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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 421 - 450 of 753 in total
Sun, 04 Sep 2016 #421
Thumb_stringio John Perkins... United States 11 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
...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.

Yes, Dan, I absolutely agree. 'Thinking' gets such a universal bad press on K forums, but what might we suppose arrived even K at his clarity if not the frustration (suffering) that inevitably ensues from thought's expectations? Thought always promises to deliver but never does (in any sort of fullness). That message, continually delivered by this promise/failure scenario, eventually gets through and causes us to start to 'look'. Only looking 'sees'. Thought can never 'see'. As K points out: 'Thought and Perception are mutually exclusive'.

This post was last updated by John Perkins... (account deleted) Sun, 04 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Sep 2016 #422
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
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";

Indeed, Dan, and if I remember rightly in the dialogues published by K's Indian friends in Tradition & Revolution (held in the same period)
they told K that in daily life there are not many 'major challenges' such as the death of a loved one, etc, so as a result, we don't feel totally challenged so we indulge in 'inattention' . To which K replied ( the quote is from memory) "If you are really sensitive, every little incident of life could be 'the major challenge' to which you'd have to attend totally"

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 04 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Sep 2016 #423
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

Roger B. wrote:
Only looking 'sees'. Thought can never 'see'.

Good point, Roger, and welcome to this forum. In fact, 'thought' is also getting a pretty 'bad press' from K himself. But...since we're all 'thinking' one way or another (K included), I would say that our thinking brain is actually playing a double role- both of dealing less or more 'knowledgeably' with a pretty complex "real world" and also acting as a protective' interface (who's protecting whom is another question) As for the pure 'looking' it can only happen if and when the brain is feeling ( deeply) protected - like in the case of young children or even in our own case when we're taking a leisurely break. Reading 'between the lines' of Mrs Zimbalist memos, we can see that K benefited and even asked from this ( physical) 'protection' throughout all his life

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Sep 2016 #424
Thumb_stringio John Perkins... United States 11 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Raica wrote:
To which K replied ( the quote is from memory) "If you are really sensitive, every little incident of life could be 'the major challenge' to which you'd have to attend totally"

Excellent, John. Sensitivity is, I think, the key. And who can manipulate that?

Somebody on the General earlier today linked a film they'd recently watched and recommended. I watched about two minutes of the trailer and could have bourne no more. Way too much pain in there for me to entertain as 'entertainment'. Each to his own.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Sep 2016 #425
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 104 posts in this forum Offline

Roger B. wrote:
Thought can never 'see'.

Well the way I see this kind of statement, also in myself, is that 'thought' is very 'willing' to speak about itself, negatively, as in this example. It makes this criticism through the 'voice' of its projection that is called the 'thinker'. The 'thinker' sets itself apart and comments on what is going on. Similarly the 'observer' or 'experiencer' see 'themselves' as separate from what 'they' observe or experience. It is like a 'magic' trick that the brain/mind has played on itself and doesn't know (or even want truly?) to be free of?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 04 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Sep 2016 #426
Thumb_stringio John Perkins... United States 11 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
Well the way I see this kind of statement, also in myself, is that 'thought' is very 'willing' to speak about itself, negatively, as in this example. It makes this criticism through the 'voice' of its projection that is called the 'thinker'. The 'thinker' sets itself apart and comments on what is going on. Similarly the 'observer' or 'experiencer' see 'themselves' as separate from what 'they' observe or experience. It is like a 'magic' trick that the brain/mind has played on itself and doesn't know (or even want truly?) to be free of?

Excellent! Bang on the nail imo. I wonder if you would care to comment (however briefly; I don't mean to impose) on the rest of my #440?

This post was last updated by John Perkins... (account deleted) Sun, 04 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Sep 2016 #427
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 104 posts in this forum Offline

Roger B. wrote:
K: 'Thought and Perception are mutually exclusive'.

That seems right...if direct perception is the 'job' of the sense organs functioning always in the now, thought which K has called a 'sense' that "refines and shapes" the information coming through the other senses, 'comments' on it from past experience i.e. "no problem, that animal is no danger" or "don't trust that one he's up to no good" etc. The possibility to think complex thoughts is what separates us from the other animals who, it would seem, 'live' in the 'direct perception' mode.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Sep 2016 #428
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 104 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
and also acting as a protective' interface

And this is the 'obstacle' that has to let go if there is a possibility of 'freedom', through the "allowing", the "grace" that you referred to as the "vertical"? The "horizontal" thought 'only' brings one to the absolute conviction (intellectual) that something must be done and also that there is no-one to 'do' it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Sep 2016 #429
Thumb_stringio John Perkins... United States 11 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Roger B. wrote:
'Thinking' gets such a universal bad press on K forums, but what might we suppose arrived even K at his clarity if not the frustration (suffering) that inevitably ensues from thought's expectations? Thought always promises to deliver but never does (in any sort of fullness). That message, continually delivered by this promise/failure scenario, eventually gets through and causes us to start to 'look'.

The above, Dan, was really more what I was hoping for comment on. Though if you feel you did already and I missed it then please ignore my request and put it down to my obtuseness. Nothing lost we couldn't come back to.

This post was last updated by John Perkins... (account deleted) Sun, 04 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Sep 2016 #430
Thumb_stringio John Perkins... United States 11 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Roger B wrote:

Only looking 'sees'. Thought can never 'see'.


John Raica wrote:

Good point, Roger, and welcome to this forum.

Thanks for the welcome, John. You represent a bit of a lifeline actually. I'm hoping, if it's okay with you when it comes to it, to use your 'Experimenter's Corner' to open a thread that will represent an experiment to find out whether it's actually possible for K-inquiry by the 'I', ever to rise above the mediocrity that K was so disdainful of. People on these forums naturally feel that their inquiry is not mediocre. They feel that they put into it everything they've got. They wouldn't, by choice, put into it anything less than that. And they also seem - as Dan has already adroitly pointed out above - freely willing to admit to being 'the 'I'. But when push comes to shove, can they actually get a glimpse around the thing, or does it, in fact, just keep right on appeasing itself? Can the 'scales' spoken of eg. (the way I read it) in Job 41, ever be even minutely prized apart? Or is the discursive inquiry in these places, as K would constantly seem to intimate and despite that it constantly prides itself on better things, actually condemned to perpetual 'mediocrity'?

In fact, 'thought' is also getting a pretty 'bad press' from K himself.

Lol, yes, though I suspect he may be trying to drive at something he sees more clearly than we're immediately able to, and that the resulting limitation may be trammeling the conversation somewhat.

But...since we're all 'thinking' one way or another (K included),...


I would say that our thinking brain is actually playing a double role - both of dealing less or more 'knowledgeably' with a pretty complex "real world" and also acting as a protective' interface (who's protecting whom is another question).

Yes. Nicely put.

As for the pure 'looking' it can only happen if and when the brain is feeling (deeply) protected - like in the case of young children or even in our own case when we're taking a leisurely break. Reading 'between the lines' of Mrs Zimbalist memos, we can see that K benefited and even asked from this (physical) 'protection' throughout all his life.

Nice observation, John. Thank you for that.

This post was last updated by John Perkins... (account deleted) Mon, 05 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Sep 2016 #431
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

Roger B. wrote:
it's okay with you when it comes to it, to use your 'Experimenter's Corner' to open a thread that will represent an experiment to find out whether it's actually possible for K-inquiry by the 'I', ever to rise above the mediocrity that K was so disdainful of.

Of course, Roger, feel free to open any thread of your choice and 'moderate' it the way you may find fit. Personally I'm much more engaged in a time-free dialogue with what I would call the ' true spirit' of the K Teachings- namely, trying to extract their 'light essence' from their particular or local context

Roger B. wrote:
I suspect he may be trying to drive at something he sees more clearly than we're immediately able to,

Right, once you've got a new integrated perceptive instrument it seems likely to disregard the old one. In fact K was more explicit in the 50's when he emphasised the merits of 'negative' thinking- a thinking that works by rejecting the 'false'- saying that it was the 'highest form of thinking'- Later on...he might have simply forget all about it, the Teachings evolving more & more towards a 'dialogue of K with...himself'. So, in my 'reader friendly edits' I'm doing my best to bring the true spirit of these timeless Teachings back in the 'public domain'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Sep 2016 #432
Thumb_stringio John Perkins... United States 11 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Raica wrote:
Of course, Roger, feel free to open any thread of your choice and 'moderate' it the way you may find fit.

Thanks, I'll get down to that shortly.

Personally I'm much more engaged in a time-free dialogue with what I would call the 'true spirit' of the K Teachings - namely, trying to extract their 'light essence' from their particular or local context.

A great enterprise. Love the term 'light essence' in reference to the teachings. Very interesting. I'm sure he would say that, in the round, it was what he himself was trying to convey.

This post was last updated by John Perkins... (account deleted) Mon, 05 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Sep 2016 #433
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 10 posts in this forum Offline

Ha, who find the quote of k when he said he came empty handed and goes empty handed, anyway i remember he said it in one of his early speeches.
Thanks for the weekend guys.;)

In the meanwhile i found this interesting stuff:

This post was last updated by Richard Lewis Mon, 05 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2016 #434
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

1ST PUBLIC K DIALOGUE BROCKWOOD 1971 (reader friendly edited)


K: What shall we talk over together?

Q: The difference between analysis and immediate examination of one's reactions? Why in spite of such examinations the responses continue?
Q: Can I change my fears, my continuous anxiety, uncertainty and is it possible to change radically?
Q: Sir, if you give full attention to 'what is' it needs abundant energy. How am I to have this energy if I have to do a repetitive job every day of the week?
Q: There is a increasing sense of mental illness, imbalance, what should one do about it?

K: Now which of these shall we discuss? Could we take one that would cover all the others? The first one was: what is the ( qualitative?) difference between analysis and examination of one's reactions, one's immediate reactions, and yet in spite of that examination these reactions continue? And the other is: I am full of fears, deep rooted uncertainties, how am I to be completely free of them? Right, shall we discuss these two?

You know there are a great many theories about human behaviour, and how to change it. There are hundreds of explanations for the cause of this human behaviour, the misery and all the rest of it, and various theories what to do about them. ( Any such intellectual?) analysis implies, doesn't it, a division between the 'observer' and the thing to be analysed. Right? Let's be clear on that point. When I analyse myself and my reactions, there is the 'act' and the 'actor'. There is a ( subliminal?) division between the two generally. And this division creates conflict between what 'is' and what 'should be', which is introduced by the ( assumption of an independent?) 'observer'.
Isn't there this division between the 'observer' and the ( inner reactions?) things he calls (my worries) , (my) fears, ( my) guilt and so on? There is, isn't there?

Q: When I am afraid, the fear seems to be me.

K: Wait. At the very moment of an actual fear there is no division, but a second later, the division takes place (when the thinking brain starts processing it?) , doesn't it? If there is no (inner splitting?) between 'what is' and 'what should be (done about it?) then what will you do?

Q: Providing you become aware of it...

K: When begins a moving away from that (disturbing) moment of fear, then the ( mental) division takes place. At the moment I see a very beautiful sunset there is no sense of remembering (to take a picture of it?) . A moment later I want to 'remember' it, store it up, and tomorrow I want to repeat it, I want to have the same experience. Why does this take place?

Q: Is it the memory of ( my previous?) fears that divides?

K: Therefore ( one is not aware that the new?) fear itself is different from the memory of that fear. Does the division take place because ( the subliminal interference of our past?) memory?
The ( experiential aspect of our ) question was: analysis is one thing, and the immediate perception of one's reactions is another. Analysis does not necessarily dissolve the pain, the anxiety, and immediate perception appears, for the moment at least, to dissolve it. But it again recurs. Right? That was the question we are discussing.
We are saying, analysis implies ( a conscious introspective) investigation. In that investigation there is the 'examiner' and the 'thing being examined'. And I say does this division take place because our usual (survivalistic?) is to divide ( ourselves from?) everything?
Is it my ( ages old survivalistic?) conditioning that brings about this division: I must conquer, (optimise?) control, suppress, discipline, I am different from the body, the body is different from the soul, the soul is different from the spirit - is that ( divisive mentality) one of the reasons why there is this 'observer-obsered' division?

Q: Where does the conditioning come from?

K: All the past generations have done this (in order to safely survive?) , and I have been brought up in that 'culture'. And they have said, 'control' ( everything in your immediate environment ?) . Is it this conditioning that brings about this division? We divided the whole of our life - the artist, the scientist, the bureaucrat, the professional, the politician, the bank, you follow, our whole (outward) life is 'fragmented'. No?

Q: I don't call that 'conditioning' .

K: Sir, let's leave the word (cultural?) conditioning. My whole life is fragmented. Right?

Q: The whole world is fragmented.

K: Wait (consciousness-wise?) the world 'is' me, I 'am' the world. So there is this ( ongoing inner & outer ) fragmentation. Right? And that's one of the reasons why I have divided myself from my reactions.
We must go slowly. Our ( outer) life and one's (inner) life is fragmented. That's a fact. And at the moment of ( a challenging?) 'experience' all fragmentation ceases (is momentarily by-passed ) . Right? At the moment you call me a fool there is no fragmentation, a second later it begins (as I'm trying to distance myself from that incident ?) . Right? So my question is, how am I - how is the mind to observe ( holistically?) the whole phenomenon of human existence without fragmentation? And how is one to be non-fragmented (inwardly) ? That is the real question, isn't it?

Q: But surely we are only fearful when somebody wants to (hurt us?) …

K: Yes, yes, we said that. But there are other forms of fear.

Q: Are we not fragmented inside?

K: Yes, sir, that's the whole problem.

Q: You say we are acting in unity when we have some critical experience, but I don't seem to have any of these things inside. My brain is limited and any 'fragmentation', as you used that word, is between my state of mind now and the next second and the next second.

K: That's right. All that (temporal division?) is implied in ( our inner) fragmentation. So I am asking how is it possible to look at our life non-fragmentarily? How am I to live harmoniously - and (inner) harmony means non-division between the mind, the heart and the body, if you can for the moment put it that way - a complete sense of harmony in which there is no division, no breaking up, no fragmentation, no conflict. How is that possible?

Q: I need a lot of (heavenly?) luck, sir.
K: You are not answering my question at all.

Q: Sir, it seems people don't care ( about this inner harmony ) because everybody is quite happy with ( the sensory rewards offered by?) this fragmentation.

K: All right, be that.

Q: So, unless one sees the necessity of a (radical) change one can talk about endlessly.

K: I agree, sir. I quite agree.

Q: And you need ( at least some intelligent?) energy to see there is a desperate urgency to change.

K: Look sir, hen you see the importance of living peacefully, why do you accept fragmentation which ( ultimately ) leads to war?

Q: Because we still (subliminally or not?) separate ourselves from the other person.

K: That's right sir. But I want to find out how to live a life in which there is no fragmentation, and therefore no conflict, and therefore live a life that is completely harmonious and peaceful. How an I to do it?

Q: You need a lot of experience and help.

K: Sir, do listen for a few minutes: there is the outward 'fragmentation', as the 'nationalist', the 'scientist', the 'housekeeper,' and there is an inner fragmentation: one is divided ( compatmented?) in oneself : the 'thinker' and his thoughts, the 'experiencer' and his future experiences, there is an (ongoing) division all the time. And one can see that such division creates great disharmony both outwardly and inwardly. Right? And (the noise created by?) that disharmony prevents one from seeing things very clearly, living a very clear, simple, direct life. Now how is one to be free of all this fragmentation , outwardly and inwardly?

Q: If you don't hold on to anything then you are reborn every minute.

K: That's a supposition. Don't carry on with your own conclusions, you are here to 'listen' (and learn?) aren't you? Not only to me, to each other. .
There is fragmentation both outwardly and inwardly and this ( dualistic?) division invariably creates conflict, and I want to live a life that is completely without conflict, which is to live a life of non-violence. Now how am to do this?

Q: Conflict is essential to the world.

K: I am talking of conflict inwardly, the hatred between people, the quarrels between husband and wife, the brutality. I want to find out how to live a life of harmony. How do you do this? Please tell me how to set about to live a life of harmony, in which the ( inner sense of?) division as the 'me' and the 'not me', we and they come to an end.

Q: What causes it?

K: A group of people believed that theirs was the only prophet, and the people round him made a propaganda and converted others with swords, war and all the rest of it. Need we go into all these obvious reasons?

Q: Is it possible to record and not do something about it?

K: Now how do you, sir, that's the whole point.

Q: We don't know how to do it.

K: If you (would) say, 'I really don't know how to live a life which totally harmonious', then we have a point of contact.
I come to (see) you because I am very serious. I want to live that way. I'll give up (almost?) everything to live that way. What is your answer?

Q: I don't know.

K: Therefore let's find out how to do it. ( the starting position is:) You don't know and I don't know. Right? So, starting from not knowing let's find out, shall we? Now if you 'don't know' you are ( free of the known and inwardly open to the possibility of ?) living harmoniously. So your mind then is in a state of 'non-fragmentation', isn't it? Can you ever say, "I don't know"?

Q: We are frightened of 'not knowing'.

K: But can I honestly say to myself, I really don't know how to live an harmonious life?
Then from 'not knowing' I am going to find out. Can we move from there? At least with some of you who say, "I really don't know. I am dreadfully serious, honest, when I say, I really don't know" - which means I have no conclusions, no images, no concepts, I really don't know. Can some of you say that? If you do then let's begin, at last.
Now, when I say 'I don't know', is that a state of mind waiting to be informed, to find the (magic?) knowledge which will then bring about an harmonious life ? Am I waiting for an answer when I say, 'I don't know'?

Q: If you really don't know and somebody tells me (the trick?) then I still won't know it for myself.

K: That's the whole point. Now when you say, I don't know, what takes place within your mind?

Q: The mind is (stands?) still.

K: When I am not looking for an answer. I am not expecting a thing, what goes on in the mind, sir?

Q: Sir, when I don't know, I find ideas.

K: Which means what?

Q: It seems to be the habit of ( our mental) conditioning for (new?) ideas to come.

K: So your mind can never say, I don't know, because it is constantly full of ideas. Right?

Q: I may say I don't know, but perhaps I do know a little bit.

K: Yes. You are all playing ( mind ) games.
You know it is one of the most ( experientially) difficult things to say, 'I don't know'. If you are a scientist and you examine everything for the first time as though you didn't know, therefore ( if lucky?) you begin to discover. You follow? But if you come saying, I know a little bit, then you discover nothing (of fundamental value?) . Can you say, 'I really don't know how to live a life that is ( non-dualistic and therefore ?) harmonious'? That means that you become (inwardly) extraordinarily humble (open to the unknown?) , don't you ? Therefore, what takes place in the mind that is completely not knowing?

Q: Go on.

K: I can go on, by myself, how am I to help you 'travel together'? Because you are full of ideas, aren't you?

Q: When I say, I don't know, I wonder.

K: What is there to wonder?

Q: Nothing.

K: That's just it. Can you stay, stay, and say, I really don't know and stay there? What does that word 'to know' mean? I ( may think that I?) 'know' you because I met you yesterday. There is the recollection of meeting you, and your name, your face, that is recorded (in the 'personal' files of my memory?) . But can I (really ) 'know' anybody? When I see the (psychological?) danger of that word, "I know", it is (my personal experience of?) the past. But can my mind, when it says, "I don't know'' can it be free of ( its 'known' experience of the?) past?

Q: I don't 'know' you, I don't know other people.

K: So sir, look, our difficulty is that we live in the (well known field of the?) past, all our activities spring from the past, and we project that past into the future into the present. Now, that is part of our ( time-spread?) fragmentation. So to (realise?) honestly that 'I don't know' is to find the beauty of (inwardly) 'not knowing'. You understand? Do you know what 'love' is? So if I want to find it out (experientially?) I must have energy. So how do I have that ( quality of?) energy? By not introducing something which I am familiar with - they say 'love is god', 'love is happiness', 'love is beauty', but all those are ( cultural diversions ?) distractions, wastage of energy, aren't they? Can I put all that aside?

I want to find out if there is such a thing as God. I don't know. Millions of people, the propagandists, the priests, the books, the everyday politician, everybody talks about God, except perhaps the communists but they have their own 'gods'. I want to find out, how do I find out? I am burning with it, not just sitting there and I want to find out - you understand? I want to find out if there is something Real, and for that I must have tremendous energy. So I must first gather this energy, so I must find out ( if and?) how I waste ( my intelligent ressources of?) energy. You follow? I obviously waste ( this) energy when I say: I believe in god. Or even when I don't believe in God it is another wastage of ( my intelligent ressources of ?) energy. Right? So, when one says , 'I (really) don't know', that gives you a tremendous energy (to enquire?) .
( But in order to do?) that is my mind free of (its ancestral?) fears? You follow? Because when I say, I don't know, there is a tremendous sense of uncertainty, nothing you can rely on. God was a marvellous ( imaginary?) refuge in which I took shelter. When I say, I don't know, I refuse that shelter. I see the falseness of taking refuge in an idea, in an image. I see that, I am sane, rational, not neurotic, And when I say, I want to find out, I must put aside all man's inventions about god. Right? Will you do it? That means you must be in a state where you have no sense of ( psycho- temporal?) security. Physically, yes, we must have it, you understand?

Q: Sir, if I get rid of this in myself then I begin to question my very existence in a society which is as it is, I don't have that security. I can't be in that society.

K: Why do you say that? The moment you reject ( the illusory?) security, you 'do' something. Somehow you know - to talk about myself - I never sought security, and I am here still.

Q: In order to find out I must 'want to' terribly.

K: Of course, sir. Otherwise what kind of life does one lead? A shoddy bourgeois life?

Q: I really can't understand how you want to find out about God, beauty, or what love is.

K: Don't you want to find out, or you just live like a leaf driven and accepting what the propagandists say? Don't you really want to find out how to end fear?

Q: Is not the life of the leaf 'fearless'?

K: Sir, that was only a simile. I understand, sir, of course sir, it is.

Q: When the end of a leaf comes and it gets burnt or some other fate, it has not looked ahead to the event, so it does not have any fear about it.

K: No, but we have ( thinking ?) 'minds'. I don't want to die, I want to live. My living is, I must have security, physical, psychological, environmental, you know, I must have security. That is one of my deep demands that I must have security in order to live. I see the security physically is essential - I must have two meals a day, or one meal a day, I must have shelter, and not only I but everybody in the world.

Q: But we know we need have no fear and stay alive, we all know we are going to die.

K: Therefore that's a different question. How to understand what death is, that's a different question. And if you say, now I want to find out what it means to die, you must have passion to find out, I must have an immense intensity. I can't just say, well I will sit back and say, well, I'll find out and go on with my smoking and drinking and enjoying my poor shoddy little life. Can the mind be free of fear of tomorrow, of the past, of death? To find out there must be freedom, freedom means passion, fire, intensity, urgency, and that's why ( self- ?) analysis destroys urgency. When you have that inner sense of urgency then there is immediate action

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Sep 2016 #435
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

K PUBLIC DIALOGUE Brockwood Park 1971 ( condensed)


K: If we do choose a subject let us go to the very end of it, deeply and very honestly so that we really do understand something at the end of it. So what shall we discuss?

Q: Decision. (Inwardly) Is there such a thing as 'decision' or we let things happen?

Q: What's the difference between superficial awareness and total awareness?

Q: Does responsibility necessarily kill the sense of enquiry?

K: In talking over together this question of 'decision', perhaps we can also go into the question of awareness.
When we decide (to do something?) , we decide between two ( or several?) things, which implies choice, doesn't it?( But inwardly?) why do we choose at all?

Q: When there is a desire, afterwards there's choice.

Q: The whole process begins when desire arises.

K: We're asking aren't we, why do I have to choose (in 'pychological' matters?) , and therefore a decision has to be made? Because I have conflicting desires, opposing desires, contradictory desires, therefore there is choice, is that it?

Q: Because of a lack of clear vision.

K: You all choose, don't you? You choose what to do, what to think. Now why does choice exist at all? Look at it, sir, let's take time.

Q: Because I am (inwardly) 'divided'.

K: That is, you have different desires, different objectives, different passions, different interests, therefore you choose between this and that, discriminate between what you call 'right', and what you call 'wrong', between the essential and the unessential, so there's always this choice between the two. I am asking myself why do I have to choose at all? If I see something very clearly, there's no ( problem of?) choice, is there? Is there a way of understanding which is not based on decision, will or resistance ?
: You have habits haven't you, no? Scratching your head, or twiddling your fingers or the habit of chattering, gossiping, a dozen habits. Now, how will you end one of those habits without any ( psychological?) resistance? Because resistance implies choice - and choice implies conflict: 'wanting', and 'not wanting'. ( In class work:) Take one habit that you have, actually and see if it can end it without any conflict. Now you sit with it for a minute and work it out.

Q: You must have total attention.

K: Oh no, sir. You heard the man talk about total attention and you repeat it. I have got a problem, don't tell me I must be totally attentive.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: All right. Is it possible to see the whole ( psychological?) mechanism of habit which is established, very deeply, from childhood - habit of thinking that I must do this or I must not do that. Consciously I know (how I should think politically correct ?) and unconsciously there are all the racial habits. So my whole consciousness may be the result of ( acquiring cultural ?) habits. No?

Q: Yes.

K: You're saying 'yes'? Now (awareness step one) is there is an actual awareness of this - the mechanical habits of thinking as an Englishman, Frenchman and so on, as a communist, socialist, labour, believing in god, not believing in god, I'm a Catholic, you are a Protestant, I am this - you follow. It is all habit, (the result of cultural?) propaganda. Now, (awareness step two?) am I aware that this the mechanical process of habits exists as a 'cloud' in which my whole mind is caught. Am I aware of all that ? Now, how is the mind to 'break free' from that and not fall into another habit?

Q: You cannot 'think' about it.

K: So thought may be a (higher level mental ?) habit ?

Q: You have an 'awakening'.

K: An awakening - how am I to be awakened ?

Q: When you say 'I', do you mean my mind?

K: My mind, sir, quick to get on.

Q: Isn't the 'mind' anything else?

K: I realize that the mind, the body, all our feelings are caught in habits - what am I to do? How am I to end it without any form of resistance ?

Q: Sir, I had never smoked, but after the war we got lots of cigarettes in Geneva, and I suddenly felt my hand go in my pocket. But when I saw it, without any resistance...

K: You dropped it?

Q: Yes.

K: But that was a very short habit. (Laughter) I used to know an (actor) friend in California, he had to drive home every night, always a little stoned, and he didn't know quite which side of the white line he was driving on, and he survived. But I wouldn't. So, what am I to do?

Q: I had been smoking for sixteen years, and three years ago I dropped it, but I don't know how.

K: That doesn't solve my problem. Have any of you a problem of habit? All right, take it up, look at it, and see how you will be able to resolve it totally.
Now, will you (analytically) investigate the cause of that habit? You can trace it (back in time) , can't you? At school as a boy it was the (general) habit to smoke, and gradually fall into it, it tasted filthy but I keep it. Now, I know the cause. And I see merely investigation and trying to find the cause of it doesn't end it. Right? And mere ( taking the right?) decision - I must not - makes for more conflict. How am I to end it totally ?

Now, I'll show you something. Shall we go ahead together. Right? I want to end it - 'I' means 'it must be ended', don't quibble over 'I' for the moment. I want to end it. And I want to end it so that at the end of it I have much more vitality, much more (free?) energy. You understand? And I won't lose that energy or that vitality in fighting a habit. So at the end when I have dropped it, it is like a new mind. So I must approach it differently.

Now what is the new approach? I must begin not with the problem, but from somewhere else. Right? Because the more I pay attention to (solve ) the problem the stronger the problem becomes. Are you following this? I am in the habit of smoking, or drinking, whatever it is, the more I give attention to it, say, "I must", "must not", I am giving all my (intelligent?) energy to something that is very trivial. Right? It may be a tremendous problem to me but it is a trivial problem. Are we meeting each other?
So I must begin from somewhere else in which the little problem is absorbed, devoured. I must find the energy which will not be dissipated by the little problem which I have. If I give attention to that little problem I am wasting energy. So I must find a greater energy which will in its action dissolve the little problem. Once I have this energy, and when I come to the little problem, the little problem with its triviality is dissolved instantly. I must begin from somewhere else. The older generation was saying "Begin with God : put your faith in God, put your faith in something higher". Again that is (nowadays?) useless. So I must find a way of never wasting energy because resistance is a wastage of energy, conflict is a wastage of energy, decision is a wastage of energy. So I must find a way of awakening the total energy.

Now, if I have made the problem clear I am going to begin by 'being aware', not by 'practising' awareness. There must be (the awakening of?) an 'awareness at the core', at the centre, not at the periphery, not of my habits, what I am doing, my gestures, the way I sit, but an awareness at the very centre of my being, at the very heart of my existence. Because I have been accustomed to be aware of everything happening around me - watching the trees, watching the people, of watching what they are saying, watching my bodily movement, all kinds of peripheral awareness. And I say that doesn't solve, that doesn't enter into the 'core' of it. You understand? So I must begin at the very core of it. Are you doing this with me? Now what does that mean? I move the whole emphasis from the 'outer' (habits) to a different dimension (of my inner being?) .

Q: Could you give an example?

K: No, I can't do it. I said, one begins to be aware on the periphery (of our existence) . Right? Periphery means watching the trees, the birds, the people's dresses, one's own habit. A very superficial awareness. And then one turns to an awareness inwardly. Now I am saying, don't do either but have an awareness at an altogether different (timeless?) level. Because if I am aware of outward things, then from the outer I move to the inner, then there is a division between the outer and the inner. Do I see this, intellectually first ? Begin intellectually, that is with my thought using logic, using its capacity to think very clearly.
So there is an 'awareness' in a different (timeless?) dimension ? Now with that I can approach my habit. Am I making myself clear?

Q: No.

K: Don't say yes or no, (just ?) 'do it' ! I see that in my decision (to end a particular habit?) there is a (personal) motive, saying, "By Jove, if I smoke I will get lung cancer, it is terrible for the heart", and so on. And I don't want to enter into all that (inner conflict zone) , it is a waste of time and a wastage of energy. And also I see any form of division implies resistance. This is all part of a (time-binding?) awareness of the outer as well as the inner: the outer habit of smoking, and the inner habit of fear (of the bad consequences),( and opposing it a ) resistance, saying. "I must get rid of it, I must fight it, I must..." and I get caught in that. So I see the outer as well as the inner movement of resistance and habit. And I see that doesn't solve it. So there must be an action in which there is neither resistance, nor decision, nor fear, nor a motive.

(To recap:) The 'awareness of the outer' is the awareness of my habit, just the smoking, drinking, and 'the inner awareness' (is that of?) fighting it, or trying to control myself, or find a substitute for ( the habit of ) smoking or whatever it is. I see that there is a ( personal) motive behind that.
I see very clearly all that is involved in it - the 'outer awareness' and the (controlling?) 'inner movement' of it, and I don't want to touch it at all because that has no ( practical?) meaning. So when I see the thing very clearly I have already entered into a different dimension (of holistic awareness?) .

Q: If you want to stop smoking...

K: No, no. I am not interested in 'stopping smoking'. I am much more interested in ( awakening?) something else. And when 'that' operates ( the habit of?) smoking may have lost its meaning.

Q: ( What if ) I don't want to give it up ?

K: If you want to smoke, smoke. Get to the grave as quickly as possible. But I am talking about a man who says, "Look, I have got a great many habits which are most destructive, whether they are good or bad. And do I see what is involved, the conflict, the pain, the agony that one goes through in giving up something.

Q: How does one get into the 'other' dimension (of awareness ) ?

K: Madam, when I have seen that very clearly with my heart and my mind, the whole pattern of it, there is no choice in it. He doesn't say, "I have to give it up". I don't know if you are following. When he sees clearly the habit is gone, he will never be caught in it again.
So do we see very clearly this whole structure of habit, resistance, motive, fear, decision, choice?

Q: Yes.

K: Ah! What is it?

Q: What is important is awareness. Is awareness a simple act of perception? And if awareness is there the whole pattern is revealed.

K: In awareness there is, the gentleman says, the decision to be aware, and also in awareness there is the act of perception. Right?

Q: There is that which is perceived.

K: Sir, do you know what listening means? When I listen to you I have no other thought. I listen to you. I have not my conclusions, my opinions, my understanding, is this right, is that wrong, should it be this way or that way, I listen to you. And listening to that ( K) man sitting on the platform, and he says, I want to be a revolutionary, not just a traditionalist, and I want to wipe the whole thing out, and look at it totally differently. So he says, be aware of this whole thing – be aware of your habit (and of your 'mechanical' way of dealing with it? )

So have you' listened' from the beginning to the end? ( Such holistic ?) listening means seeing this whole thing very, very clearly. And when you see the thing absolutely clearly then there is a different state of (integrated?) energy with which you can then come back and say, "Now, what shall I do with this particular problem?", and you will know how to deal with it.
And you ( may also?) want to know about God, don't you, whether God created the Universe, but to find it out you have to have a free mind and a free heart.
So in listening here this morning, have I really understood it, perhaps verbally, intellectually, I see the whole logic, and the reason and the practicality of it. But when you go outside, are you going to fall into the ( habit ridden ?) trap of the old tradition? If you do, then you haven't listened at all.
So there is an ( inner?) action in which ( the personal?) decision is not involved at all ? See the beauty of it, sir, when one's life has been built on choice and decision, and therefore continuous battles. I think that is enough, isn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Sep 2016 #436
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1970 (reader friendly edited)


K: If we could, during these eight discussions, go into the many problems, taking each morning a particular subject, and going into it as completely and as thoroughly as possible, intellectually which is of course not ( a transformational?) understanding, but go beyond it. So this morning what shall we take?

Q: How about the roots and origin of thought?

Q: The difference between the mind and the brain.

Q: The system of meditation - is it in oneself or is it?

Q: Do we make the right use of our personal faculty, capacities? Do we use them in the right way?

Q: How do we get out of a 'love' relationship in which we are caught?

Q: Could we discuss the letting go and giving up of all the conditioning?

Q: What is enlightenment?

Q: Why is it so difficult for us to attain a state of (inner) beauty?

K: Now, how can we put all these questions together? I think if we could discuss or talk over together what is 'self-knowledge' - wouldn't all these questions be answered? (namely : what is meditation, what is the difference between the mind and the brain; why is it so difficult to understand what is enlightenment; why is it that most of us have to struggle (for it) and so on).
Could we take this question of 'self-knowing' in which all this would be included? Now, is there a ( fail-safe?) 'method' by which one can know oneself? Or is there a way of finding out (within?) oneself ( the answers to) all the human questions that we have put this morning, and not ask ( help from) anybody? That is possible only if I 'know for myself ' (have a comprehensive insight into?) the mechanism of thought, how the brain is caught in a conditioning, how it is attached, how it wants to free itself, the constant struggle within oneself and therefore outwardly, and ( whether) is it possible to 'meditate' and so on. Could we discuss this?

Q: Yes.

K: Now first of all, how I examine, observe, myself? Do I look at myself according to what the specialists in psychology have said, which obviously has conditioned (our collective?) mind? Can I look at myself objectively, without any emotional reaction, just to see what I am? And to see what I am is 'analysis' necessary? All these questions are involved when I ask myself that I must know myself, because without knowing myself completely I have no (inner) basis for any action and whatever action I take must lead to further confusion.
So I must know myself. I must profoundly find out the structure of my (psychological) nature and understand this (inner) 'drive', which makes me do contradictory things . I hope you understand. Right? Too understand all these (ages old?) problems whether there is God, whether there is Truth, what is 'meditation', I must know completely myself - not only at the conscious levels but at the deep layers of oneself.

Now, how shall I know myself? What is the right approach ? Shall I follow the guidelines of what others have said - or I won't follow anybody but look at myself as 'what is'. ( Even then, the difficulty is that?) my ( knowing?) mind is the result of all that the 'philosophers' (truth lovers?) , have said before , not only in the present but also the great many teachers of the past. So I say as I am the result of all that, consciously or unconsciously, there is no need to follow them. All that I have to do is to observe myself, to read the 'book' which is myself.
Now, how am I to read, how am I to observe, how am I to observe so clearly that there is no impediment? I cannot, as I am (culturally?) conditioned, look at myself in complete freedom. Right? Therefore I must be(come) aware of my conditioning. So I have to ask: what is it to be aware?

Q: I know already that I can be aware only for a very short moment and then it becomes disorder.

K: We will come to whether this awareness can be extended. Or is it just for a very, very short period. But before we answer that question let's find out what it means to be (non-verbally ?) aware.
Am I aware of the noise of that stream? Am I aware of all the different colours men and women have in this tent? Am I aware of the tent and of the space round it, the hills, the trees - you follow - the clouds, the heat, am I aware objectively, outwardly, of all these things?

Q: When I put all my attention on it I am aware of it.

K: Wait. When you put your attention of it you are aware, therefore you are not aware when you are inattentive. Right?

Q: When I pay attention to one thing, all the other things around me, I can't pay attention to them, then I become absorbed.

K: Are you also aware that when you look attentively that you are (instinctively?) shaping into words what you see? You say, 'That's a tree, that's a cloud, that's a tent, I like that colour, I don't like that colour' . So are you aware of your ( verbal) reactions? Look : I am aware of that dress. My ( culturally conditioned?) reaction says, 'How nice', or 'How ugly'. I am asking are you aware when you look at that red, of these reactions? Isn't that part of awareness?

Q: When you put a name on a thing you are not (choicelessly?) aware.

K: Look, may I talk a little? (You don't 'bite' into this).
Occasionally I am attentive, but most of the time I am thinking about something else while I am looking at a tree, or at that colour.
Now, in order to 'know myself', how do I observe myself? In observing I shall ( be interested to?) learn. Right? So learning is part of awareness (or the other way around?) . Now what does this 'learning' about myself mean?

Q: (In Italian) We see the reason for knowing ourselves, we are desperate to find ourselves, but out of this desperation we want a system, a method because we don't know what to do with ourselves.

K: So we want somebody to tell us, 'Do these things and you will know yourself' . Now sir, (conditioning-wise?) I am the result of the society, the culture in which I live, the religions, the business world, the economic world, the climate, the food, I am the result of all that, of the infinite past and the present. Right? Now what does that word mean, to learn?
If I don't know German, which means I have to learn the meanings of words, memorize the verbs and how to put the words together and all the rest of it, I have to 'accumulate' knowledge. So, here 'learning' means accumulation. Now what happens if I want to 'learn about myself'? I see something about myself and I say I have 'learnt' that. So, that 'learning' has left a residue of knowledge - hasn't it? Now with that (background of ) knowledge I examine the next incident. Right? And that becomes again further accumulation. So the more I observe myself and learn about myself (in this way) , the more I am accumulating knowledge about myself. Right?

Q: As I learn about myself, I am also changing.

K: I am accumulating knowledge and in the process I am changing, but my past knowledge is preventing a fresh observation. I don't know if you see this?
Q: (In Italian) There is a next step to that, which (you were recommending some years ago?) to write down your thoughts, put down on a piece of paper what you are thinking, what you have accumulated, and having put that on the paper you are forced to look.

K: You are not following, this is really quite complex. Do go slowly.
Look sir. You have said something intended to hurt me. That is ( getting stored in the files of ) my ( personal) knowledge. Next time I meet you that memory of the past comes forward to meet you. But in order to learn about myself there must be freedom from the (knowledge of the?) past, the learning about myself must be constantly fresh. You see the difficulty?
If you see it, then the next question is: how is the mind to free itself from the past so as its learning is constantly new ? See the beauty of it ? 'Myself' (my 'self' ?) is a living thing, it is not a dead thing. I think this one day, I think the next the other day, I want something else - you know, this is a constant living, moving thing. And to learn ( live?) about it the mind must be free to observe, - it cannot observe if it is burdened with the (experiences of the?) past. Right? So what is it to do? Go on sirs, it is 'your' problem.

(Various inaudible comments) Not to have thoughts ?

K: You see , you have come to a (static) conclusion when you say, not to have thoughts. You are not really learning.

Q: We have to 'empty ourselves'.

K: That is another conclusion. Then how do you empty yourself? Who is the entity that is going to empty the mind?

Q: You have to empty that too. Everything you empty.

K: You see sir, learning means acting in the present. And that is not possible when the mind, the brain, is burdened with all the past. Right? Now tell me what to do, tell me what to do.

Q: Attention ?

K: How am I to be attentive?

Q: Live in the present.

K: How am I to 'live in the present' when my whole past is burdening me?

Q: Be aware of the process that is taking place.

K: All right. Which means what? ( Become) aware that the past is interfering and therefore preventing the brain to learn. Right? Be aware of this movement: the past interfering ( coming to a 'conclusion'?) and stopping learning. Right? Be aware of this (interfering) movement. Are you aware of it as we are talking? If you are, what takes place?

Q: You see yourself as the effect of the past.

K: You see yourself as the effect of the past. We see that, that is a 'fact'. Now when you are aware of this movement, what takes place? What actually takes place? Don't guess. What takes place in you, when you are (becoming aware?) of this process?

Q: I feel that there is a contradiction which has to be destroyed by direct action.

K: I see that I am the effect of ( my experience of?) the past, the past may be ( what happened?) yesterday or the past second. That 'knowledge' which is the (result of the) past is preventing my learning in the present - it is a ( self-sustained?) momentum, it is happening all the time. Can the brain become aware of this movement? Or is it (subliminally?) frightened to be aware of something new? Now when I am aware of this (ongoing) movement what takes place?

Q: The movement stops.

K: The movement stops. Then what have I learnt? Is there a learning?
Please do observe this: If I want to learn about this movement, I must have curiosity. But if my curiosity is (motivated ) merely to come to a (satisfying?) conclusion my curiosity stops. So there must be a passion to learn - right - and there must be energy to learn. Without this I can't learn.
Now, if I have (an interfering reaction of?) fear I have no passion. So I have to leave that ( 'momentum of the past' ?) alone and say, 'Why am I frightened?' Am I (subliminally afraid?) to learn about something that may be new ( potentially disturbing?) So I have to investigate why am I frightened?

Q: We are afraid to loose the ( good?) image (we have?) of ourselves.

K: Don't give me the 'explanations'. I realize I am frightened - why? Is it because I see that I am 'dead' (inwardly 'stuck' ?) and I am frightened to do anything new ? Which means what? That my brain and my (thinking & feeling?) mind have followed the old pattern, the old way of thinking, living, and working. So of anything (out of that safe pattern?) I am frightened.
And to learn, the mind must be free from the past - we have established that as (the guiding?) truth- that is a fact. And also I realize I am frightened. So there is the contradiction between the realization that to learn the mind must be free of the past, and at the same time I am ( subliminally?) frightened (to let go the knowledge of the past?) . So there is a 'duality' (a conflict of interests?) in this: I want to 'see' and I am afraid to see (anything that might be destabilising?) . Right?

Q: Are we always afraid to see new things?

K: Aren't we? Aren't we afraid to change?

Q: The new thing is the unknown. We are afraid of the unknown.

K: The new thing is the un-known and we (subliminally?) cling to the 'known'
Now, clinging to the old (life experience we've accumulated ?) will inevitably breed fear because life is changing, there is social upheaval, there are wars. So fear is there. We want now to learn about the movement of fear. What is the movement of fear? Are you aware that you have fears?

Q: Not always.

K: Are you aware 'now' of your fears?
You can ( artificially?) resuscitate them, bring them out and say, 'Well I am afraid of what people might say about me' - or about death, about losing money, about losing your wife, or the physical fear that you might have pain tomorrow and so on. If you are becoming aware of it, you (instinctively?) try to get rid of it. Now watch it. When you try to get rid of it, what takes place?

Q: You repress it.

K: Either you repress it, or escape from it, and there is a (new ) conflict between wanting to get rid of it and fear , which only increases ( your anxiety)

Now, do I see the truth that moving away from the fear increases fear? Therefore there is no movement away from it. Right?

Q: I don't understand it, because (my gut feeling is to?) I move towards something that is going to end that fear or towards something that will see me through it.

K: But running away from it, suppressing it, avoiding it, doing anything about it, continues fear. Right? That is a fact. Now we have established two facts. That to learn there must be curiosity, to learn there must be no pressure of the past. And to learn about fear there must be no running away from fear. That is a fact. That is the truth. Therefore don't run away. Right? Now when I don't run away from it what takes place?

Q: I stop being identified with it.

K: I stop being identified with fear. Stopping it is not learning. Just see the subtlety of it. I am afraid and I want to learn about it. I don't know what is going to happen. You follow? I want to learn the movement of fear. So what takes place?

Q: I think about how to get rid of it.

K: Which means you resist ( or avoid facing?) it, and therefore fear increases. Now, if I am (in the mood for?) learning, what takes place? I am afraid and I am not running away from it - what takes place?

Q: You are coming face to face with your fear.

K: What takes place then?

(Several inaudible comments)

K: Now, I am watching it. Now, the natural question coming out of that is: 'who' is watching it? When you say, I am watching my fear, learning about fear, who is the entity who is watching it?

Q: Fear itself ?

K: Is fear watching itself? Please don't guess. Don't come to any conclusion. Find out. Who is watching? ( clue:) Is it another ( controlling?) fragment of me?

Q: Myself.

K: I give it up! You don't really look at it, learn, you are just making a statement. Learn. Who is watching? Wait. When you say who is watching - just a minute sir, I will ask you - when I ask the question: who is watching, what takes place - in the very word itself? There is a division, isn't there? The very question, who is watching it, implies a division (between an 'observer' and its 'fears' ). Why is this division? Find out.

Q: There is a desire on my part to watch.

K: If there is a desire on your part to watch, you are still watching fear as an outsider. You are watching with a (honest?) intention to get rid of fear. And we said, a few minutes ago, that wanting to get rid of fear means (controlling?) censoring fear. So in your watching there is a division, which only strengthens fear. Right? So I am again asking the question: who is watching fear?

Q: Sir, isn't there also another point, 'who' is asking the question 'who is watching fear?'

K: I am asking that question sir.

Q: But 'who' is asking the question?

K: The same thing, sir, only you push it further back. Now please, this is the most 'practical' way of going at it. You will see if you follow this very carefully, the mind will be free of fear. But you are not doing it.
( To recap:) Suppose I am frightened of losing money : what do I do about this fear ? I realize how silly of me to avoid it because the moment I resist it, more fear. Then there arises the (natural?) question who is watching it? Is it my desire to be free of it, does that (self-centred desire) watch it ? It is. And
watching it that way, only divides and therefore strengthens fear. So I see the truth of that, therefore (the 'observer' created by my self-centred ) desire has gone. You follow? The desire to get rid of fear has gone.
It's like seeing (this interfeing desire as?) a poisonous snake and the desire to touch it is finished. Right? But as long as I don't see the danger of it I'll go on running away (or analyzing my unconscious fears?) , doing every kind of thing. The moment I see it I won't 'run away' . Then what happens?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: The moment you are scared (unwilling?) of looking at fear, then you won't learn about fear, and if you won't learn about fear, ( it will continue in other forms?) It is as simple as that : if I don't know how to swim I won't plunge into the river. If I (assume ) that fear cannot possibly be ended, I (keep being ) afraid (of a lot of things) but if I really want to look, I say 'I don't care, I'll look'.

Q: So what I have to do is to let fear 'well up' in me so that I can identify with it, so that I can unify myself.

K: You see all these tricks that we are playing on ourselves ? 'You' make an effort to identify yourself with 'fear'.

Q: I 'am' that fear.

K: Ah If you 'are' that fear, as you say you are, then what happens?

Q: When I 'come to terms with it', it begins to...

K: Ah, no, no. When you say that you 'are' fear, that fear is not something separate from you, what takes place? I am not running away from it. What takes place then?

Q: Accept.

K: Accept? On the contrary, I forget about it. You don't even know all this. You are just guessing. We'll continue with this tomorrow.

( To re-re-recap:) I want to learn about myself. I must know myself completely, passionately because this is the foundation of all action, without that I'll lead a life of utter confusion. So I must learn about myself. To learn about myself I cannot follow anybody. If I follow anybody I am not learning. Learning (directly about myself) implies the past (knowledge) doesn't interfere because myself is something so extraordinarily vital, moving, dynamic, so I must look at it afresh with a new mind.
There is no such new mind if (my experience of the ) past that is always operating. That's a fact. I see that. Then in seeing that I realize I am (subliminally ) frightened (to look directly at 'myself'?) . I don't know what will happen. So now I want to learn about fear - you follow. I am 'moving' all the time in the movement of learning. I want to know about myself and I realize something, a profound truth, and also in learning about fear I am going to learn, which means I mustn't run away from it at any price. I mustn't have a subtle form of desire to run away from it.
So what happens to a mind that is capable of looking at itself without ( the observer-observed?) division? The division being (subliminally created by the desire of?) getting rid of it, subtle form of escape, suppression and so on - what happens to the mind when it is confronted with fear and there is no question of running away from it? I have to stop. We will go on from where we leave off today, tomorrow. Please in the meantime (for homework?) find out, give your mind to it .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Sep 2016 #437
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

2ND K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1970 (reader friendly edited)


K: Shall we go on from where we left off yesterday? We were talking about fear and the necessity of knowing oneself. As we said, if there is no actual ( experiential?) understanding what one is, and the possibility of going beyond it, we must inevitably bring about (or get caught in ?) activities that will lead to a great deal of mischief and sorrow.
So it is absolutely essential that one should understand, not only the superficial layers of oneself, but our total (psychical?) entity, all the hidden parts.
And to learn ( by direct observation?) about that 'me', which is so very subtle, there needs to be an intense curiosity (interest?) and a sense of non-accumulative comprehension. And that is where our trouble is going to be, because our (conscious?) mind likes to function (safely installed?) in grooves, in ( its cultural?) patterns, or (its past experience and?) knowledge. It is 'tethered' to a particular 'belief' ( set of assumptions?) and from there it tries to understand this extraordinary movement of itself. And therefore there is an ongoing (friction and?) contradiction between the 'me' and the 'observer'.

Take ( one aspect of the 'me':) - the innumerable fears one has both biologically as well as psychologically. Now what does that fear do to the mind, the mind which ( by its very desire for continuity?) has created these fears? What is the effect of that on one's whole living?
Sirs, this is (supposed to be ) a 'discussion'. In talking over what fear does and becoming conscious of it, aware of it, it might be possible to go beyond it.
So I must (first) see the effects of fear. But do I 'know' the effects of it? Either I know it (from textbooks) that is, intellectually, or I know it as a memory of something that has happened in the past and I say, yes this did happen. From the past I see the effects. Right? So my past experience tells me the effects of it therefore it is something 'remembered' (in the field of the known?) and therefore not real. Whereas 'knowing' (experientially?) implies non-accumulative recognition, 'seeing' the fact.
Look, the actual awareness that 'I am hungry' is entirely different from the (virtual) response of a memory which has told me I have been hungry, therefore you are hungry now. So which is it? Is the ( memory of the ) past telling you the effects of fear, or are you aware of the actual fact, actual happening of the effects of fear? You see the ( qualitative?) difference?
The action of the two are entirely different - aren't they? The one, of being completely aware of the (psycho-somatic?) effect of fear acts instantly. Right? But if the effects of fear of the past and that memory tells me, yes the effects are these, then that ( 'thoughtful' ?) action is entirely different. Have I made myself clear? Now, which is it?

Q: As one is sitting here I have no fear because I am (comfortably ) listening to what you are saying.

K: Yes. As I am sitting in the tent, naturally I am not afraid. But the fear ( of what might happen or not happen tomorrow?) may come up as I leave the tent. So, can't you sitting here 'invite' it ?

Q: It may be a rightful fear.

K: Whatever the fear be - of losing money, of losing your job, afraid of death, afraid of not fulfilling yourself . Need you go back (analitically?) and say, 'Well, I have no fear now, but when I go outside I'll have them' - it is already (lurking ? ) there. So, need I wait until I leave the tent to find out what my (actual?) fears are, or sitting here be aware of them now?

Q: Well if you do that, you do a 'practise' already.

K: No, it is not a practice. Sir, aren't you ( subliminally?) afraid of losing your job? Aren't you afraid of death? Aren't you afraid of not being able to fulfil? Aren't you afraid of being lonely? Aren't you afraid of not being loved? Aren't you?

Q: Only if there is a challenge.

K: But I am challenging you. I can't understand this (slack?) mentality.

Q: Aren't you in a way complicating it by talking about 'invoking' fear? I don't have to invoke any of my fears - just by being here I can see my reactions.

K: That's all I am saying. Now which is it you are doing? Watching it (assisted by your ?) memory of the past or watching it without that memory, watching, learning about what is actually taking place when there is ( this surge of?) fear?

Q: Unfortunately we have no 'actual' (real?) fears at this moment.

K: All right sir. But when you have had fears in the past and when you were aware of those fears in the past, what effect those fears had on you and your environment - what happened? Weren't you cut off from others? Weren't the effect of those fears isolating you?

Q: It 'crippled' me.

K: It crippled you, isolated you, cut off. Now, the effect of that isolation in your daily action is to bring about ( a mental) 'fragmentation' - acting from a fear which in itself is isolating, contradictory, therefore in that there was a great deal of struggle, pain, anxiety – no?

Q: Sir, as a crippled person walks on crutches, so a person who is humbled, crippled by fear uses various kinds of crutches.

K: Right sir. So you are very clear what the action of our past fears does. Right? It produces 'fragmentary' (safe sequences of temporal ?) actions. Now what is the difference between that and the action of directly looking at fear without the response of memory? Look sir, when you meet a physical danger what takes place?

Q: Spontaneous action.

K: 'Spontaneous' action it is called. But is it ( truly?) spontaneous? You go along in the woods by yourself, and suddenly round the corner you come upon a bear with cubs - what happens then? Knowing the bear is a ( potentially?) dangerous animal, with cubs especially - what happens to you?

Q: There is a chemical change in you, the adrenaline rises.

K: Yes sir adrenaline and all the rest of it. Now what is the action that takes place?

(Various responses – inaudible)

K: No, sirs, of course if you are afraid you transmit it to the bear and the bear gets more frightened and attacks you. (Laughter) This is all very simple - do please - but you are missing the whole (inner aspect) point.
Have you ever faced a bear in the woods? There is a bear in front of you, a few feet away from you, all the bodily reactions, the adrenaline and so on there is instant stopping and you turn away and leave. What was this response? A (collective ) 'conditioned' response, wasn't it? People have told you generation after generation 'Be careful of wild animals' If you get frightened you will transmit that fear to the animal and then he will attack you. Now which is operating, fear or intelligence? The 'fear of wild animals' - that has been your conditioning from childhood, is that operating? Or is intelligence operating?
So see the difference: the conditioned response to that animal and the action of that conditioned response is one thing, and the operation of intelligence and the action of intelligence is entirely different, the two are entirely different. Are you meeting this thing? When a bus is rushing by, you don't throw yourself in front of it, your intelligence says, don't do it. It is not fear - your intelligence prevents you. It is not fear.

Q: Sir, when you meet a wild animal don't you have to have both intelligence and the conditioned response?

K: No sir. The moment it is an (instinctual ) conditioned response there is fear involved in it and that is transmitted to the animal; but if it is intelligence that is operating. If it is fear then its action is incomplete and therefore there is a danger from the animal, but the action of intelligence is entirely different. There is no fear at all (at that very moment ?) .

Q: (In Italian) If I watch intelligently that bear then will I be 'intelligently' killed? (laughter) Without fear.

K: Oh, yes, without fear. Now leave the animals alone. Let us start with ourselves, who are 'part animals' too.
The actions of fear based on our past memories are destructive, contradictory, paralysing. Do we see that when you are afraid you are (feeling) completely isolated and any action that took place from that isolation must by 'fragmentary' ( compensatory?) and therefore contradictory, therefore there was struggle, pain and all the rest of it? Now an action of awareness of fear without all the ( imaginary?) responses of memory is a complete action.
You try it! Do it (for homework: ) become aware, as you are walking along, going home, your old (recurring?) fears will come up. Then watch them, be aware, whether those fears are actually fears or projected by ( the self-centred?) thought as (a response of our personal ) memory.
If those fears are ( virtual reality?) projections of thought as the response of memory, then your ( further) action will be incomplete and therefore painful ( by creating a state of anxiety ?) . But as you walk along and a fear arises watch it, whether you are watching from the response of thought or merely watching. Right, is that clear?

So, what we are talking is (total ?) action, because life is action, not saying one part of life is action only, the whole of living is action. And that action is broken up, and this breaking up of action is this process of memory with its thoughts and isolation. Right? Is that clear?

Q: You mean that fear is totally experienced, every split second, without memory entering?

K: Sir, when you put a question like that, you have to investigate the question of ( our psychological?) memory. You have to have memory, the more clear, the more definite the better, if you are to function technologically, or if you want to go home, you have to have memory. But thought, as response of ( our psychological?) memory and projecting fear out of that memory, such action is entirely different.

Now what is (the root cause of our psychological?) fear? You have had yesterday certain fears. How does it happen? How do these fears take place? Would you tell me please?

Q: In me it is ( due to ) the attachment to the past.

K: Now let's take that one thing. Attachment to the past. What do you mean by that word 'attachment'?

Q: My mind is 'holding on' to something.
K: That is, he says, I am attached to a ( comforting?) memory. I am attached to a piece of furniture. I am attached, attached to a name, to a family, to a house, to a belief, to various memories and so on and so on - attached, bound, identified myself with that. Now why does this attachment take place?

Q: I think because fear ( of the unknown?) is the very basis of our civilization?

K: No sir, why are 'you' attached?

Q: Security ?

K: Now please, you are all too quick. I am (inwardly?) dependent on the furniture, on the family, to the wife. I am depending. Right? To give me comfort, to give me prestige. So this dependence is a (pretty obvious?) form of attachment. Now why do I depend on you, on the furniture, on my books - you follow? Don't answer me, look at it in yourself. You depend on something, don't you?

Q: It is part of our social conditioning.

K: Is it social conditioning that makes you depend? You have (collectively?) made this society, and in that ( mentality ) 'cage' your are caught, you are ( becoming) part of it. So don't blame 'society'. Why are 'you' depending?

Q: So as not to feel lonely.

K: Listen quietly. I depend on something because that something fills my emptiness. I depend on knowledge, books, because that covers my emptiness, my shallowness, so ( gathering lots of?) knowledge becomes extraordinarily important. I talk about pictures and the beauty of pictures because in myself I depend on that. So (my psychological?) 'dependence' indicates my (inner) emptiness, my loneliness, my insufficiency and that makes me depend on you. Right? That is a fact isn't it? If I am not ( feeling) empty, if I am not ( feeling ) insufficient, I wouldn't care of what you said or do. I wouldn't depend on anything. But because I am feeling (inwardly) empty, lonely, I don't know what to do with my life, I depend, which means I am (subliminally?) afraid of being lonely. Right? I am afraid of my emptiness. Therefore I fill it with clothes, or with ideas, or with persons.
Now wait - aren't you (subliminally?) afraid of 'uncovering' (exposing?) your loneliness, your insufficiency, your emptiness? And that is taking place now isn't it? Therefore you are ( inwardly?) afraid now. Right?
And what are you going to do (about it) ? Before you were attached to people, to ideas, to all kinds of stuff and now you see that this (psycho) dependence is actually covering up ( or trying to compensate for?) your emptiness, your shallowness, your shoddy little minds. And when you see ( the truth about?) that you are 'free' ( of your dependency & its associated fears?) - aren't you?
So now sir, you have uncovered ( the root cause of?) your fear, uncovered your attachment, and dependency, when you look into it you see your ( sad?) emptiness, your shallowness, your pettiness - and you are 'frightened' of ( facing) it. Right? What takes place?

Q: Try to escape ?

K: Which is trying to escape through ( a new?) attachment, through (a new?) dependency. Therefore your are back again in the old pattern. But if you see the truth (about the real cause of?) that attachment, dependency, emptiness, if you see that fact, you won't escape (facing it?) will you?
If you don't ( really want to?) see (and face) the 'fact' then you are bound to run away, you will do all kinds of ( compensatory) things. You try to fill (compensate for?) that (inner sense of?) emptiness in other (creative?) ways.
But when you see the ( truth of this inner ?) fact of that what has happened?
I have been attached (psychologically dependent of?) my house, to the wife, to the books, to my writing and becoming famous - you know the people who want to be 'famous' ought to be (psychologically?) 'kicked in the pants' . Now what do I do when I get (inwardly exposed to?) this feeling of great emptiness in me?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Is it an actual discovery? Or the response of the past? Don't answer me. Find out, sir, dig into yourself.

Q: Sir, in that 'emptiness' surely there is loneliness.

K: I am asking something entirely different. The (gnawing?) emptiness, loneliness and all that ( sense of inner?) insufficiency, and which you haven't been able to ( expose, integrate ?) and finish it, has brought about that fear (of the unknown?) .
Now is it 'your' discovery now, being here in the tent, or is it the (intellectual?) recognition of (what you already knew in?) the past? Have you discovered that you are 'attached' because you depend, and you depend because fear of emptiness. Are you aware of your 'emptiness' and the (compensatory?) process of what that emptiness does? Which means becoming aware of the ( subliminal?) fear involved in it? Or are you going back to the old stuff? Dependency, attachment - you follow? The regular pattern being repeated over and over and over again. Which is it - what is going to take place?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Have you discovered that this (lurking?) 'fear' is caused by your emptiness, your shallowness, your isolation? So then what takes place, if you don't run away through dependency and attachment, then what takes place when there is (the fact of) this emptiness?

Q: Freedom?

K: It's quite a complex problem, don't say (glibly?) 'it is freedom'. Before I was attached and I (used the object of my attachment to?) cover up my fear. Now I discover that this 'attachment' was an escape from ( a subliminal?) fear which came into being when I was aware for a split second of my ( inner) emptiness. Now I won't run away any more because I have finished with 'running away' - then what takes place?

Q: There is no time. We are nothing.

K: What takes place madame? Be simple, don't say 'no time'.

Q: After that split second (of inner realisation) there is another escape.

K: Which means you don't see the futility of such 'escapes' ( from facing the 'fact'?) . Therefore, if don't see it, keep on escaping. But if you do see it, if you are (becoming responsibly?) aware of your 'emptiness', what takes place?
If you are watching very carefully, 'who' is aware of this 'emptiness' ?

Q: The mind ?

K: Go slowly, please sir, please. Please don't jump into it. Go step by step. Is a ( supervising?) part of the mind aware of another part which is (feeling) lonely? You see my question? I have suddenly become aware that I am feeling lonely. And 'who' is aware of this loneliness? One fragment of my mind, which says I am lonely? In that (observation) there is a ( dualistic) division. Right? Therefore as long as there is a 'division' there is (a 'me' who attempts to ?) 'escape'.

Q: What happens when you ( fully?) experience this 'loneliness' - you are no longer aware of it ?

K: Sir, look sir. You need here a persistent, sustained observation. I am aware of my emptiness, before I have covered it up, not it has been stripped (exposed?) and I am aware. 'Who' is aware of this emptiness? A part of my mind? A separate segment of my mind? If it is, then there is a division between 'emptiness' and the entity becoming aware that it is empty, then in that division I say I must bring it together, I must experience this emptiness, I must act. But as long as there is a division between the observer and the (inner emptiness which is being?) observed there is a 'contradiction' ( a mental split ?) and therefore there is a conflict. Is that what you are doing? Please sirs you have to ( experientially ) answer this (for homework ?) , I can't answer for it. If it is a part that is watching what is that part?

Q: Is it the intelligence of energy?

K: What does that mean, I don't quite understand.

Q: Born out of energy.

K: Sir, don't complicate it sir, it is complex enough. Don't bring in other words.

Q: It is universal.

K: Look sir, my ( experiential ) question is very simple. I asked, when you are ( becoming) aware of this ( sense of inner ) emptiness, from which you have (actively) escaped (outwardly) through attachment and when you are no longer 'running away' from it, and you say you are aware of the emptiness, 'who' is aware? It is ( the experiential homework left?) for you to find out. Who is aware?

Q: This awareness (may be just ) another escape, and you see you are nothing else but all these things put together.

K: When you say, 'I am aware of my emptiness' it is another form of escape ? We are (already ) caught in a ( sophisticated) network of (psychological) escapes. And that's our life.
Let me finish. So if you realize that it ( your 'awareness') is ( becoming) an escape, as attachment is an escape, then you drop that escape. Right? Are you going from one escape after another? Or do you see one (common) factor of escape and therefore your have understood all the factors of escape?
We will continue the same thing tomorrow, until it becomes real to you, not because I say so, real to you, it's your life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Sep 2016 #438
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

3RD K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1970 (reader friendly edited)


K: May we go on with what we were talking about yesterday morning? We were talking about (psychological) dependency and how deeply does our attachment go. I do not know if you have observed it in yourself. We (K?) were watching it yesterday, all throughout the day, to find out if there is any form of (personal) attachment - coming here regularly, living in a particular chalet, going to one country after another, talking, addressing people, being looked up to, criticized, exposed. If you have watched throughout the day, one discovers naturally how deeply one is attached to something or another or not at all. If there is any form of attachment, it doesn't matter what it is, to a book, to a particular diet, to a particular pattern of thought, activity, committed to certain social responsibility - such attachment invariably breeds the fear (of losing the object of your attachment?) . And a mind that is frightened, though it may not know it because it is ( safely?) attached, obviously is not free and therefore must live in a constant state of inner conflict.

I wonder if each one of us, if we are at all serious, have gone into this question, because (inner) freedom means freedom from all attachment, and therefore from all dependency. A mind that is attached is not clear, cannot think sanely, observe directly.
And there are the superficial, psychological attachments and there are deep layers in which there may be some form of attachment. How do you discover those? Please, we are sharing with each other the examination, which is not an (intellectual?) analysis.
How does one observe the hidden attachments ? Most of us are attached to some form of ( personal) conclusions. And according to that (set of) conclusions we function. And that is one problem : can the mind not form any conclusion at all ? I like this, I don't like that, I believe - conclusions, intellectually or through some experience you have come to a (particular) way of thinking. Can the mind act without ( the background of its own?) conclusions? That is one point. The second (experiential ?) point is: can the mind reveal to itself the hidden attachments, patterns and dependencies. And the third: can the mind, seeing the nature and structure of attachment, can the mind (keep moving?) in a way of life which is not self-isolating but highly active and with no fixation at any point?

First of all, are we aware that we are psychologically (dependent?) 'attached' , first of all, biologically, physically attached. Are you aware that you are attached physically to 'things'? And being aware of that, are you aware also of the ( karmic?) implications of those attachments ? If you are attached to ( the habit of?) smoking, see how extraordinarily difficult it is to give it up. Once I 'tried it' and I was sick and I put it aside. But the people who smoke, it has become a habit, find it incredibly difficult, since not only acts as stimulation and a social habit and all that, but the attachment to it - the attachment to drink, to various forms of stimuli - is one aware of all this? If you are, can the mind, watching this habit, can it completely, immediately drop it? See what is involved in it - the ( psycho-somatic) body demands it, because it acts as a stimulus or whatever it is, and the ( rationally thinking ) mind has said, oh, I must give it up. So there is a battle between the bodily demands and the decision of the mind.
Now what are you going to do ? Let's discuss this (elementary case?) - the body's attached to drink and the ( rational part of your?) 'mind' says, I must be free of it.
And also do you realize that this (ongoing) conflict between the body and the mind doesn't help, it becomes a problem, a struggle. What will you do?

Q: I realize that I 'am' ( the creator of?) my habit.

K: Yes. I realize I 'am' my habit, my habit 'is' me. Then what will you do ?

Q: Must we not go to the roots of these habits?

K: Sir, let us learn how to 'look' and from that very looking action takes place. ( On the psychological level?) seeing 'is' acting, that is what we are concerned with. I have a particular habit; how does the mind stop it without any kind of effort ?

Q: Observe it in its entirety.

K: That statement may answer all our questions. You observe in its entirety - what does that mean ? The entire mechanism of habits - the whole of it, not a fragment of it. Now, how does the mind watch the 'whole of the habit' (the 'inner habitat'?) in which it lives?

Q: Passive awareness or passive observation.

K: You are quoting the speaker. I'm afraid that won't do. Don't quote anybody, sir, including Charlie Brown! Look, sir, can the mind watch, not only a particular little habit, but become aware of this whole mechanism of forming habits. We are trying to learn about it - I live ( comfortably installed?) in habits, my whole life is a ( dynamic?) structure of habits.
Now how is the mind to be aware of the entire 'habit mechanism'? Is it to become aware of one habit after another ? Do you know how long that would take? I could spend the rest of my days watching each habit and yet not solving it.
So I am asking, is it possible for the mind to see the whole network of habits - ( at one glance?) : how is it to do it?

Q: One can become aware of the wastefulness of energy in pursuing a particular pattern of habit or many patterns. And ( voilà!) thereby liberating oneself from all habits.

K: Please, don't give me a 'menu' but give me food, I am asking, what will you do ?

Q: If you can see one habit, totally, possibly one could discard all habits.

K: Now how do I watch one habit ( like ) twiddling my fingers, and see all the other habits? I know why I do it - I do it because because I am nervous, shy or this or that. And there it is. But I want to learn about the whole network of habits - is there a way of looking at this whole network, instantly?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Habit consists of two parts, the physical habit that exists and the 'observer' who is concerned with this is also a (higher level?) 'habit'. So both are habits. You understand? I fiddle with my fingers and I observe the observation also is from an entity which is the result of ( my perceptive ) habits. Obviously. So it is all habits. How will you help me learn about it?

Q: Me and my habits, my whole life is habit, my mind is a habit.

K: Yes, sir - what am I to do?

Q: It is a state of my mind. So, I must change my (inner) structure.

K: Wait - I must change the structure of my mind. Who is the I that is going to change if the 'I' is also a ( thinking?) habit - a series of words, and memories and knowledge, which is the ( repetitive action of the?) past.

Q: As we are all caught in habits, we all obviously don't know.

K: If you don't know, then let's learn together. But first be clear that you don't know . Are we in that position, saying, I really don't know?

Q: But why do we have to have all these habits ?

K: Why? It's fairly simple - to have ( well established ?) habits of many kinds doesn't need much ( further) thinking. Therefore the ( conscious) mind likes to function in grooves, in habits. and the brain also likes it because it is safe, secure, to function in habits - that's simple. Now how is the mind to observe this whole network of habits?

Q: May be can pay attention every moment, as far as our energies allow ?

K: You see, that is just an 'idea' . May I go into it now? Since you don't know - not that I am (the?) Delphic Oracle, we are going to find out together. How is the mind, including the brain, to see something totally? Not only habit - to see anything totally.
We ( usually) see things 'fragmentarily' – 'me' and the 'not-me', we and they. Do I look at life that way? Then arises my question then, how is the mind, which is so caught up in this 'habit' of fragmentary outlook, how is such a mind to see the whole? Obviously it can't. If I am concerned with my particular fulfilment, ambition, competition and my desire to achieve, I can't see the whole ( suffering of?) of mankind.
Now my question is, how is this mind which functions in fragments - realizing that it cannot possibly see the whole, what is it to do? Is it to 'break down' every fragment, understand every fragment - again, that would take a long time. Or what is it to do? Are you waiting for an answer from the speaker?

Q: Our actions ( based on) habits are not in the future, we can see our habits now actually at this very moment.

K: We are doing that, aren't we? Can I understand this whole machinery habit now ? Look, sir - I take one habit and through learning about that one habit, a serious habit, by observing that one habit I can see the whole mechanism of all habits. What shall I take?

Q: Smoking ?

K: Take the habit of smoking. Now, I am not 'analysing' it , do you understand the difference between analysis and ( direct ) observation. Analysis implies one (fixed entity?) who analyses and the thing to be analysed – in our case 'the habit of smoking' - and to analyse that there must be an ( objective & knowledgeable ?) 'analyser'. And the difference between that (dualistic ) analysis, and 'observation' is this: observation is the 'seeing directly' without ( the detour of?) analysis. Seeing things as they are: in this ( non-personal?) seeing there is no observer. I see the colour red, visually, the vibrations and all the rest of it, are translated in the brain as red. And there is no like or dislike, there is observation. So analysis implies a division between the analyser and the thing analysed. In observation there is no division. I observe, there is observation without the 'censor' (without the cultural self-censoring?) , without saying, this is beautiful, this is not so beautiful - just to observe without any ( sense of ) division.
You have to do this (experientially) and then you'll find out.
As I said, we are not analysing we are merely observing this 'habit' of smoking. Now, in observing, what does it reveal?

Q: It reveals that you are putting into your lungs a lot of nasty smoke.

K: It reveals that you are drawing into your lungs a lot of smoke. One fact. Second, it is going to tell you the 'history' of smoking. Now what does it tell you?

Q: That you are dependent and that it has become a very mechanical thing, you don't think about it - you just do it.

K: It tells you that you are doing something mechanically, it tells you that when you first smoked it made you sick. It was not pleasant, but other people did it round you, so you did it. Now it has become a ( psychosomatic?) habit.

Q: Does it tell you that it 'tranquillises' you to a certain extent?

K: It tells you that it helps quieten your nerves, cuts your appetite, you don't get fat.

Q: It also tells you that you are bored with your life.

K: It tells you, you are bored with life. It tells you that when you meet others and you feel nervous by taking a cigarette it makes you kind of (convivial?) you know - it has told you a lot. And why are your accepting all that?

Q: It's easier ?

K: Is it for the sake of security, to be like the rest of the people? Which means, you are frightened not to be like the rest of the people. You want to be like everybody else, because in that there is perfect safety.
Now look what it has revealed to me. What the picture of that weed has revealed and why I am caught in the habit. It is interrelationship between the cigarette and me. And this is the ( very mechanism of?) habit, this is the way my whole mind is working. I do something because it (my whole life?) is ( feeling) safer, I don't have to think about it any more.
So through ( observing non-personally?) one habit of cigarette smoking, I have discovered all the pattern (of habit forming?) , I have discovered the ( mental?) machinery that is producing habits. No?

Q: Though we are living in habits, both physically and psychologically, in accepting those habits, can't we live freely & happily ?.

K: One can live 'happily blind', if you call blind living happy, it's up to you.
Now through one habit, if you 'listen' (with the inner ear?) to the whole history of that habit - you can find out the machinery that breeds habits.

Q: I didn't understand perfectly how you can see through one habit, the whole mechanism of habit.

K: Habit implies functioning mechanically ( and comfortably?) , through ( the psycho-somatic stimulation offered by?) smoking - and we could see ( why and?) how it has become mechanical. And from (holistically infering?) that (particular?) observation of mechanical habit of smoking, I see how the mind functions ( within an inner 'habitat' based on?) habits.

Q: But aren't there other dependencies than just mechanical habits ?

K: The moment we use the word 'habit', it implies mechanical, repetition, establishing a good habit, which means doing the same (good?) thing over and over again. The doing over and over again is ( comparatvely?) called 'good', because one is also caught in doing the 'bad' things, so ( holistically speaking?) there is no 'good' habit and 'bad' habit, only 'habit', we are concerned.

Q: If I have the habit of comfort, or the habit of property, it isn't there something more deep, or it is just 'mechanical'?

K: I said that it gives you ( a sense of?) security, safety and so on. In examining that one habit I've traced all the other habits are based on that. Deep down all habits are 'mechanical' (repetitive & predictible?).

Q: Are they really?

K: Look at it, sir - anything that I do repetitively, which is doing the same thing from yesterday to today, to tomorrow, must be mechanical. That mechanical, repetitive action may ( get optimised and?) function a little more smoothly, but it is still habit, still repetitive - that's obvious.

Q: Would you say that certain creative efforts are habits?

K: Let's answer that question, sir. Would you say creativeness is a habit?

Q: Creativity implies freshness.

K: Creativity implies newness, freshness.

Q: You don't make an effort to be creative.

K: If I make effort I can't be creative. Therefore one has to ask what you mean by 'creativeness'. You paint a picture, either you do it because you love painting, or it brings you money, or you want to find some original way of painting and so on. So what does it mean to be (inwardly?) creative? The man who is attached to his violin and makes a lot of money out of it, is he creative? And the man who is in great tension, in himself, and out of that tension he produces a play, which the world says, 'how marvellous'. Would you call that creative?
Q: How can you judge?

K: I am not judging.

Q: But that is the question you pose. If I say someone is or isn't creative, I am judging.

K: I am not judging, sir, I look at all the people who write books, the people who write poems, who write plays, who fiddle, the Church - I see this in front of me, I don't say this is right, this is wrong, this is good, this is bad - I say, what is creativeness ? . I want to learn, I want to find out what it means to be creative.

Q: Perhaps it is to have an innocent universality.

K: Must I write a poem, paint a picture, write a play, to be (inwardly?) creative? Which means, does creativeness demand expression?

Q: The moment you see you and act is the very moment of creation.

K: To discover something new, doing something totally new, that means, the past must end. One can 'live creatively', without doing any of these ( creative?) things, neither baking a brick, bread, painting a picture, writing a poem - that means, you can only do that when the mind is non-fragmentary, when there is no fear, when the mind is free of all the implications of the past, when the mind is free of the known.

Q: For me, creativity isn't a 'thing'.

K: You know, sir, yesterday, after talking about attachment, I was watching it, the mind was watching it all day, whether it was attached to anything, to sitting on a platform, talking, wanting to tell people, writing something or other, attached, person, ideas, chair - one has to find out. And in finding out one discovers enormous things, the beauty of freedom and the love that comes out of that freedom. And as we were talking of Creation, it is that the machinery of habit, the network of habit, one has to be aware, go into it, let it flow through you, you follow, like the river, moving, moving, moving. Let this enquiry, the learning, carry you all day, and you will discover enormous things.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2016 #439
Thumb_2018-01-20-120616 Daniel Paul. Ireland 127 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti: Sorrow does not purify. Why is there sorrow? When the mind is stagnant, drugged to sleep by beliefs, crippled by limitations, and is awakened by the movement of life, that awakening we call suffering. Where there is the disturbance of our security through the action of life, that we call suffering. Instead of seeing that suffering is a hindrance, we try to utilize it to get some other result. Through an illusion you cannot come to reality.

Now sorrow is but the indication of limitation, of incompleteness. When one discerns the impediment of sorrow, one cannot make of it a means of purification. You must be rid of its limitation. You must understand the cause and its effects. If you use it as a means of purification, you are subtly deriving from it security, comfort. This only creates further hindrances, impeding the awakening of intelligence. Out of these many hindrances, these self-defensive memories is born the limited consciousness, the "I", which is the true cause of suffering.


I think that this deserves its place amongst k's teaching..for me it is a rare clear saying about "my" "pet" subject....

I do not wish to bring my "view" here, so I leave it as it is..yet bearing in mind that k let anyone to discover for oneself what this means as a "doing":

  • You must be rid of its limitation. You must understand the cause and its effects.

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Mon, 12 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2016 #440
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

Daniel Paul. wrote:
I think that this deserves its place amongst k's teaching..for me it is a rare clear saying about "my" "pet" subject....

Sure, Dan, it's a very clear statement. However I've never seen sorrow as a 'limitation' - it is a limitation only if you believe in its 'redeeming' virtues. As I'm seeing it 'here and now' is that sorrow- from its most trivial to its most 'elevated' forms ( as in 'Jesus suffered for us all ') seems to be the direct or indirect result of our conscious (or un-conscious) collective 'choice' to stand firmly anchored in our own continuity in time. It's a choice that almost seems to invite inner decay and frustration. Now, what K seems to be doing rather than saying it explicitly, is to 'flow' and intelligently interact with the incoming challenges, which is giving a special quality 'fluidity and transparence' to our mind & heart. The point may be that before we did not know we had such an alternative 'choice'. So this might be his non-personal contribution for the spiritual developpment of mankind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2016 #441
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

4TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1970 (reader friendly edited)


K: Shall we go on with what we were talking about yesterday morning? Whether one can see the whole network of fears and escapes without analysis but 'observe' it directly , in which there is no analytical process at all.
So could we go into it much more deeply and find out and learn whether in the mind, not only the superficial layers but also the deep layers of the mind there are (hidden subliminal?) fears ? And we said, as most people are ( psychologically ?) attached to something or another, that attachment indicates a (fear prompted?) 'escape' from one's own loneliness, one's own frustrations, emptiness, shallowness and so on. Now when one is aware of this whole movement of ( our psychological?) fear, which is a 'movement away' from ( directly facing ?) the fact of (this inner sense of?) emptiness, can one see this total process as a whole and not partially?
To see something ( as a?) whole the fragmentary process must come to an end. The 'fragmentary process' of the mind that seeks (wordly?) success, or follows certain systems of meditation in order to arrive at enlightenment.
Can we look at the network of fear and at the various 'escape' through which our whole being 'runs away' , can we see this complicated, very subtle form of escape which is the very nature of fear. Can we see that to act from any form of 'conclusion' is fragmentary, because it stops further learning ?

Now what makes for this (inner?) 'fragmentation' ? Fear is a form of fragmentation, attachment is a form of fragmentation, as the attempt to be detached is a movement in fragmentation. I am first attached to my family, then I discover that ( the psychological dependence of my?) family causes pain & pleasure: if it is painful I want to detach myself from it, and fight attachment. So it is a movement (with)in fragmentation, and therefore there is no resolution in that fragmentation.
Now what is the mechanism of this (psychological?) fragmentation in our life ( manifested?) not only inwardly but outwardly - the German, the Dutch, the French, the English, your religion, my religion, the Zen Meditation, the practice of Indian meditation, the practice of certain mantras - all fragmentation. Through one of these fragmentations one hopes to arrive at a synthesis, at a completeness, enlightenment, what you like. Is that possible. That is through an (ongoing inner?) fragmentation you hope to achieve a non-fragmentary mind. And is that possible? Though all the yogis, rishis, you know, promise all these things.
So one has to find out why this 'fragmentation' comes into being, and actually see the non-analytically the whole mechanism of it.

Q: Sir, but aren't these rishis 'enlightened' men.

K: The 'maharishis' and the 'rishis' and the yogis are they enlightened? You are asking my opinion? ( In this area?) only the 'fools' give (are making public their ?) opinions. Now, how do you know, you, know who is enlightened?
I may sit up on the platform and say, I am the most wise, most enlightened, most divine human being - how do you know ? Don't laugh. This is what is happening in the world - a man comes and asserts - do these things, you will have enlightenment, I've got it, I'll give it to you. How do you know he is enlightened?

Q: You can experience yourself, if you observe. You have a method too in a way, I think.

K: No, sir, we are not showing you a method at all, learning is not a 'method': you are learning as you observe. If you observe that one system (of meditation) conditions the mind, makes the mind mechanical, then all systems are the same - that is, you learn. You learn what (following such?) a system does - through a system you (may or not?) have most extraordinary experiences but it is still very limited experience. This is so obvious.

Q: Couldn't it be that to start of with you could use the 'system', just to get an idea of the fragmentary state, and then from there to get the whole and watch oneself and all that ?

K: Wouldn't it be helpful to have a system to begin with, and then after a little while throw it off. Begin with the crutches and later on throw it off - hang on to the guru's strings and then let go later on ?
Our question is, why do you hold on to any string when you can observe, learn, from watching yourself, the whole phenomenon of existence and go beyond it ? Sir, you want to be 'helped' and that is the greatest impediment. That is, you have the idea somebody can teach you, therefore you begin right off with the fragmentation 'you' and the ( presumably?) 'enlightened' being. Obviously there is a division.

Q: But aren't you 'teaching'?

K: Am I? Probably the first few years, he (K) has been, you have heard this. But he has been saying for (the last) 45 years, that (in the process of a shared learning?) there is no 'teacher' and no 'disciple' – (since) one has perceived the truth that nobody can teach 'enlightenment' to another, through no system, through no meditation, through no discipline, one saw that 45 years ago. And you ask whether you are a 'teacher' or not . Teacher (traditionally?) implies one who has accumulated (practical experience and?) knowledge and transmits to the 'student'. We are not in that relationship here at all. We are 'learning together' - all (no-fragmentary?) communication means learning together, creating together, watching together. If that is understood then ( the quality of?) our communication is entirely different. But if you have a feeling that because he sits on the platform he (should) know better, that he is the enlightened one, I say, please don't attribute things to the person who is sitting here – since you know nothing about (the non-dualistic nature of?) 'enlightenment'. If you knew it or if you understood and lived it, you wouldn't be (sitting) here.
So, sirs, we are trying to find out, learn, what is implied in fragmentation. The (dualistic mentality of the?) 'teacher' and the 'disciple' - that is fragmentation. The 'higher' self and the 'lower' self, the 'soul' and the 'body', this constant fragmentation is (the result of our self-divisive mentality?)

Q: Thought is only capable of giving attention to one thing.

K: Thought is only capable of giving attention to one thing at a time. Then are you saying that ( our self-centred?) thought is the cause of fragmentation? If my thinking can only give attention to that, and discard all the rest, then it must breed fragmentation: the very process of ( such) thinking is fragmentation. We are going to learn about it.
I am asking why we live in fragmentation. How does it happen, and what is behind the ( hidden?) demand for this fragmentation?
Let's take a very simple (in class example : ) you are the Teacher and he is the disciple. Do I want to learn or do I want to follow the ( spiritual) authority which you represent, which (other people?) have invested in yourself.
You say you are 'enlightened' and I want to have that something that will give me 'happiness'. So ( being psychologically greedy?) I follow you. I have never asked myself what is the basis of accepting you as my (spiritual) authority. You might have had one or two 'experiences' which you have 'blown up' into a tremendous thing, and I look at you and I am incapable of judging because you fascinate me by your (looks or?) beard or whatever it is, and I just 'follow' you. Whereas if I want to 'learn' (for myself) , I won't accept you as my spiritual authority, because the moment you become 'the' authority, you (as well as I?) already brought about fragmentation.
And that will inevitably lead to conflict between 'you' the teacher and 'me' (the psychologically greedy follower?) . Is this clear ? So that means, I will never ( bother to?) follow anybody.

Q: If he does good to you, sir. If you do something and you experience yourself, and it is good for you, why shouldn't you do it? I mean, it's still fragmentary but isn't it better to have something fragmentary than nothing?

K: The teacher tells me something and I do it and in the doing of it I have great delight, great pleasure, and think that I have understood. What is implied in that? My craving for (psychic?) experience, my craving to understand - not 'myself' but what that (clever?) bird is saying, what the guru is saying. If the ( K type of?) guru said, look, understand yourself, that is far more important than anything else, don't try to understand me, but understand yourself, then you are 'stuck', so you'd rather follow than understand yourself.
So why is there this 'fragmentation' ?

Q: Because we are made from fragmentary processes.

K: You have an (inclination) for engineering, but why should from that faculty arise fragmentation? I have a 'faculty' for playing the piano - why should that bring about fragmentation. Aren't you putting the cart before the horse ? Is it the faculty that is bringing about fragmentation or the mind is ( already?) broken up and using one of the fragments, one of the faculties, and therefore further strengthening the division. You understand what I am saying?
There is ( our cultural) fragmentation - the 'teacher' and the 'disciple', the man who says he's enlightened and the man who say's, I don't know, teach me. How does it happen? If I could really understand it, learn all about it, I've finished with it. Then my relationship with another will be entirely different, then my activities will not be fragmentary, they will be total each time.
Now I am asking, why does it happen. What do you say, sirs?

Q: Is there a ( subliminal?) expectation?

K: We live in expectation and that very expectation is a form of fragmentation. We 'expect' ( some reward?) : is that the real reason, te real truth for (our inner?) fragmentation, expectation? That is one of the effects of fragmentation, like wanting success, that wanting success is the effect of my fragmentation - me, that is tremendously important, I want success - through painting, writing, this or that. But what is the basis of this fragmentation?

Q: Our senses are fragmentary.

K: Our senses are also fragmentary, the taste, the smell, the seeing, the listening, all the rest of it, it is all fragmentary. Is that what we are discussing? That is part of it - that is part of this fragmentation, but we are discussing why the mind, the brain, divides.

Q: It is not possible to think about the whole at once.

K: So you are saying that fragmentation exists as long as ( we are using our?) thought, which cannot think about the whole thing at once, that is the cause of fragmentation ?

Q: Yes, communication to other people is also fragmentary, now we are thinking about self-knowledge and not about mountain climbing. You can't put everything together.

K: Now let's be clear, what we are talking about here: of our ways of thinking, looking, listening, coming to conclusions. Why is there this ( concluding?) process which inevitably brings about fragmentation - that is what we are discussing.

Q: But discussing only this already prevents you.

K: So discussing this very issue is a form of fragmentation. But we are asking, why this fragmentation exists, why can't I communicate with you completely. And you convey to me completely. So let's go into this slowly and find out,- what is the (true) cause of this fragmentation.

Q: Is it because we cling to the idea of 'ourselves' ?

K: Yes, we cling to a (psychological?) 'conclusion' and that is the reason of fragmentation. Why do we cling to a fragmentation?

Q: I still think it is a ( question of?) communication, for instance, at school, you have lessons in English, in French and geography, it is fragmentary from the beginning.

K: You are saying, our whole ( concept of?) education is all fragmentary, and therefore our mind is from childhood, conditioned by this fragmentation.

Q: The very process of thinking, is ( aimed at) forming conclusions, you can't think without forming a conclusion.

K: So you are all saying, in more or less different words, that thought is the source of all fragmentation.

Q: We are saying it is the 'process' of thought.

K: Yes, thought, which is ( our self-centred?) thinking, is fragmentary. Is a fragment of ourselves.

Q: And all the results of our thinking, which is a fragment of ourselves, must result in further cleavages, further breaking up.

K: So you are saying to me, who am learning, as you are learning, that ( our self-centred?) thought is the source of all fragmentation. No?

( Brief reasoning detour : ) thought is the result or the response of memory. And memory is the past. And that memory of the past is always divided (temporally?) . Obviously : ( what happened in) the past, the ( what is happening ) today and the (what could happen?) tomorrow - the past experience, the present experience and the future (hopeful experiences?) . The ( same memory of my ) past that says, I haven't learnt, I don't know, and I I am going to learn from you. What do you say, sirs? Isn't that the major cause of fragmentation?

Q: Sir, you have already said so. I would think ( we'd better be) talk about time, the awareness of time is taking our attention away from the present.

K: Time divides - what is time? What is time?

Q: Thought.

K: Find out, sir - there is the 'chronological' time, by the watch - I have to go to the station, to catch a train, it goes by a certain time, and there is ( the psychological) time as ( my professional?) achievement, as ($$$ and?) success, or as I don't know enough, but I'm going to learn. All that involves psychological time. Which is (a temporal projection of?) thought that says, I don't know but you know and you tell me that I will know if I do follow these steps - so there is a division created by thought, which wants success. The success being not money this time – but 'enlightenment' or faith. Are you saying that ( our self-centred?) thinking is the mechanism that brings about this fragmentation, the ( same divisive mentality of?) thought that has said, you are a Hindu, you are a Catholic, you are brown and you are black, you are white, you are pink – the thought conditioned by the values of a particular society and that says, everybody who does not belong to (our?) culture is a barbarian. This is all clear, isn't it?

(Now, the 'action' part:) If thought is responsible for this fragmentation, what are you going to do about it? I have to earn a livelihood, I have a job - a doctor, professor, mathematician , whatever it is - and I have a family, my son, my wife, my daughter. And also there is me, with my problems, with my ambitions, with my successes. So there is livelihood, there is the family, there is the function and the desire to derive a status from that functioning, and the me - all fragmentary. Now what am I to do if I see that thought is responsible for all this outer & inner fragmentation?) . Is that so or not? We are learning - if the speaker is wrong, tell him, find out.

Q: But we are thinking all the time. We are thinking at this very moment.

K: That is the whole point. We are thinking ( dualistically?) and we say, I have to earn a livelihood, a family enjoyment, success, wanting to find out enlightenment, the (perfect?) guru all that. And ( supervising all these areas of interest ?) there is the 'me' (the 'thinker' who is thoughtfully?) muddling through all this.
So, you (K) tell me that (this dualistic ?) thinking is responsible for bringing about a certain culture and ( in turn?) that culture has conditioned me, saying, 'you are a Brahmin', you are a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, this or that. So ( in the psychological realm ) thought has done this, and the same thought says you have to go out and earn a livelihood. You must earn money for your family, for your children.

Q: Isn't there something else in us behind this ( dualistic) process of thought ?

K: We will (eventually?) come to that. But you can't come to that without understanding (the dualistic nature of?) this machinery of thought. Now if you are absolutely clear that this (dualistic process of?) thought divides - thought divides ( places a safe time interval between ) the 'living now' and the 'dying tomorrow'. But the same (thoughtful?) thought says '( Eventually ) you'll (still) die', and I get frightened. Or it says, 'that was a marvellous pleasure, I must have more of it'. Or again, it says, you have done something which wasn't right (in Ojai?) a few years ago, be careful, don't let it occur again, don't let it be discovered. So ( this 'time' ?) thought is breeding fear, pain, pleasure.
So ( our self-centred ?) thinking process is dividing. That is the (experimentally observable?) truth, whether you see it or not, it is so.
Now then ( the experiential issue is:) knowing that inwardly (the process of self-centred?) thought brings about fragmentation, conclusions, and therefore sustains division, fragmentation and (at the same time I have to earn a living and know where is my home ) what are you going to do?

Q: Is it our thinking itself that divides?

K: Or is it the (self-centred?) way we use our (capacity of?) thinking that divides ? Who is the 'I' that uses the 'thinking' which divides ?

Q: The ( controlling?) action of the same thought.

K: That makes three - the 'I', the thought and ( controlling?) action of that thought. So you've got it still more complicated. So, don't come to any conclusion, first listen to what the speaker is saying. I have to earn a livelihood, (or rather?) a livelihood has to be earned, therefore (the practical capacity of?) thought must be employed there. ( Then) I come back home and ( the same process of self-centred ?) thought says, my family, my responsibility. I have great pleasure in sex (with?) my wife - thought is in operation all the time, all the time breeding fragmentation, a 'breaking up' (of our existence?) - the teacher, the disciple, the success. So, what are you going to do (about it) ? knowing that (our traditionally dualistic?) thinking brings about ( inner & outer ? ) 'fragmentation' and (this resulting) fragmentation means fear, fragmentation means conflict, fragmentation means that there will be no (inner or outer?) peace whatsoever. You may talk about peace but there will be no peace as long as there is fragmentation by thought. So faced with this ( pretty serious?) fact, what is going to happen?

Q: Identify myself with the thought ?

K: But who is the 'I' (the entity in control?) who identifies itself with its thought ? Has not ( our self-centred?) thought created the 'I'? The 'I' being, ( the active memory of all ?) my experiences, my knowledge, my success, which is all the ( controlling by - ?) product of thought.
And (even ) if you say: No, it is my Higher Self, ( a spark of?) God, it is still ( the sublimated result of the same self-centred ?) thought, that has thought about 'God'. So what will you do , sir ?

Q: Thought must end.

K: Thought must end - how is it to end? Listen, sir: thought must operate when you go home or do something mechanical, even to drive - you follow? And if you say, thought must end, then thought must end altogether. Then you can't earn a livelihood, you can't go home, you won't be able to speak. Sir, watch yourself, find out. There must be the (rightful?) usage of thought and also (psychologically -wise) thought sees that it does breed fragmentation. So what is thought to do?

Q: It seems that we come to this (fine ) point in almost every discussion - my question is: is that a question that can be actually answered ?

K: We're going to find out.

Q: I become afraid because I see a deadlock.

K: I am afraid (of getting totally stuck?) because I see a deadlock, an impasse, I don't know what to do. Now will you, knowing that you don't know what to do, will you learn? Will you learn, sir?

Q: If it is possible.

K: My question is not whether it is possible or not, but I said, will you learn about this ?

Q: Yes.

K: To 'learn' (about such subtle things?) , what does it imply. Curiosity, doesn't it ? Are you 'curious' to learn? Are you eager to learn, passionate to learn about this? Because (a total insight into ?) this may solve all our (inner) problems, therefore you must be intense, curious, passionate to find out. Are you, or are you going to say: so far I have functioned ( thinking safely ?) with conclusions, so I'll form another 'conclusion' (inferred hypothesis?) and act from that.
So if you want to 'learn' (about the truth of things?) , these three (minimal pre-requisites?) are absolutely necessary – (a) curiosity, (b) eagerness, and (c )you must have ( a minimum of free inner ?) energy, and that energy gives you passion to find out, learn. Have you these things, or you just want to learn, casually talk about this.

Q: Is it so 'one pointedness'?

K: Sir, it is (all about a?) mind that wants to learn, that wants to find out is like a child that says, I want to know what the mountain is made of.

Q: I need to be (inwardly ) detached to learn (this way ) .

K: Sir, why do you (have to) translate into your own words what one has said. I said (a) one must have great deal of energy, (b) one must be curious to find out, and ( c ) to find out you must be (earnest?) persistent, not just one minute to be full of curiosity, and the next minute say, Sorry, I'm getting bored. Then (obviously) you can't learn anything.

Q: Does this 'learning' guarantee me certainty ?

K: Listen to that question - I will ( be ready, willing & able to?) learn if it guarantees me complete certainty for the rest of my life.

Q: (In Spanish) This fragmentation gives me a sense of security and I cling to that security.

K: And when you come along and say, 'look what you are doing!' you are disturbing my (inward sense of ) security, I am therefore frightened, so...I don't want to learn. This is what you are all doing. I have found great delight in my writing a ( succesful?) book and I ( may ) know I function from fragmentation but that book gives me fame, money, position and 'for god's sake keep out. Don't talk to me, don't disturb me'. The house is burning but don't disturb me.
Let's proceed from this otherwise we are going only four more days, you understand, I want to get on with this thing.

So, if (the dualistic usage of our capacity of ?) thinking is the source of all fragmentation and yet the (objective function of ) thinking has to be used, what is to take place, how is thought ( to know when?) not to function and yet to function? You follow the question?

If thought is (inwardly) responsible for this fragmentation and all ( our existential?) 'conclusions' are fragmentations : 'I must be secure, I am frightened of uncertainty'. But there may be a (holistic) way of living which will give you (not only) physical security, which is what you want, but freedom psychologically. And that freedom will bring about complete physical security. But you don't see this, so you are (hopefully?) going to learn (about it) .
If thought is responsible for this fragmentation and yet thought must function ( in order for us?) to survive (decently?) , then what is one to do? Then what is thought to do?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: No sir, it is not a (matter of ) linkage, you cannot put fragments together and make it whole. Many spokes of the wheel doesn't make the wheel - it's how you put the spokes (into the hub?) that makes the wheel.

Q: As we have to use thought but we don't want to come to fragmentation, can we just become conscious of this (subliminal?) tendency of thought to produce fragmentation - if you are getting conscious of that it doesn't...

K: That very 'consciousness' ( core awareness?) of this whole process brings about a different quality altogether. Is that what you are saying? Now is that what is happening to you? Be careful, sir, go very slowly into this. Thought must be exercised, thought must exercise, and thoughts also realizes that it breeds fragmentation and therefore conflict and therefore fear and all the misery in the world. And yet thought itself, you are suggesting, must be conscious of this whole process. Now see what happens. We said, (that the dualistic usage of our?) thought is the basis of fragmentation, therefore when thought becomes conscious of ( the fact that when it is splitting?) itself it breeds fragmentation...

Q: Just to be conscious of something which is happening (within itself?) .

K: Therefore what do you mean by 'being conscious' ?

Q: To 'see'.

K: Go slowly, now what do you mean by this (inner) seeing? Do you see this process mechanically, because you have intellectually understood it , and you see with the intention to apply these words and the intellectual conclusion to seeing? Be careful, don't say, no. Are you 'seeing (aided by?) an (intellectual) conclusion' or are you merely 'seeing'.

Q: It seems to me that if there is ( any need such ) a question at this point, it is again fragmentary. And if so, what has this whole investigation been(all about?) , what validity has it had?

K: I'll explain it to you: you come to this point and ask the question. And the lady says, who is asking this question, is it thought that is asking the question? If it is, then it is again - I am asking it because you are not learning.

Q: At this point I don't mind, it is presumptuous to say so, but may be you would not, but I do ask this question, at whatever point along the line...
K: I have this whole picture, the mind sees how thought has fragmented our life, and where thought must function – it sees this. If you really see this, completely, there is no more question. But one can only 'see' this if there is no conclusion here, no desire to solve it, to go beyond it; only when you see this whole mechanism of thought, how it operates, how it functions, what is behind, etc., when you see this completely, the problem is solved. Then you are functioning all the time 'non-fragmentarily', even though you go to the office, it is non-fragmentary action - if you see the whole of it. If you don't then you divide the office life, the family life, the you, the me. Now do you see the whole of it?

Q: Sir, are you suggesting it is possible to carry on a non-dualistic life and still function in society?

K: I am showing it to you, sir. If you see this whole ( dualistic?) mechanism of thought, not just one part of it, the whole of it, the whole nature and the structure and the movement of this.

Q: How can you learn it quicker?

K: How can you learn it quicker - by listening now. (Laughter) You see, again the ( dualistic?) desire to achieve. That means you are not listening at all, your eyes, your ears, are fixed on getting somewhere. So, sir, my question then is, as a friend, asking, 'Do you see this whole thing?' And the friend says, for god's sake, you must see it, otherwise you're going to live a terrible, miserable existence, you'll have wars, you'll have such misery and sorrow, for god's sake see this. And why don't you? What is preventing you - your ambition, your laziness, your innumerable (and well organised?) conclusion that you have? Now, who is going to answer it?

Q: Why 'answer' it? You just 'do' it.

K: Just 'do' it !

Q: So, maybe it's just a matter of living 'now' . Because a lot of our attention, I don't know how much percentage is taken away, when we live in the past or dreaming of the future.

K: Can you live in the present? Which means living a life that has no 'time' - no (thinking about your) past, no (thinking about your?) future, no (thinking of your personal?) success, no ambition. Can you do it?

Q: Just a bit. (laughter) The very process to build something, let's say a house, supposes a 'programme'.

K: Of course, sir - look at it. To build a house you must have an architect. And architect makes a design, a plan and according to that plan the contractor builds. In the same way, we want a plan. You are the architect, give me the plan and I will function according to that plan.

Q: I wasn't saying this, we want to build a house which is concrete thing, we must plan certain things.

K: So you use thought.

Q: So we cannot live only in the present.

K: I never said that, sir. When you look at this question really carefully, if this is very clear, the nature and the structure of thought, then you will find that you can function from a state of mind that is always free from all ( the duality of?) thought and yet use thought. That is the 'real (purpose of?) meditation', sir : the mind that is so crowded now with the known, which is the product of thought, the mind which is filled with the past, knowledge, experience, memory, which is part of the brain, the whole of that is filled with the known. I may translate the known in terms of the ( unknown?) future or in terms of the present but it is always ( a mental projection?) from the known. It is this ( living exclusively in the?) known that divides: the 'knowing' of the past, This ( active knowledge of the?) past, with all its reservoir of memory says, do this, don't do that, this will give you certainty, that will give you uncertainty.
So when this whole mind, including the (thinking?) brain, is empty of the known, then you (your intelligence?) will use the known when it is necessary, but functioning always from the unknown, from the mind that is free of the known. Sir, this happens (cvasi-spontaneously?) its not so difficult as it sounds. You have a problem, you think about it for a day or two, you go over it, you mull, you chew over it and get tired if it, you don't know what to do, you go to sleep. The next morning if you are (lucky and/or?) sensitive you have found the answer. See, that is, you have tried to answer this problem in terms of the known, in terms of what is beneficial, what is successful, what will bring you certainty, what will keep you going - in terms of the known, which is thought. And when after using all the exercising thought, thought says, for god's sake, I'm tired. And next morning you've found the answer. That is you have exercised the (thinking capacity of your?) mind to its fullest extent, and dropped it. Then you ( may get lucky and?) see something totally new. But if you keep on exercising thought all the time, conclusion after conclusion, which is ( constantly immersed in? ) the known, then obviously you never see anything new.

And (incidentally?) this demands a tremendous inward awareness, inward sense of order, not disorder, order. If you haven't got that you can whistle all day long.

Q: Is it not a method of procedure?

K: I just get up and do it naturally, I don't invent first a method and follow it, I see it. Oh Lord, you can't reduce everything into method.

Q: Can you ever empty the storehouse of impressions which you have had?

K: Can you ever empty the mind of all the known, which is the past. You've put a wrong question, it is a ( holistically?) 'wrong' question: who is the 'you' and what do you mean by 'ever'? Which means, it is (in the area of the?) possible. Sirs, look, we never put the impossible question - we are always putting the question (in terms of?) what is possible. If you put an 'impossible question' ( a totally challenging question?) your mind then has to find the answer in terms of the 'impossible' ( of letting go?) what is possible. All the great discoveries, scientific discoveries, are based on this, the impossible. It was impossible to go to the moon. Because it was 'impossible' (although... a great propaganda stunt?), therefore they (the 'rocket scientists' & ressourceful politicians?) put their mind (and a lot of public $$$?) to it and 300,000 people working night and day and went to the moon. But (inwardly) we never put the impossible question (since there are no personal incentives ?)- the impossible question is this, can the mind empty itself of the known - itself, not you empty the mind. That is an impossible question. If you put it with tremendous earnestness, seriousness, with passion, you'll find out. But if you say, oh, it is possible then you are stuck

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2016 #442
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

5TH PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1970 ( reader frendly edited)


K: Shall we go on with what we were talking about yesterday? Or shall we approach this whole problem again from a totally different angle? I know you may not like the word 'discipline', but substitute the word (inner) 'order' instead of discipline, could we discuss this?

Q: Didn't you say somewhere, you once mentioned in one of the lectures, that you were doing two hours of 'exercises' or something like that - is that for the body or for the awareness?

K: Wait. We are going into all that sir. First let us see, do you want to go into this question of order?

Q: Aren't there more important things? For instance 'death'...

Q: Boredom.

Q: What about responsibility?

Q: Education ?

K: Education? What do you think we have been doing during the last ten talks, but ( adult?) education? Now which do you want to take up ?

Q (chorus) : Discipline.... Prayer...... Consciousness.... Death.... Loneliness.

K: If you take up one thing, like social action, and responsibility, and if we go into it sufficiently thoroughly I think we will cover everything, (since ) every ( human) problem is interrelated with other problems. You cannot separate one problem and say, 'Let's discuss that'. They are all interrelated, aren't they?

Q: I have the impression that we are always talking here about an inward revolution, and we think a lot about that, but it seems to me awfully difficult to do any inward revolution, if you still remain in the same society.

K: Let's talk over that. If you remain in the same society, inward revolution seems terribly difficult, or practically impossible. Shall we discuss that?

Audience: Yes.

K: I think most of us see the importance of a social change. Now how is this to be brought about? By physical revolution? Upsetting (destabilising?) society as it is and creating a new society? Let us talk it over. See what is involved in it.

Q: I have the impression it is ( structured around) property and it is already violent. So changing society, even if it implies some violence will never be so violent as private property.

K: All right sir, then how do you propose to do it? Give it all into the hands off the government? Let governments own it? Who will own it? A few people? Or many people? Or 'socialise' it? Everybody owns it? All these experiments throughout history have been tried. In India there was a period, I was told, when everybody owned the land. How do you propose when you have property, a house, a piece of land, and I have mine, how do you propose to change it?

Q: You should have the right to use it but not to possess it and sell it.

Q: Detachment ?

K: Sir do consider (the psychological aspect of?) it; having a house, a piece of land of my own, I feel safe, I identify myself with that - to 'me' that is very important. How will you take it away from me? By law? By revolution? And if you do, all the land owners will get together and fight you. This has been going on for a million years - you follow sir?
Q: I'd like to quote someone, it's my father. And I think this is really 'a propos'. He has always said that as long as there are groups of people in the world there is always going to be the 'crafty' people and the 'slow' people. To him and it appears that way to me, that the 'crafty' people are always going to want to take from the 'slow' people.

K: How will you change this sir?
Q: There will obviously have to be a change in the people themselves.

Q: How will an inner revolution change this?

K: To me owning property, or not owning property, is of very little (psychological?) importance (since) the ( authentic spiritual?) riches are not in the house or in the land but somewhere else.

Q: I may be speaking for myself, but I can't help it, I resent this young man and the way he keeps leading us back to the social revolution. I feel you have something ( more important) to tell us if we would allow you to do it.

K: Look - I see the ( real) world as it is, property, possessiveness, domination, power, bureaucracy wanting to control everything. I see (the local) wars, I see the division of people through religion, politics, through nationalism and so on and so on and I see the necessity of a change. Right? Now where shall I begin, 'out there' or 'in here'? Or is it a combination of both, a movement of constant change, of constantly freeing the mind from its own conditioning, from its own possessive demands, from its own self-centred activities, from its own pursuit of pleasure and pain and division and so on. Right? Now where shall I begin, inner or outer?

Q: Inner.

K: When you say 'inner', you feel that the inner is dissociated from the outer. But the 'inner' is the result of the ( pressures of the?) 'outer' and the 'outer' is the result of the 'inner' (trends?) . We have created this society through our ambition, through our greed, through our competitiveness, through our comparing, and so on and so on, demanding for power, position, prestige - we have created this society.

Q: We had established in another talk that we had been conditioned by the society, marked in our childhood. Isn't this necessary to make it so that other ones are not conditioned because otherwise...

K: Right. That means you have to begin helping the child, to educate the child in such a way that he is not conditioned from the very beginning, which means 'special (needs'?) schools.

Q: How can any kind of education not be conditioning?

K: Sir, what are the factors that go into being (or getting psychologically ?) 'conditioned'?
( But before going into them, the question is: ?) what shall I do? Shall I join a revolutionary society, or shall I ( inwardly?) 'withdraw' from the world and bring about a revolution in myself and perhaps (if lucky?) in withdrawing I shall be able to understand more myself and help others to understand themselves. Now is it so clear cut as that? Begin there, or being here? Or is it a 'total movement' (a total approach?) with which we are concerned- both the outer and inner moving (and interacting?) together. Now can a human being do this? You and I, can we do this? - not emphasizing on that or this but 'moving', as the river does, taking all life together - all life being the outer and the inner? Now - if that is our problem, that we are actively concerned in bringing about a harmonious action in which the 'outer' and the 'inner' are (being considered ?) together, not separate, what shall I do (knowing that?) we are the result of the society in which we live, and that society has been (directly or not?) brought about by us.

Q: Not completely. It was there before we came.

K: You (the universal human being?) have been through this before. The society existed before I was born, our great, great parents created this society I was born in, I was educated in that culture, I ( have subliminally?) accepted the conditioning of this culture knowingly or not knowingly. So if someone being born in this culture says, ' I am conditioned by the culture in which I have lived', his ( moral?) responsibility is to free himself from the ( conditioning of the?) culture in which he has been brought up.

Q: He has to free himself from certain (root assumptions and?) beliefs which are not true.

K: We are talking about being free from all 'beliefs', not just true and false beliefs. Being born & being 'educated' one is not ( necessarily?) responsible, but you become responsible the moment you become aware that you are conditioned, and becoming aware that you are conditioned you finish it. Which means you are never conditioned.

Q: But you 'are' free.

K: If you 'are' free from all conditioning, you are 'awake'. That is quite a different matter. But in becoming aware of your ( particular?) conditioning it is your complete responsibility to see that you are ( getting?) free of it, otherwise you can't help society, otherwise you can't bring about a change. And if you are aware and you become utterly responsible, which means that you have got to free yourself from it, otherwise you are not an ( integrated?) human being, you are ( impersonating?) a 'fragment' of this whole structure.

Q: I see my conditioning now, and I make a statement about that, I speak out about it. And then other people...

K: Look sir, what is really important if what am I to 'do' given all these facts - all the facts, not just your fact and my fact, all the facts that are observed - what am I to do? I have been conditioned as a child, I can't help it, by the parents, by the society - you know, ( culturally ? ) conditioned. And (at first?) I don't ( even ) know that I am conditioned, I grow up and I realize, watching all this around me, that I am conditioned; and my (gut?) feeling is that I must change society. But ( holistically speaking?) I can only change both the outer and the inner when I become utterly responsible for (accepting?) my conditioning and be free of it. Are you? Unless you are (getting free of it?) you cannot possibly 'help' (in bringing a new?) society - full stop.

Q: How can you free them if they don't want to be freed?

K: I am not talking about the ( vast majority of?) people who don't (care or don't?) want to be free - I am talking of those people who are (still?) here in this tent after ten days. I say to you, look if you really earnest about bringing about a change in society you can only do it if you are aware that you are ( psychologically ?) conditioned and you are (breaking?) free from that conditioning .

Q: (Inaudible)

K: No sir, it is not a slow process. Not a process of (temporal?) 'evolution'.
If I realize that I am conditioned and that I must 'free' the mind from it, the first question is will it take time? That is (adopting the mentality of a ?) slow, evolutionary process.

Q: The very idea of ( an evolutionary) time is part of my conditioning.

K: Part of your ( cultural) conditioning is to say it will take time.

Q: How can we determine that it is going to take time or not if we don't know what (this inner change?) is going to be?

K: I have to find out the truth of this matter, whether it is a matter off slow, gradual process or of an 'instant' process.

Q: How can we know?

K: I am going to learn whether this conditioning of the mind, the mind having been conditioned, to free itself from that conditioning, will it take time (In a nutshell?) I want to find the 'truth' of it. Am I approaching this problem of freedom with a mind that is conditioned to (its own continuity in?) time, that gradually I will (figure out how to?) do it? If it is conditioned to ( think of itself in terms of?) time, then become aware of it, aware of that conditioning and ( mindfully?) put it aside for the moment and find (the whole truth about?) it. That is, the time interval between 'now' and 'then' is time. Now if my mind is (culturally?) conditioned, to be ( or to break?) free of that conditioning, will it take time? This implying that ( the ultimate?) ' freedom' is ( mentally projected?) 'over there' and my conditioned mind is right here. And it must do certain (thoughtful?) things in order to arrive there. Right? Now what happens (inwardly during that projected ) interval between now and then?

Q: Further conditioning ?

K: Right. Further factors entering in, which distorts it, pulls you in that direction and then you are pulled back and so on. There is a constant ( give and take?) movement, which is pushing (& pulling?) you in different directions. This is so 'obvious' (logically?) . So if you admit time, which means ( a temporal ?) division between now and then, who has created this division?

Q: It is the ( controlling?) entity which wants the unconditioned state.

K: Of course sir. So the moment (our) mind admits ( to think in terms of?) time, this 'time' becomes a (psychological?) danger – since in that there is (involved, apart from wishful thinking?) laziness, postponement, in that there is a division between here and there, and ( not to mention that ?) all that implies an (all controlling mental ?) 'entity' which wants to reject 'this' and get to 'that' (ASAP?). So as long as this division exists in (our way of?) thinking, ( the natural entropy of ?) 'time' must also exist.

Q: But aren't we getting away from our original question?

K: Oh no, no. I haven't moved away from it at all.
( To recap:) I (come to ) realize that I am conditioned and my ( moral?) responsibility is first to 'uncondition' (myself?) , because if I cannot uncondition, but act according to my conditioning, I (will) make society more horrible that it is - which the politicians all over the world are doing. So I say my responsibility as a human being is to free the mind from conditioning. Now will it take time? Or is it possible to change it instantly?

Q: Can you demonstrate ( how you can change instantly something that?) you do not understand?

K: I don't know what you mean.

Q: It needs time (to understand all this?) .

K: Is this the first time you are listening to this madam? Is this the first time you are here?

Q: Yes.

K: I am so sorry. You see we are both of us using a different language. We have spent ten days or more, or perhaps five years learning about each other, so please if you don't mind, most respectfully and politely, listen first and get into it and you may understand it.

Q: Sir until this morning I thought it must take time but now at the moment I think it can be done 'instantly' and as a result of that your relationships change immediately with all those around you instantly, and then the world changes from that nucleus.

K: That's right. We must find out the truth of this matter - you follow? Whether time is necessary, or time is an impediment. We are conditioned by the ( widely spread assumption of our ?) society which says time is necessary (to achieve anything?) . And I say that (inwardly this?) may be wrong altogether, that may be my conditioning, therefore I must investigate, learn about it. And I see the moment time is allowed the enormous 'danger' that exists in the interval between now and then, so seeing that I reject time - not 'reject' (discard it since inwardly ?) it has no meaning. So ( the inner?) freedom may be (right) here, only I don't know how to look at it. I am going to find out how to look, I am going to learn. And I can only learn if I am not concerned with ( how long will it take in terms of ?) time - I don't know if you see that when 'this' must be changed to 'that' , there is a division, therefore time, therefore conflict.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Sir, do you mean to say the generals, the admirals, politicians all over the world, are going to change ( their inner life?) by listening to you and me? Certainly not. What we are talking about is ( applicable only?) 'if' you are serious, 'if' there is the real deep understanding that ( the present direction of our?) society must change.
What we are concerned (in this lesson?) is to see that man, you and I who have been brought up in a ( particular cultural ) conditioning, want to be free of it, is this to be done instantly, or will it take time? For me, the moment you have a ( self- projected?) 'motive' you are conditioned – to make everybody happy, change society, bring about ( global?) enlightenment, or seek (your personal?) enlightenment - the moment you have a (temporally projected?) 'motive', that very motive is (becoming the active?) conditioning factor.

Q: Is it a 'motive' to be responsible?

K: If I feel you should change according to my pattern, my philosophy, my understanding, then I have a motive.

Q: When I see that I am conditioned you say I am (becoming?) responsible ?

K: No. To be responsible 'is' ( synonimous with?) to be free of your conditioning. Not ( being responsible ) 'for' somebody else's freedom.
So, have I a ( personal?) motive in wanting to change society, in wanting to change myself? Obviously I have a motive, because I want to be free, I want to achieve enlightenment, I want to impress others... a thousand reasons.

Q: When you say you want to be free, that also implies a motive.

K: No, I only use that as a ( metaphorical?) way of talking – since 'I want to be free' means again time. We are talking about the whole business of freedom from conditioning.

Sirs, can we go on from there? That is, have you got a ( personal?) motive which is ( becoming ) the (active) factor of your conditioning?
( Suppose that?) I have a ( subliminal?) motive that says 'change'. Obviously, that motive is going to dictate what that change must be.
Look sir, I am ambitious and I have tried this, that, the other, hoping through that to achieve my ambition. That's my (background) motive. And according to that motive and that line I think I am being freed from my conditioning. I am not. Isn't that clear?

Q: Is there not a 'motive' in unconditioning?

K: Is there? Just let me (K) answer that: You observe the sorrow, the misery of the world, what is going on - right? - not observe intellectually, verbally but actually 'see' it. There is starvation, there are wars, the division between spirit and matter, you see all these (socio-cultural?) divisions. And you realize that there must be a 'change', naturally. When I have got a 'tooth ache' I must go to the doctor to remove it, do something about it. There is a motive in that, but I am talking of a 'deeper' motive.

Q: Are you and I without motive in being here? Are we talking about motive and just being here?

K: Have you a motive in being here? Find out sir what that motive is.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Sir, do go into this question a little bit. Are you acting according to the 'dictates' off your ( personal?) motive? Or are you (acting?) free from motive?

Q: I see the rules are wrong and I want to change them.

K: But if you are (still inwardly) conditioned, therefore your changing those rules will bring about another set of rules according to your conditioning.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Sir, please sir, could we stick to one thing and work it out together?
You see the world as it is, you are part of the world - this chaos in the world has been brought about by human beings. Right sirs? And you are part of that human society. You realize this misery and confusion has been brought about by you as well as by another. Right? By your conditioning. Now how am I to change that (imprinted cultural ?) 'conditioning'? Is it possible to change it instantly? Or will it take time?
Look at it this way: if you see any ( physical) danger you act instantly, don't you ? Now do you see the danger of being ( culturally?) conditioned? If you see this 'danger' as when meeting a wild animal, you will 'change' (uncondition yourself?) instantly. But you don't ( find any rewarding motivation in ?) see(ing) the (psychological?) dangers.

Q: Excuse me for going back one step. But are there not some kind of social environments that make this unconditioning more possible that others?

K: May be, but we are taking things as they are now, not about a ( brave new world?) society in the future. Look sir.
If you see your ( inherited cultural?) conditioning is a danger, a direct danger to all human well being, you are bound to change instantly. Now you don't see that. Why don't you? Right? Why don't you see the danger as you see the danger of an animal, wild animal, or house on fire, and equally see the danger of being conditioned?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: No, why don't you 'see' (it now ) ? Don't explain. I can give you ten such explanations.

Q: I am ( subliminally ) afraid of something new (and potentially destabilising?)

K: No. Sir, are you afraid of something new when you meet a tiger? You act.

Q: The problem with our conditioning is that it is 'unconscious'.

K: Therefore find out. Are you superficially conditioned or conditioned right through?

Q: I am ( inwardly ) 'blind' to the danger of conditioning.

K: Are you blind when your (inner?) house is on fire?

Q: She means that our 'blindness to the conditioning' is part of the conditioning.

K: Then what are you going to do? You can't have everything. You want to change society and you say I am blind to my conditioning.

Q: It is what is happening.

K: That's exactly my point. You talk about a change of society, which you really don't mean at all. If you really mean change in society you have to go very deeply into this question of conditioning. Whether it is superficial conditioning or deep, conscious or hidden conditioning, you have to enquire, you have to learn...

Q: Isn't the desire to change society a (psychologically correct way to?) escape from ourselves?

K: How can it be an escape when you 'are' part of the society? If you realize you are (inwardly) part of it then there is no escape.

Sir, look: one is 'conditioned' (culturally formatted?) . I want to find out if it is a superficial conditioning or a deep conditioning because as long as the mind is conditioned any enquiry into change has no meaning whatsoever. If we agree on that, see the truth of that, then we can proceed. Now what is the instrument which you are going to use to enquire? You understand? If it is the old instrument of analysis it has no value. Right?
A re you looking with 'analytical eyes', or are you looking, merely observing? If you are merely observing without ( the knowledgeable background of?)the analyser therefore it is totally different ( quality of inner?) perception.

Q: As soon as I ask a question there is a division between...

K: Sir, I ask a question not from an intellectual point of view, not from a verbal point of view, the mind says it is wanting to find out the truth of something, it is not an intellectual enquiry, it is not an analytical thing.

Q: But there is a ( subliminal?) division, isn't there?

K; That is why I asked : what is the motive in your enquiry. If there is a (personal?) motive in your asking then that motive is going to dictate your observation, analytically or non-analytically.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: So you are saying, you don't see the danger of conditioning because it is not 'immediate', it is not something that really disturbs you.

Q: It is not right here.

K: Yes, that's what we are saying. Why isn't it?

Q: Sir, isn't also that people want to change their conditioning because they have ( some prioritary?) notions of security.

K: Yes sir, therefore I have to find out what that 'security' means. Is there security for a man who is conditioned? Find out sir. Look, I am ( culturally ) conditioned as a Jew, is there security for me?
Q: You mean whether he is privileged or not?

K: As long as I am ( inwardly) conditioned in nationalism, or any other ( cultural ) division, fragmentation, security is not possible. Look you have had two wars.

Q: Yes, sir, that's true. But people are feeling secure in nationality, feel secure in their private property, feel secure in their...

K: Do 'you', who have been listening here, sitting here, hour after hour for ten days, feel secure in nationality?

Q: I don't say we do.

K: I am asking you. Secure in your belief, in your conclusion, in your hope, in your aggression? Do you? Don't talk about others. You started out this morning wanting to help society, change society, and you see you really don't mean it.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: No, sir. It repeats itself because we are conditioned by a new conditioning. Before it was Capitalism, then later on Marx, Lenin and so on, we are conditioned by this or that, and we are talking about all conditioning.

Q: It is not possible.

K: Look, if you say it is not possible then let us decorate the cages be live in - right? - hang up pictures of this or that, make lovely things of our cages, our traps. If that is all you want I am afraid I won't play that game with you. But the moment you admit the possibility of it, which means a tremendous thing, then you are altogether 'thinking differently'.

Q: I am puzzled by your approach to 'motive'. Is motive and attachment the same thing?

K: Yes sir.

Q: Sir, you asked the question: why don't you see the danger as really as a physical danger. What makes one really ask such a question?

K: I am asking it (with an educational purpose?) Apparently you don't face it. Apparently it is not a danger to you. It is not a danger to the young or to the old.

Q: But if we see there is no security in nationalism, people think there is security there...

K: But sir, ( being attached to one's?) nationality is something very superficial. You can put that aside very quickly but there are much depending conditioning like 'conformity'. Go into it sir. Find out how you conform. Therefore find out whether you are conforming and you will find out only when conformity becomes a tremendous danger. And that makes you conform to the society in which you live, or change that society in order to conform to another pattern of society. Therefore the enquiry into conditioning implies not only superficial conditioning as nationalism, but the most fundamental conditioning like acquisitiveness, like competitiveness, comparison, conformity, find out. Put your teeth into it and find out. If you have that - conforming, acquisitive, wanting to dominate, changing this society, to something else, has no meaning.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Sir, are you aware of your ( cultural) conditioning? Are you aware that you are conditioned as a Dutchman? As a Jew? As a Hindu? And if you do something as a Dutchman, it will be equally destructive. You may write books about all the goodness of the world but if you are at heart ( culturally) conditioned your action will be destructive and bringing misery.

Q: But if you just have God and nothing else, no creed, and nothing else, just God, you take away God and what do you give for that?

K: If you take away God what do you put in its place? Freedom from fear (of the Unknown?) .

Q: What do you give back in return?

K: I am telling you madam. Freedom from fear needs no belief. We have our gods as yours and the Hindus, the Muslims and the communists, have their gods because they are all frightened.

Q: Don't you believe in spiritual powers?

K: Sirs, the 'mysteries' that we invent are rather silly but there are tremendous mysteries if we can free the mind from its (self-centred?) conditioning. You will find out the greatest mystery, and the beauty of that mystery.

Q: Can one be aware of our conditionings as long as they are subconscious?

K: Right, how can one be aware of the 'unconscious' conditioning? Do you really want to go into this so deeply that it means that you will completely expose all your unconscious beliefs, dogmas, traditions, dreams, hopes ?
All right I am going to go into it. What is the time? We had better stop. Shall we pick it up tomorrow?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Sep 2016 #443
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online



K: We are going to learn together this morning if we can, what is below the conscious layers, and seeing the many layers (underneath?) then ( proceed to?) to discover for oneself the ( active or dormant ?) content of our consciousness, whether this 'content' makes up the consciousness or the consciousness with its frontier contains 'what is'.
So (for starters?) : why is there this ( ages old?) division between the 'conscious' and the so-called 'unconscious' or the deeper layers (of human consciousness) ? Are you aware of this division? Is the 'conscious' movement ( the self-conscious mental activity?) a separate movement, and the deeper layers having their own 'movement'?
Or this whole thing is a (single?) movement, undivided?

Please sirs this is very important for us to find out because we have ( endlessly?) trained the 'conscious' mind, we have drilled it, educated it, forced it, shaped it, according to the demands of society, or according to our own impulses. And aren't the deeper layers 'uneducated', utterly untouched and only we have cultivated the superficial layer? What do you say?
Because in the deeper layers there may be the ( creative?) 'source' of finding out new things, because the superficial layers have become 'mechanical' (programmable ?) conditioned, repetitive, imitative and there (our intelligence ) is not free to find out, to move, to take to the wing. And the deeper – layers) not being 'educated', therefore extraordinarily 'primitive', primitive, (not savage but 'primitive'!), there may be the ( creative?) source of all new things.
Isn't our 'superficial' mind so heavily conditioned that it has become mechanical? And below that (there are?) layers which education hasn't touched, or has it touched, and therefore the whole content of our consciousness is mechanical - you are following? Conditioned, heavily burdened by all the past.

Q: Sir, how can we know about our 'unconscious'?

K: All right sir, let's begin: when we use the word 'know', what do we mean by that? I 'know' something that has happened yesterday. All our 'knowledge' is ( coming from processing the memory of ?) the past - isn't it? Therefore 'knowing' implies ( being familiar with what we have experienced in?) time. So how can the superficial mind, learn about the deeper layers ?

Q: Keep the superficial mind still then it can learn about the deeper levels.

K: When the superficial mind is still then only there is a learning of the deeper layers. And what is there to learn ( to gather knowledge about?) in the deeper layers? You assume there is the 'unconscious' and there are many things in it. That's what all the 'professionals' say, the (psycho?) specialists – aren't they ?
The moment you divide ( have already divided?) the conscious and the deeper layers then the ( experiential?) question arises: how is this superficial mind to enquire into the other? Or if (in reality) there is no such division at all, it is a total movement of which one is only aware fragmentarily. And this 'fragmentary' (knowledgeable?) movement asks: what are the 'contents' of my unconscious? You are following all this? If ( your consciousness?) is a total movement you won't ask this question. But the moment you (subliminally?) divide (your) consciousness into ( specialised?) 'fragments', one (the knowledgeable?) fragment says, what are the rest of the fragments. But if it is ( holistically approached as?) a 'total movement' then there is no (need to look at it in terms of?) fragmentation, therefore this ( subliminally dualistic?) question doesn't arise. This is really important to find out, then you go beyond all the ( dualistic knowledge cleverly marketed by the?) 'specialists'.

Now do you see ( your) consciousness as a whole, or do you see it with one (very knowledgeable?) fragment (attempting to?) examine the other (forgotten?) fragments? Do you see it partially or 'wholly' , as a total movement, like a river that is moving? Then ( the next experiential question is:) how is one to observe this movement without a fragmentation?

Q: May I say something please? You speak about an 'unconscious' mind, but how can you (consciously?) speak about something which is 'not conscious' ? We can speak about the conscious. Please define ( the terms) 'unconscious' and 'conscious'. The question is: can we know the unconscious?

K: We asked this question earlier: are we aware of the many fragments that compose the 'conscious'? One ( knowledge addicted ? ) fragment trying to become aware of the many other fragments? Or are you aware of the total movement of consciousness without any division?

Q: Intellectually I may answer 'why we divide them'.

K: Please, we are not 'analysing'. When there is analysis there is the ( subliminal duality between?) analyser and the thing analysed. One fragment assuming the authority of analysis and examining the other parts. And in this division arises the ( things of which one is?) conscious and the ( stuff of which we are?) unconscious - which implies that the conscious mind is ( actually?) separated from the rest. And trying to answer this through ( analysing your?) dreams, through various forms of intimation, hints - all arising from a false assumption that the 'superficial' (self-conscious?) mind is separate from the other, which means we have never felt the whole movement of consciousness as a ( dynamic?) whole. If you would, this question doesn't arise at all.

Q: Obviously some people are suffering from neurosis without knowing the origin of their neurosis - isn't that ( causation locateds in?) the unconscious?

K: Do you not suffer from any 'neurosis'? Does it mean that you are all free from all neurosis? Please this is not a silly question (meant to put you down?) . Are you aware that you are neurotic in some form or another?

Q: Who is deciding if one is 'neurotic'?

K: Do please 'listen' (carefully ? ) to this. When there is any exaggeration of any fragment then neurosis takes place. Right? When you are highly intellectual, that is a form of ( urban?) neurosis, though the highly intellectual is highly regarded. The person who 'holds' on ( or got competely identified to ?) to certain beliefs - Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Communist, this or that, any ( strong) attachment to any belief is (eventually leading to?) a form of neurosis. ( not to mention that?) any (psychological?) fear is a form of neurosis, any ( psycho-) conformity is a form of neurosis - you follow? And any form of comparing yourself with somene else is ( a potential factor of?) neurosis. Aren't you doing all this?

Q: Yes.

K: Yes sir. Therefore you are 'neurotic'. (Laughter) So, the exaggeration of any fragment of our whole consciousness (which contains many fragments) , is an ( incipient?) form of neurosis. Wait sir, get it into your hearts, feel it, get involved in it, apply ( the truth of?) it to yourself and you will see for yourself . As we are (psychologically structured now?) we have a 'divided' (self-locked ?) consciousness. In this 'division' ( or self-divisiveness?) there are many, many sub-fragments, the intellectual, (the emotional, the psycho-somatic?) - many, many divisions and emphasis on that division is neurotic, which means that a mind 'emphasizing' (or giving full priority to?) a 'fragment' cannot see clearly. Therefore this brings about 'confusion' (a lack of inner clarity?) because each of these 'fragments' demands its own expression, and when you emphasize one, the others are clamouring (or waiting in line?) . And this clamour is confusion and out of that confusionarises every the desire to fulfil (oneself) , to become, to achieve, all are ( holistically speaking?) 'neurotic' impulses.

Q: But also, for instance, neurosis can also be to suffer from something and you don't know really what you are suffering from. For instance, somebody doesn't dare to go through a square and it is obviously not the square that he is frightened of but something in the unconscious.

K: Look this is a terribly serious stuff : you are afraid to cross the ( village?) square, you are afraid to let go your past, you are afraid to be (regarded as a?) 'non-Christian', this or that, and how are you to know that you are ( unconsciously?) neurotic? Is that the question sir?

Q: Not really.

K: Then what is the question sir?

Q: Sometimes you suffer from something, and obviously the thing you (may think that you) suffer from is not the real reason. For instance, you don't dare to be alone, it is not the fact itself but it is something else in the 'unconscious' itself which gives you the fear.

K: You're saying that neurosis is only a symptom, the cause is in the 'unconscious' ?

Q: Could be.

K: Could be....and probably is. Then what is the question?

Q: It's (how to get rid of this?) neurosis.

K: Sir you are not following the whole (picture?) . When we have understood this whole structure then we can go to ( solve?) the particular, but to start with the particular we'll end nowhere.
Do you 'see' (the truth of this 'fact'?) that any emphasis on a particular 'fragment' - intellectual, emotional, devotional, physical, psychosomatic - is (potentially leading to?) a form of neurosis? And as most of us have laid stress on one aspect of the many fragments, naturally, out of that disharmony, other factors of disharmony arise. Now our question is, not why I can't cross the square – but to understand the fragmentation of my own consciousness, and the moment I have understood (or had a full insight into?) that then the problem of 'crossing the ( Red?) Square' doesn't exist at all. Right? Are we meeting each other? When we see the totality, the 'lesser' (problem) disappears. But if we keep on emphasizing the little, then the little brings about its own little ( colateral?) problem.

Q: But when you talk about 'seeing the totality' of our consciousness, what does this 'seeing' actually mean ?

K: Sir, do you listen to the (noisy?) movement of that (Saanen stream) totally? Just do it sir. Listen to that stream, and find out if you are listening completely, without any movement in any direction, only ( being?) there. Then when having listened, what do you say?

Q: Recognition plays no part in it.

K: That's right sir. Recognition plays no part in it, you don't say, 'That is the ( Saanen ) stream to which I am listening' or 'you' as an entity listening to the stream, there is only the 'listening to the sound'. You don't say, 'I know it is a river'. So let's go back. I want to go into this so much, please let's move together.

Q: Is our emphasis on fragmentation the essence of neurosis, or is it the symptoms of neurosis?

K: It is both the essence and the symptoms.

Q: Being 'intellectual' is the essence as well as the symptom?

K: Isn't it? I emphasize (and take pride in?) my intellectual capacity. Right? I think I can beat everybody at argument, I have read so much, I can correlate all that I have read, and write marvellously clever, 'intellectual' books - isn't that the very cause and the symptom of my neurosis?

Q: It seems to be a symptom of our...

K: Wait. You are saying that is a symptom, not the real cause, I say, let's look (at it holistically:) . Is the mind, our whole consciosness, undivided and therefore the cause and the effect are ( perceived as being ?) the same (time-projected movement ) : what was the ( previous) cause becomes the effect, and ( later on ?) this effect becomes the cause of the next movement ? There is no definite demarcation between ( a psychological?) cause and ( its ) effect, what was a 'cause' yesterday has become the 'effect' of today ( which in turn?) becomes the cause of ( what I will do?) tomorrow. It is a ( cyclic, repetitive ) movement, it is a 'chain' (self-sustained process?) .

Q: But isn't it essential to see this whole process rather than just...

K: That's what we are doing and that is not possible if you emphasize the intellectual, the emotional, the physical, the psychosomatic, the 'spiritual' and so on. Right?
So my question is, which was the first ( starting) question: why is it that we have divided? Is this division necessary, or just the invention of the specialist, whose (kowlegeable authority ) we have accepted, as we accept most things so easily, we say, 'All right, these 'great people' say this and I swallow it and I repeat it'. But when we see the fragmentation and the emphasis on the fragmentation and we see out of that arises the whole cause-effect chain, and that is ( colaterally generating?) a form of neurosis, when we see all that then the mind sees the totality of the movement without division. Well sirs, do you see it?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Yes, if you identify yourself with any one of the fragments obviously it is the same process, which is the process of being identified with the one and disregarding the rest, is an (incipient?) form of neurosis, contradiction.
Now, put the next question sir : Can you identify yourself with the rest of the fragments? You, another ( proritary?) fragment, identify with the many other fragments. You see the ('unconscious'?) trick we are playing, this question of identification?

Q: You can only say that the identification with one fragment ( took place?) because you feel that you are incomplete so that...

K: That's right. You feel you are incomplete therefore you try to identify yourself with many other fragments. Now who is the ( supervising?) 'entity' that is trying to identify itself with the many? It is one of the (all controlling?) fragments, therefore ( holistically speaking?) it is a 'trick' - you follow? And we are doing this (on a regular basis?) . I must 'identify' myself.

Q: Isn't it better to identify yourself with more fragments than with one ?

K: No, not better. Let me explain again once. There are many fragments - right? - of which 'I' am ( the all controlling one?). One of the fragments says, it brings about confusion when I identify myself with one fragment therefore I'll identify myself with the many other fragments. And it makes a tremendous ( good will?) effort in identifying itself with the many fragments, with the Christians, with the Hindu, with the Buddhist, with the Communist, you follow? But who is this ( politically correct?) 'entity' that tries to identify itself with the other fragments? It is also a 'fragment' isn't it? Therefore it is a game it (our fragmentary consciousness?) is playing by itself.

Now let's proceed, there is so much in this, you are just remaining on the very surface of all this. Nowdo we 'see' (the fact that ?) there is not actual division at all. Right? Non-verbally, see it, feel it, that the observer is a fragment which separates itself from the rest of the fragments and is observing. If (and?) when the mind realizes this fragmentation and the futility of itself (constantly) separating, then it sees (its own?) 'movement' as a whole.

If you cannot (see?) this you cannot possibly put the next question, which is: What is beyond the 'conscious' ? So we have to find out, if you are serious, (a) what is consciousness and (b) when are you aware that you are conscious ?
So (before?) we are looking into the ( mysteries of the?) unconscious, we are asking what is this thing called 'consciousness'? When is the mind aware that it is conscious - you follow? When do you say, 'I am conscious'?

Q; When there is pain ?

K: The lady suggests you are (becoming 'self-) conscious' when there is pain, when there is conflict, when you have a ( personal?) problem. Otherwise, if you are flowing smoothly, harmoniously living without any contradiction, are you ( self-) conscious at all? Are you ( self-) conscious sir when you are supremely happy?

Q: What do you mean by 'being conscious'?

K: The moment you are ( becoming?) 'conscious' that you are happy, is happiness (still?) there? The moment you say, 'My God how joyous I am !' - can you ever say that? If ( bother to?) you say it , it (Joy?) has already moved away from you.

Q: Well, you are then conscious of that.

K: So you are only 'conscious' of something that has happened, or actually ( self-) conscious when there is some conflict, pain, or when there is actually awareness that you are confused. Right? So any disturbance in this ( living consciousness) movement is to be ( self-) conscious.
And all our ( 'self-conscious'?) life is a disturbance against which we are resisting.

Q: Sir when there is a feeling of loneliness and when the mind does not interfere, isn't the mind 'whole' in that state?

K: If there is no discord at all in your life would you (bother to?) say, 'I am conscious'? When you are moving, living without any friction, without any resistance, without any battle, there is no (self-consciousness?) - you are not saying 'I am'. Right? It is only when you are saying, 'I (hope I?) will be better' or 'I am being (as good as it gets?) ', then you are ( self-) conscious.

Q: Well the ( fullness of ?) 'being' never comes.

K: Do take a little time sir, you are too quick. Move into this very slowly, you will find out something extraordinary, if you go into it.

Look sir, we have just discovered something : that there is ( self-) consciousness only when there is ( an effort of?) 'becoming', or trying to 'be' (something or other ). 'Becoming' implies (an inner) conflict, 'I will be', which means conflict exists as long as the mind is ( getting psychologically ?) caught in the verb 'to be' - please see that. And our whole culture is based on that word 'to be'. 'I will be a success', 'I am a failure', 'This book is mine, it is going to change the world'. You follow? So as long as there is a movement of ( self-) becoming, in that there is conflict and that conflict makes the mind aware that it is conscious.

Q: Can one be conscious of this (self-sustained inner) conflict?

K: Of course sir, otherwise you wouldn't be (self-) 'conscious'.

Q: Could it be that you are so caught up in conflict that you don't see that you are in conflict?

K: Of course, it is a form of ( self-sustained?) neurosis.

Q: Well I can't see how...

K: Sir, look. Have you ever been to a mental hospital ? I was ( as a visitor) there, taken by an analyst, and every patient from the top floor - where they are the most violent, caged in - down to the lowest floor where they are more or less 'peaceful', are all in conflict, all of them are in conflict, which was exaggerated conflict - you understand? Only they are ( kept ) inside the building and we are outside. That's all. (Laughter)

Q: I am trying to distinguish between consciousness and awareness.

K: The whole movement of ( our self-) consciousness is ( getting personally involved in ) becoming and being. Becoming famous, becoming a social worker, helping the world - you know - becoming, or to 'be' ( as in 'I am' already rich/famous/...? ) . Then you can ask a totally different question, which is: what is beyond this ( self-conscious?) movement of 'becoming' and 'being' (somebody ?) So I realise that the total movement of (my) consciousness is (engaged in?) this movement to 'be', or to 'become' (something) , or 'not to be', or 'not to become' (something else?) .

When I say 'I realize it' , am I realizing it as something I have seen outside of me, or do I see this movement as the very essence of 'me'?
Do I see this movement from a ( fixed?) centre or do I see it without the centre? If I see it from a centre, that centre is the self (consciousness) , is the 'me', who is the very essence of fragmentation, and therefore when there is an observation from the centre I am only observing this movement as a fragment, as something outside of me, which I must understand, which I must try to grasp, which I must struggle with and all the rest.
But if there is no ( fixed ) centre, which means there is no me but merely observing this whole movement, then that observation will lead to the next question : is there a sleep without any dream at all?
Dreams as we said the other day, are the continuing (the being or becoming?) movement of the daily activity, symbolized, but it is the ( compensatory continuation of ?) same movement. Isn't that so?
Now, if there is a constant (daily) movement, constant activity, constant chattering, what happens to the brain that is constantly...

Q: It is exhausted.

K: Exhausted - which means what?

Q: It wears out.
K: It wears itself out, there is not rest, there is nothing new, there is nothing new seen. The brain doesn't make itself young because of its ( perpetual?) movement – the continuous movement of daily activity which goes on in the brain when it sleeps. Right? You may foretell what may happen in the future, in that daily activity because while you sleep there is a little more sensitivity, more perception and so on, but it is ( basically?) the same movement.
Now, can this 'movement' end with the day? Not carry it over when you sleep - you have understood my question? Can this movement, which goes on during the day, end with the day? That is, when you go to bed the whole thing is ended? Doesn't it happen to you when you go to bed, that you take stock of what you have done during the day ? Or you just flop into bed and go to sleep? Don't you review the day? Say, look this thing should have been done, this should not have been done - you know, you are 'taking stock'? Which means that you are bringing (some?) order. Right? And the brain demands ( this deep sense of inner peace and?) order because otherwise it can't function (properly?) . Now, if you (indulge in?) 'dreaming', if the movement of the daily activity goes on in your sleep there is no (opportunity for establishing a deeper sense of?) order. And the brain demands order, therefore the brain instinctively while you are asleep ( tries to?) bring about order (through 'dreaming'?) You wake up a little more fresh because you have a little more order.

Q: Aren't there other kinds of dreams in which...

K: First listen to this. Get order. This movement of the daily life continues through sleep because in this daily movement through sleep there is contradiction, there is disorder, disharmony. And the brain during sleep, through dreams, through various forms of non-dreams, tries to bring order in itself, in its own ( existential?) chaos. Now, if you put order during the day, when it sleeps the brain does not necessarily need to put things in order.
See the ( inward ) importance of this : To end the (personal?) problem as it arises, not carry it over during the day or the next minute, end it. Somebody has insulted you, hurt you, end it. Somebody has deceived you, somebody has said unkind things about you, look at it, don't carry it over as a burden, end it. End it as it is being said, not after.
So the mind is demanding order and this implies the ending the problem as it arises, and therefore the movement of the daytime through the night ends and therefore no (need for compensatory?) dreams, because you have solved everything as you are moving. I don't know if you see the importance of this. Then you can ask the question, which is: what is beyond all this (dreamless state?) ? We will deal with it tomorrow

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Sep 2016 #444
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online



K: We'll go on from where we left off yesterday. We were considering the nature and the structure of what our ( everyday) consciousness is. As we were saying, that without understanding the ( conditioned ?) content of this consciousness, without understanding the fragmentary nature of our consciousness, whatever our action may be, it must produce confusion. I think this must be very clear. It's like giving a great deal of attention to one fragment, like the intellect, or the body, or belief. And to say to oneself, all these fragments must be put ( glued?) together or integrated has no meaning, because then the problem arises, who is to integrate it. And the effort of integration. So there must be a way of looking at this whole fragmentation with a ( quality of?) mind that is not fragmented. And one asks the question, is there an action which is not fragmentary and which does not contradict another action which is going to take place next minute.

If the ( psychological) content of our consciousness - my despair, my anxiety, fears, pleasures, the innumerable hopes, guilts, and the vast ( dualistic?) experience of the past, then any action springing from that consciousness can never free the consciousness from its limitation. Got it? . My consciousness is the result of the culture in which I have lived. That culture has encouraged and discouraged various forms of activities, various forms of pursuits of pleasure, fears, hopes and beliefs. That consciousness is the 'me'.
Now, any action springing from that ( self-centred ) consciousness, which is conditioned, must inevitably be fragmentary and therefore contradictory, confusing. So can this consciousness 'empty' itself and find out if there is a ( different dimension of human ) consciousness which is free (from the memory of the past and?) from which a totally different kind of action take place.
( Parable time:) All the (conditioned) 'content' of our consciousness is like a muddy little pool, very shallow and a little frog is making an awful noise in it. And that little frog says, 'I'm going to find out'. And that little frog is trying to go beyond itself. But it is still a frog, it is still in the muddy pool. So can this muddy pool, however shallow, deep, empty the all the content of itself ? My little muddy pool is the culture in which I have lived. And the little 'me', the frog, is battling against the culture, and saying it must get out. But even if it gets out, it is (still) a little frog. And whatever it gets out into is still the muddy pool which it will create.

So the first point (1) is whether our mind realizes all the activity it indulges in or is forced to do, all its activity is the movement within the consciousness with its content. And realizing this, what is the mind to do? Can it ever go beyond this limited consciousness?

Now the second point (2) is, this little pool with the little frog - it is a good simile - may extend, expand and widen the pool, but the space it creates is is always limited by the centre. If you have a centre, the circumference of consciousness, or the frontiers of consciousness is always limited, however it may expand. That little (frog or?) 'monkey' may meditate, may follow many systems, rejecting one, taking on another. And that little monkey will always remain. And therefore the space round it and the space it will create for itself is always limited and shallow. So that is the second question.

The third point (3) is, what is ( a consciousness?) space without a 'centre'. We're going to find this out.

(1) Can this consciousness with its limitations, at whose centre is this everlasting mischievous ( frog or?) 'monkey', can it go beyond itself? (pause) Can the 'monkey' - if you don't mind, I'll stick to that word - can that monkey, with all its ( good?) intentions, with its aspirations, with its vitality, free itself from its conditioning and so go beyond the frontiers of consciousness which it has created? Can this ( psychological?) 'monkey', which is the 'me' , by doing all kinds of things - meditating, suppressing, conforming, being everlastingly active, can its movement take it beyond itself? Which is, does the ( conditioned) content of our consciousness (which) makes the 'me', the monkey, and therefore the attempt on the part of the monkey, the 'me', to free itself, is still within the limitation of (its traditional?) pool. So my question is, can the (inner?) 'monkey' be completely quiet, to see its own frontiers, to be aware of the extent of its frontiers, and whether it is at all possible to go beyond it?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Sir, do you notice for yourselves, that you are always acting from a 'centre'? Do you notice this? This 'centre' (of self-interest?) may be a motive, a fear, a (personal) ambition - you are always acting from a centre, aren't you? All our ( psychologically motivated?) action as far as we know now, is from a centre, whether that centre identifies with the community or with a philosophy, it is still the (same ?) centre which has identified (itself) with that. Are you aware of this action going on, always? Or are there moments when the centre is not active? It happens, suddenly you are looking, living, feeling without a centre. And that is (entering into?) a totally different dimension (of consciousness?) . And thought begins to say, what a marvellous thing that was and I'd like to continue with it. Then the remembrance of that which happened a few seconds ago becomes the new 'centre' through thought ( through thinking about it?) . Are we aware of this? And are we aware of the ( self-enclosing) space that 'centre' creates round itself, isolation, resistance, escape - space? As long as there is a centre there is the space which the centre has created round itself.
And we want to expand this space because we feel this is necessary to live 'extensively'. But in that 'expansive' consciousness there is always the centre, therefore its space is always limited (circumscribed?) , however expanded. Observe it in yourself, sir, watch it in yourself and you will discover these things very simply. And the battle in our relationships is this, between two centres, each centre wanting to expand, assert, dominate - the 'monkeys' at work.

And so I want to learn, how that 'centre' (of self-interest) comes into being - is it the result of this society, the culture, or is it a 'divine' centre which has always been covered up (smothered?) by the society, by the culture - outwardly, its been covered up. The Hindus and others call it the Atman, the great thing inside which is always being smothered (by the tough coditions of our material existence ?) . And therefore you have to free the mind from the smothering, so that the 'real thing' can come out.
Obviously this centre ( of self-interest?) is created by the ( pressures of the?) culture one lives in, but also by one's own conditioned memories, experiences, the fragmentation of oneself. So it is not only the society that creates the centre but also the centre is propelling (fueling) itself. Right? So, can this centre go beyond the frontiers which it has created for itself - that is one question. Can it? By silencing itself, by controlling itself, by meditating, by - you know" following - can that centre explode and go beyond. Obviously it can't, since the more it conforms to its (adopted) pattern (of spiritual becoming?) , the stronger it gets, though it imagines that it is becoming free.
Enlightenment, surely is that state of mind that quality of mind in which the 'monkey' is never operating. So how is that monkey to end its activities, not through imitation, not through conformity and all those monkey tricks ?
Now does the monkey see the tricks it is (constantly?) playing upon itself ? You answer this, sir. ( To the speaker?) it is so clear, there is no question about it. But if you're not sure, sir, please let's discuss, let's talk it over.

Q: You say sometimes to help society, to do social service, as if helping society or doing social service was doing something for somebody else. But I have the feeling that I'm not different from society, so working is a social thing, it is working in myself, it's all the same thing - I don't make a distinction.

K: But even if you don't make the distinction - I'm not being personal, sir, does the centre (of self interest?) remain ?

Q: It should not.

K: Not 'should not'. Then we enter into quite a different field - should, should not, must, must not - then it becomes 'theoretical'. The actual fact is, though I recognise the 'me' and society are one, etc., etc., is there the centre still operating. So, my question is, I see as long as there is any movement on the part of the monkey, that movement must lead to some kind of fragmentation, illusion and chaos. Put it round very simply - that centre is the self, is the selfishness that is always operating, whether I am 'godly', whether I am concerned completely with ( the welfare of?) society and say, I 'am' society - that centre is still operating. Then the next ( experiential?) question is, ''How is that centre to fade away ?'' Through determination, through will, through practice, through various forms of compulsive neurosis, compulsive - you know - dedication, identification? All such movement is still part of the 'monkey (tricks'?) . So if the mind says, I see this very clearly, there must be a complete attention. In that ( non-directional?) attention, is the 'monkey' still operating? If I want to (really) 'listen' to you I must give my attention, which means my mind, my heart, my body, nerves, everything must be in harmony (in order) to 'attend'. The mind not separated from the body, the heart not separated from the mind - it must be a complete harmonious whole that is attentive, that is attention. Does the ( totality of one's?) mind attend so completely to the ( psychological?) activity of the monkey, watching it, not condemning it, not saying it's right or wrong, this or that, just watching the tricks of the monkey ?

Now, in this ( direct ) watching there is no ( time left for?) 'analysis'. The moment one ( proceeds methodically to?) analyse one of the fragments, the monkey is ( subliminally?) in operation. So does the mind watch with such complete (uncompromising?) attention to the movements of the monkey, and what takes place when there is such complete attention? Are you doing it?
You know what it means to attend - when you are listening to that rain, completely, there is no ( mental) resistance to the rain - you don't say, I wish it would go away, there is no impatience, you are completely listening. Now when you are so listening, is there an (active?) centre from which the 'monkey' is operating? You find out sir, don't wait for me to tell you – to completely attend means a mind that is completely still to listen. Are you doing that? Are you listening to the speaker now, just now, with that attention ? If you are, is there an (active?) centre there?

Q: I feel passive.

K: Don't say yes or no - learn about it. Is there? And what is the quality of that attention in which there is no centre, in which the (inner?) 'monkey' isn't playing tricks?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: I don't know, sir, find out, learn, which means to give a sustained attention, not a fleeting attention, a sustained attention to find out the quality of the mind that is so completely 'attentive' ('attending' completely?)

Q: (Inaudible)
K: No, sir - when you say ' there is nothing there to communicate through words', then the ( verbally associative?) memory is (on stand-by?) there . But I am asking, when you are so completely attentive, is there an (active?) centre ( of self-interest?) ? Surely this is simple: when you are watching something that really is quite amusing, makes you laugh, in that 'watching' is there a centre which is the (thinking?) 'monkey'? If there is no such centre, then the ( nextexperiential?) question is: can this ( quality of non-personal?) attention flow, move, not ( be there just for) one moment, you follow, and then inattention. Can this ( integrated quality of? ) attention flow, naturally, easily, without effort - effort implies the ( thinking?) 'monkey' comes into being. You are following all this?
The ( thinking?) 'monkey' has to come in if it has to do some functional work. But does that ( objective?) operation on the part of the monkey comes out of attention, or is that 'monkey' separated from attention. ( Eg :) going to the office and working in the office, is it a movement ( included in a wider space?) of attention or it is the ( for profit?) movement of the monkey, which has taken over ? The (thinking?) monkey that says, I must get more money, I must work harder, I must compete, I must become the manager, foreman, whatever it is. Go into it, sir, which is it in your life, a free movement of ( non-personal?) attention, and therefore much more efficient, much more alive; or is it the ( thinking?) monkey that is taking over?
Answer it for yourself. And if the monkey takes over and makes some kind of mischief - and ( thinking?) monkeys do make mischief - and can that mischief be wiped away and not leave a mark ? Go on, sirs, you don't see all the beauty of all this.

Somebody said something to me yesterday which was not true. Did the 'monkey' come into operation and want to say, look you're a liar? Or the ( all inclusive?) movement of that attention - in which the (thinking?) monkey is not operating - 'listens' to that statement which is not true and doesn't leave a mark ? Got it? When the 'monkey' response then it leaves a (psychological ?) mark.

So I am asking, can this ( universal quality of?) attention 'flow' (freely?) , not 'how can I have continuous attention', because then it's the 'monkey' that is asking. But the mind just 'moves' with it.
( For homework?) you must answer this really extraordinarily important question. We usually know the movement of the (thinking?) monkey. And we only have only occasionally this ( holistic quality of?) attention in which the 'monkey' doesn't appear at all. So (to wrap it up?) we are asking, is this free movement of attention totally unrelated to ( the everyday self-centred?) consciousness, as we know it?
We are asking whether this attention, as a movement, can 'flow' (freely) , as all (energy supported ?) movements must 'flow'. And when the 'monkey' ( feels challenged and?) becomes active, can the (thinking) 'monkey' itself become aware that it is active and so (take care?) not to interfere with the ( free?) flow of attention ?
Somebody insulted you , yesterday. And the monkey was awake, to reply, and because it has become aware of itself and all the implications of the monkey tricks, it 'subsides' and lets the ( integrated energy of?) attention flow. 'How to maintain the flow' - is the ( redundant?) activity of the monkey. So the (thinking ?) monkey 'knows' when it is active and the sensitivity of its awareness immediately makes it quiet.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Sir, attention means the 'height' of energy, isn't it? In attention all your energy is there, non-fragmented. The moment it gets fragmented and an action takes place, then the 'monkey' is at work. But the (thinking) monkey is also learning - has become sensitive, has become aware, and it realizes the waste of energy and therefore, (it gets quiet?) naturally. It is not an (actua) division between the (thinking ) monkey and 'attention'. If there is such a division then that ( holistic quality of?) attention becomes (labeled into mental concepts such as?) the 'higher self', (and) all the tricks the monkeys have invented. But it is a total movement of attention.
And even if the (thinking) 'monkey' has its own life, wakes up (at six?) , it's ( still done as?) a total action, not opposed to attention. I wonder if you get all this. Well, it's up to you, sir.

Now when there is no centre, when there is the complete 'apogee' of (one's total?) attention, you know, the 'height' of attention. In that 'high' of attention what has happened to the mind that is so highly attentive, all the energy there, not a breath of it wasted. What takes place, what has happened?

Q: There is silence.

K: Oh no...

Q: There is no self-identification.

K: No 'monkey tricks'. But what has happened, not only to the (physical) brain, but to the body? What has happened to the quality of a mind that has become so highly attentive, in which all energy - what has happened?

Q: It becomes quieter ?

K: Look sir – the very quality of the brain which has invented the (thinking) 'monkey': doesn't the brain become extraordinarily sensitive? And when you have got such tremendous energy, unspoilt, unwasted, what has happened to the whole physical organism, what has happened to the brain, to the whole structure of the human being - that is what I am asking.

Q: It wakes up and it becomes alive. It learns.

K: No. Sir, it has become alive to learn, otherwise you can't learn. The moment you begin to question, begin to learn, you are beginning to be alive. That is not my question. What has happened to the body, to the brain ?
Have you noticed a very simple fact, that if you are not wasting energy, what has happened to the machinery of the brain, which is a purely mechanical thing, the brain - what has happened to that machinery?

Q: It's alive.

K: ( This is your homework for?) tomorrow, sir! Please, do watch yourself, pay attention to something so completely, with your heart, with your body, with your mind, everything in you, every particle, every cell - 'attend' to something, see what takes place.

Q: The centre is gone.

K: Yes, sir, I agree the 'centre' (of self-interest?) doesn't exist but the body is there, the brain is there - what has happened to the brain?

Q: It rests ?

K: Look, what is the (true) function of the brain ?

Q: Order ?

K: No. Don't repeat after me, for god's sake. What is the brain - it has evolved in time, it is the storehouse of memory, it is matter, it is highly active, recognising, protecting, resisting, thinking, not thinking, frightened, seeking security and yet being uncertain - it is that brain with all its memories, not just yesterday's memories, centuries of memories, the racial memories, family memory, the tradition - all that, that is the content is there. Now what has happened to that brain when there is this extraordinary attention?

Q: It is 'new'.

K; I don't want to be ( psychologically?) rude, but is your brain new? Or is it just a ( convenient?) word you are saying.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Please, what has happened to this human brain that has become so mechanical, responding to (everything ) according to its ( cultural ) conditioning, background, fears, etc., pleasure and so on, this mechanical brain, what has happened to it when there is no waste of energy at all?

Q: It is getting 'creative' ?

K: We'll leave it till tomorrow

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Sep 2016 #445
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

8TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1970 (reader friendly edited)


K: Yesterday we were talking over together the nature of consciousness. And in talking about it, we went into the question of what is attention. And we said, this quality of attention is a state of mind in which all energy is there, highly concentrated, and in that attention there is no observer, there is not centre as the 'me' who is attentive. This morning we are going to learn together about what happens to the mind when there is this extraordinary attention, when there is no ( psychological identification with the ?) centre as the 'observer' or as the 'censor'.
And a (decently serious?) mind that is really concerned, involved in bringing a psychological as well as outward change, must go into this problem of human 'consciousness' with its (swept under the carpet?) despair and fears, with its ( self-sustaining?) ambitions and desires to fulfil itself in some form or another. So to understand all this (experientially ) we must begin with seeing 'what is'. 'What is', is not only what is in front of you but the What Is beyond. To see the 'what is' in front of you, you must have a very clear perception and observe (the dynamic of?) 'what is' – the past, the present and the future. Do see that ( our psychological ) 'what is' is not static, it's a movement. And to keep ( flowing?) with the movement of 'what is' you need to have a very clear ( & unbiased?) mind . There is distortion the moment there is ( the 'observer' making?) an effort . The mind can't see (the truth regarding?) 'what is' and go beyond it if the mind is in any way concerned with the change of 'what is', or trying to go beyond it, or trying to suppress it.

And ( not to mention that?) to observe 'what is' you need ( a non-disipating?) energy. I need ( all this?) energy when I really, desperately want to listen and understand what you are saying. But if I am only casually listening, that is a very slight energy that soon dissipates. So to understand ( the truth about?) 'what is' you need energy. Now, these 'fragmentations' of which we are, are the division of these energies: the 'I' and the 'not I', violence and the non violence, they are all fragmentations of ( our total?) energy. And when one 'fragment' assumes the authority over the other fragments, it is an energy that functions in fragments. So the( holistically inclined?) mind sees that all (thinking in terms of psychological?) fragmentation (such as my belief and your belief) , is (a dissipation?) of energy.
( Consciosness-wise?) there is only energy and fragmentation. This (highly perceptive and intelligent?) energy is ( getting) fragmented by thought.

So our consciousness is (encompassing?) the totality of these ( interacting ?) 'fragmentations' of energy. And as we said, one ( core element?) of this fragmentations is the 'observer', is the 'me', the (thinking?) monkey, that is incessantly ( pretending to be?) active.
Now to see this (inner frgmentation) , which is 'what is', can you see that without the ( supervising?) fragment, the 'observer'? Can the mind see these many ( interacting?) fragmentations which make up the whole of our consciousness, and ( see the fact that?) these are the fragmentations of ( our total?) energy - can the mind see this without a (self-distancing?) 'observer' who is part of the many fragments ? Because when we are talking of attention, it is ( experientially?) important if the mind can see the many fragments without (looking through) the ( controlling?) eyes of another 'fragment' - since then you will never understand what is ( an integrated?) 'attention'. Are we meeting each other?

The (holistically inclined?) mind can sees what ( the psychological?) fragmentation does, outwardly and inwardly: outwardly the division of nationalities, beliefs, religious dogmas, division, my god, your god, my belief - outwardly. In social action, division, political action, division, the Labour Party, the Conservative, the Communist, non Communist, Socialist, the Capitalist - all created with the desire of ( our self-centred?) thinking which says, 'I must be secure'. And inwardly thought has put together this 'me', through the same impulse to find itself in security, safety. And in its desire to find ( the best?) safety it has divided ( the total consciousness?) energy as the 'me' ('my' consciousness?) and the 'not me' (everybody else's) . And therefore bringing to itself insecurity. Now can the mind see this (human consciousness?) as a whole? And it cannot see it as a whole if there is an (ongoing ?) fragmentation which observes.( In other words) we are asking, what is the quality of the mind that is highly attentive, in which there is no (internal?) fragmentation? That is where we left off yesterday.

I don't know if you have ( as assigned for homework?) 'gone through it', enquired, or learned from yesterday, and (anyway ?) the 'Speaker' is not a ( traditional?) Professor teaching you or giving you information. But to find that out (experientially) , there must be no inner fragmentation, obviously, which means no (sense of?) effort - with an (effort -) distorted mind you cannot possibly understand what it is to be completely attentive and find out what has happened to a mind that is so utterly aware, utterly attentive.

There is an (experiential?) difference between ( seeking inner?) security and 'stability'. It is the (thinking?) monkey, the everlasting 'me' with its thoughts, with its problems, with its anxieties, fears and so on, that is always seeking security, because it is afraid to feel uncertain in its ( physical?) activity, in its thoughts, in its relationship - it wants everything ( to run safely and smoothly ?) so it translates ( its need for inner ) security in terms of mechanical 'certainty'.
Now, isn't ( the dynamic inner?) stability entirely different, in a totally different dimension from security? We have to understand this (qualitative difference?): a mind that is ( traditionally?) restless, and seeking in that restlessness security, can never find ( the holistic sense of inner) stability, to be stable, unshakeable, immovable, and yet it has the quality of great mobility. The mind that is seeking ( a 'static' form of?) security cannot be 'stable' (in itself?) in the sense of being swift (outwardly?) and yet immensely immovable (inwardly?). You see the difference?

Now ( as an 'in class' assignment?) which is it you are doing in your everyday life - is the ('thinking ) monkey', in its restlessness, seeking security and not finding it in one direction, it goes off in another direction, which is the movement of restlessness? And in this restlessness, it wants to find (or optimise its inner sense of?) security. So what is it that you are doing? Seeking security in your restlessness? You know, this desire to be secure is one of the most curious things: its (personal achivements in terms of?) security must be recognized by the world. I write a book and I find in (writing that?) book my security. But the ( value of that?) book must be recognized by the world, otherwise there is no ( $$$ and long lasting material ?) security. So look what I've done. My security lies in the ( constantly changing?) opinion of the world . 'Oh, my books sell by the thousand !'. And I have created the ( cultural?) values of the world in seeking security through a book, or through whatever it is, depending on the world (opinion) , which means I am (psychologically?) deceiving myself constantly ( and/or living pretty safe materially?) . Right? Oh, if you saw (the metaphysical inconsistency of?) this...

Q: Yes...

K: So the desire for thought (for the 'thinking' monkey?) to be secure is the way of uncertainty, is the way of insecurity. Now, when the mind is completely attentive, in which there is no centre, what has happened to the mind that is so intensely aware - is there in it ( any need for seeking its own ?) security? Is there any sense of restlessness - no, don't please ( politely?) 'agree' - this is a tremendous thing to find out, because we want to go beyond this. You see, sir, most of us are seeking a solution for the misery of the world, we are trying to find out a way of organizing society in which there will be no social injustice – and man has sought God, Truth, whatever It is, through centuries, and never coming upon it, but believing in it.
So man in his (inner) 'restlessness', in his desire for safety, security, to feel at ease, has all these imaginary securities, invented, projected by thought. Now when you become aware of all this fragmentation of energy, therefore no fragmentation at all of energy, what has taken place in the mind that has sought security, because it was restless ? Have I made the question clear?

Q: Yes.

K: Is it even 'intellectually' clear? Then what do you do, what is your answer?

Q: It is no longer isolated, there is no fear.

K: Sir, unless 'it is so' with you, don't say anything, because it has no meaning. You can (always say ) I feel this - but if you are really serious, you want to learn about it, then you have to go into it, it is 'your life' (homework?) - not just this morning. This is not a 'weekend religion'. This is (all about?) a way of living in which this ( consciousness?) energy is not broken up - if you once understood this thing, you'll have an extraordinary sense of action.
Now let's go on.

Q: Sir, are you asking, what do you do with the 'monkey' within us ?

K: No, I am only putting that question to see where you are. So there is one of the fragments, that is actually (the central part of?) 'what is', one of the fragments of this broken up energy, knowing that one of these fragments is restlessly seeking security - that is what we are all doing. And that restlessness ( of the 'thinking?) monkey' goes on endlessly, all that indicates a mind that is pursuing a way of life in which it is only concerned with (its own?) security.
Now when that is seen very clearly, then what has happened to the ( same human) mind that is no longer concerned with (its own psychological) security? Obviously it has no fear - that's a very trivial matter - it becomes very trivial when you see how thought has fragmented the energy, or fragmented itself, and because of this fragmentation there is fear. And when you see the activity of thought in its fragmentation, then you meet that fear, you 'act'. So we are asking, what has happened to the mind that has become extraordinarily attentive. Is there any movement of search at all ? Please, find out.

Q: Mechanical activity stops completely.

K: Mechanical activity stops completely. You understand what I'm saying, my question? When you are so attentive, is the mind still seeking? Seeking ( psychic ?) experiences, seeking to understand itself, seeking to go beyond itself, seeking to find out right action, wrong action, seeking a permanency on which it can depend, permanency in relationship, or in belief or in some conclusion, is that still going on when you are so completely aware?

Q: The mind does not seek anything any longer.

K: You know what that means, not seeking anything ?
The mind has seen the activity of the (thinking?) monkey in its restlessness. This activity, which is still energy, ( the self-centred process of our?) thought has broken it up, in its desire to find a permanency, security, a certainty, a safety. And so it has divided the world, as the 'me' and the not 'me', 'we' and 'they', seeking truth as a way of security. And is the mind now any more seeking anything at all? You understand,( in the psychological area ?) 'seeking' implies restlessness - I haven't found it ( inner peace & happiness ?) here and I go there and I haven't found it there and I go there.

Q: What happens to the mind when it stops striving?

K: Have you ever known, walking or sitting quietly, what it means to be completely 'empty' (inwardly?) - the 'emptiness' of a mind that has finished with all the movement of search.

Q: All 'is' and I 'am'.

K: Who is this I that says ' I am'?

Q: ( The thinking?) monkey.

K: Do look at it - what am I? Don't repeat what the propagandists have said, what the religions have said, what the psychologists have said - what am I? What are you? Who is the one who is identified with the house, with the husband, with the money, with the name, the family, which is all what? ( Emotionally charged images and ?) words. No, you don't see this. But if (you eventually manage to?) see this, that you 'are' a bundle of memories and words, the restless (thinking?) monkey comes to an end.
Q: Why, if your mind is completely empty when you are walking to the office, why are you still doing this?

K: You have to earn a livelihood, you have to go to your home, you're going out of this tent.

Q: We can forget for now about 'going to your office'.

K: You may give it up, I'm not - don't bring in the office.

Q: Surely the question is, how can I be (inwardly?) empty if the memory is there operating - this is the question.

K: Sir...

Q: It is split, part of the mind is empty and another part not.

K: Look, sir, you are throwing words at me – but I want to tell you a very 'simple' thing: there is no such thing as ( psychological?) security, this restless demand for security is part of the 'observer', the centre, the (thinking?) monkey. And this 'restless monkey', which is ( the self-centred process of?) thought, has broken up this world and has made a frightful mess of this world, it has brought such misery, such agony. And, thought cannot solve this, however intelligent, however, clever, however erudite, however capable of efficient thinking, it cannot, thought cannot possibly bring order out of this chaos. There must be a way out of it, which is not (based on using?) thought - in that state of attention, in that movement of attention, all sense of ( psychological?) security has gone because there is ( a deeper sense of ?) stability. That 'stability' has nothing whatsoever to do with ( this self-centred?) security - when thought seeks security it makes it into something permanent, immovable, and therefore it becomes mechanical. Thought seeks security in our relationship and creates in that relationship an 'image'. And that (self?) 'image' becomes the 'permanent'. In ( subliminally creating) that ( self?) image thought has 'identified' itself and established ( the 'I' ?) as the permanent thing.

And outwardly this is what we have done : 'Your' country, 'my' country, 'my' God - all that silly stuff. Now when the mind has left ( behind?) all that, left it in the sense that has seen the utter futility, the mischief, and it has finished with it, then what takes place in the mind which has so completely finished with the whole concept of ( psychological?) security, what happens to that mind which is so 'attentive', that it is completely stable ?
The brain wants ( a deep sense of?) security, otherwise it will function neurotically, inefficiently, therefore the brain is always wanting order. And it has translated having order in terms of security. And if that brain is still functioning, it is still seeking order through security. So when there is (an integrated?) 'attention', is the brain still seeking security ?

Q: The moment I am attentive, I am not seeking. But this attention may cease, then I am seeking again.

K: Never - that's the whole point. If thought ( the thinking brain?) sees that there is no such thing as ( psychological?) permanency, sees it, thought will never seek it again. Which is, the brain, with its memories of security, with its cultivation in society, depending on security, all its ideas based on security, its morality based on security, that brain, has it become so completely empty of all movements towards security ?
Have you ever gone into this question of 'meditation', any of you?
( For starters?) meditation is not concerned with (what is the best way?) to meditate, but with (understanding?) the 'meditator' - you see the difference ? To understand the 'meditator' is meditation. And if you have gone ( seriously?) into this question of meditation, the 'meditator' must come to an end, obviously, ( but) not by killing ( the thinking monkey?) - but by understanding the whole movement of thought, thought being the ( mental?) movement of the brain, with all its memories. And the movement of thought seeking security and all the rest of it.
Now the ( integrated ?) meditator is asking (himself :) can this brain become completely quiet, which is thought being completely still, and yet out of this stillness thought operates and ( the quietness is?) not as an end in itself. Probably it's all sounding terribly complicated to you – but it's really quite simple.
So (to wrap it up?) the mind that is highly attentive, has no (internal) fragmentation of energy - please see that it is the 'complete' energy. And that (holistic?) energy operates when you go to the office without fragmentation. Right?

Q: Maybe a real understanding is a kind of direct (non-verbal) contact with the thing you are trying to understand. And consequently there is no need for words which ( psychologically- wise ?) are an escape.

K: That's it. Can you communicate without words, because words hinder. Look sir, can I 'communicate' (share?) with you without (using?) words, the quality of the mind that is so extraordinarily attentive and yet able to function in the world without breaking (its total?) energy into fragments? You've understood my question?

Q: Yes.

K: Now, can I communicate that to you without the word?

Q: Yes.

K: I can? How do you know I can?

Q: I think you can.

K: Look, I have talked for nearly three weeks, explained everything, gone into it in detail, poured one's heart into it - have you understood it even verbally ? And you want to understand something non-verbally, this can be done (only) if your mind is in contact with the 'speaker' with the same intensity, with the same passion, at the same time, at the same level, then (it?) will communicate. Are we listening now to the rattle of that train, at the same moment, with the same intensity, with the same passion ?
Now, only then there is ( a chance of?) direct communion. Right? Are you 'intense' about this, at the same time as the speaker ?
Sirs, when you 'hold the hand' of another, you can hold it out of habit or you can hold it and communication can take place without a word, because both are at the given moment intense, communication has taken place, without a word. But we are not intense, passionate, concerned.

Q: Not all the time.

K: Don't say that, not even for a minute !

Q: How do you know?

K: I don't 'know'. But if you are (intensely passionate) , then you will know what it means to be attentive, and therefore no longer seeking ( psychological?) security, therefore no longer thinking in terms of fragmentation. So, sir, look what has happened to a mind that has really gone through all the things we have been talking about, what has happened to the ( inner quality of a ) mind that has really 'listened' to this?

(a) First of all, it has become sensitive, not only mentally but also physically - given up smoking, drinking, drugs, down that drain that goes by (the Saanen?) river. And when we have discussed, talked over this question of attention, you will see that the mind is no longer seeking anything at all, or asserting anything. Such a mind is completely 'mobile' (fluid?) and yet wholly stable.

Then (b) out of that stability and sensitivity it can ( see and?) act without breaking up its (own intelligent?) energy into fragments.

And ( c ) such a mind - what does it find, apart from ( the right) action, apart from ( an immovible inner?) stability and all the rest, what is there? You understand? ( Since immemorial times?) man has always sought for what he considered God, Truth, always striven after it out of his despair, disaster, death. And (when he) thought he found it, the discovery of 'that' he began to organize (rationally?) . And, you remember that 'famous' (K ?) story – about the devil and his friend who were walking one day down the street and they saw a man in front of them picking up something very shiny. And the man looked at it in great delight, ecstasy. And the friend of the devil asked, ' What did he pick up ? Oh, the devil said it is a part of the Truth. And the ( devil's?) friend says, then it's a very bad business for you, if a man has found Truth on a pavement, you will have no place. To which the devil said, ' Not at all my friend, I'm going to help him organize it'.

So sirs, that (integrated mind?) which is stable, highly mobile (fluid?) , sensitive, sees something which has never been found, which means, (inwardly thinking in terms of?) 'time' for such a mind doesn't exist at all - which doesn't mean he's going to miss the (local?) train. Therefore there is an (inner) state which is 'timeless' and therefore incredibly vast.

Now, sir, I could go ( deeper? ) into 'it', which is something really most marvellous if you come upon it, but the ( verbal) description is not the (timeless being) described. It's (left) for you (as homework?) to learn all this by looking at (and into?) yourself - no book, no teacher can teach you about all this – so don't depend on any 'spiritual' organizations.

So ( for parting words :) one has to learn all this out of oneself. And 'in there' the mind will discover things that are incredible. But for that there must be no inner fragmentation, and therefore an immense stability, swiftness, mobility. And to that mind there is no time and therefore this whole concept of 'dying' and 'living' have quite a different meaning.
I hope you'll have a nice journey.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Sep 2016 #446
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE BROCKWOOD 1970 (reader friendly edited)


K: So what shall we start with?

Q: Could we discuss the application of these talks as a means of education, in other words, an active thing.

K: Do you want to discuss about education or something else?

Q: Like the idea of a school for pre-adolescents.

Q: Don't you think that it is possible to have a school whereby these young people would never be conditioned?

K: Perhaps we approach the question differently: how to bring about an education, or to educate a child, a student, and ourselves not to imitate, not to conform. Would it be worthwhile to discuss the implications of conforming and whether it is possible not to conform at all, but yet live in this society (and make it better?) ? Shall we start with that?

A: Yes.

K: Right. Before we try to find out how to educate our children not to conform, shouldn't we find out if we are conforming - the parent, the teachers, the educator, the human being, are we conforming? Aren't we following a certain (competitive?) pattern , accepting formulas and fitting our life to that formula?
Am I aware that I am ( openly or subliminally?) conforming? All the structure of our language is a form of acceptance of (some cultural?) patterns of speech, of thinking, conditioned by words and so on. One can see that we all conform there. And one does conform to the outward ( trendy) social patterns: short hair, long hair, beard, no beard, mini skirts, and long skirts, and all the rest of it. And inwardly is one conforming, ( building and ?) following (improving?) the 'image' that one has built about oneself, or a pattern of conduct, and following that pattern. Is one aware of all this?
Is one conscious, aware, realise that there is this outward and inward conformity all the time? Because if one is conforming obviously there is no freedom. And without freedom there is no intelligence.
So can one find out at what depth one is conforming. At a very superficial level, or does one conform right through one's being? This is really quite a complex subject since we have been educated to divide life as the 'me' and the 'not me', as the 'observer' and the 'thing observed' being something separate. That is one of the basic patterns of conformity, that's the way we have been brought up. When I say, I am a Hindu, it is conforming to the pattern of the particular culture and society in which this particular mind has been cultured, brought up.
(It would be ) extraordinarily interesting if one could go into this very, very deeply. And then we can discuss how to bring it about in a ( young or adult?) student.
You see, it (the 'psychological' conformism) is really a very subtle (and tricky issue ?) , and it has great depth if you really go into this question. The 'path of knowledge' ( and living exclusively in the 'known'?) is to conform and one has to find out in oneself these patterns of conformity and imitation. Go on, sirs.

Q: Sir, if we do not follow these systems that exist in our society, how can we educate our children to go through examinations.

K: Don't let's talk about (educating the ) children for the moment. Let us talk about ourselves who are responsible for these poor unfortunate children. If we are conforming. then we will always subtly or brutally bring about an educational system that will make the child or the adolescent ( learn to?) conform. This is so simple. If I am ( psychologically?) 'blind' I can't help another. Inwardly we are more or less 'blind' if we don't know at what depths (and in what way?) we are conforming.

Q: But isn't (the core of our psychological) conditioning the (dualistic) way of looking at the world as 'oneself' and the 'outer world' as two separate things?

K: I said that this division as the 'me' and not 'the me' the outer and the inner, is another ( subliminal?) form of ( cultural) conformity. Sir, let's get at the 'principle' of it, not at the peripheral conformities, but at the root. Why does the human mind ( has this natural tendency to?) conform? Once the central issue is understood then we can deal with the outer, with the peripheral conformities.

Q: Sir, I am very unsure if I don't (have to?) follow a certain pattern.

K: He says, if I don't follow a certain pattern, established by a particular society and culture, I shall be thrown out. You see you are always discussing what to do under a 'given' structure of a society. That's not the ( right?) question. The question is, is one aware that one is conforming? And is that conformity peripheral, or is it very profound? Until you answer this question you won't be able to deal (holistically?) with the problem, whether to fit into a particular society that demands (or not?) conformity.

Q: Is it possible that like any other species we also have this natural ( herd instinct) to conform.

K: Yes. We know this. This whole process of education, all our upbringing is to conform, why? Do look at it. The animal conforms.

Q: To preserve the group.

K: To preserve the group, to have security, to be safe. That's why we conform. ( But ) does that conformity lead to global security? I mean, to call oneself an American, or an Indian, does seem to give a ( certain) sense of security. Doesn't it? To identify oneself with a particular community appears to give security. But this very division ( on the planetary scale) is one of the major causes of war, which means no security. Where there is division which comes about through identification with a particular community, hoping that community will give security, it is the very beginning of destruction of (our global) security. This is so ( holistically?) clear. So when that's clear we have finished with ( our psychological?) identification with a community through which we hope to be secure. Once you see the 'poisonous' nature of this (psychological) division between you and the community, and/or identifying with the community in the hope of security, when you see the truth of it, you no longer want ( to achieve a higher degree of psychological?) security through ( identifying with the (B P ?) community.

Q: Is there not another point: the (comforting ?) feeling to belong to (the 'bestest/noblest/richest'?) community?

K: Yes, sir. I belong to a particular group, it gives me satisfaction, it makes me feel warm inside, it makes me feel safe.

Q: It much more than to be safe, it's a 'nice' (and positive?) feeling.

K: Yes, sir, I belong to this community of Brockwood. It gives me a nice feeling. Which means I want to belong to something (worthwhile ?) . Right? Why? Sir, let us tear all this apart and look at it. Why do I want to feel comfortable within ( such?) a blasted little community? Sorry!

Q: Because I feel insufficient in myself ?

K: I am feeling lonely, unhappy, haggard, ( a psychologically ?) miserable entity, and I say, my God, if I could identify myself with a large community I would 'lose' ( and forget about?) myself in that. This is so 'simple'...

Q: We want communion with other people.

K: How can you have (an authentic) communion with other people when you are ( subliminally?) seeking security through other people?

Q: It is not ( necessarily ?) a matter of security.

K: Sir, ( suppose that?) I feel comfortable, happy, with a small group of people, a particular community, why?

Q: Because I am frightened of the others ?

K: I don't like the others. I don't like their looks, their smell, their clothes, their beards, their hair. I like this group. And that group gives me a great sense of warmth.

Q: We want extension.

K: Extending what? My loneliness, my fear, my misery, my sense of lack of certainty? When I am clear, certain, you know, vital, I don't need to identify myself (psychologically?) with anything.

I don't know why we waste time on this ( 'happy community'?) thing. We ought to go much deeper than this : any form of ( psychological ) identification with a group, however comfortable or satisfying it is, this identification implies a psychological well-being in division, and therefore ( containig the seeds of its own?) destruction, but also it brings about a conformity of the group as against another group.
So our question was: why do we conform, and do I know I am conforming? And when you are aware that you are conforming the next question is, why? . If you say, it is ( our subliminal herd instinct ) to be safe, secure, then ( do ) you see the dangers of that (illusion of?) 'security' ? Any form of identification with a group, however satisfactory, however comforting, does not bring security. So I will never look for ( finding my psychological?) security in a group (mentality?) . Can't we finish with that?

Q: Yes.

K: Yes, but (you stlll have to?) 'do' it!

Q: It doesn't always seem that we are identifying when we are doing it, but as we are (busy?) 'working together' , it slips over somehow.

K: Is co-operation ( implying a group mentality based on ?) imitation and conformity? Am I co-operating with you 'about (in order to achieve ? ) something'? Or we have a ( genuine?) 'spirit of co-operation' in which there is no ( place for?) conformity? I don't know if you see. If I am 'co-operating' because I hope ( or intuit that ?) through that co-operation I will gain a personal profit, then it's not ( the spirit of free ?) co-operation. But if I have this spirit of co-operation...

Q: ... I can go beyond the 'me' ?

K: Madam, that's just it. Do we have this 'spirit of co-operation', the feeling? So ( if not?) let's come back to this ( basic ?) thing does one know that one is conforming, why one is conforming, and what is the necessity to conform?

Q: It presents a (comforting?) image of 'sameness'.

K: Sir, just listen to my question - do I know through (examining my?) actions that I am conforming, or do I know I am conforming not through action? The two (are qualitatively?) different kinds of knowledge, the discovery that I am conforming through ( examining my) action leads to the correction of action. I discover I am conforming through a particular action , and then I say to myself, to change, to bring about a change in conformity I must act differently. So I lay emphasis on ( the corrective?) action, not on the ( inner?) movement that brings about that action.

Q: Sir, I don't understand how you can observe the nature of your conformity without the action that reveals it ?

K: Sir, how do you know that you are conforming?

Q: Through observation.

K: Through observation, you say. The 'observer' (controlling entity?)
watching its action says, 'I am conforming'. But is not the very 'observer' the result of centuries of cultural conformity?

Q: Yes.

K: Therefore he 'is' the (active?) source of all conformity, and what he is doing is the result of this ' flow of conformity' , ( manifesting itself?) as the observer, as the censor, as the traditionalistic Englishman, and so on. So when we are asking the ( triple) question, who is conforming, what is conformity, and why does one conform, I think the answer to all that lies in the 'observer'. The observer is the (cultural?) censor. And when this censor becomes aware of himself by condemning or justifying. And that condemnation, or justification, is the result of his conformity to the pattern of a particular culture in which he has been brought up.

Q: But somehow in that 'stopping' there is the seeing of it.

K: Sir, I think I get what you mean. But does that happen?

Q: Well it's the only time when one gets a glimpse of it.

K: Yes. You are asking me to be aware of the 'observer' (subliminal interference?) . This 'observer' is the very essence of conformity.
Please, we have said a truth, and once seen you will see the whole thing. The observer is the essence of imitation, conformity. Now can the observer become aware of himself as ( being) the (active) principle of conformity? You ( the speaker?) have challenged me . Right? Now what is the response of the observer to the challenge?

Q: It goes back into ( analysing its available?) memory to try and find out.

K: Which means what? Any ( thoughtful?) response from the 'observer' is the response of (its own cultural?) conformity - full stop!

Q: But has the observer actually an instrument that isn't contaminated?

K: We are so near it, let's push ( the enquiry deeper?) . We have come to the point when we say the observer is the very essence of conformity. How does the observer know (or realise that?) he is the very essence of conformity? Is he aware of himself as the ( active?) instrument of conformity, and that whatever his answer is conforming.

Q: Yes.

K: Therefore what have I found?

Q: That there is also something beyond conformity ?

K: No, listen sir - what has the observer found when he responds to a ( immovible?) challenge, and finds that whatever his response, it is a response born of conformity. He has discovered that. What does that mean?

Q: He has discovered ( the truth about?) himself. It sees that if he has an answer, it must be conformist.

K: So what has happened to the 'observer'?

Q: He keeps quiet?

K: Sir, you are just playing with words. Do find out what happens to you when you have discovered for yourself the truth - the truth, not an idea - the truth that any form of response on the part of the observer, and all our responses are on the part of the observer, then what do you find?

Q: Sir, is not our realization of that itself the result of the observer in the sense that the observer ( is constantly ? ) separating himself.

K: That's what you are saying, which means another reaction of the observer which is born of another conformity. He may separate himself into a hundred parts, and say, I remain. And this division indicates that any reaction on the part of the observer comes out of this enormous weight of conformity. I have discovered the truth of that. The observer has discovered it. He hasn't separated himself as a further observer, he has seen this. Now what has happened? What takes place when the observer (the observing mind?) 'sees' (the truth of?) this?

Q: How can the 'observer' discover this?

K: Wait sir, I'll answer that question, you'll see it in a minute. Does the 'observer 'become aware of himself through ( a newly created ) division of himself? You understand my question, sir? Does the observer become aware of himself as the source of ( psychological?) conformity through (another self-) division? So he does not become aware through any division. Let's be clear. Then how does he become aware? If you ( the non-culturally conditioned part of brain?) see the falseness that the observer ( subliminally cheats?) by (pretending to?) become aware of himself through a fragment of which he is, then how will he be (totally) aware of himself?

Q: If there is no fragment by which he can become aware of himself, then he is not (active) ?

K: No, you see. If the observer does not become aware through (subliminally generating a new controlling ) fragment of which he is part, then how will he know '( realise the truth?) that he 'is' the source of all conformity?

Q: The question is then: the fragment is aware of the totality ?

K: Right, let's put it that way : can one fragment be aware of the total? Obviously not. ( So, since we got stuck?) Let's begin in a totally different way: Are you aware of the (observer-observed?) division in yourself? Are you aware when you look at a tree, or at the sky, or a cloud, that you are looking with a division, with eyes that are always looking at everything through division?

Q: It does not touch our awareness immediately, but ( eventually?) one is out of that division.

K: No, sir. I want to begin right at the other end, so begin anew. Can you look at anything with eyes that are not touched by ( a sense of self?) division? Do you look at your wife or husband without the ( self-protecting mechanism of creating an ?) image (about her?) and therefore look without division?

Q: The only way to do that is by the senses. When I look at you, you are what you are, I hear you but there is no division, there is only you and not a 'me' that looks at you.

K: So here it is fairly simple, isn't it. Because I don't interfere with your (personal) life. Me sitting on the platform, you sitting there you can ( comfortably) observe what is being said. But if I what I say touches you, hurts you, flatters you, then you look at me with different eyes, don't you?

Q: Only by my intellect.

K: Only 'by intellect' is good enough. You look at it with division. Right? Now, can you look at me who insults you without this division, without the image that you have created through my words of insult?

Q: Only if I can see you, the insult and the image at once.

K: Look, sir, I have insulted you, or flattered you, and you have built an image about me. Next time we meet you look at me through that image. Now can you look at me though I have insulted you, flattered you, without the image?

Q: Only again by the senses.

K: No, no, sir.

Q: If not, it is getting complicated.

K: No, madam, you make it all so complicated. Keep it very simple. I have insulted you, or flattered you. You have ( subliminally formed?) an image of me. Now I want to look at you though you insult me, flatter me, nag me, without building an image. Now is that possible?

Q: For me, that which comes in the way is my own reaction to what I see, not so much what people say but what happens in me when this is said, and to see that.

K: Obviously, sir. Obviously.

Q: How can you...

K: I am going to show you in a minute, listen sir. You have insulted me, or said, what a marvellous chap you are. And can I look at you without any image though you have insulted me? And when I look at you without the image our relationship is entirely different, isn't it. Then it's much more vital, much more close, much more real. So the 'image (- making' process ) is the factor that divides. Right? Now is it possible to be free of the mechanism of building images? That is, can the mind as it is being insulted and flattered, can that mind at that moment be intensely aware and not create an 'image'? If it is ( non-personally?) attentive at that moment you have stopped (the process of?) image building. That's all. It's as simple as that.
Now the mind wants to find out whether it can look at anything, the tree, the woman, the child, the politician, the priest, the whole world of human beings, without any image, without any ( fool-proof?) formula. To look at the world (as it is?) without any image, is that possible? If I can't then I will be in (constant competition?) with the world. Right? Me and my group, and you with your group, we and they. So I begin to enquire, test this out, by looking at a tree. Right? A 'non-subjective' (non-personal) thing. Let's look at a tree. Can I look at a tree without the word, without the image which I have about trees? Have you ever tried it?

Q: If I look at you now I do not have any image, I do not have your name, I do not know you, though I just hear your voice. If I wish I can think about you.

K: Right, sir. But can you do the same with your intimate friends?

Q: Why not?

K: Not, 'why not'. Do you do it?

Q: I would answer, yes.

K: Then what happens?

Q: You are free.

K: Look, sir, we will come back to this question of conformity but we are trying to find out whether the mind can look without division. And it's one of the most extraordinary things to find out, to learn, because then conflict comes to an end. And conflict can only come to an end when there is no machinery the forms that image, and the machinery is the 'observer'.

So (to wrap it up:) this mind has learnt that every form of division inwardly as well as outwardly must spring from the 'observer' (controlling mental mechanism) who must 'divide' (our everyday ) life, with all its conflicts and jealousies and anxieties and all the rest of it. So in asking myself the question, at what level am I conforming, and why am I conforming, this mind has found it conforms whenever there is the demand for security, where one seeks certainty, either in a family, in a group, or in the ideation of a god, or non-god, all springing from this source as the 'me' and the 'not me'. So can this mind live in this ( real?) world without any of this ( self-created ) division?
So the observer becomes aware of himself not through the fragmentation of any ( dualistic?) action but the (the observing mind?) within itself lights the fire that dissolves the 'observer'. Right?

Q: Is this a gradual process, like you can spend a life time it seems?

K: No, no. You can see it instantly and it is finished. It is like seeing instantly the (immediate danger of this psychological?) 'precipice' , you don't take a life time to look at the precipice.

Q: But isn't a lot of chaos in there ?

K: There is a lot of chaos, not only outside but inside, a lot of confusion, disorder.

Q: It seems that you should be doing something, going to be propagating...

K: Sir, what are we doing now? The speaker is doing all the work and you are listening. If you go away without having learnt the lesson, then you will do propaganda. But when you do propaganda it becomes a lie because it (the inner discovery?) is not yours. If it is yours, you are building, you are creating, you are living, you are vital.

Q: But doing this you want to be in contact.

K: You are in contact, sir. You see you are in the greatest contact with the world, not through words, not through magazines, books and lectures and philosophies and beliefs, you are directly in contact with this terrible world.
I think that's enough for this morning

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2016 #447
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

2ND K PUBLIC DIALOGUE BROCKWOOD 1970 (reader friendly edited )


K: What shall we talk over together? I am sorry it is such a rough morning.

Q: I have been told that you are going to speak next in Perugia to a group of writers and scientists who are very much concerned about the 'killing of this earth'. I wondered if these people and others are really concerned about the gradual killing of the earth ?

K: Oh, I seen with the gradual ( increase of ) pollution and destruction of the earth and so on. Do you want to discuss that? Or it might be rather worthwhile to talk first about what is 'sanity'. Shall we?

Audience: Yes.

K: I wonder what is ( mental?) 'sanity'. To be sane, healthy, to think clearly. And would not any fragmentation of the mind be ( at the origin of?) 'insanity'? The exaggeration, or putting all your thought and energy in ( developping?) one fragment, one fragment among many others fragments which make up the (common ?) human mind ; wouldn't you call that 'insanity', or (dis-) balance - putting all our energy in one direction, like sex, like earning money, like enjoyment, pleasure, or the pursuit of a fragment which is called ( the search for?) God. Would you call any of that imbalance? What do you say, sirs?

Q: I think if it is putting so much tension in one fragment to the exclusion of other fragments...

K: Therefore?

Q: The other parts will be 'unbalanced'.

K: So you will consider that giving emphasis to one and not consider the rest it is obviously not ( leading to?) a harmonious living, and therefore not ( the action of a?) 'sane' (mind) . Now, don't we do this in our daily life? When one worships sex as the supreme thing in life, or taking drugs and thinking that is going to bring enlightenment, final illumination, or concentrate on earning a livelihood and the (resulting ) money, prestige, and position - all those indicate a mind that is not (truly?) harmonious, doesn't it. Or a mind that is concerned entirely with ( accumulating a wealth of?) knowledge, or technique. What do you say? Are we in that sense ( mentally?) 'balanced' human beings? Obviously not. And an unbalanced ( consciousness of?) humanity, as it is, must produce all kinds of catastrophes - wars, pollution, destruction of the earth, bringing about a constant ( trail of?) misery. If that is so, what then shall one do? This is supposed to be a discussion, not a (moralising ?) talk by the 'speaker'. So what shall I do when I realize that my whole life is based on ( the fragmentary activities of ?) thought? Do I realize that my (self-centred) thinking is only a fragment, a part of a whole?

Q: I think one should perhaps differentiate between 'thought' as a ( general concept?) principle, and an individual's thought.

K: Is there a difference between thought as a principle and my individual thought? I am not saying there is not, I am just asking if there is a difference between individual thinking and the 'collective thinking' which man has gathered hrough centuries upon centuries as knowledge - scientific, technological, knowledge of nature and so on and on. Is there a difference between the particular thinking of an individual and the collective accumulation of the 'thought of mankind'? What do you say, sirs?

Q: I don't think so. The individual thinking is influenced by the collective.

K: Sir, you say that 'thought' (our thinking?) is conditioned by the culture, the society, the environment in which he lives, therefore there is no division between the individual thinking and the collective thinking.

Q: The collective thinking seems to be made up of ( a generalisation of the?) personal experiences.

K: That's what we are saying, sir.

Q: And it( the collective thinking?) seems to be in touch with your 'individual' thought; itseems to be necessary if you are going to have any self-awareness.

K: Therefore you are separating individual thought from the collective thought. You think that there is 'individual' thinking?

Q: I am not (100%?) certain...

K: I am just asking. You say that there is an individual thinking apart from the collective. Is your ( self-centred?) thinking different from my ( self-centred?) thinking as an individual, or is all thinking more or less the same?

Q: If our individual (thinking) reacts to ( the collective thinking of?) society, the individual's thoughts must be exactly ( of the same nature as?) the society's thoughts.

K: Obviously, sir. I don't quite see (any) basic difference between the collective thought and the individual thought, because the 'individual' (thinking) is part of the collective (general mentality?) .

Q: May be we misunderstand each other's words, but it seems to me that the reason for all these wars, and everything, is that all the bad (hard?) feelings that people have about each other. It seems to be that they are thinking for themselves, and they find that what they think is relatively different from the collectivity thinks.

K: Look, sir, is your thinking different from mine coming from India, or from Russia, is your thinking different?

Q: The things that we think about (are different ) .

K: Not what you think about, but your thinking process ?

Q: Oh, no, that's the same.

K: So the thinking process of human beings is more or less the same. Conditioned (formatted?) according to their ( cultural) background as Catholic, Protestant, Hindu and so on and so on. Right? And there may be ( local) modifications of that thought. As a German, I may think differently from you who are American because I have been conditioned by the German culture in which I live. But the process of thinking is the same, isn't it, thought I call myself a German, and you an American, the process, the 'mechanism' - the mechanism is ( the response of our past?) memory (organised as?) knowledge (and acquired through?) experience. If you had no ( verbal) knowledge, no ( learning?) experience, you couldn't speak.

So ( in a nutshell:) (our everyday?) thinking is the response of ( our past experience stored as?) memory. That memory may be a little less dogmatic, a little less assertive, a little less aggressive, but it is still the response of memory. And is your memory so very different from mine, as the German, as a human being? Please, sir, this is quite important, go slowly in this.

Q: It depends whether it is from the 'conscious' or the 'unconscious'. The problem arises when different people have a different awareness.

K: We will go into that madam - I am not saying that what you say is not true - but I am not at all sure that our ( everyday process of?) thinking is not more or less the same. You, conditioned by the culture in which you live, and another conditioned by his particular culture, whether that culture is superficial or deep, whether it is 'conscious' or 'unconscious', it is still part of the (same mental ? )mechanism, or process of thinking. Isn't it?
We are trying to learn about this whole process of thinking - whether it belongs to you as an 'individual' whose thinking is completely different from ( the thinking of ?) another - you follow - we are going to learn about it.

Q: May we say that perhaps if the process if the same, there is difference in emphasis, in our different capacities?

K: But thinking is the same mechanism.

Q: Yes, indeed.

K: That's all that we want to establish first.

Q: So, the thought-energy is all the same.
K: Stay there a minute. The energy of all thinking is the same, but it may express itself according to the capacity, to the gift, to a particular tendency and so on, that might vary, but the ( mental ?) machinery of thinking is the same. Right?

Q: Like the computer ?

K: Quite right, sir. You are saying, We have got computer-like (culturally programmable ?) minds. And some are well informed, more alive, but it is a computerised (culturally standardised ?) mind that is ( in charge and ?) functioning all the time.
Therefore the next question: is there then (any space of ?) freedom in ( our) thinking?

Q: No, sir. It is playing the same record(s ?) all the time.

K: It is playing the same old record all the time with varying themes, depending on the circumstances. Therefore can ( my self-centred ?) thinking however capable, however efficient, however knowledgeable, can that bring ( inner ?) freedom to man? Freedom from fear, from anxiety, from guilt, from sorrow. You understand my question? Is sorrow different from my sorrow? Is your sense of guilt different from another? Is your sense of despair different from another, or your loneliness, your misery, your confusion?

Q: It never will.

K: How do you know?

Q: It is obvious, sir.

K: Why do you say that, sir? I am not saying you are right or wrong, I want to learn. Why do you say thought can never free (the human mind of its ?) jealousy, or anxiety?

Q: I have found that if you (try to ) understand a person's motive for doing something you can be much more tolerant, understanding, less jealous by using your ( thoughtful ?) understanding.

K: When you use the word 'understanding', what does that word mean?

Q: Understanding the 'cause' of it. And it has to start with thought. I have to pay attention to the fact that I am jealous. I have to 'think' about the situation first. Then in that process you find you can change your living, your thinking, your attitude, as I become clear.

K: You are saying that through the exercise of thought, there is an understanding of jealousy and therefore freedom from it. Is that so?

Q: It seems that one comes to a less intense form of jealousy.

K: Sir, let's enquire into this particular thing. We say, by exercising thought we can learn more about jealousy and are therefore free from it ?
But don't you see? What caused that jealousy?

Q: ( My self-centred ?) thought.

K: ( In short ?) thought.

Q: No, I disagree very profoundly: jealousy is an emotion, it is a sense of loss.

K: Which is part of ( our self-centred ?) 'thinking-feeling'

Q: You are making it (sound as ?) an infantile thing. It is not. If you understand what you have got, and if it even matters that you have got it, and you mature to the point that you understand, it doesn't matter.

K: I understand that, madam, just go slowly. If you had 'feeling' without ( its associated ?) 'thought' would you call it 'jealousy'?

Q: I would (still) feel jealous.

K: I become conscious of a ( painful ?) feeling which I call 'jealousy'. The word 'jealousy' is remembered from the ( collective memory pool of ?) past jealousies. Which is, a (specific) response of memory to a particular feeling which has been ( collectively labelled and ?) recognized as jealousy. Right? Whether that response is the outcome of conscious memory or unconscious memory we will leave that for the moment. So the feeling is recognized as 'jealousy' through an (emotionally loaded ?) word which thought has given meaning to.

Q: The recognition is thought, but the feeling comes first.

K: I am saying that. I have a ( painful ?) feeling, then I recognize it as 'jealousy'. How do I recognize it as 'jealousy'? Because I (or others ?) have had it before. I associate the present feeling with ( the emotionally charged memory of ?) a past feeling which I have called jealousy. So it is still within the field of thought (in the field of the 'known' ?) .
( Suppose that ) I an getting angry, and I say, 'By Jove, I am angry, why?' Because I have had that feeing before, and recognition implies a previous knowledge, which is thought (retrieving it from my personal or collective memory ?) , otherwise I wouldn't know that was 'anger'.

Q: A baby can become angry, so can an animal.

K: But isn't there an operation of 'thought' (of a response of the past experience ?) also going on, in ( the mind of ?) a dog?

Q: ( Perhaps, but ?) it doesn't 'know' it.

K: Therefore let us 'babies' and 'dogs' alone. Let's talk about ourselves.

Q: We are babies. I think you are very infantile too !

K: I quite agree, I quite agree. But I want to find out if being infantile, whether that 'childishness' is the result of thought.

Q: I think it is the result of lack of thought.

K: Therefore what is maturity?

Q: Ability to 'face truth' in your conscious mind.

K: Which means able to face facts, able to face 'what is'. And not go round it, not escape from it, not cover it us, not condemn it, not judge it, not give various evaluations about it. To face 'what is'. Right? What prevents it?

Q: ( The sub-conscious ?) fear (of the 'unknown' ?) .

K: What is this fear? Go slowly. Without recognising a new feeling, has it any significance? ( Suppose that ?) I am full of 'antagonism' today, I feel this. Now, without giving a name to it, which is the response of ( my past ?) memory, which is the response of 'recognition', this feeling has no ( long term ?) meaning at all. I just feel something. It is only when I recognize (and label it ?) by using a word such as 'aggressivity' that it has significance; and the recognition is a process of thinking. Right? So (we have experientially proved that ?) without 'thinking' (about it) a (gut ?) feeling has very little meaning.

Q: Can I say something? You started by talking about 'sanity'. I work in a mental hospital. The psychotics do not seem to have this (thoughtful ?) 'sense of recognition', so it is very hard to communicate with them.

K: Yes, madam, I understand all this, (but I was) asking myself (as a relatively rational person ?) : has 'feeling' any significance apart from (being associated with our self centred process of ?) thought?

Q: Yes.

K: Yes? Before you say, yes, let's find out. ( Suppose ) I feel a great sense of tenderness, a sense of 'love'. Can thought be related to it? Go slow, go slow. Then it becomes 'pleasure', doesn't it, then it must be translated in terms of recognition. Is 'love' a product of (our self-centred ?) thought?

Q: I don't think one can answer that.

K: Wait, we are going to answer it.

Q: People only seem to be able to achieve 'love', or go beyond it, by using their minds to understand themselves.

K: Now, is that so? By understanding themselves they go beyond the travail of ( sensory ?) love? That is, love is not pleasure. Love is not desire.

Q: All of it, and pain.

K: Oh, so 'love' is pleasure, desire, pain, sorrow, jealousy, hatred. Where do you draw the line?

Q: I think love goes beyond emotion. We get confused with our emotions and call them 'love' and 'anti-love'. But we have to use our minds.

K: We are using our minds now, as we are discussing. What is the thing we were trying to discuss?

Q: You were saying, can thought dissolve the problem of fear and pain ?

K: Yes, can thought solve the problem of fear? And is not fear the creation of ( our self-centred way of ?) thinking ?

Q: Unless thought sustains the feeling , this feeling (of fear) evaporates very quickly, but if thought gives it a drive in time, it sustains it.

K: Now sir, let's begin: you know what 'fear' is, don't you ? We all do: the fear going out in the dark, we are afraid of somebody, or of death. Right? We all know this fear. How does it come about? I go out in the dark and suddenly I am afraid.

Q: Isn't it a physical reaction?

K: Which is, the feeling of insecurity. Suddenly finding myself in the dark in a strange place, and the feeling of uncertainty, insecurity. What has brought about that feeling of insecurity?

Q: It is the thought that something might happen to one.

K: Isn't it? Something might happen to one, sudden danger, feeling of insecurity, feeling of being lost, where you might get attacked and all the rest of it. All that is the result of ( our own) thinking, isn't it ? It may be instant (subliminal ?) thinking. If there was no thought I wouldn't be afraid of the dark, I would walk through it. It's only the swiftness, the rapidity of this thing has brought this feeling of uncertainty. Otherwise I wouldn't be afraid of the dark.

Q: There must be a first time. The fact that the first time I was afraid I didn't know what it was.

K: I said it was (a sub-conscious ?) thought that was so rapid of which you are unaware. The next time it happens you say, well, I have had this (feeling of) 'fear', I won't be afraid so much; and the third, tenth time you have got used to it. We are pointing out that a thought has bred fear. Whether that thought is so rapid, of which one is not aware, not so rapidly it thinks about what is going to happen tomorrow: I might die, I have done something in the past, all that is a process of thinking whether it is instantaneous or gradual. Therefore fear is the product of thought. Like (the experiencing of a ?) pleasure is the product of thought. No? I had the most extraordinary enjoyable evening yesterday in the woods, walking, looking at the sunlight, it was marvellous. And that was a delight which I would like to have repeated tomorrow. And this (instinctive) demand for 'repetition' is the machinery of thought, the process of thinking. It's so simple. It's ( experientially ?) obvious.
Fear is the ( by ?) product of thought. And ( our search for) pleasure is also the ( direct ?) product of the continuity of thought. After all, all sexual pleasure is ( amplified by ?) thinking about it, chewing over it, going into it, and saying, how marvellous, and on and on and on. And ( the same process of self-centred thinking working preventively as ?) 'fear' is saying, my god, what is going to happen (to me) tomorrow, I might die. No?

Q: If I do not recognize my feeling as (fear or) jealousy, does not there remain sorrow?

K: If I do not (intellectually) 'recognize' (and label) my feeling - what is the next thing?

Q: Does there not remain sorrow?

K: Ah! If I do not recognize the fear or pleasure, or guilt and so on, it has no profound affect?

Q: Sorrow remains.

K: Does it? You see, when we use this word 'sorrow', what do you mean by that word? What is the content of that word? There is a tremendous quantity of ( personal and collective ?) self-pity in sorrow. No?

Q: Is not the question when you have the feeling like jealousy, if you don't recognize it, is that feeling painful?

K: Have you ever tried this? You have a feeling, can the mind remain with that feeling without 'naming' it? Without recognition? Then what is it? Is it pain? Is it sorrow? Look, the moment you say, it is pain, there is the process of thinking involved in it.

Q: Is not sorrow the basis of all our life?

K: Is it? That's why, sir, when you use the word 'sorrow' we must go into it. Sorrow. What does that mean? Sadness, grief, the feeling of insoluble problems of life, feeling the death of someone, feeling loneliness, feeling deeply frustrated, not being able to do anything in this world and so on and on and on. Right? All that is implied in the word 'sorrow', isn't it? Now 'who' is feeling all this? Who is ( the self-conscious entity ?) feeling the loneliness, the despair, the utter misery, confusion, aggression, violence, who is it that is feeling all these things?

Q: I think we are, in a big psychic self.

K: Which is that?

Q: Most of us have two frames of being, one is our 'thinking self' and one is the 'un-thinking' one.

K: All right. You think there is a superficial (self) and the other more profound. How does this 'division' arise? You must answer all these questions.

Q: There is a 'deep self'.

K: What is this 'deep self'? And what is the 'superficial self'?

Q: There is the 'conscious' and the 'unconscious' (self).

K: Conscious and unconscious. Why do you divide it?

Q: Because only a little bit is lit by our awareness -the conscious self, and what is unlit is our unconscious self.

K: Therefore you say there is no division really.

Q: No, not really.

K: So there is only a ( dualistic, inwardly split ?) state of mind in which there is the division as the thinker and the thought. As the experiencer and the experienced, as the observer and the observed. The 'observed' we say is the superficial, the 'observer' is the profound. Right?

Q: Maybe...

K: No, no, don't say, maybe. Examine it, find out, we want to learn.

Q: I think the problem is our lack of ( inner ) awareness.

K: You see, in this (inward) awareness - 'who' is it that is aware? So we realize there is a division in (our inner) life, in me, in you. Oneself is made up of many fragments. One of these fragments is the ( all controlling mental entity of the ?) 'observer' and the rest of the fragments are the 'observed'. The observer (may eventually ?) become conscious of the fragments, but it does not realise that itself is also one of the fragments; that (even if he's in charge with supervising them ) he is not (qualitatively ?) different from the rest of the fragments. Therefore you have to find out what is the observer, the experiencer, the thinker. What is he made up of, how does it come about this division between the observer and the observed? The observer, we say, is one of the fragments, the ( moral or cultural ?) 'censor'. Right? The censor is the result of the social conditionings. Right? Social, environmental, religious, cultural conditioning: this is right, this is wrong, this is good, this is bad, I must do this, I must not do that, which is, the (composite ?) result of the conditioning of the society, of the culture, of the religion, of the family, of all the race, and so on.
So (in a nutshell:) the observer is the (mental) censor, conditioned according to his environment. And he has assumed the authority of the analyzer. Right? And the rest of the fragments are also ( surreptitiously trying to assume ?) their authority; each fragment has its own authority, and so there is a constant inner conflict . Right? And so there is conflict between the observer and the (fragments that are being ?) observed.

Now, to be free of this conflict one has to find out if you can look without the ( controlling mentality ?) of the censor. That is to be (choicelessly ?) aware - to be aware that the 'eyes' of the censor are the result of our cultural conditioning. And can't our eyes look with freedom, look innocently, freely? Otherwise this (hidden ongoing) conflict will exist, and therefore neuroticism and all the rest of it follow from this conflict. So you have to solve (holistically ?) this question, learn about this, whether the mind can look without any conditioning. Which means without the (controlling interference of the ?) censor, without the observer. Because the observer is the source of all conformity. And when you are conforming there must be contradiction, and therefore conflict, which are all the result of thinking.

So ( to recap:) the thinker is not separate its thought. So the observer is not separate from the observed. And when this is (seen as ?) an actual reality, fact, truth, 'what is', then ( our inner ) conflict (of interests ?) comes to an end.

Q: Sir, the sunset you talked about, if you observe it and it was so divine, then at the moment when you are not doing it, you are still observing, then...

K: Do listen to this, sir, this is quite extraordinary if you go into it. You saw that sunset yesterday. It was a great delight. It has left a (subliminal ?) memory and its response through thought, is, 'I wish I could have more of it'.
So (this psychological mechanism of ?) thought breeds fear and pleasure, sustains it, gives it a continuity. This is clear, isn't it? And if I can't have my pleasure I get upset (frustrated or ?) , I get neurotic. And ( at the same time ) the observer wants to avoid ( the disturbing experience of ?) fear. Right? Wants pleasure and avoid fear. So the 'observer' is the result of (our self-centred ?) thinking. Obviously. Look at the game he is playing with himself: with one hand he holds, with the other hand he rejects. But he is still the same observer. And if I can't have my pleasure I get angry, I suffer, I go into tantrums, or if I cannot resolve my fear I escape through amusements, through religions, through dogmas, through nationalities, through all kinds of ugly (sad ?) escapes. And that's what we human beings are.

Q: Can there be thought without the observer?

K: The inevitable question comes next : can the mind be free of all this conditioning, (by realising that its essential ?) conditioning is the observer, and not what he observes. Right? Suppose that this mind is conditioning by a culture which has existed for five thousand years in India, and when it meets a different culture, the Catholic, it says, My God...! The observer rejects it , and therefore conflict. So the inevitable next question is: can the mind, the brain cells themselves, be free of all ( its dualistic ?) conditioning as the 'observer', as a (mental) entity that is conforming, (heavily ?) conditioned by its environment, culture, family, race - you follow - conditioned. If the mind is not free from ( its dualistic ?) conditioning it can never be free of conflict and therefore neuroticism. Therefore unless you are completely free (of the observer-observed duality ?) , we are unbalanced people. And out of our unbalance we do all kinds of mischief.

So maturity is not a frame of mind but a freedom: freedom from conditioning. And that freedom is not obviously the result of the (dualistic action of the ?) 'observer', which is the very source of all memory, of all thought. So can I look with eyes that have never been touched by the past? And that is 'sanity'. Can you look at the cloud, the tree, your wife, your husband, without an image? To be aware that you have an 'image' (making mechanism ?) is the first thing, isn't it. To be aware that you are looking at life through a formula, through an image, through concepts, which are all distorting factors. So to be aware of it. And to be aware of it without any choice. And as long as the 'observer' is ( pretending to be ?) aware of these then there is distortion. Therefore can the mind observe without the 'censor'? Can you listen without any interpretation, without any comparison, judgement, evaluation, listen, to that breeze, to that wind, without any interference of the past?

Sorry, I have taken the show away!

Q: If I see the tree and am delighted, and thought ( is subliminally ?) slipping in and says, 'That is an oak tree', it is just ( reduced to ?) words. (But the question still remains :) can we see without the observer?

K: Yes, sir, that's right. You do it. (Start by ?) looking at a tree without naming it, without the interference of the knowledge about trees, just to look. What takes place when you do so look?

Q: You become ( one with ?) the tree.

K: No, madam, that is an 'identification' with the tree. You are not the tree, are you. I hope not!

Q: It is the feeling of a profound relationship.

K: Look, madam, profound relationship implies a relationship in which there is no 'image' (making) . Obviously. If you have an image about me and I have an image about you, our relationship is between two images, which is built up by thought. Right? Therefore there must be freedom from the machinery of the 'image'. Therefore can I look at a tree without the 'image' of the tree? Which means, can I look without the 'observer', without the 'censor'? Then what takes place? ? Who created the (psychological distance ?) between the tree and you? We are not talking about the physical distance, but the psychological distance between you and the tree, who has brought this about? The ( self-centred process of our ) thinking, the observer, the censor. No? Now when that observer, that censor doesn't exist, but only look, what takes place?

Q: The 'distance' between the tree and you is not there any more.

K: The psychological distance between you and the tree has disappeared. Right?
Now, one of the factors of neurosis is obviously building a ( psychological ) wall round oneself. One has built a wall ( a pro-active mental interface ?) as the 'observer', and when you look at a tree that (protective ?) 'wall' separates you from the tree, psychologically. Now when there is no such psychological (distance ?) what happens?

Q: Then the tree is part of your being.

Q: There is a sense of 'communion' ?

K: Madam, I am asking, what takes place when the 'observer' is not (interfering with the direct perception) ?

Q: What happens when you (K) do it?

K: When I do it? Are you interested theoretically?

Q: No, actually.

K: Then you'll have to do it yourself, haven't you ? Are you asking it as an example to copy, to verify your own particular experience, and so on? So what is important ( experientially ?) is not what happens to the speaker when he looks at the tree, but what actually takes place when 'you' look.

Q: With ( all due ) respect, there were several answers given here, which I suspect came from their personal experience, but you don't accept it.

K: No. ( Because ?) I am not sure they are not repeating. Look, madam, what happens when you, when one looks at another, husband, wife, or children, or the politician, without the image, what takes place?

Q: The mind 'turns on', lights up.

K: I give it up! If you would (honestly) say, I really don't know - right - then we can proceed; but when you say 'it is this', 'it is that', I am not sure if it is real. When you say, really, ''I have never done it'' - that means tremendous (learning ?) discipline, it needs tremendous attention - not on the part of the observer. If the observer ( is pretending to ?) become attentive he is still separate.

So ( to wrap it up ?) what takes place if you have really gone through this, not according to me, I am not the ( 'Brockwood ?) Oracle', you will see it for yourself when the psychological space disappears there is a direct relationship. Isn't there? And if you have no image, what happens? Isn't that is 'love' is (all about ?) ? Which has nothing whatever to do with ( the pursuit of ?) pleasure.

We started by asking what is ( a holistic ?) 'sanity'. There it is! A mind that is conditioned is not sane.

Q: When there is no psychological space between the tree and the observer, the experience must be the same for everyone.

K: You have asked a question, sir, look at it, first look at the question. When you look without the 'observer', will it vary according to the individual. If there is no observer at all, is there ( a sense of self-conscious ?) 'individuality'? 'Individuality', as we know it is fragmentation.
(Being an ) 'Individual' means ( being inwardly ?) indivisible. But (at this point in time ?) we are (inwardly ?) divided human beings, broken up, fragmented, we are not (integrated ?) individuals.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 20 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2016 #448
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 104 posts in this forum Offline

K.:he censor is the result of the social conditionings. Right? Social, environmental, religious, cultural conditioning: this is right, this is wrong, this is good, this is bad, I must do this, I must not do that, which is, the (composite ?) result of the conditioning of the society, of the culture, of the religion, of the family, of all the race, and so on.

Can we say that 'who' he is referring to here is the "natural I", the one we wake up in the morning with, the 'relatively' continuous one we go through life with? The one trying to figure this all out?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 20 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2016 #449
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Can we say that 'who' he is referring to here is the "natural I", the one we wake up in the morning with, the 'relatively' continuous one we go through life with? The one trying to figure this all out?

Whether it's 'natural' or not, it's 'me', yes. I am that conditioning.....or put differently....the 'me'/self is that. The one trying to figure it out is surely part of that too...a fragment..conditioned along with all the other fragments in consciousness. The examiner is the examined.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 20 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #450
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SIDNEY 1970 (reader friendly edited )


K: What would you like to talk over?

Questioner: Could we speak of death?
Questioner: Hate?
Questioner: Can we talk of self-doubt? Can we go beyond the 'doubting' ourselves?
Questioner: Fear?
Questioner: Can one actually live ( according to ?) what you speak of and raise a family in this world of conflict?
Questioner: Can we bring in sensitivity?
Questioner: Can we talk about how to see properly, how to see clearly?

Krishnamurti: Shall we take up the last question and then we can include all the other questions in it ? The question is, now can one see things very clearly without prejudice, without bringing our own particular opinion, conclusions, our own form of conditioning? Without all that is it possible to see, totally, the whole vast spectrum of life?

To 'see clearly', now what does it imply? To see (or perceive directly ?) without any image, to see things actually as they are without any form of conclusion; is that possible at all? I want to see not only outwardly what's going on: the wars, the contradictions of nationalities, the (cultural) differences, the fragmentation caused by religions, but also I want to see very clearly what's going on within myself, within the skin, without any distortion. Distortion comes when there is any kind of (mental ?) effort. Is that at all possible? Can we discuss this?
If I (really ) want to understand what you are talking about. I must listen, and to listen implies that there must be no interpretation, no comparison with what I have already learnt because you may be saying something entirely different. So, I must (learn ) the art of ( non-verbal ?) listening, otherwise I can't understand what you are talking about. In the same way to observe clearly what is going on outwardly and inwardly, without any image; is that possible? Which means really to observe without ( the interference of ?) any ( background of cultural ?) conditioning. Now is that possible?
It is only possible, surely, when I am becoming aware opf all my prejudices, personal conclusions, the opinions that I have gathered and ( being able to ?) put them aside. Then I can listen. Then I can observe. Is that possible?

Questioner: Just because you become aware of a certain conditioning doesn't automatically mean that you conquer it.

Krishnamurti: I'm going to show it to you in a minute. Go slowly, have a little patience please. I said 'be(come) aware of one's conditioning'. How, what does this awareness mean?

Questioner: To become 'conscious' of it ?

Krishnamurti: To be aware, to be conscious, to be sensitive; what does it imply (experientially ?) ? We are trying to find out what it means to be aware, ( for instance to be ?) aware of this hall, the proportions of it, the colour of it, the steel beams, the cross-beams, the bricks, the windows and aware of the people sitting in it, the coats, the colour - to be aware. Now are you (choicelessly ?) aware of all this if you begin to say 'I don't like that colour', 'I don't like that particular dress, or whatever it is'? The moment there is a certain kind of (cultural) prejudice stepping in you are not ( purely ?) aware. Right? I have learnt one thing. This is a process of ( interactive ?) learning, isn't it? I've learnt that there is no ( free ?) 'awareness' if any form of like and dislike comes in.
To be aware implies to be conscious without any choice, without any distortion or prejudice. Are you doing it? I am aware of my conditioning, as a Hindu, Christian, Communist, a hippie, or whatever it is. To be aware of my conditioning without any distortion, without any choice, just to see what that conditioning is.

Questioner: But, Sir, we don't 'see' it.

Krishnamurti: Why why don't we see your (cultural) conditioning as a Christian or whatever it is?

Questioner: Because it's a ( psychological) protection.

Krishnamurti: Which means that you don't (really) want to see that you are ( culturally) conditioned, since if you saw it there might be certain action which might lead to ( some psychological ?) danger? Therefore you don't want to see, therefore you are not ( non-verbally or 'choicelessly' ?)aware.
But I must be aware of (my divisive ?) conditioning if I want to understand the structure and the nature of the society in which I live. If there is to be a radical ( cultural ?) revolution the human mind must be free from its (past ?) conditioning. Why isn't one aware of one's conditioning? Is it ( a subliminal form of ?) fear or is it a great (psycho-somatic ?) indolence, laziness, indifference, letting things drift? After all we have lived with this (inner) confusion and misery for so many millennia, what does it matter one more life? Is that it - laziness, indifference, 'laisser-aller' and fear (to face the un-known ?) ? Or, is it also the (subliminal ?) fear of what might happen (to 'me' ?) if I become suddenly aware how silly it all is? Aware that I'm the result of a vast (ages old ?) propaganda, whether it is the propaganda of the Christians, the Communists or the Hindus; that I'm caught in the ( illusory safety of that ?) trap and I'm too frightened to leave that trap? Which is it? Why aren't you aware of your conditioning? Is it fear?

Questioner: Fear of being ( left) alone.

Krishnamurti: Look Madam, we are all ( getting) 'conditioned' by the society in which we live, and we are (inwardly an 'imprinted' ) part of that conditioning, part of that society. Now, when we are (becoming) aware of what is (really) happening in the whole world - the appalling brutality, the violence, the destruction, the misery, don't we feel we have to act?
When the 'house' (of human Consciousness ?) is on fire, you can't say 'I'm too lazy to put it out. I'm afraid to get burnt'. All that indicates a mind that demands a kind of isolated security. Now when one becomes aware of oneself (taking refuge in a particular ?) conditioning what takes place?

Questioner: You really don't 'see' it !

Krishnamurti: Don't I? I say I am seeing it.

Questioner: When you become aware in the (total ?) sense you have to become involved and when you become involved it's pretty painful, arduous; only a little bit joyful.

Krishnamurti: You are already coming to a (personal ?) conclusion. I don't think it is 'arduous' at all. It is very simple (in terms of direct perception ?) . Please go with me a little, you will see what is involved in it. So, if I become aware of it, then what takes place?

Questioner: You start seeing your 'limitations'.

Krishnamurti: You see that and what takes place?

Questioner: You see it as limited. It's 'incomplete'.

Krishnamurti: That's only a (post facto ?) conclusion. But what actually takes place?

Questioner: You are free ?

Krishnamurti: You are not 'learning' from (direct ) observation. So what takes place when I am (becoming) aware that I am ( culturally ?) conditioned (to think ?) as a Hindu?

Questioner: There is an emptiness within the mind.

Krishnamurti: Is that so? If I am (becoming) aware that I am a Hindu with all its tradition and all the rest of it, who is it ( is it a supervising entity ?) that is aware of this conditioning?

Questioner: 'I' see the conditioning in my mind.

Krishnamurti: Who is it that sees the conditioning?

Questioner: The 'I'.

Krishnamurti: Who is the 'I'? In that (first level of inner ?) awareness there is a ( subliminal ?) division between the observer and the thing observed. Are you quite sure (to see it ?) ?

Questioner: Yes.
Questioner: No.

Krishnamurti: Learn Sir. Don't say yes, no. That prevents you from (further) learning, from observing. I want to see what happens when I become aware that I am conditioned. (a) Do I really want to be free of that conditioning?
(b) (if your answer is 'yes' ?) who is the entity who says that I must be free or the entity that says I must conquer it, I must escape from it, or I'm afraid of it? Who is this entity, who is this censor, the observer that says: this must be, this must not be ?

Questioner: The 'thing' created by the conditioning.

Krishnamurti: Who is the 'censor' (the 'controlling' entity ?) . Therefore, you see, there is a 'division' (a subliminal separation ?) between the censor and the thing he condemns or approves. Why is there this division?
When you look (outwardly) at somebody, a tree, a mountain, the sea, or a face or a person, you look with ( the psychological background of ?) an 'image', don't you? The 'image' as ( the response of our past ?) knowledge. When you see a tree you say that is a 'chestnut' and the word itself becomes the barrier any direct perception. So, what happens? The ( cultural background that created this ?) image looks. There is no ( direct) looking, but looking through ( the self-protective screen of ?) an image. So the pure perception is ( getting) distorted the moment there is an image.
(Now, similarly) If 'I' try to look at 'my conditioning' there is a division between the 'observer' and the ( conditioned) thing (which is being ?) 'observed' .

So I ( the enquiring mind ?) say to myself 'why' does this division exist at all, because if that division doesn't exist then the whole problem is changed. It's because of that division there is (arising an inner ) conflict, isn't there? I see (from my culturally biased reactions that ?) I am conditioned, and that there is a division, then the I, the observer, the censor, the thinker says - I(hope to ) get rid of it, so I should do something about it because the has separated itself from (coming in direct contact with the ?) things observed.
( Not to mention that ?) this division brings about conflict.

Questioner: Is (this seeing through the 'image' ?) the same thing as 'seeing' blind?
Questioner: Does that mean to 'concentrate on the problem'?

Krishnamurti: Have you tried to concentrate on anything? What is involved in this 'concentration'?

Questioner: The 'experiencer'.

Krishnamurti: Who is this experiencer? Who is the 'thinker'? Is there a 'thinker' apart from (the self-centred process of ?) thought?

Questioner: The 'thinker' is distilled memory.

Krishnamurti: Which means there is no 'thinker' if there is no (self-centred ?) thinking.

Questioner: There is no thinker with no thought, but there is ( a ) 'consciousness' without thinking.

Krishnamurti: When you say 'consciousness', is it made up of the content or separate from the content?
Now, ( supposing that ?) I want to learn about ( the nature of ?) this ( psychological ?) conditioning in which every human being is ( less or more safely ?) trapped. To learn ( about it experientially ?) I must 'observe' and in my observing I see there is an (solid subliminal ?) division between the observer and the 'thing observed'. This is really the ( holistic ?) root of the matter, if you could understand this deeply you will have solved the 'whole works'.

I'll show it. You can see (in the outer world that ?) where there is a division there must be a conflict (of interests ?) , as between an Englishman and a German - (the mentality of nationalistic) division produces inevitably conflict. Now, inwardly we can see the root of all division in human beings is the ( dualistic) division as the observer and the observed, ( which extends outwardly in the division between ?) 'we' and 'they', 'my' God, 'your' God and all the rest of it. ( and the 1000$ question is:) Can this division disappear altogether? Otherwise we shall live in conflict (or in a self-conflicting consciousness ?) .

Questioner: There is such ( a dark ?) fear (only ?) at the thought of losing our 'centre', our ( self- ?) control.

Krishnamurti: I am coming to that, Madam. You are not doing this, you are not learning, not following this tremendously (subtle yet ?) important thing.

Questioner: We must just relax and become aware there is nothing to fear.

Krishnamurti: Alright, Sir, fear. Do you want to discuss this ( unconscious ?) fear?

Questioner: Let's finish this.

Krishnamurti: If we could understand what is happening in the world, outwardly, the constant fragmentation, the businessman and the scientist, the religious man and the layman, the guru and the disciple, the teacher and the follower; the poor chap, the rich man - division.
Because this (inner) division exists there is bound to be conflict of various kinds. So, as a human being which has evolved through thousands of years, living like a savage, fighting, fighting, fighting, within himself and outside, how can this conflict come to an end? This conflict comes to an end only when there is no division inside myself, because I 'am' the world, the world is not separate from me. I observe this conditioning going on; so I must learn totally about the whole thing. I see this division in myself as the observer and the observed. Why does this division exist? I must learn, find out, enquire why this division in me exists.

Questioner: Is it not the ( karmic ?) residue of the past?

Krishnamurti: It is, but that doesn't solve the problem. Why is there this contradiction in me and in you, this hypocrisy, why? Weekend religion and the rest of the week (metaphorically ?) 'butcher' people. Why this contradiction?

Questioner: We want to be the best, important.

Krishnamurti: Is that it? We want to be important?

Questioner: We move away from what we are to what we think we should be.

Krishnamurti: Which means what?

Questioner: That we are in ( living in ?) contradiction.

Krishnamurti: Go into it a little deeper. Why is there this 'contradiction' (conflict of interests ?) ? One of the major reasons for this (inner) contradiction is non-acceptance of 'what is'. Which is, I have an ideal of what I should be. That's one factor. The other is, I'm always living in ( the field of ?) comparison, comparing myself with somebody else or with a principle or with an ideal. This means I never accept ( to look directly at ?) the fact of 'what is'.
( eg:) (Suppose that ?) I get angry. Immediately I say 'I must not be angry' (since it's not good for my health?) Why don't I see (and deal directly with ?) the fact 'as it is' and not compare (it with my ideals) saying that it will be different tomorrow? Look, I see I am jealous, envious, brutal and what happens? The mind, thought says I must suppress it, that it is not right, that I should not be jealous, that jealousy is very painful, leads to hatred and all the misery it involves, I must avoid it, and so there is an (ongoing inner ) duality. Now, can the mind observe (the reaction of) 'jealousy' and not get away from it? I am jealous, now what does that mean? What is involved in it? I don't want to suppress it, run away from it or change it. The fact is that I am ( attached of something , so I am) jealous.

Questioner: Then you have to be as jealous as you are ?

Krishnamurti: This is not ( done in order ?) to have a (compensatory ?) reaction about it - but just observing it.

Questioner: As soon as you start observing it you are separated from it.

Krishnamurti: When you are observing (non-personally ?) , when you are giving full attention to the thing you are observing, is there a duality? You don't 'do' these things, you are just 'playing' (mind games with ?) with it. Look Sirs, have you ever given attention to something completely? Do you know what it means to give attention?

Questioner: In this case there is none.

Krishnamurti: Have you done it, Sir?

Questioner: I have tried.

Krishnamurti: You can't 'try'! Have you ever given attention completely, totally to something? Are you giving attention completely now, to what is being said? Are you? Obviously not. To give attention means to give your mind, your heart, your 'whole being' to find it out for yourself.
Unless this takes place, unless the mind is completely free of all distortion which is all form of effort, the truth of 'what is' can never be found out.
And a man who lives superficially cannot possibly live 'fully' (holistically ?) . When one is (trying to be choicelessly ?) aware there is this duality, and one asks why this duality exists. This duality exists because we have ( identified ourselves with ?) ideals, we have (gathered ?) formulas, principles, according to which we (try to ?) live and therefore we never (bother to ?) observe actually 'what is' (really going on within our psyche ?) .

Personally I have no 'ideals', no 'beliefs', no 'conclusions', only what actually 'is'. That way you can avoid all ( forms of inner) hypocrisy. (Suppose that ?) I see actually that I am (getting ?) angry. Then what takes place? You see one of the ( self-blocking ?) difficulties is, we have come to the (generally accepted) conclusion that the human beings cannot be changed ( including that ?) I cannot change myself. Don't you say that?

Now, is it possible to change ( the psychological nature of ?) 'what is'? I've come to the ( contemplating ?) point when I'm not moving away from what is, neither verbally nor intellectually nor in any ideological sense. I remain actually with 'what is'. Then what takes place?

Questioner: The 'I' disappears ?

Questioner: Then I am the 'present' ?

Krishnamurti: No, no. When you say 'I am' - who is the 'I'? You 'are' ( the impersonation of ?) that anger, you 'are' that jealousy, you 'are' that violence. Then what happens?

Questioner: It changes. The confusion goes away?

Krishnamurti: What takes place when you don't (mentally ?) 'move away' in any direction from 'what is', it doesn't matter what it is?

Questioner: You become (one with ?) the ( what is ?) 'observed'?

Questioner: No reaction?

Krishnamurti: Let me approach it differently. I have never looked at my ( psychological ?) conditioning. I've accepted it. I have lived with it. I've been (culturally conditioned as a ?) 'Hindu' and I have lived with it for 80 years . You (K ) come along and point out to me that I am ( culturally) conditioned and I begin to realize the implications of that conditioning; what it does, how it destroys (the inner sensitivity ?) , how it separates. In observing all this , the mind has become (inwardly ?) sensitive, which means 'intelligent'; observing itself directly in its ( 2-way ?) relation with the world it has become extraordinarily sensitive. Right? Now, that ( newly awakened ?) 'sensitivity' and that 'intelligence' is not 'personal'; ( the intrinsical quality of a holistic ?) intelligence is never personal, it's not 'my' intelligence. I don't know if you are following. The moment it is (getting) 'personal', it ceases to be (holistically ?) intelligent.
Therefore, this (non-personal quality of ?) mind through observing all its (cultural heritage of ?) conditioning has learnt the implications of that conditioning, has remained (abiding ?) with 'what is' and wants to find out what takes place next. It can only find out if the mind is extraordinarily alert and sensitive of (its ongoing) 'confusion' , when there is an awareness of its (inner) confusion and there is 'light', then the creative activity of an enlightened mind is (of an) entirely different nature.
So, we come back (to our initial question:) can the mind remain without (any mental) distortion with what is? Do you understand the implications of that - to observe ( directly) without words ( since the word is never the actual inner thing it describes. The verbal description is not the actual thing described ) Can the mind look at what is (hapening within itself ?) without the illusory aid of ? ) words (such as) 'jealousy' or 'anger'? The word (the verbal recognition ?) is the ( knowledgeable interference of ?) thought.

Questioner: We can't feel it.

Krishnamurti: Are you ( trying to be ) aware with your 'feeling'? You are aware with your mind and with your heart. You can't say I am aware with my feeling, or aware with my intellect. That's only another division. You're aware 'totally'.

(In a nutshell:) if you want to learn (about yourself) , look (non-verbally ?) . Can you look at 'what is' without the word? The (observation based on verbal recognition ?) is anchored in the past. The 'word' is the ( response of our past experience ?) and the word prevents you from looking (anew) at what is. So can the mind look at ( the dynamics of ?) 'what is' without the word and therefore not calling it 'jealousy' at all?
( However) the moment you decide 'I'm going to remain with what is', which is jealousy, then you have identified the thing that is happening right now with the ( experience of the ?) past. Therefore, it is not (seen ?) anew. Therefore, your ( all verbalising ?) mind always lives (anchored ?) in the past. Now, if you can look without words, the words being the ( basic components of ?) thought, thought being the response of memory which is the ( stored experience of the ?) past, then you look without the past. Then what happens?

Questioner: You are 'seeing'.

Krishnamurti: You are just guessing, for the love of Pete!

Questioner: It really is 'what is'.

Krishnamurti: I have looked at 'what is' with the word 'jealousy' - an association with ( my experience of ?) the past. That's simple. So I am looking at what is with the 'eyes of the past'.

Questioner: But what is (the direct perception of the ?) the 'now'?

Krishnamurti: The ( direct perception of the ?) 'now' is only possible when you can look without the (aid of ?) words - without the (known experience of the ?) past. (Eg: Suppose that ?) I am (getting ?) greedy. That's a fact. Can I look at that (ongoing) 'fact' without (using ?) the (culturally loaded ?) word 'greedy', because the word 'greedy' has innumerable (bad ?) associations of non-virtue, it should or should not be. The word with its associations is rooted in the (collective experience of the ?) past. When I say 'I'm greedy', I am really looking at something which is new with the (knowledgeable ?) eyes of the old. Can I look without the 'eyes of the past', without (using ) the ( incriminating ?) word? (If ?) you do it, you will see what takes place.

To put it round the other way (in the relational context ?) , can you look at your wife or husband or your friend without the ( comforting ?) image you have built through thirty years or ten days about that person? Can you look without the image? You (apparently ?) can't, can you - but why not? I have lived with my wife for thirty years, she has nagged me, bullied me, I have dominated her and we have built images about each other in our relationship. Can I look at her or him without (my self-protecting ?) image? Then what is my relationship with my wife? Is it a relationship between two (convenient ?) images which we call love, relationship? The 'image' is ( synthesising our shared experience of ?) the past and that image has been built through constant repetition - adding (& updating ?) - you know what takes place. That relationship (based on ?) the 'image', is always based on the ( our self-centred experience of the ?) past therefore it is not a relationship at all.

Therefore, I see now that (the intricate dynamic of ?) 'what is', can be understood only when one can look without the image, without the word, without the (mental ) symbol. Then the mind meets the 'new' with a (sense of ?) freshness. The feeling of greed which arises is 'new' but the ( all controlling process of ?) thought says it is greedy. The word establishes it in the ( logic of the ?) past. Therefore (I assume that ?) I cannot do anything (constructive ?) about my greed. I can only suppress it, fight it and so on, but, when the mind can look at that greed without the word then the mind is a fresh mind, then it can deal ( holistically ?) with whatever there is.

I'll put the problem differently (socio-politically ?) . There is a challenge in this world that there must be a different order of things because there is tremendous social injustice, there is brutality, such appalling violence. That's the ( global) challenge. You have to meet it (creatively ?) since these challenges are always new, but the (specialised human ?) mind meets it with the old mind. So the (fragmentary or specialised) response to the (global) challenges is inadequate and therefore there is conflict. Whereas if the mind can look at the challenge without the response of the past there is a totally different kind of action.

Questioner: Isn't it making another (psychological) problem when I say ''I have to look at something as it is now?''

Krishnamurti: There is no (such) problem if you are in the act of learning. If I am 'learning' about my (ihnherited ?) violence it's not a problem, but if I come to it with a decision that there must be no violence, or violence is justified, that brings a problem. But if I see human minds are (traditionally ?) violent and aggressive, but want to learn about it all, I don't make a problem of it.

Questioner: What is a (psychological) 'problem'?

Krishnamurti: A thing that you cannot 'solve' (or end ?) . You carry it over the next day, you carry the (unsolved ?) burden with you. Whereas, if you say I will learn what is involved - which simply means to observe it.
( But a pure ?) observation is not possible when there is any form of ( mental) distortion. Follow it, a (perceptive) distortion exists when there is a division between the 'observer' and the (thing) observed. And this ( hidden ?) division arises because of (a subliminal attachment to our cultural baggage of ?) ideals, principles, ideas, conclusions - this should be, this should not be.

So ( to recap:) the mind which began out of confusion now becomes clear. It is learning, not 'following' anybody, it is learning through (its own non-verbal & , non-dualistic ) observation. The mind becomes highly sensitive which means the (psycho-somatic) body also becomes sensitive.
The ( major hidden difficulty is that the average ?) human mind is so heavily conditioned: believing in God, or, like the Communists, not believing in God; it is (basically ?) the same, because they are both conditioned through ( aggressive ?) propaganda. Now, to become aware of all that and to find out (for itself ) if there is such a thing as God, Truth or Reality, or if there is not, to find out, to learn, the mind must be totally free from all its 'beliefs' - which means the mind must be entirely free from all ( subliminal) fear.
( So, the 1000$ experiential question is ?) is it possible for a human mind which has lived on fear, to be free of fear, completely, not only at the conscious level but at the deeper levels?

Questioner: Could we consider the things you say in a radically different context, such as in meeting ( the 'real life' ) adversity?

Krishnamurti: You are saying, here we are and for an hour we have talked, we have understood somewhat, then we go outside and in 10 minutes we forget all about it and we are again caught in the ( dealing with adversity ?) trap. Is that it?
Have you listened to the ( charismatic ?) speaker or have you also listened ( as in a magic mirror ?) to what is going on in yourself? (In other words ?) have you looked at the activity of yourself, or have you been forced to look, by the speaker, at the activity?

Questioner: It is the activity - but I have tried to participate in it.

Krishnamurti: Is the activity of your own (free will ?) or imposed by another? Is the speaker 'imposing' these things (on you) or are you ( personally involved in ? ) watching your own activity? If you are (learning to ?) watch (non-dualistically ?) your own activity when you go outside you will still be watching it, you will still be learning about it. But if you have only been 'forced' to listen to that speaker for an hour, then it (the learning) is not yours, then you are caught in the ('reality' ?) trap. If it is yours, not another's, then you cannot lose it, you become a light to yourself and not the light of somebody else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 421 - 450 of 753 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.)