in life? If we don't find it our life becomes (spiritually speaking?) meaningless.

Q: Maybe that's why it 'is' meaningless. It is now and I don't know anything else.

K: You people can't 'move'... I'll go on. I want to find out if there is anything sacred in life - sacred not in the image which man has created, not in an idea that there is sacredness, not in the religious books or their idols, because all that has been put together by man. And I say that's not 'sacred', obviously .
I want to find out if there is anything sacred in my (own) life; that is, in living, in dying, in love. Are we walking together? Now how do I find out, because I see that if there is no discovery of that (sense of inner) beauty, our life becomes rather shallow and empty. Then what is sacred? Is ( our so called?) 'love' that has anxiety, jealousy, that dominates, (with its) sex, pleasure, pain, all that - is that sacred?

Q: Obviously not.

K: Obviously not, why?

Q: Because you have shown it to us.

K: I didn't show it, sir, watch it: thought cannot make anything sacred. You understand the beauty of this, sir? Thought can never make the tree beautiful, the mountain beautiful, your face lovely, thought cannot make it, therefore thought, which is the response of memory, thought which is measurable can never be sacred.
So that which is 'sacred' is at the moment when thought is not. And at that moment, thought says, " I want more of it" then it becomes pleasure. And ( by default our self-centred?) thought pursues endlessly pleasure. And so all the temples, all the churches are put together by thought for pleasure, therefore there is nothing sacred in it.
So, can the mind be (both) empty of thought and live with thought, in harmony, not one and the other. And this is (the very point of?) meditation. So that the mind has no illusion; and illusion arises when you want to achieve.
So then the whole of my mind is (open to the?) sacred - that (holistic) quality of mind that's completely empty. And out of that emptiness, space and silence, thought can operate (when needed?) .
Now if a few of us see this (inward opening?) together, then we create a 'new' generation. Have any of us travelled together? Up to a point ? Don't bother about the others, begin with yourself. That sounds a cliche but it isn't.

Q: I would like to clear up a point. You were talking about the enquiry into what is sacred. Then you followed on and you said that nothing is sacred.

K: I know - I've got it, I understand. Look, sir, when there is happiness or great enjoyment, you learn a great deal. And in (your happy?) enquiring into what is sacred, perhaps there is a second when you see, when the mind sees itself completely without (a sense of inwardly?) being anything. That moment is the most extraordinary moment. Or you see a beautiful sunset, at that moment there is no thought at all. There is complete enjoyment of that beauty. Then thought comes along a few minutes later and says, "Let's go back to that mountain, it was such a lovely thing." So thought is always avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure. This is so simple.
Now, to find out what is Sacred the mind must know the total content of itself. And its content makes (for self-) consciousness. If there is no ( psychologically active?) content there is something entirely different.
But (at this point in our spiritual evolution?) we try to make one of these (man-made?) 'contents' into the sacred thing. You understand? That's why one must know the total content, consciousness or unconscious. And that's another problem

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 Aug 2016 #413
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

7TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1972 (reader friendly edited)


K: As this is the last discussion or dialogue, what shall we talk over together this morning?

Q(1): Could we continue with yesterday's discussion, the understanding of order and what is order?

Q (2) : What is a religious mind and is it possible in this day and age to live such a life?

Q (3) : How can I ask the right question when my mind is so confused?

Q: (Italian) You have affirmed that 'love is without object and without a continuity'. What does this statement mean ?

K: Perhaps we can answer all these questions if we go into the problem of 'time' because that will include, how to understand order, and perhaps we can then find out for ourselves if there is such a thing as love without an object and without time. Because love without continuity means love without time. Are you interested in this?

Q: Yes.

K: You see, we've always been brought up in (the mentality?) of time, using time as a means of achievement, both outwardly, physiologically, as well as psychologically. We use time as measure(ment) , both outwardly and inwardly. In going from 'here' to 'there', in covering that distance we need time, physically. And inwardly, we need time to understand, we need time to conquer, we need time to break down our bondages, we need time to understand sorrow. So we use time as a measure (of our progress?) both outwardly and inwardly.
Now I ask myself whether (inwardly?) 'time' as measurement exists at all.
The human brain has evolved ( facing countless conflicts) through centuries upon centuries, to come to this unfortunate point. And it has evolved under great pressure, great uncertainty, calamities, pains, suffering. But it has achieved a certain result - it has evolved (technologically?) .
But we are asking if time is necessary at all for psychological understanding, for being free of a habit, habit being the conditioning. This (cultural) conditioning, does it need time to break it down, or to go beyond it?

Q: The understanding itself, or the insight, does not need time, although a lot of work is necessary to come to that point.

K: Insight is instantaneous but to come to that insight needs time. Let's put it that way, one is (inwardly?) lazy. And to dissipate that laziness needs time. To approach insight, the approach needs time.
Now, I'm asking myself whether time is necessary to bring about a radical revolution psychologically? The human brain has been conditioned by the culture in which it has grown. The freedom from that conditioning, does it require time ? Let's begin much simpler: there is a habit of smoking - the giving it up, does it take time? I don't know, I don't smoke but you can tell me.

Q: No.

K: Why do you say no?

Q: Because I did it.

K: What is implied in that - the (psycho-somatic?) body has acquired a 'habit' (an addiction to?) nicotine. And though intellectually you may have decided to give up smoking, the body being accustomed or used to nicotine, demands it. So there is a conflict, isn't there? And to overcome this conflict you say, I need time. This conflict implies ( the addiction has its own continuity in?) time, the body, being used to nicotine, demands it. But the (health conscious?) mind has said, 'How stupid, how dangerous it is to smoke, it will affect my heart - I won't do it.' So between the decision (to stop it) and the (ongoing) 'fact', that the body got used (addicted to?) to nicotine, there is a conflict (on interests) . And to overcome that conflict you need time. So you think: "I will gradually get over it."
Now I'm asking myself, is there a way of dropping the habit totally without conflict ? Which is : can the (psycho-somatic ?) body be so intelligent that it sees the danger of it and drops it, doesn't demand it?

Q: Nine years ago I used to smoke. I had this battle between the body and (the right) decision. And suddenly I dropped it.

K: Was it casual or there was an instant co-operation of the body with the perception ( of the actual dangers involved) ?

Q: It seems to me that in giving up smoking the conflict is not so much a conflict between the mind and the body, but seeing the (psychological) fact that I needed to smoke as an escape.

K: Yes, sir, all that is implied. So can the body and the mind together see the ( truth about that?) fact and drop it? I'm asking, why is there not a 'complete perception' by the body as well as by the mind, so that it's finished?

Q: There's no doubt that the (addiction to) nicotine causes some physical effects. But I wonder whether the mind itself can cause conflict too.

K: Of course. You're conditioned, aren't you, as a Catholic, or you're culturally conditioned in another way. Now take your conditioning, if you're aware of it, and see whether that conditioning can be dropped instantly.
Can I go on? (a) Will it take time to see that I'm conditioned? And (b) the next step is, the decision to uncondition myself, and the unconditioning itself can it be done without time ?
If you yourself see directly that you're ( culturally?) 'conditioned', that doesn't take time. To be aware for yourself (of the fact ) that you're hungry needs no time. That's one fact - is that clear?

Q: It doesn't take time to see one single factor, but each moment is linked (sequentially) by thought, we don't see the totality of it.

K: Sir, if I say to you now, 'you are conditioned'. How do you receive those words? Do you see instantly that you're conditioned, or do you say, "What do you mean by that? What's wrong with being conditioned, ( our cultural) conditioning has helped to hold people together?" A myth, the Jesus myth or any other myth has held people together for centuries. It's an historical fact. So I say to you, "Are you aware now, as you listen, that you're conditioned." To be aware of that does not take time, does it? You 'see' it (or you don't?) .

Then, ( if you do see it?) go the next step: is that conditioning to be broken down bit by bit, layer after layer, fragmentarily, or is it to be broken down without ( introducing ) time?

Q: If one sees the reasons for that conditioning.

K: Look, don't use those conditional clauses 'if' and 'when', for then you'll never do it. Please 'listen' quietly to what I'm saying : do you (try to?) break down that conditioning fragmentarily or do you break it down totally? Our mind is used to breaking down (any acquired habit?) bit by bit.

Q: You have put front(ally) this ( very challenging) problem. Our response to that problem is not adequate.

K: I'm making your mind adequate to look at it - I'm helping you.

Q: Sir, to say 'you are conditioned' is (psychologically speaking?) wrong, as when you're saying 'see it' and the conditioning is gone.

K: Don't complicate it, sir. I say to you, are you aware of your conditioning?

Q: What exactly do you mean by: 'Am I aware of my conditioning?' - could you tell me that? When I came into this tent and I looked at you and I had a sort of hardness in my eyes, and I said, I'm being 'conditioned' by Krishnamurti'. Now when I saw that, was that 'being aware of my conditioning'?

K: Obviously. Now, are you aware of your (own) conditioning as being competitive ? Will it take time to be free of that conditioning, of that particular conditioning.

Q: Sir, when you say 'free', do you mean never do it again?

K: Free means 'never again'. When you see a poisonous snake, you're always careful, aren't you, after that. You're free to face danger, and to know what to do. I am asking if you are aware of your ( cultural) conditioning of being 'competitive'. When you are aware of it, does it take time to be completely free of it? Go on, sir, help me.

Q: (Italian) If I am (becoming) aware of one particular conditioning, does it mean that I comprehend the total conditioning?

K: Sir, (if?) I am ( becoming) aware that I am competitive, does that 'awareness' free the mind from all competition hereafter, there is no competition in my nature at all? And the next question is, through a particular perception, will it reveal the whole structure of ( our cultural?) conditioning? I'll come back to that.
Stick to that one question, please. I am aware that I am competitive and I can see the effects of it in the outer world : it leads ultimately to war, both economically, socially and so on, I see, intellectually, verbally, I see very clearly the structure and the ( conflicting) nature of competition.
Now, does that wipe away altogether competition from my nature? Or do I need time to wipe it away? Then what is the next step? We're all competitive, in some way or another, wanting to be better, nobler - this whole momentum of competition, which is really measurement (comparing ourselves with an economical or moral standard ?) . What is the next step when you are aware of it? Does that awareness wipe away competition from you?

Q: Apparently not...

K: That means, you are not aware (of its psychological danger ?) , as you are aware of a poisonous snake. When you see (and recognise?) a 'poisonous' snake your body, your mind, your emotions, you altogether move away. So perhaps many of us only saw only (outwardly?) intellectually that you're competitive.

Q: But the snake is outside, that is not the (same thing as the spirit of) competitiveness inside.

K: Yes, both outside and inside, one is competitive - do you see it completely, or do you see it partially?

Q: Like the nicotine, if you can't see it's poisoning you, you can't stop.

K: Like nicotine, it's poisoning you and you go on smoking ?
Q: No, you must 'feel' the poisoning, you must not only 'think' it.

K: That's right, sir, when you see this 'competitiveness' and realize that it is (addictively?) 'poisonous', don't you drop it altogether? If you don't, is it that you see (only) intellectually, that competitiveness is ugly, and you haven't related it to your heart, heart in the sense of feeling, you don't 'feel' it? If there is an (actual) content behind those words, which is, that you feel very strongly that competitiveness is destructive, if you see it, it is finished.

Q: So, either you do see it, understand it totally, or you don't.

K: So it's much better to say, "Look, I haven't ( actually) seen it, I don't feel it totally, it is only a part of me that sees it, the rest of it is in darkness, the rest of it is not aware of the danger." Now, you are aware of the danger of a snake because you have been ( culturally) conditioned to it, haven't you? Same with the danger of a precipice, or a (bottle of ) poison, and there is instinctive protection. But you are not ( culturally ) conditioned to the (inner) danger of (a mentality based on?) competition. If you were conditioned ( warned of?) the danger of competition, you would react and say, "That's terrible." Listen to it carefully, because we are talking about the fact of being conditioned. Do you see the difference, sir? Go slowly - I am conditioned to the snake, I'm not conditioned to the poison of competition. If I were conditioned to the poison of competition, I would avoid it, I would run away from it. So we act ( decisively) only according to our conditioning.
But here I'm questioning all conditioning. So my mind depends for 'right action' on its conditioning. See the importance of that. My mind has been conditioned in a myth - Christian myth or Hindu myth or whatever it is - and that has held people together, all these myths have 'held people together' for some time. And that myth has conditioned me, and I act according to that myth - communist myth or any other myth.
So I realize my mind functions happily (without friction?) only when it's (pre-programmed or ?) conditioned, because then I'm sure what to do. There is no uncertainty in it. Snake is a snake, dangerous. ( Now in the psychological area?) competition is ( similarly) poisonous, to ( blindly?) follow anybody is poisonous. So your mind constantly functions (orderly and?) happily only in the field of conditioning. So I am questioning ( the psychological validity of?) the whole field, not whether it's useful or not useful (in the real life) .

Q: Sir, the poisoning of the snake is there for everybody to see - you'd get plenty of support for that. But regarding the poisoning of competition, you must see it for yourself, and it seems that I want to be competitive so I've allowed myself to be conditioned because that will help me to be competitive.

K: Right, sir, put it that way if you want to.

Q: So that's why I can't see my conditioning.

K: So you function (safely) only according to your conditioning. If you're conditioned through ( the expectation of a ) reward and therefore behave , you're conditioned, aren't you? If you're conditioned through punishment to behave rightly, that's also ( a still cheaper?) conditioning. So I am saying, look what happens (inwardly) when you are conditioned, your mind is becoming mechanical.

Q: Sir, is there any action at all that is not conditioned?

K: We're coming to that, sir. So your (common everyday) action is always based on your ( subliminally recorded ?) conditioning, pleasant or unpleasant, rewarding or unrewarding. That's a fact. And if one's life is based on conditioning, life becomes mechanical. I'm a 'Christian' for the rest of my life, I don't want to think, I don't want to observe, I don't want to ( take the risks to?) go beyond the little narrow field of my conditioning. And I say, in that lies sorrow.
So I say to myself : one conditioning I can understand, two I can understand, but do I want to understand the whole complex conditionin ? Is that possible with one glance, not take little by little, but at one glance see the poisonous nature of all conditioning? You've got it now?

Q: (French)

K: I didn't say it was 'difficult'. You are saying it is difficult. The moment you say it is difficult you are blocking yourself.

Q: But you can't say that this conditioning is dangerous. You can see the conditioning, but you can't say the conditioning is dangerous.

K: I'll show it to you. Isn't nationalism ( part of ) one's conditioning? Isn't it ( potentially?) dangerous ? Isn't the conditioning about a belief in something - isn't that dangerous? Because you believe in something and I believe in something else, and we are at each other's throat. So it is dangerous, isn't it?

Q: Can't I have my own space so that I don't interfere with you?

K: You have that 'space of tolerance', and you 'tolerate' me outside your little space. Isn't that dangerous?

Q: We've got to see that all our pleasures are 'dangerous' ?

K: It is so.

Q: Why is it so?

K: Because if you don't get your 'pleasures' you're annoyed, aren't you, you get angry, you get frustrated, you begin to hate - depending on the denial and the strength of your pleasure.

Q: How can one be aware of one's brutality?

K: Don't ask that question yet, but first see how your mind operates. It functions 'happily' (smoothly?) in ( the safety of?) conditioning. The snake, and you're conditioning to be competitive, and you say, "Let's be competitive". You are conditioned to be nationalistic and you say, "Let's be nationalistic," wave the flag and fight each other - these are facts which are dangerous. Do you see the danger of it, not verbally but actually as you see the danger of the snake? And you may not see it as ( deadly as ) the danger of the snake because you're (inwardly indolent?) 'lazy', you don't want to see it, you've all kinds of objections and reasons for not seeing it. Now to get rid of all those objections, formulations and reasons, takes time. You're meeting all this?
So you would rather live and continue in the (steady?) state in which you are, conditioned, creating mischief, not facing danger, and ready to be killed.

Q: (Italian) Why don't you talk about the conditioning here ?

K: I'm doing that. You are conditioned, aren't you - as a Frenchman or as a whatever it is - you're conditioned. And the mind takes shelter behind its conditioning because that is safe. It is safe for me to call myself a Hindu; I feel protected, and in that conditioning I accept and I live within that. But I don't see the (inward ) danger of it.

Q: We are conditioned in this tent to 'listen to the speaker'.

K: Are you conditioned by the words of the speaker? I'm not conveying ideas, I'm only conveying facts, and ( your problem is that) you turn them into ideas. ( Seeing the truth about?) facts 'cannot' condition you. What conditions you is the opinion about the fact.
So the 'fact' is that the mind functions in habits. That's a fact, but you don't see what that 'fact' does , mechanical business, all the rest of it. Then if you see it, then you ask, how am I to get rid of it. So you're bringing an opinion or a desire to get rid of it, whereas if you merely look at that fact without any motive, then that fact undergoes a radical change.

Q: I'm aware of the fact that to approve or disapprove of behaviour is conditioning. If I don't do one or the other, the children may beat each other up. Would you please speak about raising children?

K: You know, that's one of the things we could talk about: are the parents educated - educated in the deep sense of that word, not passing some exams, getting a job and all that - I mean educated. And the parents are not educated therefore the children are not educated. So the problem arises, how to educate the parents. They don't want to be educated, because they're completely satisfied with their jobs, with their little house, with their gossip, all the rest of it. So what is important is the few of us here in this tent, who 'listen' to all this, not to the words, but to what is behind the words. And to see whether the mind can comprehend or be aware of the totality of its conditioning. Not one 'should be' free of it, one 'should go beyond it', or 'break it up', but to be aware of the totality of this conditioning - which means, mechanical habits, mechanical activities, slogans and all these things that follow.

Now - we'd better stop, and this is the last discussion. What have you, as a human being, after listening to the seven discussions and seven talks, what have you learnt?

Q: To be (inwardly) watchful all the time.

K: Is that all what you have learnt? What have you learnt so that your life is different? Is there an (ongoing) psychological revolution which will affect your outward activity? Or you have gathered a few ideas - and I am not providing you with intellectual words and statements - we're only concerned with facts. So, during these fourteen days and fourteen discussions and talks, has your life changed, deeply? If not, why have you spent your time here? Just for amusement, curiosity?

So you have to face now for yourself, find out if your life has radically, deeply changed, or you are still ( comfortably) playing with ideas. And if you are playing with ideas you have wasted your time - your time, your money, your energy. And that is not the reason why we gather here every year. Why we gather, as far as the speaker is concerned, is to bring about a different generation who see things directly and act directly. Not see and act - the interval, between seeing and acting, and during that interval, all the mess arises.
So can you, when you go home, or when you walk this afternoon, find out for yourself how deeply your life is changed, or not changed. When ( you see that?) the house is burning there is no time (left) to discuss about the man who set it on fire - you put it out. And ( inwardly ?) your house 'is' burning. So it's up to you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 Aug 2016 #414
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 posts in this forum Offline

Hi John, I found a lot to 'ponder' from this talk regarding our "conditioning". The pondering led from the particular definitive ones : the precipice, the snake, the poison bottle etc. to the less definitive, nationalism. competitiveness, belief, etc.. For me the idea that we are only 'comfortable' when we act out of our conditioning was a new one to me. And as you go deeper into this you come upon the 'fact' that this conditioning process has at its 'center', you, a central image etc. And in this regard, I wanted to ask how you understood K.'s words to his friend that if someone were to come upon 'THAT', one would have to "take root' in it or 'fall to pieces'. My understanding was of that, that there has to be a certain 'preparation' prior to having such an explosive 'insight' and perhaps this is what you were implying when you spoke of 'safely' seeing the deep "psychological implications" of all this?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 31 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 01 Sep 2016 #415
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

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


K: This morning, if we may, we are going to have a conversation, talk over things together in a form of dialogue, to discuss, not opinions, not some kind of conclusions that you have come to, but rather go into the problems that one has, whether they are superficial or deep, and really see if we cannot radically bring about a psychological revolution in ourselves. So what shall we begin with?

Q: Could we hear more of the nature of ( choiceless?) awareness? The way you speak of it almost seems to be so 'pointed' and 'direct' that it is like a concentration exercise. I am sure that is wrong.

Q: Mr Krishnamurti, may I briefly ask you something which is a very, very common problem. A woman I know well, she is in her fifties, her husband has died of cancer, very, very painful to have cancer, very unhappy about. She keeps on ringing up and saying, "Oh I am so unhappy." Can you say something, I want to say something to 'cheer her up'.

K: I am sorry I cannot possibly discuss these things to 'cheer people up', to give them comfort, to give them a sedative. But if we could talk over together this question of 'awareness'... Is that what you want to discuss?

Q: Awareness - most people are afraid of being aware.

K: So do you want to talk over that? Right.
The meaning of that word 'aware', as far as I can make out from the ( Websters) dictionary, as well as from one's own interpretation of that word, is 'to be conscious', 'to be cognizant' of the things about you, and also (inwardly) to be aware of the movement of your own feelings and thoughts, to 'be in relationship' with the thing that you are observing, of which you are aware. I think that is the general meaning of that word -to be conscious of what one feels, what one thinks, conscious of the environment in which one lives, being ( sensitively?) aware of the beauty of nature, the clouds, the sky, the water, the various colours and so on and on. This awareness is not (involving) a ( perceptive) limitation: I am aware of this microphone in the ( larger) space which this tent holds. The microphone creates its own space in the space of the tent. And the outer space is beyond - to be aware of this space - right? To be conscious of it, to see the quality of space.
Now we will go ( deeper) into it. We are generally, as the lady pointed out earlier, afraid to be aware of our environment and if we are aware from that awareness we come to a (self-protetive?) conclusion, which puts an end to further awareness. So when we say we are aware, we are aware of things very, very superficially. I am aware that you have long hair, or short hair, I am aware of the colour that you are wearing. And I react to the short hair, or the long hair, calling you a hippy, non hippy, square and you know all the rest of it. I react to it and my reaction is the response of my ( cultural) conditioning. We react to any form of stimuli, that is an obvious fact. And I am aware of that reaction but I don't penetrate further into that reaction. I am not aware what is the source of that reaction. I am aware of the reaction - like, dislike, pleasure, jealousy, hate, whatever it is - but that ( self-centred ?) awareness brings a (verbal) conclusion: that I am angry, I like and dislike, we don't allow that ( quality of?) awareness to penetrate further.
Now let us experiment (and?) learn what it means to be (choicelessly?) aware of the things outwardly, that is, the tent, the various poles, the colour of the jerseys people are wearing and then move from that awareness inwardly and see what our reactions are to that which we have visually perceived. And our reactions depend on our temperament and idiosyncrasies - right. If my temperament is 'artistic' I respond or see something much more than the man who is not an artist, in a tree, in a cloud, in the curve of a branch. And my temperament is the response of my (cultural) conditioning : I am aware of the beauty of that cloud, the light in it, the shape of it, the glory of that extraordinary cloud, and being (artistically inclined?) which is my 'temperament', I want to express it and I pursue that expression. So I separate myself by my temperament from you, who are not an artist - right? Now I want to find out further if the mind can be free all (self-isolating ?) conditioning - you follow? And this is not ( done by an intellectual?) analysis – right?

Q: You mean, since we tend to be 'creatures of habit', we must have the ability to 'break straight through' the habit.

K: That's right sir.

Q: To be 'instantaneous'.

K: That's right. Aand as I am moving steadily from the outer to the inner. I don't disregard the outer, or neglect the outer (world) ; so I move from the obvious to the 'not so obvious'. To me this whole process is 'to be ( choicelessly ) aware, and I can't move to the (innermost?) root of it if there is any form of ( interfering?) prejudice, a (personal) opinion, conclusion.
So if my awareness reveals that I have a prejudice or a conclusion from which I act, then in that awareness I 'pick up' that opinion, and ask ( myself experientially?) "Why have I an opinion about something?" - it is a marvellous movement of releasing ( one's inwardly dormant?) energy. I don't know if you see the point. (Acting from a fixed?) 'conclusion' prevents the flow of energy - get that point sir, get that point ! I am getting excited about it.

Q: You mean a conclusion is...

K: That's right. If I say, "There is God" - ( any inner enquiry is?) finished! So in this awareness the (enquiring?) mind discovers that any form of conclusion, opinion, prevents the free flow of energy. Then my problem is: how to be free of ( these psychologically based?) conclusions and opinions ?

Q: Can't you be 'unattached' to your opinions, like there are opinions but you don't take them seriously.

K: Why should I have opinions?

Q: If I don't have opinions, then it doesn't matter whether one says something or says nothing. The two (positions) are just equally...

K: Look sir: ( having an ) opinion is a form of conclusion, isn't it?

Q: Yes, but you are aware that these conclusions do exist in the (real?) world.

K: Yes. I am aware that my friend has an opinion (about practically everything?) , and therefore I realize that (his) opinions (actuall) block him (inwardly) and that prevents any further enquiry. See what I have discovered ?

Q: Well how do you ( manage to ) not have opinions? We (in UK?) have got millions of them.

K: How can you be free of opinions when you have got so many of them? You tell me.

Q: I don't know.

K: That is right. So, start from there : I have hundreds of opinions about everything and I say, "I don't know why I have them, and I don't know how to be free of them" - right? So you start with 'not knowing' - then you are able to learn about it . You get it? So ( the truth is that?) my mind doesn't know - right? See the beauty ( of this inner state not-knowing?). So my mind now is capable of learning, and ( this inner?) learning then becomes a passionate thing (in itself) , not (analysing myself?) why I should have opinions, or why you should not have opinions, but (realising the inner truth of?) 'not knowing' gives me tremendous vitality.

Q: In fact, it gives me tremendous (sense of inner ?) weariness.

K: Because you ( subliminally?) want to 'solve' it, you want 'to get rid' of these ( culturally acquired 'conclusions') , to go beyond them, to be free of them. I don't. I know nothing about it, I don't know how I have got them, I don't know how to get rid of them, therefore I am (in the position of being free?) to learn.

Q: If you start from that (not-) knowing then you can put the question rightly for yourself, which brings interest.

K: Yes, that is right. Are we doing this together?

Q: Isn't there some ( lurking?) residues of (our past?) knowledge?

K: Wait a minute. What is the difference between (analytically gathering?) knowledge and 'learning' ? In your learning do you (hope to) acquire (some deeper?) knowledge and use that knowledge as a means of getting rid of the opinions?

Q: When you see politicians working, you realize this kind of ( fragmentary) energy creates problems, rather than solve them and this remains in the mind as (a guiding?) 'knowledge'. I mean one isn't just a 'blank state' when you see this.

K: What do you mean by the word 'knowledge' sir? Let's begin very simply. I 'know' you because I met you yesterday, I know your name, I have seen your face, so I say, "I know you". That is a stored up memory of yesterday's meeting and that is part of my (active ?) knowledge. So my knowledge is always (coming from ?) the ( memory of the?) past – right?

Q: There is always more to learn about anything.

K: I am adding to it, there is the adding process going on. That is, all our knowledge is the residue of (all human) experience, the accumulated knowledge of the race, of society, of the scientists, all that, all the accumulation of human endeavour as experience scientifically or personally, is 'knowledge', to which you are adding or taking away.

Q: Are you saying that knowledge and memory are the same?

K: Yes, obviously, obviously. If I have no memory I have no knowledge.

Q: This doesn't mean they are the same if you have no memory you have no knowledge. Knowledge can be a qualification (a cognitive function?) of memory.

K: Let's look at (the psychological aspect of?) it: you have flattered me or insulted me. I react (emotionally or mentally?) to that. And that (personal response) has become (part of?) my (psychological) memory, your insult. Or I experience something 'totally new' and remember it, the remembrance is ( subliminally?) stored in the brain and that is ( becoming part of) my memory. So 'knowledge' is either ( of the scholarly kind) in the books, written down by others, and the (personal?) knowledge which I have kept for myself . This is simple enough sir.
Now is there a difference between 'acquiring knowledge' and 'learning'?

Q: Isn't there a function(ality) of knowledge and the ( option of ?) transcendending knowledge?

K: Yes sir, that is right. Let's use knowledge as 'functional': how to write, I how to speak, to do any (specialised?) job, knowledge is necessary. To function ( efficiently in the material world?) knowledge is necessary. And is 'learning' different from the acquisition of knowledge?

Q: It must be. But don't you ask questions out of (your own?) knowledge ? You have certain preoccupations and then you ask your question. Then you ask your question not of the past.

K: Sir I have no 'preoccupation' now. All that I am concerned with now is to find out if there is a difference between 'knowledge' and 'learning'.

Q: The meaning of the word 'know' is not necessarily implying to acquire knowledge, there is a 'knowing'. Like the words 'Know yourself', it is not acquiring knowledge, it is something ( you're doing) all the time.

K: Ah wait sir, wait, wait. When you use the words 'Know yourself', what does that mean? To know myself as I am, or as I will be, or as I have been – right?

Q: It could mean I have organized my (personal) memory so that I can predict what I might do in the future. It is fairly obvious that 'oneself' is not an idea of oneself, so when there is no 'idea of oneself', ( the actual ?) 'oneself' is there.

K: If there is no 'idea' of oneself, is there ( an entity who is conscious of?) 'oneself'? Don't let's enter into this ('far side' thing?) . I want to stick to the question : is there a difference between knowledge and learning?

Q: It seems that learning is only (an act of direct) perception, and when (our) perception moves to conclusion then it has a (potentially practical?) 'function' which makes it (to be stored as?) 'knowledge'.

K: That's all. That is - he has said it! Need I say more?
( So to recap:) Will my 'learning' bring knowledge, how to be free from opinions - you follow? - or will learning be a constant (living process?) , and in this constant movement no 'opinion' (or static conclusion?) is formed?
Do you see the (qualitative?) difference ?

Q: You'd say that 'learning' is something vital and in the present, whereas knowledge is always dead, in the past.

K: Always in the past - yes, that is right. I have caught on to something :
the 'knowledge' about how to get rid of ( my culturally conditioned ?) opinions will not free the mind from (relying on) opinions. So the 'movement of learning' implies never accumulating knowledge, never coming to a conclusion.

Q: Where does the necessary activity of knowledge stop?

K: Sir, just play with this a little. Learning implies movement, constant movement and that (intelligent energy?) which is moving can never accumulate; but when you accumulate it becomes knowledge, which is necessary to function.
Now are we together 'learning'? Can you honestly and without any sense of distortion say, "I really don't know how to get rid of opinions", and you are beginning to learn. In learning you are asking, "Am I accumulating"? I know ( some?) accumulation is necessary - to speak a language, to function (in the real world?) - but in the movement of learning (about itself?) is the mind acquiring knowledge in order to be free of opinions? But I say you have put a wrong question because in the 'movement of learning' there can be no accumulation - right? Now are we doing that together now? So that you, in the ( holistic?) movement of learning, have ( spontaneously?) put away 'opinions'? But if you say, "I must get rid of my opinions", you are acting from a conclusion, which is your knowledge which you have acquired in learning and therefore you have stopped. Therefore you are collecting barnacles, which are opinions.

Q: How does one change the direction in which one learns. In learning one first chooses a direction...

K: We said we were going to talk over together, awareness. I said, we are aware from the outside movement to the inner. In seeing that blue colour I say, "How terrible that colour is" - which is the response of my conditioning, my temperament, my etc. etc. And we never go beyond an (educated?) conclusion. Or if we go beyond a conclusion I discover there are a thousand opinions I have. There are no good or bad opinions, there are only opinions, which are conclusions.
Q: They are like the (£) currency of our psychological life, you just play around with them like cigarette (Monopoly?) cards.

K: Quite right sir. Quite right, you play with them. "Do this, don't do that", society, the culture has given me those opinions, these conclusions and now I am faced with them I say, I don't know how to get rid of them. So I don't know how to get rid of them, there is only one factor, I 'don't know'.

Q: Or ... I may be lazy.

K: It may be I am lazy. I am lazy and decide I don't know and I remain there because I am indolent, my brain is sluggish. (However?) I am not going to let my stupid brain become lazy - you understand? The 'new brain' itself now is enquiring. So it asks : what is the difference between knowledge and learning? We have explained that ( the newly awakened quality of ?) learning is a constant movement - at no time can it collect which becomes knowledge, which is essential for functioning. But learning goes on and therefore in the movement of learning nothing can be collected, except as a function.

So I have discovered all this in ( my enquiry into?) awareness, which is, I see all this instantly. It takes time to explain but the perception (of what is true and what is false?) is instantaneous and therefore doesn't require analysis.

Q: Does it require effort to keep this movement of learning going?

K: What do you say?

Q: No effort at all.

K: Why do you say that?

Q: Chapter 1 verse 6 - « no effort required »!

K: Are we learning or are we just waiting to be fed?
( We left the enquiry into awareness at:) how does one slow down the movement of thought so that you can observe one thought? I
Now how does one 'slow down' (one's ) thought so as to observe the movement of thought? Because thought is like a 'chain' (process) , going on so quickly through the habit of (mental) association, thought is constantly moving and to observe it, it must slow down - right? And you say, "I can't slow down, I don't know what to do". Now we are going to 'learn' about it : how does the mind slow down thought so as to observe it closely?

Q: But sir when I observe myself, many times I am in control, I am controlling my thoughts and I know exactly what I am doing. But when I observe myself, when I am learning about myself I see that I am the thought and I see that... what observes the thought? Is that thought as well?

K: Of course.

Q: Then, if it is just thought observing thought - how are you going to slow down thought?

K: We are going to learn about it. How can thought be slowed down?

Q: If you can see that thought is observing thought and the perception is instantaneous, it will work itself.

K: Is this a fact to you or are you just offering an opinion?

Q: That would be awareness.

K: I don't want to be rude madame, but I am just asking : are you aware of the rapidity of your thoughts, and being aware of the rapidity of your thoughts you say, "Now, is it possible to slow them down so that I can look, 'taste' one thought completely?" - you understand? To see the significance of one thought, all its content, its depth or its shallowness - you follow?

Q: Who is it that is 'tasting'?

K: That is just a phrase (an idiom?) which I use (for) 'seeing the content of a thought', that is all.

Q: Is it that thought is turning back on itself?

K: We are ( hopefully?) going to discover it sir, we are going to learn about it. Now first of all 'why' do I want to slow it down? And who is the entity that is going to look at it more closely? It is still ( the controlling center of?) thought, the 'observer'. "I must slow it down in order to observe it more closely". Is this (thinking?) 'observer' different from the ( fast sequence of thoughts ?) which he is observing?

Q: The answer will be 'yes and no'. The 'observer' and the (process of ) thought would be ( generically) identified as one and yet they are ( functioning ) on different (levels?) .

K: Isn't he the product of thought? And if it is the ( central?) product of thought, it is the past, so the ( whole experience of the?) past says, "I must watch this rapid movement of thought" – this (memory of the?) past being inactive (on stand by?) , thought which is the response being active. I wonder is you are getting all this?

Q: Going back to the original 'awareness' - living for everyone is instantaneous. The awareness immediately becomes the past and you can examine that and then the forward looking is conditioned by your memory, education etc. and your knowledge and you are preoccupied with what is going to happen, but you yourself, the ego, the personality, can only be aware of a second at a time. The rest is memory and speculation.

K: You are saying, Madam, that 'you', the ego, the person, is only capable for a second to be aware?

Q: Of your life. You don't know that you might drop down dead in a second. I can only ( be aware of it?) a second at a time.

K: Madam, is that a fact in my life, that I am only living for one second?

Q: 'Aware' for a second (at a time) .

K: You see you are coming to an (intellectual?) conclusion. I say, "How do you know this?" It may not be.

Q: Eternity is in one second.

K: You see you are using the word 'eternity', that is, to 'be out of time'. Do you know what it actually means to be out of time?

Q: For a second, once or twice in my life I have had this feeling of 'being out of time' when my thoughts actually stood still but that was never by any kind of conscious effort, this was from some outside stimulus, fear or something of this sort.

K: That's right. When there is a crisis, when there is a shock of deep challenge, thought is driven out. At that moment you feel, 'By Jove what an extraordinary state of intensity!' The observer is ( considering itself?) different from the 'observed' and wants to pursue the observed, which becomes pleasure and he is pursuing pleasure and not the actual moment of that extra-ordinary state.
Now , please, you have asked a question, which is quite important and essential, which is; in my ( chain-process of?) thought which is constantly revolving from one thing to another, can there be a ( silent) gap between two thoughts and observe what takes place in that gap? In that gap you may see things which you have never seen before. (I don't say 'you will' but you 'may') . So we have to learn, see the rapid movement of thought, and ( try?) to slow it down - is that possible?

Q: That is why one aspect of my life will always hold my interest, and in that intense interest thought is observable or slows down. If I find that I have opinions and in being intensely concerned about opinion, thought, the nature of thought will be observed too.

K: Yes sir but we are asking something different from that: is there a gap between two thoughts? And if there is a gap, in that gap is it possible to observe the coming of ( a new) thought and the going away of (the previous?) thought? You understand? Then thought has slowed down .

Q: Thought doesn't slow down by any effort (of will?) .

K: Now wait a minute. Effort implies division, doesn't it? Now if I try through effort to slow down thought then it becomes conflict, I am battling. In that battle I never discover anything. So to see the truth that the division ( between the observer and the observed ?) is (genrating its own?) conflict, to see it, to perceive it, is to end division. One sees the truth of it and therefore it goes, it is finished. This 'seeing' is the ( act of?) learning, which has nothing to do with a conclusion. So, I am asking if (the ' chain process' of thought ?) can be naturally slowed down.

Q: But talking about whether is it possible to have a gap between thoughts, or whether thought can be slowed down - are we agreed upon what thought is?

K: All right, what is 'thought'? I ask you a question: what is your name, and your ( thought) response is instantaneous, isn't it, because you are familiar with it, you have repeated it a thousand times and you say, "My name is so and so". There is no ( thinking?) interval between that question and the answer; but there is a (longer thinking) interval between the question and the answer when the question is a little more complex, or about something with which you are not familiar : what is taking place? Thought is 'searching' in its memory for the answer, if it cannot find it there it looks into books (or 'googles' it?) so the ( find & fetch ) interval is longer between the question and the answer. And if I ask you something of which you really don't know, you say, "I don't know" - right? This "I don't know" is an instant response of the actual truth: that you don't know.
So ( experientially wise?) thought is the response of our memory ( the vast experience that has been accumulated in the brain cells through generations and generations and generations, tradition, culture, all that is stored up in the memory cells of the brain) .
So I know what thought is. And I am asking whether that (memory retrieving process of?) thought can be 'slowed down' and in that slowing down is it (the thinking brain?) can be observed without the ( controlling interference of the ) 'observer'? So how is thought to 'slow down' (experientially ) ?

Q: Well one way is to have an 'intensive experience', like a 'shot'.

K: Oh, take a drug, take LSD or whatever it is ? Now let us go into that.

Q: I have found that when I am thinking a lot that if my thought subsides, I find there is a certain amount of ( residual) pain within myself. When I am thinking I am not experiencing the pain.

K: You are saying that thought is a means of escape from my suffering or from my misery, or from my frustration, so I 'think' (of something else?) .

Q: And not being able to resist the pain which I have, one keeps 'thinking'.

K: But we are not asking about thought as a means of escape from pain. We are examining ( the process of ) thought itself.

Q: It is easier to see the gap between two thoughts than to see how to slow thought down.

K: In discussing these things over, have you discovered that you can slow down thought? Don't theorize.

Q: I can experience the ( silent) state between thoughts.

K: Can you? If you can, what is that 'space'?

Q: Attention ?

K: Do please find this out, because I'll tell you why it is important. Meditation is the emptying of the mind of its content, that is the real meditation, not all the phoney business that is going on. Emptying ( one's ) consciousness of its ( psychological) 'content' – (one's attachment to?) one's furniture, house, images, the various ( cultural) conditionings - you follow? - the whole content is consciousness, and until you 'empty' this consciousness of its content meditation becomes merely the means of further distortion (distraction?) .

Q: When you say 'emptying consciousness of its content' are you implying consciousness is...?

K: I said Madam, consciousness 'is' its content. The content of my (self-centred?) consciousness is made up of all my (personal & collective?) memories, conscious and unconscious memories, the hurts, the agonies, the pain, the physical pain, the psychological hurts, your attachments and your fears, your pleasures. The understanding of the content and the emptying of that content is the process of 'meditation'. The process of meditation is to 'empty' this (inner space of?) consciousness otherwise you are still a prisoner in it. And ( the process of our self-centred?) thinking is the basic (active) content of consciousness, which is the (verbalised) response of all my conditioning. If I am a hard boiled Communist, that is my ( active) conditioning and I think from that. If I am a devout practising Catholic, my conditioning is such and I think from that.
And trying to meditate while having this ( active) 'content', is like playing a childish game.
So in asking this question, can thought be slowed down, I am ( meditatively?) enquiring into the ( possibility of emptying ) whole ( psychological?) content of my consciousness - not just whether the process of my thinking can be slowed down, that is fairly easy. But in asking the ( slowing down) question I am also asking a much deeper question, which is: can the mind with its content empty itself without the least effort?

Q: Earlier on you were going to talk about the effect of certain (psychedelic ) drugs, LSD.

K: I have never taken any kind of drugs. Your LSD, marijuana, pot, grass, hash, hard drugs of any kinds, but I have seen and talked to a great many people who have taken it, serious people who have - scientists, experimenters who have gone into this. First of all why do we take drugs at all, including tobacco - you follow?

Q: Escape ?

K: Go into it, I want to learn why I smoke.

Q: We are looking for something we think we don't have.

K: You want to experience something which you don't know, is that right? Which means you are bored with ( the quality of?) your present daily living and you want to experience something more.

Q: Mr. Krishnamurti, what about people who are suffering from severe mental illness? I want to help them and I'm not refering to dangerous drugs like this mescaline and hashish.

K: I don't know they are dangerous, some of them say they are perfectly healthy, marvellous.

Q: They are. They work wonders.

K: Look, first of all I am asking myself, why do I take drugs, alcohol, smoke, why?

Q: For a breakthrough from your limited consciousness.

K: So you are saying, through chemical processes I will break through the limitation of my consciousness - right? I will fast, practise certain systems and that in the practise of it I will strengthen my mind and that will be a breakthrough. It is all implied in this. My intention is I want to break through my petty little consciousness . And drugs, systems, anything that will help me to break through I will accept – right?

Q: It is a matter of 'experiencing', not of accepting. There is no acceptance until you have experienced.

K: Yes, that is what I mean. Now I am asking: expanding your consciousness you call that breaking through?

Q: You just take the drugs and then have the 'experience'.

K: Yes sir, that is what I mean. You accept the drug because somebody has said if you take this drug you will have an extraordinary experience.

Q: Well the matter of it being 'extraordinary' is up to your own judgement.

K: Yes sir, that is what I am saying. I accept you as my authority because you have taken it and you say, "Take this old boy and you will have a breakthrough". And I say to myself, why do I take it, is it a break through at all? Or the 'breakthrough' is the extension of my conditioning, which I only think as a breakthrough. Look sirs. Have you ever observed a tree closely? - without the image of the tree, without a conclusion of the tree, actually observe it so that there is no gap between you and the tree, no distance, so that you observe this extraordinary phenomenon called the tree. If you can observe it without the word, without the image, without the knowledge, there is a tremendous (mind?) contact with that tree - you have a direct relationship with it. You see things that you have never seen before. Now that is a 'break through'.

Q: It would be a heightened awareness. You're in 'resonance' then.

K: Look sir, you have an 'image' about me haven't you? You have an image about your girl-friend, your husband, your wife. Now, these images have relationship - right? I have an image about my wife and she has an image about me, this image has been created through years, and our relationship is between these two images. I don't (really) know her and she doesn't (really) know me actually, but I think I know her through the images which I have about her. Now if there was no 'image' at all, then my relationship with my wife is entirely different. Similarly when I watch a tree, or cloud, or bird, without this ( imaginary?) screen of words, knowledge, conclusion, then there is direct relationship with it. Now the ( psychological) content of my consciousness cannot be broken through any chemicals. If it is as simple as that, why aren't we all happy human beings - you follow? Those who have taken drugs.

Q: Mate, it is not a drug, it is the 'experience' that comes from it.

K: Now why do you want 'experience'? Why this craving for (psychedelic?) 'experiences'?

Q: To be satisfied

K: That is not an answer, is it.

Q: I am bored.

K: Which is, you are bored with all the experiences you have had, right? That is right sir. You are bored with all the experiences you have had and you want to experience something more. You have had sex, you have had every kind of silly and good experience and you say, "For goodness sake these are all rather trivial and I want something more".

Q: For myself anyway, it wasn't a case of wanting something more, it was a correlating factor, to tie everything together, the experiences in my life.

K: That is the same thing, all right. Co-relating all the factors of experiences so that you are made a whole. Watch it sir. Correlate all the experiences one has accumulated, there are different kinds of experiences, sexual, mental, you know dozens and dozens of separated experiences. And you hope by taking a drug perhaps I will 'break through', and you say, "I want to experience that state of mind when the fragmentation of experiences don't exist". It is exactly the same thing, only you put it in one way and I put it in another way, but we both want experience. I say, why? ( Such) challenges are necessary to keep us awake. And I say, why do you want a challenge at all? You say, " I want it because I am asleep" - right? "I am asleep, I don't know how to keep awake so that I see the whole thing." So you are ( becoming) dependent on a drug to keep you awake - right? Be clear, don't accept what I am saying.

Q: I suppose we are bored. It's better to be 'awake' on something than 'asleep' on nothing, isn't it?

K: Why aren't you ( inwardly?) awake? Why aren't you awake, what is wrong?

Q: Well a lot of people I know have said that in taking LSD, it has shown them what and how they 'are' normally - they weren't aware of really how (being) 'thoroughly enlightened' was until they took the drug,

K: Yes sir, the drug gave you a sense of (self-) awareness and then you began to live and see what you were doing ?

Q: You can see how you live, how squalid you are, and you terrorize yourself with the way you usually are.

K: Yes sir, I understand that.

Q: If you get something beyond that, well then that is a bit of 'good luck'.
It is no easy matter, not really.

K: I know it is not an easy matter, nothing is an easy matter except the drug.

Q: It is easy to do that, it is easy to roll up a cigarette.

K: That's right sir, you want the 'easiest way out'.

Q: I don't want the easiest way out, and don't want the hardest way out, just a 'way out' !

K: You want a way out of our (inner) misery, out of our problems, financial, emotional, intellectual problems, our suffering, our pettiness - you follow? And I say, "Why do you take the most unrealistic, impractical way to live differently? '' You follow sir? By taking drugs you are not any more happier at the end of it, you are not much more alive, active, creative.

Q: Mr. Krishnamurti, may I very politely point out if you are really ill you just take (prescription ) drugs to get back to normal...

K: Madame, look, when the dentist gives me a novacocaine, it prevents the pain and he can extract or whatever he wants to do, that is natural, isn't it. But to say I'll take ( psychedelic?) drugs in order to - that is what we are talking about.

Q: Sir, that lady is talking about 'psychiatric' medicine...

K: Sir, do you know how we began this ? We said, what is thinking, can the mind investigate, learn about the whole machinery of thinking and in the very act of learning there is a (possibility of?) 'slowing down' of (our process of) thinking. That is all that we are discussing. Not how to 'break through', not which are the 'beneficial' drugs, or what the effects of drugs are. The (side) effects of the drugs you can see, those people who have taken them for a long time, their brain deteriorates.

Q: There are exceptions.

K: Of course there are exceptions. You may be the exception! But generally, as I have seen many of them, it is terrible what goes on with drugs. That is an irrelevant question.
The question is: in learning about the machinery of thought, a 'slowing takes' place without control, without effort. And to learn about thinking one has to watch the machinery of thinking, be aware of it, how you think, what makes you think. Prejudice? A conclusion? A conditioning? All in the past. So thought can never be free because it has its roots in the past, so thought can never be 'new'. What is 'new' is ( occuring?) when thought comes to an end and there is a new...

Q: Didn't you say we have to keep on thinking to learn?

K: I didn't say that. What does it mean to learn? Does it mean thinking? Learning a language needs thinking, which is accumulation of words and their meanings, in Italian or in French or whatever it is. There I have to exercise thought and relate each word and so on and so on. Now I am saying, does learning require thinking, or only a ( non-verbal?) perception and the continuing of that perception, which is 'learning'?
(To re-re-recap) I am aware of the necessity and the functional value of knowledge. And has knowledge any relationship with learning? I see learning is constant movement (of intelligence ) and that movement is not ( based on?) thought but (on a) constant awareness, perception, insight. The moment that 'insight' is translated into a 'conclusion' then it becomes knowledge and an impediment to further enquiry. That is all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Sep 2016 #416
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 123 posts in this forum Offline

K: Because you ( subliminally?) want to 'solve' it, you want 'to get rid' of these ( culturally acquired 'conclusions') , to go beyond them, to be free of them. I don't. I know nothing about it, I don't know how I have got them, I don't know how to get rid of them, therefore I am (in the position of being free?) to learn.

Hello John...

this of course fits the properly "living" of suffering's effects so symptoms, as well as many other could be a sort of learning for oneself not to lead one's life but more to let some events pushing oneself somewhere...

to be able to do that one first may have to distrust oneself, then possibly oneself is now able from time to time or more to abandon its own unknown desires' dictatorship....

dealing with suffering is a first lesson as a now grown up "entity", first lesson of so many to come after that....then clearly something takes place after such proper action...

etc of course..

how are things in the French "occupied" zone ?


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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Sep 2016 #417
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K PUBLIC DIALOGUE BROCKWOOD 1972 (reader friendly edited )


K: What shall we talk over together this morning?

Q: Could we talk about what happens when you put the question: why aren't you sufficiently interested ( or motivated?) to see the division between the observer and the (inner things ) observed?

K: Shall we discuss, talk over this question of the observer and the observed ? And then perhaps we can come to the question of the ending of thought, love, education and all the rest of it.
Why is there this (mental?) division between the perceiver and the perceived? Outwardly that division as the perceiver and the perceived does bring conflict invariably, that is obvious. The 'perceiver' is ( identifying itself as?) a Christian, a Communist and he separates himself from the non-Communist, non-Catholic, non-something else and where there is division there must be conflict, both outwardly and (ideologically?) , that is clear. And inwardly there is also this (mental) division between the perceiver and the perceived. The perceiver sees he is angry, 'anger' is something which he perceives (a little later?) , not at the actual moment of anger. When the anger is over ( or it calms down) then the 'perceiver' ( the entity in control ?) says, "I have been angry", so ( in order to avoid such disturbing incidents) he creates the division between himself and the state of anger - right? And from that division arises control, suppression, justification and all the rest in order to justify or to deny anger - right? And in this there is conflict – no?

Q: It is surely ( the disturbance created by?) anger that created the division.

K: At the moment of anger, sir, is there any division?

Q: Not right at the moment, sir.

K: A second later the 'thinker' (in charge?) comes into operation, he says, "I have been angry", and when he says, "I have been angry", he knows from past experience that he has been angry, and therefore he ' identifies' (it by naming ?) from his past memories the anger which is (happening ) in the present. Haven't you noticed this? At the moment an intense feeling of jealousy, there is no ( time to make any?) separation; it is only a moment later, that the separation (distancing?) takes place - right? Shall we go on from there?
Now why does this division take place?

Q: Because we have been educated ( to be urbane and?) not to get angry ?

K: That's right, so the 'perceiver' (entity in control) comes and says, "My cultural habit is not to get angry, I must not be angry" - right? So a separation (a distancing?) takes place when our (experience of the?) past comes into action – no?

Q: It may not only be the past that is concerned with the person who has been angry, he may be concerned with what the consequences of his anger are going to be in the future.

K: Yes, which is still ( a projection coming?) from the (experience of the?) past.

Q: But isn't it something from the past that created that moment of separation: if someone is yelling and shrieking at you, really having a go at you, they get very angry at you, they are bawling at you - right? They are throwing things all over the place.

K: What has that to do with what we are talking about sir?

Q: Well the thing is: when I leave here I won't be sitting in a nice, neat, tidy tent.

K: We are trying to find out, sir, how does this division come about? Why there are so many 'fragments' in us - anger, jealousy, competition, contradiction - those are all various fragments of which we are made up. And I am asking, how do these fragments come into being? Not that somebody shouts at me, but I want to find out for myself why these fragments exist. Is it due to our 'education' or the culture in which you have been brought up ?

Q: You were asking the other day how you could see without ( the division created by?) this (inner) fragmentation?

K: That's right sir, that's right. First of all to find our how to have a mind that is not 'fragmented' so that it can look without fragmentation, at the fragmentation as it takes place - right?
Let's begin ( experientially ) from there. Are we aware that we are (or that our consciousness is inwardly ) fragmented? - the family, the nation, the ideals and 'what is', the suppressions, the controls, the business man, the artist, the military, you follow, the church and so on, division - outwardly the nationalities, linguistically, and inwardly all the broken up 'entities' that we are - are we aware of it, first?

Q: Yes, can I see this.

K: Now just a minute. When you say, "I see it" - what do you mean by that word 'seeing'? Is it (seeing it as ) an intellectual concept ? But that is not seeing, that is only accepting the words. When you say, "I see", it must be as actual as I see you sitting there and me sitting here, otherwise it is just (validating ?) an idea and therefore of no (experiential) value. So when you say, "I see I am fragmented", am I really aware that I am fragmented (that my consciousness is made up of 'fragments'?) ?

Q: Only in the moment of a (major?) challenge.

K: All right, only in the moment of a challenge. We are challenging you now. If the challenge is strong enough, a shock to you, then do you see it?
I have heard you (K) saying that (inwardly) I am fragmented. And because I can see (intellectually?) the truth of what you are saying so I say, "Yes, I am fragmented", but I didn't see it for myself - right? So is it a (major inner?) discovery that I 'am' fragmented, something that I have found, or I have found it because you have told me, then it becomes a (K friendly?) idea.

Q: I don't quite understand your use this word 'fragmented'. Could you express it another way?

K: ( A human consciousness which is?) broken up, contradictory, I say one thing and mean something else, I have an ideal and act the opposite, I say, "I must be peaceful" and I am boiling with violence. I say, "I must be charitable" and I am tight-fisted - whatever you like. So am I aware that I am contradictory in myself?

Q: No , but we are aware of a kind of an alienation in oneself, that is all.

K: Yes, that is the same thing. Take an ideal which most people (here may?) have: that eventually we will all be 'brotherly' (conflict-free?) , and in the meantime I 'dislike' you. The 'ideal' is (projected?) over there (in the future) but the actual fact is, I dislike, I hate - right? So what is important ( sharing an?) ideal or 'what is'? Obviously 'what is'. So why do we have ideals?

Q: I have already given them up.

K: Good! Now, this division between the ideal and 'what is' is really a very complex (psychological) problem if you want to go into it very seriously. Which is, the ideal which has established itself in my unconscious and acts (subliminally?) , preventing the direct perception of 'what is'. So when you understand this contradiction, and you say, "How is the mind to be free of its contradiction totally" - that is the real issue (to start with?) , not the observer and the observed, which we will come to later, but the quality of the mind in which there is no contradiction.
So I ask myself why do (our inner) 'contradictions' (contradicting desires?) exist? One of the factors is ( the creation of ) ideals, obviously. The other factor is 'measurement' ( comparatively evaluating oneself according to the existing standards?)

Q: If I am experiencing pain and I say, "I don't like this"...

K: Quite, (experientially it is pretty much ?) the same thing sir. "I don't like it", "I must not", "I must be", or comparison - right? Which is measurement. As long as I am measuring (or evaluating?) myself, there must be contradiction, from 'what is' and 'what I should be' - no? So can the mind be free of all ( psychologically motivated?) comparison?

Q: Isn't this (challenge ) becoming another ideal?

K: No sir, no. I have explained ( that?) one of the factors of this contradiction is ( the ' psychologicall'y motivated?) comparison, measurement. This division exists because we are educated in this (spirit?) . You are always (evaluating and?) comparing, in the business world, in the artistic world, in the world of psychology and in the world of religious organizations, there is the priest, the bishop, the archbishop, you know, the racket of it all!
Now, does this contradiction (between opposing desires?) exist in me? Because as long as there is (such a ) contradiction I am living in conflict . Contradiction means division, division between the (motivations of the?) 'perceiver' and the ( motivations of the inner fragments which are ?) perceived.
Now having heard this, can you put aside completely every form of ( psychologically motivated?) 'ideal' - both the conscious ideals of which you are ( more or less ?) 'aware', and the unconscious, so that you are free to face every minute (the challenges of) 'what is'? This is an extremely serious thing to do, because then you have no illusion, then you are tremendously honest - right? Because you admit only the fact. If I am jealous, that is a 'fact' (to be directly dealt with?) . So when we see the (truth about whatever is that ?) 'fact' you have tremendous energy to go beyond it.

Q: The thing is, how we can 'see' the fact ?

K: What is important is to use (or listen to ?) the (statements of the?) 'speaker' to find out if what he is saying is false or real, if what he is saying is actual, which is yourself, ( and figure out?) what is actually going on within you.

Q: So we (should?) use you as a (psychological ) 'mirror'?

K: Right, as a mirror . So, are you (becoming) aware that in you there is this (ongoing?) contradiction brought about by 'ideals', by comparison, by wanting to be something (other than what you are?) , are you aware of all this, as you are aware of ( a physical) pain?

Q: No, I am not aware of this as a 'fact'.

K: Now do please listen. Is it because you don't 'see the danger' of it?

Q: We don't see the danger.

K: Why don't you ?

Q: Could it be that we are (inwardly inert ?) 'dull' ?

K: How do you know you are dull? You only know you are dull because you are comparing yourself with somebody else.

Q: Or... because I can't understand you ?

K: Wait. Therefore say only "I don't understand". Which is entirely different. We are not talking about dullness, we are talking about a mind that says, "I don't see the danger, I don't understand why (this ongoing) contradiction isn't all right, I have lived with it for the last fifty years - what's wrong with it ?

Q: Part of the difficulty is that at one level it is all right to compare , and it is very difficult to 'switch that off' when one is looking at something at a deeper level.

K: Yes. When I am buying a house I must compare, when I am choosing between two cars I have to compare, and so on. And this process of comparison is (subliminally?) carried over psychologically to a deeper level. So the question is, why don't we see where it is necessary and there end it?
In comparing myself with you who are cleverer, brighter, nobler, I am wasting (my inner) energy - right? Now I have all that energy if I don't waste it through comparison, I have energy to observe 'what is', whatever that is.
Now, if I have removed this ( bad psycholgical?) habit, which is comparison, and I have also put aside 'ideals', conscious as well as unconscious, I have energy now to face 'me' (as is ) . Is that clear so far?
If I don't compare myself with 'you', who are a saint, a guru, or whatever, if I don't compare myself with you, what am I? I don't know - right?

Q: Are you saying that if we go into comparison carefully we shall get rid of one of the factors of our inner fragmentation?

K: That's right sir. Now, are you going to get rid of those fragments one by one? That will take a long time, won't it? I am (by turns?) jealous, envious, ambitious, greedy, violent, occasionally happy, suffering, believe in god, or not believe in god - these are various 'fragments' (contained in my consciousness ) . Am I going to put them away one by one?

Q: That would take too long.

K: Therefore there must be a different way of looking at all this.

Q: It seems that when we look we see the habit of comparison. I say that I see that I am comparing myself with another, perhaps that comparison will come to an end. But it seems that there is some difficulty, at that moment it seems as if one 'fragment' of the mind is looking at the rest of the mind so the fragment that looks is a 'loaded' fragment - it cannot see that it's no more important than the other fragments.

K: Why does the mind give to the ( 'observer'?) fragment a greater importance than to the other fragments? It is the 'judge' - why? Why has that fragment assumed greater importance over other fragments, although it is also a fragment - you understand? - why?

Q: It gives oneself a sense of permanence.

K: Which is what? Go ahead sir.

Q: Well I am here now so I must be here tomorrow.

K: Which is what he is saying, it gives a permanency. Wait, wait. One fragment has assumed greater permanency than the other fragments. That ( controlling?) 'fragment' has a greater sense of security, greater sense of certainty, greater sense of clarity – why?

Q: It has a greater emotional power behind it.

Q: We always want to feel that the entity that looks is something, and we are not prepared to face the possibility that is nothing (or just another fragment?)

K: Why does one fragment assume the power or prestige over the other fragments? Is it because to us the intellect is extraordinarily important and we say, "Oh, well he is not so bright you know, he is rather dull". And the intellect is different from emotion, the intellect has power to argue, to discuss, to create, to build, and the 'emotion' (the 'heart' fragment) becomes rather sentimental, vague. The artist has greater value than the business man, the musician is much more important than the cook. Is it that our whole education emphasizes ( the prioritary cultivation of one ?) fragment?

Q: I think sir that you talk about education as if it were something that was imposed upon us. But I really feel that we are willing to be educated in this particular way. There is a sort of 'social contract' among all the (consenting?) 'selves' that this or that part of us will be pre-eminent.

K: Yes sir. So you are saying our education is not over there, it is in here. And it is part of a new education is to find out now how to learn to look at things differently.

Q: But we can't because we are not educated, we are indoctrinated.

K: That's right sir, that's perfectly right. And one of the indoctrinations is, that there is a (mentally controlling ) entity which is far superior than the other fragments, which is (my) will. Right? A man of character, a man of will, he will stand up against anything - you follow? - the 'hero'.
So can our mind (function) without the (artificial interference of the ?) 'perceiver', who is the superior entity - who is ( impersonating all the experience of?) the past, can the mind observe 'what is' without this ( all controlling) 'superior' entity? Can the mind observe without this 'observer' which is the ( controlling action of our cultural ?) past? And when the mind is observing with (through?) 'the eyes of the past' then it is wasting (its ressources of intelligent?) energy, therefore it cannot directly face 'what is'. Got it? So where there is no 'comparison', no (psychologically motivated?) ideals, no 'superior entity' which says, 'I will' and 'I will not', which are all factors of division and therefore conflict. When you 'see & feel' this intensely everything drops. Now does this take place as we are sitting here and listening?

Q: If you abandon 'I will' and 'I will not' it ooks like there is nothing left to do.

K: No madame, I don't 'abandon' it. I see the truth of all this and therefore when I see something as true, then the 'false' goes.

Q: It can be so much more subtle though than the verbal description which says 'I see' or 'I don't see'.

K: Of course, much more subtle.

Q: What I want to ask you is: is it true to say that as long as there is any (pre?) conception of looking, or watching, one is still caught in this fragmentation.

K: Of course. As long as there any 'conceptual' observation, intellectual perception - there is fragmentation obviously.
So, why do we take so long to 'learn' (holistically?) about something like this which is so clear, which is so simple, which gives you such a tremendous practical way of life and gives you tremendous energy? Why do you refuse all this?

Q: It's because I'm used to that kind of thinking.

K: I'm saying, sir, that (our capacity of?) thinking is all right at one level but at the other psychological level it has no value at all. Why don't you learn about a new way of looking?

Q: Isn't that another fragmentation? I mean separating ( the role of thinking in ) the material life and the...

K: No. Sir, it is not a separation. The two must go together (but on different levels?) . When you choose a tie you compare don't you? And when you see that ( a misplaced?) comparison breeds conflict within you and outside of you, what will you do? Keep them in watertight compartments? Or let both of them live(move?) together harmoniously? You have got it?

Q: Even in choosing between two cars I am bound to end up in some sort of fragmentation.
K: No, not necessarily. First get the feeling that you are always comparing - right? And see the fact that comparison is a distorting factor in life - right? See ( the truth of?) that fact, only that. Then we will discuss when comparison should exist and all the rest.

Q: Your concept is (sounding) so obvious and so simple.

K: Is it a concept? Can't the mind live without concepts? And therefore free to live. When you have concepts you are not living, you are living on an idea.

Q: So we mustn't get a concept of what you mean?

K: No sir. Learning is ( a living action?) not a concept. To learn about the ending of thought is not a concept, you are learning.

Q: Could you continue with what you mentioned before: that we are only 'half listening' ?

K: Yes. Sir, look, if I really want to learn something , that requires attention, that requires passion, that requires energy. If you haven't got it, why do you sit here then, isn't it such a waste of time?

Q: In this kind of learning there is no sense of (self-) extension...

K: That's right sir. In learning there is no extension of the 'me'.
(To recap:) we began by asking why the human mind is 'fragmented'? Is it the culture, the society, the religion, the various beliefs, dogmas, ideals that have brought about this division in ourselves, which is ( the old school?) education? Is it that we are always comparing ourselves with somebody? Can the mind not live without ( any psychologically motivated?) comparison? Just try it sir, learn about it.

Q: It's all fragments until you put out the ideals, but then you see the violence in yourself. So, it is frightening to live without ideals.

K: So (our psychologically motivated?) 'ideals' act as an escape from 'what is'. Now I want to find out whether I can face ( this inner heritage of?) violence 'as it is' without any ideal. So, I am faced with violence in myself. Right? Now is that violence (subliminally related the?) word 'violence'? What takes place when I use the word (violence) and identify that present experience with the past? I strengthen that violence - no? So, why do I use words all the time with regard to certain feelings, why? Is it because I don't know what to do with the feeling, I don't know how to go beyond it, therefore I resort to the past and so thereby ( mentally) strengthen the feeling?
So can the mind, when this feeling of violence arises, not use any word at all? If I don't use the word, and if the past doesn't project itself on the present, does that feeling of violence exist at all? I am 'learning', you understand. I am not saying that feeling should exist, should not exist. I am learning.

Q: What if (your violent?) mood leads to action before you have awareness?

K: Why need you ask me? That is what you generally do. You write off a letter, or hit somebody, or use a ( four letter?) word and so on and so on.

Q: I think I saw something when you were talking. I feel violent, then half a second later I say it is violence, I put it off into a category which creates the opposite category of 'non-violence'. And these two categories in my mind have to necessarily be in conflict, have to be violent. But the idea of non-violence is contradictory, it creates the idea of violence.

K: Quite right sir. Therefore we are only saying, freedom from violence, not becoming free from violence in order to become (certifiably?) 'non-violent'.
Sir, what we have said is very simple, what is the difficulty? Is it that you don't (know how to?) listen? Is it that you are not paying attention to what is being said? Is it that you want to keep your violence, put garlands round it?

Q: One of our difficulties is that attention is devoured by a process. Awareness becomes a process, mechanical.

K: Now why does the mind become mechanical? We have made our life mechanical - right? Sex, relationship, habit is mechanical, the way of our thinking, which is comparison, ideals, is mechanical, why does the mind become so easily mechanical, a (repetitive) process that just goes on (by itself) ? ( Because) having (formed) a mechanical habit makes life easier, doesn't it? So the human mind is constantly seeking an easier way of living - right? Which means what? The mind is seeking security – no?

Q: Conformity ?

K: Of course. Because when I conform with the rest of the world I am feeling perfectly safe. So the mind is seeking security through conformity, through habit, through continual assertion of something totally unreal, because essentially it want to be secure – right?

Q: Isn't this related to what went just before? The social system has a most powerful influence on the individual and generally we feel it is much easier to 'float with the river' than battle against the current.

K: Right sir. So, we are asking, why don't we 'learn'? Is it this new learning may be very disturbing, it may change the whole pattern of our existence? Therefore we say, "Tell me how to live in my habit in the new way". And you tell me that you have to learn, you have to keep moving.
So, that is what is taking place (subliminally?) . You won't listen because of ( your dependency on?) habit. And we say that way of living is the most disastrous way of living. Look where you are, what it has done, wars, misery, confusion - you know what is happening in the world. You may say, 'My house isn't burning, somebody else's house is burning. Please introduce me to (something?) new , but make it a habit, so that it will be completely secure". So you are seeking security, and quite rightly too because the brain cannot function without complete security. Right?

Q: I don't understand.

K: I have just said sir, if you had no house, no home, no shelter and no food, the ( inner quality of your?) brain deteriorates. So it must have shelter, food, clothing of any kind, even a little room, it must have so that it feels secure, like a child. So the human brain must have security, but it has sought security in things that are not (really) secure. It has sought security in the idea of God, which is not a reality. In the name of God probably Christians have killed more people than anybody else. Right?

Q: Sir, most people here can see that it is absolutely ridiculous to believe in all that nonsense. But my question is: how can I if my brain needs security, how can I provide it when the very activities are destructive?

K: I'll show it to you. If the brain sees those ( outward?) factors are destructive, what has taken place in the brain? What has given to the brain the capacity to see all those things are 'false'? What is that capacity, sir?

Q: Awareness ?

K: Is it not Intelligence? Of course it is. When you say, "It is stupid to be a nationalist, stupid to belong to any organized religion" - it is your intelligence that says it is stupid. Therefore in intelligence is ( providing its own?) security.

Q: But it will also tell me that to become a (successful?) business man you must exploit people.

K: Let Intelligence operate not your 'idea' of intelligence.

Q: I think that is baffling that last one, if you don't mind me saying so. This question of security, the intelligence says...

K: You see we have sought security in things which are not intelligent - right? And we are learning to seek security in intelligence and let that intelligence operate. That intelligence is not 'yours' or 'mine', it belongs to nobody, it is (an univeral?) Intelligence. When that intelligence operates, in that action there is security. Got it sir?

Q: So our education is contrary to what you have just said. What we have called intelligence, what we were trying to look on as intelligence is unintelligence.

K: That's right sir.

Q: It's like when you start thinking for yourself, understand for yourself, people, especially when you are young, people say you are being selfish. But there is one question that worries me. If we come here to listen to you sincerely, lecture after lecture, but go away and can't put this into practice - what is wrong?

K: Sir, I'll tell you what is wrong. Don't (try to?) 'put it into practice'. The moment you 'put it into practice' (chances are that it will?) become mechanical. But if you 'see the truth of it', it acts.

Q: That is what I mean, we don't see it, otherwise...

K: That's right sir, why don't you see it? Is it that you are not listening properly? Is it that you don't see the world and everything collapsing, burning, you don't see it, you don't feel it, it is not in your blood?

Q: We might be just too far gone.

K: Yes, you might be too far gone. Our brains have 'gone to pieces', that might be true.

Q: I don't know about other people here, but I'm not 'too far gone'. I can see that clearly the world is collapsing, there is terrible destruction, and people are fighting with each other in various ways and I ask myself where do I come into this, how do I fit in?

K: My intelligence sees that. Now what is that intelligence to do and what is its relationship to all that is taking place? What is the relationship of that intelligence to a world that is (going?) insane?

Q: There is no relationship.

K: No relationship. Right? How can sanity have relationship with insanity? It can't. Therefore what will you do? You must do, you must act, you must live, what will you do? What will that 'intelligence' do?

Q: I don't know.

K: Why do you say I don't know?

Q: Because I find myself here in this tent examining this question, my whole being is fixed on this question of 'what will I do?'.

K: I'll show you sir. You say intelligence is sanity. They are living unintelligently therefore insanely. And you say sanity has no relationship with insanity - right? Then are 'you' acting, or 'intelligence' is acting? If 'you' are acting, you belong to that. Listen sir. If you say, well what am I to do? you are still playing with insanity. I wonder if that is clear.

Q: Is intelligence different from me?

K: Of course, for god's sake we have moved away from that altogether.

Q: Aren't you saying, how do I act intelligently?

K: I am saying, what is the action of intelligence which has discovered that the world is (going?) insane? Do you see the difference sir? If there is that intelligence it will act: but if you are not sure of that intelligence then you ask the question: how will that intelligence act?

Q: In other words we are so egotistic that we think this Intelligence cannot act without us.

K: Yes, that is right sir. So look what happens. There is the (natural?) responsibility of intelligence, it has the responsibility of action - right? When I say, 'I' have the responsibility to use action, then I am playing, I am going to use intelligence in my corrupt way. Whereas intelligence operating has its own action. Now is there that Intelligence operating in you? Which means you don't follow anybody, no guru, no authority, no system. All that is involved in that intelligence. When there is that intelligence there is sanity - right? Then a sane mind will act sanely. You don't have to ask, 'what am I to do ?' Got it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Sep 2016 #418
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 123 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Basically, there is no much of a spiritual backbone left...except perhaps in the old cathedrals. Fortunately, I can still in my solitary walks commune with the 'spirit of the city' - which apparently has been left untouched.

Well yes I understand, when it happens that I go to France, the old simple buildings in the country or such a cathedral like Notre Dame etc, when so many would not know that it is a middle age construction, something is left indeed....good for you.

John Raica wrote:
Well, as you may well know, there's a strong superficial layer of 'cultural' arrogance, and sorrow is not given the possibility to 'surface' ( except perhaps in illness) - perhaps because the Church has assigned the task of dealing with it to its 'main Man' who is supposed to be suffering for all.

Now that you mention that, the possibility of a power trick struck-stuck my mind as being not to properly deal with that means, stay in your catch 22...well done somehow :-( one is forced to listen to that....the malediction of the so called free will...oui un tour de passe-passe...

John Raica wrote:
So, there's no point in exposing and understanding it individually. (Quite a 'tour de passe-passe !) Perhaps this is what K implied by "the world is living in illusion"...

Possibly yes...

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Sep 2016 #419
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K PUBLIC DISCUSSION MADRAS 1971 (reader friendly edited)


Krishnamurti: What shall we talk over together this morning?

Questioner: Can we dispense with memory altogether in our human relationships?

Q: What is creation?

Q: You said the other day that we must 'die to the past', how is this to be done?

Q: What is wisdom?

Q: Can you speak about your experience of (inner awakening?) . I mean we are trying to bring people by their own understanding of what they can do. Now I feel it is possible, but I can assure you that not all the people here are capable of living life at the moment and …

K: The questioner says, if I understood rightly, please correct me if I am repeating it wrongly: only a few of us can understand what you are talking about, what about the rest, and if you personally went into your own experience perhaps that might help.
I think we can relate them all together (like this) : What is the place of memory; and what is the place of knowledge in our daily life; and is it possible to live without the burden of the past and so live anew every day; and such a way of life can only be understood by the few, what about the rest? I think that more or less covers all our questions, doesn't it?
We'll begin very slowly and go 'step by step' into this:

( Step one:) What is the place of knowledge in our daily life? Both the scientific knowledge and the accumulated racial knowledge as tradition, and one's own particular experiences, memories, knowledge, what place has all that in our daily life? Are you aware of the (subliminal impact of our) ? racial, cultural traditions? This is rather a complex (or subtle?) problem because there is not only the memories acquired recently but also the deep inherited memories - racial, religious, cultural, sociological, sociological, environmental - they are deeply rooted (in our collective consciousness?) . One may be conscious or aware of the superficial memories. Now the question is: what place have these superficial memories in (our everyday ) life, and what is the ( impact?) of our deep hidden memories that affect our daily relationship?
I don't know how to discuss ( this interactively?) with you, you don't seem to take a share in this. You just listen, nod your head (meaning 'no'?) or agree. All memory, all knowledge, is in the past, isn't it?

Q: What do you mean ?

K: It's ( stored?) in the brain cells, the very structure of the brain cells holds all these memories. Any experience you pass through leaves a mark; the mark, the knowledge, the information is there in the brain cells but it (the actual experience) is already over. Isn't it? It is finished. I have experienced an insult yesterday, that has been registered in the mind, in the brain cells, that has left a memory and that memory was of yesterday's insult. That's what I mean: most of our memories are in the past in that sense.

Q: Is every memory in the past?

K: Are there memories that are actually taking place now? Is that what you mean, sir? Can there be?

Q: Some of the memories are.

K: I am exploring. The (recording & remembering activity or ?) 'movement' of memory has its source in the past. Right? And what is the relationship of this movement with the present movement of life, the 'living'?
(Step two:) What is memory? You can see if you learn a language you accumulate all the verbs, the words and how to put the words together and so on and so on, that is a linguistic memory, memory composed of many, many words, verbs, irregular verbs and the usage of that. That's one type of memory. Then there are the whole scientific, technological memories, which we acquired through so-called education, the cultivation of memory through technological information. Then there are all our 'psychological' (personal?) memories, the memories that come about in our human (interactions?) relationships. Then there are all the (collective) racial memories, the memories of the culture in which I have lived. Right? So my mind is (almost?) full of these memories: linguistic, technological, scientific, engineering and all the psychological memories which I have accumulated during the last twenty years, or thirty years, or fifty years, and there are all the (collective) racial memories, and so on. So the brain cells contain all this, all in contradiction (having different goals?) the scientific knowledge and the racial knowledge, the personal knowledge, they are all moving in different directions from each other. So the content of our everyday consciousness is this vast ( pool of personal and?) collective memories, and from that memory, consciously or 'unconsciously' we act. So knowledge as memory, as experience, is always ( rooted?) in the past - and respond to the present from the past, so there is a (timing?) contradiction : the experience of our past with all its memories is (coliding?) with the (challenges of the?) present.
Now what do we mean by 'the past is coming in contradiction with the present'? I have been insulted yesterday, that has left a mark on my mind, an 'image' of you who have insulted or flattered, and ( unfortunately?) I meet you again the next day. That 'image' interferes in my observation of you ( as you are?) now. You might have changed (or not?) but I come with a past memory and meet you with that image of that insult, so there is a 'contradiction' (a psychological 'conflict of interests'?) . If I can meet you without ( the active memory of?) that insult, I meet you afresh. In that there is no contradiction - I approach you with a mind that is free from yesterday's insult, in that there is no contradiction.

(Step three) the ( active memory of the?) past has its own 'movement' (its own internal activity) : accumulating (or updating itself?) , discarding, modifying, adjusting, it has its own movement. That is, if one is a doctor there are so many new investigations, examinations, information, diagnosis, and this is accumulation of knowledge which is a ( self- sustained ?) movement. And life has also its movement.

Q: What do you mean by 'life has its own movement'?

K: We can see ( the activity of our professional ) knowledge as a movement from the past through the present to the future, (constantly updating and) modifying itself and so on. That's a 'movement', isn't it? It is not a static thing. Right? And do I realize that the ( same memory of the?) past is interfering in my relationships (which is also a movement) ?
That is, the (whole memory of our?) past is a movement, it is not a dead thing, because there are new experiences being added to it all the time, modified, changed, adjusted, it's a movement. At one (practical?) level it is very superficial, and at other levels it's very, very deep, so between the superficial and the depth there is a 'contradiction' : I am getting technologically terribly advanced but I am still a narrow (minded) Christian or Hindu. So there is a variation (conflict of interests?) , so there is an (ongoing subliminal ?) contradiction. Unless this contradiction ceases there must be conflict in my relationship. Isn't it?

Q: The movement of the past can be in harmony with the present.

K: Now wait a minute, what is the 'present'? Do you know what the 'present' means (experientially) ?

Q: ( Whatever is happening?) now .

K: Your sitting here, is that the 'present'?

Q: Yes.

K: Wait, enquire, please. You are 'physically' here but your thoughts may be ... Or you might say, I am listening to what is being said, I am comparing it with what somebody else has said.
So what is the 'present' (in terms of our inner experience) ? Is it a chronological time as the present, it is ten past (the hour) , is that the ( only dimension of the?) 'present', ( that can be measured ) by the watch? Inwardly there such a thing as ( 'living in the?) present'?
So (Step four:) to understand really deeply what it means,( to fully live in?) the 'present', one must understand this whole movement of the past.
(If you say, « well, don't bother about that, let's 'live in the present' », that has no ( deeper ) meaning. And there are a great many ( 'existentialist'?) philosophies founded on this idea, let's live in the present, forget (the past) it doesn't matter what has happened, let's make the best of this life (here and?) now) .
So to understand the ( living) movement of the present, one must go into this whole question of the ( continuity of the?) past as ( constant updating of our?) memory, which is ( the psychological dimension of?) 'time'.
I must understand ( the process of) 'thought-time' to find out what is the present. This 'time' is ( generated by our psychological ?) memory, time is something that has been (sequentially) put together, either vertically or horizontally. And that is the (stand-by ?) memory which each of us has - linguistic, technological, psychological, traditional and so on, it's a vast accumulation, both conscious and hidden. Right?
Now ( in step five?) let's find out how to observe or learn or be aware of the deeper layers of our 'psychological' memories : I remember having been insulted yesterday and I have the memory of ( who uttered ?) that insult and when I meet you I meet you with the ( associated?) 'image' of ( you who made ) that insult. So my relationship with you is (biased by?) the image of that memory, through that recollection, so there is no actual relationship between you and me, only the ( active?) memory of that insult. That's fairly simple.

Q: Suppose it repeats itself day after day ?

K: You live with that 'image'. Your next question is, how am I to be free of that image and how to deal with a person who has hurt you, both physically and psychologically. Physically in the sense, taken away your things, or wounded you inwardly. Now how to be free of this hurt ?
Now, the memory of our technological (or practical ) knowledge is necessary, all that is 'superficial' knowledge. But there are deeper layers of memory. Now how shall you examine all that because they are constantly interfering? They are constantly modifying, or changing the superficial. Right? So there must be an awareness or an understanding of the hidden. Now how is that to be done?

Q: You enquire into the hidden when there is trouble, when there is suffering, when there is pain.

K: Quite right. But I am asking: how is this conscious mind with all the information it has, which is also conditioned, how can that mind enquire into the deeper layers, into the very dark recesses of one's own brain, memories, how do you propose to do it?

Q: By being constantly aware.

K: By being constantly aware of what?

Q: ( Of the interfering) past memories.

K: Past memories, hidden. Will you know it through ( self-) analysis? Which is what all the (modern?) world is doing. Will you find out through a self-conscious analysis the content of the hidden memories?
Do you know what is implied in analysis? Is the analyser different from the thing analysed? And if you do analyse (yourself) it will take time, won't it? I am pointing out to you when you analyse there is always the analyser and the thing to be analysed. There is a division in that, the analyser has assumed a position of authority because he says, ' I can analyse the thing which I am going through' - so he ( subliminally distances ?) himself from the (thing) analysed and begins to analyse, to examine. In the examination, unless the analyser is completely (objective or?) free of the past, his analysis will be entirely wrong or partially wrong, therefore valueless.
And analysis implies time, because I have so many memories and I have to (sequentially) examine each memory. Do you know what it means? It will take all my life. And when there is an interval of time between now and the completion of analysis other factors come into being, so there is no end to this process, therefore it is totally ( holistically?) wrong. You are stuck, aren't you?

Q: No, sir. All you are saying is the 'analyser' is equal to the conditioning of the past.

K: That's right.

Q: He is trying to analyse the (newer) conditioning by the (older) conditioning.

K: That's right, sir. Then what shall I do?

Q: Become conscious of it.

K: You become conscious of what?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: I was insulted yesterday, that ( image) interferes with my relationship with you today who have insulted me. So can the mind (examine) that insult and discard it? Or is there a different way altogether?

Q: Ignore it ?

K: Whether you ignore it or forget it, it is still there. So how am I to completely 'wipe away' that insult?

Q: Is it possible to do that?

K: I am going to show it to you ( in Step Six: ) Is it possible not to 'record it' at all? Then what shall I do, what shall the mind do not to record insults? Never! How is this to be done?

Q: I don't take it ( personally?) seriously.

K: All right, I don't take it seriously, but the mind still records (the incident) .
I'll show you something much simpler than all this. The question was how is it possible for the mind, which is the brain cells, not to record these psychological memories but retain the factual memories? If you are given this problem, how will you respond to it, what is your answer?

Q: Recording is a biological response.

K: I understand that, sir, we said that the brain cells' recording is a biological process, like language is recorded, but I am asking: how is it possible not to record the psychological memories? Please, I'll show you something very simple. When you insult, at that moment give complete attention. It is only 'inattention' ( the fragmentary activity of the brain?) that records.

Q: Complete attention to what?

K: To your slapping me in the face, to your calling me an ass, when you are violent to me, or when I am violent to you, at that moment to be completely aware of your words, your gestures, your attitude. You know what that means, to be attentive? Have you ever tried this?
Attentive means, giving full attention with your mind, with your heart, with your body, with your eyes, with your ears, to be fully attentive at that moment when you call me 'an ass', because in that (integrated quality of attention?) there is no 'recorder', there is no 'me' who is recording the insult.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Let's approach it differently. What does it mean to be 'aware'? I am aware of you sitting there, I am aware of the tent, or what you call this, I am aware of those flowers, the bright sunlight on the flowers, I am aware, the colours of the sweaters, the dresses, the saris, the people's faces, I am aware. If in that awareness I say, 'What a lovely flower that is', that is the response is from the past. Can I be aware of that flower without the response of the past? Just to observe without naming it ? Then in that ( quality of non-verbal) attention there is no (interference of the?) past at all. When you observe this way, there is no (self-conscious?) 'centre' which is observing. The centre is the (active?) memory of the past, which says, 'I don't like that colour', or 'I do like that colour'. Right?
Now when 'you' are insulted, can you listen to it without any response of the past? Then will there be any (psychological?) recording at all? Then you find out that you record only when you are 'inattentive', when there is not this complete attention then there is recording.

Then the question is: how is one to sustain this attention all the time? You have understood my question? I see that there is no recording at the moment of insult when there is complete, total attention. Which is, in which there is no response of the 'old brain' - the ( culturally ?) conditioned human brain with all its memories of insults, pain, to attend without all the response of the past. One does it (spontaneously ?) when there is a tremendous crisis in one's life . In a moment real crisis, what takes place? The crisis is so enormous it knocks out the 'observer' (controlling fragment?) . Haven't you noticed it, when somebody ( close to you) dies at that second or may be a few minutes I am in a state of complete shock, there is no ( ongoing personal?) recording. The incident of death has knocked out all my memories for the time being. Haven't you noticed this? Then the old (mental) habits come in, then the recording takes place: what shall I do, my loneliness, my self-pity, you know, all the circle begins.

Now to observe that insult and many other forms of (psychological ?) recording, with complete attention at the moment (is a given ? ) . Then you will say, how is the brain to maintain this (holistic quality of?) attention all the time. That's a wrong (time-binding) question. Because you say, I have learnt (the 'attention?) trick' and I want to continue doing that trick.
( So, ( FOR STEP SEVEN) :?) pay attention completely to that insult and forget (about) it, let it go. Next time ( when a challenging situation comes?) be completely attentive. You follow what takes place? Each time you are 'completely (non-personally?) attentive' there is no (psychological) recording. But if you say, I must 'continue (practising) that (complete) attention', (all you are doing) is just continuing (time-stretching?) the (dead?) memory of that attention. Right? Therefore ( one thing at a time:) be completely attentive at the moment of insult (or any other personal challenge) . Finished. Then a ( 'take five' ?) interval, then again something else happens, and at that moment be also completely attentive so that the mind is attentive to every (new or challenging ) incident, not ' I must maintain a continuous attention'. Got it? If you haven't got it ( too bad?) , it's up to you.

Q: How are you to be (so completely?) attentive?

K: There is no method (to cultivate it in time ) , full stop. Oh, you don't see the beauty of this: it all implies ( a quality of inner?) freedom, freedom means freedom from the past, freedom from recording, so that the mind is 'free'.

Q: Does it mean that only a 'free' mind can attend?

K: I didn't say that. Please listen. I had pain last week, physical pain: what do I do? I go to the dentist, but that physical pain has left a mark, which is the ( psychological) memory of that pain. And the ( response of that ) memory, which is ( my temporal ?) thought, says, 'I hope I shan't have it next week, I must be careful', therefore I am nervous, therefore I am frightened because I have a recollection of the pain of the toothache a week ago. Now can I have pain, the toothache and finish with it, not carry it over to next week?

Look, sir, ( as a parting insight: ) most of you are used to reading (philosophical or religious?) books and trying to figure out how to live according to the (ancient wisdom of these?) books. Right? Therefore you never manage to find out for yourself what is actually going on (in your own mind).
What would happen to your mind if you (would ?) never (bother to?) repeat what somebody has said, never to say something that you yourself do not (experientially?) know, never to assert that there is (God?) or that there is not, you know what would happen? Then you would begin to observe (everything responsably?) for yourself, then you would find out (the truth?) for yourself, not live (safely & comfortably?) on your past memories, which are dead anyhow, and that's why you are so 'dead' (inert inwardly?) , you have no energy in all this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Sep 2016 #420
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Q: Complete attention to what?

K: To your slapping me in the face, to your calling me an ass, when you are violent to me, or when I am violent to you, at that moment to be completely aware of your words, your gestures, your attitude. You know what that means, to be attentive? Have you ever tried this?

At first reading, this seems like a great 'method' to avoid getting insulted. But receiving insults with a 'complete attention' is only one instance where it is necessary to be 'completely' there at that moment, he is talking I think, that all our 'thinking' in general is a kind of "challenge"; a challenge to be 'attentive' to it. "Be aware of every thought"etc. Our 'inattention' to thought strengthens the 'thinker', the 'I' process.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 391 - 420 of 767 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.)