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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?


Displaying posts 451 - 480 of 547 in total
Fri, 09 Sep 2016 #451
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

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

A NEW OUTLOOK ON SELF KNOWLEDGE

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 #452
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

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

THE ROOTS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL FEAR

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 #453
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

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

ALL ABOUT 'HABITS'

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 #454
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 305 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 #455
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

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 #456
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

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

SELF-CENTRED THOUGHT AND FRAGMENTATION

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 #457
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

5TH PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1970 ( reader frendly edited)

EXPLORING THE IMPLICATIONS OF INNER CHANGE

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 #458
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

6TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1970

INTEGRATING THE FRAGMENTED CONSCIOUSNESS

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 #459
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

7TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1970

HOLISTIC INTELLIGENCE AND THE 'THINKING' MONKEY

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 #460
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

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

GOING BEYOND THE LIMITATIONS OF OUR DAILY CONSCIOUSNESS

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 #461
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

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

THE 'OBSERVER' AS THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ROOT OF CONFORMITY

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 #462
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

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

THE HOLISIC APPROACH TO 'SANITY'

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 #463
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 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 #464
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 4 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 #465
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

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

HOW TO SEE CLEARLY ?

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
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 #466
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K PUBLIC DIALOGUE , SYDNEY, 1970

THE HOLISTIC APPROACH TO SELF-KNOWLEDGE

K: What shall we talk over this morning together?

Questioner: I would like to talk about education, not education only for the young but for the old as well; and, about religion, not my religion or their religion but religion, God, the truth, and about the dignity of man, to be one with life, all life.

Krishnamurti: Is that what we all want to discuss?

Questioner: Could we bring self-knowledge into that?

Krishnamurti: I think we can begin with what is 'self-knowledge' and go into this question (of holistic ?) education and so on. Would that be all right?

Questioners: Yes.

Krishnamurti: I believe the Greeks and before them the Asiatics, started to find out what is 'knowledge' and what is the 'self'.
So, when we are considering self- knowledge, what do we mean by that word to 'know'? To know ( commonly) implies a 'time' ( based mental ?) sequence; that is, all our knowledge is always (stored ?) in the (memory of the ?) past. You can add to it or take away from it but (the process of using or acquiring ?) knowledge is (functioning ?) in the field of the past. When I say 'I know you', I ( think that I ?) know you because I met you yesterday, so I have a (mental) 'image' of you and I meet you ( safely ?) with that 'image' today. I say 'I know you', but you might have changed (or not really ?) , but if I come to see you with the 'image' of the past (encounters) I really don't meet you at all.
Now, knowledge is, in certain directions (of everyday living ?) , absolutely necessary, as in the scientific & technological field but knowledge becomes a hindrance in our ( personal ?) relationship.

And when we say 'self-knowledge', is it that we want to understand a 'self' which is ( assumed to be ?) 'permanent' - or is it a 'learning' about the movement of (our 'self-centred' consciousness ?) ? There are two things involved in this. One, to study something (static) that is there, like the microphone; I can study it, I can learn about it and it is (not moving from) there. Now, is the 'self' (always ?) there, or is it a movement, something that is constantly in motion, and therefore not 'permanent' (not always identical with itself ?) ? One has to find out: is the 'self' (consciousness ?) something that endures, that is 'permanent' or is it something that is constantly in motion, constantly changing. So when we say 'self-knowledge', is it the knowledge of a 'self' which is the permanent, or the understanding of what the 'self' actually is? Is the self something 'static', enduring or is it something that has to be understood (as a constantly changing 'movement' in time ?) ?

Questioner: What do you (K ?) mean by the 'self'?

Krishnamurti: We are going to find out together. You know, as we said yesterday, (an authentic ?) 'communication' implies understanding together, learning together, sharing together, otherwise there is no (shared ?) communication. So, it is not 'what I mean', but let us find out together what we mean by the 'self'.

What is this 'self' that is always asserting (itself ?) , the self that demands fulfilment, the self that perpetuates itself through ( strong attachments and?) identification, the self that is constantly in action and creating its own (identitary ?) centre and therefore isolating itself. What is this 'self'? According to the Christians it is the 'soul'; according to the Hindus - the 'atman', and so on; therefore when we talk about the 'self' what do we mean by that word, the 'me'?

Questioner: Where do we actually look to find out? What do we watch to find out?

Krishnamurti: To find out what the 'self' is, one has to watch its activity, actually its daily action, in our relationships, otherwise you cannot examine it. Living is ( being in ) relationship, so one can find out what the 'self' (really) is only in relationship. So, what does it mean to be related?

Questioner: To be in communication with other people and the environment.

Krishnamurti: To be in contact, to respond to any kind of challenge, is also part of relationship. Let us go slowly. What is (our daily ?) relationship? I am related to my wife, to my husband, to my family. There is a relationship, that is, I am in contact not only physically but also psychologically.

Relationship means contact, ( a sense of ?) being together. But am I (really) related, in contact? Apart from physical contact with my wife, with my husband, with my children, am I related? Are you?

Questioner: On rare occasions.

Krishnamurti: On rare occasions. Then you are not related to your wife or children or neighbours except on rare occasions. Is that so?

Questioner: Not always, sometimes it's bad and sometimes good.

Krishnamurti: Madam, let's be simple about all this. I am married - I'm not, thank the Lord - I'm married and I am supposed to be in relationship with my wife. Apart from the physical contact, sexual and so on, is there any relationship at all?

Questioner: Is it just a series of habits?

Questioner: Isn't the relationship just conditioning?

Krishnamurti: I go to the office, I am ambitious, competitive, and worshipping success. And my wife also pursues her own ambitions, her own greeds and all the rest of it. We may meet physically but psychologically we are ( pretty much ?) isolated, aren't we? Except ( the romantic moments ?) when I say: 'I love you'. Look what happens (inwardly) . I have lived with my wife for twenty years or ten days. During that time I have built a (pretty realistic ?) 'image' about her. She has responded in a certain way, nagged me, got angry, this or that and I have built an image about her and she has built an image about me.
( Through the screen of ?) these two images (we) have relationship; not me and her, but the images.

Questioner: Because I don't know myself.

Krishnamurti: But, the fact is you have an image, isn't that so? Is not that 'image' (an active component of the ?) the 'me'?

Questioner: Is the 'image' necessarily entirely wrong?

Krishnamurti: I don't say it is right or wrong. It is a (psychological ?) fact.
I have an 'image' about myself, and she has built an 'image' about herself. This ( self-sticking ?) 'image' is the 'me'; (safely ?) identified with my furniture, with my house, with my various memories, experiences. And she does the same.

Questioner: Aren't you forgetting 'affinity'?

Krishnamurti: Affinity, love, tenderness, goodness, that is the (emotional ?) outcome of this interaction between the two (self-centred ?) images. If we refuse to face this fact then we wander off into a kind of abstraction.

Questioner: Isn't this happening just on the 'personality' level, whereas we can look at ourselves in terms of the 'higher' self ?

Krishnamurti: The higher self and the lower self, the soul and the body, we'll come to that. ( But in the context of our daily relationships ?) the 'me' is a ( self-stichting ?) 'bundle of images', memories, which has been built through centuries. The father says 'me'. The mother says 'me'. And the child also says 'me'.
The (everyday ?) 'me' is a (dynamic) bundle of (active ?) memories from which (the process of ) thinking responds, or reacts. The reaction of that 'memory' is thought. Right? Is that simple or not? I have ( my cultural ?) bundle of memories as a Hindu, a Catholic, a Communist. Those memories have been built (copied and updated ?) from childhood through tradition, through family and so that ( culturally coditioned ?) response is ( the mechanical process of my self-centred ?) thought.

Questioner: How does the 'self' perpetuate itself?

Krishnamurti: The self perpetuates (itself) through ( a constantly refreshed and updated ?) 'identification', doesn't it? With my son, my wife, my house, my furniture (and with my future 'goals' ?) .

Questioner: Or with my 'troubles' ?

Krishnamurti: My troubles, my anxieties, and all the rest of it. This ( self-stitching process of ?) identififying oneself with 'something' (or other) perpetuates ( is giving a 'future' to ?) the 'me'. ( I may identify myself with my furniture which is very old, and I value it because one day I will sell it and I will get lots of money. So, the (mental 'image' of my ) furniture has become more important than 'me'. See the 'tricks' which we are playing on ourselves and each other. Through identification with that, 'that' (the object of my identification ?) becomes all important, not the ( good old ?) 'me' which identifies (hides ?) itself (behind these self-stitching images ?) .
( Still deeper down ?) I identify myself with ( the great 'image' of ?) my country, with my ( traditional image of the 'all mighty' ?) God. ( Subsequently) the 'country', the 'God' becomes all important. We never enquire why this identification takes place. Why do I want to identify? I am asking the question - you also have to ask the question.

Questioner: Does this mean then that the 'search for truth' equates with a constant review (and updating ?) of our images?

Krishnamurti: Obviously.

Questioner: So, (basically) we identify because we are afraid to look at that which we 'are', we feel safe in ( our 'imaginary' ?) possessions.

Krishnamurti: We are 'learning' about ourselves aren't we? Are you learning about yourself as we are talking, watching yourself, watching how you respond, how you identify, why there is this division between me and you, we and they, why all this battle all through life?

Questioner: If we didn't have all these 'images' there'd be no 'self' ?

Krishnamurti: Madam, this ( image making mechanism ?) is what is going on in our (psychological ?) life, isn't it? Why does this happen, who is responsible for this?

Questioner: What gives life to the 'image'?

Krishnamurti: What do you think?

Questioner: It's all a process of the 'me', a (mental) device whereby if we have a success, we want to repeat it.

Krishnamurti: So, Sir, I am really concerned to learn about myself. To learn means I must observe, I must learn, find out what it is. so will you discard completely what others have said (on this matter ?)

Questioner: Is it possible to discard what we have heard, when we have listened and found out?

Krishnamurti: I am not interested at all what others have said ( regarding self-knowledge ?) . I have never read books on what the others have said, fortunately. I want to find out, so I look, I observe, I can observe that only in my ( daily ?) relationship; how I react, anger, jealousy, hate, envy, violence, domination, suppression; I watch the whole movement (of my responses ?) , So, it is important to find out 'how' I watch, not what I watch. The manner of watching, the art of observing is much more important than the thing you observe. The 'art of seeing' is much more important than that which you look at. Now, how do you look? Please apply yourselves, and find out how you look.

Questioner: By being open to what you see ?

Krishnamurti: No, Sir, let's begin very 'simply'. How do you look at a tree?

Questioner: I am looking at the tree without thinking. I don't think: 'isn't that beautiful ?' It just 'is'.

Krishnamurti: Just find out: do you look at it with the word? Do you look at the tree with the word, that it is an 'oak' tree, an 'eucalyptus' tree ?

Questioner: No, I look just for enjoyment.

Krishnamurti: Wait Sir, we are coming to something much more complicated - you will see presently how complex it becomes. The tree doesn't affect you. It doesn't touch you 'psychologically' (personally ?) . You can observe it casually. You can observe it without the word, without botanical knowledge, you can look at it without any thoughts.

Questioner: When I look at a tree, I am part of that tree, because to me it is something alive and it is something that I am part of .

Krishnamurti: You say you are part of that tree. Do you know what that means?

Questioner: How can I describe that which is a wondrous state of being?

Krishnamurti: I will show you: when you look at something, at a tree or a cloud, a mountain or water, you look at it with a 'space' (a psychological distance ?) between you and it. There is not only the 'physical' space but the (psychological ?) space created by ( the self-centred process of ?) thought. That tree is in 'my' garden. There is this ( 'mine' vs 'not mine' ?) division.
Now, can you look at that tree without that ( sense of self- isolation ?) division? In that (quality of non-dualistic) observation there is no ( psychological distance ?) 'space' between the 'observer' and the (thing) 'observed' - a totally different kind of relationship.
You (can) do it ( for homework ?) sometime: to look at an object, it doesn't matter what it is, without the intervening space then there is a direct contact. You can do that with a tree fairly easily. But, to do it with 'your' husband, with 'your' friend, with 'your' wife then it becomes very difficult (tricky ?) . (Similarly) can you look at yourself without condemning or justifying? The justification and condemnation is the 'censor'. The censor is the ( culturally ?) conditioned entity that says 'I must be more successful', the 'me' that says I must have more pleasure. So can you look at yourself without any ( such) 'distraction' of thought? Have you done it?

Questioner: It is something quite new.

Krishnamurti: It is not a question of something new, Madam, but to do it.

Questioner: I mean it is 'new' in the doing.

Krishnamurti: This 'doing' is ( in terms of a time-free perceptive ?) action, not you 'think it out' and then 'act'.

Questioner: Is this the case when someone is totally absorbed in something?

Krishnamurti: A child is getting totally absorbed in a toy, if you give him a new toy he plays with it for the rest of the day and there is no mischief. Most of us do the same, we want to get absorbed in something : the religious person is supposed to be absorbed in the idea of Jesus, Saviour, Christ, God. He is ( indeed getting ) absorbed but he still doesn't know anything about himself, so that is a very easy (mental) trick, to be absorbed in something so as to forget yourself.

Questioner: Isn't that good to 'forget yourself'?

Krishnamurti: Can you (really ?) 'forget yourself', though you have identified yourself with something? That very identification is the continuance of the self. And I don't want to look at myself ( beyond the image I'm identified with ?) because I am frightened to look at myself.

Questioner: I meant by absorption, not to have thought coming in when I look at a tree.

Krishnamurti: You see, Sir, a whole question is involved in that. When the observer separates himself from the thing observed that division brings conflict. People have tried centuries ago taking a form of drug that destroys the time and the distance - space - so that there is immediate perception. Now they are taking LSD and various forms of psychedelic drugs. You know all about it? Every colour becomes extraordinarily clear. The ordinary leaf that I look at as I pass by becomes a leaf with such colour, such potency, such beauty, such vitality, and that's tremendously absorbing because the ( psychological 'distance' or ?) division between the 'observer' and the (thing) 'observed' disappears. You are directly in contact. That same thing can happen but with much greater reality when (and 'if' ?) you understand this whole process of building images.
Self-knowledge is necessary (for any spiritually mature person ?) because without understanding the whole movement of one's thought with all its reasons, fallacies and ( self-) deceptions we cannot go very far (inwardly) . So it is absolutely necessary, if you are really serious to find out. Thought is the response of memory. Obviously, if you had no memory at all you wouldn't be able to think.

Questioner: Couldn't you think without memory?

Krishnamurti: You cannot Sir. Amnesia. You couldn't go home if you didn't think, if you had no memory. You would just be wandering about.
But as ( our everyday thinking ?) is the (educated ?) response of memory, it is never new. And as every (incoming) challenge is new, and thought responds to the challenge (in terms of it's) old experiences, there is an inadequacy between the response and the challenge, therefore ( contradiction and ?) conflict.

Questioner: Can there be a (pure) consciousness without thought?

Krishnamurti: Is (our everyday consciousness ?) made up of the content or is it independent of the content? Isn't it ( tainted by its active psychological ?) 'content', the ( self-centred ?) thoughts, the anxieties, the miseries, the suffering, the ambition, the violence, that makes up ( our self-)consciousness or is our consciousness empty of all that? The ( psychologically active ?) content makes the consciousness, obviously. Let's leave that for now.

We think thought can solve all our problems. It can't. Thought being (the response of our ?) 'old' (experience) cannot respond to the new, and life is new. All this which is happening ( within and ?) around us is totally new, and thought is always responding in terms of the past. Look Sirs, a 'psychological' revolution is absolutely necessary, because we have to change (inwardly) , we have to bring about a totally different way of living. And thought, the ( educated response of our ?) 'past' tries to understand the present but it has never succeeded. Go into this seriously to find out how to act, without the ( psychological support of the ?) past. We must have ( objective) knowledge to function; to go to the moon requires tremendous scientific knowledge.
But the ( inwardly open ?) mind also sees that to act when there is a 'psychological' challenge, ( the mechanical response of ?) thought must be quiet. Otherwise it cannot respond completely to the (newly occured ?) challenge. So that is the problem: to push it ultimately. It's up to you. That's our (existential ?) crisis.
The intellectuals throughout the world are responding to the crisis in terms of the old, in terms of ( what has already been ?) thought, and their answers must inevitably be coloured by the past, however (sophisticatedly ?) intellectual they are. And so-called 'religious' people are also like that.
One has to find a way of (directly perceptive inner ?) action which at the same time demands absolute objective, rational, sane, technological action in one direction, and, in the other, for the mind to function without the impediment of thought.
This is where 'meditation' comes in. You know, this word is a 'dangerous' (psychologically misleading ?) word since a great many people have come to this country and other parts of the world talking and teaching ( the traditional approach to ?) meditation, which is all ( based on mental ?) 'tricks'. However, ( the holistic approach to ?) 'meditation' is something entirely different, a quality of mind that 'sees the whole totality of life', not fragments of life, the whole totality. There is no ( observer-observed ) division but a complete (non-dualistic ?) understanding of life.
Now, can the ( meditative ?) brain be completely still? Probably you don't know what it implies so let's stick to something we can actually do. Which is, can you be free of your (self-protective mental ?) 'image'? You can only be free of your image if you understand the (mental) machinery is that builds the 'image'. Now, what is the machinery that builds images?

Questioner: Thought? Memory?

Krishnamurti: Thought, memory; but how does that operate? Let's take a simple example: You tell me what a marvellous person I am. I like it (because you confirm my existing self-image) . (And from the same stroke ?) I have also built an image (of you : ) 'you are my friend'. But if (later) you say something which I don't like, I have formed another image (updating the old one ?) . So, this 'image' (making) pattern is based on the pleasure principle. Watch it in yourself. I have built an image because you have said something pleasurable or not pleasurable. I carry that image when I meet you next. I am that image. Next time I meet you, 'you are my friend' and so on. Can this ( mental ?) machinery stop? That is, when you insult me, to be completely attentive at that moment, attentive in the sense of listening to you totally, without any reaction, neither accepting nor rejecting your insult, just listening completely, which means complete attention (or attending completely ?) . This ( non-reacting attention of the ?) mind listening to the insult and to the flattery doesn't leave a mark, therefore no ( need to create any ?) 'image' (about anybody ?) , and therefore it is an (image-free ?) mind that is so sensitive, alert, watchful that the ( image-creating ?) 'me' doesn't exist, because the 'me' is the image (making mechanism and its 'imaginary' collection ?) .

Questioner: You have often used the word 'conflict'. Does this necessarily mean a negative state or can it be a positive one?

Krishnamurti: Can conflict be 'positive' or 'negative'? You have ( accumulated a whole collection of ?) conflicts, hundreds of them: in the office, at home, when you are playing golf, when you are doing anything there is this battle going on, and from that battle, neurosis; you know, the whole pattern of modern existence; quarrels between husband and wife, the constant striving, struggling - why? First of all, one has accepted it as a 'natural' thing. You have lived with it for so long that you have accepted it. You don't say to yourself I must find out, why? Why should I live this way? I will show the mechanism of it: conflict exists because there is (in us a dualistic mentality ?) duality . That is simple isn't it? Duality is ( breeding its own ?) contradiction: 'I must be'. 'I must not be'. Conflict exists because you have the ideal of 'what you will be' and the ( subliminal) fear of what you might be (of what might happen if the ideal situation is not achieved ?) . Conflict also exists because we are always comparing ourselves with somebody who has a bigger car, bigger house, better jewels. All our (social ?) life is (based on ?) comparing. So comparison, ideals, principles, ( fool proof ?) formulas - all these create a duality. So you never see actually ( the actual truth about) 'what is' (or what you are ?) .
If I say that I am 'stupid', I have found it through comparison ( with the brainy guy ?) and then I struggle not to be stupid. Am I ( being) 'stupid' if there is no comparison at all? I am what I am. I don't call it stupid. I don't call it clever, or beautiful, or ugly. It ( the 'what is' ?) is there. Then I can do something about it. Then I can go beyond it. But I cannot go beyond it if I am trying to become clever.

So, once the mind is free from all comparison, which means ( a herd mentality based on ?) imitation, conformity, obedience to a principle, to an idea and so on, then the mind observes actually 'what it is'. To observe actually what is... am I looking at it through a ( knowledgeable screen of ?) words? Am I looking at myself with the (mental) 'image' which the words have created, 'I am dull'? Am I looking at myself with a series of associations, a series of words, a series of conclusions, or am I looking at myself without any of these?
( To wrap it all up;) All this demands a tremendous (contemplative ?) attention which is (bringing its own ?) discipline. The word 'discipline' means to learn, not to conform, not to obey, not to imitate. Therefore, the mind that is learning has no imposed discipline. It has order, not conformity. Learning becomes all important to a mind that is enquiring into this whole question of relationship between human beings. The relationship between human beings is society. That relationship between human beings has created the structure which we call society, with its Gods, with its laws, with its ambitions and all the rest of it. Society is the me. I am the society. To change society I must change myself. And we don't want to do that. We will do anything to alter the structure of society and we hope thereby we shall be happy. We shan't. The Communists have tried it. They have said environment is all important, give the right environment and you'll produce the right monkey. They haven't done it, on the contrary. The religious people have also played with this. To bring about a radical revolution we must begin here, not out there, because out there is here.
Are there any more questions or shall we stop?

Questioner: Are impulsive feelings a direct response to living?

Krishnamurti: What do you mean by 'impulsive'? You mean spontaneous? Are we ever spontaneous or are we always (spontaneously ?) responding (according ) to our conditioning, though we may (improperly) call it 'spontaneity'? The other day I met somebody who came to see me, and that person said: ''I am free at last, I have gone into this question of freedom greatly, studied it, and I am free, and therefore I have become a Catholic''. (Laughter) You may laugh, but that person was very serious and he is spreading what he thinks is truth. He thinks that it is spontaneous because he is free. So to understand what 'is' freedom, and therefore the action in freedom, one has to go into this question of the conditioning of the mind, the whole conditioned mind, how the mind is conditioned by propaganda of ten thousand years: the religious, the political, the propaganda of the family. we are slaves to propaganda. Can the mind observe all this propaganda and be free of it? Then only, can you talk about freedom in action.

Questioner: Listening is the hardest thing, I've found.

Krishnamurti: I wonder why. Do you ever listen (totally) ? Or do you listen 'partially' (in the self-protected mode ?) ? There are two things involved aren't there? There is 'hearing' and 'listening'. When you 'hear' (verbally) you may either agree or disagree, you say - I agree with him, because I like it or I don't like it, he is convincing or he is not convincing. But when you are actually 'listening' (non-verbally ?) , that means giving your complete attention, what takes place? What takes place when you are giving your whole attention, attention being your mind, your heart, your nerves, your body, everything... listening? Your mind is completely quiet isn't it? Not arguing, agreeing, disagreeing, opposing or forming any opinion. It is an act of complete listening. In that act of listening there is actual communion, isn't there? Communion, in the sense of complete relationship. There is no misunderstanding. And we never do this. We never give our whole attention to anything. We only have learnt what it is to concentrate. To concentrate means exclusion. Therefore, concentration is not attention. In attention there are no 'borders'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 #467
Thumb_stringio John Perkins... United States 28 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

"What are actually the K-Teachings?"

John Raica's thread question here can be read two ways. There is the way that John has himself followed it up, which is to pick out certain elements of them that might be seen as key: and there is the sense in which the question might be intended to mean eg. 'are the Teachings the result of some sort of critical and minute intellectual examination of the world of man?'; Or 'might they be the result of some altogether 'higher being' whispering as it were, in K's ear for sixty years?'; Or again, 'could they result from an individual's brain becoming attuned to the universe of which it is an integral part, and the mouth and voice box of that person then simply acting as an implement to spew-forth the 'vibrations' it feels? It boils down I think to whether we choose to emphasis the 'are' or the 'actually'.

Perhaps other people can imagine possible alternative options in the 'are' reading to my three, that we might be interested to peruse?

If, John Raica, you should consider this perhaps something of a corruption of your thread and you would rather, on that account, that I shift it to a new title - and if you'd have no objection to that - (I'm wary of flooding your previously essentially 'four thread' forum with too many additions), please say so and I'll be happy to comply. Or even if you'd be happier if I scrapped it altogether. I'm easy on it.

This post was last updated by John Perkins... (account deleted) Sat, 24 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 #468
Thumb_stringio John Perkins... United States 28 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Raica wrote:
...of course there may be at least several 'readings' of K's texts- a 'revolutionary or activistic' ' one, an 'emotional' or an 'intellectual' reading -and not in the least, a selectively personal one . But I'd like to think that in my best renditions there's a 'learning' reading- namely, not only the major topics what K wanted to convey -which most of us are pretty familiar with, but the element of 'newness' in each and every one of his talks or dialogues- a new way to look at the 'regular' topics that -if understood in their proper light- could be vital for those of us seriously interested.

Hello John. I didn't explain myself clearly. By the 'two possible readings' of the thread question, as the latter one what I intended would place the emphasis on the word 'What'. By this, what I would be asking is 'what might be their very nature and derivation?' In other words, to give one possible example, might K be an implement (the mouth piece) of the universe? Or might he have been an extraordinarily clever prankster? Or might his intellect have been so overreachingly massive as to leave all the rest of us (almost literally) 'in the dark'?

Does this make any clearer what I was trying to get across? Or do I still leave it as clear as mud?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 #469
Thumb_stringio John Perkins... United States 28 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Raica wrote:
So, I would definitely go for the version of a 'top of the line' spiritual medium with a highly purified consciousness but who also had a say in the practical implementation of the 'Works' (that's how K called them before using the term 'Teachings').

Yes, this is what I was driving at, but I have a very specific take on this matter.

It appears to me that everything living thing that could be said to have consciousness acts, in a sense, as an instrument of the universe. An examination of eg. a spider's brain will in no way indicate its capacity to produce the engineering miracle that is its web. And this is true of a veritable myriad living creatures. It seems to me in fact that every living creature that doesn't have an 'I' blocking its path, can (and does) perform to the full capacity of its sensory system (to include the brain) to interact perfectly with the universe in its entirety.

K, having a human brain and with the 'I' out of the way, does what all such human brains would (or will) naturally do, which is to describe for his fellows the phenomenon of 'universal consciousness'; their, as it were birthright.

This post was last updated by John Perkins... (account deleted) Sun, 25 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 #470
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins... wrote:
K, having a human brain and with the 'I' out of the way, does what all such human brains would (or will) naturally do, which is to describe for his fellows the phenomenon of 'universal consciousness'; their, as it were birthright.

Yes, but I would rather call this 'I' the survivalistic, or temporal, meant basically to protect one's physical body, family, tribe, etc. As for the deeper zones of our consciousness there may -or not- be an 'individuality' beyond that of the earthly survival. And I agree, this 'terrestrial' interface being set aside, the universality of the human consciousness can express itsel freely

But I would like to add to my previous post that regarding the universal 'source' of the Teachings, it may be much more a matter of pure and intelligent form of energy - which simply 'is' and 'gives light' - and in that 'light' of universal intelligence the human brain can 'see' the truth or falseness of everything. If this is the case, then K actually re-discovered most of these Teachings by his own direct observation of how the human brain works in its various inter-relationships - therefore himself being the 'first beneficiary' of it ( see also his saying that 'We don't all have to be Edisons, (since if the electricity & wiring has been provided and the electrical 'wiring' already installed ?) we can simply turn the 'light switch' on '( see also ' Be a light for yourself ! )

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 25 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 #471
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE BROCKWOOD 1969 (reader friendly edited)

ATTENTION AND ENERGY

Questioner: To observe the process of duality does the mind function as a mirror to observe the observer?

Krishnamurti: Is that the only question you would like to discuss? Perhaps if we put half-a-dozen questions together, we might find the central issue which will cover all the other questions.
Can the mind observe the observer as in a ( 2-way ?) mirror? Because the observer brings about this contradiction, this ( psychological distance ?) between the observer and the observed, this duality, this conflict, this struggle. To understand the nature of the conflict, is it possible for the mind to observe the 'observer' who brings about this dual existence as the 'me' and the 'not-me', both outwardly and inwardly?

Questioner: Thought appears to be quite separate. If one can become aware of what is happening in ( the area of our everyday ) thinking, it appears to be separate from the 'observer'.

Questioner: Could we discuss what it means to bring the 'observer' to look deeply within?

Questioner: Sir, could we also discuss this question of energy? It seems to me that we fritter away what little energy we do have in various automatic habits.

Questioner: Could we talk about the use of drugs as a means of coming upon self-awareness?

Questioner: One more question. When some characteristic response comes up in me and I go into it as deeply, as thoroughly as I can, for the time being, under that observation it dissolves or goes away. Then a few days, or a few minutes later, it is there again. And then maybe I try to see it clearly again and it may dissolve and come back again. The question coming out of this is: if it comes back, is the problem really solved, or is it (going on) within me all the time? Then is this 'true work', or whatever you want to call it?

Questioner: Must one go through some psychotherapy first? Does one have to have some ( basic inner) clarity before one can go on to deal with the problem of duality? Mustn't one be at a certain point of health?

Questioner: That is interesting, Sir, because so many people are neurotic or disturbed in specific ways which they have difficulties with.

Krishnamurti: I think we have had enough questions. All right, let's take that question, shall we? Perhaps if we take that we can cover all the others.
Must I be in perfect health, or fairly good health, in order to observe myself? That means, if I am sick I cannot look at myself. And there is always some kind of trouble physically - over-tiredness, friction, strain, eating unhealthy food and so on; there is always a little trouble going on all the time. One isn't in perfect health for ever. That would be nice if it were possible, but it isn't.

Questioner: Sir, isn't a great deal of this due to our not giving these small ills attention, because we let our imagination dwell on them and they become much larger than they really are?

Krishnamurti: I'm just finding out whether a sick person, who is (struggling ?) physically, has the energy to look at himself. We are not desperately ill, but we are not in the best of health; we are always slightly on the verge of being ill. Will such a state allow me to look at myself? Or is that slight ill health going to become a barrier to looking at myself?
I have a headache today. Will that prevent me from looking at myself? Obviously not. I can look at myself though I have a headache. I can look at myself though I am exhausted - I can watch myself very carefully, I am tired but I am watching. Physically I may be somewhat ill and perhaps in that state I can watch myself. But if I am not balanced 'psycho-somatically'- here comes the difficulty - psychologically as well as physically- can I look at myself then? That is the real question, isn't it?

Questioner: In order to look at yourself, mustn't you be rid of all worry? Mustn't you cut yourself off from the world, from its troubles and your troubles? If you have worries you won't be able to look at yourself.

Krishnamurti: You are saying, are you, that one must completely retire from the world..?

Questioner: ...and worry. just forget about it, that's the thing.

Krishnamurti: That is, withdraw completely and look at oneself. Is that possible? How do you discover what you are? Only in relationship, in communication with another.

Questioner: I mean, if we do have ( our own) worries it will be a lot harder.

Krishnamurti: Then I have to watch my worries, how they come about, whether they are self-created or being imposed and so on, I have to enquire into that. But to say I must withdraw from all worry and then look at myself, that is impossible. Even if you withdrew into a monastery or became a beggar wandering about - as is done in India - you would still be in communication with others.
So ( for starters ?) the question really is: if one is physically 'not too unwell', then one can watch oneself; but if one is 'psychosomatically' ill - that is, the mind affecting the body and the body affecting the mind - in that state is it possible to watch oneself? I hope we are communicating with each other. Can I look at myself through a distortion, through a psychosomatic disturbance? If it is very superficial I can; but if it is very deep I cannot.

Questioner: What about meditative love, won't that shoot through everything, make everything clear?

Krishnamurti: How can I have this 'love' and meditate, when there is all this confusion in me? So, being somewhat neurotic, can I look at myself? Will my neurosis allow me to look at myself? If it is very deep mustn't I have some therapy, both physical as well as psychological? Mustn't I go to an analyst and under that therapy begin to discover myself? This is really quite a deep ( and costly ?) problem for human beings. (Suppose ?) I have been ( psychologically ) wounded in my youth - emotionally - and that wound remains and (subliminally ?) shapes my outlook. And if the ( psychological) memory of that (hurt) is so strong, then what am I to do with that wound, which may have been inflicted by the family, by the father, the mother, the environment - how am I to be rid of that memory, that conditioning?

Questioner: Not only that, Sir -but I can't even find (identify) that 'memory', or I mistake it - I am looking at the wrong thing.

Krishnamurti: Yes, I may look at the wrong thing, I don't know what has wounded me or what has disturbed me, I've been analysed for the last ten years, spent enormous sums of money, everybody has been trying to help me out of this conditioning. Then what am I to do?

Questioner: You have to 'live in the present', absolutely.

Krishnamurti: Madam, how can I live in the present? Please put yourself in that position: when I do know that I am slightly, or deeply unbalanced, can I be aware of it? Can I see that I am unbalanced, sexually, physically, emotionally? . Can I become aware of it ? Or if you you show it to me; am I willing to look at it?

Questioner: It seems to me, that the really essential factor in psychotherapy is not the ( amount of ) knowledge or experience of the analyst, but the freedom which exists in that relationship.

Krishnamurti: That is the question, isn't it? Freedom. Am I free to listen or am I resisting?

Questioner: If you are 'free to listen' you have already made a step (in the right direction) .

Krishnamurti: Quite right, I am 'breaking through'. But if I don't listen, what happens then?

Questioner: What about ( psycho-therapeutical ?) drugs? Would that help?

Krishnamurti: Would a drug help me to look at myself - to look at my fear, at my neurosis? Or would the drug give me an 'artificial'(-ly stimulated ?) experience?

Questioner: Sometimes that experience helps you to look at yourself.

Krishnamurti: Therefore I get dependent on the drug.

Questioner: You don't have to.

Krishnamurti: Wait, I take the drug, LSD or whatever it is, and it helps me to watch myself. And the (intensity of) watching fades away; I cannot watch myself all the time, all my old conditioning comes up and prevents me from looking because I'm afraid to look at myself. The drug may help me to (momentarily ?) quieten that fear, so that I can look. But the fear is there.

Questioner: The fear is there, but sometimes it is an unknown fear and the drug brings it out into the air.

Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir, sometimes it may help one to bring it out. But surely that's not good enough. I can also take a drink sometimes and become relaxed. All my conditioning (temporarily ?) breaks down. But that doesn't last long.

Questioner: After the drug has worn off you would forget everything, wouldn't you? Would you forget even what you had learnt whilst you were under the drug?

Krishnamurti: Probably not - I don't know if you have taken it, I have not. But I feel that to depend on something for ( your direct ?) perception, chemically, or through repetition of words or drink and so on, indicates that there is ( a blocking ?) fear. And that ( unknown?) fear is only exaggerated, sustained by (the drug) dependence.

Questioner: We talk about drugs, but I think that we don't have a clear idea what we mean. I think that we have prejudices. We say,'This is a drug' and that we call 'natural'. And I think something like fresh air can be a drug also. For instance, we might be living in a city like New York. I'm not able to see clearly and it's because of this (polluted) air; I have to get out into the country and breathe fresh air. To me that's a drug. I mean, anything that we reach out for in order to change, in order to become more sensitive, we can look at as a drug.

Krishnamurti: Sir, I don't know if you have ever fasted - just for the fun of it. If you have, it gives you a certain perception, you become much clearer if you do it only for a few days. If you have fasted for a few days, it makes the body extraordinarily sensitive, alert, watchful. But... will you keep that up, will you fast every two weeks in order to watch yourself all the time, to become more alert?

Questioner: Sir, the drug is supposed to be a kind of vehicle to take you to yourself through all your inhibitions, your fears and all the things that keep you from knowing yourself. You may know them then, but I think you would only get a lasting effect, if you went into yourself without drugs. If you got to know your fears - which you don't with drugs - and finally reached yourself, wouldn't you know yourself a bit more? You would not have to take a drug every day to find out. I mean, if you reached yourself without drugs, if you went through your fears, you would know yourself far better. With the drugs, you get to yourself, but you don't see your fears, your inhibitions, you don't see what is blocking you (in your everyday life) . You understand better, if you understand what is blocking you.

Krishnamurti: That is what we are saying. Put it in any way you like. Take what is much simpler and more direct: I am in relationship with my wife, with my friend - whatever it is. Why can't I use that ( interacting ?) relationship to watch myself ? There is my life right in front of me, every minute I'm living in relationship.

Questioner: But you said before that (most of us are ?) neurotic.

Krishnamurti: Wait a minute, if I am neurotic, will drugs help me to get over my neurosis? So you are saying, take them for a while, take them once, so as to get over the first step?

Questioner: Must I use all these (artificial) means, or do something else? If I take no drugs, what shall I do to (in order to be able to ) look at myself?
Questioner: I think that life itself is the only means we have of looking at ourselves.

Krishnamurti: All these are ways of 'escaping from oneself' - drugs, entertainment, cinemas, books, all kinds of things which are part of (our modern) life. But I say, let's find out if there is not a simpler way.
So let's come back to the (square one ?) question is: ( inwardly ?) I am fairly (confused and/ or ?) neurotic, I am becoming aware that this neurosis has been brought about through various causes. If I realise ( this fact ?) I can deal with it. If I don't, what am I to do? Those are the two (absolute beginner's ?) questions.

Questioner: If I don't know ( the actual causes of ?) it, can I deal with it?

Krishnamurti: If I don't know that I am 'off balance', if I won't listen to anybody - that (incapacity to listen) is part of my neurotic (steady) state .
Then (in time, I) begin to suffer and have a very bad time. That is one thing; but if I (become aware of ?) it, then my problem is quite different. Shall I take drugs? Have an analysis?

Questioner: Someone like this is usually very dependent on other people.

Krishnamurti: Yes. So what am I to do?

Questioner: Well, I think that when we learn something, when we 'know' something, then it is changed.

Krishnamurti: Not quite so easy, Sir! I know I dislike (some ?) people - that is part of my neurosis. I have been hurt by people, they have brutalized me - at school, or later, in ten different ways. They have made me a hard, (shrewd & ?) cruel entity. I know it - but I can't get rid of it just by knowing it. Then I want to find out how to get rid of it, how to become fairly quiet and gentle. . Can I undo ( or delete ?) all the (psychological ?) damage that has been done to me?

Questioner: You just mentioned 'suffering', Sir, and it seems to me that for many people that becomes the central issue because they struggle to get out of that suffering.

Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir, that is so. We are putting the same thing in different words, aren't we? The conflict, the pain, the confusion, the misery - the 'seed' is there, which is producing all these things. So how am I to be rid of it?

Questioner: You've often spoken of the need to see that we must change totally. And you've also spoken of the fact that we have to look at ourselves without wanting to change what we see. Isn't there some kind of contradiction there?

Krishnamurti: Is there?

Questioner: To me there is, I don't fully understand that.

Krishnamurti: Can I look at one thing so 'completely' that everything is included in that? Let's go slowly. I am aware that I am neurotic and I know the cause of this imbalance. Merely knowing it doesn't resolve it - I go on being neurotic. Now what am I to do? It's like a compulsive eater who has to eat enormous quantities all the time. He knows he is compulsive, people have told him to watch it - but he goes on.

Questioner: It seems to have its own 'momentum'. If there is something (deeper) which gives it a momentum it's hard to stop.

Krishnamurti: Sir, let's try this: each one of us must know his own particular (neurotic ?) 'kink'. Knowing it, let us see if the understanding of the cause which has brought this about will end it.

Questioner: Do we really understand the actual cause of it? We see the superficial cause and we think we see the 'real' cause - if there is a cause in that sense.

Krishnamurti: There may be ten different causes (at various levels ?).

Questioner: Even the psychologists say that if we know it only intellectually, not dynamically, we haven't really seen it.

Krishnamurti: That's the point. It is one of the most difficult (psychological) things to say, 'one cause has produced this effect ' - there may be many different (intermingled ?) causes. Also, there is something much more involved in this - whether it is ( an actual separation between a ?) cause and its effect. The cause becomes the (further) effect, and that effect becomes the (next) cause - this ( causal continuity ?) goes on all the time; that is quite a different matter (to be explored later ?) .But (for starters) let's look at this: knowing the cause 'intellectually' - can I dissolve it? I can't. So, we have to find a way of dissolving (deleting ?) it completely - and what is that?

Questioner: Don't we have to look at it in action?

Krishnamurti: I feel angry, violent, and I hit you. Must I go to that extent?

Questioner: No, but we know (from listening to you) that if one looks at anger at the time (it occurs) , the anger dissolves.

Krishnamurti: ( To recap:) The mere knowing of the cause and its effect doesn't dissolve it. Therefore, I must enter (delve ?) into it, I must have a (passionate ?) feeling about it. And I haven't got it - what am I to do? I can see intellectually why I am in this state and there I ( move to something else or ?) stop. How am I to feel (about solving ?) this thing so strongly that I 'do' something about it?

Questioner: In psychotherapy ideally one forms a (working ?) relationship which ( helps you) go inside of this, because somebody else is going inside it with you.

Krishnamurti: You mean that someone (knowledgeable) is helping you to go into yourself, into this whole problem. Whether it is the guru, or the psychoanalyst, or your friend - someone else is helping you. Now isn't this what is (subliminally ?) being done now? Don't call it 'group therapy' (but a 'shared learning' ?) . Isn't this what is going on now?

Questioner: By 'now', you mean 'here'?

Krishnamurti: Here. You tell me that I am ( psychologically speaking ?) 'neurotic' (out of balance ?) and I listen to you. I say, 'Yes, you may be right, I (kind of ?) know it intellectually'. But you ( K) say, 'Don't look at it intellectually, let's go into it together more deeply, emotionally and feel it'. You are 'helping' me but there is a point (of your direct perception ?) where you cannot help me any more.

Questioner: Sir, must one not do away with 'aids' and 'escapes' to start with? - they must be out of the way.

Krishnamurti: Now I've reached the point when I see I must tackle it deep down, in the sense that I must 'feel it' with my whole being. You have ( therapeutically ?) helped me to come to that point (of having an insight into it ?) . After that I have to do it by myself.

Questioner: One feels one often lacks the energy (or the 'enthusiasm' for doing it ?).

Krishnamurti: Wait a minute, we are just coming to that. You have 'helped' me to (honestly ?) watch myself and become aware of my 'neurosis', together we have gone into this up to a certain point. All that has required ( a sharing of ?) energy and attention; I've listened to you because I really want to solve this problem. It is a tremendous burden for me, I can't get on with people, I am feeling miserable and unhappy. And you have helped me to come to that point, first intellectually, then a little more deeply. Now I am (left ?) there and you can't help me any more. Can you help me to go much deeper or can you only help me up to a certain point?

Questioner: How do I know I have reached this point?

Krishnamurti: I've tried, I've experimented, I've tested ( done my 'homework' ?)

Questioner: It can be of tremendous value to be helped up to that point.

Krishnamurti: Granted.

Questioner: Our questions may be part of the trouble. Perhaps it is because we start out with the idea of someone 'helping' us.

Krishnamurti: I'm coming to that, Madam, you'll see it in a minute. What is involved in this question is: you have (already ?) helped me up to a point.

Questioner: Sir, once this (K ?) person has helped you, isn't there a danger that you might be dependent on him and you don't really 'feel it' for yourself?

Krishnamurti: I am questioning the whole ('group therapy' ?) method, Sir! I am saying to myself, you are supposed to have helped me, you have led me, we have walked together up to a certain point.

Questioner: But then won't you become dependent on me (on K) when we get to this point?

Krishnamurti: Why can't I realize this at the very beginning? Why should I go through all this to come to that point?

Questioner: No one in the world can help you all the way.

Krishnamurti: Don't say that! You have helped me to realize that you cannot help me. Do see that point, Sir. Please have the patience. We have walked together, you have pointed out the dangers, you have shown my states to me very clearly, both verbally and non-verbally. You have 'held my hand' - you have done everything. And I say, but that's very little, it helps only to a certain degree. So suddenly I realize: why should I have (to rely on ?) your help at all? Why can't I do this myself right from the beginning?

Questioner: If one gets to see that, then one has reached a certain intelligence.

Krishnamurti: Therefore, what does that mean? Can I see that point (right from my ?) my neurotic state? A dozen things are offered - drugs, analyst, sunshine, group therapy, individual therapy, sitting (silently) together for twenty four hours, feeling more sensitive by touching the trees - they are doing all these things (for fun & profit ?) . Some people may say, 'I need all that'. If you want to do that, all right. But ( as a mature person ?) I am saying to myself, must I go through all this - go to college to become sensitive? Or I overeat, indulge sexually, do all kinds of things in order to destroy my sensitivity and then I take a (magic ?) drug to become sensitive - you follow? Therefore I am saying to myself, how am I to become extraordinarily alert to ( psychological danger of indulging in ?) my own 'neurotic' state? What will give me the (passionate ?) energy, the drive, the intensity to say, I'll go through it myself right from the beginning?'

Questioner: Maybe a 'crisis' could mean anything in relation to this ?

Krishnamurti: Crisis means a shock, a major challenge, something that demands your attention. A 'crisis' is only possible when there is a challenge. And if you respond to it actively, adequately, the crisis is not a (blocking ?) crisis. But I cannot - I am weak.

Questioner: Doesn't the very 'wanting to do it' give you the energy?

Krishnamurti: The very 'want' is a waste of energy! Wait, can we discuss that (academically ?) for the moment - how to bring all one's energy into this?

Questioner: The looking on the unhappiness in the world and the desire to understand myself.

Krishnamurti: ( unfortunately ?) I haven't that 'desire' - the whole world is helping me to 'escape' from ( honestly facing ?) myself. The religions, the books, the philosophers, the analysts, everybody says: for God's sake don't (bother to ?) look! (Laughter) Our 'desire' is for greater (and more diversified ?) sensations. I desire that in the looking at myself I'll have greater pleasure; otherwise I won't have desire. If there is no reward, why should I have a desire?

Questioner: Is it possible to be in pain and not desire to be out of pain?

Krishnamurti: Sir, if you have got toothache, it is a natural thing to get rid of it, isn't it? And sometimes you can't. If you have a headache or whatever it is, you take aspirin, and if it goes on what do you do then?

Questioner: You just suffer the pain.

Krishnamurti: If you identify yourself with the suffering, there is conflict, isn't there? But if it is not so violently painful, I can 'watch' it (unfolding ?) . There is no identifying with the pain, no saying I must get rid of it, I must fight it, resist it.

Questioner: Isn't acceptance ( another form of ?) resistance?

Krishnamurti: Sir, have you never noticed, if a dog is barking all the time and you cannot do anything about it, what do you do? Resist it?

Questioner: Often.

Krishnamurti: What happens then - you are fighting it and you become more and more awake.

Questioner: Can't one go the other way round so that one becomes more relaxed?

Krishnamurti: So what do you do?

Questioner: You can 'listen' to it.

Krishnamurti: Which means what? Don't resist it - listen to it, don't fight it, go with it. In India it happens often that a dog is barking for hours. Either you fight it or you go with it, join it. In the same way, when there is great pain, unless it is unbearable, I go with it - there is no resistance, no saying, `I must get rid of it immediately,.
So we come to the point: how can I have that (inner) vitality, that ( enthusiastic ?) energy which makes me observe so intensely?

Questioner: I think if something is important enough to the well-being of the brain, then the energy is concentrated there, but if it is not important enough there will be no energy.

Krishnamurti: So you are saying, Sir, if the thing is important enough, there is the energy.

Questioner: But all I know is, one has only to observe it to get over it.

Krishnamurti: If you are interested in getting rid of your fear, then you have the energy. That is what you are saying. But if I am not interested?

Questioner: I didn't say 'interested', I didn't say 'intellectual interest'.

Krishnamurti: How do you bring about this vital interest to face fear? One says take a drug or do various things that will help you to look, to be really involved in it.

Questioner: I come to a point where my mind puts the 'fear' into words. And I see that even my mind is a sort of analyst.

Krishnamurti: Quite.

Questioner: It cannot help me further.

Krishnamurti: So the question now is: how do I have enough energy (for this inner observation ?) ? I need energy to look at myself - whether I am neurotic, imbalanced, afraid, whatever it is.

Questioner: May I ask 'why'? I don't quite see 'why' we need energy to look?

Krishnamurti: ( Frictionless ?) energy means attention, doesn't it? There is that aeroplane - to listen to it completely without any resistance is "attention", isn't it? To listen to that noise completely you need attention, which is - your total ?) energy focussed to listen.

Questioner: I mean, does (this listening?) use up energy?

Krishnamurti: No, on the contrary. It is only when I resist it, when I am inattentive, that I lose energy. If I listen to that aeroplane wholly, I've much more energy. The inattention wastes energy.

Questioner: And the attention brings that energy (together) .

Krishnamurti: It is energy - it doesn't get dissipated, on the contrary, it builds up more and more.

Questioner: I see that, Sir. But before, it sounded as though you were saying that you must find a lot of energy before you can look.

Krishnamurti: No, on the contrary. So can I 'attend completely', in order to observe? Then the problem arises, is the 'observer' different from the (inner) thing which is being observed? - which was a question raised at the beginning. If there is attention, all the one's energy focussed in looking - is there a (self-conscious ?) 'observer' ? If there is, then there is inattention. Because the 'observer' has got his (cultural ?) prejudices, his (knowledgeable ?) opinions, he says, 'This is good, I'll keep this but I don't want that', he is fighting to gain pleasure and/or to avoid pain; he is avoiding or accumulating. And that is ( leading to ?) a ( time-spread ?) dissipation of energy. So, can one attend without this 'observer'? ( yes, if ?) I actually see the truth that (in the context of a holistic perception?) it is a waste of energy to look with the observer.
Can I listen to you freely - without opinions or conclusions, without saying you're right - just listen? Can I listen to that aeroplane freely? When you tell me I am a fool, can I listen to you without reacting? That (very personal ?) reaction is the 'observer'.

Questioner: Then in that state does the mind function as an (objective) 'mirror'?

Krishnamurti: So (to wrap it up :) what have I learnt this morning? I have learnt - I am learning rather - that deep (inwardly) nobody can help me. That is a tremendous realization (to start with ?) . Whoever wants to help me (at those levels ?) , is helping me according to his conditioning. He says, 'I know better than you do, let me help you'. Or, " I'll be a companion, we'll walk together, we'll watch things together". And here I have discovered, that if I have to do something ultimately myself, why don't I start (by being independent ?) right from the beginning?
And I have also seen that any form of (mental ?) resistance, outwardly or inwardly, is a waste of energy. I have an opinion about something or other, and I am unwilling to change it. That is a (psychological) 'resistance'. So, when you say something can I listen to it without resisting and change my mind if what you say is true?
We have also seen that where there is an (observer-free ?) 'attention' there is abundance of energy. That energy is attention, and 'it' can look and observe without the observer. The 'observer' is the ( culturally ?) conditioned entity, the reaction, the resistance. I've seen this very clearly, not intellectually but deeply - I feel it. Therefore I'm going to watch if there is any form of resistance creeping up, and now I am free to listen, and therefore free - all the time 'changing'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Sep 2016 #472
Thumb_stringio John Perkins... United States 28 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Raica wrote:
Yes, but I would rather call this 'I' the survivalistic, or temporal, meant basically to protect one's physical body, family, tribe, etc.

It's interesting to reflect, John, on how far we might be prepared to extend this 'body, family, tribe, etc' scenario you describe, before we might be willing to stop calling thinking of it as 'I'. Or, to paint the same picture from the other direction, working backwards from the universe in its singular entirety as it were, at what point we might like to consider the 'I' makes its appearance?

As for the deeper zones of our consciousness there may - or not - be an 'individuality' beyond that of the earthly survival. And I agree, this 'terrestrial' interface being set aside, the universality of the human consciousness can express itself freely.

Indeed. And what it would express, of course, would likely be, as I suggested, its own consciousness; what else? In other words, K's teachings do nothing more than essentially to describe K himself; which is the universe.

But I would like to add to my previous post that regarding the universal 'source' of the Teachings, it may be much more a matter of pure and intelligent form of energy - which simply 'is' and 'gives light' - and in that 'light' of universal intelligence the human brain can 'see' the truth or falseness of everything.

Which, I think, would be to say the same, wouldn't it?

If this is the case, then K actually re-discovered most of these Teachings by his own direct observation of how the human brain works in its various inter-relationships...

Yes.

...therefore himself being the 'first beneficiary' of it (see also his saying that 'We don't all have to be Edisons, since if the electricity & wiring has been provided and the electrical 'wiring' already installed ?) we can simply turn the 'light switch' 'on' (see also' Be a light for yourself!)

Yes I gather what you are saying. I believe I've seen biblical stuff to the very same effect, though unfortunately I couldn't for the life of me say where.

This post was last updated by John Perkins... (account deleted) Wed, 28 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Sep 2016 #473
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K PUBLIC DIALOGUE BROCKWOOD 1969 (reader friendly edited)

A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO 'LEARNING'

Krishnamurti: What shall we talk over together?

Questioner: Can we discuss how craving sustains conditioning?
Questioner: The non-dualistic nature of the mind.
Questioner: The problem of change.
Questioner: Sir, you spoke about energy and you said attention was energy and that it did not use up energy. I don't understand that.
Questioner: The question of seeing. The difference between 'seeing' (directly) and recognising a description of one's mental structure.

Krishnamurti: Could we approach all these questions (the 'holistic' way ?) by enquiring into what we mean by 'learning'? And perhaps we could then understand conditioning and the attention of awareness which does not waste energy, and so on. Could we begin there and then bring all the questions into that?
Here is an (everyday psychological ) question: craving ( for ever 'more' ?) strengthens ( our existing) conditioning. And any form of resistance, contradiction, opposing desires, are (holistically speaking ?) a waste of ' our intelligent ressources of ?) energy because in that there is involved a great deal of effort, struggle, frustration and fear. Now, could we 'learn' about ( the inner implications of ?) this question: craving strengthens one's conditioning and any form of resistance is a waste of energy. Instead of my telling you what it is or you telling me what it is, can't we learn (together) about it?

What does (this holistic ?) 'learning' mean? It is really quite a complex problem; it needs a great deal of enquiring into it, thinking about it - perhaps more 'feeling your way' into it.
Now here is (a sample) question: "resistance is a waste of energy". I hear that ( 'holistic' K ?) statement, and I want to find out the truth of it or the falseness of it - I want to learn about it; I don't accept it, I don't reject it - I want to find out. First of all, when I hear such a ( challenging ?) statement, I am really quite curious, like a schoolboy, who wants to know and who asks many questions.

Questions: Sir, I think (this natural) curiosity is one of the essential ingredients of learning, because otherwise you are forcing yourself to do something.

Krishnamurti: Quite. Otherwise it becomes mechanical, mere cultivation of memory. So we say curiosity is necessary. Now, am I really curious to find out for myself whether that statement has any meaning for me at all ? When there is ( an authentic ?) curiosity, there is ( a passionate ?) energy, isn't there? I am not 'casual' about it, I am not (scholastically neutral or ?) indifferent, I am really curious. And that curiosity gives me an impetus, a 'drive' to find out.

Questioner: In fact, don't we have to consider the motive of the curiosity ?

Krishnamurti: ( The human mind is naturally ?) curious - there is no (personal ?) motive . If there is (such) a motive, there is no (authentic) curiosity. I want to learn because I am curious (to find out the truth of this matter ?) . If it is in order to gain more money (or scholastic prestige ?) , that is not curiosity; the ( personal) motive then is becoming much more important, more vital than curiosity itself. So, am I curious without a motive? I want to find out whether this ( holistic) statement that "resistance is a waste of energy" is true or false. When a first-class scientist is exploring, he is not (at every moment ?) driven by a (personal) motive ( since his wealthy sponsors are paying for his research ?) . A person who has a ( background) motive that he might achieve great fame and money and all the rest of it - such a person is not an (authentic?) scientist. He is just using (his) 'science' for his own benefit.
So I am just curious - there is no ( personal ?) motive behind my curiosity - that is a 'fact'. (I am talking about myself ). Now I want to find out if (and why ?) I resist ( psychologically ?) - I may resist (to the compelling desires of ?) my wife, children, boss, society, or just what somebody says to me.
( Now ) shall I examine this ( psychological ?) 'resistance' in fragments ( in its specific aspects ) ? You understand what I mean - I resist here, there and so on.

Questioner: I don't quite follow you. We were talking about 'resistance', and you were saying just now that curiosity channels energy naturally. So then where is the resistance?

Krishnamurti: No, I (just) wanted to (check out ?) if I am really curious about (inquiring on ) resistance as a waste of energy.

Questioner: I see, thank you.

Krishnamurti: That is what was asked - I am taking that (psychological resistance) as an ( in class ?) example. Shall I look at my 'resistance' (or reluctance ?) as a fragmentary process? I may resist because what you say may be true, and I want to resist because I am frightened of you (of my audience) . I am frightened of not being able to 'sit on the platform' - you follow what I mean? So shall I examine this statement applicable to myself in myself, in fragments?

Questioner: Yes. It wouldn't be wise.

Krishnamurti: Or shall I be able to look at it (holstically) , learn about it as a whole? ( Clinging to a ?) belief is a form of resistance - I am a Hindu, or a Muslim or a Christian - and there is a (psychological objection or ?) 'resistance' against all other forms of belief. If I am a Communist and I reject everything else.

Questioner: So anything that impinges on the mind...

Krishnamurti: Wait, don't come to (forming ?) any ( final) conclusions. I have found something: any form of ( personally biased ?) conclusions is a resistance. I conclude "that this is wrong and that is right" and I resist what I consider 'wrong', and hold on to what I consider 'good'. Therefore I resist.
So shall I look at these (particular ) fragments of resistance and try to learn about each fragment (at a time) , or can I look at this whole form of ( opposing psychological) resistance and learn from it (as a whole) ?

Questioner: I don't see how this whole form of resistance expresses itself other than through lots of little resistances.

Krishnamurti: Yes, I quite agree. But I have put that question - shall I learn from each example or is it possible to learn about the whole of ( nature of my psychological ?) resistance - not bit by bit?

Questioner: Do you mean that there is a common factor at the back of every form of resistance?

Krishnamurti: Look - I am resisting in various ways. My question would be: why am 'I' resisting for? Not the ( particular) reason of it. I want to see the (truth of the ?) 'fact' that I am 'resisting' (opposing resistance to any incoming personal disturbance ?) . First I must realise the fact that I am resisting. At the moment I am (becoming) aware that I am resisting, there is already the discovery of the cause. I am resisting you, because I (may ?) think I am much more intelligent, superior, more spiritual than you, and what you say might put me down in front of the others; therefore I am going to resist you (with all my intellectual capacity) . My mind is curious, and therefore I find out ( the uncomfortable truth about ?) why I am resisting - not only (here to) you, but I see the whole ( inner implications ?) of my 'resistance'. I have formed a (strong political ) 'opinion' and I stick to it and I resist every other opinion. Now why do I have 'opinions' at all? I recognise ( that getting strongly attached to any ?) 'opinion' is a ( subliminal) form of (psychological ?) resistance. Now I am going to learn, and with that sense of urgency and energy I find out why I am resisting altogether. Is not my whole life a way of resistance? I think I am somebody, I have an (most excellent) image of myself and I don't want you to destroy (or undermine ?) that image. Or I have various forms of beliefs, dogmas, knowledge, experiences, which have given me a certain vitality, strength and a technique to tackle life, and I am going to resist everything else.
So I have found out something, which is: my whole life is a form of resistance . No?

Questioner: You mean it is a selection of one set of possibilities as against another?

Krishnamurti: Yes.

Questioner: And therefore you are resisting the others. And that forms your particular 'character'.

Krishnamurti: That's right. The Greek (root) word character comes from 'engrave'; engraving (imprinted ?) on the mind - that is my 'character'. My mind has been engraved upon and I have a particular character - strong, weak, purposive, direct, dominating, this or that. And ( once imprinted ?) the (characterial ?) 'thing' that has been engraved on my mind is going to continue, (and/or) resist everything else. So I am asking myself, 'Is my ( psychological) life a form of (active) resistance ?'

Questioner: Yes, because with that resistance I build up my (psychological) 'security'. I feel secure in that and I am afraid to let it go

Krishnamurti: Are you saying, Madam, that resistance is a form of building up ( our inner) security? I am not saying it is not, I am just asking - is it? I don't want to reduce it to one word - this is much too explosive - you cannot just say that one word explains everything.

Questioner: One of the things one might be resisting is embarrassment, or shame.

Krishnamurti: Of course, all that is implied. I don't want to examine each detail, but see this whole problem of ( opposing a mental ?) 'resistance'. Is my life based on ( this self-protective ?) 'resistance' , because I have (to protect my personal ?) image of what I am, or what I should be, or what I want to achieve?

Questioner: What gives the energy, the (vital) force, to this image that one has of oneself? Why is it so strongly engrained in the mind?

Krishnamurti: That is fairly simple, surely (a mental extension of the survival instinct ?) . Every form of influence is continually impinging on my mind - the family, society, my own desires.

Questioner: Isn't it that all these different resistances are a means of protecting this 'image', defending it?

Krishnamurti: Is that what you have found, Madam? Is that what you have learnt?

Questioner: Yes. Sometimes.

Krishnamurti: Now you see what has happened? My (natural) curiosity has aroused a tremendous energy in me to find out. And I am looking, watching where I am resisting. I want to learn, because I see any form of (inner) experience has to be tested (individually) so one can say 'that is so'.
( So, to recap:) Any form of ( psychological ?) 'resistance' divides people, therefore there is no profound communication, no relationship, therefore there is ( a resulting mentality of ?) 'conflict' and no peace.

Questioner: Is not this 'resistance' in the fear one has of death?

Krishnamurti: Yes. That is also included. So shall we go along? I hope you are all as 'intense' about this as the speaker is, because I really want to find out if there is any ( un-conscious ?) form of resistance in me. I want to learn about the (imaginary ?) idea that I am a great man, the idea of ( achieving) success, popularity, reputation, being a (spiritual ?) leader - all those (psychological ?) 'horrors'. Is my mind resisting anything? ( If yes ?) the mind has taken a 'position' with regard to politics, economy, religion, the family - you follow? And it is ( subliminally ?) unwilling to move from there.

Questioner: When we speak of resistance, the mind starts resisting (its own ?) 'resistance'.

Krishnamurti: Yes, and ( following one's cultural) tradition is also a (form of psychological) resistance. So I want to find out if I have a (cultural) 'tradition' (to defend ?) .
To come back to the previous statement: "craving strengthens conditioning". I understand that I crave for food when I am hungry. There is also the biological, sexual urge but also the (countless) 'images' that thought builds around that urge; there is craving for sexual excitement, or the craving for power, for position, or for 'peace' - isn't all that 'craving'?
Now, if I am hungry, I need food - is that ( a psychological ?) 'craving' or is it the natural response of an organism that needs food? But ( the psychological ?) 'craving' comes when I say, 'I must have that particular kind of food which tastes (so much ?) better'. And there is the whole structure of sexual demands. So, the biological urge is different from the (psychological) 'craving' which thought creates about the urge. Are you following?

Questioner: Are we afraid that if we don't 'crave' we would cease to live?

Krishnamurti: There are the natural biological urges and demands, and (surreptitiously our self-centred?) thinking takes hold of them and transforms them into 'appetites'. Then ( the 'thinker' in charge with all its ?) thinking says, 'I must be wise in my (controlling my ?) appetites'. So there is a battle going on between two (levels of ?) thought. The (lower ?) thought that has created the 'images' of the sexual demands, and the (more thoughtful part of the same ? ) thought that says 'be careful'. So (the controlling part of ?) thought forms a resistance against the (lower part of ?) thought which has created the picture, the sensation, the (craving) volume behind that. So you see how resistance has been formed.

Questioner: But, Sir, surely sometimes such a (moral) 'resistance' might be necessary?

Krishnamurti: We are coming to that in a minute, first let's get the (whole) picture. So ( the primitive layers of our ?) thought encourages and justifies craving ?) in one direction and ( the educated part of the same) thought (process) resists that. It says, 'I must resist (my irrational cravings?) , otherwise I may be destroyed (or put in a box ?) - by society, by my wife, etc; therefore it is good, it is wise, it is normal to resist'.

Questioner: The (craving) desire which is pushed on by thought, leads in a direction which disturbs the temporary equilibrium. And the opposing (reaction of ) thought tries to restore it at a different level. That's what I see.

Krishnamurti: That's right, Sir. So (presumably ?) I have learnt a great deal.
The ( holistically inclined ?) mind is looking at itself to see whether there is any form of duality going on. Resistance is ( one of the factors of ?) duality. There is opposition, contradiction, and in that there is conflict.
Therefore I say to myself: this whole (concept ?) of resistance is a waste of (one's total) energy. It is something which I have actually learnt out of my curiosity, my energy and drive - not as an idea which I am going to apply, but as an actual 'fact': I see that 'resistance' breeds duality and therefore conflict, which is essentially a waste of ( intelligent ?) energy.
Now I'm going to enquire where it is necessary to resist, or if one can live without 'resistance' at all. Suppose that I want ( to achieve an undisturbed inner ?) peace - I think it is marvellous to live in peace. You come along tell me I can have this inner peace if I do certain things - meditate, repeat (magic ?) words, listen to sound, sit this way, breathe that way, and so on. And I want that, because even intellectually I can see that a mind that is very peaceful is extraordinarily alive, beautiful, has a certain vitality, intensity. So what you say appeals to me and I practice it and I get certain experiences and a certain feeling, a certain quiet. I want peace and I find peace can be had at a certain price and I am willing to pay for it, and I 'resist' every other form of teaching.
I know all that. So I say to myself, can I live completely, right through my whole being without resistance, not having to resist this or that, follow this person and not that person - can I live that way, not theoretically but actually? Can I live my daily life without any 'resistance'? If you want my coat, shall I resist? If you want any of my property will I yield, and not resist you? If you say, 'Do this, think this way, don't think that way' - shall I resist you? Can I tell you where to yield and where not to yield? Or I have to 'learn' for myself where I must yield without resistance, and where I must not yield. That means I shall find out how to act (intelligently) at any particular moment. Not come to that moment with a ( self-protective) conclusion. If I come to that moment with a conclusion I am already resisting. Because I have no principle - which is a conclusion - I have no ideology and there is freedom. So I say to myself, 'I am learning, I have no (need for) opinions, nor for conclusions, there is no resistance' and I say, every minute of the day I am going to find out.

Questioner: Isn't it that we are afraid of the energy... ?

Krishnamurti: The fear is energy - you cannot be afraid of a fear. Fear is a (conditioned ?) form of energy. No?

Questioner: But it seems that one is constantly 'diverting' one's energy into resistance or fear, or something else.

Krishnamurti: Look: I am afraid. I am going to learn about fear. I am not going to 'translate' (re-direct ?) it into saying 'it is a waste of energy', or 'it is energy', and so on. I have no conclusion about fear; therefore I am free to learn about it. You follow? So I am going to learn what that fear is - a form of (psychological) resistance, because I am afraid I might die tomorrow, or I am afraid of my father and mother.

Questioner: Is the fear of death unconsciously at the root of the whole of the resistance against every day?

Krishnamurti: Sir, actually, deeply are you 'aware' that you are afraid? I am afraid (of the Unknown ?) , and I am (actively ?) 'escaping' from (facing) it. Escape is resistance to (facing) 'what is' - surely. So what shall I do with this (psychological ?) fear ? ( For starters ?) I am not escaping because I see that (my mental ?) resistance doesn't dissolve fear, doesn't push it away.

Questioner: When I have seen that fear and resistance are only the fear of death, can I not realise - at least intellectually - that life and death are the same thing? At that moment the fear will vanish.

Krishnamurti: It is not quite (as easy as ?) like that, is it? I am not really interested in death - that is inevitable, it will come later. But I am really frightened of ...what, Sir?

Questioner: Of my inadequate responses?

Krishnamurti: Let's take that. I am (disturbed by ?) my incapacity to respond fully to life. And I am not resisting, I am not escaping, I am full of curiosity to find out why I am frightened because I can't respond fully. If the fact is I can't, what am I frightened of?

Questioner: Because it's so uncomfortable to live with.

Krishnamurti: Which means what? - I dislike living uncomfortably. So, am I frightened because of my inadequate response? All right, I'm inadequate, but why should I be frightened of it? Because I have an (utopian ?) image that I must respond fully - if I don't I will be unhappy, I'll be in conflict, I'll be miserable, uncomfortable and all the rest of it - and therefore I say, 'I am inadequate' and this frightens me; therefore fear is a form of resistance. Do you get it? If I have no mental image of what adequacy is, then I am just inadequate - all right. So I have that fear because I have an image that I should be adequate; but if I have no image, what tells me I am inadequate?

Questioner: Comparison.

Krishnamurti: Quite right. Now, why do I compare? That is my habit, isn't it, from childhood on through university and throughout life. I have always lived in a society, in a state of mind, that is continually 'comparing' - a bigger car, a smaller car, more beautiful, less beautiful, more intelligent, less intelligent, more money, less money, and so on. You follow? And I can see how (this mental habit of ?) comparison has caused inadequacy in me. If I don't compare there is no inadequacy. I am what I am.

Questioner: But Sir, it is not always comparison that makes one feel inadequate.

Krishnamurti: I am just examining 'comparison', Madam. My (inner) life is 'comparative': I want peace, but...I am not (as )peaceful (as I should). How do I know that I have not just an 'idea' of peace? Can I live (inwardly) without comparison? The 'ideal', the' hero', the bigger man, the lesser man, the inferior, the stupid - can I live without any comparison, at any time?

Questioner: It seems to be the linguistic structure of thought that has comparison built in.

Krishnamurti: Quite so - in language itself there is comparison and I have seen that; therefore I am not going to say, 'I am more or I am less'. The very structure of the (social) 'me' is comparative.

Questioner: Don't we confuse comparative 'facts' with comparative 'judgments'?

Krishnamurti: I want to 'get my teeth' into something much deeper than that, which is: can I (inwardly) live completely without comparison? And is not our (culturally conditioned ?) mind itself the result of comparison? I can only live non-comparatively when I am absolutely looking at the 'fact' and not what the fact should be or must not be.

Questioner: But, Sir, ( we can also) take two facts side by side.

Krishnamurti: No, no, (inwardly ?) there is one ( active) 'fact' at a time, not two facts at one time.

Questioner: No, but it is a way of perceiving difference, not only in red and blue, but in many things, in people and objects.

Krishnamurti: ( That's an ?) opinion, then. Madam, look - ( at every instant inwardly ?) there is only one (ongoing) fact. A second later maybe, there'll be another fact.

Questioner: And then we see the difference.
Krishnamurti: Yes, then what? What are you trying to say, Madam?

Questioner: I am trying to say that one learns by seeing the difference about oneself. One only sees one thing in oneself, one doesn't see that there are other things. From time to time one compares and this olso is a way of learning (about oneself)

Krishnamurti: Do please listen to what you are saying. Do I learn ( holistically ?) through comparison?

Questioner: We do, yes. I mean I have found it out.

Krishnamurti: No, no, Madam, forgive me if I contradict you. Do I learn anything ( fundamentaly ?) by comparing or do I only learn by looking at the fact and enquiring about that fact; not by comparing that fact with another fact? I have a Chinese vase, and a Persian vase. By looking at the Chinese vase I learn all about it. But if I begin to compare the two, I am learning about something else, not about the fact of the Chinese vase.

Questioner: Krishnaji, but certain facts in relation to other facts...For instance, if you were considering the speed of something, you would learn it in relation to the speed of other things; that would be part of the fact, would it not? That's comparison.

Krishnamurti: You are saying - you can learn about that 'fact'
much quicker than I do ?

Questioner: No, I am speaking of the objective relation of two facts. There is a relationship; for instance light has a different speed than the motor car. Those two are facts, and their relationship is a further fact. One has to consider the two things in order to learn something about them.

Krishnamurti: All right. The Mercedes goes much faster than the bullock cart. That is a (material) fact but that doesn't touch me or interfere with my life.

Questioner: You learn about the speed by going in the bullock cart. When you are in the Mercedes you feel the speed of the Mercedes, there is no need to compare it with the bullock cart.

Krishnamurti: Wait a minute. (inwardly speaking ?) do I learn by comparing myself with you, who learn much more quickly? - there is speed involved in this too. You learn something extraordinarily quickly, you see very clearly; immediately resistance arises and all the implications of it. Your perception is instantaneous, but with mine I have to go little by little. You act much more quickly, my ( inwardly perceptive ?) action is slower. Why am I comparing myself with you? Where does 'speed' come into this - the more, the less - why?

Questioner: Because of the images.

Krishnamurti: No, because I am envious of her. I want that same thing which she has, be as quick as she is, because I have ( subliminally ?) compared myself with her. That comparison is very quick; why am I comparing myself? Can't I free myself from thid (kind of ?) comparative judgment about myself? Therefore, can I look at myself non-comparatively, non-verbally? - for the word in itself is comparative.
I am really very curious and therefore full of a delightful energy, to find out if I can live without (any inner) comparison at all. Comparison implies ( a personal assumption ?) pretension . There is a great deal of ( subliminal ?) 'hypocrisy' in comparison. I want to be like Christ, like the Buddha, the 'hero', and I am not. I am comparing myself with them and striving, to be that. But (seeing the falseness of it ?) I say, what nonsense. I see that to live without comparison means complete honesty to oneself. The moment I compare myself I am 'pretending', putting on a ( socio-culturally convenient ?) mask. It is like in any (modern) school. If B is compared to A - as it happens always, through examinations, in class, in every way - if he is told 'you must be like A', you are destroying ( the self-confidence of ?) B. So ( such comparative ?) education becomes violent ( or breeds violence ?) . Can't we (learn about ourselves ?) without comparing?

Questioner: Sir, how can we not be aware of the differences? We are aware of them.

Krishnamurti: Oh, no, on the contrary. We are saying, be aware (inwardly) of this (dualistic ?) contradiction. Contradiction exists when there is a resistance. We've been through all that.

Questioner: We can also learn about ourselves by seeing things around us, in other people. It's not always brought about by envy - it can be (an objective ?) observation.

Krishnamurti: Madam, you are saying you can learn by watching others, in many ways. By watching the animal (behaviour) - its violence, its devotion, its pleasures - I learn, because my whole background is derived from the higher apes and all the rest of it. But have I got to watch the animal in order to learn about myself?

Questioner: It can be useful.

Krishnamurti: How can it be useful?

Questioner: If I am blind to myself.

Krishnamurti: Therefore you are blind to others.

Questioner: No, they can open up your eyes sometimes, in a 'flash' (of insight)

Krishnamurti: They can wake you, every shock, every challenge, every questions does wake you. But do I ( have to ?) depend on challenges or on looking at ( the mistakes of ?) others to keep awake?

Questioner: It is all part of ( a wider process of ?) learning.

Krishnamurti: Madam, (suppose that a ?) part of me is 'asleep', therefore I am not ( fully) awake.

Questioner: Is this form of comparison (coming from the herd instinct or ?) desire to imitate?

Krishnamurti: Surely. Please Sir, find out whether you can live without 'comparison'. Isn't that the only (holistic ?) way to live? Doesn't that give you tremendous energy? But if I am comparing myself with the Prime Minister or with Jesus or whatever it is, what a waste of ( creative ?) life it is!
So I am watching, I am learning about comparisons and therefore I know when comparison has its value and when it has no value at all.

Questioner: That is what I meant when I first said that it had some use.

Krishnamurti: No, forgive me again. We must start ( learning the holistic way ?) by saying, Can one live without comparison ? When the right (opening ?) question is asked, and answered rightly, then that will bring about the right response ( of seeing ?) when comparison is (or not) necessary. But I must ask the fundamental question first, which is - can I live ( inwardly) without comparison, not 'on some days' or 'sometimes'. If I have answered that question, deeply, totally, then I will know when comparison is necessary or when it is not necessary. It is like knowing what 'co-operation' is - completely, deeply; then only will you know when not to co-operate. But to say, mustn't I co-operate with this (group) and not co-operate with that one , - that leads to greater and greater (inner) confusion. When you know how to co-operate fundamentally - not round an idea, round a feeling, round an emotion - but co-operate without any resistance, then you will also know very deeply, when not to co-operate. So one must ask the right ( or fundamental ?) questions first.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 #474
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1968 (reader friendly edited)

TRANSCENDING THE DUALISTIC CONTRADICTION

Krishnamurti: In these public discussions we are trying to explore (live ?) into ourselves and actually to see ourselves as we are. If we are going to do that, then we must establish a (shared learning ) communication between ourselves from the very beginning.
To communicate with each other we must use words, obviously, but each word, for each person, is heavily loaded; each word creates in us a (mental image) with (its culturally loaded ?) content. This ( psychological ?) 'content' is actually (generating the self-consciousness ?) the 'me', the 'thinker', the 'observer' (entity) . And if we are merely trying to communicate with each other only intellectually there is the ( hidden) difficulty that a word, or an idea, may be so deeply engrained in each (the consciousness of ?) one of us, that we translate, or interpret everything that we hear according to that (collective cultural ?) background. Whether we are ( predominantly ?) intellectual or emotional, scientific or artistic, everything is translated according to that frame (of mind) in which we live and function.

Now, perhaps the speaker has not got that difficulty at all; therefore how can we communicate so that we understand each other completely, thoroughly, so that there is no misunderstanding? ( By simply realising that ?) there is also another form ( level ?) of communication, which is (taking place in ?) silence.
So (to recap:) we have this problem to communicate with each other first verbally, so that the words don't become a barrier, but rather a help in clearing up our understanding of ourselves; that ( intellectual contact ?) must be established between us first. Then there is a deeper level of communion which is non-verbal, which needs that peculiar quality of (integrated ?) attention and ease, like between two intimate friends who don't have to say very much, they can understand (and commune) each other in that very silence in which there is communion of friendship, an 'exposing' of oneself to the other, in which there is (a quality of pure) affection, love. If we could do this, that both (verbal and non-verbal) dimensions operate at the same time, then there would be a possibility of really understanding our (psychological) problems (including) our daily conflicts, sorrows, loneliness, irritation, anger and all the rest of it.
So when we are talking over our problems together, can we listen, observe, be silent without the (all controlling mental ?) entity that says, 'This is right, this is wrong, this should be, this must not be, I am right, you are wrong, my opinion is better than yours', and so on? Can we (go beyond this, so ?) that you and I see the same thing at the same time with the same intensity ?

So, having said that what shall we talk over together?

Questioner: You have said that one cannot 'invite' Reality, that all one can do is to open the door, and this means that the mind must be completely quiet, silent, then, perhaps if one is 'lucky', maybe truth and reality will come in. Why do you say 'lucky', and (perhaps'?

Krishnamurti: If you leave the (inner) 'door' open, if there is fresh air outside, it will come in. Do you want to discuss that? Or do you want to ask something else?

Questioner (1): Am I selfish if I refuse responsibility?

Questioner (2): Can we talk about children, as regards communication and teaching, parenthood and bringing up children?

Questioner (3): How can we remain earnest in our self-study without a (spirtitual) stimulating desire?

Questioner (4): Could we talk about identification?

Questioner (5): The search for spirituality seems to lead to indifference.

Krishnamurti: You see, if I were sitting there and somebody else was sitting here, I would ask him, "how to live rightly?" What is involved in it ? Because our (present way of ) life is in such chaos, such (inner) contradictions - the intellect, the outer activity, feeling, thought, all go in different directions all tearing at each other. We are 'broken up' ( fragmentary) entities. And if I were there( in your shoes ?) and somebody else was here, I would say, 'Look, I am fully aware of how I behave in the office, or at home and so on, in contradiction, inwardly broken up; but how am I to live a life that is complete, whole, full?' Don't you also want to know that?

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: Then why didn't you ask me that?

Questioner: It is completely impossible to ask this question here , because in the very asking we are accepting the authority of one person, or maybe five hundred people who are here. I think you have to go through the problem in your own life to come to a conclusion.

Krishnamurti: But would that be the real issue, would you be interested in talking that over?

Questioner: Yes...

Krishnamurti: Don't say 'Yes' casually because if you go into it very deeply, it may revolutionize your whole way of life and you may not (be inwardly ready for ?) that . So if you are really seeing this fragmentation in outselves, as the intellect, as the emotions, as thought, as action and it's your own awareness of it, then the inevitable question would be: what am I to do? And then, perhaps later on, we can go into this question of (the opening the door to ?) Reality, the urge to identify with oneself with something , and so on.

So, if this ( question of our inner fragmentation ?) is what you really want to discuss, let's go into it (experientially ?)

First of all, ( step one:) am I aware, inwardly 'conscious', that I lead a (compartmented ?) fragmentary life? Do I know that I lead a contradictory and conflicting 'dualistic' existence? If you know it, (the second step is to ask oneself ?) How does it come into being? Why do I have this contradiction in me? Is it natural and must I therefore accept it, or is it something that has been brought about through society, civilization, culture and so on, or by my own relationship to everything in life? Is my relationship to nature, to other people, to ideas, always dualistic? (Before I can do anything with it, I must know how it comes about)
( just a few real life examples:) I say, I love my wife or husband and I dislike so many people, or I may even 'hate' somebody. Immediately there is ( a dualistic ?) contradiction. I would want to tell only the truth, but (occasionally) I may also lie, because I am afraid; in that there is a contradiction. I want to express myself (freely) but I express myself so badly that it creates misunderstanding and that causes fear, there is anxiety and so on. Then there is the (routinely) pattern which I have been following for years, and I am afraid to let go because I don't know what will happen. So I live a contradictory life during the day, and even when I sleep, through (the compensatory ?) dreams. Why does it arise in me? I want to lead a harmonious, peaceful life, be non-aggressive, quiet; I want to live fairly, without too much ugliness. And I do everything that brings ugliness why? Is it because I am afraid (to face what I really am ?) ? So, I become aggressive, because I am not ( inwardly ?) free to say 'Yes, this is a (white ?) lie' or to acknowledge to myself that I am a (psychological ?) 'hypocrite' (conveniently wearing self-protective 'masks' ?) . Because I have a (pretty good ?) image about myself which I dare not destroy. Is it due to fear or to insecurity? (I am talking about inward insecurity). Do you say, I want to find out why I lead this kind of double life with all its complexities: the hypocrisy, the neurotic states, isolating myself from others and so on ?
( And step three:) Are we now silent because we have understood or seen this contradiction seen it, without reacting to it yet and therefore seeing is ( bringing its own ?) silence ?

Questioner: I am hesitating because of the responsibility involved in this.

Krishnamurti: Ah! The responsibility comes a little later. Because we are now (apparently ?) silent, do we see together what is taking place in us? This kind of contradictory life exists everywhere you go, even with the hermits, with the monks in India, in Japan; every human being has this problem. So when we are considering it, we are looking at the whole human problem, not my problem. When you reduce the whole problem to 'my' (particular) problem (that has to be solved) you make it very small. But if you regard it as a human problem a human being living in Switzerland, in India, Japan, Russia, America if you have the feeling of ( a whole consciousness of ?) humanity, then perhaps in that looking we may communicate with each other at a different level, which isn't a mere emotional state. Here is a ( global consciousness ?) problem and I am looking at (the magnitude and complexity of ?) it, therefore I am (becoming) silent. And what you 'see' out of that silence will have meaning.

Questioner: Sir, we are now facing the fact of our own hypocrisy; that's what we are doing now ?

Krishnamurti: Are we facing the fact that one is a (psychological ?) hypocrite ? We are not. We are facing the fact that our life is ( dualistic and ?) contradictory, broken up that's all. But before you react (ethically) to what you see, do you see it actually as it is (taking place ?) ? When I lie, or tell something which is not (totally) so, do I see it? And if I do see it ('live' ), what happens? This is where it (the action of direct perception) is (becoming) important; that is why I am insisting on this. I am confronting a fact: that I have lied; that's a 'fact' - and I am just looking at it without justification, without saying, 'How terrible (of me ?) to lie', or 'I was frightened, therefore I lied' those are all explanations that prevent me from looking at the simple fact that I have lied. So ( in step four: ) when I look (directly) at the fact that my life is contradictory, what is the relationship between the (supervising entity of the ) 'observer' and the (fragmentation) 'thing' he is looking at? If one is looking at the fact silently there is only the fact right?

Questioner: There is always the (central self-) image looking at a (periferal ?) image; in looking at what is the relationship between the observer and the observed, in considering the question, there is always another 'observer'.

Krishnamurti: That's right, that's what I said: am I looking at this fact that I have lied, completely, silently, without the (interference of the ?) 'observer'? Without ( the controlling ?) 'me' interfering with it?

Questioner: Sir, it seems that while one is lying one is aware of it and then something says: it's not really so bad. Then the lie comes out and a justification accompanies it.

Krishnamurti: Yes. When one lies one knows it, and one justifies it. And I am asking, can you look at this contradiction, this lie, this ''whatever it is", without justification, without condemning it just look.
If I am (physically) unhealthy there is pain; can I look at my pain in complete silence?

Questioner: Sir, there is always desire to be free from the pain.

Krishnamurti: That is understood, this is an obvious fact but I am asking something ( which appears to be ?) 'impossible'. If you can go beyond ( or deal with ?) the 'impossible' (challenges ) then you will know what to do with the possible ones. Can I look at anything without the ( screen of the ?) 'image' (making mechanism ?) ? Apparently that seems to be something 'impossible'. Look Sirs, a scientist in his laboratory looks from a very objective, non-sentimental viewpoint; he looks at something (outside of himself) . That is fairly easy (for him ?) , but touch him in his 'core' about his ambition, or his love, or his this or that, then he can't look (so objectively ?) . Are you getting it?

Questioner: Sir, the very word 'lie' contains the condemnation already.

Krishnamurti: No, it need not be a condemnation. Suppose I have just told a lie. I want to hide something which I don't want you to know. I don't condemn it, I say, 'Yes, I have lied', though the word implies condemnation and so on, I don't (have to ) associate it with an (ethical) condemnation. I took 'lying' as an example, to represent (more lively ?) this contradictory life.

Questioner: But I don't feel any contradiction in myself at all.

Krishnamurti: Very good, then it is finished. Then you are a happy man, or woman!

Questioner: But it needn't be so.

Krishnamurti: Ah! That's for you to find out!
Sirs, may I ask another (experiential ) question? Have you looked at anything 'out of silence'? You are looking now at this 'speaker'; can you look at him without any image, just look, not abstractly, or sentimentally, but only 'look' (silently) ; to 'look' means attention, care, affection and therefore to look means ( a communion in ?) silence. Apparently most of us have not done this at all in our life. If you are not silent how can you commune with (your own inner ?) contradictions? Can't I look without a word? The 'word' being ( the inteference of ) thought, thought being the (expression of the active) content (of our contradictory consciousness ?) . Can one look without this content, this word, the (thinking ?) 'me'? Please, it is very important to understand this before we proceed any further, because we can (easily) communicate intellectually, but that doesn't solve any (psychological) problem, that doesn't solve my contradiction or your contradiction. So can we step out of that habit (of verbalising everything ?) and look at this whole existence as a human being, out of complete silence?

Questioner: How can we do it?

Krishnamurti: First of all, is there a 'how'? That is the traditional way of saying, 'Tell me what to do step by step, and I'll follow (try to imitate ?) you and do it'. But I say there is no (silencing ?) system, because practising the system, will not give you ( the authentic quality of ?) silence, right? ( By practising it ?) you make your mind heavier, more ( disciplined ?) in a different direction, therefore it is not ( naturally) silent. So what will you do with this problem? There is no 'how'. You must see that.

Questioner: It happens occasionally.

Krishnamurti: Does it ever happen at all to look at something silently, to be in communion with the thing you are looking at? Can I look at my wife or husband silently, without the image which I have built about her, or about him? You get rather nervous when I put that question, don't you?

Questioner: But I know that I can do it!

Krishnamurti: I said, have you ever done it? Have you ever looked at another without an 'image' not at a stranger, not just at somebody who passes by, but at your wife, husband, friend, your boss, so that you are in communion with that person, who is also (actively ?) chattering, and has got lots of images? Am I asking the 'impossible'? I am, am I not?

Questioner: (In Italian) You have asked us to 'do the impossible'. We don't know how to 'do' this. For me it is impossible.

Krishnamurti: How can I 'commune with myself'? That is, in 'myself' is this contradiction, and the 'entity' who looks at the contradiction is part of that contradiction right? So when the (mental) entity that is looking at this contradiction is himself part of that contradiction, there is no way out. But can there be a (quality of non-personal ?) observation without this entity which is part of the fragmentation? Can't you look at something without all the (mental) circus about it?
(In a nutshell:) If you cannot look without the (interference of the all controlling ?) 'observer', there can be no 'communion' with the thing observed. If I have an 'image' about my wife and she has an 'image' about me, the communication is between these two (self-protective) images; and therefore there is always a 'misunderstanding'; she lives in one world and I live in another ( self-enclosed ) world and we ( occasionally ?) say 'I love you'. But to ( be able to actually ?) 'commune' with her means I must look at her without any ( self-protective ?) image, and I may not (really) want to that, she may be a bore, or I might be a bore to her; so I have this 'façade'. But if I want to commune with these many (inner) 'fragments' which are (in) me I must look at this (all controlling ?) 'me' with all its ( +/- 'controlled' ?) fragments quietly, silently, without any reaction to it.

Questioner. What if what you see is a bore?

Krishnamurti: All right, if my wife is a bore and I have carefully avoided looking at that bore because I have created a (convenient ?) image about her which is lovely, I say, 'All right, keep it'.

Questioner: Are we not full of contradictions because we are placed in contradictory circumstances?

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is what we said .

Questioner: Sometimes I see my husband as he is, without the image. But if I try to make myself look at my husband without the 'image', that is not possible.

Krishnamurti: We are (supposed to be ?) looking at something much nearer, which is in our own mind and our own heart.

Questioner: If a problem is created by thought, if you look at it in silence without thought, then there is no problem.

Krishnamurti: The answer is in ( the silent looking ?) itself.
(To recap:) I realize my way of living is contradictory, (dualistically ?) divided, and I know I have lived that way, with all the pain and misery of it, and I say to myself: what am I to do? How am I to get out of it? And you tell me, don't look at it as an 'observer' (in charge of ?) watching his contradictions, because the observer himself is (originating ?) part of that contradiction. So there is a different way of approaching the problem. That is, to 'look at it silently', and in that quietness some other (intelligent ?) 'activity' takes place which may solve this problem.

Questioner: What do you mean by 'silence'?

Krishnamurti: Don t you know what it means without my telling you what I mean by silence?

Questioner: Full attention ?

Krishnamurti: Don't put it into words yet. In this valley, when you wake up in the middle of the night don't you know what 'silence' is? Except for the noise of the stream there is ( a deep) silence, haven't you felt it?

Questioner: This is a physical silence.

Krishnamurti: So, you know what the 'physical' silence is. You walk in the woods and everything in the evening is very still; you know the physical silence with all the beauty in it, the richness, the quietness, the immeasurable magnificence, the dignity of it you know it. And apparently you don't know what the 'inward' silence is. So you say, 'Please tell me more about it, put it into words'. Why should I? Why don't you find out for yourself if there is such a silence? I may be telling a lie, it may not exist, but you accept (the idea of ?) it. But if you say: I want to find out how to look at my (ongoing dualistic ?) contradiction, because I have always looked with an 'observer' (attitude ?) , and I suddenly realize that the 'observer' himself 'is' (the active part of the dualistic contradiction being ?) 'observed' . So that is something which I have discovered', therefore I won't look that way any more; I am looking for another way of doing it. There is a way (to negatively come upon the ?) looking completely quietly.
Sirs, have you never looked at a flower silently? (The sad part is ?) that you never look at anything out of a full (& open ?) heart.

Questioner: What happens?

Krishnamurti: You see you are always (inclined on ?) theorizing. You always give it a 'clenched fist', don't you?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 #475
Thumb_stringio Jess S Portugal 14 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Krishnamurti: You see you are always (inclined on ?) theorizing. You always give it a 'clenched fist', don't you?

I was looking for something in the book 'Tradition and Revolution' when, just looking through, the following excerpt of a dialogue struck me (it's part of the chapter 'The Observer and «what is»): 'B:«Buddha says what exists is the solitude of reality. You are the result of your thoughts.» P:«They have all talked about non-duality: the Buddha, Sankara, Nagarjuna. But nonduality has become a concept. It has not affected the structure of the mind itself.» (...) S:«If every experience leaves a mark on the brain cells, what is the impact of the state of nonduality, of oneness? Why is a mutation not taking place in the relationship between the thinker and the thought?» P:«Is the mechanism which records the technological, the same mechanism which 'sees, perceives'?» K:«The technological cell, the recording cell and the perceptive cell-» P:«And they seem to form the ego.» K:«The technological and the recording fragment - these two make up the ego. Not the perceptive.» P:«I am including perceiving also. The recording is corcerned with both - the technological and perception.»' What strikes me here is that Krishnamurti says the tools of perception are not the same as those of recording as I understand it, but because Pupil has some idea in mind that she wants to pursue - which I think is the mutation of the brain cells - she completely ignores Krishnamurti's statement and carries on without Krishnamurti correcting her, which ended up in the usual abstration that the observer is the oserved and it's all very well because in our daily life we must make a distinction betwwen what each one of us is and the world around us!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 #476
Thumb_stringio John Perkins... United States 28 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Raica wrote:
- but in the context of a 'thought-free 'meditation it may shed some precious light on some obscure zones.

But 'shed some precious light' for what, quite? Will you say that the 'I' can learn? Or 'see', even?

This post was last updated by John Perkins... (account deleted) Wed, 28 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 #477
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1968 (reader friendly edited)

HOW CAN I LOOK AT 'MYSELF' ?

K : Shall we go on with what we were talking about yesterday ?
First have we looked at ourselves at all? Most of us have not, because we are very proud, proud of our achievements, capacity, opinions, of our experiences, knowledge, we think we are some extraordinary entity, divine or ideological and so on. That is not a 'fact' but merely an invention, but we cling to it. And there is the sense of pride in not (puting aside ?) our accumulated knowledge, experience, tradition. We take pride in that, and so pride prevents us from observing ourselves (as we really are ?) . That's clear, isn't it? Humility is only possible for a mind that is really capable of looking at itself. Can I give up pride in ( the achievements of ?) my family, my nation, in my opinions, my judgment, in the things I have accumulated as knowledge? By dropping pride I can look at myself with great humility. Can we discuss, talk this over together now, before we go further?

Questioner: I feel Sir, that we cannot totally give up our images and motives. We can lessen them or see them, but I fear that we cannot give them up completely.

Krishnamurti: Surely, if I want to look at something clearly or see what is actually going on in myself, then do I (need to ?) have any "image" (about it ?) ? From ( direct ?) observation I can go further, but not if I come to it with a ( ready made) conclusion. See how very important this is, because most of us take pride in our "free will" - perhaps you are free to choose between this colour and that colour the colour of the hat you are going to wear or 'choose' your husband! But ( inwardly ?) is there such a thing as 'free will' (in the sense of the ?) desire to do or not to do, to choose or not to choose. Is there the (possibility that when one is in ?) complete harmony within oneself , one is in harmony with the "Universal Law" ( with the Universal Order ?) then it is not a question of obeying or following, then there is only That ? ( I may have gone a little too far. We cannot go into that unless we can really look at ourselves anew, afresh, so that we actually see what we 'are' (now) .

It's ( my cultural ?) pride that prevents me from looking at myself and it is the same pride that is inventing the ideology which says 'what I should be'. I don't like what I ( see that I ?) am and my pride says, 'I must be that'. This is the ideological (idealstic ?) philosophy which man has invented, the formula, the 'should be'. it is our (intellectual ?) pride creates this conflict between 'what is' and 'what should be', and says: I must be that, this is ugly, this is stupid, this is unintelligent, this is unreasonable. So I put on a ( carefully crafted ?) mask of "what I (think that I ?) should be", and hence there is this 'hypocritical' (self-pretending ?) activity going on. Is it possible to look at oneself without the image of pride? But one has such extraordinary (sophisticated ?) images of oneself haven't you? I am a great writer, I am this, I am that, I am a Jew, a Christian, a Catholic, a Communist, all the ( self-protective ?) images that one has built about oneself. Why? Is it ( just intelectual) pride? Or, have we invested in these images values other than the actual state of one's own being?

Questioner: Isn't this 'pride' caused by fear?

Krishnamurti: Is it our fear that has invented this (psychological ?) 'pride'? Or is it that you dislike what you see and therefore you say, 'I must be better', 'I must be different'. If I'm not afraid of what I (can) see, I won't run away from it, and why should I be afraid of it? I am only afraid of it if I think I should be something else. Right? And that is part of our (cultural) conditioning, that has cultivated this sense of 'what should be', the ideal. If I see this (inner 'bug' ?° , then I must face 'what is'. Then I can look at whatever there is (going on ?) in me the aggressivity , the ( occasional ?) brutality and violence; then I can find out ( experientially ?) what the causes are that have brought this about. Surely that's (sounding ?) fairly simple, isn't it?

Questioner: You have talked a great deal here, and in different parts of the world, about 'self-knowledge'. We want to go into it, and perhaps some of us have gone into it, but what prevents us from going into it much more deeply, and therefore acting differently, is that we may hurt other (people who love us ?) . We may not want to change, not out of pride, but to avoid damaging others.

Krishnamurti: Sir, we are not talking (right now ) about change. We are saying, why is it that we cannot look (inwardly ?) at ourselves. That's the first thing; we'll come to the problem of change afterwards.

Questioner: Doesn't a child create an 'image' of what he should be, because he fears not to be loved as he 'is'?

Krishnamurti: Yes, that may be one of the reasons. But you are not meeting my point. Why is it that you and I cannot face ourselves as we are? Just face it, just look at it. If I cannot look at myself as I am, there is no possibility of change at all. Because by looking at myself as I am, I can find out the (hidden ?) 'causes' which have brought about the aggression, the brutality, the violence all that! Unless I discover the cause of all this - subjectively, inwardly it's not possible to change (radically inwardly ) . ( Our idea of ?) change will be merely moving between 'what is' and 'what should be', and this causes conflict and therefore one changes... to another form of aggression.

Questioner: Is it not because I identify myself with my brain?

Krishnamurti: You think you 'are' your brain. Of course! What you think (of yourself ?) , is what you 'are' : all this elaborate process of (self-) identification, 'you' are that. But please, do come to this ( rather boring ?) essential point first. Is it ( our cultural ?) pride that is preventing us from looking at ourselves? Is it the fear (of inwardly being destabilised ?) ?

Questioner: ( This inner) vision has been granted to very few people, but when we have reached it then we don't have to look at ourselves any more, then we are part of the laws and harmony of the Universe.

Krishnamurti: The questioner says, must we ( diligently ?) examine all this, be aware and see ourselves as we are ? Can't we jump into another state?
You see, that is one of the most ( psychologically ?) 'dangerous' things; that can lead to such illusion. If you will go with the speaker a little we'll go into something which you yourself can understand and have it, live it. But you see, we refuse to begin at the the most essential level which is not really 'low'. Probably we are afraid that if we have no ideals or purposes, we shall deteriorate.

Questioner: How can one express truth?

Krishnamurti: Madame, we are not talking about truth. We will come to that. I can only find out what truth is when there is no illusion, and illusion must exist as long as there is any kind of ( inner ?) conflict.
What is preventing us from looking at ourselves so that we shall know all our ways, our peculiarities? Not to judge, jump to conclusions about others, not impute motives to others. It seems to me such common sense to begin with 'what (one) is'.

Questioner: If we start to really observe ourselves, what we see is so ugly that it's natural not to want to look.

Krishnamurti: Why do you call what you see 'ugly'? It may be that one is very 'sexual', but why do you call it ugly? Because you have the idealistic approach, values, judgments according to some idea. If I (dislikes ?) people, why call it ugly? One is getting caught in using these words with all their content and prejudice; so the (images created by these ?) words prevent us from looking directly at ourselves. I see we are coming to a (major psychological) impasse.

Questioner: I cannot look at myself, there is always the 'observer'.

Krishnamurti: Wait! The observer, as we said, is the word (itself) and is also the (psychological) content of that word - with all its (personal ?) associations has created a design, memories, knowledge, tradition which is me, the ego. The ego, the me, is a set of ( emotionally charged ?) words. And those words are the content of the 'observer', the (personal) memories and so on, and with this ( the background of this active ?) content we look.
Now, (do you ever ?) look without the observer? You do look without the ( screen of the ?) 'observer' when there is a tremendous crisis. Hasn't it happened to you? When there is a great shock, then the very shock, the very crisis makes your (whole mind) silent. Then the 'observer' with all its traditions, words, concepts, becomes utterly speechless, he is paralysed. But when you come out of that shock you begin to go through your old (psychologically safe ?) process again.
See what has happened: there is this 'observer' (mental entity) functioning all the time the 'me', 'my' family, my country, my belief, my opinion, me that is active all the time, and when you experience a (major existential ?) crisis, when a tremendous shock takes place, that 'observer' (part) naturally becomes silent, because the challenge is too big, it's too immense for him to tackle. That ( 'silence' of the observer ?) may last a minute, or a day, or perhaps a year, that is, physichologically you get 'paralysed'. But when you come out of the crisis the whole process begins again. Now, can the same thing take place without a (major ?) shock, without a 'crisis' (situation ?) ? So that there is only looking, without any observer. To look without the observer is silence. Just to look, 'silently'.

May I go on a little more, if one has followed it so far? You know, the mind is always chattering- either chattering inwardly, or outwardly- always talking, indulging in ( the daily ?) gossip, telling about somebody else: "my opinion is this", "why should he do that" chatter, chatter. And this chattering obviously indicates a form of (mental ?) laziness; because you have nothing (else) to do, you talk about somebody else; or you want to express yourself, show others how clever you are. So the mind is never quiet. If it is a fact, can you look at it? Just look at it, that your mind is chattering; don't say, 'Who is the looker?' Know the fact that you spend hours talking, writing letters, giving your opinions, what is right, what is wrong (on the political scene) .
Can one be aware of that not in a complicated way but just watch it? Now, if you watch it, that's a fact isn't it? And just remain with that fact that you (indulge in ?) chattering. You understand? To 'remain' with it means to watch it without any interference of other thoughts coming in. I am very interested to see why I chatter, by myself or with somebody, offering my opinion about this or that.
Now, if I want to find out why I chatter, shall I analyse it step by step and find out the ultimate cause of why I chatter? Or is there a quicker way, so that I see it immediately? Is this clear? One way is analysis, but I say, is there a different way of doing this, which is to find 'the' actual cause and be beyond the cause? By finding out the cause of chattering I might be able to stop it; so, (case a) can I find out the cause by analysing? I can. Which is: I may be lazy, therefore my mind wants to wander. Right? And therefore the 'wandering' is ( manifested in ) the chatter. That's one cause: I chatter because my mind (feels safer if it is ?) occupied with something all the time: with books, with knowledge, with saying 'why did so and so do this', 'this should be done better' -back and forth, because I'm ( subliminally) afraid not to be occupied.

Questioner: Does the occupation of the mind depend upon use of words or language?

Krishnamurti: It may not Sir, I may not use any word at all, and yet I might be 'occupied'. I might be occupied without a word to find out what 'silence' is, or what 'love' is, or what form of government one should have. ( So, analytically-wise ) one of the causes is: I may be lazy; another is I must be occupied. And if I'm not occupied what shall I do? Right? I'm frightened. You understand? The businessman who has gone to the office everyday for forty years suddenly stops doing it; it's going to upset his whole (psycho-somatic) organism. So maybe I'm frightened not to be occupied, because I'm frightened of being alone. Or, I'm frightened that if I don't chatter I will find out what I am. I can go on multiplying the causes. Now, I know some of the causes, but that doesn't stop me from chattering. So the exploration and the discovery of the cause, or causes, of this chattering doesn't stop the chattering because that is just an intellectual process; a fragmentary process. The (intellectual) fragment is looking at the other fragments and is discovering the cause of a certain fragmentary issue. Right? But the mere analysis is not going to solve it.

What will 'stop it' is quite a different approach. It must be. That is, I am (becoming non-verbally) aware that I am chattering. What is the quality of this 'awareness'? In that 'awareness' there is no condemnation, no value judgment at all. So there is a "looking out of quietness" at chattering and therefore it undergoes a complete change. I will talk when necessary, I will not talk when it's not necessary; which means I don't go about with (venting) my opinions, judgments, evaluations. By giving (such) attention to chattering, it has become something entirely different.
( Now, here's the homework:) after you leave this tent, will you chatter? Of course you're going to! Look what happens. You hear something that is real and you go out and do quite the opposite. So there is an ongoing conflict (of interests ?) in you. So you either say, 'this is too serious (and inwardly disturbing ?) ', and never come back, or you (have a flash of insight and ?) say, 'why am I doing this?' I hear this, which is so rational, sane, and yet I go on irrationally (chattering) why? Maybe because it has become a ('steady state' mental ?) habit and the older you get the stronger that habit becomes. I have chattered all my life and suddenly I see the absurdity of it; and not to chatter is going to shatter (or destabilise ?) me you understand?

So to come back to the beginning, can I look at 'myself'? That (my)self being the (mental) entity who is endlessly chattering, evaluating, offering opinions, looking, searching, endlessly. Can I look at myself without a word, without an image, without 'pride'?
That's all. You know, as you sat very quietly just a few seconds ago, there was that peculiar quality of silence, not induced, not a state into which you are 'hypnotized'; you were really looking with great attention, quietness right? ( If yes ?) you have got the (experiential ?) key!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Sep 2016 #478
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

3RD K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1968 (reader friendly edited)

BEYOND THE (PSYCHOLOGICALLY) IMPOSSIBLE

Krishnamurti: I think we have lost the quality of a high level of ( inner ?) curiosity. Man has been very curious, wanting to find out about the phenomenal world, the world which is outside him, and he has been extraordinarily successful, going to the moon, doing astonishing things. But inwardly, though we have evolved from the ape, we have not advanced much.
There is now a vast ( unfolding ?) 'contradiction' in our life between the outer (development ) and the inner; outwardly an enormous advance, and almost no advance at all inwardly. Can we spend some (quality ?) time this morning to find out if there is really a limit to human understanding ? The monks, the 'saints' ('holy' people ?) reject the 'outer' because they say that is worldly, the real life lies deep within oneself. Though man has made such a division (for ages) , is it valid? Can we ask ourselves: what is ( the quality of ?) a life that is not divided into an outer and an inner ? Can we find out what inner Truth is, an inner life which includes the outer?

First of all, why is it that most of us have 'neglected' ( ignored ?) to explore the world of the mind, of the spirit, of the deep inward unknown? We have (collectively assumed that ?) man's understanding is limited and that what is beyond that limitation is 'mysterious', is 'God', is something which we can't explore, which is a mystery. That has been the pet jargon of the religious people. They have drawn a line, beyond which lies (the) mystery (of the Unknown ?) .
We know more or less what is taking place in the outer world there are the selectively 'specialized' brains that have made an examination of the outer world and how to conquer it. But those who have explored the 'inner' (world) , have approached it always with a mind that has already formed a conclusion 'There is God' and drew a line beyond which only a ( selected ?) few can reach the few who are recognised by society as the 'saints'. And obviously they are not 'saints', they just fit into the ( ethical) patterns of what society thinks saints should be, they ( diligently ?) conform to that pattern, so they are accepted as 'saints'.
So can we explore together this (inner) world which man has never really gone into? Except very superficially by the 'behaviour' psychologists. They have described, or explained, how one has inherited aggression from the animal and so on, but they have never explored to find out inwardly, where there is no limitation.
Now, what do we mean by being curious (about these things ?)? What do you think?

Questioner: Curiosity implies a mind that is highly sensitive.

Krishnamurti: Highly sensitive, pliable, sharp, not hindered by ( the static conclusions of ?) whatever it discovers. Curiosity in that sense can only be when there is freedom to enquire not hindered by 'I mustn't'. You see, I really want to know with great curiosity -after having understood and gone beyond the aggressive nature of the human mind, the desire for power, position, prestige and putting them aside, not just verbally but actually, the mind says, 'What more?' Can we start from there? Yes? Now, to be highly curious (in the sense we are using that word), there must be great (mental ) balance, otherwise curiosity becomes another instrument of distortion - like being curious about my neighbour: I am peeping over the wall, but there is always the wall over which I am looking.

Now, ( how) can one observe without any ( psychological ?) distortion? There is a (hidden factor of ?) distortion if I am (a) ambitious, or if (b) I am sexual, or if (c) I am driven by (any other ) pleasure, or by any form of fear. All these, obviously, distort the (inwardly ) perceptive quality. So unless the (meditative ?) mind is (even temporarily ?) free of all these, (our inward) exploration becomes merely another form of scratching the surface. That's why we ought to be very clear in ourselves, whether the curiosity of exploration is born out of freedom, or out of some compulsion, some inward void, fear, anxiety and is therefore an escape. When you have this quality of very intense, high level curiosity, it pushes aside all the other (potentially distorting ?) elements, like ambition, greed, envy. And there will be ( a self-induced ?) distortion as long as there is a (personal) effort to explore, that effort being ( induced even by the altruistic ?) desire to use what you discover for yourself and society in order to gain God, or whatever motive you may have.
Now what do you say?

Questioner: Is not curiosity a motive?

Krishnamurti: Is it? ( As an intelligent human being ?) I want to know what more there is when there is freedom from all the things I have known. That's all. In that there is no ( personal) motive.

Questioner: It is ambition.

Krishnamurti: Is there an ambition of wanting to achieve, wanting to gain an end?

Questioner: No. I want to learn.

Krishnamurti: Is learning ambition?

Questioner: Learning is pleasure, isn't it?

Krishnamurti: I don't quite see why you bring in 'ambition' and 'pleasure'. I said at the beginning, if there is any form of distortion, exploration has no ( deep ?) meaning. Ambition is a ( potential factor of ?) distortion because then I want to succeed, I want to learn, I want to be more powerful, I want to gain, I want to use what I have gained, what I have experienced, to exploit others, to tell others what a marvellous entity I am - all that excludes what we are talking about. Haven't you the sense of delighted curiosity in something? Or is it always accompanied by ambition, pain, anxiety?

Questioner: Is it not a matter of just to 'see' and to 'feel'?

Krishnamurti: No, Sir. ( Take a simple example:) I am getting angry (irritated ?) , and I say to myself, why am I angry? I don't want to escape from (the actuality of ?) it, I don't merely want to verbalize (or process it intellectually ?) - I want to know what is the cause of the anger is, my approach is to find out. And may see that I haven't slept properly. But if you say, 'I must not get (violent reactions such as being ?) angry (since it's not good for my health or my public image ?), and with that motive examine the cause of anger, you may discover the ( immediate ) cause, but it will not bring about an end to ( further reactions of?) anger .
What we are saying is: to explore (inwardly) , you need a scientific mind, a mind that is not ( getting) involved personally. Like the scientist in the laboratory, when he is examining he is not personally involved, but take him outside and he (instantly) becomes an 'American', a 'Russian', with his own fears, or for the ( well being of his ?) family and so on.
Can we have an (inwardly) 'scientific' mind which has understood (the nature of its own ?) anger, fear, ambition, pleasure, and says, 'I know all that, I see the limitation of it, see the dangers of it and I am not going to let it interfere, I am going to be intensely aware whether any pleasure (factor ?) enters.

Questioner: A 'scientific' mind is not only capable of observing but it needs a (working) hypothesis (to organise its observations) .

Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir. but can't one talk simply? Let's forget about the 'scientific' mind.

Questioner: Sir, what you are trying to do is impossible! We are ( inwardly) very limited and also we have a short life, so that our mind is unable to understand.

Krishnamurti: Sir, if you say we are very limited and it is impossible, then (our inner inquiry ) is finished ( before having started) !

Questioner: I understand that. But it is impossible (for the 'observer' ?) to seek and not to distort.

Krishnamurti: Yes Sir, but is it? Even if it is (looking) impossible, then is it not possible to go beyond the impossible? I say: go beyond the impossible, and see what happens!

Questioner: How can one go beyond the impossible if one is limited?

Krishnamurti: Do look, please. Why do you say 'impossible'? When you say the ( self-centred ?) mind is limited, of course it is limited. But when you say 'It can't go beyond that', you ( the knowledgeable 'thinker' ?) draw the line of the impossible. Don't draw that (mental ?) line, don't say it is impossible.

Questioner: There are things we shall never understand, our minds are finite.

Krishnamurti: 'Man can go only so far'. But he doesn't say that when he wants to go to the moon! Man said, 'I will find out how to reach the moon and go beyond' and he has done it. He never said 'It is impossible, I can't do it'. But you see what we are doing? Outwardly we are willing, but inwardly we say 'No, sorry'. So I say, why do you make the inward approach, the inward enquiry impossible? knowing our minds are (spatio-temporarily ?) limited, but being aware that we don't know where the (de)limitation ends. Don't draw the line of limitation just within a very short distance (around yourself ?) you understand, Sir?

Questioner: Aren't there different kinds of possibilities and impossibilities?

(Sound of Thunder)

Krishnamurti: It won't last very long, now shall we try something? Let's keep quiet. Let's really keep quiet see what happens.

[.....Long silence of several minutes. Sound of rain and thunder.]

When you are really silent like this, which means, very sensitive (inwardly) , don't you feel all the rain dropping into you, entering you? you were completely open, weren't you? And you received everything the rain, the noise, the thunder, the beauty of that sound, you were part of it weren't you? And if you hadn't tried it you would say 'it is impossible'. You know, to be silent means to be vulnerable, and that means to be completely, totally open without any (personal ?) resistance, with your heart and mind then you hear the rain with a delight.
Now, let's proceed. I wonder why we say that it is impossible for us to find out anything beyond the ( self-imposed ?) limitation, beyond the feeling we have that it is impossible. And yet we are so eager to accept what others have said about what lies beyond the impossible right? A little guru comes along, or a 'saint' (holy person ?) , or somebody who has had a little ( ESP) experience, and says 'There is something beyond' and we all lap it up! Now why don't we find out for ourselves? Why do we accept others? Knowing the limitation of our mind, the limited understanding because our minds are rather shallow, empty, dull we repeat phrases, platitudes, and think we have understood everything. Knowing all that, is it possible to explore even that very limited mind, that limited understanding? dig under it, above it, so that you find out. But if I ( play safe and ?) say 'My mind is very limited, my understanding is conditioned' that's the end of it. But just to (realise that our self-centred ?) mind is conditioned, shaped, twisted, conflicted, to be aware of it, to know the whole structure and the nature of it, what the causes of it are, surely that is to go beyond (or to transcend ?) that limitation isn't it?

Questioner: Is not astonishment the beginning of curiosity?

Krishnamurti: Don't you know what it is to be curious? Why do you read newspapers, why are you listening to the speaker if you aren't curious? Not about 'how curiosity begins' - the squirrel has to be 'curious' to find out where his food and safety - all this can be observed; but aren't you curious? Just curious ?

Questioner: We see a tremendous necessity to go beyond the impossible now.

Krishnamurti: Sir, each one of you can give a dozen (convenient) explanations, but at the end the fact remains that (inwardly ?) you are not curious. Or your curiosity has a (personal motive or ?) bias, which makes it into a distorting instrument.
(EG: ) I want to find out if I have an 'image' about myself - the 'image' which has been built up ( subliminally ?) by my parents, by the environment in which I was born, by the circumstances, the influences, the pressures of various cultures and so on, (not to mention ?) my own (karmic ?) inclinations and tendencies all that put together has formed an image about myself. There it is: I have a (self-protective ?) image about myself and I shan't be able to hear ( listen to ?) what another is saying if I have an image. The image may be ( based on ?) a (collective ?) opinion; I say, 'I have an opinion that you are this, or that, and when I look at you that opinion distorts'. So I say to myself, `Is it possible to go beyond this ( self-protective process of ?) image (making ?) ? I am just curious to find out what lies beyond this limited image (making mechanism ?) I have surround myself with. Don't you want to know?

Questioner: Yes.

(Long (scanning ?) pause....)

Krishnamurti: You mean to say we are all as 'dead' (inwardly inert ?) as that ? I'll go on. I see this ( proteic self-?) image, how it is formed, what are its causes - wanting security, fear (of the unknown ?) , the influences of society which says you must be different from what you are, and so on. I see the causes of this image. And I want to know what lies beyond; so I must first break (or 'pause' ?) the image (making mechanism) because the image is going to prevent me. There is no (personal ?) motive in that, because if I want to 'see' (what is ) beyond, I must 'go' beyond the wall; so I must pull down the wall. And how do I 'pull down' this ( self-protecting ?) image (-screen) which has thickened throughout years?
So I have got a very complex problem here: to see the causes of that 'image' (making mechanism ?) , the breaking down of the image, and in the very breaking of that image ( for the mechanism ?) not to form (or update ?) another image right?
Now how am I to do? If I make a (mental ?) effort in the very breaking of that image, I shall distort the perception right? So there must be no effort (involved ?) . Effort implies ( a self-centred ?) motive, and our mental habit which has been cultivated through millions of years is to make an effort to do anything. So this is the (experiential ?) problem: can I 'leave it' and just look at it? And who is the entity that is going to 'leave it'? The entity is the image-maker no? The 'observer' is the ( self-protective ?) machinery that is always making (and updating) the (psychological) images.
The 'observer' is this machinery, the 'me' is the machinery that is always resisting itself, and I also know the dangers of the images, I know this whole ( self-protective ?) structure, I am very familiar with it, I know the nature of it'
Now the moment I use the word 'I know' I have limited it. Have you got it? It is like a man who says, 'I know what truth is'! 'I know my wife'. 'I know I have experienced something immense' - then it (the inner exploration ?) is finished!
So when I use the word 'know', I have already limited it. The very ( mental attitude behind that ?) word limits, therefore I am going to be extraordinarily watchful of that word so that it doesn't block me. So when I use the words 'I know the nature and the structure of this image-making machinery, I know the causes of it,' what has happened?

Questioner: ( Several inaudible suggestions)

Krishnamurti: Do please feel your way into it. When I say 'I know' the maker of the image, the entity that says 'I know' is the image( -making mechanism) creating (or updating ?) the (new) image.

Questioner: So, (the 'I' who's saying ?) 'I know' is non-existent.

Krishnamurti: That's right. When you say 'I know', know (or see the deeper truth ?) that you 'don't know'. Do you see the ( experiential ?) importance of this? When I say 'I know the cause' I have fixed it, I have limited it; but when I say, 'I really don't know', then I am open right? When I say 'I know my wife' that's the end of it. It means really I don't want to know (more intimately ?) , I am too frightened to know what she is, therefore when I use the words 'I know', that finishes it, I don't have to look any further. But if I say, 'I really don't know that I know' (do you follow?) I am open, I am much more subtle, I am sensitive, I can look. So in using the word 'know' I am going to be extremely careful (since inwardly any fixed ?) knowledge becomes a hindrance right? Not in the scientific world, but in the world of exploration within. So I will never say (or assume that ?) 'I know'. Therefore the mind is in a ( fluid ?) state of enquiry already. I wonder if you are meeting this? It is only the mind that is full of (self conceit ?) that says, 'I know'. (Pause)

So ( the right attitude in exploring inwardly is ?) 'I don't know'. I know, of course, the image (making mechanism ?) , the causes of it, I am well aware of it, it's (on stand-by ?) there. And I want to find out if there is an end to the this image-building (updating ?) . I won't say it is impossible or possible. When you say it is impossible, you have blocked it; or when you say, 'Oh, yes it is possible' then you are just ( fooling yourself ?) theorizing. Now my mind is very alert (fully awake ?) , sensitive, it isn't going to accept quick answers, it hesitates, it looks. Therefore there is no (need for accepting anybody's spiritual ?) authority. Right?

So I have discovered something (of the highest experiential significance ?) : when exploring into myself, never to come to a 'conclusion' (to a final answer ?) , because that 'conclusion' becomes the (tomorrow's ?) authority; never to say to myself, 'I know this is so', but to be (always inwardly ) open to find out.
I have found out something: (that inwardly ?) there is no such thing as the 'impossible'. When the mind sees there is no such thing as the impossible, it is ( already ?) beyond the 'impossible' right?

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 30 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Sep 2016 #479
Thumb_stringio Jess S Portugal 14 posts in this forum Offline

In her book 'A Vision of the Sacred' Sunanda Patwardhan stated: 'Krishnaji's mind was such that it started, as he said, with not knowing. He then led the investigation with others, watching the flow of the dialogue and analyzing the issue. At some point, an insight would come that thought is an inadequate tool to understand the complexities of the psyche or to investigate into the nature of freedom. Krishnaji once said to me:«A dialogue is very important, for it is a form of communication in which questions and answers continue till a question is left without an answer. Thus, the question is suspended between two persons involved in this. It is like a bud with untouched blossoms. If the question is left totally untouched by thought, it then has its own answer AS PERSONS HAVE DISAPPEARED. At this stage, the investigation reaches a certain point of intensity and depth, where it acquires a quality which thought can never reach.» This is just an example which shows that matter can undergo transformation, because in matter there is energy with a potential that the human intelligence cannot know about in advance. The fact is we don't know the potential of the self that is each one of us and the miracle of its revelation can only come about - as it happens in the description of dialogue just mentioned -when there is 'a certain point of intensity and depth'. Probably it has to do with the wellknown 'quintessence' of our being which lies trapped in the 'wrong turn' pit of humanity.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Oct 2016 #480
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

4TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1968 ( reader friendly edited)

EXPLORING THE 'BREAKTHROUGH' OPTIONS

Krishnamurti: What shall we talk over together this morning?

Questioner: Sir, we are all heavily conditioned, and the ( separating ?) distance between the observer and observed makes us exaggerate the importance of thought. We can see how this conditioning affects the mind. How can we break through this?

Krishnamurti: As we were saying the other day, technologically man has advanced extraordinarily but inwardly, psychologically, we are almost (stuck ?) in a standstill. This ( developments in the ) world of technology and the ( staleness of the ?) 'psychological' state in which man lives most of the time are almost contradictory. Inwardly man being heavily conditioned, aggressive, wanting to express himself at any cost, dividing himself into nationalities, into political parties, religious divisions, and ( outwardly) is willing to destroy (all his environment ?) , by using those deadly weapons he has invented. So, is it possible for us to break this ( invisible inner ?) barrier, (of our self-centred ) psychological limitation?

It seems to me that the whole question of ( free ?) will is involved in this. The (free ?) will that we human beings use, has been developed through attraction and repulsion, through temptation and resistance, and that will has created its own ( dualistic ?) 'principles ' that governs most of us inwardly. You can watch it in yourself, how this "attraction and repulsion", this "like and dislike", this "temptation and resistance", are what we are used to. And ( living) by that principle, there is this quality of ( free ?) will, which we exercise to break down those things that we do not like and (eventually ?) to resist temptation. This law ( dualistic principle ?), has created the divisions between human beings: nationally, racially, religiously; and we (try to ?) rely on this same will to break down the human limitation.
One sees for oneself that the operation of ( self-centred ?) will, as we know it, is very destructive. And is there any other form of law, a universal law, the law of the ( order of the ?) universe? The ancient Hindus and some of ( Christian ?) the mystics sought this Will which is not the will of ( a self-centred ?) resistance. And, can the human beings find it ?
It is not important how our (natural ?) aggressivity has come into being; we don't have to go very far to find out why we are brutal, why we are aggressive, why we are angry, demanding (the recognition of ?) our own importance and so on. One can observe it in the ( social ?) animals, in the higher forms of apes. As we said, we are used to this kind of ( personal) 'will' that must be in contradiction to every other form of will my will as opposed to your will, my will opposed to the community, the will of the the religious person with his dogmas, and in that resistance there is aggression; he is willing to kill for what he calls 'God'. And that will brings about great discord, great disharmony in all the relationships of man which is observable. Such a 'will' (power ?) cannot possibly break down man's limitation, but if there is no such will then how is man to act?
If one understands the nature of this 'will' (power) and therefore the structure of it, is it possible to find a ( guiding ?) law which is not born of resistance and attraction and temptation? Would you like to discuss this? We are putting in different words the same question about how to break through our ( self-centred) conditioning; the observer himself, who 'is' the (impersonator of this ?) 'will', is conditioned. So, how can one get out of this vicious circle?

As one observes within oneself this (self-centred ?) 'will' must always create antagonism, it must always divide, as 'mine' and 'yours'. and must beget division and therefore war, not only the war of outer destruction, but ( an inner ?) war within oneself. And so, not being able to get out of this dilemma, we say: 'I'll wait for the Grace of God, or for some 'outer agency' that will by chance open the window'. And obviously, when one waits upon an outside agency you must have the priest, the ( spiritual) authority, the church. As this ( self-centred ?) will cannot operate except within ( the field of ?) its own limitation, it breeds more antagonism, more aggression, strife and all the rest of it. So ( eventually ?) one begins to ask: Is there a (more) universal law (or order?) , which may solve all these problems? . And if there is such an universal law, how is the mind to come upon it?
You can see when you look at the stars of an evening, there is great order, great beauty, and that very beauty is its own law . There is no disorder, and that order is the very essence of beauty. But ( down here ?) we live in disorder; the whole nature of our society and of ourselves is the nature of disorder - we do one thing with one hand and contradict it with the other. And this disorder is part of this ( self-centred ?) will; so how can this ( ongoing ) disorder be transformed into that great order of beauty, that great harmony in which there is no contradiction, no struggle, no disarray and therefore into an existence in which there is no operation of (personal ?) will which is ( obviously) not the ( Ordering ) Law of the Universe?

Questioner: How can I have that energy which is not born of resistance and temptation, which is ( the personal) will?

Krishnamurti: I think that is a 'wrong' question. We have an abundance of ( inner ) energy but that energy we dissipate in (resisting ?) temptation, in attraction and repulsion, in aggression and so on. We have got energy! Religious people, especially the monks and the sannyasis, say you can canalize this energy by living a 'non-worldly' life , but ( for most of them ?) this is not an actual reality.
We have enough ( potential inner ?) energy, but we dissipate ( or divert ?) it when we chatter endlessly... - I don't have to go into the details of how we waste our energy. But I don't think that is really the question. Here is a problem of great and significant meaning, if we could go into it: our ( self-centred 'free -) will' has created this disorder in a society which is (not different from ?) ourselves, but (occasionally) one can observe an Order that exists beyond the limitations of man. So, how can this ( inner) disorder (come to an ?) end and enter into another ( dimension of universal ?) Order, an order of tremendous harmony, beauty, love, of something invaluable which has its own (guiding ?) laws. That is 'the' question.
So, ( back to square one ?) the world I live in, both inwardly and outwardly is a world of great disharmony; this disharmony and disorder is created by every human being and therefore we have built a society which is also in disorder. When you look at the stars, at the trees which grow splendidly, at this vast world of nature with the sky above, the splendour of an evening, the movement of the stars, there is great order, a (guiding) 'law' which is the very essence of beauty. How is a mind, that is so caught in disorder, to enter into that order in which there is no disharmony at all? There must be 'a way' or rather an 'approach' which must be entirely different.
How will you answer this question? This is your (existential?) challenge, you understand? If you don't (care to ?) answer it, man is going to destroy himself; the ongoing conflicts within oneself and outwardly, the revolts, the endless economic wars, the division of people all that is going on. So you must answer this challenge. How will you do it? (Long (thoughtful ?) silence).

Questioner: Is it sufficient to be free of ( our self-centred ?) will?

Krishnamurti: Who is the entity who is going to free you from will? Please do not put it into such a small (mind) frame!

Questioner: But Sir, in nature there are also many conflicts between animals, cataclysms among the stars and in the galaxies, there is no such harmony as you ( very poetically ?) suppose.

Krishnamurti: Yes Sir, we know that; and ( on the overall ?) there is still harmony. You see, looking at the ( exploding) galaxies, we call that 'disorder', but it may be ( part of a Greater ?) Order!
Sir, have you not known a day, or an hour, when everything went smoothly, when there was no friction, when there was immense delight, bliss in your heart ? There was no 'I' and 'you', no conflict, not the black and the white, the poor and the rich nothing. Have you had a day like that? Have you had a day when there was no (such self-divisive ?) space at all, no 'time'? Don't you know all these things? Oh, you are missing an awful lot.

Questioner: We can know this (time-free) state for a few minutes, but we cannot keep it.

Krishnamurti: When you want to keep it, it is greed; so we are back again in the same old circle. You can't 'keep it'!

Questioner: Sir, it seems to me that even if mankind does destroy itself, that this is also part of the law which you mentioned, is part of the 'beauty of the stars'...I wish to say that I'm not interested in 'saving mankind'. It seems to me that the direct solution is for a person to do what he wants to do, and to really know what he wants to do by letting his (opposing) desires communicate, understand each other.

Krishnamurti: Can opposing desires communicate ? Or is the very nature of desire to create its own opposite? 'I want this house' and in the very wanting of that house is the breeding of a desire opposed to having that house (but a better one ?) . So, Sir, is that the question? I don't suppose anybody wants to save (the whole) 'mankind' we want to save 'man', the (individual ?) human being. And (eventually ?) in bringing order within myself I will bring order around me - perhaps. So the question really is; knowing there is disorder brought about by opposing, contradictory desires, how is disorder to be transformed into order? We'll keep it to the very simplest possible question.

Questioner: How do you discriminate between (the need for ?) 'order' and ( the need for ?) 'organization'?

Krishnamurti: Will 'organization' bring about order? Will organizing everything (rationally) bring about order?

Questioner: Sir, what do you call 'order'? My ( concept of ?) order is not yours!

Krishnamurti: What do you call 'order'?

Questioner: Order is regularity.

Krishnamurti: Wait, wait! To have everything go like ( a Swiss ?) clockwork? To repeat, repeat, so that the habits which you have cultivated are never disturbed, that you are never shaken again? The order of going to the office every day and coming back home. And therefore the avoidance of any form of disturbance, do you call that 'order'?

Questioner: To return to the original question: it seems true that our very desire to have order is itself disorderly.

Krishnamurti: I quite agree, Sir. That is what we are saying.

Questioner: It shows dissatisfaction with things the way they are.

Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir. That's just it!

Questioner: When thought stops there is order.

Krishnamurti: You see that is a (thoughtful ?) supposition. Look, don't you know what disorder is, in your own life? I am not talking of an entity who functions like 'clockwork', does everything automatically (standardised ?) , is never disturbed that's not order. But don't you know what disorder is in your life?

Questioner: Conflict?

Krishnamurti: You dislike somebody, and at the same time say to yourself, "I mustn't dislike". Or you have contradictory desires, you want to fulfil yourself but nobody recognizes your work, so you are in conflict, despair, struggle. Don't you know all this? No? You must be marvellous 'saints'! (Laughter). So you know disorder, don't you? Let's be humble about this. Knowing (that inwardly you live in ?) disorder, what will you do? How will you bring about ( a holistic ?) order- in the sense of not being ( diametrally) opposed to the ongoing disorder. You follow? How will you bring about ( a harmonious ?) order in this chaos?

Questioner: By functioning naturally within the 'universal' laws ?

Krishnamurti: Which means what? The universal law ( of Love ?) says: Be kind, don't kill. But we kill even within our own species. There are these universal laws but apparently we can't (live up to them ?) .

Questioner: First one must see the pattern of one's own ( disorderly ?) existence and then drop it.

Krishnamurti: Is this just a ( guessing ?) game? This is (supposed to be a ?) serious dialogue . We all talk so easily!

Questioner: We return to the question of the 'impossible'. Is it possible?

Krishnamurti: Oh, don't let's go back to yesterday! We'll start anew. There is disorder. We know what disorder is and if I like to live in that kind of (holistically integrated ?) state where there is no problem, there is no saying: 'I must be orderly', because I like (thriving on the ongoing ?) disorder. I like to be aggressive, I like to be competitive, I like to say 'I'm bigger than you and my guru is much more tranquil than your guru.' (Laughter)

Questioner: I live in a world ( governed by ?) 'like and dislike' and I just have to get out of it.

Krishnamurti: Yes Sir. I don't know what you will do with it!

Questioner: We must look at what is going on in ourselves and see the (ongoing ?) contradictions ?

Krishnamurti: Yes Madam, that's what we've been saying. Must we begin all over again?

Questioner: We are aware of disorder. How can we move towards order?

Krishnamurti: How will you do it, Sir? That is 'your' challenge. Won't you say: what are the causes of this disorder? Work out very carefully what causes disorder in your life vanity, pride, and so on and as it is suggested, 'step out' of it! Will you?

Questioner: We can't just 'step out( of it.

Krishnamurti: Of course not but that is what has been suggested: to 'step out' of it. So, Sirs, what will you do! You're going to leave here in four or five days, and you have this ( huge unsolved ?) problem. Society is in disorder and you are in disorder; and you know the causes of this disorder. That's fairly clear. And what will you do? Go back and carry on?

Questioner: One cannot do anything, but there is quite a different state: of not knowing. In that state there is an (insightful ?) seeing, one 'sees'.

Krishnamurti: Yes Madam, I understand that, but that doesn't solve the problem if I don't know how to look.

Questioner: In the state of not-knowing, in that stillness it may happen.

Krishnamurti: But I'm not in that state! I'm living in disorder! Here is an actual state. What am I to do?

Questioner: We don't know the answer, therefore do nothing, there is no way out. Just live from moment to moment.

Krishnamurti: Is this the way you would answer if you were seriously ill, were in pain? Then you would (try to) do something, wouldn't you? Look Sirs, our difficulty is that if we accept disorder as most of us do and live (pretty comfortably installed ?) in that disorder, there is no ( major) problem, there is no (need for a ?) way out. But to me, that doesn't mean anything! I want to find out. I want to live differently I'm not saying you should. I want to live without any disorder in my being, because disorder means unhappiness, misery, confusion, lack of insight and I don't want to live that way. I must find out, I'm curious, I want to go beyond the limits, I'm not satisfied by phrases: 'If I do this, I will get that', 'You should', 'You must not' all this means nothing to me, this is too childish, too immature. So I say to myself: `What am I to do? Is there anything that can be done at all? Because I realize that any action on my part will breed disorder. So I must find a way of acting with equal energy, with equal vitality, with an equal intensity to the energy which has created disorder. I must find out a way of living entirely differently from this. If there is no way, I may just as well commit suicide which most of us do, uncons- ciously not physically. We say, "It is impossible" and withdraw. I don't want to do that. I realize very clearly what causes disorder. The disorder is caused by contradictory desires, by resistance and acceptance, and so on. My eyes are very clear now, because I have watched this. I see everything as it is, and not as it should be; I'm not interested in that. I see exactly what is happening, in me and in society. (Pause) You are waiting..?

Sirs, when you look at the stars of an evening, how do you look? Out of a disordered mind? Or, do you merely 'look'. And to look, you must have a 'full heart' and a 'full mind', not a chattering mind. A full mind is a 'silent' mind and only a heart that is full can see order and the beauty of that (Universal) Order.

Questioner: So perhaps we can discover that man is part of Nature.

Krishnamurti: We have answered this question, Sir. We are part of nature; that is of the animals. They are very aggressive in order to protect themselves, but not towards their own species. Sir, may I suggest something (for homework ?) . Perhaps you will go out for a walk this afternoon, or this evening; or if you are alone in your room, spend a little time over it; find out what it means "to look with a full mind and a full heart", with a mind that is full, and therefore very quiet, like a full, rich, river, with its great volume and depth of water behind it. Find out! And perhaps you will find out how to answer how to be out of disorder.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 01 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 451 - 480 of 547 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.)