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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 451 - 480 of 767 in total
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 #451
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline



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 #452
Thumb_stringio John Perkins... United States 11 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 #453
Thumb_stringio John Perkins... United States 11 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 #454
Thumb_stringio John Perkins... United States 11 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 #455
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 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 #456
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

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


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 #457
Thumb_stringio John Perkins... United States 11 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...


...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 #458
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

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


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 #459
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

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


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 #460
Thumb_stringio John Perkins... United States 11 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 #461
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

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


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 #462
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

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


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
Sat, 01 Oct 2016 #463
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

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


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
Sun, 02 Oct 2016 #464
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

5TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1968 (reader friendly edited)


Krishnamurti: There are three more discussions left. What do you think it would be worthwhile to explore?

Questioner: The first question you asked me when we met thirty years ago was: 'What is it you are seeking?'

Krishnamurti: I would like to put the question the other way round, that is: 'Why do we seek at all?' not 'What are we seeking?' I think these two questions are closely related don't you? Why should I 'seek' ( psychologically ?) anything at all ?

Questioner: Because we are unhappy ?
Questioner (1): We are discontented.
Questioner (2): We have to have curiosity.

Krishnamurti: Please, Sirs, these two questions are quite important, if you go into them. What is it we are all seeking and why should we seek at all? Perhaps in answering 'what' you are seeking, you might answer also the other (deeper) question, 'why' should one seek (psychologically ?) at all?
Let's begin with: What is it that each one of us is searching for, seeking, longing for not only intellectually but (also emotionally ?) with our hearts; what is it we are all wanting deep down, in the very recesses of our own minds? If I am ill, I have to seek a doctor to get well. If I am 'unhappy' psychologically because I don't fit into this society, or I don't get on well with my job, I am also seeking. And if all these things are granted, I am also seeking for something beyond the limits of thought.
So, what category of search are we talking about? It was suggested: I am unhappy, I want to be happy, and I seek, search, long for somebody, some situation, some condition that will give me this sense of well-being, this sense of contentment. Or, I see what the world is, the chaos, the confusion and the misery there, and I want to find an answer to all this. Not merely an intellectual answer through the discovery of the causes and controlling them, but I also want to find out what all this (human existence ) is about, if there is anything permanent, something that cannot be corrupted by ( man's self-centred ?) thought. Or, because one is ( inwardly ?) crowded with ( the residual memories of ? ) so many ( personal & collective ?) experiences, with so much (junk ?) 'knowledge', one may seek a state of innocency, and so on. What is it each one of us is seeking?

Questioner: A state of everlasting bliss.

Krishnamurti: Can bliss be everlasting? Those two words 'everlasting' and 'bliss' may not go together. Is that what you are seeking, everlasting bliss? Won't you get rather bored with that 'everlasting bliss'? Or is 'bliss' something that you cannot seek? Happiness is after all a by-product (of an integrated creative life ?) , something that comes.
So let us find out for ourselves if we are really seeking, or are driven by circumstances to seek. I don't know if you see the difference. I may be seeking something has forced me to seek: because I am unhappy, because my job is not satisfying, I don't get enough money, the everyday circumstances or environment, are pushing me. Would you call that 'seeking'?

Questioner (1): It may be, to start with.

Questioner (2): It may he an escape.

Krishnamurti: I am asking you: what is it that 'you' are seeking you, not somebody else?

Q (1) : Maybe we all experience that there is 'something' within us which is not shaped by our surroundings, which asks us to go forward.

Q(2) : Unconsciously, we are seeking something beyond (the horizon ) , we don't realize it, but we may seek it ( indirectly ?) through ( earning tons of ?) money, and so on.

Krishnamurti: Sir, wouldn't you take a minute or two (of quality time ?) to find out? What it is that each one of us is really seeking? So please be silent, give two minutes to find out. ( Long Pause)

Questioner: ( Deep down ?) I am seeking inner peace.

Krishnamurti: You are seeking inner peace are you?

Questioner: Some people do.

Krishnamurti: Ah! Don't bother about what 'some people' do! You know, there is a tremendous lot implied in that question:
(a) Suppose I want to find ( inner peace) . But how do I know when I have found it? To find something after which I have been ( subliminally) groping and say 'this is it', I must already have experienced it (before) . Therefore when we say 'I am seeking', it means I want to resuscitate something that I have experienced in the past I want that experience or that state of mind, or that joy, to come back, isn't it? So when we say, 'I am seeking inner peace' if one is really seeking it, (which I question very much) I must know what it means, I must know the beauty of it, I must know the 'peace' of it, I must know the way it functions in daily life, and go back to it to live with it, to take delight in it. And to recognise that peace, I must have had a feeling of it, I must have had an experience of it, which means really, I am seeking something which I have known and which has (eluded) me. That is what is implied in seeking and in finding.

Questioner: I understand what you have said, that this way of seeking is to search for something we have already known. But isn't there another way of seeking and finding, without the process of recognition coming into being?

Krishnamurti: It gets a little complex, doesn't it? Let's begin 'simply' (back to square one ?). What is it each one of us is seeking? Do please stick to it (without getting bored ?) .

Questioner: One is seeking what one needs.

Krishnamurti: What does one need? Clothes, food, shelter, (plus) comfort both physical and psychological security, both outwardly and inwardly, (plus) a sense of (inner) certainty, to be free from the fear (of death ?) and so on. Would you call that 'searching'?

Questioner (1): That is not searching, that is 'seeking'.

Questioner (2): A scientist, in his research, may not know what it is he wants to discover, but he has a certain (intuitive ?) feeling, in the same way, perhaps most of us feel there is something intangible we must find, which can't be put into words.

Questioner (3): We are seeking Truth.

Krishnamurti: How do you know it when you find it? How can you say, 'This is Truth'?

Questioner: Because it gives one a ( wholesome ?) sense of pleasure and security.

Krishnamurti: So Truth gives you security, pleasure, satisfaction, certainty does it? That is what 'you' think truth should give you. But it may give us a kick in the pants!

Questioner: I think we are seeking a larger area of comprehension, something beyond the limitations of the horizon which we have. We seek to eliminate such limitations.

Krishnamurti: It is suggested that we are limited and that most of us are seeking to 'break down' (or break through ?) this 'limitation' and go beyond. May I explore this a little bit in words?

Questioner: Sir, how will the 'exploration' that you are going to do be different from 'seeking'?

Krishnamurti: Let's put it this way: there are moments of total self-forgetfulness, total absence of the 'me' and 'mine', of my worries and my loneliness', where one's 'self' -(consciousness' ?) is not active. There are those moments of inner clarity with a deep sense of freedom - maybe that is what one is ( subliminally) seeking.

Questioner: Isn't that also 'knowing' what you are after?

Krishnamurti: That may be so, Sir. But can you 'put your finger' on it and say, 'This is what I am seeking'? You can't, can you? ( Our everyday ) life is much too complex. I mean, if you say, 'This is what I want out of it' you would pick up something very small, wouldn't you?

Questioner: I have been worried about establishing real communion with my wife. For the time being I am still seeking that...

Krishnamurti: Look, there is the whole complex, social, economic relationship between man and man in order to produce clothes, food and shelter for each other . Then there is this vast field of our psychological (battle field ?) with all its contradictions, with occasional flashes of joy, ( but more commonly with ?) a (deep) feeling of our own loneliness, emptiness, of not being loved, and ( the hope ?) of (finding ) love. And also we want an inner peace that is beyond understanding. We also want to find out what happens after death, or what it means to die, and why one is so everlastingly afraid of it. Also one wants to find out if there is anything permanent, 'timeless'. And if one can go beyond the 'known', one wants to know if there is such a thing as Truth, God, Bliss, an (Universal?) Law (& Order ?) which will operate right through our life without any ( interfering ?) action on one's part, if there is (deep down in us ?) something 'sacred', which is not the invention of man. This is the whole complex (challenge) of our existence. And how can I say, out of this vast field 'I want that'? 'I want health', 'I want to feel close to my wife', 'I want to appreciate (or enjoy ?) the beauty of nature, of relationship' and so on. Out of all this am I going to choose a little bit and say 'This is what I want' ?

Questioner: I understand all this, but is there a 'search' without a motive?

Krishnamurti: Sir, do see the ( inwardness of this ?) first question, which is: there is this vast field of Existence, of different dimensions, different levels, different nuances, different feelings, different states (of consciousness) and being caught in all this ( self-centred) activity of hope, despair, pain, anxiety, peace, hate, love and jealousy, can I say, out of all that, 'I want one blade of grass, one petal of this vast flowering beauty of life'? Is it ( holistically ?) 'logical' to say that? That way we would approach the problem entirely wrongly (and getting totally stuck ?) . I don't know if you follow what I mean?

Questioner: We are seeking the 'excitement' (the 'thrill' ?) of life.

Krishnamurti: My God! Must you seek it? It's there!

Questioner: There is one thing that's forgotten in all this seeking, in this vast terrain: that is 'oneself'.

Krishnamurti: That is what I am coming to, Sir. The 'oneself' is (inwardly encompassing all ?) this terrain. Do look at it please, take time, have a little patience. There is this vast field ( of human consciousness ?) I am living in, the contradictions, the demand for ( $$$ & personal ?) fulfilment the 'painters', the 'scientists', the politicians it's there. And that vast expanse is (subliminally unfolded in ?) 'me' ( in 'my consciousness' ?) right?

Questioner: This searching is the very movement of life.

Krishnamurti: Madame, you are not even listening. All this is ( unfolded in ?) 'me' right? This whole field is brought about through 'me' ( through our collective consciousness ?) , and I (conveniently ?) pick out one part that pleases me most, which will give me the greatest comfort - call it Truth, call it Happiness, call it Inner Peace, call it whatever you like. Do I see how ( holistically ?) 'absurd' that is ?

Questioner: By 'seeking', you mean that we are looking for what we've already found ?

Krishnamurti: No, it is not like that. Do look first at how absurd (holistically imature ?) it (my searching) has become when I say, 'I am seeking truth', or 'I am seeking peace', 'I want harmony', 'I want to find God', when all this vast field is extended in front of me right? And I 'am' (my consciousness is ?) that field no?

Questioner: I don't understand when you say "I 'am' that field".

Krishnamurti: Aren't you (inwardly the expression of ?) that field? At one moment I am (feeling) peaceful, the next moment angry, then I want happiness, I want to fulfil myself , I want to express myself, I compete with others, I am aggressive, I am brutal, and (on weekends ?) I want (to find) God - all that is 'me' no? And when I say, 'I am seeking (only something of all this field ?) , that becomes rather absurd, doesn't it? Seeking something out of this vast field which will give me complete happiness, complete safety, complete freedom. So my petty mind (collective ?) , which has created this terrible mess, says 'I want just the ('personally rewarding' package ?) ' no?
Sir, I'll put it another way. I am confused: I see this whole field ( of human existence) in front of me, I see this is my life going to church (or watching football ?) on Sunday morning and cussing the world on Monday morning I am all that. I am (psychologically ?) confused, and out of this confusion I say, 'I am going to seek Truth', right? And ( more often than not ?) what I 'seek' (and 'find' ?) must also be ( fragmented and/or ?) confused. So will a man who sees very clearly ever (need to ?) seek?

Questioner: If a man sees very clearly he will not seek.

Krishnamurti: Therefore don't start with the idea of 'seeking'! First (meditatively ?) acknowledge to yourselves with real humility, that we are confused. And if I really, truly, with all my 'mind' (heart and brain ?) feel that I am terribly confused what do I do? I don't (have to ?) go and elect (the less worse of two ?) politicians, I don't (have to ?) go to church to find out, I don't (have to ?) ask a (psy? ) guru to tell me what to do, because out of my confusion, I will choose a guru who will be equally confused, no? So what do I do when I am confused? I don't 'seek', right?

Questioner: The question for me is, to die to all this ( inner) confusion, to die to my (egotistic ?) 'I'.

Krishnamurti: Sir, do please just 'listen' ( non-personally ?) for two minutes, don't 'accept' it, but just 'listen'. There is this field, and (consciousness-wise ?) I 'am' part of that field, I ( along with billions of other self-centred minds ?) have created this 'field'. I know ( or I am becoming aware of ?) the causes of this confusion, I know the contradiction writing a book (or a blog ?) and inwardly 'hating (or just disliking ?) the world' - which shows me that I am literally confused. I admit (the inner truth of ?) it to myself in all humility, I don't say 'Part of me is not confused, but there is a higher part of me which is not' - the (concept of ) 'Atman' or the 'Soul' created by man out of his confusion, is also the result of that ( generalised ) confusion right? So I am ( stuck being inwardly ?) confused and out of that confusion any action will produce further ( upgraded ?) confusion. When I go to the guru, the best(est) of them and say, 'Please enlighten me', I will accept his (guidance) , because out of confusion I don't know what to do; he will tell me what to do. And I get more and more confused. So I see any 'reaching out' of this confusion is to further the (ongoing ?) confusion. Is that clear? This is (pretty ?) 'logical', sane, rational! So I won't 'seek'. And what I can do now is to (try to experientially ?) find out 'why' I am confused right?

Questioner: Why can't you ( meditatively ?) stay in that confusion and 'wait and see'?

Krishnamurti: That is what I am proposing, Madame. When I ( fully acknowledge that I ?) am confused, I stay with the confusion. Because if I 'reach out', it is an escape. If I don't know what to do, I don't go round trying all kinds of things, that's a waste of time; but let me (sit down and ?) 'look'. I literally 'stay' in that confusion. Can you? Do you ( experientially ?) know what it means to 'stay with confusion'? Do you?

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: What does it mean, Sir?

Questioner: When you don't know what is what.

Krishnamurti: Oh Lord! No.

Questioner: ( Experience a ?) state of inner conflict ?

Krishnamurti: Wait, one moment. My brother, or my son, is dead, gone. Can you remain with that 'fact' consciously, not in a state of shock, but remain with it? See what happens inside you if you remain quietly with the fact?

Questioner: Generally we can't, we are frightened of our confusion.

Krishnamurti: Sir, don't (try to ?) 'do' anything. Here is a great 'fact' - do look at it, Sir : we are (inwardly) confused, and any (re)action (born ?) out of that confusion will only bring further confusion. That's a fact. That's a reality. Remain with that 'reality', just 'look' ( contemplate the truth of ?) at that reality. ( And eventually... ?) find out what happens. All this (unwillingness ?) indicates, doesn't it, that you have never 'remained' (inwardly ) with, something you don't like (to face ?) . You like to hold on to (the continuity of ?) something that you like. To hear this word 'confusion' is rather terrifying ( destabilising ?) and we don't like it. The word awakens an ( unpleasant ?) image, and you don't like (to buy ?) the idea that you are (inwardly) confused, it is most humiliating. To 'you' who have money, position, knowledge, who are a professor, or doctor, to say 'My God, I am confused' is a horrible (uncool ?) idea!
If you 'honestly' - I mean without any sense of hypocrisy- say 'Yes, that is a fact'( worth contemplating ?) , remain with the fact. And to remain with the fact implies a (non-dualistic ?) quality of inner sensitivity in approaching that fact: is the (ongoing) confusion which I see around me and in me, different from the (self-conscious mental ?) 'entity' that is looking at that confusion? ( If the answer is 'no' ?) I am really prepared to enquire (holistically): I won't come to any (verbal) 'conclusion', I won't say 'This is wrong', or 'this must not be'. I am going to investigate (objectively ?) . And to investigate ( in that emotionally loaded area ?) , I must have a quality of (inner) freedom. And this (sense of inner freedom ?) will (eventually ?) come if I remain with that fact.

Questioner: You said before that a confused person should stop seeking and now you start seeking again in another (non-dualistic ?) way.

Krishnamurti: Would you like to know what I really think? Would you? ( Personally ) I don't 'seek' at all. Full stop. Anything!

Questioner: Then in that case you don't (really) care whether anybody understands you or not?

Krishnamurti: What am I to do? I point it out and if you say 'Well I can't understand you', I try to explain it differently ; and if you still can't understand, I go into it again, and... that is the end of it.

Questioner: Then I come back to what I suggested. There is no way out (of that inner confusion ?) since anything I 'do' is (holistically ?) wrong ! (laughter)

Krishnamurti: Look, Sir, there is this (inwardly true ?) 'fact': I am confused. There is a (responsible ?) awareness of that confusion and to remain with it, is to 'be silent' with that confusion. (Long 'silent' pause...)
Don't you find, when you are (remaining ?) 'silent' with that confusion, not trying to do something about it, the confusion ( unfolds and ?) flowers. You know, (it is pretty much like ?) when you plant a 'seed (of truth' ?) and it is growing, one day it will put out a flower; and as you watch it grow, it becomes full of light and beauty and colour and scent. So, there is this ( enfolded ?) 'seed of truth', that man as he is now (inwardly) , is a very confused entity (inwardly fragmented ?) , and he is (individually ? ) responsible (for it since ?) he has made (or actively contributed to ?) this confusion - that is a fact, that's the truth. Let the truth of this fact flower - the (inner) truth that human beings are confused. It will flower, it will show everything (only) if you are (meditatively ) quiet. But if you keep on digging (analytically) , saying 'I must find out', 'There must be a cause" or "I'll ask someone (more qualified ?) to tell me what to do about it", it is like putting a seed in the earth and digging it up every day to see if it is (really) growing.
So when you (wisely ?) plant (such) a seed (of truth ?) leave it alone. In the same way, if you see the truth of this, that the human mind is confused, remain with it in silence; let it (unfold and) tell you, you are part of it, be open, be sensitive, be silent: it will flower and out of that comes ( a timeless ?) clarity

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Oct 2016 #465
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

6TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1968 (reader friendly edited)


Krishnamurti : One sees the limitations of our human behaviour and human understanding; but one may not know where the limitation lies. So how are we going to find out if there is an action that in its very activity does not bring about its own contradiction? You can see what is happening in the (outer) world: there is the whole communal, social relationship between man and man and one observes there is fragmentation. And in one's (inner) life, as a human being, there is this battle of opposing desires going on. Being aware of this, observing this, what action should one take? Is there a (psychologically integrated ?) action that will be true under all circumstances and not bring about confusion, destruction, enmity? If that question is fairly clear, how would you set about finding out? How would you explore?

Questioner : What kind of intelligence can you use?

Krishnamurti: Can one put aside (on hold ?) all the accumulated memories and act differently? Here a problem is put to you, it is a challenge to you. You can't say 'Well, I am sorry, I am not intelligent (enough) but 'I wish I could get rid of my past memories and begin all over again'... That's not (an experientially acceptable ?) answer.

Questioner: If there is a (perceptive ?) precipice between us and the problem, how can we reach over it?

Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir. I understand that. First (try to ?) see the problem very clearly, don't (project) another (mental) image and say 'If I could do this, that would happen'. This is the fact: we live in a world of (psychological ?) fragmentation , each one antagonistically opposing the other; each one has his own particular form of aggressivity, each one has his own fears, each one is trying to live up to an image of what (our role in) society should be, what individuals must be. Now, you may see (or not) this problem ( of inner & outer psychological fragmentation) . If you don't see it then we can't discuss the issue (forever ?) . But if one sees the ( gravity of this ?) problem one must naturally ask this question, it seems to me. So is there a (psychologically integrated ?) action which is not fragmentary, which doesn't breed more confusion, more misery for oneself and for the neighbour?

Questioner: This would be the action of 'real love'.

Krishnamurti: But (supposing) I don't know what this 'real love' is! How do you answer this challenge? Take (some quality ?) time to find out how you will answer this. Knowing that all the professionals political, economic, religious are always thinking in terms of fragments (they may talk about love, universal brotherhood and so on, but actually these are just (convenient ?) formulas, not realities in their life; you cannot depend upon them. So there is a challenge which 'you' have to answer (personally ?) .

Questioner: Sir, if you really look without ( the mentality of ?) an 'observer', the images will fall away and proper action will be indicated.

Krishnamurti: That's not an answer is it? 'If' the images go away, the right action will come. But the ( sticky 'self- ?) image' doesn't go! What am I to do, confronted with this issue? May I help a little?

Questioner: First, I have to see the question very clearly.

Krishnamurti: Don't we? And when you are driven into a corner to answer it, you have no ( ready made ?) answer, you say 'Well if you do this, that will happen'. The problem is clear, isn't it? Now, what am I to do?

Questioner: Deny all that ( psycho-mentality of fragmentation ?) and move away ?

Krishnamurti: To 'deny' what does that mean? I deny all this, but I have created all this! As a ( 'generic' ?) human being, I have produced this chaos in the world. When the house is (already ?) burning you don't talk about the colour of the person who started the fire, what kind of hose you are going to use, what kind of water it is. To me it is an urgent problem not a superficial problem but as vital as the demands of sex, of hunger, to get rid of pain. But here there is no 'doctor', no ( Nobel Prize ?) 'philosopher' who is going to answer us. So the first thing I have to do is to explore how to 'answer it rightly'?
First of all I must have a mind that is not (ideologically ?) 'prejudiced'. You understand? To be (personally) involved in all this (exploration) but not 'committed'. Therefore the (previous ?) first thing I am going to find out is whether I am (ideologically ?) 'committed'.
Now, either you are, or you are not ( feeling personally ?) involved. If you are, you get out of it, or remain in it. One must be terribly honest in all this, otherwise it leads to 'hypocrisy'. And it is for each one of us to answer that question. The speaker has none, that is obvious, he has been at it for forty-five years, shouting about it!
Then am I ( subliminally ?) afraid of giving up the 'old'? Even when one loves new ideas, new ways of life, new buildings, one is ( sub-consciously trying to ?) 'stabilize' the new which (in time ?) becomes the old, and is living in it. That is what is called 'progress'. So am I doing that too?
This is ( a matter of ?) actual 'meditation' because we are penetrating (live ?) into the whole structure and nature of our thinking, our feeling, our activity.

Again, I don't judge it, I am just observing the phenomena that are going on outwardly and inwardly. And I see there is no (authentic ?) morality at all in society. All the social morality is based on 'respectability' - hold on to what you have, be competitive, seek status, position, power; all that has become accepted as highly respectable and moral. I see that I can't be (inwardly ?) moral along those lines. Therefore there may be a different kind of morality. To find out a different kind of morality I must completely deny ( the psychological implications of ?) this social morality - wanting to become somebody, with the (valuable ?) little knowledge that we have, or wanting to sit 'next to God' specially at his right hand! So can I actually deny this whole ( socially induced ?) structure of pride, so that my mind is very clear inwardly ?

So I am now ( in the position of ?) learning about myself and that 'learning' must be immediate. I must see (the truth about ?) all this immediately. When the house is burning you can't say 'I will lay a pipe', you must find water immediately and act. And our ( Human Consciousness ?) 'house' is burning. So can I see the truth of all this instantly and therefore act instantly? To (inwardly) have no (personal ?) enmity, no grudge, no aggressivity, and therefore to have a mind that is highly sensitive and intelligent, a mind which in the very freeing of itself from all these contradictory fragments has become highly sensitive and intelligent. And it is this (quality of compassionate ?) 'intelligence' that is going to act (holistically ?).

Intelligence is something different from (a brilliant ) intellectual capacity. You can't go to college to learn (mechanically ?) about this 'intelligence' by passing degrees and writing ( test) papers. This intelligence comes into (one's inner ?) being, not through time, but through a direct (non-verbal ?) perception, observation, seeing actually 'what is (going on ?) ' both outwardly and inwardly; how the inner (fragmentation is ?) creating the outer. It is fairly obvious how the inner creates the outer: the inward ideology of any "-ism" communicated to others through various kinds of propaganda, through oppression, through all the 'horrors' that occur.
( The action of compassionate ?) intelligence is not ( on the level of ?) conceptual thinking and in its (clever ?) expression through words; but ( the action of this ?) Intelligence is ( manifested in ?) the choiceless awareness of what 'actually is', and seeing what is my ( 2-way ?) relationship to the world, which I as a human being have created (or supported ?) ; to actually see it in my life: my everyday activity, my thoughts, my conservatism, my fears, my 'love of the new' which becomes acceptance, and so on. It is observing and watching the (truth about the ?) 'facts' of that life by (directly) looking at it; and out of this (quality of direct ?) observation the mind becomes highly intelligent. It is this (integrated ?) intelligence that is going to answer non-fragmentarily, as an action which will be right under all circumstances. It is this (quality of compassionate ?) intelligence that is going to act, not a formula, of what action should be. Are we communicating with each other?

Audience: Yes.

Krishnamurti: I am not at all sure !

Questioner: Sir, there is a 'practical' problem. We are listening to you with our ( self-locked ?) minds. Occasionally we are watching what happens, but the (self-centred ?) mind keeps cutting in. There may be a moment of (clear) perception, but then we are back to where we were (to the self-centred 'home position' ?) .

Krishnamurti: I understand. The question is very simple. I see for a moment very clearly and at that moment I may act (accordingly) , but (on the long run ?) the old habits, the old traditions come back and I'm feeling lost. Are you 'lost' (in confusion ?) when you see something dangerous when you see very clearly a bottle marked 'poison'? ( Being aware of the potential danger ?) even in the dark you are very careful, aren't you?
You see, it is not ( a matter of ?) how the ways of the past can be 'resisted', but rather to see very clearly what (its psychological danger) is, and your relationship to it. It is when we don't see ( its potential danger ?) very clearly, that the past comes into being and smothers us.

Questioner: Yes, this is the problem.

Krishnamurti: Ah! Don't make it into a 'problem'! We have already got so many (material ?) problems, don't add another one to them.
( To recap:) I see something very clearly and act, and then the ( active memory of the ?) past comes as a tremendous wave and smothers everything. I can see (analytically ?) why the ( stand-by memory of the ?) past acts ( or interferes ?) so imperiously: because there is ( the cultural) inheritance, the ( psycho-somatic ?) 'laziness' of my mind, the ( subliminal ?) acceptance of things as they are, because I am frightened and so on; it is fairly easy to find out why the ( stand-by memory of the ?) past is so powerful. Leave the ( weight of the ?) past alone for the time being. What is important is to see the past very clearly, which means to have ( the mind's ?) eyes that are always looking to find out.

Questioner: Is it a question of the (mind's ?) 'eyes' being there already, or do they have to be developed in ( the practice of ?) meditation?

Krishnamurti: What do you think? Don't answer, take time. Are the ( mind's ?) eyes there already to see very clearly? Or are those (inwardly perceptive ) 'eyes' to be cultivated? What do you think?

Questioner: Maybe they are (inwardly ) 'blindfolded' ?

Krishnamurti: The same thing. Will you gradually evolve so that you see very clearly? Is there (enough ?) time (left ?) to evolve? With the atom ( A&H ?) bomb, with the ( ticking 'time-bomb' of the ?) exploding world population, with the threats of war, the hatred, the jealousies, the personal ambitions, you know all that is there time? Would you say when the house is burning, 'Through time I must cultivate the ( bestest ?) technique of putting the fire out'?

Questioner: Sir, when one's action springs from intelligence, does the word 'action' imply a (driving) force of conduct, or does each step in such action occur independent of every previous step? In each step is one acting from intelligence independent of prior steps?

Krishnamurti: Is this intelligence separate from the past activity, from the past limitation, from the past confusion? Well Sir, you will answer this question when you grapple with the (time ?) problem, which is: is there time now, with the population increasing, exploding, which is leading to more aggression? I don't know if you realize that. The more crowded the cities and the countries become, the more aggressivity there is going to be, more destruction, more revolts; and there is the threat of war. Each country is preparing instruments of incalculable destruction against the other; and ( at the same time ?) there is (the ongoing inner?) confusion, there is misery, sorrow in our hearts. Is there time (left ) to say 'I will spend a few days to cultivate the capacity to see (the gravity of all this ?) What kind of ( upper middle class ?) people are we? When the house is burning we say 'Let it burn, I'll take time'.

Questioner: It seems to me this would be acting out of a ( social ?) 'motive'.

Krishnamurti: I took that as an (in class ?) example. Don't run the 'motive' (routine ?) to death. What we have said just now is very clear. Is there ( a lot of ) 'time' (left ?) ? Or, do you see ( the truth about these ?) things instantly and act instantly on what you see? I wish you would go into it (for homework ?) .

Questioner: Even to answer it now will take a little time.

Krishnamurti: Sir, please do listen. We say, 'I can't see very clearly, the ( psychologically loaded memory of the ?) past is much too powerful, therefore I must break it down slowly' and so you need time through which to cultivate (a quality of direct ?) perception. Do you see anything through time? Do you see clearly through the process of cultivation? Or do you see things instantly?

Questioner: Can we help other people to 'see' clearly?

Krishnamurti: Oh, lovely, lovely! When I don't see clearly myself, I want to help my neighbour to see clearly!

Questioner: Does this (intelligent ?) energy, which you talk about, come into being when the ( dissipation of our ?) energy which comes through contradiction ceases?

Krishnamurti: We have ( a lot of ?) energy (derived) through contradictions, through self-aggrandizement, egotistic activities there is endless ( dissipative ?) energy involved in that. And we are talking of a (quality of non-dissipative ?) energy which is not of that kind, which is of a different dimension. How does one come to it? Only when I see that this contradictory (fragmentary self-centeds ?) activity, which creates its own (strongly motivated ?) energy, is making a perfect mess of the world, outwardly and inwardly. I 'see' (the actual ?) truth that! And the very seeing of the wastage of that energy is ( triggering ?) the (awakening of the ?) 'other' (timeless ?) energy.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Oct 2016 #466
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

7TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1968 (reader friendly edited)


Krishnamurti: What shall we talk over together this morning?
Questioner (1): Could we talk about the quality of our looking and seeing?
Questioner (2): Could we discuss the religious mind?
Questioner (3): What does it mean to die every day to everything?
Questioner (4): Could you go into the question of order and education?
Questioner (5): Maybe we could discuss authority.
Questioner (6): What does it mean to be serious?
Questioner (7): Can we speak about discipline?
Questioner (8): Can we discuss responsibility?
Questioner (9): What to do when we are back at home?

Krishnamurti: I wonder if we should take up this question: what is the quality of seeing? And perhaps we could combine it (holistically ?) with the question of authority, discipline, the religious mind and what we shall do when we go back home. I wonder what you call 'home': the ( safety of your ?) house, the little garden if you have one, the accustomed things, the usual worries, the habits, the sexual satisfactions, the office and the daily routine is that what you call 'home'? That is rather an interesting point, isn't it? We'll come to that too.

What is the quality of ( an insightful ?) 'seeing'? First, when we see with our eyes, (the visual perception), do we actually see , or is it the ( active interface of our ?) memory , the images, the conclusions, that 'sees'? When we ask this question: 'what is the quality of the mind that sees', do we merely see with the (physical) eyes, or how do we see the object, which awakens a series of (mental) associations, memories, incidents, pleasure and pain and so on?
To discover for oneself what it is to 'see' what is actually taking place one has to have a certain quality of (inner) discipline, hasn't one? Is one seeing only with the eyes, or is one seeing through a ( mental) screen of words, the words which awaken the (active ?) 'content' (of memory ?) and so on. To be aware of whether you are seeing the object you are looking at only through the eyes, or through the ( fire-wall of our ?) many associations that object evokes, is the beginning of (inner) discipline. (Eg:) To look at this microphone I must pay attention to it, look at all the details, the network, the metal, the wiring; to look at it with attention is already the beginning of ( perceptive ?) discipline. The very interest to look brings about the necessary discipline to observe. Discipline is not something (imposed from) outside of you, to with which you conform, or to which you adjust yourself. So we have disposed of that whole idea of (a self-imposed ?) discipline in which there is (implied psychological ?) authority.

When we look at something, either we look with ( our mind's ?) eyes that are very clear, or we look with the (self-protective ?) 'image' ? How do you look at a tree, at a cloud, at the lovely morning-light, or your neighbour, or the politician, or your wife, your husband, your children how do you look at them? Is it possible to look at yourself without any image? Is it possible to see very clearly if there is any form of fear? Is there any clarity of perception when I am thinking conceptually? When one observes one's beliefs, dogmas, conclusions, one realizes that as long as one has those ( mental) 'screens', those hindrances, those distractions, it is not possible to see very clearly. If I 'like' you, or if I 'dislike' you, I can't see very clearly what you are.
So, we are asking: is it possible to see without the ( self-protective screen of the ? ) 'image'? This is one of the most complex (experiential) issues, because we are (our brain is ?) storing up every conscious or unconscious experience. Every experience is leaving a ( psychological ) mark, a 'conclusion' an (experiential) 'knowledge'; and with this knowledge (of the past) can I see anything new ? Or when I do see something new, I twist it (put a personal spin on it ?) to suit my own particular idiosyncrasy, my own particular conditioning. I don't know if you are following all this?
So the question is: is it possible to be free from these thousands of ( micro- ?) experiences that are pouring in all the time free in the sense that they don't leave a mark? If I say 'I know', won't that assertion, with all its (implicit ?) aggressivity, fear, sense of (my personal ) power, authority, prevent me from looking (directly ?) ? And can one be(come ?) aware that ( all daily ?) experiences do leave a (psychological ?) mark, and in the very observing can one see (pay attention ?) that they don't interfere? Is this also possible when I am emotionally attached to something?
Seeing all this (intricate inner complexity ?) , one asks oneself, what is the nature and the quality of seeing, that is not clouded by the past? Can we go into it?

( Suppose that ?) one has lived seventy, forty or thirty years and one has gathered lots of concepts, many memories of youth, of the pleasures and the delights of sex, one has struggled, got a job, fought one's way through this (ultra competitive ?) culture from schooldays until now. That is the ( stand-by memory of all my ?) past, that is the 'me'. The 'me', the 'I', is a word with great ( psychologically active ?) content, within a (dynamic mental ) framework which is always reshaping itself. And through that 'frame' (of mind) I look and ( conveniently ?) distort everything.
Can I look at the movement of life without all those ( psycho-?) accumulations, which are actually the 'me', the 'I', the 'ego', the self-centred ( mental ?) entity. That is the (1000$ experiential ?) question, isn't it? Can one 'die' to ( the psycho-memories of ?) yesterday and be new, fresh, innocent today? It is only ( this quality of inner ?) innocence that can see very clearly, isn't it? And it is 'innocent' not because it is naive, but because it ( the brain ?) has understood what it means to look clearly and therefore can die to everything that it has 'known'.
Please let's talk it over together. Can one do that? If one doesn't, one is never free, one is doomed, one is caught in a rat-trap, going round and round in a ( vicious ?) circle. So can we do it?

Questioner: The mind is never quiet.

Krishnamurti: Sir, look, we have posed a question, it is an (experiential) challenge. Before you can answer it, there must be an interval ( a space ?) between the question and the answer. In that interval either the mind is quiet to look, or is ( actively) searching to find out the 'right' answer. So what can one do (in this 'space' ?) ? Be quiet, can't one? This is a new challenge, and if you don't understand the whole implication of it; you can't immediately respond. You say: 'let me look, let me listen to that question very quietly, very attentively', and to listen attentively you must give your heart and mind to listen to that question. And then you say, 'is it possible to die, to put aside everything that one knows?' You don't ( have to ?) die to the technological knowledge, the knowledge which is necessary for practical purposes - for going home, for the office (work) you can't die to that. A scientist can't 'die' (totally let go ?) his vast accumulated knowledge. But we are talking of the ( residual ?) knowledge that one has gathered 'psychologically', which has become a form of ( virtual ?) security, which prevents one from looking (with innocence ?) . Is the question clear?

Let's approach it differently. What is love ? Is love (based on ?) the remembrance of pleasurable things and holding on to them - with its (related ?) resentments, temptations, aggression, defence? What do you say? Is love part of jealousy, hate? Have you gone into the question of 'hate' (of dis-liking ?) someone who has done you harm and you ( love to ?) 'hate' that person? Hate is ( a response of our psycho- ?) memory isn't it? Over five years, or two days ago, someone has done me harm; I remember that hurt, that wrong, and I keep on thinking about it. Hate is the (emotional response of that ?) past (incident) right? And is 'love' (rooted ?) in the past? Is love a thing of the intellect? Don't say 'Oh no, it is not, it is of the heart'. If it is 'of the heart', why is there jealousy, envy, division, separation and so on, which is the outcome of ( a dominating ?) conceptual thought ? So for most of us 'love' is (a sentiment mixed up with ?) pleasure, accumulated by thought, given continuity by thought and when that pleasure becomes thwarted, blocked, it turns into jealousy, hate, aggression, fear and so on which are all part of the structure and nature of thought. And can the mind 'die' to all that?

Suppose you have 'insulted' or 'praised' me: I look at it, I listen to what you say very closely, give attention it may be true, or it may not be true. I also see there may be a motive behind that insult or flattery, and I see the truth of it. Can the mind be awake to all this? The mind cannot be awake to all this if it is 'put to sleep' by its ( comforting memory of the ?) past. So, can one 'let go' ( one's psychological dependency on ?) the 'past' happily, easily, without any struggle, just to 'let it go'?
You know, in that (inner) silence when there is beauty and love there is no touch of the past.
Am I talking to myself, or are you being thoroughly mesmerized (by these 'magic' words ?) ?

Questioner: Love is something unknown.

Krishnamurti: Is it? Don't you love your wife or husband, your family? Don't you love your country - the 'country' being the bank account there, the accumulated knowledge, your house, all that don't you 'love' it?

Questioner: That's not 'love', that is contaminated.

Krishnamurti: But don't you like to say 'I love my wife' ? Are we playing games with words? You see, one of the difficulties is, that we don't want to face things as they are. We are so frightened, and also we have no humility to actually see the 'what is' in our life.

Questioner: There is an element of the past in love, one loves someone who is dead as if he were present.

Krishnamurti: This is a very interesting question. Once a lady came to see me whose husband had died some years ago, and she said 'I would like to meet my husband again'. Please listen to this, and I said, 'Which husband do you want to meet? The one who slept with you, the one who went to the office and did what he was told, the one who was frightened? Whom do you want to meet?' (You answer it, please!) Now, our question is: someone is dead, and I love him in the present. What is it you love in that person, in the present? I am not being cruel, I am just looking at facts.

Questioner: You love the memories.

Krishnamurti: Is that it?

Questioner: Beyond all this ( memory stuff ?) we have (access to ?) a 'wider consciousness' (from which) 'something' comes and maybe that is the real thing.

Krishnamurti: Is that the 'real' thing? That through all this (holistic ?) perception something comes to us? Maybe, Sir.
When we say, 'I love', is it the memory of that person, the attachment, the pain, the pleasure, the joy, the companionship, the tenderness, that quality of deep relationship that he or she brought into my life all that is the memory of that person and I love that person. Is love ( based on our emotional ?) memory? Is love (related to ?) time? That is, I love the yesterday's memories of my wife ? So one asks: is love of time ? The 'past' and the 'future', with their (associated) memories, with their hopes is that love? Is love made up of (our thinking in ?) time?

Questioner: Isn't it possible to have a creative ( psychic ?) relationship with someone who is dead, because he or she is seen without the conflict of the living relationship?

Krishnamurti: Is it? I didn't have it when he was living, but now I am going to bring about a 'creative relationship' with him - how sad it all is, isn't it? We live ( safely asleep ? ) in 'ideas', ( mental) concepts, formulas, and we don't know what love is.
So we are asking: is it possible 'to see with love'? To listen (with love ?) is the same thing as to see (with love) , in this (inward ?) sense. Is it possible to see and to listen with that quality of mind that is not burdened with the past, with that attention which is ( the natural expression of ?) love? Is it? If it is not possible, then there is no way out of our vicious, deadly circle. Then we are caught (in the 'clutches of time' ?) . And (comfortably installed ?) in that 'prison' we talk about freedom, God, love, truth, but it has no meaning; that is mere pretence, and thereby we cultivate ( psychological ?) 'hypocrisy' (wearing convenient masks ?) and 'pride'. What has 'love' to do with all this?

Questioner: It seems to me, that when we say we 'love', unconsciously we are considering the ( memories of the ?) past. Our attachment to our wife, our friends, our home and country is to something we know and so we are afraid of the future. We are attached to what we know, because we are afraid (of the unknown ?)

Krishnamurti: That's right. You are saying: my 'love' is ( based on ?) the attachment (on the dependency ?) to my family, to my home, to my precious memories, I am afraid to let go, because in letting go I may find I am lonely, and there is (a subliminal ? ) fear. And so the fear of ( the potential danger of ?) loneliness prevents me from being free from ( my psychologically addictive ?) 'attachment'. I may try to cultivate detachment, which is a clever (mind) trick, because I can't let go of attachment, being afraid of my loneliness, of my emptiness, of my incapacity to look at anything with a quality of freshness. So I cling to everything ( I know) , to my money, to my job, to my beliefs, to my gods, to my experiences, to my family, to my country oh, don't you know all this?

Questioner. There is another question, Sir. The things I cling to, do I really know them, or only think I do?

Krishnamurti: That's right, Sir. I cling to my house, I am attached to that house I am ( the memory of ?) that house! So when you are attached to your furniture - my God! just think of it! - you 'are' the furniture, you 'are' the pictures, you 'are' the (memory of all the ?) things that you are getting attached to, and ( spiritually ?) that is worthless.
(In a nutshell:) The (central) problem is, how to 'see clearly' so that there is this flowering of love. You know, without (inner) love and beauty there is no Truth, there is no God, there is only a ( social) morality which (in time ?) becomes (more and more ?) immoral.
So you are going back home; what are you going to do there? Do you go back home with a fresh mind and a full heart? Dreadful things are happening in the world, and (consciousness-wise ?) we are all part of that. Can you leave all this (psychological ?) chaos and flower anew?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Oct 2016 #467
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

1ST PUBLIC K DIALOGUE SAANEN 1967 (reader friendly edited)


K: I think we ought to be clear what these so-called discussions are. They are a dialogue, a form of conversing seriously together about problems, going into them not only analytically, carefully, but also seeing ( experientially ?) the whole structure of each problem: not merely the details of it, but its whole form and content. As this is an (open ?) dialogue between you and the speaker, we ought to be 'vulnerable' to everything that is said, not rejecting anything; so that one begins to be very sensitive, alert to the ( inwardness of the ?) problem itself. If this is somewhat clear, what shall we talk about?

Questioner (1): I don't quite understand the phrase, 'a light onto yourself' ; and also 'having no challenge' related to experience.

Questioner (2): I wonder what is the 'right' use of our f( mental) aculties? You said during the last conference that even art and science as well as financial or political activities may be an 'escape'. What can we do with our faculties which won't be an escape from actual life itself?

Questioner (3): To understand violence one has to understand also the fact of loneliness with its hopes and fears could we go into this?

Questioner (4): Could we discuss the problem of having a goal in life, an aim and purpose and not being conditioned by it?

Questioner (5): What is 'right action'?

Questioner (6): Could you go into the question of identification with regard to feeding the ego?

Questioner (7): What is thinking?

Questioner (8): Could we have a purpose in life without being conditioned?

Questioner (9): My question is also about motive - there is a school which is being started in Santa Barbara and I have a problem - about the motivation of being completely passive. I don't do anything; I just respond to the immediate situation - but there is the question of one's motive.

Krishnamurti: So which of these problems that have been raised shall we take up and go into completely?

Questioner (10): Maybe we can discuss what are the 'fundamental' questions?

Krishnamurti: That's what I was going to ask. What is a fundamental question? For instance, (such ) a 'fundamental' question is this question of violence (and is related to) the problem of being ( inwardly) vulnerable because any form of (psychological ?) resistance is ( also a form of ) violence. We see so much violence in the world today and I want to understand it. Are the roots of this violence 'out there', or ( 'in) here'? If they are ('in) here', then we are questioning violence in itself, as it is ( occuring ?) in me, and which expresses itself outwardly? Therefore, I am (inwardly) vulnerable to discover ( for myself) the truth of it. But if I'm merely examining the (ongoing ) violence outside me, the question becomes of academic interest. So when we put all these questions, are we relating them to ( what we see within ?) ourselves?

Questioner: So, instead of asking the ( academical ) question 'what is violence?', the fundamental (experiential ?) question is 'why am I violent?'

Krishnamurti: It comes to the same thing, Sir. Why am I violent and do I know the nature of violence, do I know what is implied in that violence?Therefore, if we are (experientially ?) discussing violence I must be completely vulnerable (inwardly) , I must 'expose myself to myself' and I must be in a state of mind which demands that I see this thing right to the end, and therefore be vulnerable right through: at no point do I stop and say, I won't go any further. If we could so discuss, go into this, it would be really extraordinary. So shall we take ( this question of ?) violence? Yes?

(Chorus of approvals) Now, 'why' do you want to enter into that subject?

Questioner : Because I realise that we are violent, I am violent.
Krishnamurti: I have experienced 'violence' as anger, violence in my sexual demand, violence as hatred creating enmity, violence as jealousy, and so on - I have experienced it, I have known it. And I say to myself, I want to understand this whole problem of 'aggressivity' in man ( which exists in animals of which we are part). Now, there are two schools of thought; one says 'violence is innate in man; the other says 'violence is the result of the social or cultural structure in which he lives'. We are not discussing academically to which 'school' you belong to. What is ( experientially) important is that we 'are' violent and whether is it possible to 'go beyond' it? Now let's proceed. I (realise that psychologically ?) am violent - right? Now what do you mean by that word 'violent'?

Questioner: Hostility ?

Krishnamurti: I know, Sir, aggressiveness. But how do you know when you are violent?

Questioner: When I can't get what I want ?

Krishnamurti: Sir, just a minute, let's begin very 'simply' - we all know ( the reaction of ?) 'anger' or 'irritation'. Would you call 'anger' (a reaction of our innate ?) violence? You would, wouldn't you? Now, there is 'righteous' anger and 'unrighteous' anger. When my wife or sister is attacked I'm 'righteously' angry; when my property is taken away from me I'm 'righteously' angry, when my ideas, my principles, my habits, are attacked I am ( getting really ?) angry. So, when we talk about anger is there a 'righteous' anger, or is there only anger? ( Experientially wise ?) there is only anger; not 'righteous' or `unrighteous' anger - right? We have all experienced that; you say something to me which I don't like and I get angry; or, you take away the money, the substance on which I have lived, I get angry; or, my wife runs away with you and I get jealous - that jealousy is 'righteous', because ( I like to think that ?) she is my property. (Laughter) No, no, Sirs, please, don't brush it away by laughing. That is justified legally and morally, in the Church and so on. That is justified. To kill for my country is also justified legally. So, when we are talking about anger, which is a part of violence, do we look at anger in terms of righteous and unrighteous anger, or do I see my anger (as an inherited violent response ?) Now, how do I look at anger?

Questioner : It's (a part of ?) me.

Krishnamurti: But how do you 'feel' about it?

Questioner: I want to protect the 'me' and what I think it belongs to me....

Krishnamurti: Therefore, it is 'righteous' ?

Questioner: It is never righteous, but it is.

Krishnamurti: The moment I protect an idea, the family, the country, the belief, the dogma, the thing that I hold - as long as I (try to) protect it, that very protection indicates ( a potential ?) anger. I don't know if you see this?

Questioner: My violence is ( implicit in) the energy to get something.

Krishnamurti: Yes Sir. Violence is part of this drive to acquire. But for the moment, Sir, we are trying to go into this ( experiential ?) question of 'anger' which is part of ( our animal heritage of ?) violence. How do I regard anger? How do you?

Questioner: Sir, how can I look ( experientially ) at anger when I'm not angry? otherwise it's part of memory....

Krishnamurti: The questioner says, 'at the present moment I am not angry, when I look at anger it is a memory which I have had and I look at that'. That's good enough (for 'in class' purposes ?) . Of course at the present moment your property is not threatened, your wife is not taken away...but wait a minute, you'll get angry presently if I tackle something which you hold on to? - an idea, a belief, a dogma, or if you take ( psychedelic ?) drugs, and I say to you, 'how childish it is', you will be annoyed. Now, are you become aware of (this reaction of ) anger the moment after? - or at the very moment you are (getting) angry?

Questioner: The moment after! I can't feel it in the moment, but I can't stop it.

Krishnamurti: No, please, please look at it, do let's consider before we answer it. We are discussing anger an (elementary) part of this enormous complex thing called violence; how do I look at that anger? Do I look at it with my eyes which say, ' I am justified in being angry' or, do I look at that ( reaction of ) anger by 'condemning' it?

Questioner: Usually I condemn it, but sometimes I don't- it depends on my state of mind ...

Krishnamurti: No, no Madame, it is not about your 'state of mind'. Here is an enormous ( violence related) problem: 'anger'; how do you look at it, how do you consider it? Can you look at it completely 'objectively'? - which means you neither justify it, nor condemn it? Can you do that?

Questioner: Why not just 'be angry'?

Krishnamurti: All right, I 'am' angry. Being angry how do I regard it?

Questioner: At the very moment of anger I do not regard it in any way.

Krishnamurti: Right Sir. That's understood. At the moment of anger, you are in it, you can't look at it (objectively) . But the moment after what is your position?

Questioner: Sir, I think the first reaction is that one wonders about it and then you fall into the temptation to analyse it and (intellectually) look at the problem and its indications. But first you wonder about it.

Krishnamurti: Wait. You wonder about it, which means you want to know why it has come, but what is the motive of your (analytical) examination of that anger?

Questioner: Because it's an uncomfortable (disturbing) feeling.

Krishnamurti: So, you don't like it, therefore you ( subliminally ?) condemn it.

Questioner: Analysis is condemnation ?

Krishnamurti: Of course it is.

Questioner: And that brings up a 'problem' then.

Krishnamurti: Wait, Sir, go step by step into it. So if your attitude towards anger is that of (a subliminal dislike or ?) condemnation, you cannot look at anger objectively, which means (you're not) being ( inwardly open and ?) 'vulnerable' to it.

Questioner: Yes, that's the problem.

Krishnamurti: Now, how will you (experientially ?) understand anger if you look at it objectively, which means, neither condemning it nor justifying it?

Questioner: But that means 'going with it'.

Krishnamurti: Ah, wait. Can I (really) look at you if I'm antagonistic to you? I can't. Or, if you say, 'what a marvellous chap you are', I can't either. So, I must look at you with a certain ( quality of non-personal ?) care in which neither of these two things are involved. Now in the same way can I look at ( that spontaneous reaction of ?) anger, neither justifying it nor condemning it? Which means I am (inwardly) vulnerable to that problem - you understand Sir? - in that there is no ( mental 'fire-wall' ?) protection, I don't resist it, I am watching this extraordinary phenomenon called 'anger' without any ( mental) reaction to it. You understand Sir?

Questioner: I hear your words but I don't really see what you're driving at.

Krishnamurti: I am just saying it is impossible to (experientially ?) understand ( the violent reaction of ?) anger if I justify it or condemn it, that's all.

Questioner: (In French) Is it possible to consider anger without any motive if ( one is culturally conditioned ?) to justify or condemn ?

Krishnamurti: Can we put away this (all controlling ?) feeling of justification or condemnation when we look at your reaction of anger?

Questioner: Anger is not objective and therefore I can't look at anger objectively.

Krishnamurti: Can't I look at my ( spontaneous reaction of ?) anger without identifying with it ( or with the controller of it?) - which means justifying it or condemning it, which means resisting it? I don't see how you're going to go (experientially) into the deeper issues when you don't understand this very simple fact. To comprehend something (inwardly) I must look at it completely 'dispassionately' - right?

Questioner: It is impossible at the very moment when we're angry.

Krishnamurti: At the moment of anger you're lost (out there ?) , but the moment after, or when you are (mentally) preparing yourself not to be angry in the future.

Questioner: Sir, I don't think we know what it means to look at something 'dispassionately'...

Krishnamurti: We're going to go into ( the doingness of ?) it, Sir. If I cannot look at myself dispassionately, I can't go beyond that.

Questioner: How can you look at a passionate state... 'dispassionately'?

Krishnamurti: Without identifying yourself with it, or ( with the controlling 'entity' who is ?) condemning it. But, Sir, you haven't even taken the first ( experiential) step - "to look (non-verbally ?) ". I want to understand myself, 'myself' being a very complex entity - a living thing, not a dead thing! So, I have to learn ( how ?) to look at myself. To ( really ) look at a child I must look at him with care, with affection; not the (personalised ?) affection which says, 'he's my baby'. In the same way I have to look at myself; and part of 'myself' is this ( psychological heritage of ?) violence; and anger is ( part ) of this violence. I say, now that I am angry - can I look at it?
Questioner: Essentially, however, is the mind not like the 'I', it cannot see itself?

Krishnamurti: Sir, when you say, that the mind cannot look at itself you have stopped all enquiry, you have blocked yourself.

Questioner: (In French) We know anger, but are afraid of (facing) it. Is not anger part of ( the same violent heritage as ? ) fear?

Krishnamurti: Of course, but that's not the problem. Now, let's begin all over again (from a different angle ?) . Have you looked at a tree or a cloud without condemning it or accepting it? Passing by, have you stopped and looked at a tree or a cloud without any movement of thought? Have you? Well, apparently you haven't. I want to understand the beauty, the movement of the tree, I want to look at it. It's outside me so I can look at it (objectively) , it doesn't interfere with my thoughts, with my wife, with my husband, with my property - it is just there! So I can look at it quite objectively, can't I? Now, how do I (actually) look at that tree? Do I look at it with all my thoughts going on , chattering, or, when I do look at that tree, my mind is quiet, because that tree is extraordinarily beautiful ? What do you do?

Questioner: Nothing, but looking.

Krishnamurti: Which means what? In that pure watching there is neither condemnation nor justification, is there? Which means, no interference of ( your all-controlling ?) thought - right? Now, to look at ( violent reactions such as ?) 'anger' is much more difficult, isn't it, because it is 'subjective' ( very personal ?) it affects (emotionally) you.
So, if you are not being able to look at a tree dispassionately, how can you look at 'yourself', who are part of ( that inherited ?) violence? And that's what we are trying to do here. Here I am. I am ( inwardly and/or outwardly ?) 'violent' as a human being. I don't know whether I've inherited it or the society around me has (caused) this violence in me (or both ?) . And what I am ( experientially) concerned with is whether it is at all possible to be free of it. I'm really interested - you understand? It means everything to me (as a responsible human being ?) to be (inwardly) 'free' of ( this heritage of ?) violence because this thing is corrupting me (my life) and I want to understand it, I want to go beyond it. And to go beyond it I have to study it, I have to go into it, I must become very intimate with it and I can't become intimate with it if I 'condemn' it or justify it - right? Therefore, I'm saying - stop ( mentally ) condemning it or justifying it.

Questioner: How can I be 'objective' to my condemnation and my justification?

Krishnamurti: When you realize that they 'interfere' when you are looking at (the unfolding of) anger. When I'm concerned with anger and trying to understand it, justification and condemnation interfere with that study of it, therefore I have to put it away (on hold ?).

Questioner: I can't.

Krishnamurti: You can't because to you the ( experiential) study of anger is not (prioritarily ?) important; to me it is enormously important. Therefore as it is so important, these 'minor' ( interfering ?) things don't matter. Sir, if I want to understand ( how to have ?) affection, love (in my heart ?). I must give my whole being to it, I must study it, I must he familiar with it, I must know every corner of it. And because of my tremendous serious intention and interest in that, everything else becomes 'secondary'. So, when you are studying anger, you're either studying it as an (intellectual) curiosity or you're studying it because you want to understand (the source of ?) this 'violence' that is destroying you - destroying the world. I want to understand it, I want to be free of it, I want to be ( psychologically speaking ?) above and beyond it. Therefore, I'm not interested to condemn or justify it since this reduces it to a personal, petty little affair. Right? Can we proceed?

Questioner: It means we have to have energy ( the inner motivation ?) to look at it.

Krishnamurti: Of course, but you're dissipating that energy when you're condemning it or justifying it.

Questioner: (In French) If I don't see very clearly and deeply that I must consider this problem of violence and anger, and by listening to you talking about it I become serious, am I not merely being (artificially) stimulated by you to be interested?

Krishnamurti: You are right. Am I being (intellectually ) stimulated by the speaker, to be interested in anger or am I really interested in it apart from any stimulation? You see how little we have advanced? We have spent an hour over something very simple (providing that one has the serious motivation ?) . That is, I can only look at anger when I'm really passionately interested to find out if it is possible to go beyond it. But apparently you're not ( really) interested in it.

Questioner: In all the questions during the last hour, it appears that none of us is as 'serious' as you are. That makes it rather hopeless...

Krishnamurti: It's up to you, Sirs! You mean to say you are not interested in (stopping the ?) war?

Questioner: ...not the way you are.

Krishnamurti: Don't you want to stop ( the psychological cause of all ?) wars, don't you want to stop ( the global tide of vulgarity and ?) violence? Of course you say you do. But how much vitality, what energy, what will you give to it?

Questioner: Would you discuss the role of ( an authentic ?) meditation in relation to anger?

Krishnamurti: We are 'doing' that Sir. We are really 'meditating' about anger.

Questioner: Maybe we should discuss ( the nature of our ?) communication ?

Krishnamurti: Of course, of course. So, could we ( take a detour and ?) talk over for a while what (a creative ?) communication means. You may be tremendously interested to resolve this problem of violence, but I'm not. I'm casual about the whole thing. How do we 'communicate' with each other? I say to you, 'I love you', and you say 'yes, it's a nice day, isn't it?' and pass by. (No, you laugh. It doesn't mean a thing to you!) When I say, 'I love you', you must listen, you must stop, you must see if I really mean it. Then you can reject whatever you like. But first you must stop, there must be ( a 2-way) communication, there must be a sense of 'togetherness' in understanding the thing.
May I ask you a question? If this ( enquiry) doesn't interest you, what does? Keeping your money? Having a good time?

Questioner: I believe it is a (false) assumption to say that we are not interested.

Krishnamurti: I didn't say that. I said, if you're not interested in ( puting an end to ?) violence, which means your children being 'destroyed', what are you interested in? Are you interested in some abstraction?

Questioner: But we are interested in discussing violence.

Krishnamurti: All right. If you are interested then listen with your heart and mind to find out! So, first I have to learn how to look at anger; I have to learn how to look at my wife, at my husband, at my children; I have to learn how to listen to the politician, I have to learn now - you understand, Sir? I have to learn why I am not objective, why I condemn or justify, I have to learn about it. I can't say, well it's part of my nature. I must know, so I have to tackle the question of learning. What do you think is the state of mind that learns?

Questioner: Silence.

Krishnamurti: You don't assume that first I must be silent and then learn. Here is something that you don't know. You don't know how to look at anger, therefore you have to learn, and to learn you have to study why you justify, why you condemn. You condemn and justify because it is part of your social structure, part of your (cultural) inheritance.

Questioner: When I'm angry I see that physics and chemistry are going on inside me.

Krishnamurti: Of course. Chemical changes are taking place when you're angry, but knowing chemical changes are taking place doesn't stop you from anger.

Questioner: So, one has to discover something much more fundamental....

Krishnamurti: Of course, Sir. But to discover something much more fundamental one must have the ( inwardly perceptive ?) capacity to go deeply. If one has a blunt (mental ?) instrument, one can't go deeply. Now what we are doing is to 'sharpen' the instrument, which is your mind. This mind has been made dull by justifying and condemning; if I see that I can only penetrate very deeply when my mind is as sharp as a diamond that can penetrate very deeply, then I (have to ) demand such a mind, not just casually sit back and say, how am I to get it - I want it as I want my next meal. And to have that I must see what makes the mind dull, stupid; what makes the mind dull is this sense of ( self-protective ) invulnerability which has built walls round itself; part of the wall is the condemnation and justification. If the mind can be rid of that, then I can look, study, penetrate.

Questioner: (In French) I feel myself responsible for violence, but I'm surprised that many people here don't seem to feel it.

Krishnamurti: What am I to do, Sir? I don't care whether they take it seriously or not. I take it seriously; that's enough. To me, as a human being, I feel this very strongly, and that's all; what more can I do? I will see that in myself I am not violent. I can't just tell you or somebody else: 'don't be violent'. Is has no meaning, unless you yourself want (or see the necessity of ?) it

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Oct 2016 #468
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

SECOND K DIALOGUE SAANEN 1967 (reader friendly edited)


K: Yesterday we were saying that we would go to the very end of this problem of violence. To do that we have to be quite serious and put our mind and heart into it so that when we do analyse the nature of violence we are not only examining it intellectually, but also (experientially ?) seeing violence in our selves - as aggressivity, anger, hate, enmity and so on. And becoming aware of that violence in oneself, to see if it is at all possible to go above and beyond it and never come back to it again, never in any form be violent in oneself.
( However, the practical difficulty is that ?) most of us take a pleasure in violence, in disliking somebody, in having antagonistic feelings about others. There is a certain pleasure in this, but I don't think we realize that there is a far greater 'state of mind' (dimension of our consciousness ?) in which all violence of any sort has come to an end. In that there is far more joy than in the mere pleasure of violence with its conflicts, with its hatred and fears. So, here is a complex problem which has existed for centuries upon centuries: man has been ( naturally ?) violent; religions have tried to tame him throughout the world and none of them have succeeded. Perhaps Buddhism and at one time Hinduism tried to bring about a human being who was not at all violent. And I do not know if you want to go that far, or merely play with it for your intellectual entertainment. So shall we go on with what we were discussing yesterday about violence?

Questioner: There seems to be (some inconsistency in your approach ?). You speak of violence and of being aware of it without any movement of the mind searching for an explanation. Now on the contrary you say, let's analyse violence.

Krishnamurti: We said, we have not only to analyse the structure and nature of violence but in the very process of analysing we shall perhaps come upon that state of mind which is totally aware of the whole problem (of its inherited violence ?) . I cannot get rid (radically ?) of my violence through analysis. I could or modify it slightly, live a little more quietly with a little more affection; but (psycho-) analysis, whether with the professional or through oneself will not lead anywhere. When one realizes that this ( dualistic ?) process of analysis has no end and has no meaning, then perhaps one will have a mind that begins to be totally aware of the whole problem.

Questioner: So, you talk of 'not analysing' ?

Krishnamurti: If I do not know how to look (inwardly) , I cannot come upon the other. I cannot have this 'total' perception. It is extremely arduous to realize that analysis in any form doesn't lead anywhere. But I must know how to analyse (properly ?) since in the very process of 'analysis' ( self-introspection ?) my mind becomes extraordinarily sharp, and it is that quality of sharpness, attention, seriousness that will ( hopefully ?) give a total perception. You see, we are so eager to see ( to understand and transcend ?) the whole thing in one glance. But we haven't the (mind's?) eyes (open ?) to look. It is only possible to have that ( perceptive inner) clarity if I can see the detail and then 'jump' (to a 'holistic' insight ?) .

Questioner (1): I am very conscious of my share of responsibility in this disintegrating world. The rich have even more responsibility for this disintegration. There are here rich people who have listened to you, some of them for forty years; they are still more responsible. The presence in this tent of such persons represents a 'static force' in contradiction to what you have been saying for forty years. There is an urgent need for each one of us to understand what you are saying, because of this disintegration. But whose role should it be to denounce vigorously the (psycho-?) 'sabotage' which this static force constitutes?

Questioner (2): I also have a point. This ( global ?) disintegration is coming very quickly now and perhaps one day we shall not be able to hear you in this tent .

Krishnamurti: From what you say, the 'rich' are using the speaker as a (highly stimulating psycho-?) drug and therefore the whole thing becomes 'static'. I don't know why we are concerned with the 'rich' or the 'poor', or whether somebody is using the speaker to stimulate himself (intellectually ?) and therefore remains static.
As we said yesterday, "why we are concerned with another ?" We are concerned first with what we are - ( assuming that ?) you and I are (feeling ?) responsible! I 'am' responsible. And whether you use the 'speaker', for your own amusement, enjoyment, as a drug - that's your affair, it's your ( pet ?) misery.

We are talking about a human being who is (seeing ?) beyond the ( duality ?) 'individual' and 'society', and how to bring about such an (integrated ?) human mind - that's primarily what we are concerned with: bringing about a radical revolution in the (psyche of ?) human being - whether he is rich or poor - anybody! And if we waste our energy in saying, 'well, why haven't the people who have listened to you for forty years changed?' , it would be a tragedy to the speaker if he was expecting something out of it, expecting people to change, to bring about a different society, a different way of life. If I was expecting it, I would be disappointed, I would feel I had not done (properly ?) what I started out to do. It doesn't affect me at all! Whether you change or don't change, it's up to you. The blue sky, the hills, the flowers, the birds don't exist for you; they exist for themselves. So let's proceed, Sir, to discuss this matter of (being inwardly free of violence ?) That is the only question we are concerned with; is it possible for me and for you to end violence in yourselves?

Which means ( as an analytical detour, that ?) I must find out for myself what kind of violence there is in me. Is it a violence to 'defend' myself (or the aggressive kind ?) ? The very process of defending and resisting is a ( sublimated ?) form of violence. When a ( 'peaceful' ?) nation says, I will only defend myself , such a concept obviously (involves that on weekends ?) it is preparing to fight. So both 'defence' and 'offence' contain in themselves, ( a subliminal acceptance of ?) violence. That's one form of violence. Then there is a (more intimate ?) form of violence which is anger, in which is involved hate, jealousy, aggressive acquisitiveness, the demand to dominate, to possess; all those are forms of (psychological ?) violence.
So violence isn't merely killing another - in the name of God, in the name of society, in the name of the country , but it is also much more subtle, much deeper, and we are ( analytically ?) enquiring now into the very depths of human violence. If one is not subtle enough, clear enough to follow to the very end the root of violence, with is both in the conscious as well as in the 'deeper layers' of consciousness, I don't see how you can ever be free of violence. We have accepted that as 'the' way of life and can you voluntarily, sanely (not neurotically) put away that? Psychologically begin with that (inner roots of violence ?) and see where it will lead you. Can one do that?

Questioner: Is it not a question of the emotions? - one has 'bouts of anger'.

Krishnamurti: Certainly it is related to emotion. Look, you (sucker punch ?) me for whatever reason (I've insulted you). There is an emotion - anger - but my self-centred thought gives to that feeling a 'continuity'. I hate you hereafter and I'm waiting for an opportunity to hurt you back, which is all the process of ( our dualistic ?) thinking.

Questioner: (In French) Is it not rather the relationship of the emotions?

Krishnamurti: That's only a part of it. Take this whole thing - emotion, thought, the (mental) retaining in memory; and from that memory, (including my ?) conditioned ( 'thoughtful' ?) responses, I act. I am a Catholic, a Communist, I have been conditioned (to think ?) that way and if anybody questions that (ideology) , I get angry, which is an emotional response according to my ( cultural) conditioning.

But here we're saying, can one go to the very roots of our violence and be free of it? Otherwise we are not human beings, we shall live everlastingly in a ('war zone' relationship ?) with each other. But if you say there might be a different way of living, there might be a different process of responding to life, then we can discuss, then we shall be able to 'communicate' with each other.

Questioner (1): In discussing violence we will soon arrive at the central problem, which is how to look without the interference of thought. I think all problems are fragmentations, but there is a central problem. So why are you speaking about violence and not the 'central' problem, how to look at anything?

Krishnamurti: Now, how do I look at my violence (based) conditioning without any distortion? The problem is quite complex since my mind has been for centuries shaped ( to think and act within the safe boundaries of ?) a particular culture, a particular society, and is held within a narrow pattern of the 'me' (self-centred thinking?) . So, first are you and I aware of our (cultural ?) conditioning - ( Eg: ) as a 'Hindu', living abroad, living in a culture which is totality foreign to the Indian culture, brought up along certain ( TS ?) lines as a 'Messiah', and all the rest of it? (I'm doing it as a mirror in which you're actually looking at your own conditioning ) Can you become aware of your conditioning, can you become conscious of it? Look, Sir, as a Hindu Brahmin, from childhood it was said, 'don't kill even a fly, don't say an (evil) word against another, don't be aggressive' - that has conditioned the mind from childhood. And if it is merely a (culturally) conditioned response which says 'don't be violent' then it is another form of (self-imposed ?) violence. You follow? It's like a Catholic saying there is a Saviour and only this Saviour can save him. That's a 'conditioned' response, it has no ( spiritual ?) meaning whatsoever. But this mind which from childhood has been told, 'don't kill, don't hurt, because next life you'll pay for it, therefore behave, be gentle, be kind', can that mind become aware of its own ( cultural ?) conditioning - and then move further?
So, (for an 'in class' experiential exercise ?) an you become aware of your own cultural conditioning? Can you?

Questioner: To be without any conditioning, isn't that a kind of death (oblivion ) ?

Krishnamurti: How do you know it means death (oblivion ) ? It might mean a most extraordinary way of living.

Questioner: A (psychological ?) kind of death.

Krishnamurti: But, Sir, I don't know. I won't say it is death. First, my questions is - can I, can you, become aware of your (cultural) conditioning?

Questioner: (In French) One cannot, it is an essential part of ( our survival oriented ?) living.

Krishnamurti: Sir, look. We are conditioned by the climate, by the food we eat, by the newspapers we read, by all our everyday influences and experiences. We are conditioned! Now, can I become aware of that conditioning: just one conditioning?

Questioner: (In French) One can begin with this (sense of cultural ?) certitude. So, I am aware of some of my (cultural) conditioning, but nothing happens.

Krishnamurti: Nothing happens because you don't feel ( the inner aspect ?) that you are caught like a prisoner within four walls of a conditioning. A prisoner ( who is becoming aware of his condition ?) says, 'I am in prison, I want to get out of it!'

Questioner: Sir, I know it is possible to be aware of one's ( cultural ?) conditioning, the state one is in..

Krishnamurti: Look Sir, please, (a) take one ( aspect of this ?) conditioning and (b) become aware of it and (c) see whether you 'enjoy' (living with ) it, or you want to break through all conditioning?

Questioner: Sir, I was aware -to a certain extent- of my conditioning as a Jew during the recent Middle East crisis, and I recall this gave me a mixture of great pleasure and great discomfort.

Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir. When one is becoming aware of one's ( cultural) conditioning, in it there is not only a sense great (security and ?) pleasure, but also - as you say- a great 'discomfort'. Now, do you say, well the pleasure outweighs the discomfort and therefore it's all right. Or, do you say, (this whole situation ) isn't good enough.

Questioner: Something in me says, it isn't good enough.

Krishnamurti: All right, then how far ( inwardly) are you going to go into this question and break it? That is the whole issue. Because most of us are (occasionally ?) aware of our (cultural) conditioning. If one is at all sensitive, thoughtful, earnest, one is aware of one's conditioning, and also of what its ( psychological ?) dangers are. So, how far are you willing to go (experientially ?) into this question of our conditioning (in terms of ?) violence?

Questioner: How far dare any man go in being aware of his conditioning without coming to a 'precipice'?

Krishnamurti: When you come to a ( psychological) 'precipice' you know how dangerous ( slippery ?) your conditioning is. But without coming upon that ( existential ?) 'precipice' you play with ( optimizing ?) your (existing ?) conditioning. So, are you willing to "push the awareness" of your conditioning until you come to that (unknown ?) precipice - when you've got to act! Or, are you merely playing ( games ?) with your conditioning from a safe distance?

Questioner: Most people are not ( deeply) conscious of their conditioning, but are satisfied as they are. They don't see another mode of living, But if we are deeply hurt by circumstances of life as a consequence of our ( ongoing) conditioning, then our ( inward) 'eyes' are opened. But it's a rare event.

Krishnamurti: If you are aware of your conditioning, how far will you go, how deeply, until you come to the point when you've got to act?

Questioner: Why even when seeing a part of my ( self-centred ?) conditioning, I don't see it as a (major existential ?) 'precipice'?

Krishnamurti: That is, you are ( becoming) aware of your own conditioning, but it never comes to the point where you've got to 'act' as when you do when you're confronted with a real danger, as a precipice. Why? Is it that one is (inwardly indolent or ?) lazy?

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: Just wait, Sir. Don't answer so quickly. Is it that one is lazy, that 'laziness' being a lack of ( free ?) energy? Will you lack energy when it is a really dangerous challenge ?

Questioner: If we don't suffer because of our conditioning, we are satisfied. For instance, I feel security in my country.

Krishnamurti: First of all, in becoming aware of my conditioning I don't see what the ( outward consequences ?) of that conditioning are. That's one point. I am a 'nationalist' and I don't see where a (gregarious ?) nationalistic spirit leads to, so ( in the meanwhile ?) I 'enjoy' it, it gives me (both safety and ?) pleasure. But if I saw that the (ultimate) danger of it is a 'war' - I would then act. So, for now, (a) I don't really want to see the danger of it because being a 'nationalist' is an (occasional source of ?) great pleasure; and (b) to 'see the danger' of it I must have ( the motivational ?) energy to go to the very end of it. Why is it that I have no energy? Please stick to that one point.

Questioner: It's also ( perceived as ?) 'dangerous' to stand alone, without a (supporting) group, without being 'attached to' (or belonging to ?) something.

Krishnamurti: Of course, Sir. To 'stand alone', to 'be alone' is ( seen as ?) the most dangerous thing, we'd rather want to 'be with somebody'; but that's a separate point (left for 'homework' ?) .

Questioner: If you really see all the consequences - but we don't really see it that way.

Krishnamurti: That's my point. If we saw that ( our psychological attachment to ?) 'nationalism' is ( eventually) leading to war, to self-destruction - if you saw that (long term ?) 'danger' you would act, wouldn't you? So the question is, you don't 'see' (it as a present danger ?) . Now, what do we mean by this 'seeing' ? I can see 'intellectually' through a thoughtful analysis or examination that the nationalistic spirit does lead to war. Except that in that ( intellectual) 'analysis' there is no emotional content. But when there is an quality of being 'emotionally' (personally ?) involved in my analysis - because it threatens me - then I become vital. So, the question is, what do we mean by (an insightful ?) 'seeing'? Do I see ( sequentially ?) detail by detail and put them all together and then say, well I've seen and so act? Or do I see ( the global danger of ?) my 'nationalistic' conditioning and (its potential ?) results immediately? You follow Sir? It is only when I see something immediately that I can see the ( potential ?) 'danger' - not as a ( linear ?) process of thought, and (sequential ?) analysis. When you 'see' an actual 'precipice' there is an immediate ( call for ?) action. So, (such direct) seeing 'is' ( also the ?) acting. Right? Not, I see something and then create an idea and from that idea act. That's what we are doing. And hence there is a ( time delayed ?) conflict between the idea and action, and therefore that conflict takes away (dissipates ?) your ( total) energy.

Questioner: I've understood that, but....
Krishnamurti: First, let me 'swallow' (laughter) what has been said, which is very difficult Sir. The speaker says, that (any direct) seeing 'is' ( simultaneously ?) acting. That is, I see a serpent and there is an immediate action. I see a precipice and there is action. (It's very complex, this 'seeing-acting' thing. Go slowly.) Or, I see (something inwardly ) then form an idea about what I have seen, a ( thoughtful ?) 'conclusion', and from that conclusion I act. So then, there is a ( time-) gap between 'seeing' and 'acting'.

Questioner: It is easy to see the danger of (getting hooked on ?) 'nationalism', but it is more difficult to see the danger of 'money'...

Krishnamurti: ( Getting 'hooked on' ?) 'money' is equally dangerous. But I see this (still deeper ?) conditioning as an 'idea'. I have (formed an image ?) about my cultural conditioning, and the ( action-related ?) 'idea' being "I must get free of my conditioning". With that ( 'image' based ?) idea I'm getting aware of my conditioning. So, what 'sees' then is not the actual seeing with (a total ?) attention, but an idea sees another idea. Right? And therefore there is no (immediate) action.

So, (to recap:) How (intimately ?) do I see my conditioning? How am I becoming aware of it? Are you aware of it as you are aware now that it is raining? Raining is a 'fact' actuality taking place, it's not an idea. It is actually raining at this moment. You may not like it, you may be saying, how am I going to get my car out (of the mud ?) ; but the fact is it 'is' raining. Now, ( if and ?) when you see your ( self-centred ?) conditioning do you see it as a fact, as you see it is raining?

Questioner: The difference is that in one case the sensory impression has an overriding urgency (as one sees the precipice or hears this rain) but the (inner ?) crisis of the moment is almost invariably diluted by a contrasting stream of impressions that come in and disturb one's attention.

Krishnamurti: Look, Sir. When you see a physical danger there is immediate action because you have been told 'be careful of snakes', or you know somebody who has been bitten and died. So there is that ( culturally conditioned ?) memory which, when you see a ( real) snake, responds immediately. So that response to the danger is already 'old' (pre-programmed ?) ; you know already how dangerous a snake is. That isn't a direct response; it's a cultivated response. ( All our human experience accumulated in ?) 'time' is involved in that response. Right? When you were a child you were told 'be careful', and you remember it when you see a snake. That seeing is a cultivated, quick response. Now hen we move to the (direct ?) awareness of your conditioning, here you have the ( personal) memory that it is ( both safe and ?) pleasurable, that you cannot live in this world without being conditioned and so on. So, there you have a response of 'time', of ( the personal or collective ?) memory. But here we are talking of a response (of direct inner perception ?) which is not of time at all, which is not a cultivated response.

Questioner (1): (In French) So, one must 'efface' (delete that ?) memory.

Questioner (2): The difficulty is, the two seeings, 'I am conditioned', and 'it is raining', are wrongly identified as being 'alike'.

Krishnamurti: Look, Sir, can I see (anything ?) without the ( controlling ?) movement of ( our self-centred ?) thought? The movement of thought is the (verbalised ?) response of memory, therefore it is always old.

Questioner: And the problem comes with memory.

Krishnamurti: WIt is only when you can look (inwardly ?) without the movement of ( self-centred ?) thought - which is ( the mechanistic response of our past ?) memory - it is only then that you can 'break through' your conditioning.
It's a tremendously complex thing, (but for starters ?) can I look at my girl friend, my wife, or my husband without the 'image' I have created about her and (since) she has created one about me, these two ( virtual ?) 'images' have relationships - which are ( subliminally projected ?) memories - and can I look at my wife, husband, without that 'image'?
No, don't answer me, find out! ( If yes, then the next step is :) Can I look at my ( self-centred cultural ?) conditioning without this image- making process ? Therefore can I look at my (superficial) conditioning without another (still deeper ?) conditioning? Otherwise, one conditioning looking at another conditioning only creates a conflict (of interests ?) - which is (resulting in ?) a waste of (free intelligent ?) energy. So, (if the answer is yes , then ?) can I look at everything in life as though it was 'new'?

Questioner: That implies....

Krishnamurti: It doesn't 'imply' anything. Do it !

Questioner: It implies a 'dying', Sir.

Krishnamurti: I don't know what it implies, (just try to ?) 'do' it!

Questioner: That means 'abandoning' yourself....

Krishnamurti: You see you're 'theorizing'. Can't I 'look' at you as though I'm meeting you for the first time, though I've known you for forty years? Can I look at that sky, that friend, that face, as though I was looking at it for the first time? If you cannot ( experientially ) 'do' it, then you don't understand this whole business of conditioning.

( Now, if the third answer is 'yes' ?) I may become aware of my conditioning, but that's (holistically speaking ? ) still a very small affair. There's a much deeper issue involved in ( going beyond our psychological ?) conditioning : because we can never look without it, we are always 'living in the past' , (living) with the 'dead'. That's a terrible thing to realize - that I am looking at life from ( the perspective of ?) a 'dead' past. To realize (the sadness of ?) it! To feel it!

Questioner: But we are conditioned since birth. You can only see without it if you don't allow time to enter, which means being 'spontaneously' aware.

Krishnamurti: Sir, I said so! I said, from the moment you are born until the moment you die you are (living in the field of the ?) 'conditioned'. Therefore if you like it, remain in it...

Questioner: Then, we must be continuously aware....
Krishnamurti: Please Madame, don't reduce everything to ( staying) 'continuously aware'. See this one thing very clearly: that ( as an adult person ?) I never see anything ( directly ?) except through my conditioned eyes. To realize ( the actual truth of ?) that is a tremendous shock to me. You understand? It's a shock to realize that (inwardly speaking ?) I'm a 'dead' human being. No?

Questioner: I can see this sometimes....

Krishnamurti: Do you realize that ( inwardly) you are a 'dead' human being when you see with ( through the mental screen of ?) conditioning, therefore you are looking at life with the ( eyes of the ) past? That's all. Can one realize (the inwardness of ?) that?

Questioner: How do you know that human beings are 'conditioned', since you don't ( seem to ?) involve yourself? I mean, you tell me....

Krishnamurti: No Sir, I don't tell you anything.

Questioner: But you're talking....

Krishnamurti: I am talking because we said at the beginning of these discussions that it is a ( meditative ?) dialogue, a 'conversation' between two people who are serious, who want to go into this question of violence, of conditioning. And we see that we look at life with our conditioning - 'life' being my relationship to my wife, to my husband, to my neighbour, to society. We are looking at everything with 'closed' eyes. That's all. And how is it possible to 'open' my (inner ?) eyes? Nobody can do it (for me). But a man who says 'such a way of 'living (blind' ?) is not freedom', must find a way out of this; and to find a way out is to become aware of your own conditioning and discover that you look at your own conditioning through conditioned eyes. Find out whether you can live in that ( un-conditioned ?) state!
Do you know, Sirs, in India I have watched snakes - several of them round me - poisonous cobras - many of them. And you know what happens to you? You're (getting ) terribly awake! You're 'watching everything'! Your nerves, your eyes, your ears are seeing and listening to every movement! And that's the ( intelligent ?) way to live with your 'self'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Oct 2016 #469
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

3RD K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1967 (reader friendly edited)


K: If we may, we'll continue with what we were talking about yesterday, which was ( the holistic approach to psychological ?) violence. I think we should be clear that we are concerned with bringing about a radical transformation - to go beyond and above this conflict, this violence. Violence, not only (expressed outwardly ?) but also inwardly - the inner conflicts, the contradictions (which breeds aggression, hatred, antagonism) - we are trying to understand what this violence is and whether it is at all possible to go beyond it. And that's what we are going to go into during these remaining dialogues.
We were discussing yesterday the question of ( inward) 'seeing: when we observe ourselves, we look with our ( culturally ?) conditioned mind, and we were saying: as long as this 'conditioned' memory ( interface ?) responds in any form there is no ( insightful ?) seeing. There is ( a psychologically integrated ?) action only when the seeing 'is' (simultaneous with the ?) acting; this 'seeing' is not conditioned. There is nothing very difficult about (intellectually ?) understanding this; but the ( practical) difficulty arises when we have to apply it, to act. We ( usually) act according to our ( culturally programmed ?) conditioning - this conditioning may be the result of many centuries, or the result of a few days. And as long as there is a separation between ( our conditioned) 'ideas' and our action, there must be ( an inner conflict of interests ?) and this conflict is ( manifested as) violence - isn't it? (Eg:) I have (adopted ?) an ideology - Catholic, Communist, whatever it is - and according to ( the guidelines of) that ideology, I try to approximate my daily actions. I am violent and there is also in me a sense of kindliness, gentleness, so there is a contradiction. This ( existential ?) contradiction contributes to greater violence. And we are asking ourselves whether it is at all possible to act without contradiction, effort and violence. Are we going with each other so far?

Questioner: What is that ( perceptive quality that ?) "sees and acts" at the same time?

Krishnamurti: As long as there is a ( mental) division between our everyday action and our (adopted) 'ideals' there is contradiction; because the 'ideal' (no matter how noble ?) is always 'old'. Ideals are always the result of our past ( experiences) projected into the future; but our daily actions are always in the active present. Now the important thing is to understand this (experientially) , to see how each one of us acts and see what is implied in this action and to ask ourselves the question: is it possible to act without the ( self-protective screen of ?) 'ideas'?

Questioner: Is it ( the outward ) action you speak about, or also the thinking, inside ? When we see (a physical) danger there is rapid action and in that rapid action memory is involved; now, what you are talking about is an action which is instantaneous, yet also a response of memory?

Krishnamurti: Look Sir, let's look at it (from an experiential angle ?) . I ask you a question with which you are very familiar. I ask you, what's your name, where do you live, and your response is immediate. Why? Because you are familiar with ( remembering ) your name, with where you live, so the response is immediate; but even in that (cvasi ?) immediacy there is a time interval (a time delay) in which the mind has 'acted' extra ordinarily quickly and given the answer. If you are asked a more complicated question, you (need to) have a time (gap ?) between the question and the answer. There, your (active ?)memory is operating searching, asking, looking; then after having found the answer you reply. And if the question is very, very complicated you take a longer time - perhaps days, weeks, months. All that implies a (complex 'thinking' ?) activity with the field of memory which is always 'conditioned' (pre-formatted ?) . Now is there (a possibility for ?) an action which is not conditioned (by our past memory ) - an action in which the 'time (to think about' ?) interval does not exist? So (in order to find it out ?) we have to enquire much more deeply (meditatively ?) into this question of what is 'thinking' and what is 'consciousness'.

Questioner: Sir, I don't see why in that time interval always has to be just the ( mechanical ) response of memory. After all, we cannot stop our mind to make an intelligent appraisal when faced with a challenging situation.

Krishnamurti: Wait, follow it! The operation of that (limited?) intelligence has produced violence also. Now, to be free of that violence we have to bring about a different quality of "intelligence". Right? The (opportunistic ?) 'intelligence' that we have cultivated - which is the result of time and memory - that intelligence is ( confined) within the limitations of our self-centred thinking.

Questioner: But this action without any ideational ( backup) may also bring conflict. A well known example might be a little child, he sees for the first time the fire, he is attracted by the light of the fire, but then he touches the fire and he burns himself....

Krishnamurti: We all know this, Sir. What is your point?

Questioner: That he has acted without any (conditioned ?) ideas.

Krishnamurti: And then he has an 'idea' afterwards, and according to that idea he acts. Of course, we know this Sir. That's what we are all doing, all the time.

Questioner: But if we act according to an idea it doesn't always bring a conflict, it gives perhaps a rational event or something like that.... you never know. If you see an animal for the first time and you don't know what kind of animal it is, you look at it without any memory, without any knowledge and you don't know how you will react....

Krishnamurti: Sir, I thought we had explained it enough! We cannot live without memory. Right? If you had no memory at all you would be in a state of amnesia and you wouldn't know what you were doing, your name or where you lived - nothing. Memory obviously has its place.
( But based on our collectively conditioned memory ?) we are still killing in the name of God, in the name of Peace, in the name of our 'Nation' for centuries; that is stored-up (as 'psychological'?) memory, and according to that memory we respond. And that ( mechanistic ?) response has produced disastrous results as well as very good results; scientifically it has produced extraordinary things but it also has produced appalling wars. We are concerned here not with the good results of ( a thinking aided by practical ?) memory but with the destructive ( conflicting ?) quality of a mind that is (psychologically ?) conditioned. Shall we proceed from there ?

We were asking if it is possible for a ( psychologically integrated ?) action to take place in which there is no contradiction and no conflict ? That is the ( 1000$ ?) question. An action which will not breed conflict within oneself, because we said conflict in any form is (generating ?) violence. Now, let's proceed ( experientially) find it out for ourselves.
Which means we have (to go a step deeper and ?) enquire into this whole field of (self-) consciousness. What is 'my' consciousness? What is the (self-conscious ?) 'observer' who says, 'I am thinking' (Cogito ergo Sum ?) and ( controls everything in terms of ?) 'this should be' and 'that should not be'?
Is ( the whole field of our ?) consciousness the result of contradictions? Do I know a state of mind in which there is no contradiction at all? Am I aware of a state of being in which every form of ( inner ?) conflict has ended? Or, do I only know conflict?

Questioner: Does ( our inner state of ?) conflict arise because we give a 'meaning' to things built through ( our self-centred ?) thought?

Krishnamurti: Look, my question is this: I am conscious, I am conscious of this tent and the people in it, I am conscious that I am speaking, and I am becoming aware of the limitation of my feelings and thoughts and I take cognizance of my limitation. And that 'limitation' is my (self-)consciousness, isn't it?

Questioner: What do you mean by 'limitation', Sir?

Krishnamurti: I am limited by my (self-centred ?) thinking, I am limited by my (self-centred ?) feeling - my 'love' (my 'loving feelings' ?) is (are) full of jealousy and envy. And this is the ( inner space of ?) consciousness in which I live.

Questioner: Without all this (self-centredness ?) there is no conflict ?

Krishnamurti: Wait, wait, we're going to find out. Am I conscious only through my limitation? Am I aware of the ( personal ?) 'content' of my consciousness - of my thoughts, my feelings, my anxieties, my guilts, my hopes, despairs, loneliness - and because I am aware of the content, I am therefore aware of the limitation of my consciousness?

Questioner: But I'm aware of other things too, Sir, I see you there.

Krishnamurti: Hold on to that (thought) for the moment.

Questioner: Do you mean, Sir, that the 'limitations' you see are just what you want to see ? You're creating a boundary with whatever it is you see - it's the boundary of 'my' consciousness.

Krishnamurti: Sir, may I ask you something? What to you is 'consciousness' ?

Questioner: Being awake.

Krishnamurti: When do you know you're 'awake'?

Questioner: I suppose, when I have a (personal ?) experience ?

Krishnamurti: Let's think about this very simply. I go to sleep and I wake up to ( a 'consciousness' of ?) my daily routine, to my daily troubles, to my daily worries, to my daily apprehensions, fears, joys - I'm awake to those things. That's one part of it. I also may be awake to all my motives - if I'm at all aware (inwardly) . Now, what makes me keep awake?

Questioner: The (inner) conflicts and awareness of the limitations of my own thought keep me awake.

Krishnamurti: Sir, if you would have no conflict at all of any kind would you say, I'm (conscious of myself as being ?) awake?

Questioner: I think so. Are you saying that if there is no conflict or something like conflict....

Krishnamurti: No, no I did not say that, Sir. I asked: if you are not in conflict at all, at any level, what would that state (of non-conflictual consciousness ?) be? Would you then say, 'I (am conscious that I ?) am awake? Or, you know you are awake through ( a challenging situation or having a ?) conflict?

Questioner: (In French) I am conscious when I am open to impressions (quand je me sens 'disponible').

Krishnamurti: Sir, when are you ( becoming self-) conscious? When you are hurt? When you have joy, when you respond? Otherwise you're dead or asleep. So you only know that you are conscious, awake, when there is a challenge and a (personal ?) response. That's all! So, I am (self-) 'conscious' only when there is a challenge to which I (have to ?) respond and/or when that response breeds conflict. If the response to the challenge is 'complete' ( holistic ?) there is no conflict. Then I don't even know that 'I' am responding, then I don't even know of the (personal ?) challenge, because I'm so completely awake.
I am pointing out only one thing, which is: I am ( feeling ?) 'awake' only when there is an (personal or collective ) challenge and my response is not complete, is not 'adequate' to that challenge. Right? Which means, that when I don't act completely or respond completely to a challenge, there is ( a potential for violence and ?) conflict. So it is only this ( self-sustained state of inner/outer ?) conflict, makes me say 'I am conscious' (of myself) . Now when I love you is there any conflict?

Questioner: ( It depends of what you mean by that ?) 'love'?

Krishnamurti: Please Sir, don't analyse, we'll analyse it presently, just listen. When I say 'I love you' is there conflict?

Questioner: Well, if there is conflict, then you're saying it when you're (inwardly) 'asleep'.

Krishnamurti: Quite right.

Questioner: Sir, even in this ( over simplified ?) business of being 'asleep' all the time or inwardly 'dead' all the time, there must he lapses when one's consciousness may not be (as mechanistic ) as you described it . Could you point out a 'lapse' (a 'break' ?) so we could get your 'feel' of it?

Krishnamurti: Look, Sir, we were trying to find out ( in a roundabout way ?) whether violence, which is ( generating by our inner) conflicts, can come to an end. Right? Not superficially, but deeply. And in enquiring into that we were looking into the whole (mechanistic ?) process of our memory - and into the (self-conscious ?) state of a mind which is living perpetually in conflict. And because we are in conflict, we are in misery, we are (self- ?) conscious. Right? When you are completely happy are you conscious of (yourself as ?) 'being happy'?

Questioner: There is a different quality of consciousness when you are happy.

Krishnamurti: Don't introduce other factors, Sir, take just one fact.

Questioner: But there are other factors.

Krishnamurti: I know, there are lots of other factors, I know that.

Questioner: Then your ( scholastic ?) question does not have any (universally open ?) meaning.

Krishnamurti: It has no meaning if we bring in all the other factors, but I'm just asking a very simple question. When you're tremendously joyous are you conscious that you're joyous?

Questioner (1): No.
Questioner (2): Yes.
Questioner (3): You stop to look at it.

Krishnamurti: When you're getting very angry, at that second, are you conscious, or only afterwards? When, for whatever motive, there's an extraordinary state of happiness, you're not at that second, (self-) conscious. Later on it begins, you say, what an extraordinary moment that was, I wish I could have it repeated, and so on and so on. So both conflict and that state in which there is no conflict, are (both available ?) within this field of our consciousness. So, as ( sensible ?) human beings we are asking ourselves: is it possible to be free of this violence? And in asking that question we are exploring; the animal is also violent and we have inherited perhaps that violence, or that violence has been ( artificially ?) created as the result of society, a culture. But the fact is that we are all 'violent' (at various degrees ?) and we're asking if (the psychological roots of ?) that violence can come to an end - in you and in me.

Questioner: Is not ( our self-) consciousness (containing ) the feeling of being separated from other human beings?

Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir, that's part of it; when there is a (mental ?) separation between the 'observer' and what is 'observed'.

Questioner: Sir, did you say that not being (self-) conscious at the moment of anger or passion, and the immediate memory of it, both those things are within the field of consciousness?

Krishnamurti: Aren't they?

Questioner: They have to be, otherwise you couldn't remember.

Krishnamurti: Of course. So, we are trying to find out the nature of conflict, conflict being violence. Now, this conflict in which we have lived has created a ( self-isolating ?) consciousness in which there is the observer and the observed. Right? There is the 'me' and the 'not-me', which means there is a separation between the 'observer' and the 'observed'. Right? Now, will not ( the inner cause of ?) this violence, this conflict, endure as long as there is this separation?

Questioner: The (sense of our ?) separation and the conflict within ourselves will cease when we give up everything on earth.

Krishnamurti: Sir, that's just a theory; 'when we give up everything on earth'. We can't give up everything on this earth. We have to have food, we have to have clothes, shelter. Sir, let's make it very simple: if I want to be free of violence, what am I to do? (We have gone through the ?) obvious things as to give up my 'nationalism', my dogmas - that's gone, finished - it has no meaning any more - but ( deeper down ?) I'm still violent, I'm still aggressive, ambitious. Now I say: what am I to do?

Questioner: Conflict is the result of ( our wrong) education. If you eliminate all those conflicts from education you're no longer violent.

Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir, I understand, but answer me: will you tell me how to be free of violence? That's all I ask. I have tried education, I have tried religion, I have tried to control myself, I have tried to be kind and generous, yet there are moments when I am (getting ?) tremendously (frustrated and ?) violent. My problem, my question is: what am I to do to be free of this violence?

Questioner: But isn't this question is a subtle form of violence ?

Krishnamurti: Put it round the other way, Sir; I want to live completely at peace with myself and with the world - what am I to do?

Questioner: You can't do it.

Krishnamurti: I want to live completely at peace with myself and with the world. What am I to do? When you ask that question what do you reply? Either you say like this gentleman, 'you can't', therefore you have blocked yourself, you have stopped yourself from further enquiry; or you say you can be at peace only when you go to Heaven, that is, when you die.

Questioner: You are left only to 'stand still'....

Krishnamurti: No, I don't want to stand still, I want to live, I am living, I want to love without hate, without jealousy.

Questioner: Then your problem is to try to communicate your wish to the world, only then will you have the possibility of having peace.

Krishnamurti: Ah, no. I don't want to communicate with the world; the world is stupid, the world is brutal. How can I communicate with the world? Sir, you are just talking nonsense.

Questioner: You must be vulnerable.

Krishnamurti: You're just quoting what I said yesterday. That's not my argument. I don't want to have conflict within myself at any cost, I don't want to quarrel with anybody; I want to have great affection, kindliness, love - I don't want anything else.

Questioner: It's not true for me.

Krishnamurti: Then if it is not true for you, why isn't it true for you?

Questioner: Well, I wish it were.

Krishnamurti: Look, we started this discussion by asking ourselves if it is possible to be ( inwardly ?) free of violence. To be free of violence means to live at peace - right? - and if I don't want to have a single breath of conflict in me at any time - sleeping or waking - what am I to do?

Questioner: Respond (adequately ?) to the challenge of life.

Krishnamurti: Please, would you ask that question yourselves? My question to you, is do you really want to live at peace with yourself, which means no conflict?

Questioner: I will repeat again, you cannot live without violence, it's only an ideal that you want to live without violence.

Krishnamurti: Please Sir, I have lived in conflict all my life (I haven't personally, but it doesn't matter) I have lived in conflict with my wife, with my children, with my society, with my boss, with everything, and I say to myself: is there a way of living in which there is no conflict? It is not an idea!

Questioner: Sorry, but this question is not the most important thing; the most important thing is to see ( my inner ?) violence. That takes time.

Krishnamurti: No, no, we have been through that Sir. We have discussed the nature of violence, we have been into that and I'm putting the same question differently. I want to live in this world, not as an idea but actually, every minute of my life, I want to live in a different way, in which there is no conflict, which means no violence.

Questioner (2): Can we have ten minutes of silence?

Krishnamurti: No, please, first put the question to yourself..

Questioner: If I am not mature enough it is impossible to put this question.

Krishnamurti: Then, why aren't you mature? Who's going to make you mature?

Questioner: I am not mature....

Krishnamurti: But Sir, put that question, see what happens. Find out that you are immature. We are avoiding the (inner impact of this ?) question, that's all.

Questioner: Shouldn't it be a question for everyone, and everybody should keep the answer to himself?

Krishnamurti: Keep it to yourself, I'm not asking you to tell me, Put it, and find out what your answer is. Find out how far you will go to live peacefully.

Questioner: At the same moment as you realize, deep in yourself, that this whole ( way of the ?) world leads nowhere, in fact this realization brings in yourself a 'stop'....

Krishnamurti: It's really quite an extraordinary phenomenon this, isn't it? You're all so ready to answer, which means that you have not really put this question to yourself. Perhaps you dare not put the question.

Questioner: (In Italian) I have heard what you said about a different state. But all I see is the (ongoing) conflict, and I don't know if there is a way out.

Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir, but that's not my point. My point is: you have lived in conflict and don't you ask yourself, is that the only thing I have to live for - conflict, conflict? put that question to yourself, Sir? Don't answer me. Put this question to yourself.

Questioner: But we are discussing.

Krishnamurti: Of course, Sir, we are discussing, but first put this question - see what happens to you - then find out what your response is.

Questioner: Can you divide your soul from your body?

Krishnamurti: This is a question which is not relevant to the point. Look, I'm asking you, do please have the goodness to listen. Humanity has lived in conflict for centuries. Is that the way to live? If it is not, then is there a way of living in which there is no conflict at all? Put that question to yourself, not as an idea but as an (experiential ?) thing that you want to find out.

Questioner: If our mind is conditioned, how can we know?

Krishnamurti: It is not a different state that you want to achieve; but here I am in conflict and is there a way out of it?

Questioner: Sir, I think there's only conflict between persons, you and another person or a group of people and when you study them, when you 'are' the other persons, see what they are trying to do, what you're trying to do, see the whole thing dispassionately, this will produce an easier situation; it may not remove conflict but it is a step towards it.

Krishnamurti: Sir, put the question the other ( humanitarian ?) way. Don't you want to stop wars, which means, don't you want to live peacefully every day, to put an end to war?

Questioner: Do you have a method for ending war?

Krishnamurti: Sir, you have heard me often, haven't you?

Questioner: Yes, Sir.

Krishnamurti: Look, how far ( inwardly ?) are you willing to go to have peace in your life?

Questioner: All the way.

Krishnamurti: What does that mean? That means to end conflict, doesn't it? Now, how do you end conflict? Keep it very simple, Sir. How do you end conflict in yourself and live ordinarily? Is it possible?

Questioner: All I can say is that it has not been possible.

Krishnamurti: Why? Go into it, Sir, don't answer me, necessarily.

Questioner: (inaudible)

Krishnamurti: Wait, wait. I quarrel with you because you want my wife, or I quarrel with you because you want my position; I quarrel with you because I'm jealous of you, I quarrel with you because you're much more intelligent than I am, and so on. Am I willing to stop quarrelling with you altogether?

Questioner: But quarrelling is inside the mind as well as outside.

Krishnamurti: I'm talking of ( the quarrelling )'inside', not outside.

Questioner: I don't control my thought-stream....

Krishnamurti: No Sir, it doesn't bang into you. So I have to understand myself - right? I don't want to quarrel with you under any circumstance. I want to live peacefully with you; if you want my shirt I'll give it to you. me, what is important is not to quarrel, therefore the other things subside. To quarrel like so many monkeys, like animals, is uncivilized, immoral in the deep sense. I feel that very strongly, therefore I'll do it. So, Sir, it all boils down to one thing: how deeply, how fundamentally do we want to live without violence? How deeply do we want to live at peace with (yourself and with ?) each other? We may say we want it - but actually! And that's why it's very important to go within oneself, to find out the nature and the structure of one's (inner) being. Therefore, one has to know oneself. Perhaps we can discuss this question of knowing oneself tomorrow.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Oct 2016 #470
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

THE EXPERIENTIAL APPROACH TO SELF-KNOWING (as masterly exemplified by in this reader friendly editing)

K: It seems to me important to go into the question of knowing oneself. Because, if I do not under stand myself completely, I have no basis for ( a holistically ?) 'rational' thinking, I have no foundation for the 'right' action, I have no roots in what is virtue. Unless I understand myself, I am (consciously or not ?) living in conflict, in sorrow - which inevitably must express itself in some form of violence.
So if we both agree that it is vital to understand ourselves completely, then we have a quite different relationship, then we can walk together, then we can both delve into the most secret corners of our minds.
So, if we could this morning devote our whole energy to understand ourselves and go to the very end of it (not just give up if we don't like it) then perhaps we shall discover for ourselves an (integrated ?) state of mind that is not in conflict at all and therefore can live in this world at peace, both outwardly and inwardly.

( For starters ?) where do we begin to understand ourselves? I can only observe myself in ( my everyday ) relationship to ideas, to people, to things. Right? Here I am, a whole bundle of (intelligent ?) energy (caught in its self-created ?) contradictions and in studying my relationship with the outward things as well as inward things, I begin to understand myself. Is this clear?

Questioner: When I observe myself I see my 'self ' in very different states (moods ?) . Is the self a reality, or not?

Krishnamurti: We're ( hopefully ?) going to find it out. ( And for a change ?) we are going to start as though we knew nothing (about ourselves) . So let us begin as though we were on a 'new' journey (into our own psyche?) .
And if this morning we could go step by step into this, you will discover many things for yourself.

Questioner: When I'm aware of what's happening in me...

Krishnamurti: No, Sir, you've gone far ahead of me. I said you can only understand yourself in ( the context of our ?) relationship.

Questioner: Yes, but what puzzles me is, what you mean by 'relationship'.

Krishnamurti: ( Living in the modern world ?) I am related to ( a lot of people ,as well as with their ideas and ?) things: property and material things. What are (my personal ?) reactions towards those things, to money, to clothes, to food, to houses? By (introspectively ?) studying my reactions I am beginning to understand myself in relation to those things. Right? Are we doing that? You have an ( interactive ?) relationship to your the family, to your property- and that's a very complex question: (if ?) I have plenty of money, what is my relationship to that thing called 'money'? By understanding my reaction I understand (an aspect of ?) myself. My reaction is myself. Right? So I'm beginning to see very clearly what my reaction is with regard to money; whether I hate rich people because I'm poor, or I want to be as rich as the rich man.

So I begin to study myself through (observing ?) my reactions to 'things'. I need food, clothes and shelter, that's absolutely necessary. But what is my (personal ?) reaction to them? Do they give me a sense of inner security? If so, I attach tremendous importance to my property, therefore ( all the time ?) defending my property? And defending my property I'm ( eventuall becoming ?) violent, and therefore I create a society in which, through money, 'I' (my conscious 'self') gain tremendous satisfaction.

So, I've already discovered something about myself - that I'm using my property, (money & things), as a means of inward security, satisfaction, and therefore ( defending and developping my ?) property becomes extraordinarily important. Don't I use property as a status symbol? I'm beginning to understand myself in relation to things - what is my relationship to things. Now, am I in (direct ) contact with my property, with my things, or, am I in contact with the (psychological ?) satisfaction which thos things give me, therefore I use ( my relationship with material ?) 'things' to gain (inner ?) satisfaction, and so those 'things' (I possess ?) become of secondary importance, because my primary (innermost ?) desire is to find (sensory ?) satisfaction and to have security? Right? And I discover ( how my inner contradictions occur ?) - I want property, things, and also begin to see the (psychological trap ?) of it, and I'd want to avoid it; I want to put it aside and yet I want to hold it. Right? So a contradiction (between two opposing desires ?) in me has already begun.
(In a nutshell :) I use things for my own gratification, therefore I have to protect those things which give me the satisfaction and hence I am in a state of defence all the time.

Questioner: (In French) Usually I don't see the (practical) importance of knowing myself, but hearing how you explain it I then discover that it is important - is this not a (stimulating ?) 'escape'?

Krishnamurti: You don't see the (practical ) importance for yourself. Why don't you see it? It's like a man living (inwardly ?) in blindness and saying, it's not ( really) important to have (inwardly perceptive ?) eyes. If you are just being stimulated by the speaker, then it has no (inner) value at all. All right Sir, let's proceed: I discover that in my relationship to (money and ) 'things' they are becoming extraordinarily important. Don't let's fool ourselves. Money, houses, material things that you touch, feel, taste, are extraordinarily important. And why have they become ( so overwhelmingly ?) important? Please follow this. We all need food, shelter and clothes, but why have they become of such colossal importance in our life? What do you say Sirs?

Questioner: They become important to us because we are ( often feeling insufficient and ?) empty inside.

Krishnamurti: In ourselves we are nothing, so we fill that emptiness with furniture - no, no, don't laugh - with ( the knowledge of ?) books, or with money, or with ( top of the line ?) cars. Right? So they become important, because they fill my state of mind which is 'dull' and/or 'empty' . Are we doing that?

Questioner: Sir, I don't think that's our 'conscious' reason for it. To me, my conscious reason is that I see very poor people and all sorts of misery - they can't pay the doctor and so on - and I don't want to be like that. And what keeps me from being like that? It's the material things, so therefore the objects acquire a great importance.

Krishnamurti: Yes Sir, we said that: it is of very great importance.

Questioner: That's the ( material ) reason why we give them importance.

Krishnamurti: That's one of the reasons - I don't want to be like the poor man, therefore I defend what I have (or struggle to get at least something ?) . Right? Therefore I'm ( placing myself ?) in a state of ( psychologically creating or accepting ?) violence.
So, when I use ( my relationship with (money and material ?) things to cover my own (psychological ) insufficiency, to cover my ( sense of loneliness and/or ?) my own shoddiness of being, with furniture, with houses, with name, with all that, what happens in this very process?

Questioner: But this problem about which you have spoken now, the attraction to objects in order to fill our emptiness, I think this is psychological, but has its origin in more concrete things. Hence my (physical dependency of them and my ?) attachment - it is due to fear. I feel that if I do not have them I will die.

Krishnamurti: Of course, of course, so you give them such tremendous importance. Is that the (only ?) reason you give importance to food, clothes and shelter?

Questioner: (In French) Money is a just symbol, but in fact it is part of the organization of material life on which the spiritual life is based. One must study it and understand the intricate part money plays in life and its meaning.

Krishnamurti: That is not the ( self-knowing related ?) question, but what is my relationship to it. I want to know my relationship to things: to money, to houses, to food, clothes and shelter. In that way I shall find out about ( the inwardness of ?) myself. That's what we are discussing. not how money conditions us. Of course it conditions; the man who has no money is conditioned by not having it, and the man who has got money is also conditioned. We know that Sir.

Questioner: (In French) We need material things, but why is it that we are feeling empty without them?

Krishnamurti: Sir, look - we are studying ourselves in our relationship to things, to people and to ideas. Probably there is only one relationship, which is the relationship I have in regard to (images and ) ideas, and that is the only thing that matters (psychologically - wise ?) -(mental images ?) and ideas. You follow Sir? Not food, not people, but the image, the symbol I have about food, clothes, shelter and people. Right? There's nothing wrong in having food, clothes and shelter, but it is the idea I have about it. So I have a relationship, not with the actual things or people but only with (their images and ?) symbols and ideas. Isn't that so?

Questioner: I think, Sir, that we ( psychologically ) identify ourselves with these 'things' and they become part of us (as emotionally charged 'images' ?) .

Krishnamurti: Yes, sir, we identify ourselves with things and therefore they become part of us.

Questioner: When I get a lot of money for myself I feel great pleasure for a moment and then the pleasure dies and I must go and get something else. It seems that (inwardly) there is only the image (that counts) , because when I have the object, it doesn't continue to give pleasure, so there must again be the idea of getting more and this goes on and one is never satisfied.

Krishnamurti: I am learning that really things don't matter at all, nor people, but what matters immensely is my (mental images and ?) ideas about things and people (with which I can deal safely and comfortably ?) .

Questioner: So, the relation I have with these (images and ?) 'idea' is actually a relation between me and myself, because the idea is a part of myself.

Krishnamurti: No, no. That is a ( mental) 'conclusion' that doesn't help me to understand myself (experientially ?) . Sir, put it round the other way. What is most important to me and to you (the middle-upper class audience ?) ? Look at yourself, please. Not money, food, clothes and shelter, but what it will give you. Right? You have an 'image', a symbol, an idea about this - about property and about people. Are you related to people? Am I (directly) related to people, to my friend, to my wife, to my husband? Or am I related to the ( mental) 'image' which I have created for myself about people?

Questioner: It's a ( self-protective mental ?) habit.

Krishnamurti: All right, it's a habit. But why have I created this habit? Why am I not directly in relationship with things and with people? Why should I have ( an all controlling interface based on ?) ideas? And if you say, 'that's a habit', then how did that habit come into being? Why am I a slave to this habit?

Questioner: Because (inwardly ) I'm not lively enough ?

Questioner: Because life has frightened me.

Krishnamurti: Therefore, I am living in ( a safe inner world of ?) abstractions. Right? Not in reality, but in abstractions. Therefore, my relationship to you is an abstraction. I am not actually related. I live in abstractions, in ideas, in images, and (realising this) I say: why have I done this? Why have I created the image about you? Don't verbalize yet, but just look at it: what is much more important to me is not the ctual things or people, but the ideas I have about them. And why have I made this more important than things and people?

Questioner: To protect myself ( psychologically ) ?

Krishnamurti: Do look, wait, Sir. Take two minutes and look at it. I am studying myself, not passing an exam. Why have not only I, but all human beings done this? Whether they live in Asia or in Europe or in America, why have human beings done this?

Questioner: Sir, I think that the object itself, or the person, is for us too complicated to understand and therefore we create an image which is much simpler and easier to handle.

Krishnamurti: I have an image about you because the image is very simple, but you are very complicated. You are a living thing - moving, active, throbbing - and I cannot understand you, therefore I create a ( handy ?) image about you. All the churches are filled with symbols, because a symbol is a dead thing. I can clothe it, I can put garlands round it, I can do anything I like, but I can't do that with a living thing.

Questioner: Words in themselves are symbols.

Krishnamurti: Of course.

Questioner: I have an image of myself when I look at you, and then....
Krishnamurti: Please Sir, we are studying ourselves. We are looking at ourselves and trying to understand ourselves, the reason being that without understanding ourselves we must always be in a state of confusion. Without understanding myself I must be violent; without understanding myself there is no virtue. And in looking at myself, nothing matters at all except my ideas about things! ( for instance ?) nationalism is an idea! And for that I'm willing to kill, destroy myself and lose my property.

Questioner: We don't tell ourselves that the idea is important, we tell ourselves that the thing or the person is important, but the 'importance' which we give to the thing or the person is idea.

Krishnamurti: Of course, that's what we are saying.

Questioner: Would you include among the 'things' your own 'philosophizing'?

Krishnamurti: I am not 'philosophizing'. If I were it would be included among things to be thrown out of the window. Let us stick to this point: I want to understand myself. In that understanding I've discovered something: that to me people are important and that involves ideas and I am attached to ideas. Now, I ask myself, why has this taken place ?

Questioner: It's a kind of defence against something new ( and potentially disturbing ?) - I 'neutralize' things, cover them with my ideas....

Krishnamurti: That means, you're neutralizing, you're blocking, you're denying the ( contact with the ?) living thing, but not your idea - doesn't it? You are a living thing and to live with you without ( the psychological buffer of the ?) ideas means living without the (reassuring ?) 'image'; I have to be on my toes all the time, to watch your moods, your speech, the way you talk, I have to watch everything, and that becomes tremendously exacting, arduous (disturbing ?) . Therefore, it is much simpler to (relate to you through the screen of ?) my 'image' about you.

Questioner: (In French) There are times when ( the actual) things have more importance than ideas - such as in a moment of danger.

Krishnamurti: All right Sir, let's proceed. With regard to dead things I have no ( pre-conceived ?) ideas, but I have 'ideas' (mental images ?) which protect me in my relationship with you as a husband, wife, friend - whatever it is - because you are much too active. So what has happened? I have an image about you which I have built and I keep on adding (or updating ?) to that image. Right? What happens in that state? You become an 'abstraction'; you're not real. My 'image' about you is ( looking far more synthetic and ?) real. What happens then? Have I any (authentic ?) relationship to you at all?

Questioner: There's a destructive quality in what you are saying.

Krishnamurti: No, Madame, watch yourself please. I am living in relationship with you - at least I think I am living in relationship with you - but actually I'm living with the ( comorting ?) 'image' which I have put together about you. So I am 'living in the past'. And (even here and now ?) you're also 'living in the past'. Because you have an 'image' about me and I have an image about you, and (through) these two images ( we) have a ( past based ?) relationship. Then what takes place actually ?

Questioner: A conflict between the ( hyped ?) 'idea' (I have about you ?) and the fact ?

Krishnamurti: The questioner says, 'there is conflict between the fact - you - and the image (I have of you ?) , which is non-fact.' And hence, there is conflict. Wait, wait, watch yourselves. Go into yourselves.

Questioner: Life is a flow and the 'image' is static.

Krishnamurti: All right, is that a discovery you have made?

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: Then if you have found that out , what happens? Then you say, 'I see that I'm always living in ( my safe knowledge of ?) the past'. And life, which is moving, living, is always ( going on ?) in the present, therefore I look at you with 'dead eyes'. Right?

Questioner: Not especially with 'dead eyes'; because if I want to understand a statue I turn it around but I cannot understand the whole statue. I always have only an image.

Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir, that's what we are saying.

Questioner: Why do I need to create ( mental ?) 'images' about every thing?

Krishnamurti: Is it that we are creating 'images' because we are frightened of (facing the complexity of ?) this thing that is our living? Is that so in you?

Questioner: If I were to try and find satisfaction by touching the deeper things 'as they are', I would find that this whole world is very annoying.

Krishnamurti: Of course, that's part of it, I'm bored, I'm frightened - it's all in that field. Now, why do I do this? Go a little deeper. I realize I'm doing this. Why am I doing this?

Questioner : Is it a process of building up a (self-) protective camouflage to hide what actually happens?

Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir, quite right. But why am I doing it?

Questioner: Because I can't live ( completely vulnerable ?) in the present.

Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir. Are you understanding it yourself?

Questioner: Isn't the real question: why do we always keep the memories alive? When I 'think of something' it will lead me either to the past or to the future....

Krishnamurti: Quite right.

Questioner: The 'image' gives a relationship to the past or to the future, not to the present.

Krishnamurti: Quite right, Sir. I agree, then what? I saw a sunset yesterday, it was a great pleasure, a great joy, and it has left a mark and this evening I look at the light on the hill with the 'eyes of yesterday', with the memories of yesterday. I'm doing this all the time. Why am I doing it? Go deeper Sir, go into it. Don't just verbalize it immediately.

Questioner: Because without memories one would be nothing.

Krishnamurti: Is that what you have learnt?

Questioner: Sir, I don't think I know 'reality'. I see things always through images, so I don't really know what 'reality' is.

Krishnamurti: Yes. Why? Please, just stop for a few minutes and find out why you are doing this. One says it is pleasure, the other says it is (the fear of ?) 'emptiness'. But go below the words, below the immediate discovery and understanding.

Questioner: If you watch a child, one minute it is satisfied with one thing, and then with another.... I do the same in a more complicated way.

Krishnamurti: Why am I doing this, why am I building images? Why can't I live with the living thing all the time - the living thing is moving, acting, it may be wrong, it may be right, but why can't I live with that?

Questioner: Can the living thing exist for me at all without the image, Sir?
Krishnamurti: You have an 'image' about the speaker, haven't you? You have, unfortunately. Now, why do you have that image? The image built on reputation, propaganda, all that. Why have you got that image? Why can't you be directly in relationship with the speaker? Why do you have to have an image about him?

Questioner: Because if I have the image and you are changing it is so difficult....

Krishnamurti: We said that. It is a protective reaction against a 'living' thing. But why are we doing it?

Questioner: The 'image' is a thought.

Krishnamurti: Why is thought building the image?

Questioner: All my thought can do is just that; that's all it ever does.

Questioner: But to face the 'reality' directly would be intolerable (or terrible ) !

Krishnamurti: Sir, wait a minute. I want to find out why when I look at a sunset today, the past (memories of other ?) sunsets comes into my mind, and when I look at you - husband, wife, children, brother, whoever it is - I look at you through the (past ) 'images' which I have about you practically about everything else. I live (therefore in a safe zone of ?) abstractions and I say to myself, why am I doing it? Now how do I find out?

Questioner: By watching ourselves.

Krishnamurti: How am I watching myself to find out why I create these images?

Questioner: I seem to keep doing it because I'm not aware I'm making these 'images'.

Krishnamurti: First, I'm not aware that I'm building these 'images' , but when (eventually ?) I do become aware, then I ask myself - 'why am I doing this?' You can't answer it for me. I have to find it out for myself. Now, how am I going to find out? First, I must stop listening to my (own mental) chattering. I must stop listening to all your suggestions -do you agree? That means - what?

Questioner: Looking, Sir, just 'looking'.

Krishnamurti: How do I look? Am I (mentally ) quiet or am I restlessly searching for an answer? To observe, to be aware I (the observer ?) must be fairly quiet, mustn't I? That's all. Are you quiet? Or are you waiting for somebody to tell you (the next step ?) ? If you're quiet, and you are aware in that quietness, what is your response?

Questioner: Isn't there simply a matter of 'awareness'?

Krishnamurti: But I haven't understood why I have built this image.

Questioner: Then it seems that you are the only person who is going to be able to answer your question.

Krishnamurti: Not at all! I don't want to take that responsibility. I'll answer it for myself.

Questioner: Sir, may it not be that thought keeps intervening; this thought is our memory, our conditioning, and if we are aware of that - aware of ourselves - then we, the 'I' , don't exist any more?

Krishnamurti: Sir, here is a ( very subtle psychological ?) problem. I have searched every means to find out why I do it, in every avenue, and I can't find an answer, what do I do?

Questioner: I leave it.

Krishnamurti: You leave it, but as I don't want to leave it, I can't just drop it, I want to find out now.

Questioner: You must pause.

Krishnamurti: Yes, you must pause, you must wait. Are you doing it?

Questioner: There's nothing to do but to realize that one doesn't know anything about it.

Krishnamurti: Do you pause, do you keep quiet wait, look?

Questioner: How can I be quiet when asking this question? It is still troubling me.

Krishnamurti: Listen. You have asked a question. And how do you find the answer? To ( experientially ) find an answer, to look, I must have a pause, there must be a lag, there must be quietness to look.

Questioner: But where is the 'asking' in this lag? I forget the asking?

Krishnamurti: Have I? Who is going to tell me? You (K) ? If you tell me, will it be real to me? It's only real if I can find out for myself, and to find out for myself there must be no bias, no prejudice, no tension, therefore I must be quiet, mustn't I? Which means ( that my self-centred ?) thinking must not interfere (since the same self-centred ?) thinking has created the 'images'. Right? And the (self-?) image which my thought has created is old because thought is always 'old'. Therefore I see that the moment thought interferes I shan't find the 'real' (experiential ?) answer'.

Questioner: Instead of thought we should be filled with love.

Krishnamurti: I'm afraid I cannot fill myself with 'love'; I don't know what it means.

Questioner: All right Sir, I think we followed you up to this point.

Krishnamurti: Good! Now let's proceed. I have found that (my self-centred ?) thinking creates ( and updates ?) these 'images' and also thought is constantly interfering and so prevents the (experiential ?) discovery of 'what is' ( the active cause of ?) , why I create these images. Right? Why does thought interfere at all? So my problem is not why the mind creates these images, but why does thought, which is the creator of the image, constantly interfere?

Questioner: Then thought forms the ego....

Krishnamurti: Thought forms the (self-) 'image'; don't bring in a new ( psychologically loaded ?) word, otherwise it will get complicated. We are saying simply. (My self-centred process of ?) thought has created the (self-) image, the image which I have built in my relationship with you, and that same thought says to itself, now I must find out why I'm doing it. Thought is constantly active. Right Sir? So thought thinks it will find out - go slowly, wait - so thought says, I have built this, I don't know why I have built it, but now I must find out. Thought thinks it will find out. But ( not being aware of its inner working ?) what it will find out is another (mental ?) 'image' which it has projected from its own past experience, therefore it is not a (self-revealing ?) discovery, it is merely an activity of (the same self-centred ) thought.

Questioner: So, thought cannot have an (insightful ?) answer.

Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir, that's what we said. Can thought ( the actively 'thinking' brain ?) say to itself, look I have done the mischief now I will be quiet?

Questioner: Sir, if we really go into it deeply (meditatively ?) then we will see that thought ( working in the self-protected mode ?) cannot find an authentic answer.

Krishnamurti: But why don't you see it now ? I have created an 'image' about you through thinking about you, either pleasurably or because you have given me pain. Then I (may eventually come to ?) ask myself, why am I doing this? Now, if thought answers the question, it will be in the same category as the 'image'. Right?

Questioner: But thought is not operating alone, it is operating with our feelings, with all our 'psyche'. So when you're saying that thought discovers that it is the same thing (on the same level ?) as the image - can we look at that still more carefully?

Krishnamurti: I'll do it Sir. Say, I am married to you and I have built an image about you - sexual pleasure, or the insulting things you have said to me, the nagging, the flattery, the hurts - all that has gone to build up an image about you. Who has done this? My own thinking about the sexual pleasure, thought thinking about the insult, thought thinking about the flattery: you say, 'How nice you look today, I like your looks!' I adore you when you say that! - so I have (subliminally) collected all that (psychological junk ?) and ( based on it ?) I have created an 'image' about you. The 'I' (who did this) is the ( self-centred process of ?) thought. Right Sir? So thought has done this ( sub-consciously ?) and (the resulting image ?) is an abstraction, whereas you are real. So I run away from ( seeing the real ?) you in a (comfortable ) abstraction. But then, I (may eventually ?) get hurt if you look at someone else. So, now I say to myself, 'why am I doing all this?' Why is ( my self-centred ?) thought doing all this? - creating the image, ( updating or ?) adding to the image, taking things away from the image, and when it is asking the question, 'why is it doing it?' - who is going to answer it? Is thought going to answer it?

Questioner: Thought cannot give the answer. We must see this.

Krishnamurti: If you understand this , what takes place?

Questioner: Then there's silence.

Krishnamurti: Don't use that word 'silence'. Just look at what takes place - which means that you have no 'image' (about yourself or others ?) . That's what is taking place. When thought says, I have built it and I am going to find out why I have built it, and sees the absurdity of such a question, then all (the sub-conscious mechanism of ?) image-making ceases. Then I can look at you - my wife or husband - without an (self-protective ?) image. Now, to go into it a little more deeply. What takes place when there is no more 'image'?

Questioner: There's no 'observer' then ?

Krishnamurti: No Sir, go into it; don't reduce it. Go slowly Sir.

Questioner: There is a 'real' relationship.

Krishnamurti: ( To recap:) So far we've discovered only one thing: that thought has created the image and thought seeking to find ( experientially) why, will (probably ) create another 'image' (a mental model) in which it will be caught. It's a 'vicious circle' as long as thought is operating. Right? I have discovered that. Therefore thought is no longer ( sub-consciously ?) creating any image. So then, what is my actual relationship to things, to people.

Questioner (1): Direct awareness, Sir.

Questioner (2): When thought ceases, the 'real me', the Self, becomes in a way more apparent.

Krishnamurti: Is there a 'real me' without the ( memory back-up of ?) thought? Sir, don't get caught in your own words, be careful.

Questioner: I see you 'as you are'?

Krishnamurti: No, no, What is the ( quality of our ?) relationship when I have no image about you?

Questioner: The 'dead' person becomes a living thing....

Krishnamurti: Sir, I wish you would do this actually: put away the images you have about me, or about your wife, or about somebody else and 'look'. Then find out what that relationship is.

Questioner: (In French) If I am in ( such a direct) relationship then I can follow the moods and thoughts of that person.

Krishnamurti: That's not what I'm asking, if you don't mind. We are asking: 'if I have no ( psychologically motivated ?) 'image' about money, about property, or about you - my wife or husband or friend - what is that relationship?'

Questioner: To ask this question is to be back in thought.

Krishnamurti: No, no Madame, just look at it. I have no (need to create any ?) 'image' about you - that's a tremendous thing I've discovered. Then I say to myself, 'what is my relationship, what is this relationship then, if I have no image?'

Questioner : Sir, it's an extremely difficult question to go into, because when we try to put it into words, then thought springs into action.

Krishnamurti: Look, Sir, let's make it very simple. You're my friend, I have an image about you. Now, I if have no 'image' about you, what has taken place in me? Not just in my relationship with you, what has actuality taken place in me? I want to know, what has actually taken place in me?

Questioner: Every second is new ?

Krishnamurti: Madame, you're all guessing. This isn't a guessing game.
What has taken place in me when I'm not creating (static ?) 'images' about everything? Please, look at yourself (non-personally ?) and find out what happens if you're no longer an 'image making entity', what has taken place (in your psyche ?)?

Questioner: We cannot know because if we 'knew' we would conceptualize it. The fact is that we still have the 'image'.

Krishnamurti: Sir, (if? ) we went ( experientially all the way ?) through the whole process of image making - if you don't do that any more, what takes place?

Questioner (1): The (inner) space where the image was is now (emptied ?) without the image.

Krishnamurti: ( In a nutshell ?) as long as ( the self-centred process of ?) thought is operating its ( 'firewalling ' ?) function is to create (a lot of static mental ?) 'images'. So in the very understanding of that, ( the thinking part of the brain which generates ?) thought is in abeyance, quiet. Then I say to myself, what has taken place? When thought (along with the 'thinker' ?) is completely quiet and not building any images about anything, what has taken place?

Questioner: I cannot stop it, Sir.

Krishnamurti: Then go on, chase the tail.

Questioner: Sir, then thought comes to an end, that's all we know now.

Krishnamurti: I'm showing you Sir; if you (would) do it yourself, it's very simple. Thought has been 'chasing its own tail'. Right? Now thought realizes how silly it is, therefore it stops! And when thought stops chasing its tail what takes place at that moment, at that second?

Questioner: We don't know...

Krishnamurti: If you don't know, you haven't stopped 'chasing the tail'.

Questioner: The 'thinker' disappears ?

Krishnamurti: You see, you're all so eager to ( get the right ?) answer. You haven't really looked at yourself at all. You haven't spent a single minute looking at yourself. If you had, you would have inevitably come to this point, that thought is chasing its own tail all the time. Then thought ( the 'thinking brain' ?) itself realizes how absurd this is and therefore it stops. Now, when it stops what takes place?

Questioner: We would be very still.

Krishnamurti: How quick we are to answer, aren't we! Do we give up the guessing game ? Look, Sir! I am asking something which you're refusing to face (experientially ) . ( The experiential right answer ?) is very simple: the moment thought stops chewing its own tail, you're full of ( a non-dissipated ?) energy - aren't you? Because in that 'chasing' your energy has been dissipated. Right? Then you become (inwardly ?) very 'intense'. Now, what happens to a mind that is very 'intense' ? Have you ever been 'intense'(-ly passionate?) about anything? And if you have been, what happens?

Questioner: Then 'you' are not, as far as....

Krishnamurti: There's no (personal) problem, and therefore 'you' (the creator of problems ?) are not. 'You' are ( self-conscious ?) only when there's ( the 'thinker' vs 'its thoughts' ?) conflict.

Questioner: Then you're out of the door (out of there ?) .

Krishnamurti: You see, you're verbalizing again. Don't do that Sir, please, we have gone (experientially ?) into something very deep: in that (undivided ?) 'intensity' there is neither the 'observer' nor the 'observed'. Sir, when you (have ?) 'love' - is there a (thinking ?) 'observer' ? There is such an 'observer' only when 'love' is (translated in terms of ?) desire and pleasure. When desire and pleasure are not associated with love, then 'love' is intense isn't it? It is something new every day because 'thought' (the 'thinking part of the brain ?) has not touched it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 Nov 2016 #471
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

SAANEN 1ST K PUBLIC DISCUSSION 1966 (reader friendly edited)


K: What shall we discuss?

Questioner: We all have some kind of beliefs and we come here in the hope of attaining what we believe. Madame Curie had a belief and worked enthusiastically till she found what she wanted. Is not some kind of belief necessary to have enthusiasm?

Krishnamurti: Can't your enthusiasm sustain itself without a belief, and is enthusiasm at all necessary, or is a different kind of energy needed, a different kind of vitality, drive? Most of us have enthusiasm for something or other. We are very keen, very enthusiastic about concerts, about physical exercise, or going to a picnic. Unless it is nourished all the time by something or other, it fades away and we have a new enthusiasm for other things. Is there a self-sustaining force, energy, which doesn't depend on a belief?
The other question is that our ( inner ?) life is a terrible mess with its anguish, conflict and constant ambition; it is a fact. And we demand a belief when we want to escape from this fact into an unreality. For example, I know there is death. It is a fact. And being afraid, I must have a belief that will give me comfort in facing this terrible ( pending ?) reality. Apparently for most of us belief of some kind is necessary, belief in brotherhood, in the end of war, in the end of sorrow, in pacifism, in leading a good life. Why should we have any beliefs?

Questioner: Because we don't know (the truth ?)

Krishnamurti: I have sorrows of various kinds; I'm miserable, unhappy, unfulfilled. Someone tells me that sorrow can end. I say that I want to find out. I don't have to believe what he says. I want to find out if it can actually end. To find out, I have to see what is implied in it. So, my interest is not in the belief that it can end, but rather whether I can go into it so that I have no sorrow. Having a belief that sorrow can end is an ( ages old ?) waste of energy; and I need all my energy to investigate.
So, why we need beliefs, ideals, examples, heroes, leaders, teachers, Masters ?

Questioner: Because I'm afraid to be alone.
Questioner: Because we need comfort.
Questioner: We don't know why we live, and therefore we believe.

Krishnamurti: Our daily life is a terrible bore, with ( a lot of stress ?) loneliness and anguish and we believe there is something else. We avoid (facing the real) issue.

Questioner: It is not a question of "belief" but of having a purpose. If you have no purpose, then you have no intelligence and no energy.

Krishnamurti: You know people who have purposes, who have ideals, who have beliefs and... are they intelligent?
Let us approach the problem quietly, with ( timeless ?) patience. First of all, the 'fact' is that ( inwardly) we are unhappy, in conflict; we are confused and not knowing how to clear up our confusion, we say, "I must have a purpose; otherwise I'll just dissipate my life".
If I am confused, will having a 'belief in clarity' give me enthusiasm to get rid of my confusion? It only creates ( anothe) contradiction. I dissipate my energy in this contradiction, in this effort, while realizing that I am confused gives me energy. The speaker has talked for the last forty years about throwing away all (psychological dependency on ?) beliefs, all ideals, all heroes, all ideations, all teachers. Have you done it? No, of course not; you are (comfortably ?) conditioned to a life of concepts, not (dealing with its ?) actuality.
( Psychologically-wise ?) you live a lazy life; if you like it, be completely lazy and see what happens.
In the same way, if you are confused, and someone says there is a state of mind in which there is clarity like sunshine on a lovely day, without any mist, without any fog, in which you can see everything clearly, in which every line is clear, why do you ( have to become a follower and ?) believe in that person? The fact is that you are confused. To be free of ( your inner ?) confusion you don't need to believe me because I say that you can be ( gloriously ?) free.

Questioner: I am aware that between you and myself there is ( a free communication ?) space. Is there any way that I can make myself free in this 'space'?

Krishnamurti: Why do you want an 'ideal contact' in which there is no ( self-divisive ?) space? The fact is that there is that ( self-centred) space, and in that space there is all our misery, conflict and the problems , of relationship.
Is it possible to have no ( dividing ) space between you and me? I don't have to believe in it. That would be stupid.

Questioner: Having a belief is like putting a penny in the slot, hoping a bar of chocolate will come out.

Krishnamurti: If you can (inwardly afford it ?) when you go out, leave behind in the tent all your ideals, and see what happens. First of all, you (may realise that you ?) don't really believe in your ideals. That's a fact. If people really believed in "reincarnation", what they do in this life would be tremendously important, because next (or in the after- ?) life they are going to pay for it if they don't behave properly now. They don't believe it, because they don't believe in leading the real life. It is a (very convenient form of ?) escape.
Can each one of us face his ( pet ?) escapes, from confusion, from quarrels with wife or husband, from the meaningless existence, the boredom of life, with the things that he wants to do and can't, from the complete frustration, the feeling of guilt, the agony of it, this agony that we human beings go through? Can we look at it all, face our escapes from it all without an ideal? Ideals have no meaning when we have to face "reality".

Questioner: Don't you need a 'dialogue' to face any problem?

Krishnamurti: With whom are you having a dialogue? If there is no confusion, I wouldn't have ( the need for ?) a 'dialogue with myself'. Either I see clearly, or I don't.

Questioner: ( In your talks here ) you have pictured to us a state (of being) , an (inner) space in which there is no sorrow, where there is understanding, compassion. We are looking at that (verbal painting ?) , and we still have distance between 'what is' and 'that'.

Krishnamurti: I am in sorrow, and I have listened to someone, who describes a state in which there is no sorrow, who says that sorrow can end. In living with sorrow there is always cunning, deception, hypocrisy; but with the ending of sorrow, there is wisdom, there is intelligence. He says, "Don't make that into an ideal, into a concept, but see if you can be free from your (ongoing sense of ?) sorrow". We are now asking ourselves why there is this monstrous structure of ideals, concepts, formulas, when they are just words without any reality. The "reality" is that ( within ourselves ?) we are confused; we have problems; we are miserable. We don't ask "How we can end all of that ?". We always ask, "Can I move from this to that?".

Questioner: If I do not believe in God, in religious leaders, and all the rest of it, it is almost like saying, "Whatever happens, I know that I can cope with it".

Krishnamurti: That would be a most 'dangerous' (slippery ?) assertion, because I am not capable. To be capable, to have the necessary vitality, energy, it should not be dissipated in ideals, in beliefs. How can you face facts, if you have a divided mind, if there is an ideal, and the fact? You must have a mind that can say, "I can look at the facts", but you cannot if you have a divided mind, an idealistic mind and a non-idealistic mind.

Questioner: How can you bring up children without ideals, without beliefs? You will isolate them in the world.

Krishnamurti: Do you think that if you bring them up without beliefs, you isolate them, choke them, cut them off from a lot of other people who believe, so that they have no relationships? There are two things involved. First, you yourself have to be free of ideals, beliefs. In the process of helping the child not to have beliefs, you yourself are getting rid of 'beliefs'. If I understand the futility of beliefs, I can help the child to face the ( real ?) world, which is drowned in ( wishful thinking and/or?) beliefs; that child will have intelligence enough not to be isolated.

If you have no (personal attachments to such ?) "beliefs", it's a great relief. You put off a heavy burden. Then you "walk lighter"; then you can look into problems more freely. Can you do it? Can each of you actually, leave all 'beliefs', 'ideations', 'concepts'? If you can't, then let's find out why you can't.

Questioner: Isn't 'belief' a ( more complex) psychological state?

Krishnamurti: It is a very complex psychological state (of self-insufficiency ?) ; it demands that I have beliefs, a purpose, an ideal. Psychologically I can't face what I am - my ugliness, my pettiness, my loneliness. I must ( compensare for it with ?) some kind of entertainment.
Psychologically I need it; it feeds me; it sustains me; and I live like that. Psychologically I am 'no one', a poor, withered entity. I need a richness; I need concerts; I need to come and listen to these ( Swiss summer ? ) talks, or be entertained by a church. I need it. Or I'm feeling so insufficient, that I commit myself to some action; I become a 'socialist', a liberal, or whatever it is. There is only one fact (to be seriously considered ?) , the fact that I am confused, miserable; why can't I face it now ?

Questioner: If you have a belief, it arises from an inner area that is not clear. As soon as you look into that area, you start to think about it, and that's dialogue.

Krishnamurti: You have an area which is not clear, which is confused, and you have another area, which you think is clear. You have a dialogue between these two. That's called thinking, investigating, searching, asking. The area that is confused and the area that is not confused are both the same. There is a conflict between them, which indicates a state of confusion. It's not ( total ?) clarity.

Questioner: Can I look at my confusion? And what is the state that looks at confusion?

Krishnamurti: Why don't I stop and look at myself? When I am confused in a jungle, I don't go around like a monkey all over the place. I stop to take stock of where I am, but I stop.

Questioner: Does that not bring up the question of ( some subliminal ?) 'psychological' fear? We are suddenly faced with the fact that we have been trapped for years.

Krishnamurti: Therefore the problem is whether it is possible to be free of this fear.

Questioner: Once you have faced it, you can no longer have an ideal.

Krishnamurti: Of course. Like a man who says he believes in brotherhood. When everyone is butchering each other, both inwardly and outwardly, why have an ideal of brotherhood? It is tommyrot.
Let's go over this again step by step. Psychologically I am confused; I am afraid. I know this. I am also aware that out of this fear, out of this uncertainty, I invent a concept. To understand the psychological state completely, I must "drop the concept". When I have dropped it I must stop and take a breath. Then my mind is no longer burdened with ideas, with concepts and I can find out how to look directly . That's all. But to be rid of the psychological structure of defence is one of the most difficult things to do. Is it possible to have the energy, the vitality to look at the fact, or must we lose that vitality in psychological defence? It is an obvious fact that we have these ( mental ? ) defences, and we can live and die with them, with constant misery, confusion and conflict. To be open, to look, to investigate, to find out, we must stop; we must have the feeling that we have completely dropped all defence.
( For homework:) When we leave this tent, do we feel that we have unburdened ourselves, thrown away our ideals, so that we can look at ourselves as we are? Then we can discuss whether the fact can be changed, or if mere confrontation with the fact brings about a mutation. That only take place if we have dropped the other. Tomorrow morning we will talk over how to face the 'fact', not how to get rid of ideals.
If you haven't got rid of them after nearly an hour and a half, ( then...) good luck; carry them to your homes; but I hope you have dropped them and have stopped. Do you know what it means to stop? It is like a man who smokes, who says, "I will stop", and actually "stops" smoking. If he says, "I must choose something; I must do something in order to be occupied so that I am not thinking about smoking", ( inwardly ?) he is still ( attached to the habit of ?) 'smoking'. But if you can drop your ( self-protecting) 'ideals', there is not only a new energy, but there is also a new perfume, which is of passion, and without that 'perfume' ( if inner freedom ?) you can't "look".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Nov 2016 #472
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

SAANEN 2ND AND 3-RD K PUBLIC DISCUSSION 1966 ( 'experientially friendly' edited )


K: We are going to discuss this morning whether a mind, without having (the psycho-logistic support of ?) beliefs, ideas, or concepts, can face what it actually is. We will also go into the question of whether the mind can face ( its own ?) fears without any (psycho-) escapes, such as belief. We will go to the very end of this problem of fear and of what to do about it. Also, to discuss it fully (experientially ?) , we first have to enquire whether action, any kind of activity, is possible without a formula, without an idea, idea being organized thought.

Questioner: Is it possible to face myself? Between "myself" and the "fact" is all the psychological structure of memory, tradition, the culture in which I have been brought up.

Krishnamurti: As we said yesterday, we have built around ourselves ( buffering ?) defences made up of beliefs, ideas, words and symbols, through which we try to face "what is". This, obviously, is not possible.
Can I really be free of "belief" (eg:) of what I (believe that I ?) should be, what I am, or what I was? Is it possible for me to act, to do something, without a formula? That is really an extraordinarily important question because, so far, our action has approximated itself to ( strongly recommended ?) beliefs, or ideas. We are now saying something so totally different, to act without any (pre-concieved ?) 'idea', so that every moment is new ? All ( current ?) action - going to the office, or any other activity - is based on a concept, an ideal, a tradition, a thought which has a remembrance. Is it possible to (act ?) free of them?

Questioner: You pointed out (last time) that the ( psychological part of our ?) mind is totally unclear, and that no sensible action can be taken as long as the mind is in that state. If part of the mind is not clear, the whole thing is unclear; so how can we even look at your question, as long as our mind is so unclear?

Krishnamurti: You state that your mind is totally confused. You don't know whether there is God or there is no God; whether there is reincarnation, or no reincarnation; whether you must love your country, when many people say we have gone beyond all that. Some say that you must have a king or a queen, but the republicans say, "Oh, that's old stuff; put it all out". You are brought up in this confusion; you are (part of ?) this confusion. Realizing that whatever you think, whatever you do, whatever your aspirations may be, noble or otherwise, they are all the outcome of this confusion and are therefore still confused, what will you do?

Questioner: Shouldn't I just 'do nothing', and look completely at my confusion?

Krishnamurti: Please tell me what to do.

Questioner: Well, that's what I've done; I've looked at my confusion.

Questioner: We can do a simple action without 'thinking'.

Krishnamurti: We are asking whether it is possible to have no 'beliefs' (psychological assumptions ?) , and if it is possible to act without an 'idea' (without an ideological background ?) . This requires a great deal of attention : why I try to escape from the fact of what I am, (whatever I am). I don't like something in myself; I want to run away from it and either go to a church, to a concert, take a drink, or... come to a meeting like this.

Questioner: I do all these things because I'm feeling lonely.

Krishnamurti: Why do you try to escape from your loneliness? Why don't you face it? Do please ask yourself why you have built ( such a sofisticated ?) network of escapes around yourself ?

Questioner: Deep down in us there is great fear (of the unknown problems this may create ?) ; therefore we 'run away'.

Krishnamurti: I am deeply afraid; therefore I run away. Is that a fact?

Questioner: You run away because you are annoyed.

Krishnamurti: You're saying that you can't face yourselves 'as you are' - afraid, lonely, and therefore you run away. You are not answering my question. Who are you running away from?

Questioner: All the time inside of us there is some sort of 'ideal' (image) of how we should be, and this is in conflict with what we really are.

Krishnamurti: The questioner says, "I am dissatisfied with what I am". Then why do I run away ?

Questioner: I can't stand still. That's why I run.
Questioner: I run away to save myself.
Questioner: By running away it may be easier.

Krishnamurti: One can talk like this endlessly. Please have patience with me and listen for two minutes. I want to know why I run away. I am (feeling inwardly?) frightened, lonely, anxious, miserable. I don't like it and make a movement away to something else . I'm talking of the interval (gap ?) between them, the act of running. If I can find out (how to deal with ?) that, perhaps I won't run. If I can find out why this movement (away from what I am) takes place, I may be able to solve the problem. I may, although I may not, but I want to know why this action takes place. I know the games which man has played through centuries upon centuries, but have I ever questioned what this movement is, and why does this movement take place?

Questioner: If you ask that question there must be an answer.

Krishnamurti: I say there is an answer. I would like to show it to you, but you don't stop.

Questioner: It isn't from 'this' to 'that'. Probably there is no movement at all.

Krishnamurti: I think I have moved, but I am merely changing from one centre (of interest) to another centre, which is still the "me", which I don't like. When I think I am running away, I am really static. It is a terrible thing to discover that though I think I am moving, I am really static. It isn't like putting on a new coat and discarding the old one, because the 'entity' that puts on the new coat is always the same entity. This doesn't mean that I must get rid of the 'self', which is the philosophy of the Orient.

Questioner: You were speaking in your last talk about space, and if I understood, there is only one space.

Krishnamurti: To go from here to the place where I live there is time; there is space; and there is definitely a movement. I walk, take a car, go by a cycle or by train. I apply the same thing to my (inner life) . I say, "I am this; I am unhappy" and I want to live more happily, and so on. I want to move away from 'what is' to something else. Physically I move away from the tent to my home. There is a movement, and I apply that same (thinking) to myself. I never stop and look; I never ask myself if I am really moving. I think I am moving away from 'what' is to what I think 'I should be'. I am saying to myself, "Is it a movement?"

Questioner: If there is no movement at all, why do we think there is?

Krishnamurti: Up to now all religions, all philosophies have stated that you should change, move from this to that. If. someone comes along and says that it may not be like that at all, you don't even examine it. If the movement from 'this' to 'that' is static, because this is essentially the same although called by a different name, put in a different cloak, then one asks if there is a change at all. You think you are changing, changing, changing, and this change is called evolution. May there not be a totally different way of looking, living?

Questioner: During my whole life, haven't I changed at all?

Krishnamurti: Do you know what would happen to you if you really discovered ( the truth of ?) this fact ? You would be in a state of horror, if you discovered that the movement from 'this' to 'that' is the same as 'this'. What you think you're changing to is what has been. If you realize this, you ask, "What have I done for forty years of my life?".
Let us begin to understand this slowly, step by step. We started out by asking ourselves if we need any psychological 'belief' at all. Apparently such beliefs are a means of protecting ourselves ( or our sense of continuity in time ?) : utopias, ideals of what we should be. We are making a ( coordinated mental) movement from 'what is' to 'what should be'. This movement we call change, spirally climbing. For two million years or more man has said, "I mustn't kill, because I'll be killed". Yet he keeps on killing, and keeps on talking about peace. What has he learned, except to protect himself more and more, in a different, more subtle manner? This protection is called "evolution". I see that it has no meaning at all. It is like putting up an umbrella against the rain. If I don't have the umbrella, if I just think I have it, I am soaked through all my life. When you realize (psychologically -wise ?) that it is a sterile action, what is to be done to find an action which is not based on a belief, an idea, a concept, a formula; or which is not approximating itself to something?

Questioner: Actually when the difference between the 'experiencer' and the 'experience' is understood and finally abolished, then, once the experience has come and gone, it doesn't really matter what words you use.

Krishnamurti: I quite agree. If it is lost, it has gone down the river.

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: So, ( for homework:) when you go out of this tent, try not to act according to an idea, to a memory.

Questioner: There is ( a subliminal ) fear of a loss of identity if the difference between the experiencer and the experience is abolished.

Krishnamurti: What are you identified with?

Questioner: There an "I" who knows this (sense of existential) despair. How does one overcome that very real moment of terror?

Krishnamurti: You want a quick answer, and there is no quick answer. You can take a pill, a drug, but that's no answer since you'll be back again in the same state tomorrow. But if we take the "voyage" together step by step, not impatiently, not rushing, hesitantly, with care, with affection, you will find it for yourself.
I'll put it differently. Our life functions in routines, in patterns. I repeat what has been, hoping it will change, and this hope is the movement which prevents me from facing my ( existential ?) despair: "I have lived, struggled, brought other human beings into the world, and I go on, for what?". I become ( to sink ?) more and more in despair, more and more depressed. What am I to do? To find out, I have to enquire into this question of functioning within an idea(tional framework ?) . If I don't function with an idea, with a belief, with a doctrine, what is my action with regard to the actual fact ? I'll have to (take an analytical detour and ?) find out how my mind refuses to move away from what it has known, how it refuses to function differently.
If you will go into it with the speaker, you will find out for yourself, but if you say, "I had that experience yesterday. When it happened I was so happy; please tell me how to get it back", it's all silly. Throw it down the river; it means nothing. There is only one question facing us now, whether there is an action in which there is no approximation of an idea. To find that out, don't say that there is or there is not, but try to find out for yourselves whether there is an ( inner) action without idea(tion) . If you can't find it, we will discuss it very carefully, step by step, tomorrow. But don't say, "Yes, I have had moments of clarity". It's like that noise of the train; it goes away. To enquire, you not only need freedom, but also great care; and care means affection, love.

K: We will continue with what we were discussing yesterday: I have to act with regard to the fact, with regard to 'what is', with regard to what I find. There must be ( a holistical ?) action, but 99.9 per cent of our (inner) actions are an approximation of a belief, an idea, a concept, an image and according to that ideation, I act. However, there is conflict between the 'idea' and the action. (Eg:) I see that I am afraid. I have an idea about fear, what I should do how I should avoid it. There is an (ongoing) conflict between the observer and the (thing) observed, and if I don't see it, I can't deal with the object which is called fear.
So, why is there an interval of ( 'psychological' ?) time, (a 'distance' ? ) between the 'observer', who is the idea, and the object? You are looking from your balcony and see that mountain and the waterfall. There is an interval between you and the mountain with its waterfall; there is a ( physical) space, a time lag which makes for ( covering that) distance . (However) when there is ( inwardly) this interval of 'space and time', the "observer" (feels ?) different from the thing that he has observed - and in that space there is conflict. The more intense the conflict, the more demand there is for action. The observer says, "What am I to do? How am I to act? How am I to get over it?".
In the same way that there is a ( physical) distance from you who are looking out of the window to the mountain and its waterfall, there is (a psychological) distance between the observer and the thing he calls 'fear'. He wants to get beyond it, or destroy it. With regard to that waterfall, you can walk there, if you have the energy, or you can turn your back on it and forget it, but with 'fear' you can't. It is always there. Unless you really understand action which is not based on an idea, in which there is no ( psychological distance btw ?) 'observer' and the (fear being ) observed, you can't meet ( directly with ?) the fact.
What then is ( the right 'psychological' ?) action? Must this (inward) action always breed conflict? Life is action; action isn't something we do apart from living. So we ask: is there is an action which has no conflict in it at all ?

Questioner: Who is the entity that is looking?

Krishnamurti: We haven't come to that point yet. Let's approach the problem differently. We see ( our inner) life a breeding ground of hopeless despair, loneliness, anger, the desire to dominate, and the feeling that we are suppressed. That's what we call existence, living; and in that field we act. Every action, however much interrelated with each other, creates more conflict, more battle, more confusion. At the end we ask if there is a way of life, a (way of ?) action which in no way brings confusion, conflict ?

Questioner: I don't know about that yet...

Krishnamurti: Then, sir, if you don't know, say, "I don't know", and keep quiet.

Questioner: Will the answer come then?

Krishnamurti: To be ( inwardly ?) quiet needs tremendous intelligence. A man who is napping is very quiet, but to be really quiet, without ( subliminally ?) seeking, without wanting, needs tremendous intelligence; and then perhaps the answer comes, but we are not (yet) in that position, so we must have the patience to go step by step.

Questioner: The everyday process of living breeds conflict and strain.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that's what we have 'stated' (implicitly ?) . As long as there is space, a ( separation ?) interval, between the 'observer' and the 'observed', there must be conflict.

Questioner: Since I do not thoroughly understand either myself as the 'observer', or the actions that I do, how can I talk about some new action?

Krishnamurti: First you have to realize that you never see ( directly) the fact that 'psychologically' there is ( a safe distance between ?) the observer and the observed; between 'me', the ( biased ?) observer, and the thing observed -my anger. You say, "I'm ( getting) angry". That's all you know. You must realize that you have never looked at this 'fact' of the ( mental separation between the ?) observer and the ( inner stuff ?) observed.

Questioner: I am lacking real love.

Krishnamurti: The actual fact is that I lack love. That ( 'love') is the object; the "I" is the observer. We don't realize the ( hidden factor of my inner?) separation. The first thing to understand, to realize is that there is in me psychologically this fact - that I am ( feeling safely ) separated from the thing which I observe. The next ( hidden ?) fact I have to realize is that the 'observer' is nothing but ( a pro-active identification with our past ?) ideas, memories, formulas, opinions.
There is this separation and my actions become a means to fulfil or to overcome the object, and there is conflict.

Questioner: What is the entity who observes and sees the thing, the object?

Krishnamurti: This question is easy to ask, but to find the answer requires a great deal of penetration (and/or ?) insight.
When we (don't ?) realize that "I" and the (inner) 'object' (being observed ) are two different states, we (only re-) act; and that (re-) action breeds more conflicts, more trouble, more travail, more pain. Now, realising know that what I do (by reacting ?) will breed more conflict, how am I to put an end to conflict in action?

Questioner: Don't (re-) act ?
Krishnamurti: Unless I am totally paralysed, dead or insensitive, I must act. I see that every action breeds more pain, more conflict, more travail. I am going to find out if there is a (non-reactive ?) action in which there is no conflict.

Questioner: How am I to find union between the observer and the observed?

Krishnamurti: I realize that whatever I do breeds more conflict, more confusion, more misery to myself. So I say, What am I to do?

Questioner: If one watches one's thoughts, one's feelings, one's activities, then one begins to understand.

Krishnamurti: I watch my thought. It goes all over the place, wandering, contradictory. I look at it and try to understand it, to control it, or to identify myself with it. I make an effort, and that effort is a conflict, but when I realize that the thinker ( the 'observer') "is" the thought, "is" the observed, then conflict comes to an end.
(Recap:) I watch my ( self-centred ?) thinking and my thoughts are ugly, beautiful, noble or something.But I ( feel that ?) am different from these thoughts. As long as this difference exists between the thinker and the thought, there must be conflict, because I'm always trying to do something about it - to understand it, to break it down, to examine it, to suppress it. But is the thought different from the 'thinker'? Thought has 'invented' ( given reality to the ?) thinker; so there is nothing to 'understand' about thought ( since you 'are' it ?) . You will see the beauty of it, if you go with it.

Questioner: Alright, we acknowledge that the thought and the thinker are one.

Krishnamurti: There is no acknowledging, there is no 'bringing together'...

Questioner: Why can't we go along quickly together?

Krishnamurti: When we listen to the noise of that airplane passing overhead - not as a listener and the noise, but when we are completely paying attention to the noise, then there is only noise, not the 'listener' and the 'noise'.

Questioner: We are ( pretty much ?) conscious of the fact that there is the centre, and the thought.

Krishnamurti: The 'electronic brain' (aka the computer) replies to a question according to the information it has. ( In the same way) we have stored up information through experience, through heredity, through culture, through impression, through influence, through climate. That 'electronic storing' is ( generating the virtual reality of ?) a 'thinker', who ( for safety reasons) separates himself from the ( the other responses and activities of ?) thought, and then says, "I must do something about it". The 'actual' (holistic ?) fact is that "the thinker 'is' the thought", 'is' the memory, 'is' (both) the experiencer and the experienced. If you really understood this very, very simple 'fact', (the inner quality of ) life would change totally, absolutely, not tomorrow but "now".
If you really realize that 'you' are the result of your culture, your society, your economy, your religion - you are that; the two are not separate - if you actually realize that you are not different from it, if you realize it as you realize a pain, then you will see something entirely different taking place.
We all crave experience. Do you understand what happens when you realize that the experiencer is the experience? Do you know what happens when you look at a flower without any kind of evaluation, without any kind of judgment, without the thinker thinking about the flower, just looking at it? Do you know what takes place, have you ever tried it?

Questioner: We 'disappear'.

Krishnamurti: Do you? (Laughter.) I am asking in all seriousness; I didn't mean it cynically or humorously. When you look at the flower without "thinking", what takes place?

Questioner: There is only a 'state of seeing'.

Krishnamurti: What do you all say? Have you ever tried to look at a flower, without going through all the process of analysis and knowledge, of thinking - just looking at it? What takes place?

Questioner: Integration takes place.

Krishnamurti: May I suggest something (for homework ?) ? If you have half an hour to spare this afternoon, look at a tree or a flower, at your wife or your husband. just look, not as the husband who has had innumerable insults, flatteries, hurts, pleasures, sex, and all the rest. Will you try it and see what happens?

Questioner: Perhaps the 'observer' disappears ?

Krishnamurti: Try it!

Questioner: There is no ( sense of inner) conflict then.

Krishnamurti: Now, would you listen to the noise that airplane is making? Just listen to it. (Pause.) Now, what has taken place? You listened. First find out what it means to 'listen'.

Questioner: You become one with the noise.

Questioner: It fills you up; you are filled with it.

Krishnamurti: It matters enormously how you listen. An airplane went over just now, and you listened. You say, "Yes, I listened to that noise; it filled me; or you say, "I didn't like that noise, because I wanted to ask you a question", or, "I want to listen to you". You have to find out, before you listen, what is this "listening"? The noise is not important; but how I listen to the noise is important. ? One of the most difficult things to do is to find out what it is to listen. You can only listen out of silence. When that airplane went over, some of you were listening to the noise; some were not listening, or not understanding what listening is. You can only listen when there is a total (inner) silence.
Generally we realize that the 'thinker' and the 'thought' are two separate states, if we realize at all. Usually we just 'think' (or indulge in 'thinking' ?) . But when we realize that the thinker is separate from the thought, what takes place ? First, we have to listen to ( the truth of ?) that fact, which we have discovered for ourselves, that the thinking and the thought are two separate states. From that listening we discover that thought 'is' the thinker; the two are not separate.
There is the observer and the (object ) observed. How do you look at it? The "how you look" is more important than the object. Do you look at it with a lot of noise, with thoughts that the microphone is or is not good ? Or do you look at it with 'complete' (inner) silence? When you look at it with complete silence, what takes place? Don't wait for me to answer. I'm not going to tell you, because that would become another jargon to be repeated. To look at anything, to listen to anything, there must be "complete silence". What is important is not the object, but the silence, the quietness, the attention, whatever word you may give to it. Only when the mind is completely silent can you "look", can you "listen". Then listening, acting, and seeing are the same. Do you see the beauty of it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Nov 2016 #473
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline


ON AWARENESS AND THE 'IMAGE MAKING' MECHANISM (experientially friendly edited )

K: This is a dialogue between two friends, talking over not only their own personal affairs, but also with what is happening in the world. Being serious these two friends have the urge to transform themselves ( psychologically) and see what they can do about the world and all the misery and confusion that is going on. So if that is understood then what shall we talk over together this morning?

Q: The compilation of your ( Lutyens) biography has caused much confusion and quite a lot of questions. I have boiled them down to a few. May I at least hand them over to you?

K: Do you want to discuss the Biography, written by Mary Lutyens - do you want to go into that?

Q: Briefly and then finish with it.

K: Basically the question is: why wasn't he conditioned ( by the TS environment) and what is the relationship between that K person and the present K person? One of the other questions is: the Theosophical world, and the Buddhist tradition maintains that there is a Bodhisattva that he manifests himself rarely and that is called in Sanskrit, 'avatar', which means manifestation. And this boy was discovered and prepared for ( being the vehicle of ?) that manifestation. And he went through all kinds of things. And one question that may be asked: must others go through the same process? Christopher Columbus discovered America with sailing boats, dangerous seas and so on. And must we go through all that to go to America? You understand my question? It is much simpler to go by air.
So if you are interested in wanting to find out the reality of the Bodhisattva ( manifestation) - a Consciousness which is the essence of Compassion. And when the world is in chaos that ( spiritual ?) "essence of Compassion" manifests itself. That is the whole idea behind the Bodhisattva. And there are various gradations in all that - Initiations, various Masters and so on. And also the idea when He manifests all the others keep quiet. You understand? That essence of compassion, has manifested at other times. But what is (educationally ?) important in all this is : can the mind start unconditioned? I wonder if you understand this question.
The other questions which were put on a paper: is there a 'non-mechanistic' activity? Is there a state of mind, active which is not in the field of time?
And: what does it mean to be aware? Is awareness different from attention? Is awareness to be practised systematically, or does it come about naturally? Are there any other questions?

Q: Would you go into the question of what it is to find one's true (free ?) will?
Q: What is the difference between 'denial' and 'suppression'?
Q: I lose all my 'awareness' when I am alone.

K: Can we talk over together awareness, begin with that and explore the whole thing, including the (free ) will of one's own destiny
Discussing ( about) awareness, does (the personal ?) choice indicate freedom? Or ( the perceptive ?) freedom denies (is beyond personal ?) choice? Please let is talk over together this. Does choice lead to awareness?

Q: Choice is the expression of ( our past) conditioning, is it not?

K: One is educated from childhood to choose, and that is our tradition, that is our habit, that is our mechanical, instinctive reaction. And we think because I chose there is freedom. That is our ( cultural) conditioning. I chose you as my friend, I deny my friendship to another and so on. But one wants to find out if awareness includes choice. Or is awareness a state of observation in which there is no ( personal) choice whatsoever? To be aware implies, doesn't it, not only a physical sensory sensitivity, but a total sensitivity - to nature, to all my reactions, how I respond to others - all that implies awareness, doesn't? I am aware of this tent, the shape of it and so on and so on and so on. One is aware of nature, the world of nature, the trees, the beauty of trees, the silence of the trees, you know the shape and the beauty and the depth, and the solitude of trees. In that awareness there isn't any kind of choice. That is a total awareness, not only neurologically, physiologically but psychologically, to everything around me, to the influences, to all the noise and so on and so on.
And can you practise awareness by going to a ( special ?) school, college, or going to a place where there is a guru who will teach me to be aware, is that awareness? Which is, is sensitivity to be ( purposefully ?) cultivated through practise?

Q: That becomes selfishness.

K: Yes, that is unless there is total sensitivity, awareness merely then becomes concentration on oneself.

Q: Which excludes awareness.

K: Yes, that is right. Or is awareness a (free inner) movement of constant observation - not only what I feel, what I think, but also what other people are saying about me, if they say it in front of me, to listen, and to be aware of nature, of what is going on in the world? That is the total awareness. Obviously it can't be 'practised'.

Q: It is a non-movement ?

K: No, it is movement in the senses, alive. So is one so aware? Or we indulge in words of being aware? You understand? To be aware of the people around one, the colour, their attitudes, their walk, the way they eat, the way they think - you know aware - without indulging in judgement.

Q: Is it something to do with motive?

K: Of course. Motive comes into being when there is choice. So is this possible, this sense of total awareness?

Q: Is there a degree of awareness? Can one man be more aware then another?

K: One is educated in schools, colleges, and universities to compare oneself with 'A' who is much cleverer than myself and try to reach his level. This constant ( self- evaluation) measurement, this constant comparison, and therefore constant imitation, is mechanical. So can we find out for ourselves whether it is possible to be totally sensitive and therefore aware?

Q: Can you know if you are totally aware or not? Can we be aware of our awareness?

K: It becomes speculative, verbal, but when you are aware, do you know you are aware? The moment you are (becoming verbally ) aware that you are happy it is no longer happiness.

So we are asking ourselves if there is that quality of (free ?) awareness? Does one watch the sky - you follow? - the evening stars, the moon, , the birds, and people's reactions, you know, the whole of it? And what is the difference between that awareness and attention? In awareness is there a centre from which you are aware? You understand? When I say, I am aware, then from a centre I move, I respond to nature, from a centre I respond to my friends, to my wife, husband or whatever it is - right? If there is a centre from which I respond - that centre being my prejudices, my conditioning, my desires, my fears and all the rest of it - then in that awareness is there a centre? You follow? So in attention there is no centre at all, obviously - you are completely attentive and therefore there is no centre and that attention has no borders.
So by being aware one discovers one responds from a centre, from a prejudice, from a conclusion, from a belief, from a conditioning, which is the centre. And when there is an awareness of that centre, that centre yields (or takes a break ?) and in that there is a total attention. I wonder if you understand this? And this ( kind of attention ?) you cannot practise (since) it would become mechanical.
So we go to the next question, which is: is there an (inner) activity which is non-mechanistic? Is the human brain, which has evolved through millenia, is it totally mechanical (culturally standardised ?) ? Or is there a part of the brain which is not mechanical, which has never been touched by the machinery of evolution?

Q: What do you mean by 'mechanical'?

K: Part of this mechanical process is functioning within the field of conditioning: acting according to a pattern set by society, by influence, by my reading, and accept that pattern or a belief and so on, then that is part of the mechanical process. The other part of the mechanical process is, having had experiences of innumerable kinds which have left memories, and act according to those memories, that is mechanical - like a computer, which is purely mechanical (programmable ?) .
Then 'mechanical' action is (implied in) accepting ( our cultural) tradition and following that tradition - obedience to a government, to priests, you know, obedience. And the mechanical part of the brain is following consciously or unconsciously a ( guide-) line set by thought as the goal and purpose. All that and more is mechanical. And we live that way.

Q: Is ( the self-centred ?) thought of itself mechanical?

K: Of course. That is the whole point.
So one has to discover this for oneself, not told by others, how 'mechanistical' (programmable and repetitive ?) our thinking, our feeling, our attitudes, our opinions are, all that, if one is aware of that, which means ( the self-centred process of ?) thought is invariably mechanistic - thought being the ( mental ?) response of memory, experience, knowledge, which is the past. And responding according to that ( pre-programmed ?) patterns of the past is mechanistic, which is thought.

Q: All thought?

K: All thought, of course. Whether noble thought, ignoble thought, sexual thought or technological thought, it is all thought.

Q: Part of the great genius also?

K: We must go into the question of what is a 'genius' - we won't go into that yet.

Q: So if all thought is mechanical, the expression which you often use 'clear thinking' ( or 'thinking straight' ?) seems to be a contradiction.

K: Clear thinking is to see clearly, obviously, clear thinking is to think clearly, objectively sanely, rationally, wholly.

Q: It is still thought.

K: It is still thought, of course it is.

Q: So what is the use of it?

K: What is the use of clear thinking ? If there was clear thinking I wouldn't belong to any political party. I might create a 'global' party, because obviously ( something has to be done ?) ...

Q: Can we get back to your question as to whether there is a part of the brain which is untouched by ( its temporal ?) conditioning?

K: To go into this requires one to be very careful and hesitant - one has to enquire into this - not say "Yes, there is", or not and you need a great deal of subtlety, a great attentive quality to go step by step into it, not jump.
Now how will we find out if there is a part of the brain that is not conditioned? How will you find out?

Q: Are we going to look at the barriers which interfere with an unconditioned mind?

K: No. We are trying to understand the mechanistic mind first. Is there a part of the brain, part of our 'total mind' in which is included the brain, emotions, neurological responses, the total brain, which is not completely mechanistic? And when I put that question to myself I might (imply) that I have got the other. So I must completely understand the movement of desire, have an insight in this - which means ( wishful thinking in terms of ?) time and all that we talked about.
So we are now enquiring: is our ''total mind' activity mechanistic? That means or is one clinging to the memories of various pleasurable and painful experiences, the memories of sexual fulfilment and the pleasures and so on. That is, is one living in the ( safe memories of the ?) past?

Q: Always ...

K: Of course! So ( living inwardly ?) in the area of ( our past) knowledge is mechanistic. I wonder if you see this?

Q: Why is it so difficult to see ( the truth of ?) this?

K: Because we are not aware of what actually is going on within oneself ...

Q: Aren't we guided to awareness by experience?

K: No. Suppose you have said something that hurts me. That has left a mark on the brain and when I meet you next time that memory responds. But is it possible when you say something cruel, violent, to observe it and not 'register' it ( not take it 'personally' ?) . You try it, and test it out.

Q: It is very difficult because that (our 'personal' ?) memory has already been hurt sir, we never forget it.

K: From childhood we are hurt, which is happening to everybody, in school, at home, at college, in universities, the whole (collective mentality of ?) society is a process of hurting others (in order to make them conform ?) . So there are two problems involved: (a)the past hurts retained in the brain, and (b) not to be hurt again. Now, how is this possible?

Q: If 'you' - the 'image' of yourself is not there ?

K: Go into it slowly. The 'image' that you have built about yourself, that has been hurt. Why do you have an 'image' about yourself? Because that is part of our education, part of our social reactions. There is an image about myself and there is an image about 'you' in relation to my image. So I have got half a dozen 'images' and more. And the (central ?) image about myself has been hurt. Now how am I to dissolve (delete ?) that hurt and not be hurt in the future, tomorrow, or the next moment?

Q: One has to get totally involved ?

K: Look at it and you will find out. You have all been 'hurt' haven't you, and you are afraid (very cautious ?) of being hurt more. So you build a ( mental ?) wall round yourself, and the extreme form of that isolation is total withdrawal from all relationship. And you build a wall and you remain in that (safe inner zone) but you have to live, you have to act.
Now how do you approach this question of how not to be hurt at all? Which is the ( prioritary ?) question you put to yourself?

Q: No more hurts ?

K: If you say "I will find out if it is possible not to be hurt at all" - then you will have to solve the problem of (deleting from your personal memory the ?) past hurts, won't you? So the question is: is it possible not be hurt? Which means is it possible not to have a (self-protective ?) 'image' about yourself, or about another ? And if there is no ( 'self') image, isn't that true (inner) freedom?

Q: Sir, if you have managed to get rid of your self importance...

K: Yes, sir, if you can get rid of your "self importance", your arrogance, your vanity, your etc., etc. then you won't be hurt. But how am I to get rid of all that garbage which I have collected?

Q: I think you can get rid of it by being entirely aware of the relationship between yourself and your physical body and your thinking. How you control your physical body and...

K: That is the traditional, mechanistic response: to control anything, my body, my mind, my emotions !
Please go into this a little bit (deeper) and you will see (the other option) . First of all, getting rid of your ('self) image' implies there is a (supervising) entity who is different from the image, and can kick out the image. But is the image different from the (implicit ?) entity who says, "I must get rid of my self-image" ? When you see that ( dualistic trick ?) you are no longer (bound to) functioning mechanistically.

Q: Surely by destroying one image, are we not immediately building another one?

K: We are going to find out if it is possible to be free of all ( self-protective) images: why does the mind create an image about itself? When I say "I am a Christian", that is a (pretty safe cultural ?) image. That is my ( cultural) conditioning. Go to India and they say "What are you talking about, Christ? I have got my own gods, as good as yours, (only ?) better".
So the image formation is brought about (through an instinctive search for safety ?) through ( conforming to the accepted norms of ) tradition - right?

Q: Sir, is that related to the fact that out of fear ( of not being accepted ?) one behaves in a certain way which is not natural for one to behave, and therefore one is not being oneself? And that is making the (politically correct ?) 'image' that you are talking about.

K: The ( deeper self ?) "image" is what we call "oneself". I must express myself. I must fulfil myself - myself is the 'image' (built up ?) according to the environment and culture in which I have been born. wouldn't it?
So, is it possible not to ( adopt or ?) create such ( self-stitching ?) "images" brought about through culture, through propaganda, tradition, family, you follow, the whole pressure ?

Q: Basically we cling to the "known".

K: That is the known, tradition is the known. And my mind is afraid to let that "known image" go, because the moment it lets it go it might lose a profitable position in society, might lose status, might lose a certain ( self-gratifying ?) relationship and so, it holds to that image.
This (public ?) image is merely words, it has no reality. It is a series of words, ideologically (and emotionally ?) clothed. And if I am not a ( psychological) 'slave' to words then I begin to lose the image. I wonder if you see how deeply rooted words have become significant.

Q: If one is listening to what you say and realize that one has an image about oneself, and that there is a large discrepancy between the image one has of oneself and the ideal of freedom, then knowing that there is a discrepancy can one still think of 'freedom' knowing that it is just an idea?

K: That is why sir - is "freedom" a concept , or a reality? We said there is "freedom", the actuality of that state when there is no (self-protective ?) "image" - when I am not (identifying myself as ?) a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Socialist - you follow? - I have no (politically correct ?) label, and also no ( self-made ?) label inside. Is it possible to live in this world without a single ( self-) image ?

Q: When there is no 'observer' there is nothing ( to be ) 'observed' - and yet one comes across something in this silence.

K: Madam, ( for starters ?) is it possible to be free of the 'image' that society, environment, culture, education has built (induced ?) in one? Because one is all that - right? ( Psychologically ?) 'you' are the result of your environment, of your culture, of your knowledge, of your education, of your technological job, of your pleasure, you 'are' ( subliminally identified with ?) all that.

Q: If you are (becoming) aware of your conditioning does that free you?

K: Now are you actually aware that you are conditioned this way, therefore you have got a (politically correct ?) image?

Q: If you don't have the ( socially friendly ) 'image' then you don't know what your place is.

K: Listen to that carefully: "If you have no ( self-) image, you have no place in this world". Which means if you have no 'image' you are insecure. But are you having a place in the world which is secure?

Q: No.

K: Be actual.

Q: Sir when you see that the image that you have built is just a load of words...

K: So you are finding security in a word, and therefore it is not a security at all. You understand sir? We have lived ( inwardly in the illusory safety of ?) words and made those words something fantastically real. So I deny ( the global) security because the words, the labels have become important, not security. I wonder if you see this is what is actually happening, the Arabs and Israel, both want ( their particular form of ?) security - right?
Now we come to the ( psychologically critical ?) point: is it possible to live in this world without a single image and be totally secure?

Q: How can we be secure in a "sick" society?

K: I'll show you that there is a complete (inner sense of ?) security, an 'absolute' security, but not in ( hiding behind self-protective ?) images.

Q: To be totally aware every moment, then your conditioning does not exist.

K: Not, 'if' you are aware. Are you aware that you have a (self-created ?) 'image' and that image has been formed by ( the interaction between yourself and ?) your culture, society and all the rest of it? Are you aware of that image? And you can discover that 'image' in ( your daily ) relationships, don't you? How you react in relationship with each other. When you tell me something ugly and I get hurt, that is, the 'image'is hurt, the image is me, carefully put together by ( nice sounding) words. I am a Christian. I believe in this. I do not believe in that. This is my opinion - you follow? Now we are asking ourselves whether it is possible to be free of 'images'?
That means that when you say something to me that is vulgar, hurting, at that moment to be totally aware of ( the psychological context of ?) what you are saying and how I am responding. 'Totally' aware, not partially - if it is pleasant I hold on (capitalise on ) to that, and when somebody else says something unpleasant I get (personally ) hurt. But to be totally aware of both, the pleasurable image which I have and the unpleasurable (self-defensive ?) images which are being put together. To be aware totally at the moment of the ( personal ) reaction to your insult or praise. At that moment you don't then form ( or enforce ?) an image. There is no recording in the brain of the hurt, of the insult or the flattery, therefore there is no (need to work on your self-) 'image'. That requires a tremendously ( non-personal ?) attention at the moment. Which demands a great inward ( clarity of ?) perception, you understand sir - which is only possible when you have looked at it, watched it, you have worked at it.

Q: Who watches all this?

K: If there is a 'watcher' then the ( updating of the old ?) image is continuous. If there is no ( self-conscious ?) 'watcher' there is no (self-conscious ?) 'image', obviously.
So: in that state of ( non-personal ?) attention both the hurt and the flattery, are (objectively ?) observed, not reacted to. And you can only observe ( objectively ?) when there is no ( subjective ?) 'observer', who is the ( personalised response of the ?) past. It is the ( experience of our) 'past' (disguised as the ?) 'observer' that gets hurt. If there is only ( a purely non-personal ?) observation when there is flattery and insult, then it is finished. And that is the 'real' (psychological ) freedom.

Now follow it. In this world (the general feeling is that ?) if I have no ( self-) image, I shall not be secure. And one has found security in ( getting strongly attached to ?) 'things' - to a house, a property, a bank account, that is what we call ( 'material') security. And ( on the side ?) you have also found ( a 'psychologically optimised ') security in ( getting attached to a ?) belief. If I am living in the medieval Italy - it was much safer to believe what other hundred thousands of people believe. And when that belief is questioned I resist. And Protestantism grew out of that and so on and so on.

Now can there be a 'total awareness' of all this (self-protective image stitching mechanism ?) ? So ( deprived of that false sense of security ?) my mind is (got to be ?) tremendously active you understand? Not need to say, "I must be aware", "I must learn how to be aware " - play ( various 'mind) games'. It requires that the brain is ( assuming the responsability of ?) being "alive".

Then we can ( meditatively ?) move on from that ( 'terra firma' ?) to find out if there is in the brain a part that has not been conditioned at all, which is part of the brain which is 'non-mechanistic'. (I am putting a 'false' question, I don't know if you see that. Just listen for two minutes, I am on fire !)
If there is no 'image' (making mechanism ?) and there is freedom from that ( self-stitching ?) 'image', then there is no part of the brain (left) that has been conditioned. Then my whole brain is 'unconditioned'.

Q: It is 'on fire' ?

K: Yes, therefore it is 'non-mechanistic' and that has got ( access to ?) a totally different kind of energy. Not the 'mechanistic' energy - right? Your brain has been conditioned through centuries, saying survival is only possible if you have an 'image' (making mechanism ?) which is created by the (self-confining) circle in which you live, and that 'circle' gives you ( the solid illusion of ?) complete security. As an ( upper middle class ?) 'Englishman' I am (supposed to be doing ?) better than anybody else, or.... whatever it is.
( To recap:) The (inner) 'fact' is that my brain is (socially & personally ?) conditioned - I don't know whether the conditioning is whole or partial , I only know that it is conditioned. (However, the experiential difficulty is that) there is no ( authentic) enquiry into the unconditioned state until the conditioning is ( temporarily suspended or ?) 'non-existent'. So my whole enquiry is to find out whether the mind can be un-conditioned. To be totally aware that I am conditioned by education, by the culture in which I have lived, by everything - to be aware of it. Then if you have ( meditatively ?) 'gone that far', you will find there is ( a sense of absolute ?) security only in 'being ( inwardly identified with ?) nothing'.

Q: What about the 'images' (spontaneously occuring in our daily ?) relationship? "Don't belong to an ( elitistic ? ) community". I quite agree with you. You don't want any 'psychological image', but even if you want to drop it you can't ,because the others put it on you.

K: Sir, ( globally speaking ?) if I want to survive physically, what is preventing it? All the 'psychological' barriers which man has created - right? So remove all those 'psychological' barriers (limitations ?) , you have complete security.

Q: No, because the other one puts it on you, not yourself.

K: Nobody can put you (psychologically speaking ?) into prison.

Q: They kill you.

K: Then they kill you, all right. Then you will find out how to meet 'death' - not imagine what you are going to feel when you die, which is another image.
So nobody can put you psychologically in a 'prison' (since) you are already (living in it ?) . We are pointing out that it is only possible to be totally free of 'images', which is the result of our conditioning. And one of the questions about the biography is ( illustrating) this whole point: how was the young K not conditioned right through? If one is ( becoming) aware of one's own ( cultural ?) conditioning then the whole thing becomes very simple.
That leaves the question of "what is Creation" ( for the next time ) - right sir?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Nov 2016 #474
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline



K: What shall we talk over this morning together?

Q (1) : When I ask myself , "Who is the observer ?" I always come up to an (invisible inner ?) wall. I would like to see the whole of the observer, but I can only see it in fragments: so, how can the observer see the observer with no observer?

Q(2) : When a situation occurs, what keeps one into the 'observingness' that the observer is different from what is observed? It seems a lack of attention to the moment, at that point, but that attention to the point requires a tremendous vitality that we don't have.

Q(3) : May I just ask one more question? Can an 'act of will-power' - I think you call it an 'act of friction' - can this generate the vitality or the passion?

K: Can will (power) generate sufficient energy to see clearly?

Q (4) : For medical reasons, we use hypnosis in medicine. What happens to the brain and the process of thought during hypnosis? Is hypnosis a ( valid) way of looking at one's thought process?

K: We have got so many questions. Shall we begin with the "observer"?

Q: Yes.

K: And to see the whole of that one needs ( an integrated ?) energy, and how is that energy to be acquired? And will that "energy" reveal the totality of the whole nature and structure of the 'observer'? And what is the quality of the mind that has ( access to ?) this (non-dualistic ?) meditative process ?
( For starters ?) How is one to observe the whole of something (inwardly) 'psychologically'? Would you like to discuss this? Is it possible to see (at one glance ?) the totality of one's own reactions, the motives, the fears, the anxieties, the sorrows, the pain, the totality of all that? Or must one see it in fragments, in layers?
Can we begin with what is our "consciousness"? What do you think is 'consciousness'? Most of us are (easily ?) 'hypnotised' by words, by propaganda, by tradition, by all the things that we believe in, and so on. We are hypnotized not only by external influence, but also we have our own peculiar process of (self-) "hypnotizing" ourselves into believing something, or not believing, and so on. All that (considered ), can one see the totality of one's consciousness?

Q: The 'observer' cannot see (the whole of it) .

K: Let's enquire. From where shall I begin to be aware of myself - 'myself ' being all the 'beliefs' (root assumtions ?) , conclusions, fears, the anxieties (worries ?) , the sorrow, and so on, the whole of that, where shall we begin to ( unfold ?) the content of this?

Q: Is the starting question "Who I am?"

K: ( Mentally ?) enquiring 'who I am' becomes intellectual, verbal.
( So, experientially wise ?) I can start to know myself in my relationship to others - right? That is much closer, more accurate and revealing. Can we do that in our relationship to nature, in my relationship to the neighbour and so on ? So how do I observe my reactions in my relationship with another?
( You all seem to be so vague about this matter...)

Q: When I am very interested in some relationship, I notice that I can really observe. But when I am getting angry (or too 'personal' ?) in my relationship I really can't observe (objectively) what is going on.

K: Sir, what is the meaning of the word itself, 'relationship' ?

Q: It means you are relating to that person, you care for the person, I care for the person.

K: The ( closest experiential ?) meaning in the ( Webster's ?) dictionary, is "to respond" - relationship comes from that word. Now how do I respond in my relationship to you, if you are my wife, husband and all the rest of it? Am I responding according to the (mental) 'image' I have (created) about you? And you are responding according to the 'image' you have about me? Or are we both free of the images and therefore responding accurately?

Q: Isn't it largely ( the working of our ?) sub-consciousness? And what do you mean by 'accurate'?

K: The word 'accurate' means to have great care. Therefore if you care for something you act 'accurately'. If you care for your 'motor car' you must be very well acquainted with it, you must know all the mechanical processes of it.
So We are using this word 'accurate' in the sense of infinite ( observational ?) care. And in a relationship with another, either intimate, or distant, your response depends on the ( conscious or sub-conscious ?) 'image' you have about the other, or the image the other has about you; and when we (inter)act according to these imagee, our relationship is 'inaccurate', it is not with complete care. Is that clear?

Q: What about a 'love - hate' relationship?

K: Sir we are just beginning to enquire. ( Eventually ?) we will come to that. Now I have an 'image' about you and you have an 'image' about me. These images have been ( built up ?) in one day or it may be ten years, through pleasure, fear, nagging, domination, possession, various hurts, impatience and so on and so on. Now when we (inter?)act or respond according to that image then that (inter)action, being incomplete, and therefore without what we generally call 'love'. May we go on from there? Are you aware that you have an image about yourself and/or about another? And having that image you respond according to the ( experience of the ?) past, because this image has been (stored in the memory of ?) the past.

Q: And also it is (being processed ?) according to one's selfish desires.

K: Desires, fears , selfishness...

Q: You can't think of another person without a (mental) 'image', so how can you write a letter?

K: First of all can we be ( become ?) aware that we have an image, not only about ourselves but about another?

Q: The two 'images' are in relation, but the image of the other is made from the image you have of yourself.

K: That is what we said sir.

Q: Sir would anything ( more experientially ?) practical help?

K: Sir, this is the most practical thing if you 'listen' to this. The 'practical' is to observe clearly what we 'are' and then act from there. Is one aware that one has an image about another? And is one aware that one has an image about oneself? Are you aware of that? This is a simple (observable ) thing: I may hurt you and you naturally have a (poor ?) image about me. I give you pleasure, and you have a ( good) image about me. And according to that ( response of ?) hurt and pleasure you react; and that reaction, being fragmentary, must be 'inaccurate', not whole. This is simple. Can we go on from there?
Now am I aware that I have an image about myself, and I have an image about you ? Am I conscious of this?

Q: From moment to moment (Every now and then ?) .

K: Now if I do have an image why has this image been put together, who is the creator of these images? How has that image been born?

Q: Isn't it a necessary imaginative process?

Q: You say through experience, through various incidents, through words...

Q: And retaining it all as ( psychologically useful ?) memory.

K: Which is all the movement of ( our self-centred process of ?) thought, isn't it? So thought as 'movement', which is ( creating its own psychological continuity in ?) time, has created this 'image' because it wants to protect itself - right?

Q: Then it means that it also can see itself.

K: Sir, you have an 'image' about me, haven't you?

Q: Well it is ( constantly ?) changing...

K: If you are honest, look into yourself, you see you have an 'image'. How has that 'image' been brought about? You have read something, you have listened to something, there is a (certain) reputation, some articles in the papers and so on and so on. So all this has influenced the thought and out of that you have created an "image". So when you respond according to your "image" about the speaker you are responding inaccurately, in that there is no ( love &) care. (We said "care" implies attention, affection, accuracy )

Q: Is not an 'image' a thought (form ?) ?

K: We said that sir, an (artifact of ?) thought. So thought (the thinking brain) has built this 'image' through (processing the related facts in ?) time. It may be one day or fifty years. And I see in my relationship to another this image plays a tremendous part, and if I don't act mechanically, I become aware and see how extraordinarily vital this 'image (making' mechanism ?) is. Then my next question is: is it possible to be free of these (mental) 'images'? I have the image as a Communist, believing in all kinds of ideas, or a Catholic and I act according to that, there is a reaction according to that image.
Now if one is (becoming) aware of it, then one asks: is (the image making mechanism really ?) necessary? If ( we think that) it is necessary one will keep it. If it is not necessary (in our relationship ?) how is one to be free of it? Now is it necessary?

Q: Images form the whole chaos in the world where we live, so it is not necessary.

K: He says this whole image making is bringing about chaos in the world - the image as a Hindu, as a Buddhist, as a Communist, as a Catholic, as a Protestant, you understand?

Q: In making an 'image' there is a lot of ( biased ?) judgement.

K: But we are asking a little more: whether it is necessary to have these images?

Q: No.

K: Then if it is not necessary why do we keep it (the image making mechanism ) going) ?

Q: Being what we are, we can hardly help it.

K: We are going to find out whether it is possible to be free of this image, and whether it is worthwhile to be free of this image, and what does it mean to be free of the image. If I am committed to Indian nationalism, and you are committed to a Muslim and there is a division and there is conflict. So (our collective ?) thinking has created these images, these labels, these beliefs and so there is contradiction, division, which brings conflict and therefore chaos. That is a fact.
Now, if you think life is ( meant to be ?) an (evolutionary) process of never ending conflicts, then you must keep these images. But if we say that is not necessary, that it is really a tremendous danger to ( the global) physical survival, then I must find out how to be free of these 'images' - right?

Q: Mr Krishnamurti, if I am a committed Buddhist and I channel my energy into that direction, it doesn't necessarily mean that I am in conflict with those that aren't Buddhist.

K: Just examine that please. If I am a committed human being to Buddhism and another is committed equally to the Christian dogma, and another equally committed to Communism...

Q: That is not my concern.

K: Isn't this what is happening in life? Don't say, it is not my business if you are a Communist. It is my business to see if we can ( globally) live in security, in peace in the world, we are human beings, supposed to be intelligent. Why should I be committed to anything?

Q: Because it gives energy, the power of penetration.

K: You may think it is necessary, other people think it is necessary to be an Englishman, to be a German, to be a Hindu - you follow - or a Catholic, they think it is important. They don't see the danger of it.

Q: Why don't they see the danger?

K: Because I am so 'heavily' ( safely ?) conditioned, it is so profitable, my job depends on it. So the ( experiential ?) point is: if one sees the danger of these images, then how can the mind free itself from these images? That is the next question.

Q: Can I ( still ?) be there when no image is formed?

K: Images, whether they are old or new are the same images.

Q: Yes but when an image is formed can I be aware ?

K: How is an 'image' formed? Is it (spontaneously being ?) formed when I am not paying attention. ( Counter-example:) if you get angry with me and if I am at that moment totally attentive to what you say there is no (personal reaction of) anger. Keep it very simple: I say something that doesn't give you pleasure. Now at that moment if you are completely ( non-personally ?) aware, is there an image (forming) ?

Q: If you don't have to keep that ( personal) image, all the other images are gone.

K: Yes, that is the whole point. Can one be attentive at the moment of listening? You understand? You are listening now, can you be totally attentive, so that when you call me a name, not a pleasant name, or give me pleasure, at that moment, at that precise moment to be totally aware? Have you ever tried this? And if there is no image forming, and therefore no ( personal ?) image (either?) , then what is the relationship between the two? You understand? You have no 'image' because you see the danger of it, but I don't see the danger of it, I have my image and you are related to me, I am your wife, husband, father, whatever it is, girl, boy and all the rest of it. I have the image and you have not. Then what is your relationship to me? And what is my relationship to you?

Q: There is a barrier somewhere.

K: Of course there is a barrier. I want to succeed in this world, make a lot of money, position, prestige, and you say, "How absurd all that is, don't be (so) mechanical, that is just the old ( cultural) pattern being repeated." What happens between you and me?

Q: Division ?

K: I go off to the office where I am brutal, ambitious, ruthless, and I come home and be very pleasant to you, because I want to sleep with you. What is the relationship?

Q: Not good...

K: Is there any relationship at all? And yet this is what we call "love" (& marriage ?).
So either you leave me, or we live in conflict. You don't create conflict but I create conflict, because I have an image. So is it possible in our relationship with each other to help each other to be free of images? Because you care, you have affection, you feel totally differently. So what will you do with me?

Q: It depends if the other person has the capacity to see what the truth of the matter is.

K: If I have no (self-) image I see very clearly that you have an 'image'. Sir, look this is happening in the world, this is happening in every family, in every situation in relationship: you ( may ?) have something free and I am not and the battle is between us.

Q: I think that situation is in everything.

K: That is what I am saying. What do you do?

Q: But surely this (virtual 'crisis' ?) situation you have created for us because you want us to be free of images.

K: Of course, of course I want you to be free of images because otherwise we are going to destroy the world.

Q: I have an 'image' about you, and I have had it for a long time. And there are different kinds of other images. I have been trying to get rid of those images because I have read (in your books ?) that they have created problems for me. Now, every time I try to work it out with you and it hasn't helped.

K: I'll show you sir how to get rid of it, how to be free of images.

Q: I don't believe you sir. You are all the time just sitting there talking abstractions. Me having an image about you means you are sitting up on the platform being an 'enlightened' person. I am here as a listener, a disciple or a pupil. Now I feel very strongly that is really not actuality or reality because we are two human beings. But still you are the guru, you are the one who knows and...

K: Please sirs be quiet, he is telling you something please listen. I'll show you something. Please do sit down. I'll show you something.
If that 'image of the Guru' had not created a problem you would live with that guru happily - right? ( Talking about "gurus", the word itself means "one who dispels the ignorance of another". But generally speaking, the gurus (subliminally ?) impose their ignorance on you )
You have an image about me as "the" guru: if that pleases you, if that gives you satisfaction, you will hold it - right? That is simple enough. If it causes trouble then you say, "My god, it is terrible to have this" and you move away and form another relationship which is ( more rewarding and ?) pleasant, but it is (part of) the same "image making" (mechanism ) .

So the question is: if ( the self-centred process of ?) thought has created these images, can thought dispel these images? Thought can dispel (delete ?) it because it is unsatisfactory, and create another image which will be satisfactory. This is what we do - I don't like that guru for various reasons, because he stinks, or I don't like that guru and I go to another because he praises me, gives me garlands and says, "My dear chap you are the best disciple I have". So if ( the 'image' making mechanism of ?) thought has created this image, can thought undo the image?

Q: Not if you are looking at it intellectually. Looking at it intellectually you are not using your senses.

K: I am asking that first: can the intellect dispel the 'image' (making process ?) ?

Q: No, since the thing that stands in the way is merely your own 'image', the 'I'. You ( have to ) overcome this (handicap ?) .

K: I know, but I don't want to go into the much more complex problem of the 'I'.

Q: You say 'the image' , but what do you mean by the 'I'?

K: How does thought get rid of the image without creating another image?

Q: Thought cannot get rid of the image.

K: If that is so, if thought cannot get rid of the image then what will?

Q: Understanding ?

K: What do you mean by 'understanding'?

Q: Getting rid of the (false?) thoughts.

K: Getting rid of thought. Now who is going to get rid of thought?

Q: Isn't it a question of time? Could it be that our energies are all (dispersed ?) in ( dealing with ?) the ( issues of the) past, and we need them to think now.

K: All the 'images' are in the (stand-by memory of the ?) past, why can't I drop all that and live in "now"?

Q: That is what I meant.

K: Right. How do I get rid of the burden of the past? It comes to the same thing.

Q: Sir if one lives in the present, do the past images still come through?

K: Do you know what it means to "live in the present"? That means not a single (interference of psychological ?) memory except technological memory, not a single breathe of the ( personal ?) past. And therefore you have to understand the 'totality of the past', which is all this memory, experience, knowledge, the 'imagination' (the image making mechanism ?) , the 'images', which is the past.

So let's begin again (back to square one ?) . Are you aware that you have images? If you have those images that are pleasant and you cling to them, and discard those which are unpleasant, you have still images. Right? Then the question is really: can you be free of them?

Q: Go and listen to some music ?

K: The moment that music stops you are back to those 'images'. This is all so childish.

Q: Isn't there a division between wanting to hold on to the images and wanting to let them go.

K: The division is ( created by our split ?) desire, isn't it? I don't like (having ?) that ( damaged self-) image, I am going to let it go. But I like this ( new self-) image, I am going to hold on to it. So it is ( the subliminal activity of ?) desire, isn't it?

Q: I feel that there is a pleasure motive even if I have no image then the other person has no image at all.

K: If I have no image, the other person has no images at all. How 'inaccurate' that is ! Do think clearly: what should I do so that there is no image forming at all? May I talk a few minutes? Will you listen to it?

Q: I think most people in this place came here for 'consolation', rather then any other; I mean it all gets such a bore really because the same words get used over and over again, and everybody is looking like 'zombies'...

K: When you say, "You sitting on that platform, you have gradually assumed, at least in my eyes, a position of authority, you have become my guru". And I say to you, "My friend, just listen, I won't be a guru to anybody. It is monstrous to be a guru". Therefore, (if and ?) when you listen, you listen with care, with affection, with attention, then you begin to learn about yourself, actually as you are. Then from there we can move, we can go forward, but if you don't do that, keep on repeating, "Oh I have got my image, I don't know how to get rid of it" and so on and so on, then we don't move any further. Right?

Now, are you aware that you are conditioned? Don't choose parts of the conditioning. Totally aware of your whole conditioning means to be aware not only at the conscious level but the deeper levels - right? We are conditioned much more at the deeper levels than at the superficial levels - right? Is that clear? One is conditioned very deeply, and superficially less. Now, listening with your heart, with your mind, with your whole being - then is it possible to be totally aware of all this, the whole of our consciousness? To be totally aware implies no 'observer': the observer is the ( controlling interference of the ?) past and therefore when he observes he brings about fragmentation. This is clear, isn't it? When I observe anything from the past, it brings about a fragmentary outlook - right? I only see parts, I don't see the whole. So I realize that when I observe from the past there must be a fragmentary outlook - right? So I have an insight that says, don't look from the ( perspective of the ?) past. That means, without the (all controlling ?) 'observer' who is all the time judging, evaluating, saying this is right, this is wrong. Now if can you listen like this you are facing actually 'what is', facing in yourself what actually is going on. And can you observe another without the past - without all the accumulated memory, insults, hurts, so that you can look at another with clear eyes? If you say, "I don't know how to do it", then we can go into that.

As we said, any form of ( accepting someone's ?) authority in this matter is the reaction of submission to somebody who says he knows. That is your 'image'. The 'Professor' knows mathematics, I don't, so I learn from him, so gradually he becomes my authority. He knows, I don't know - mathematics, geography and all the rest of it. But here, 'psychologically', if I don't know how to approach myself, how to learn about it, therefore I look to another, the same process. But the other is equally ignorant as me, because he doesn't know himself. He is traditionally bound, he accepts obedience, he becomes the authority, he says he knows and my dear chap you don't know, you become my disciple and I will tell you. But 'psychologically' (speaking) , the 'guru' is as ignorant as myself. He has a lot of Sanskrit words, a lot of ideas, a lot of superstitions, and I am so gullible I accept him.
Here we say there is no authority, no guru, you have to learn about yourself. And to learn about yourself, watch yourself, how you behave with another, how you walk - you follow? Then you find that you have an 'image' about yourself, a tremendous image. And you can see how these 'images' create great harm, they break up the world - right? And inwardly you don't see the tremendous danger and wastage of life - right? Can we move from there?

Now we come to the point: how am I to be free of all ( the inner mechanism of ?) 'image making'? I am going to find out by carefully watching why these 'images' are made. I realize 'images' are ( instinctively ?) made when the mind is not giving its attention at the moment something is said. Right? At the moment something is said that gives pleasure, or displeasure, to be aware at that moment, not afterwards. But we become aware afterwards and say "My god, I should have paid attention, I see it is important to be attentive but I don't know how to be attentive, I lose it and when the thing takes place it is so quick and I say to myself I must be attentive." So I 'beat' (or...brainwash ?) myself into 'being attentive' - and therefore I am never ( spontaneously ?) attentive.
So I have found that my whole 'mental make-up' is inattentive, to the birds, to nature, when I walk, when I eat, when I speak, I am inattentive. So I say to myself, " Rather than being ( obsessively ?) concerned with 'attention', I'll pay attention to inattention" . I am going to 'see (and learn' about ?) what is inattention. (For starters ?) I can see that I am inattentive most of the time. So I am going to pay attention to one ( moment of inattention?) at a time, when I walk, when I eat, to every little thing. So what has been inattention becomes attention. I wonder if you see ( the practicality of ?) that?

So I am now watching (myself indulging in ?) 'inattention'. That is, I look at a bird but never (really ?) look at it, my thoughts are all (somewhere else) ... I am now going to 'look' at that bird, it may take me a second but I am going to look at it. When I walk I am going to watch it. So that out of (the common state of psycho-somatic ?) inattention, without any ( special ?) effort there is total attention. You understand? So when there is this total ('non-personal' quality of ?) attention, when you say something pleasant there is no image forming, or unpleasant there is no image forming because my whole mind, heart, brain, all the ( sensory ?) responses are completely awake and attentive.

And ( for extra study ?) "attention" implies a mind that is completely awake, which means it doesn't demand challenges. It is only when we have 'images' that (the 'wake-up' ?) challenges come. And because of ( the mind being partly occupied with ?) those 'images', the challenges (of life) come and you respond inadequately (partially ?) . Therefore there is a constant battle (to compensate ?) between challenge and response, which means the increase of images and the more it increases the more challenges come, and so there is always the strengthening of images.
Haven't you noticed people when they are challenged about their Catholicism, or whatever it is, they become more 'strong'?
So ( in a nutshell :) by being completely attentive ( to inattention ?) there is no (need for ?) image formation, which means ( the image making ?) conditioning disappears. Right ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Nov 2016 #475
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 10 posts in this forum Offline

133113 posts in 3094 topics

congratulation, sirs. thanks all for the feed backs;-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Nov 2016 #476
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

Richard Lewis wrote:
133113 posts in 3094 topics congratulation, sirs. thanks all

Well, Richard, I don't know whether this is a 'Hello Goodbye' kind of greeting, but perhaps the following excerpt could be adequate

7TH K PUBLIC DISCUSSION SAANEN 1966 (reader friendly edited)


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

Questioner: How is the energy that one has through intense awareness to be maintained?

K: I don't know, either. (Laughter.) We shan't meet again until next year and one of our major issues is: how am I going to live during this whole year? Are we going back to the same old routines, the same old confusion, or there is a totally different way of living, seeing how we can renew the total mind .
The most important thing, if I may suggest, is to consider whether it is possible to bring about a revolution in the mind and make it totally new, young, fresh, innocent, full of energy and decision. A "young mind", in the real sense of that word, sees clearly and does something directly without ideas, whether the family accepts it or doesn't accept it. Because it is so young, vital, vigorous, its decision is immediate. Can we, this morning, see, talk over together whether it is possible for the mind to make itself totally new, fresh, which is obviously not dependent on age, on how many years we have lived? Can we discuss that?

Questioner: One is still afraid (to let go the attachments to the 'known' ?) .

Krishnamurti: Is that what prevents a new look at life, at the mountains, at the trees, at the neighbour, whether the neighbour is immediately next to us or in Vietnam? Aren't you really passionate to find out? It seems to me that is the only problem we have. We know our actions are contradictory; we are confused; there is utter despair, loneliness, misery, confusion, worry, problems and this terrible ambition with all its complications. They all don't seem to end; they go on and on and on. After a month in this lovely valley, don't we demand that there be a total change of heart and mind?

Questioner: How can one empty the storehouse which the mind and the brain have collected through these thousands upon thousands of years? How can it empty itself and be young?

Krishnamurti: I am asking the same question. Is it possible for the mind to 'empty' itself and be fresh, young again, uncontaminated, so that when I see the blue sky after yesterday's rain, it is something that I have never seen before? It isn't the same sky; it isn't the same face; it isn't the same problem; there is something new; a revolution has taken place. Don't you want to know what to do, so that this may happen ?

( For starters ?) Let us first realize the simple fact that it is an enormously complex problem and any answer that you give to the problem, whether you are a scientist or a most erudite, a most experienced person is from a fragmentary mind. Why don't you try saying, "I can't answer", and see what happens? When you are confronted with a most complex (psychological) problem, don't you first stop and look? You look; you see what is implied. The more complex it is, the more subtle it is, the quieter the mind becomes. It isn't that the speaker is trying to prevent your asking questions; first find out whether your heart and mind are capable, when confronted with this enormous issue, of not reacting, jumping to conclusions, formulating ideas, wanting to express them, wanting to communicate. Stop all that (mental activity ?) .

If you have done so, then you can begin to ask seriously what is involved in this? You must have an extraordinarily sensitive brain, which doesn't all the time react in the mechanical way, and is not caught in a habit, in repetition, in irritation. Is that possible? The physical brain itself, every corner of it, not just a particular fragment, must be so alive, so alert that it is not caught in any theory, in any opinion, in any argument, in any tradition. For the brain to come upon it, to discover it, there must be a 'meditation' to find out whether the brain can be quiet, free of all the normal so-called 'animalistic' reactions.

Since the brain cells themselves have been conditioned, by the daily repetition of pleasure, pain, love, hate, the first thing to find out is whether the brain can remain without that reaction of the 'animalistic' (mind). That's part of meditation. And the next 'movement' of meditation is to see whether the totality of the mind - which is (including) the brain, the physicho-somatic being, the nervous responses, the emotions, the anxieties - can free itself.
We must spend ( some 'quality ?) time' to see how we react.( I heard the other day of a man who has been listening to the speaker for forty years. He got terribly excited about nothing at a Saanen committee meeting. We're all like that. If you touch our sore spot, we flare up.)

Can we be aware of our simple reactions of hate, envy - the simple things- and from there move, like a river that passes the dirty towns and villages. It keeps on moving, moving, moving. This (inward ?) movement of renewal is only possible if we begin at the most simple level; for that you don't have to read books, attend meetings, join societies or organizations. Begin at the first rung and let the first step, be the last one. There is nowhere to climb, nothing to achieve. The ladder ( of knowledge ?) with so many rungs, steps, doesn't lead anywhere. There is (always ?) only one step, the first step (taken now ?) ; and if we know how to meet that first step, if we know all about it, then there is real humility, and here there is humility, there is ( the timeless opportunity of ?) learning.

Then you will see what ( the sense of inner ?) beauty is: and where beauty is, there is love. So, (eventually ?) we begin to see that in this 'one step', all Life is (contained) ; and to ( inwardly) 'die' to this first step is the beginning of a totally new existence, a totally different quality of mind, because the mind is always renewing itself. Where there is no ('next ?) step', there is love, but there is no love for the man who is climbing the ladder. The ladder and the rungs on the ladder are the invention of the mind, of thought; and thought has placed God on the top rung of the ladder. God is not 'up there' at all. That's just an invention of the (time-bound) mind. There is a totally different dimension (of Consciousness ?) which is not put together by thought. When man is no longer escaping (in the 'climbing the ladder' bussiness ?) he listens to everything. It is that (timeless ?) movement, that 'listening' that brings about a fresh mind, with a great health, capacity and vigour.

One returns to something that is very beautiful: to a mountain, to a river, to a lovely flower. One wants to go back and look at it again. It is natural, healthy; but if that mountain, that river, that flower acts as a stimulant, then it ceases to be beautiful. Then it's merely a drug, and you're lost. Though I said, "Don't attend meetings", I hope we shall meet next year, not as something in the nature of a drug or a stimulant, not for you to listen to words, to ideas, and translate them into concepts and formulas, but that coming together, meeting together, talking things over together, we shall see something extraordinarily beautiful; and without beauty, and therefore without love, our minds and hearts become dull, cynical, bitter, harsh, brutal.
I hope that you will have a pleasant journey.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Nov 2016 #477
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

A CONVERSATION BETWEEN K AND PUPUL JAYAKAR, 1983 (experientially- friendly edited)


PJ: Is the within the human mind a 'within' of things, which is an (inwardly open ?) space without ending? Is it a mirror image of that vastness which exists outwardly ?

K: Are you asking, whether in the human brain there is, or there can be, a space without end, an 'eternity' out of time? Are we are really trying to find out in ourselves whether there is such immensity, whether there is actually a movement ( an inner dimension?) which is not of time, which is 'eternal' (timeless ?) .

PJ: Yes, but how do you start an enquiry like this?

K: We have put the question whether the brain can realize the truth that there is or not this 'eternity'. Now you begin to feel your way into this really fundamental question, a question that has been asked for thousands of years, whether man (the human onsciousness ?) is bound to time for ever, or there is, or there is within the brain - or the brain realizes itself in- a state of eternity (timeless-ness ?) ?

PJ: And in order to proceed into this you start by drawing a distinction between the 'brain' and the 'mind'. Would you elaborate ?

K: We are saying, that the brain is conditioned through ( its materialistic ) experience. That 'conditioning' is functioning within the area of thought. And to discover something new there has to be, at least temporarily, a (silent ?) interval period, when thought is not in movement, when thought is in abeyance.

PJ: The brain is a material thing and it has its own activity.

K: Yes. It has its own ( natural) activity not imposed by thought.

PJ: But for centuries the operation of the brain has been the operation of thought.

K: That's what we are saying, that the whole movement (mental activity ?) of the brain, at least of that part of the brain which has been used, is conditioned by thought. And thought is always limited, and therefore it is conditioned to conflict. That which is limited must create division.

PJ: What is the 'mind' then?

K: 'Mind' is a wholly different dimension ( of our consciousness ?) which has no contact with ( the self-centred process of ?) thought. That part of the brain which has been functioning as an instrument of thought has been (seriously ?) conditioned - and as long as the brain remains (or is indulging ?) in that state there is no entire communication with the Mind. So when that conditioning is not then there is communication between that Mind which is totally on a different (non-material ?) dimension, that can communicate with the brain and act, using thought ( the thinking capacity) .

PJ: But you have already posited a state ( a dimension of human consciousness ?) which is outside the realm of (our self-centred ?) thinking.

K: That's right. Therefore outside the realm of time.

PJ: So, time seems to be the essential core of this problem...

K: Time and thought.

PJ: Thought is the ( by -) product of time. I mean thought 'is' time.

K: That's the real point.

PJ: So, if we could go into this whole business of the 'flow of time', and see at what instant is an 'interception' possible?

K: The 'ending' of it ?

PJ: We can use the word 'ending'. Now the 'time' (of mankind) is coming from a past immemorial.

K: Yes, which is ( the movement of ?) thought.

PJ: Thought is also coming from a past immemorial, projecting itself into a 'future' which is also endless .

K: This future is conditioned by the ( karmic accumulations of the ?) past - in the human 'psyche'.

PJ: So unless the human being ceases to be...

K: ...ceases to be conditioned.

PJ: ... the content will undergo a change, but the mechanism of thought will continue.

K: The mechanism of thought will continue - let's put it round the other way. Now, thought is the chief instrument we have ( available ?) And this (mental) instrument after thousands of years of various efforts, actions, has not only become ( mechanical and ?) 'dull', but (inwardly ?) it has reached the end of its tether because thought is conditioned, divided and in a perpetual state of turmoil. Now can this (inner condition ?) end? That's the question.

PJ: I used the word 'interception'. This ( continuous ) movement of the past as (it is manifested in our ?) thought - the (endless sequencing of ?) yesterdays, todays and tomorrows...

K: We are a bundle of ( latent and active ?) memories. (What we 'are' ) today is the movement of the past modified ( by the present conditions ?) .

PJ: That is true. But ( getting inwardly in ?) contact with this (process of ?) time...

K: What do you mean 'contact with time'? Time is thought.

PJ: The contact with 'time' as a psychological process (can take place only ?) in the present, isn't it?

K: Pupulji, let's be very clear. Don't separate time as though it was something different from thought.

PJ: No, time 'is' thought.

K: So it is ( a joint process of ?) 'time - thought'.

PJ: Yes, as (my) past, (my) present and (my) future.

K: Are you asking, what is the "Now"?

PJ: Yes, because this 'interception' is the contact with 'what is'...

K: Which is what?

PJ: Whatever you are saying now and my listening to you is the 'contact' with 'what is'.

K: May I put it in the way I understand it? The past, the present and the future is a movement of 'time-thought'. How do you come to see the truth of it, the 'fact' of it? To use your wordS - now come into contact with it, with the fact that (mentally ?) I am a whole series of memories, which is, (I 'am' this ) "time-thought".

PJ: Let us be more concrete. The thought that I am going away this afternoon, and that I will be leaving you. It is a thought.

K: It is a thought. It is an actuality.

PJ: But there is also a certain 'pain' of leaving you', the psychological element which come to cover up this ( objective) fact. So what is the 'fact' to be contacted? Not the fact that I am going away, but the pain.

K: And this pain of a thousand (personal) aches (plus the non-personal pain) of centuries of human loneliness, grief, anxiety and all that, is it separate from the 'me' who is feeling it?

PJ: It may not be separate...

K: It 'is' me.

PJ: And how do I (come in ?) touch (with ) it? Only in the present.
The whole of this (psychological ?) edifice rests on that.

K: The ( awareness of the ?) Now contains the ( whole movement of the ?) past, the future and the present. Right?

PJ: Yes...

K: The present ('me') is (containing my) whole past and future. This is the ( time-bound) 'present' - 'me' with all the memories of a thousand years, being (updated and/or ?) modified all the time, and ( projecting itself into ?) the future. All that is the 'present'. Right?

PJ: But this 'present' is also something which is not a static thing, it's over before...

K: Of course. The moment you have said it, it is gone.

PJ: Gone. So what is it that you actually 'see'? What is it you actually observe?

K: The 'fact'.

PJ: What 'fact'?
K: The fact that (my) 'present' is the whole movement of time and thought. To see the truth of that, to have an insight(ful) perception into that, that the ( 'self'- consciousness ?) 'now' is all (part of a deeper process of ?) time and thought.

PJ: Does that (holistic ?) perception emanate from the brain?

K: Either it comes from perceiving with the eyes, nerves and so on, or that perception is an "insight" which has nothing to do with time and thought.

PJ: But it arises within the brain?

K: Is it (originating ) within the sphere of the brain; or that insight comes ( into the brain) when there is the freedom from its conditioning, which is the operation of the Mind, which is supreme Intelligence. Do you follow?

PJ: I don't follow...

K: Let's be clear. The ( commonly active part of our) brain is conditioned by time and thought, "time-thought". As long as that ( temporal ?) conditioning remains ( this flash of Intelligent ?) Insight is not possible. You may have occasional insights into something, but pure insight, which means a 'perception of completeness', that insight is not of time-thought. Therefore that insight is part of that Mind which is in a different dimension.

PJ: Without ( Mind's light ?) there cannot be insight. Let us take the word "insight" - it is 'seeing into'.

K: Seeing, (or comprehending) the 'totality of something', the vastness of something. Right? Such an Insight is possible only when there is cessation of "thought & time". Thought and time are (intrinsically) limited, therefore such ( materialistic) limitation cannot have insight.

PJ: To understand what you are saying I have to have an open ear and eyes that see. Out of that sound, out of that form, out of that whole...

K: ... meaning of the words and so on...

PJ: ...arises a "seeing "which goes beyond. But when you talk of insight, but insight cannot arise without attention.

K: No. Don't introduce the (traditionally loaded ?) word 'attention'.
Stick to "insight cannot exist as long as the "time -thought" plays a part".

PJ: But in my (experiential ) approach to this, I can't start with insight. I can only start with 'observation'.

K: You can also start (holistically ?) by realizing the truth that the psychological time and (its associated ) thought are always limited. That's a fact.

PJ: Yes, that is a fact.

K: Therefore whatever it does will always be limited and therefore contradictory, therefore divisive and (creating an inner state of ) endless conflict. That's all I am saying. You can see the 'fact' of that.

PJ: You can see the fact of that outside of yourself.

K: You can see it politically, religiously, all throughout the world, this is a fact, that time and thought in their ( self-centred ?) activity have brought about havoc in the world. That's a fact.

PJ: Yes, yes.

K: So the question is: can that (materialistic ?) limitation ever end? Or is man conditioned for ever to live (inwardly) within the "time - thought" ( " known" ?) area?

PJ: You see the difficulty of understanding a statement like this: do you see the fact that time, thought...

K: ...are limited.

PJ: ...are limited? What does it exactly mean, how does one "see" (the inner truth of ?) that? It is like telling me, "( psychologically-wise ?) you are an illusion".

K: What?

PJ: It is exactly like telling me that Pupul is an illusion.

K: No, you are not an illusion.

PJ: It is exactly that the moment you say, "after all Pupul is a psychological bundle of the past"...

K: Psychological movement of time and thought, which is the ( self-conscious structure of the human ?) "psyche" is limited. Whatever it does is limited.

PJ: Then I would ask, what is wrong with it being limited?

K: Living in a (state of ?) perpetual conflict.

PJ: Now, to move further. There must be an ending to it.

K: I said there is.

PJ: What is the nature of this 'ending'?

K: To end (the ongoing 'psychological' ?) attachments .

PJ: The flow ceases to flow ?

K: The (time-based ?) movement of thought ceases, psychologically. What is your difficulty? You are making a simple thing (looking terribly ?) difficult.

PJ: No, sir. But...what is that point of insight?

K: What do you mean ?

PJ: Where I see. In what time-space do I see it?

K: Look, Pupul, just let's be simple. ( Our self-centred process of ?) thought and ( its protracted actions in ?) time have divided the world, politically, geographically, religiously. That is a fact. Can't you see the fact?

PJ: I can (see this by ) looking outside...

K: Wait, wait. Don't look outside.

PJ: I don't see the (inwardness of this ?) fact. Because if I really saw the fact...

K: You would stop that kind of (thinking ?) thing.

PJ: would be all over. I don't think it is such a simple thing, because it (the self-identified thought?) has such devious ways.

K: My whole point is to have an 'insight' (into the fact ?) that the movement of ( our self-centred) thought and (its psychological continuity in ?) time is divisive, it is a (mental) movement of endless conflict. That's a fact. Britain fought ( a mini-war ?) for some (Falkland ?) islands, that's a fact. Because British, Argentinians, French, French, German, Russian - they are all ( thinking in a self ?) divisive (way) . And India against somebody else. This is the ( exterior aspect of that ?) whole movement of "time and thought". That's a fact.

PJ: Yes, you can see it quite clearly when it is a matter outside of you.

K: If you can see it outside, this movement, what it does in the world, what misery it has caused in the world, then inwardly our 'psyche' is the (result of the same self-centred ) movement of "time and thought". This (inner) movement has created that (outward division) . The divisive psychological (mental) movement has created the external fact. Right? I am a Hindu, I feel secure. I am a German, I feel secure in (getting inwardly identified ?) with a word, in the feeling that I belong to something.

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, one has seen all this (psychological stuff ?) , being a Hindu, greed, as being a (by) product of this movement of time-thought.

K: That is all I am saying.

PJ: But that is not quite enough...

K: What is your difficulty, Pupul?

PJ: There is within it all a sense of "I exist" (independently of all those psychological qualities ?)

K: That's it. I don't realize the psyche 'is' ( deeply identified to ?) that.

PJ: But that's essentially the human nature.

K: Because you have thought the 'psyche' is something other than the conditioned state, that there was something in me, or in the brain, or in somewhere, which is timeless, which is God, which is this, which is that, and that if I could only reach 'that' everything would be right. That's part of my (cultural) conditioning: because I am uncertain, confused, God will give me safety, perfection, certainty - God or the 'highest principle', or some kind of conviction.

PJ: What is the nature of the ground from which "insight" springs?

K: I have told you. Insight can only take place when there is freedom from time and thought.

PJ: It is a sort of unending (circular logic ?) ...

K: No, it is not. You are complicating a very simple fact: to live in(wardly) in peace only is to flower, is to understand the extraordinary world of peace. ( This sense of inner) peace cannot be brought about by ( the ongoing process of ?) thought.

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, it is the brain itself which listens to that statement ?

K: Yes, it listens. And then what happens? If it 'listens' it is ( getting naturally ?) quiet. It isn't ruminating, it is not going on, " what does he mean", it is not rattling. It is quiet. Right? Wait a minute. When it is actually, a non induced quietness, actually when it listens, and there is quietness, then there is insight. I don't have to explain ten different ways the limitations of thought, ( you just see that ?) "It is so".

PJ: I see what you say. Is there anything further than that?

K: Oh, yes there is a great deal more: if there is a listening to the sound (of your words) , I am not listening, I am only understanding the words. But you want to convey to me something much more than the words, so if the words are making a sound in my hearing I can't understand the depth of what you are saying.
So I want to find out something much more. We started with the present. The (regular ?) 'present' is the whole movement of time-thought. Right? It is the whole structure (of our 'psyche' ). If the structure of time and thought ends, the "now" has totally a different meaning. The "now" then is no-thing, an (inner state of ) 'no-thing' (ness) that contains All. But we are afraid to be (inwardly) no-thing.

PJ: When you say, (that 'no-thing'ness) contains the all, is it the essence of all human, racial and environmental, and nature and the cosmos, as such?

K: Yes. I am talking of the fact of a realization that (inwardly) there is nothing. The "psyche" is an (ages old ?) " bundle of memories", and those memories are the outcome of a past experience which is ( dead &) gone ; they operate, they function, but "I" am a movement of memories. Now if I have an insight into that, there is nothing. "I" ( as 'self-consciousness' ?) don't exist.

PJ: You said something about 'listening without sound' ?

K: You see the beauty of it?

PJ: Yes, it is possible when the mind itself is totally still.

K: Don't bring in the 'mind' for the moment. When the brain is quiet, absolutely quiet, therefore there is no sound made by the words.

PJ: There is no sound made by the word?

K: Of course. That is real 'listening'. The word has given me ( the information content of ?) what you wanted to convey.

PJ: But the brain has not been active in ( the inner) listening.

K: Yes. And when the brain is active ( it is generating its own inner ?) noise. Let's go back to something else: pure sound can only exist when there is (inner) space and silence, otherwise it is just noise.

So all one's education, all one's past experience and knowledge is a movement (rooted in material ?) becoming, both inwardly, psychologically as well as outwardly. Becoming is the accumulation more and more (experiences and ?) memories, which is called knowledge. Right? Now as long as that movement exists there is fear of 'being nothing'. But when one really sees the fallacy, the illusion of (psychologically) becoming something, that very perception, that insight to see that (inwardly) there is no-thing, there is an ending of this becoming and (of its) conflict. That is, the ending of the movement which is the 'psyche', which is "time-thought" (the time-binding activity of the self-centred thought?) . The ending of that is to be (inwardly as) nothing. ( That inner 'no-thing'-ness) then contains (or joins ?) the ( Mind of the ?) whole Universe.

After all, Pupulji, ( inwardly being as ?) 'nothing' means the entire world of compassion - compassion is no 'thing'. And therefore that no-thingness is supreme Intelligence. That's 'All there Is'.
So why are the human beings frightened of being (inwardly as ?) 'nothing'? If I see that I am really a "verbal illusion", that I am nothing but dead (and resuscitated ?) memories, that's an (universally true ?) 'fact'. But... I don't like to think I am just nothing but memories. But the truth is I 'am' memories. If I had no ( personal attachments to my ?) memory, I can understand the whole (mental) movement of memory, which is time- thought, and see the fact as long as there is this movement there must be endless conflict, struggle, pain. And when there is an insight into that, being nothing means something entirely different. And that ( being) nothing is the (living in a timeless ? ) Present. It is not varying present, it isn't it is one day this and one day, the next day. Being nothing is no time therefore it is not ending one day and beginning another day.

It is really interesting if one goes into this problem, the astrophysicists are trying to understand the (unknown mystery of the ?) universe. They can only understand in terms of gases, but the immensity of it as part of this (inwardess of our) being, not out there, "in here". Which means, no shadow of "time and thought". Pupul, after all that is real meditation, that's what 'sunya' (the Inner Void ?) means in Sanskrit.
But the actual fact (to be faced ?) is that ( at this point in time ?) we are nothing except words, and opinions, judgements, and therefore we have made our whole life become petty.

So in ( inwardly being as ?) nothing all the ( consciousness of the ?) world is contained - not the pain, and... those are all so small. I know it sounds (presumptious ?) , when I am suffering that ( self-consciousness ?) is the only thing I have.

Now, having listened to all this, have you said, "By Jove, I have got it, I have got the perfume of it" ?

PJ: Sir, don't ask me that question because anything I say would sound - because as you were speaking there was (the Presence of That ?) Immensity.

K: There was That, I could feel it. But is it for the moment, for a second and it is gone? And then the whole business of remembering it, capturing it, inviting it...

PJ: Oh no, I think one has moved from there. But one realizes that the most difficult thing in the world is to be (inwardly) 'totally simple'.

K: To be simple, that's right. If one is really simple, from that (simplicity of being ?) you can understand the enormous complexity of things. But we start with all the complexities and never see the simplicity. That's our ( standardised cultural) training. We have trained our brain to see the complexity and then try to find an answer to the complexity. But we don't see the extraordinary simplicity of life - of its 'facts', rather.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Nov 2016 #478
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

K IN CONVERSATION WITH J. UPADIAH, ( Pupul Jayakar & Buddhist friends) , JANUARY 1985


K: Sir, yesterday we talked ( metaphorically) about an ordinary man, fairly well educated, no special profession. He starts looking at the outside world. It is like a great river flowing (timelessly ?) . As it enters the sea it is in a turmoil because it has got great volume of water (pushing from behind ?) for the last million years. And this whole vast river entering into the sea, that is the world. Now, as he follows up that river up(stream) in the mountains, he comes to a point where the river begins on a great mountain, it is very small there. And there he is (sitting down and meditating ?) alone, and he realizes all that river was ( the temporal evolution of ?) himself, he discovers he is the ( total consciousness of the ?) world and that the movement of that (stream of human consciousness is driven by ?) self-interest.
He has never disciplined (himself ) , he has just been following the river from the beginning, from that enormous delta up he has followed it up(stream) . And the (diligent ?) following it up is not (requiring ?) a discipline. So, he has reached that very small ( spring ?) hole, which is self-interest. And he doesn't know how to go beyond that, he is stuck there. And that's where we left him yesterday - as he discovers there is nobody to help him. As he climbed he hoped somebody would help him but he discovers that there is not a single person in heaven or in any book, or in any philosophy, and he is stranded up there, aware of his loneliness, all the rest of it. And he can't stay there. There is a pull wanting to climb more, but there is nothing to climb either. He has come to that ( psychologically critical ?) point. I wonder if I have made myself clear?

Q1: Yes. But we went a little further yesterday, talking about how that 'self-interest' can go. And I would like to ask whether each individual who is in this stream, has to remain utterly helpless, or whether there is a possibility for him - instead of being completely dragged in that stream, to create a raft, or something by which he can be out of it.

K: Sir, I said that ( that in this meditative inquiry ?) he is always moving up the river. There is no 'island' ( to hang around ?) because he is moving. And that very moving gives him the strength: as I move 'up the river', that (learning momentum ?) creates its own discipline. The man who is ( inwardly ) static needs to discipline (himself) , but the man who is constantly ( learning and ) moving up(stream ?) is following the river (as it ) is moving.

Q2: As you have ( metaphorically) described this Stream of (human) Life, I understand that everyone is being dragged down. So, within ( any decent ?) man there is the urge to rise above these sordid sorrows and worries and everything that happens. But this man by any act that he is doing is not trying to get out of this but he is part of this stream.

K: Sir, he has spent his youth in that, at the "mouth of the river", sex, power, you know all the business. And he sees it is all (coming down to ?) habit, conditioning and he is so exhausted and bored with this whole circus. So, he says, "By Jove, I must move somewhere!" He starts from there.

Q1: You mean (his own) boredom takes him right up to the top?

K: No, I don't say that. He 'moves out' of that ( self-conservative mentality ?) .
Have you ever watched the Nile, or the Ganga entering into the sea? The greater the volume of water the greater the Delta; he begins there. You understand? We are all ( stuck in) that: we want sex, we want power, we want (to find God ?) , etcetera. And he says to himself, "My God, that is enough." Then he begins to move ( 'upstream') from there: he wants to see where the river begins.

Q2: As you have put it this Stream ( of personal & collective Self-Interest ?) is dragging everybody along with it and then you say...

K: If he wants to remain there (enjoying the Delta ?) , he is ( free to stay ?) there. But ( if he is open minded ?) he is curious enough to find out the origin of the river. The vast majority like it there. They like (enjoying) sex, power, position, knowledge, everything - don't they?

Q1: I think nobody denies that. All that is said is that there is some ( 'special' ?) energy (required) which makes him follow the river (upstream) to the...

K: Why not be simple about it? He is curious, he wants to know (the true meaning of his existence ?) . He has been through all that awful business and says, "My God, I am bored with this stuff" - aren't you ( getting) bored with sex when you have had enough of it?

Q5: Krishnaji, there seem to be two different metaphors which are clashing with each other. One is your metaphor of the person finding himself at the foaming mouth of the river, recognizing the river, feeling curious about it, he is there and having been there sufficiently long and experienced some of the things he becomes is curious and then he asks where from?

K: Move.

Q5: And there is another metaphor that the Punditji has brought up, the metaphor of the suffering humanity in which the seeing of the river is seeing the whole (suffering of the ?) world and feeling compassionate about all the people being dragged down. The Buddhism also talks about the world as a (pretty ?) 'sad place'.

K: I know all that.

Q5: So, Panditji is saying: wouldn't it be nice if these poor people instead of being swept by (that cruel stream ?) there would be somebody to give them the way, somebody to give them a help and so on ?

K: Pat him on the back ?

Q5: Or at least a 'traffic policeman'.

K: I don't want (to do) all that. My river is the river of everybody - that is sorrow, that is pain, that is anxiety, that is loneliness, despair, hope, all that.

Q5: Would not describe your river as the river of sorrow?

K: Why reduce everything to 'sorrow'? It is also the river of (pleasure & ?) pain, the river of ( wordly success & ?) fear, the river of all that.

Q5: I like this idea of not talking about the theory of sorrow but of talking about things as they are.

K: As they are.
Q3: You often used to say that as the river of humanity flows (on its own ?) , unless I step out of the stream - unless "the mind is ( steady as ) a rock"...(I am using your own words)...What is the actual difference in terms of change of consciousness?

K: Sir let me finish what I want to say : I am bored with all that (mechanical self-centred existence ?) and I have also become very sceptical, doubtful, questioning. And in this movement ( upstream) he is becoming aware the difficulties of leaving this (delta of the 'known' ?) . So he begins to question why he is finding it ( so terribly ?) difficult. He questions everything, he is 'moving'. Then begins (the true role of ?) humility - right? And with that he is moving, learning, watching. He says I am not different from all mankind, I am all that, but I am watching. And he is climbing, moving ( the dynamic of this inward ?) movement is the 'learning', not accumulating knowledge. So, he (finally ?) comes to a point at the origin of the river and he says, " By Jove all this tremendous effort I have made, effort, climbing, has been utterly useless b because I am still self-centred here, as I was self-centred there. That's all. I have come to that point.

Q1: Perhaps some confusion has arisen because of your using of the word 'origin' : you said this is everything, of course it is (also including my ) desire for transformation, it is everything. Then the question is: what is the very substance of this everything?

K: It is still water, whether it is up there or down here it is still water.

Q1: It is still water...

K: That's all. Sir, I 'am' (the consciousness of ?) humanity and I say "is there any change at all possible?". I thought this 'change' consisted in climbing the hill and going to the (original) source but the whole explanation is here, as well as up there: it is 'self-interest' - right? And I see self-interest has created terrible mess , everybody (competitively ?) fighting each other, nations and so on. Then out of that ( holistic ?) observation I say : what does "change" mean? From this to that ? Or is change (in the very ) ending of this?
I have reached a ( vista ?) point where I see if there is no change man will be destroyed as he goes on. So I question is there ( a matter of temporal) change ? Or there is only 'ending', which means (psychologically ?) 'dying' ( letting go the attachments to the past ?) . Can I die to everything everyday and not pick up after 'dying' the same ( self-centred ?) thing? You have understood Sir? I die today, to everything I have known, which is ( the psychological version of ?) death. Or I 'die' (to some attachments ?) but carry on the same thing until I 'die' (again) the next day. You follow what I mean? So I question if there is a ( hidden self-?) continuity at all, or simply dying. Then I will see what happens. The man who has been there has come to that ( "inner moment of Truth" ?) point. What does he think?

Q2: He says is that he goes with you the whole way. And he says that therefore there is no change but there is only ending.

K: You know what that means?

Q2: Yes Sir. He has taken the whole of it. But he says that in that stream itself is the seedling of a (new) beginning because the stream is ( generating its own ?) continuity.

K: No. As I 'am' humanity I 'am' (part of ?) that consciousness. Right? But if I die to that consciousness I am not in it.

Q2: Sir, what he says is that there is a continuity of that stream of consciousness independent of my ending it.

K: Sir, that ( all-time ?) consciousness is sorrow, fear, greed, envy, etcetera, which is the essence (the karmic residue ?) of ( the original choice of ?) self-interest - right? Now I come to that point, and I say is it possible for a human being, who 'is' the entire ( consciousness of ?) humanity, to 'step out' of it?

Q2: Now you have again changed the metaphor...

K: It is the same thing. I am that stream. (The Consciousness of ?) humanity suffers, 'goes through hell' and that Stream goes on because as long as the human beings have not moved out of it that Stream ( of Self-Interest, violence and vulgarity ?) will go on.

Q1: Then there is a stepping out?

K: As long as I am ( swimming ?) in that stream that stream will go on. (Even ) if that ( liberated ?) person who 'is' humanity steps out of that stream, that Stream (of Self-Interest) will go on. But that person who is out of it has (access to a reservoir of ?) Compassion, he has intelligence, therefore that acts. (So, the real question is:) Can one human being step out of it?

Q2: 'Step out'? I can't...

K: Not keep on going with that Stream . That is all. What is the difficulty in that?

Q3: Sir, at one moment you say there is no individual (consciousness) . Then... what steps out?

K: Nothing. [Laughter] Let me explain. I have taken this as something perpetual, which it is, 'time'. So, he's seeing the whole thing as an unitary (time-thought ?) movement that is going on and suddenly realizes there is nothing -( nothing in the sense 'not-a-thing') . 'Thing' is (anything projected by ) thought, which is a material process. So... that is the ending of ( self-identified continuity of ?) thought.

Q1: And in that 'no-thingness'...

K: That is "no-thingness".

Q1: ...there is no duality between the self and...

K: No. He has been through ( the dualistic conflict). He has fought , he has struggled. Does it make any sense Sir?

Q3: Therefore 'ending' and 'stepping out' are the same.

K: Stepping out. ( In a nutshell ?) That is ( the Stream of ?) self-interest perpetuating itself all the time, whether it is 'me' or 'you' or... ( the consciousness of ?) humanity is perpetually caught (entangled ?) in that. And (inwardly) that is ( manifested as ?) thought. He says, "By Jove, no movement !" and when there is no (mental ?) movement you are out of it. 'Out of it' - that is just words. ( But the actuality is that inwardly ?) there is a 'something' else.
Now K says: he has never been through all this (or... he forgot all about it ?) .

Q5: He has never been (psychologically caught ?) in all this ?

K: Jealousy, anxiety, pain, sex and all that. What I want to get at is : Is it possible, except biologically, never to have the 'psyche' ( a 'self-identified' consciousness' ?) as the centre? You understand my question? The moment you see ( the illusory nature of ?) that, you are out, you are finished.

Q2: Could you explain a little more ?

K: Sir, we have the idea of a ( spiritual) path, a goal, achievement. A path demands discipline, control, sacrifice. The horror of it. But somebody like K comes along and says "Don't go through all this stuff. Be aware of nature, be aware of all the senses, and of how the ( memory of the ?) senses create the self -(conscious entity ?). See it as a tremendous movement and in a flash (of insight into all ?) that you are out of it. It is not a matter of climbing, sacrificing, giving up, discipline, practice - oh, that is wrong.

Q5: Then the last thing you said is...

K: See the futility.

Q5: You are saying that there is no place for 'time' in all the understanding of this. The moment that goes it ends.

K: I began by questioning, doubting and asking. Not asking somebody, asking. I end up doubting, questioning, and asking.

Q4: Then...have I moved at all?

K: I don't know. I leave that question alive. That question itself destroys everything.

Q5: No conclusion.

K: No Sir. Punditji, you and I have a dialogue. You put a question, I answer it. Then you answer that question. We keep this up. Asking, answering. We come to a point when the question itself 'is' the answer. The question itself is so vital it bursts the...

Q5: I think it would be helpful if you will describe that particular state once again...

K: K, (or some strange man from the dark Himalayas) comes along, and says why do you go through all this stuff? The Buddhas, the Christ, the disciplines, the sacrifice, the renunciation, control, don't do all that, there is something else (to do more directly ?) Which is, just see this, the 'futility' of it - and when you really see the depth of that 'futility' (of dilligently lighting candles in full sunlight ?) and you ask why it has come, and live with that question, without trying to find a (verbal) answer, then that question ( of self-interest ?) itself opens and withers. Like a flower. If you leave the flower alone, watch it carefully, nurture it, the flower blossoms and withers, at the end of it there is no flower at all. Right? Which ( experientially amounts to inwardly being?) 'nothing' .

Q3: This you have talked about, we all know that, we have talked about it. But you said something else and that is: in seeing this whole stream and in questioning and in ending, the stream continues its flow. The question remains.

K: That's it, that's it.

Q3: And it is such a powerful, potent question that when it remains it has an explosive ( purifying ?) energy independent of me...

K: It is nothing to do with 'me', it is like an (inner) fire (Flame of Attention ?) that is burning.
I am sure you do that in the scientific (research) . You come to a point and you put the question and wait, don't you? Look at it, wait, and ( if you get lucky ?) you have a sudden flash (of insight). Right Sir?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 25 Nov 2016 #479
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 699 posts in this forum Offline

Exploring the Mind of Krishnamurti ( experientially -friendly edited )

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): In listening to you over the last thirty years, I have observed a certain manner in which you approach a problem, a certain manner in which you unfold a problem during discussion. I would like to investigate the way you receive a question, the actual way in which you penetrate into it. I would also like to know what follows after you receive a question. I would like to explore (how is working ?) your mind.

K: All right, let’s begin.

PJ: Can we begin with the question: How do you receive a question which is put to you? What is the state of the mind—your mind—which receives?

K: First he 'listens' - without any ( personal ?) conclusions, without any barriers - the mind is ‘empty’? The mind is empty in the sense that there are no preconceived answers and no—because answers have been given before—recording and remembrance of those answers. I am using the word ‘empty’ in that sense. There is a state of ( mental ?) emptiness and out of that K answers.

PJ: Now, in this state , what is the function of attention? You see, sir, the function of attention is to search, but if attention does not search, what happens to the question? You may receive it in emptiness, but what actually happens to the question? Because you do respond.

K: Yes. The question is put, and there is a 'hearing' of it— not only with the ear but also without the usual process of hearing( with the inner ear ?) . It is like a 'seed' (of truth ?) that is put into the earth—the earth acts upon the seed, and the seed acts upon the earth and, gradually, out of that comes a plant or a flower. You see, Pupul, there is the normal, physical, state, wherein a question is heard with the ear; but there is also a state in which the question is heard not with the ear, and out of that ( non-verbal ?) state there is the answer.

PJ: Is it a new ( integrated perceptive ?) instrument ? When one observes you, it is as if your eyes are participating in the listening process as much as your ears. You have, if I may say so, a ‘listening’ eye.

K: I think so. I would like to answer this question by bringing in the word ‘insight’. ‘Insight’ is ( the perception of ?) mind in which there is no remembrance, no quality of reaction and much more than all that. Now when you ask a question, there is a hearing with the 'non-ear' (inner ear ?) , which means that the mind is (free of the known ?) and all the (past ) remembrances, conclusions, ( ready made ?) responses, and so on—being absent, there is an "insight" into the question.

PJ: Does this ( inner) listening come into being with the very ending of the processes of the ( self-conscious ?) mind, or is it something else?

K: When there is an insight the brain cells themselves undergo a ( qualitative ?) change.

PJ: Does insight arise because of the non-hearing?

K: Yes, because of the hearing with the 'non-(physical) ear'.

PJ: Can we investigate ( the nature of ?) this hearing with the (inner ?)-ear or is it impossible to investigate it?

K: It is an (inner) state similar to that of dropping a stone into a completely quiet pond. When you drop a ( verbal ?) 'stone' into such a ( quiet inner ?) pond, it makes little waves which soon disappear. This inner state of listening with the 'non-(physical) ear' is a state of absolute quietness of the mind. Now, when a question is put to such a mind, it is like a little stone that is dropped into a tranquil pond. The response is the little waves.

PJ: Now, is this tranquil inner pond, the ( energy ?) matrix of the mind? Is it the totality ( of our Consciousness the one ?) which receives?

K: You see, Pupul, can the mind be so extraordinarily receptive (transparent ?) that the past has no place in it at all? When there is a listening without the ( physical) ear, that state of listening is not fragmented.
Listening with the ' physical) ear implies the ( brain's activity of ?) recording and remembrance and from (its stored ?) past knowledge, past experience, it is answering the question. However, as there is no past (memory ?) involved in the listening with the non- (physical) ear, there is no fragmentary (already known?) answer. The ( quiet mill- ?) pond is totally without all the pollution that man has put into it—the pollution is the past, and all the rest of it—and the question is put into that pond just as a pebble is, and the reply is the wave. I think that is how it functions.

PJ: Now, as there is a non-( physical) ear listening, is there also a non-(physical) eye seeing? Tradition maintains that the (physical) movement of the eye is the outward movement of focusing, of naming. The same visual movement which turns backwards, breaks through the naming process; it dissolves the ' self-) divisive process. In fact it is known as the ‘backward flowing movement’, and it is a term that is used in various ways also by the Chinese.

K: I question the whole thing. You see, Pupul, I wonder if there is a 'looking within' at all, because 'looking within' may imply (another form of self-centred ?) movement of thought.

PJ: Yes sir, but not necessarily.

K: All right. Then if there is no (self-centred ?) movement of thought, what do we mean by ‘looking within’?

PJ: A (non-personal ?) seeing of that which exists at a particular instant, both within and without. There is no 'within' and 'without' in that state.

K: And you are saying that this inward looking dispels the whole structure of ( self-centred ?) thought ?

PJ: Yes.

K: (Long pause) I question that. I question whether there is an inward looking at all. What is there to look inward? One can look inwards, from what you say, into the whole movement of thought. Is that inward looking?

PJ: Let me put it this way: the looking is physical, but what is seen is not physical. Thought is not something that can be ‘seen’ as such.

K: Pupul, all thought (all activity of the 'thinking brain' ?) is a material process.

PJ: But it is so fleeting. There is a distinction between seeing this microphone and seeing a flashing movement of thought.

K: But that flashing movement of thought is still a material process.

PJ: Yes, all right; I agree that it is a material process, but its existence is in a dimension which we call the ‘within’.

K: I see what you are trying to get at. You are saying that thought is not visible; it cannot be perceived as one’s face is in a mirror. Thought cannot be perceived in a mirror ( although the thought patterns can be visualised by electronic equipment?) . So that which is not perceivable (directly with our senses ?) you call the ‘inner’ ?

PJ: Yes, a thought is not perceivable and, yet, it exists.

K: But I would question whether it is the inner at all. I believe that when the Eskimos use the word ‘thought’ they mean 'something outside'. Think about it...

PJ: Then where do I see it? What is the seeing then?

K: You know, Pupul, I don’t think there is a 'seeing' at all.

PJ: And yet, sir, you have kept on speaking of ‘seeing’.

K: Yes, seeing—seeing the flower.

PJ: Seeing also ( one's) anger. Can we investigate your statement, please?

K: Yes, but we must go slowly, for we must be very clear on this point which is rather interesting. Right from the beginning he has said that you must approach the question afresh, and all the rest of it, so that the very throwing of the question into the mill-pond produces the answer. There is no ( mental) 'entity' that answers; that is very important to understand. Now, back to your question regarding the ‘seeing’ of thought: I don’t think there is a ‘seeing’ of thought. For ( usually) ‘seeing’ implies that there is a ‘seer’ and that there is ‘thought’, and that the ‘seer’ and ‘thought’ are separate. The seer is thought. So, for me, there is no inward looking (no-one looking inward ?) .

PJ: Then what do you mean, sir, when you talk of the seeing of ‘what is’?

K: Thought cannot be seen with the ( "me-looking ?) inward" look.

PJ: Then by what is (the activity of ) thought seen, because there is a 'seeing' ?

K: I wouldn’t use the word ‘seeing’. I would use the word ‘aware’. I would say that thought (or the "thinking brain" ?) becomes aware of itself, of its own activity.

PJ: But you have been talking all these years of the seeing of ‘what is’.

K: The seeing of ‘what is’ is the seeing of what is actually happening inwardly which is not the observation of what is happening with the optical eye or with another thought. ‘Seeing’ implies that.

PJ: Can there be a ‘seeing’ without this dualistic (observer-observing ?) state?

K: Yes. ‘Seeing’ implies that there is no opposite.

PJ: Yes, of course, because it has the same quality as the lake.

K: Yes. That’s why, Pupul, I went back to that carefully. When you speak of ‘inward looking’ it sounds to me artificial and traditionally (dualistic ?) . I think the thing works like a lake, like a tranquil mill-pond. Thought itself has to be quiet; it has to be as quiet as the lake. When you put a question to that lake, the question is answered from the lake.

PJ: But, sir, suppose jealousy arises. By the time I grow aware of it, it is already over. I cannot see that which is over.

K: No, you see jealousy arise and there is the ( quiet ) watching of it.

PJ: One of the things which has always puzzled me is this: Can there be a watching of the actual state of jealousy (as it is ) arising? For in such a state it would not even arise.

K: Jealousy is a ( self-centred ?) reaction, which you name ‘jealousy’. The question is: Before 'you' (the 'thinker' in control ? ) name it as ‘jealousy’, can there be a watching of that reaction without the watcher? Can one just ‘see’ ( non-verbally) that reaction? The ( direct) observation of the arising of that reaction—of jealousy, in this instance—is the ( proverbial ?) 'hearing without the ear', the 'seeing without the eye'.

(To recap:) We were saying, first, that a question is asked and that question is like a stone dropped into a mill-pond, a mill-pond that is absolutely still. Now, what we are saying is that not only the question but the very answer is the dropping of the stone into the pond. You see, the answer comes out because of the stone—for otherwise the 'mill-pond' is absolutely quiet, right?
What we are talking about is a (non-verbal ?) observation of ‘what is’ without the previous remembrances associated with ‘what is’; that’s all.

PJ: You say that it is neither optical nor aural. Then why you use the word ‘observing’?

K: I use the word in the sense that in this ( direct) observation there is no centre from which something is observed—the 'centre' being ( a self-identified bunch of psychological ?) memories, various conclusions, ( personal ?) hurts, and so on, So, there is no ( static ?) point from which it is being observed. And in that (fluid ?) observation there is no ( forming of ?) conclusions, no ( mental) association with past events, which means the ( quality of this ?) seeing is as quiet as the ( proverbial ?) "mill-pond". And the question, or what(ever reaction) 'is’, drops into the (quiet) mill-pond which is absolutely quiet and which responds.

PJ: Sir, you just implied that the (mill-pond) 'ripple' is the response.

K: Yes, the ripple is the response. It is a marvellous 'idea' (a great way to look at it ?)

PJ: I have observed you, sir, and you listen to your own responses with the same attention as you listen to a question that is put to you. Do you listen to your response?

K: Yes, I listen to it to see if it is accurate.

PJ: Now, when the average person responds, he normally never ( bothers to ) listen to his own response.

K: No, he never listens.

PJ: He is always listening to what the other is saying. He never listens to his own response. At least I don’t listen to it. I am watching myself, and I see that I don’t listen to my own response. I may listen to my own response afterwards.

K: You see, Pupul, there is a (non-personal) act of listening which is not ‘me’ listening to my responses. There is only "listening".

PJ: Yes, but when you (K) listen there is a total flexibility: there is no 'holding' to an answer.

K: You see, if the pebble is very light, the ripple is just two waves. But if it is a rock it goes down and causes a great many waves. If the challenge is great, the waters must move in a series of waves. So the act of (a holistic ?) listening is not only to the person who questions, who challenges, but also to the answering. It is, in other words, a total state of listening—a listening to both the questioner and the person who replies. And, yes, when the answer, the reply, is not quite as it should be, there naturally is a movement away. Because you are listening, there is a withdrawal from that and, then, you change the movement.
So I have discovered that there is no ( division into outward and ?) 'inward' looking; there is only looking.

QUESTIONER (Q): Sir, what is the 'mill-pond'?

K: All this ( metaphorical ?) analogy of the 'mill-pond' came about because Pupul began by asking: Can we investigate your mind, K’s mind? If you ask, however, what is ( the nature of ?) that mill-pond which is K’s mind, you will be entering into something else, and I don’t know if I would investigate that.

PJ: You would not, sir?

K: I am not sure, I said.

PJ: But I think it is a thing which has to be raised with you.

K: Raise what?

PJ: What 'is' that mill-pond, sir?

K: First of all, Pupul, whose mill-pond? Is it the mill-pond of K’s mind or the mill-pond of a person who is agitated and all the rest of it? You see, an agitated mind is not a mill-pond.

PJ: We are talking of K’s 'mill-pond'. I mean, what is being attempted here is to see how far one can go into throwing open K’s mind.

K: You are asking: What is the state of the 'mill-pond' that, apparently, K has? I don’t think K is aware of the 'mill-pond'.

PJ: What are you aware of, then, sir?

K: If K is (self-consciously ?) aware of it, it is not an (authentic ?) "mill-pond".

PJ: Sir, if I may ask ( a very personal question ?) , what is the inner nature of your self ?

K: I am being asked what is the inner nature of K’s mind. If I were to reply (experientially ?) I’d say: "Nothing", which means "not a thing". Would you comprehend this state of K’s inner being, which says that there is "nothing", absolutely "no-thing"?
It is like ( verbally ?) measuring the immeasurable, you follow? I am not saying that K’s mind is "unmeasurable", but ( the attempt to describe it verbally ?) is like measuring the immeasurable.

Q: But you said that the mill-pond only shows itself in those ripples.

K: Yes.

Q: Otherwise nothing else could be said about it?

K: You see, sir, the word is not the thing (they attempt to describe) . (Laughs shortly) I have fallen back on an old trick. You can’t examine "it"; with what would you be examining it?
You see, the ordinary person’s (inner) 'mill-pond' is constantly in agitation. Now, from that ( mental) agitation you are asking questions about the examination of that—K’s—mill-pond. I am telling you that 'that' mill-pond just cannot be examined. K says that there is a state of absolute no-thingness, and that that nothingness cannot be examined—because examination implies ( verbal evaluation or ) measurement, and there is no measurement of no-thingness; full stop.
You can only perceive ( that quality of ?) no-thingness if your mind is also ( like) that. (Pause)

PJ: Sir, may I please ask you something else ? I find that in your dialogues, in your discussions, there is a great use of the ( silent) pause. What is the significance of the pause?

K: K pauses probably to see that the answer is from the 'mill-pond'.

PJ: I understand. Now, to come back. During a dialogue it appears that you start at the same level as the person with whom you are discussing. Now, I have a very serious question to ask you here. Is it that the mill-pond that is K’s mind, the mind which is "nothing" (not identified with anything ?) , enters the state of the mind of the person who is living in duality? How do you, sir, comprehend my duality?

K: By listening to what you are saying.

PJ: But you don’t 'know' the nature of my duality.

K: No, but I am listening to you asking: How can 'I' be rid of 'jealousy'? How can 'I' be rid of something or the other? And I say that 'you' can’t get rid of it. My instant reply is that there is no riddance of anything.

PJ: No, but suppose I make a statement. You will immediately see whether that is a theory or a fact. There is a capacity within you to see the truth (of it) .

K: Obviously, everybody has that (latent capacity ?) .

PJ: Not always, sir. ..

K: No, not always.

PJ: Sir, you have been questioned for the last fifty years or so. Now, out of this questioning, which grows intense, you suddenly say, ‘I see’. My question is: What is it that brings about that insight, what is it which suddenly makes everything clear?

K: As I told you, K "listens". There is (a pure ?) listening and, suddenly, there comes, out of nothingness...

PJ: So are you saying, sir, that it arises in the very "listening"?

K: Yes. Because, to me what is important is the "act of listening". There is a listening to the question—the question that is dropped like a pebble into a tranquil pond. It is simple.

PJ: Is this state the same as what takes place when you have an interview and when you sit on a platform?

K: No, no. When K sits on the platform (for a public talk ) it is quite different. But in an interview the person 'is' (impersonating ?) the problem; it is much more concentrated.

PJ: I would like to explore this, for those of us who have had a (personal) interview with you it is like facing a totally empty state (a totally transparent mind ?) .

K: Yes.

PJ: There is nothing except oneself reflected. You see, sir, you throw back on the person exactly what 'is' ( psychologically enfolded ?) in the person.

K: Yes. (Long pause) (Suppose ?) I am now Pupul and you are K. I ask you: How did you come to this extraordinary quality of the mill-pond? That would be my inquiry. How did you capture, how did you come by it? What are its characteristics? How did it happen to you and not to me? Tell me the things that prevent the (unfolding in of that ?) mill-pond?

PJ: Please proceed, sir, because you alone can be the questioner as well as the one who answers. No one else can answer.

K: All right, how did you (K) get to it? First of all you have no (inner) sense of comparison. You don’t even feel that you have "got it" and that I haven’t got it. ("you-have-it-and-I-haven’t" means comparison) . So you tell me first of all, ‘Don’t compare (yourself with anybody ?) Can you be totally free of comparison?’
Now ( back to Pupul's mind ?) that is something new to me; it is a statement that I don’t quite understand. So I say, ‘I have lived all my life ( and thrived ?) by comparison and you are now asking me to throw away all the things that I have learnt through comparison’. You tell me that the struggle, the pain, the envy, the jealousy, the ( self-becoming ?) drive—all that—must completely be dissipated (garbaged ?) . And you also tell me, ‘Don’t take time over it. Don’t say, “I will do ( the rest of ) it tomorrow”, for then that will never happen. It (the psychological 'emptying' ?) must be done instantly’. That’s what you (K) tell me.

Now, because (and...if ?) I have listened to you very carefully—with the hearing and the non-hearing ear—I am ( becoming) very 'alert' to what you are saying. I see ( the experiential truth of ?) it and say, ‘Yes, I can’t possibly dissipate it through time. It must be done so ( right here and ?) now’. Your very (presence ?) challenges me respond. Your challenge being very vital, very urgent, very forceful, awakens in me the quality of urgency and, so, ( if lucky ?) I understand it completely.

And ( for parting words ?) you also tell me, ‘Don’t accumulate; don’t accumulate (your psychological) problems (such as personal ) hurts, memories, (images ?) just don’t accumulate’. Again because my whole being is 'listening' to you, I understand it instantly. You say to me, ‘Every (psycho ?) problem must be resolved instantly’. Now that, of course, would require a great deal of dialogue back and forth, but at the end of it I would see what you mean. And I would ( start with the ?) ordinary things. I would understand ( the various forms of psychological ?) fear; I would understand ( the various aspects of seeking ?) pleasure. I would not suppress it, but ( in a flash of insight ?) understand the whole movement of it. And with the ( freed inner energy of ?) understanding would come the ending of sorrow; the whole thing would be wiped away ( at one stroke ?) .

If you were to put it to me ( and if I were in your shoes ?) , that’s how I would act...

( In a nutshell ?) You see, (as ) Pupul, I am in a state where I am surrounded by an immense stretch of "water"—a water that is warm, healthy, sane. I am swimming in that marvellous water, and I won’t leave you. And if somebody were to ask me, ‘Why does Mrs Rao or Mrs Williams come and listen to you every year?’ I would reply, ‘If I were ( in the shoes of ?) Mrs Rao or Mrs Williams or Mr Smith I would come and listen every year and, if possible, every day—because the "flower" is different every day. Beauty is different every day’.
Rishi Valley
15 December 1978

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 25 Nov 2016 #480
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 9 posts in this forum Offline

This what K says in your last post is analogous to what I have been saying with the mirror. Mind can be compared to a mirror, thinking process and the observer stain the mirror. Or mind can be compared to a pond. Thought and the observer create ripples in the pond. The silence or quiteness means that the pond is not disturbed by the self-centred thought process anymore .

The observer is a resistance, is an effort, is past reacting to the present, making choice based on conditioning and projectiong to the future. The observer exists withing the field of choice, within the field of dualities. Every duality carries within itself the seed of its own opposite. Your very thinking creates everything, creates opposites, creates choice, creates suffering, creates loneliness, creates pleasure. Every thought is a cage of conditining based on choice. Thought is not free, every thought is limited, thought is based on duality, on comparisons, on contrasts - comparing this and that, making choice, measuring this and that. Only when the whole observer is understood, can there be silence, can the process of choice, comparison and measurement be silenced. And in this silence, there is nothingness. But it is a miraculous nothingness, because that nothingness is alive, is timeless, is limitless, out of it everything is borne and to it everything returns, life and death united in eternal creation. This miraculous nothingness is the only permanent thing in life, is the only eternity, is the root of all existence. It is perfect, nothing can be taken from it and nothing can be added to it. This nothingness is the pond, is the mirror. This nothingness is Life. When the scar, the resistance in the form of the observer, is disolved, there is only creation of Life in nothingness.

The observer is very tricky to understand. His very effort to grasp the K teachings is a process of envy, of comparing myself (the unenlightened) to K (the enlightened), thus the process of opposites, of comparison, of choice, of envy is borne. I want this (what K had) and I do not want that.(what I have). The K teachings has very little value. There is no partial understanding or partial insight, such things are self-delusions of pride. Either there is light or there is darkness. The observer is the darkness. There is no way to practice K teachings, because every kind of practicing is the cultivation of envy. The very reading of K teachings conditions the mind in a particular pattern and starts the process of comparison, of choice, of envy. The only thing that matters is: understand yourself, understand the observer, understand the process of thought, the process of choice, of desire. Only by learning how the mind deceives itself, how it creates its own prison tiled by opposites, how the ego is created by thought identifying itself. The ego is prison and its walls are decorated by what it has accumulated, by what it has identified itself with. Only by understanding acquisitiveness, desire, every motive that drives us, can we be free. Freedom is not a choice. Freedom is the spontaneity of living in the active present. Freedom is freedom from thought, thought creates choice, thought creates opposites, thought measures, compares, thought creates the observer, thought is the acquisitiveness, thought is the limitation. Pleasure and suffering exists withing the realms of duality, the realm of thought. Everything is in us, it cannot be found anywhere external to us. The very searching is running away from it, creating ripples on the pond...

That was my meditation :-)

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 451 - 480 of 767 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)