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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?


Displaying posts 481 - 510 of 716 in total
Sun, 27 Nov 2016 #481
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

Inner Energy and Attention (an experientially-friendly edited )

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Most people see that because of the various pressures which operate on the human mind—violence and terror—there is a shrinkage of ( our inner) space available to us to explore and an incapacity to face complex situations. I would suggest that we ( should ?) lay bare the structure of the human mind, thus bringing us face to face with the structure of ( the self-centred process of ?) thought, and only then will it be possible for each one of us to investigate (and bring some authentic order ?) into the complexities which occupy our consciousness.

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): Pupul, let us say that you communicate to me not the verbal description of it but the very truth of the whole thing. How would I listen to that statement? I would not oppose it or compare what you say to something I already know, but I would actually listen to what you say (and perhaps ?) it would enter that part of consciousness which is willing to comprehend entirely what you are saying...

PJ: Sir, you have said that there are only two ways open to mankind : either the way of pleasure or the way of an inner movement. I am asking you the ‘how’ of ( triggering ?) the inner movement.

K: Can we move away from the ‘how’ for the moment and observe the ( everyday functioning of our ?) brain? Can there be a pure ( direct ?) observation of it, an observation which is not analysis? ( An 'observer' free ?) observation is totally different from ( an 'analyser' controlled ?) analysis. In analysis there is always the ( linear ?) search for a cause, (not to mention the subliminal division between ?) the analyser and the analysed. That means that the analyser ( assumes that ?) is separate from the ( inner stuff ?) analysed. That separation is ( psychologically gratifying & comfortable ...but ) it is not actual—the 'actual' being that which is happening ‘now’ .

( The holistic quality of ? ) observation is totally free of ( the hidden duality commonly involved in ?) ( psych-)analysis - to observe without any ( desire to reach a solid ?) conclusion, without any direction, any motive - just pure, clear looking?
Obviously, it is possible to look (non-verbally, directly ?) at these lovely trees; it is very simple. That is, I can look at that tree without any distortion because I am looking 'optically', and in that observation the ( mental) process of analysis has no place. But to look at the operation of the whole movement of (our own ?) existence, to observe it without any distortion, is—usually—entirely different.

Now, the question is: Can there be a (non-personal ?) observation of the whole activity of ( envy, greed or ?) 'fear' without trying to find the cause, or asking how to end it, or trying to suppress it, or ( simply ignore it and just ?) 'run away' from it (into more rewarding occupations ? )? Is it possible just to look and stay with the whole movement of fear? I mean by ‘staying with it’ to ( take the time to ?) observe without any movement of thought entering into one’s observation. I say that with that ( quiet) observation comes attention. That observation is ( opening the door to ?) total attention, like focusing a bright light on an object, and in the focusing of that energy, which is ( spiritual ?) light, on that movement, fear ends. Analysis will never end fear; you can test it out.
So the question is: Is (the integrated human ?) 'mind' capable of such attention, an attention which brings all the energy of my intellect, emotion, nerves, so as to look at this movement of fear (and/or greed, envy...) without any (justification ?) or denial?

PJ: ( But our all-controlling?) thought arises in this observation, and does not stay with the observation of fear. Then what does one do with this interfering thought? Does one push it aside? ( More often than not ?) thought does arise, which is also a fact.

K: Just listen. (Last time?) I spoke of ( the inner movement of ?) desire, time, thought; I said that thought is time, and that desire is part of thought. We have shown the whole map of
(the human psyche) in which thought is included. There is no question of suppressing thought (or sweeping it under the carpet ?) ; that is impossible. So you have to first look at it. But, unfortunately, we don’t give attention to anything (inwardly).
You have just said something about (the all-controlling interference of ?) thought. I listened to it very, very carefully; I 'attended' to what you were saying. Can you so 'attend'?

PJ: For that instant of ( undivided ?) attention, thought is not; then (in the next instant ?) thought arises. This is the (everyday condition ?) of the human mind. It is neither possible to remain ( forever ?) "immovable" nor to say that thought will not arise. If it is a stream, it is a stream which "flows".

K: Are we discussing what ( the true nature of holistic ?) observation is?

PJ: Yes, and in that context I have raised this ( very real) problem that in observing, thought arises. It is a problem of attention, of self-knowledge. So, then, what does one do with thought?

K: When in your attention (an interfering ?) thought arises, you put ( the initial issue of fear and/or greed, anger...?) aside totally, but you pursue ( the interfering action of ?) thought. The initial movement of fear is not important (is not actual anymore ?). What is important is the arising of thought and the total attention on that ( 'thinker' trying to contol the inner activity of ?) thought. You see that analysis will not end (the reaction of fear ) ; that that is obvious. So, the question is: what will end it?—A perception without direction of the whole ( thinker- supervised thought ) movement? So, do we clearly understand that the observer is the observed? When I observe my various reactions and name them ‘greed’, ‘envy’, and so on, am I, the 'observer' separate from 'greed'? The observer himself is the (reaction) observed, which is greed. Do you see the truth of it as a profound reality, a truth which is absolute? When there is such observation, the observer is the past. The fact is that fear 'is' me, that ( experientially-wise) I am not separate from fear. Then, what is the need for analysis? You see, in that observation—if it is pure observation—the whole thing is revealed, and I can logically explain everything later on from that observation without analysis.

( The problem is that ?) we are not ( inwardly) clear on ( the truth of ?) this particular point that the thinker 'is' the thought, the experiencer 'is' the experience. The 'experiencer', when he experiences something new, recognizes it. 'I' experience something. To give to it a ( temporal ?) meaning, I must (associate it with ?) the previous records of my (similar) experiences. But when I realize that the experiencer, the thinker, the analyser, "is" the analysed, is the thought, is the experience, in that ( holistic ?) perception there is no division, no conflict. When you realize the truth of that, you can logically explain the whole sequence of it.

JU: How does one know whether this is the truth ?

K: Let us go slowly. I am (getting) angry. At the moment of anger, there is no ‘me’ at all; there is only that ( violent) reaction called 'anger'. A few seconds later, when I ( get in control and ?) say, ‘I have been angry’: I have already separated anger from 'me'. So, I have already divided a reaction which 'is' me, into ‘me’ and ‘not-me’, and then the whole conflict ( of self-control ?) begins - in analysing, in suppressing, in being in conflict with my anger. But when I see that anger 'is' me, when I see that I am made up of reactions—greed, anger, fear and so on, there is no waste of energy at all. Now, with that energy which is attention, I 'hold' this reaction called fear (or anger, greed, comparison...) because I have brought all my energy to it, that ( psychological reaction ) called 'fear' disappears.

You wanted to find out in what manner fear can end. I have shown it. As long as there is a division between 'you' and 'fear', (your) fear will continue. It is (pretty much ?) like the 'Arab' and the 'Jew', the 'Hindu and the 'Muslim'—as long as this (mentality of ?) division exists there must be conflict.

PJ: But, sir, 'who' observes?

K: There is no ‘who’ that observes. There is only the (integrated ?) state of observation.

PJ: Does it come about spontaneously?

K: Now, you have told me that it is not analysis, that it is not this, that it is not that, and (if ?) I discard all that, my mind is free from all the conceptual, analytical processes of thought. My mind is listening to the fact that the observer 'is' the observed.

PJ: You see, sir, when there is the observing of the mind, one sees the extraordinary movement in it. It is beyond anyone’s control or capacity to even give a direction to it. It is there. In that state, you say: Bring attention onto fear.

K: Which is all your (intelligent ?) energy...

PJ: Which actually means, bring attention to that which is moving. When we question, the response immediately arises in our minds. However, in your mind, responses do not arise; you hold it. Now, what is it that gives you the ( holistic ?) capacity to 'hold fear' in consciousness? I don’t think we have that capacity.

K: I don’t think it is a question of ( mental ?) capacity.

PJ: ( Whatever ) that is, this movement which is fluid becomes immovable.

K: That is it.

PJ: Fear ends. Now, with us that does not happen.

K: Can't we 'hold' ( contemplatively ?) anything in our minds for a minute or even for a few seconds? ( Suppose it is ?) 'love'; can I remain with that feeling, that beauty, that clarity which love brings? Can I hold it like a vessel holding water?

You see, sir, when you have an insight into ( the true nature of ?) fear, fear ends. That insight is the immediate perception of ( the truth or falseness of ?) something. We do do often we have this sense of clarity about something.

JU: Sir, there are such moment of (inner) clarity. I accept that. But it must come as a result of something that happens. It must move from period to period, from level to level. My clarity cannot be the same as your clarity.

K: Sir, clarity is clarity; it is not yours or mine. Intelligence is not yours or mine.

PJ: I would like to go into something different. In observing the movement of the mind there is no point at which I say that I have observed totally and that it is over.

K: You can never say that.

PJ: So, you are talking of an 'observation' which is a state of being; that is, you move in observation; your life is a life of observing.

K: Yes, that is right.

PJ: Out of that observing, action arises; analysis arises; wisdom comes. Unfortunately, we observe and then enter into the other sphere of non-observing and therefore we always have this dualistic process going on. None of us can say that we know what a life of observing is.

K: I think it is very simple. Can’t you observe a person without any prejudice, without any concept?

PJ: Yes.

K: ( For instance ?) how do you look at me? What is your reaction to that observation?

PJ: With all the energy I have, I observe you...

K: Could we take that as a (scholastic ?) example? I am married. I have lived with my wife for a number of years. I have all the memories of those five or twenty years. When I see her in the morning, how do I look at her? What is my reaction? Do I see her afresh, as though for the first time, or do I look at her with all the ( background) memories that ( surge un-consciously and ?) 'flood' my mind?
When I look at that new moon coming up with the evening star, can I look at it as though I have never seen it before? Do I see the wonder, the beauty, the light? Do I look at anything as though for the first time?

QUESTIONER (Q): ( Your question amounts to :) Can we die to all our yesterdays, can we die to our past?

K: Yes, sir. We are always looking with the (knowledgeable and reassuring ?) burden of the past. So, there is no actual looking anew . When I look at my wife, I do not see her as though I am seeing her face for the first time. My brain is caught in memories about her or about this or that. So, I am always looking from the past. Is it possible to look at the moon, at the evening star, as though for the first time, that is, without all the associations connected with them? Can I see the sunset for the first time? If I can, it means that my brain is not ( bringing forth the ?) recording the previous sunsets (it has experienced before ?) . Do we see anything as though for the first time?

Q: Very rarely... Maybe it is the memory of the first time which makes one look.

K: I know what you are saying, and that leads us to another question. Is it possible not to record (our psychological experiences ?) - why should I record (& store ?) the insult or the flattery that I may have received this morning? Both are the same.

PJ: You ask the question as if we have the choice of whether to record or not to record.

K: I am asking this question in order to investigate (experientially ) . The brain registers all that you are saying now in our discussion. ( But if ) everything is recorded (and stored indiscriminately ?) , it is ( functioning mechanically ?) like a gramophone record playing over and over again. ( As a result ) your mind is constantly occupied, isn’t it? Now, in that ( state of self-) occupation you cannot ( really) 'listen'; you cannot see ( anything) clearly.
So one has to inquire why the brain (indulges in being constantly ?) occupied. I am occupied with God, he is occupied with sex, she with her husband, while somebody else is occupied with power, position, politics, cleverness and so on. Why? Is it that when the brain is not occupied there is the ( lurking ?) fear of 'being nothing'? Is it because this constant occupation gives me a sense of living, and if I am not occupied I feel lost? Is that why we are occupied from morning till night? This occupation is destroying the ( perceptive quality of the ?) brain and making it mechanical. Now, does one see that one is occupied actually and, seeing that, remain with it? See what happens then.

When there is 'occupation', there is no (free inner ?) space in the mind. I am ( impersonating and/or recycling ?) the collection of all the experiences of mankind. And, if I knew how to read this 'book' that is me, I would see that I 'am' all the story of all mankind . But we are so conditioned (accustomed ?) to this ( comfortable ?) idea that we are all separate individuals, that we all have separate brains, and that the separate brains with their self-centred activity are going to be reborn over and over again. I question this whole concept that I am a (separated ?) 'individual'—which does not (necessarily) mean that I am the 'collective' , for there is a ( major qualitative ?) difference: I am not the collective ( Stream of self-interest ?) . I am ( the whole consciousness of ?) humanity.

New Delhi,
November 1981

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Nov 2016 #482
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K: Just listen. (Last time?) I spoke of desire, time, thought; I said that thought is time, and that desire is part of thought. We have shown the whole map of
(the human psyche) in which thought is included. There is no question of suppressing thought (or sweeping it under the carpet ?) ; that is impossible. So you have to first look at it. But, unfortunately, we don’t give attention to anything .
You have just said something about thought. I listened to it very, very carefully; I 'attended' to what you were saying. Can you so 'attend'?

Hello John, long time no "see" .. ;-)..hope you are good .

thought"s field is the future, the very near like a nanosecond ahead and like the very far , which is my illusory immortality...it may ,in its delusion-illusion think that its field is the past, but it is not, the past is its own reference only..as thought needs something to refer too in order to compare so analyse, like it needs desire to get up and do some work,

the other day I was going into that at home, saying that for me when there is not what we call desire, thought does not work, the process does not work... so as a child we would not be craving to survive at all.....I see of course the impossibility to invade the past with hopes ,desires, yet we may try such nonsense of course.

thought is time, a bubble created out of the so called only existing "principle" called by us the present, a dimension out of the present, in which it is possible to analytically step out of this movement of life for a very define job : to be able to organise the physical living...

anyway, then it leads to attending to what another one says..may be bearing in mind that I surely would not attend to what anybody says...

I think that attending in such way is tough...as if what is said is analytically based only, I personally for example find it hard to attend , unless it is out of a particularly hard time...then whatever is said for me does not matter that much but what matters is this sensation that I am trying to get rid of without knowing what it is...

John Raica wrote:
) we are not clear on ( the truth of ?) this particular point that the thinker 'is' the thought, the experiencer 'is' the experience. The 'experiencer', when he experiences something new, recognizes it. 'I' experience something. To give to it a ( temporal ?) meaning, I must (associate it with ?) the previous records of my (similar) experiences. But when I realize that the experiencer, the thinker, the analyser, "is" the analysed, is the thought, is the experience, in that ( holistic ?) perception there is no division, no conflict. When you realize the truth of that, you can logically explain the whole sequence of it.

Thought as it seems , must be both the analyser and the analysed, the experience is the experiencer, as if not there is no thought, as well as it vitally needs what we call desire to analyse...It creates a sort of "I" who knows according to its memories and desires, this "I" neither good nor bad exists from scratch in this division created in this dimension out of the natural main "stream" of life which root is not of time, not in time like yesterday,now and tomorrow, I see that so far.

This trick of Mother Nature creates the possibility to look at memorised superficial recording by the senses, which if combined with a set up process to analyse so compare, calculate, eliminate,add, etc etc , are leading to the ability to physically organise the survival somehow, I say somehow as the means to do that are numerous in fact, technically speaking of course...

such analysing creates at least two sides which are antagonist to each other when conceptually analysing so comparing let us say means to built shelters..."I" must find out ways to do so, thought does that...then to make a short cut, thought does the same with people and all the rest of the "creation" ...each one of us is a centre of "its" world, each one knows what it sees as good for itself , etc..

so far we have nothing to share but only one vision to impose on others..

each thinking process so "I" is not linked, as in a sort of friendly interaction for example, to any other thinking process, despite the fact that we have the same program..anyone else through the eyes of thought is good or not good for me so good or not to be used as means, tools for my own glory ...is a thing...business and war have already started long ago....if and so when too thought is our only capacity...

John Raica wrote:
K: I am asking this question in order to investigate. The brain registers all that you are saying now in our discussion. if everything is recorded , it is like a gramophone record playing over and over again. your mind is constantly occupied, isn’t it? Now, in that ( state of self-) occupation you cannot 'listen'; you cannot see clearly.
So one has to inquire why the brain is occupied. I am occupied with God, he is occupied with sex, she with her husband, while somebody else is occupied with power, position, politics, cleverness and so on. Why? Is it that when the brain is not occupied there is the ( lurking ?) fear of 'being nothing'? Is it because this constant occupation gives me a sense of living, and if I am not occupied I feel lost? Is that why we are occupied from morning till night? This occupation is destroying the brain and making it mechanical. Now, does one see that one is occupied actually and, seeing that, remain with it? See what happens then.

When there is 'occupation', there is no space in the mind. I am the collection of all the experiences of mankind. And, if I knew how to read this 'book' that is me, I would see that I 'am' all the story of all mankind . But we are so conditioned (accustomed ?) to this idea that we are all separate individuals, that we all have separate brains, and that the separate brains with their self-centred activity are going to be reborn over and over again. I question this whole concept that I am a (separated ?) 'individual'—which does not (necessarily) mean that I am the 'collective' , for there is a ( major qualitative ?) difference: I am not the collective ( Stream of self-interest ?) . I am humanity.

So in fact what I get from that here is that, k is describing what thought as a program does..up to the moment when " Is it because this constant occupation gives me a sense of living, and if I am not occupied I feel lost?"

I would put it differently that way: thought when it is not analysing, whatever the reasons are for that, well as it is mechanical and has a strong inertia as well as being the only capacity left for us so far, it tries to keep analysing ANYTHING, the matter is that this program will keep working as it is the only one which works!!!

...it is not able to analyse if it is not watching its memory so for example when meeting something not recorded so unknown to itself, it cannot analyse it...then what it does as it is not able to watch and analyse the unknown, it transforms what is unknown into something known...if it is entirely false does not matter at all..

the question arising here for me is : have we a capacity, not thought, able to deal with what it does not know ?

If so this would imply that when meeting such momentum, thought, somehow, has learned to stop analysing, interfering and can now stay back..

now I leave those words from k alone for some time

k: I question this whole concept that I am a (separated ?) 'individual'—which does not (necessarily) mean that I am the 'collective' , for there is a ( major qualitative ?) difference: I am not the collective ( Stream of self-interest ?) . I am humanity.

cheerio...

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Nov 2016 #483
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Hi, Dan, glad to have you back

Hello John..thanks a lot.

John Raica wrote:
In fact, the point you raised above was one of my (unspoken) insights of all my youth: there was no much interest to 'listen' to what others were saying since less or more ...they were all uttering the same old banalities. And they even seemed to be confirmed by K himself... or so it appeared on a superficial reading . Now, lately in my morning 'meditations' a different aspect came to light- we do not 'attend' to our own inner consciousness- which in fact...is the consciousness of the world. From where a certain 'desespoir'. It follows that paying (sic!) full attention to Mr ( or Mrs) Everybody is in fact to get into a very intimate touch with a consciousness that we all share. Big difference of inner perspective !

Interesting insights..had the very same when young. Still is today..then naturally I go along with "we do not 'attend' to our own inner consciousness-" which incidentally is the main subject when away from here...it still is and I think that this is going to be one for an unknown time...

the consciousness of the world is in despair so can we be yes..then what to do or not to do with that seems a worthy questioning, the mind is in despair so, I mean thought is in despair and this is its real state..now what we do with that ? for myself I have so seeing on that like you do ......if it is not another attempt to escape..paying attention to Mr Everybody which is something which naturally comes to me and some since young, mainly show utter mental despair even if loaded with money, there is thick fear, hanger, the use of any scapegoat passing by or offered by powers, people acting as if all was fine, knowing it is not....etc.....a system base on mutual exploitation so war is over yet fighting to keep the same way, it was promising the end of death, ultimate entertainment and tons of other illusions...none is there but physical comfort for some..and the fear to loose it etc but you know that of course

So going into oneself opens to the world , yes it does..knowing oneself is knowing the world that is another true statement..then one is able to see any cheat anywhere...and more..

John Raica wrote:
K is calling this 'fuite en avant'- using the generic term 'escape'

yes absolutely...

John Raica wrote:
But this in fact avoiding to meet our darkest fears, anxieties and sorrows- the implicit logic is quite obvious: who will guarantee us that after meeting all this inner 'unknown stuff' we'll be better off ? Nobody, K included.

that is true...because it could well be one big huge fact here that matters is that any hope of any kind has no room AT ALL on such path..what matters is to live all what we do not want to, well what thought does not want to..this is what I know for myself and honestly it is always tricky...each time...sorrow is the state of me...and it sees two items ...two has to become one, because it is one..

John Raica wrote:
Perhaps that in a truly 'humane' society there will be some support and assistance for such '3-rd degree encounters' with 'what is' ...but at this point in our cultural evolution this function is grossly abused by legions of ignorant specialists and/or artisans. So, even if a thought-free 'meditation' ( or...pure inner attention ?) seems a far fetched solution, it should be at least be considered as a self-help instrument.

Well yes absolutely..that is the point self help instrument..I did that with some close people around me and the idea behind it sure is to try to convey that there are ways to self help oneself but that the starting point was each time the pain itself and the ways to perceive it , seeing the impossible escape and so on..so far it had been by using their own very tough time with those persons, partner,children, mainly....in a manner I am not even capable to put in words or recollect as it is not on such wavelength...for sure thought is preventing such moments is something I know..

In a truly humane society as I see it by a sort of instant projection , we would all get a relative real security due to a voluntary cooperation and right sharing...so this insecurity will be gone as such level but will be met of course when meeting the fact that birth means dying...

when today when thought meet such problem , it is already caught in a fight for survival as our societies are conflict , competition is elimination is conflict is insecurity is war etc

what can such an already too troubled mind do when on the top of that physical insecurity comes such question as death, impermanence, suffering and so on....thought is incapable to deal with that..because it is unknown and because it is far too much for itself anyway..

it seems that k was right to introduce this "notion" , fact , that thought needs a relative at least physical security to function at least correctly ...to be found exclusively in collaboration and equal sharing with others , and here is a paradox I see like the hen and the egg, which one comes first..

both at the same time !!! ???

even wealthy we do not have this security as it is not present at all in a competitive life so where there so is an ongoing process of elimination taking place....it is in caring for oneself and each one of us..together..this is to be found in togetherness...

so it seems that the egg and the hen are born from one movement at the same time..this is called creation...an unknown matter to all of us..unless one somewhere has insights about that, which is very possible of course..

thought is unable to solve our deepest problems, it is a vital program to survive , it is a tool and as a tool it must be used by something x unknown..

and this brings us back to your statement:

Daniel Paul.

the question arising here for me is:have we a capacity, not thought, able to deal with what it does not know

John: I sincerely believe that we do have it, but we do not apply it to the defining aspects of our own life

etc of course ..

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Mon, 28 Nov 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Nov 2016 #484
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

Daniel Paul. wrote:
So going into oneself opens to the world , yes it does..knowing oneself is knowing the world that is another true statement..then one is able to see any cheat anywhere...and more..

Thanks, Dan, for your pertinent comments. I would like to add just one 'off record' K statement which David Bohm is quoting in one of his dialogues with K : that this 'all-one' consciousness of man is 'envelopped' by some more universal compassion & intelligence. As usual, K did not confirm or infirm it, but in a late discussion with Pupul Jayakar he's having a similarly (if not more ?) obscure statement about a mind swimming in 'warm waters'

So much for the 'transparency' of his teachings (...) , but somehow these obscure hints -m'on mis la puce a l'oreille- giving me a good subject for meditation - it is this spiritual 'envelope' of an universally Intelligent Love & Compassion that can and does operate directly on the total Consciousness of mankind. Once 'touched' , we are not only walking and acting (to quote a... politician ) 'On the Right side of History' but it does also bring a blissful sense of profound lasting inner security - which naturally does not require all the common tricks of our ( time programmable ) brain to manufacture for itself a derisory continuity in time

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Nov 2016 #485
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

And here is (right from the horse's mouth) a brief insight on the things mentioned above:

PJ: Until here we have discussed thought, we have discussed the senses. Is there a third movement?

K: Ah! This is difficult. Is there an instrument— not an 'instrument' but a 'movement', an 'action', an ( dimension of being ?) state that is not static, but which is yet not a movement of thought?

PJ: Not a movement of thought, not a movement of the senses...

K: When you observe the sea with all your senses, there is no (mental ?) movement. Right? The senses are not (even) aware that they are heightened. Goodness, in the highest sense of the word, has no ( self-conscious ?) sense of being good.

PJ: You are talking of the essence of all thought, of the essence of all the senses. Then it is essence itself that is the instrument.

K: When ( the thinking brain or our?) 'thought' is aware of its own tremendous limitation, then it is 'broken through'. But (one has ?) to realize that thought has no place in that movement.

The (living) story of mankind is an endless movement. It has no beginning and no end. But to realize that there is no end is to enter into something called 'love'. Love has no end. I may love my wife—she dies or I die (or both do ?) , but the thing called Love goes on; it has no end.
So, when you come to this really deep point, namely, that this Book (of your Life ) has no end and no beginning, you realize that you are the book, that life as ( part of ) this (universal) movement has no end. It is then ( one with ?) the (intelligent consciousness of the ?) Universe. It is then the 'cosmos' (Cosmic Order ?) . It is then ( one with ?) the Whole Thing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Nov 2016 #486
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
So what does it mean 'But one has to realize'? It means probably the same as this higher state of awareness

Right, Jess, the You are the world and the world is you. Now that is definitely a state of higher consciousness. But in the quote you mentioned above, K might have also refered to the "psychological" ("plus) value" that most people usually atribute to their thinking capacity- for most it seems to be the only guarrantee for their inner & outer safety in a constantly changing world- things may come and go, but you, the 'thinker' will be always there to prevail. But on the other hand this same 'ego-centric'( as in 'geo-centric') position is becoming a serious limitation for a mind desiring sincerely to transcend its material condition.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Nov 2016 #487
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
I would like to add just one 'off record' K statement which David Bohm is quoting in one of his dialogues with K : that this 'all-one' consciousness of man is 'enveloped' by some more universal compassion & intelligence. As usual, K did not confirm or infirm it, but in a late discussion with Pupul Jayakar he's having a similarly (if not more ?) obscure statement about a mind swimming in 'warm waters'

Good morning John...

Well yes ,somehow, even by pure logic only used to its extreme capacities with care, attention etc, a sort of game I sometimes play again and again about the same subject, we find only one possibility which is there is an ultimate source which is not of time...no beginning so no end....then from such even logical only view, to be there for real for oneself is already one huge move, what appears, even if it seems to be "nothing" already have another taste..it has broken something in the dictatorship of thought over the brain....first encounter of the third kind with something absolute...when thought must "shut up"...voluntarily...under the pressure of the immensity of such event..

this is the same movement with death...

John Raica wrote:
it is this spiritual 'envelope' of an universally Intelligent Love & Compassion that can and does operate directly on the total Consciousness of mankind. Once 'touched' , we are not only walking and acting (to quote a... politician ) 'On the Right side of History' but it does also bring a blissful sense of profound lasting inner security - which naturally does not require all the common tricks of our ( time programmable ) brain to manufacture for itself a derisory continuity in time

Indeed....again in what I know,so far, it was and of course still is vital to only use by finding ways to let it be, to consciously use by not using it what we call suffering which is in fact a process ....then what you mention here and god knows where it may go, not me....

so basically, there may be some indirect approach "using" by not using it and rightly what is wrong, problems, pain etc

Lately I was interested in different subjects, like how it is impossible to built a pyramid with a wooden stick and a round "ball" of stone, not knowing any measurements, dressed up with sheepskin etc so this story told us is false !! ...etc then I came across this told in that dialogue.. some of what is man made like some components whatever they are used in computers are too perfect , in the sense of pure so with no glitch so that they have no "life" in them....and have no other use anywhere else..because of that purity, unnatural one..

this would need a long development but I have no capacity in this matter ..what totally struck me when listening to this was this...we, thought, goes wrong..and it is perfectly in its nature to go wrong...this is meant to produce something...if what takes place is understood as being wrong, ( so called pain as a signal) needing so to do something..and if what not to do is sensed somehow ....

in fact if I do not try to ignore or run away from this signal, there is no pain, just a signal...

then what is wrong has perform its task..

not sure it makes sense to another, but I have a sort of flu this morning...

etc

and thanks for the horse mouth dialogue..deeply interesting it is..

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Tue, 29 Nov 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Nov 2016 #488
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

A Dialogue on the 'psychological' significance of Death (experientially friendly edited )

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Krishnaji, one of the (great existential ?) questions which I feel is at the very depth of the human mind is ‘the coming to be’ and ‘the ceasing to be’. Life and death. The whole of (the modern ?) man’s life revolves around the wonder of birth and the fear of death. All his urges, his demands, his desires, his fears, his anxieties, rest between these two poles—birth and death.
At one level ( intellectual ?) we understand ( the concept of ?) birth and death, but I think that that understanding is only at the superficial level. And unless we understand, at depth, the whole problem of existence which is held between the two—the whole problem that lies in the ending of anything—fear, anxiety and the darkness and shadows which surround that one word ‘ending’ will always be with us.

K: Why do you make that interval between birth and death a 'problem' (to be solved ) ?

PJ: By themselves birth and death are 'facts' (of our life) , but the ( average ignorant ?) mind ( instinctively ) clings to one and rejects the other. There is the ( apparent ?) joy and splendour of what we see as 'life' and the demand to hold on to it at any cost and to evade that which means its ending. Out of it arises fear, sorrow, all the demands...

K: So what is the question?

PJ: How do we explore? How can we be free of the darkness that surrounds the word 'death' ? How can our minds look at death with simplicity and see it for what it is?

K: Are you really considering ( only the fact of ?) death or that great period (of temporal continuity ?) between life and death? That is, in your (metaphysical ?) consideration of the 'ending', are you including the whole process of living with all its complexity, misery, confusion? Are you not concerned to find out what death means (in the context of ?) this long (time-binding ?) process of struggle, conflict, misery, to which we cling ? Aren't you concerned with the whole movement of it?

PJ: You see, there is a whole movement of existence in which life and death are. But if you make the scope so (philosophically ?) wide, you (may skip ) the ( personal ?) anguish and the sorrow of (your life ?) ending. And I wanted to investigate into the sorrow of ending.

K: Are you inquiring into the sorrow of ending or are you inquiring into the whole process of living and of dying, which includes sorrow, fear, and all the rest of it?

PJ: What you say is ( 'holistically ?) correct'—it is the whole movement of living and dying which is existence. You usually talk of the 'ending of sorrow'; but I'd like talk of that ( latent ?) fear, of that anguish, which is the sorrow of ( our earthly life ?) ending. There is something which is marvellous (and/or psychologically rewarding ?) and there is always the knowledge that it must end which lurks behind it.

K: What is ‘ending’?

PJ: Ending is that process in which something that exists, that sustains (our physical life ?) , ceases to be; it is no longer available to our senses. In the very nature of that ‘isness’ there is the sense of the ending of that; there is the disappearance of that for eternity.

K: Why do you use that word ‘eternity’?

PJ: Because there is an absoluteness in that ( physical) ending. There is no tomorrow in it.

K: Now just a minute—ending what?

PJ: Ending that which sustains ( physically our life ?) . There is the sorrow of something so marvellous ending.

K: Is it so marvellous?

PJ: Let me come to something more personal . You ( K) are here. That you will not be ( around anymore) causes the anguish of K ceasing to be.

K: Death is inevitable. This person—K—is going to end some day. To him it doesn’t matter; there is no fear, no anguish. But you look at that person and say, ‘Oh my God, he is going to die’. So, it is 'your' anguish. I’ve loved that person. He dies, and I’m ( feeling lonely and ?) lost. Why am I in sorrow?
I think it is really important to understand the ( 'psychological' implications of ?) 'ending', because there is something totally new when there is an ending to everything.

PJ: My sorrow—is it not inevitable? He was the perfume of my existence.

K: Yes, I loved him. My brother dies. It is a tremendous sorrow. I shed tears. I am filled with anxiety. But I’m asking: Why does man carry the burden of this sorrow?
I’m in sorrow because I’ve never really understood deeply what is 'ending' ( the psychological attachments to anything ?). I’ve lived for forty, fifty, or eighty years (of self-fulfilment ?) and during that entire period I have never realized the meaning of putting an end to something which I hold dear. I have never totally ended my ( various ?) attachment, so that they do not continue in another direction.

PJ: What makes the mind incapable of ending (its everyday habits & attachments )?

K: It’s fear (of what might happen without them ?) of course.
Let’s take this ordinary example: can one end the attachment (or even identification ?) to one’s past experience, knowledge, memory -with all its complexity, and all its implications—without any (personal ?) motive or direction? Can one have no attachment (psychological dependence of ?) to anything ?
After all, the ending of knowledge—that’s what is going to happen when death comes. Knowledge is (ultimately) what one is clinging to. Now, to end totally, absolutely, the memory of all that, is ( the psychological challenge of ?) Death.

PJ: You have often said: ‘While living, to enter the house of death’.

K: Yes. I have done it.

PJ: What exactly is meant by that?

K: Let us say that there is (the constantly refreshed ?) memory of an experience that I cherish, that I hold on to because it has given me great delight, a sense of depth and well-being. I cling to that memory. I go to the office, I work, but the memory is so extraordinarily enduring and vital that I hold on to it; therefore I never find out what it means to end. I think there is a great deal in ending, every day, everything that one has psychologically gathered.

PJ: You can end ( your personal ?) attachment (to it) .

K: That is ( the psychological signification of ?) death.

PJ: That is not ( really my ?) death.

K: What would you call death? The ( life of the physical ?) organism coming to an end? Or the 'image' that I’ve built about (myself) ending?

PJ: When you reduce it to that, I’d say that it is the (ending of the self- ?) image which you have built (in order to protect yourself ?) ; but there is much more to it than that.

K: Of course, this image is deeply rooted in me. And it is the image that is living. I’m talking of the ending of that image. ( As an universal 'rule of thumb' ?) the mind cannot enter into a totally new dimension if there is a shadow of a memory of anything. Because that ‘Other’ ( dimension of Consciousness ?) is timeless. That other dimension is eternal and if the mind has to enter into that, it must not have any (sticky ?) element of time in it. I think this is ( Universally ?) logical & rational.

PJ: But ( the reality of our ?) life is not 'logical' or 'rational'...

K: Of course not. ( But if it actually wants ?) to understand "That Which is Everlasting", the mind must be free of all that it has gathered 'psychologically', which is, ( of its self-continuity in ?) time. Therefore, there must be an "ending".

PJ: Is there not ( a possible ?) exploration of this "ending"?

K: Oh yes, there is.

PJ: What is the exploration into ending?

K: What is ( the inward meaning of ?) "ending"—ending the continuity of a particular ( self-centred ?) thought, a particular desire; it is ( the identification with ?) these that give our life a (perfect illusion of ?) continuity.

But in that great interval between our (personal) birth and death there is a still deeper continuity, and we cannot see the beauty of that River (as long as ?) we live on the surface of this vast river of life . So, the ( deeper implication of our 'psychological?) ending' is the ending of (our living on ) the surface.

PJ: The ending of it is the ending of the surface...

K: Yes, the ending of ( being driven by ?) the surface (currents) .

PJ: Then, what dies?

K: All ( the sensate experience ?) that I’ve accumulated, both outwardly and inwardly. I have good taste, and I’ve built up a good business which brings me a lot of money—nice house, nice wife, nice children, nice garden. And my life has given (the perfect illusion of ?) a continuity to it all. To end ( the personal attachments to ?) that.

PJ: Sir, do you mind if I explore (your particular case ?) a little? You mean to tell me that with the death of the body of K, the consciousness of K will end?
.
K: You have said two things: The consciousness of K and the ending of the (physical consciousness of the ) body. The body will end through accident, disease. That is obvious. Now, what is the consciousness of that (K) person?

PJ: An enormous, unending, abounding compassion ?

K: Yes. But I would not call that 'consciousness'.

PJ: I cannot think of another word. Could say the 'mind' of K ?

K: Let’s keep to the word ‘consciousness’ and let’s look at it. The consciousness of a human being is ( the mental display of ?) its content - the whole movement of thought. Language, specialization, beliefs, dogmas, rituals, pain, loneliness, desperation, a sense of fear—all that is the (self- consciousness generated by the ?) movement of thought. If this ( self-centred ?) movement of thought ends, ( the self-?) consciousness -as we know it- is not.

PJ: But such a ( self-centred ) movement does not exist in the mind of K. Yet there is a state of being which manifests itself when I’m in contact with him. It manifests itself even if you do not reduce it to thought.

K: One must be very ( experientially ?) careful in pointing out something: our 'consciousness' - as we know it - is ( generated by the self-centred activity or ?) 'movement' of thought; it is a movement of time.

PJ: Yes.

K: Therefore, when ( this self-centred continuity of ?) thought, after investigating, comes to an end— in the 'psychological' world— (the self-centred ?) consciousness as we know it is not.

PJ: But Sir, there is a "state of being" which manifests itself as K.

K: Yes; you are perfectly right.

PJ: What word shall I use?

K: Let us say, that through a 'real' (authentic ?) meditation you’ve come to a point that is 'absolute'. To me this is a most extraordinary state (of universally integrated Consciousness ?) . Now, through my contact with 'you' (this K 'mind' ?) , I feel this immensity. You have it—but of course, it is not you (the K person ?) having it. It is not yours or mine; It "is" there.

PJ: But it is also there because of you.

K: It is there not because of me. It is there.

PJ: Where?

K: It has no 'place'.

PJ: I can only accept ( the non-local aspect of ?) what you say up to a point...

K: All right... First of all, it is not 'yours' or 'mine'.

PJ: But it is manifest in the person of K. Therefore when you say that 'it has no place', I cannot accept it.

K: Naturally, because ( in your mind ?) you have identified K with that.

PJ: But K is that.

K: May be... But it has nothing whatsoever to do with K or anybody else. "It" is there. Beauty is not yours or mine. It is there. In a tree, in a flower—it’s there.

PJ: But, sir, the healing and the compassion in K is not 'out there' (in the fields ?)
I’m talking about the healing and compassion (emanating from ?) of K.

K: But that is not K. That is not this ( body)

PJ: But it will 'cease to be manifest'; that is what I’m inquiring about.

K: I understand what you are trying to say, but I question that.

PJ: What do you mean ‘I question that’?

K: It may manifest ( at this point in time ?) through K, but "That" ( Mind ?) which is manifesting itself ( through K) has nothing to do with K.

PJ: I accept that it does not belong to K. But K and ‘That’ are inseparable.

K: All right, but when you identify ‘That’ with the person, we enter into a very delicate thing.

PJ: Take the (consciousness of ?) Buddha. Whatever the Buddha-consciousness was, or whatever was manifesting through him, has ceased to be.

K: I doubt it. You say that the consciousness of Buddha ceased when he passed away, right? It manifested through him and he was ‘that’ and when he died you say ‘that’ disappeared ?

PJ: I have no (insider ?) knowledge of saying that it disappeared. I only say that it could no longer be contacted.

K: Naturally not.

PJ: Why do you say ‘naturally not’?

K: Because he meditated, he was ( or got ?) illumined, and he came to it. Therefore between him and ‘that’ there was no division. Now his (ignorant ?) disciples, say, ‘My God, he is dead and with his death the whole thing is over’.

PJ: Yes, it is over.

K: I say it is not. That which is Good can never be over. Just as 'evil' continues in the world, right? The Good exists and has always existed, but not as the opposite of evil. The evil has in itself continued.

PJ: Aren't we moving away ?

K: I’m not quite sure, but it doesn’t matter; go ahead.

PJ: You say that It ( that "Good" Consciousness ?) does not disappear.

K: Good can never disappear.

PJ: I’m talking of that great (Presence of an ?) Illumined Compassion. Now I can contact it.

K: But you can contact It even if that ( K & B ?) 'person' is not. That’s the whole point. It has nothing to do with (the temporal existence of a physical ?) person.

PJ: Is what you say about "Being a Light to Yourself" connected with the contacting of ‘That’ without the ( K&B kind of ?) person?

K: Not ‘contacted’ (as a personal achievement ?) . It can be perceived, lived; It is (Present ?) there for you to reach out to and receive it, (providing that the self-centred continuity of ?) thought or ( 'self'-?) consciousness as we know it has to come to an end, for (the self-centred process of ?) thought is really the ( personal ?) "enemy" of That. Thought is the enemy of Compassion, obviously—right? And to have (free access to ?) that flame it demands, not a (material ?) sacrifice but an 'awakened' intelligence, an intelligence which sees the ( limits of the self-centred ?) movement of thought. And the very awareness of the movement of thought ends it. That’s what the Real meditation is.

PJ: What significance then has 'death'?

K: None. It has no ( 'deadly' ?) meaning because you are living with death all the time, you are ending (your psychological attachments to ?) everything all the time. I don’t think we see the importance and beauty of such 'ending'. We ( prefer to ?) see the (benefits of our temporal ?) continuity with its waves of beauty and all its ( trivial ?) superficiality.

PJ: I drive away tomorrow. Do I cut myself completely from you?

K: No, but you (may ?) cut yourself from that Eternity with all its compassion, and so on.
(In a nutshell ?) it’s simple: I meet the Buddha. He makes a tremendous impression on me and, then, he goes away. But (if I have 'listened' to him?) the truth of what he has said is abiding. He has told me ‘Be a Light to yourself so that the ( insight of ?) Truth is in you’. It is that ( tiny mustard ?) 'seed' that is flowering in me. He goes away, but the seed is flowering. That 'seed' (of living Truth ?) which has been planted by my awareness, alertness, and intense listening, that seed will ( eventually grow and ?) flower. Otherwise what is the point of somebody having this extraordinary illumination—I’m using that word as a sense of immense compassion, love, and all that—if only that person has it, and he dies—what then?

PJ: May I ask a ( parting ?) question, please? What, then, is the reason for his being?

K: What is the reason for his being, for his existence? To manifest ‘That’, to be the embodiment of ‘That’. But ( besides that ?) why should there be any ( particular ?) reason? A flower has no reason (to be) . Beauty has no reason (to be) ; it "exists". I am not trying to mystify all this, or to put it into a ( holistic ?) fog. As I said, It is there for anyone to reach and to hold.

So ( to recap: ?) death, like birth, is an extraordinary event. But birth and death are so far apart. The travail of ( his self-centred temporal ) continuity is the misery of man. And if this (artificial self- ?) 'continuity' can end each day, you will be living (on a daily basis ?) with death. That is ( bringing ?) a total (inner ) renewal; that is the renewal of 'something' which has no continuity. And that is why it is important to understand the meaning of ending—totally (the inner dependency ?) on that which has been experienced and remains in the mind as (residual ?) memory. (Pause)
Can a human being live inwardly , apart from physical knowledge, without time and knowledge?

PJ: Isn’t 'living with ending', the very nature of this question? That is, when the mind is capable of living with ending, it is capable of living with the ending of time and knowledge.

K: Yes. But all this may be just a lot of words.

PJ: No, sir. But I am getting to something which is rather different. Do you think that there can be a 'learning' to face the ultimate death?

K: What is there to learn, Pupul? There is nothing to 'learn'.

PJ: The mind must receive a statement like that without agitation. Then, perhaps, when death ultimately comes there will be no agitation.

K: Yes, that is right. And that is why (inwardly living with ?) death has an extraordinary beauty, an extraordinary vitality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Nov 2016 #489
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 12 posts in this forum Offline

Dear John, excellent post. You saved what can be saved in this moment....;)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Nov 2016 #490
Thumb_beautiful-nature-wallpaper pavani rao India 6 posts in this forum Offline

Hi John

In accordance with Richard's comment, I too felt yours above post is an excellent one. Both in terms of the content, expression and in the form of presentation. Reading the Content it felt that is the essence and the summation of K teaching .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Nov 2016 #491
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
PJ: Is what you say about "Being a Light to Yourself" connected with the contacting of ‘That’ without the person?

>K:
Not ‘contacted’ . It can be perceived, lived; It is there for you to reach out to and receive it, thought or consciousness as we know it has to come to an end, for thought is really the "enemy" of That. Thought is the enemy of Compassion, obviously—right? And to have that flame it demands, not a sacrifice but an 'awakened' intelligence, an intelligence which sees the movement of thought. And the very awareness of the movement of thought ends it. That’s what the Real meditation is.

Hello John...

I have suppressed what was into brackets, not that they were a problem at all, but to make it very short..

Thought is the enemy of compassion..seeing the movement of thought, awareness of it = the end of it....= real meditation...

I leave it that way for now and may come back to it....later on..

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Nov 2016 #492
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

Uncovering the Inner Source of Creation (experientially friendly edited)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, most of our lives are so futile. And unless one discovers within oneself the capacity to leap out of this ( materialistic ?) 'futility', one will never be able to have (access to ?) a creative spring. You see, sir, when the mind has a creative spring, whatever be the circumstances, one seems to go beyond them. And that happens when the mind is not dependent on anything, and when it has some inner space, some clear perception. I have been wondering for the last few months—what is the ground of a creative mind?

K: Would you call the activity of a poet, of a thinker, or even of a scientist who makes a new discovery creative activity?

PJ: Perhaps...

K: But it is limited, or ( to be 'psychologically correct' ?) let’s use the word 'partial' (in the sense that such creativity ?) it is not related to their everyday life. Even the greatest scientist may lead a very mediocre life.

PJ: You see, that’s why I did not speak of a 'creative action'...

K: ...but of a 'creative mind'?

PJ: Of a mind which rests in the creative (dimension of existence) .

K: I think you should make the question a little more clear.

PJ: ( Here it is:) You have never answered any questions on the ground of Creation, on the ‘coming into being’ of anything.

K: Are you asking what the Source of all Life—both the manifest and the non-manifest—is?

PJ: Yes. If it is possible, I would like to probe into what you have said just now: the manifest and the pre-manifest... (I won’t even use the word 'unmanifest').

K: Are we ( aware that we are ?) probing into something which you and I don’t know? We know ( all that can be known ?) about the birth of a baby. We know how it comes into being.

PJ: One may know the 'how it comes into being', but one still does not know the quality of life which pervades it. You see, sir, the actuality of birth is very different from the description of birth.

K: Yes. Can we talk about what is the origin, the beginning, of all life or of all existence, by trying ( experientially ?) to come upon ( that mysterious ?) 'Something' which is the beginning of all things? You see, all religious people say, ‘God is the origin of everything’. But ‘God’ is just a word, and a word doesn’t convey (the real thing?)

PJ: Yes...

K: We are concerned right now about ( uncovering ?) the origin of all life. Man has asked this question (for ages): what is the meaning and the origin of all this ( existence) is, what is the "ground" from which arises all existence, all life, all action?
Now, to investigate into that 'something' it demands an extraordinary freedom (and the very word freedom means (or implies ?) love) and a quality of mind which is both practical and sensitive and which has the quality of great compassion.

PJ: Sir, if you put it that way, I am ( gettinig) stuck. I'm just saying that this question arises in my mind and I would like to 'move' with this question. But if I say that the mind can question only when it is free and, therefore, has love, what do I do?

K: But how do you inquire into a question, that man has asked for millions of years? How does a mind inquire into something that must be extra-ordinary, that must have a quality of not only the universal, but one of of supreme order? How does one’s inquiry begin? If you inquire with ( our standardised thinking brain- aka ?) 'thought', that doesn’t lead very far.

PJ: So, how does the inquiry begin? Obviously by becoming aware of the (ongoing) disorder within oneself.

K: You see, Pupul, ( experientially-wise ?) I am after all the 'manifest'. I have been born. I am a human being.

PJ: Yes, but obviously, sir, there can be no other starting point.

K: ( By observing ?) the world outside, the world inside. If I have a measure of what actually is happening in the world outside of me, if I can observe all that without any bias, and if I can relate what is happening outside to what is happening inside (myself) , then I will see that it is only one "movement" - not two separate movements.

PJ: Sir, I am in the midst of life and I move into that.

K: You 'are' it.

PJ: Yes, I 'am' it. But you see, it is easier to see that ‘I 'am' it’ with regard to the interior movement. To see that with regard to an exterior movement is much more difficult. If you tell me that I 'am' (personally responsible for ?) all the wars which are taking place in the world, that’s very difficult for me to see.

K: Pupul, (consciousness-wise ?) we 'are' responsible—in the deepest (non-personal ?) sense of that word—for all the wars that are taking place.

PJ: Yes, but that’s a distant responsibility. Perhaps I might say ‘Yes, I am responsible’, if I take ‘responsibility’ to the very end, to the ultimate meaning of it all, but I can’t relate to it in the same way to what is within me.

K: I hope my question won’t deviate from what we are discussing: Why don’t we feel total responsibility for the wars, the brutality, the terrible things that are happening in the world?

PJ: In what sense is one 'totally responsible'? By being born?

K: My entire way of living, my entire way of thinking and of acting—as a nationalist, this or that—has contributed to the present state of the world.

PJ: Sir, when you take it to that extent, it is impossible for me to feel the reality of it.

K: Let’s leave that (aside) for the moment.

PJ: Yes, I think it’s better to leave that. We were probing into the (Creative) ground of existence which is the ‘is'-ness of life. And the only ( experiential ?) way to probe is to 'move into oneself'.

K: All right. Now, I can’t enter into it (dualistically ?) as an 'observer' coming from the outside, for I 'am' all that.

PJ: Yes, it’s not necessary to state what I am. I uncover what I am. And in uncovering what I am, I comprehend that one is uncovering the whole existence of man.

K: Yes.

PJ: That’s possible to see.

K: Yes, that’s very simple.

PJ: Yes, if in this journey of uncovering, the superficial things are swept clean.

K: That’s fairly simple.

PJ: But once the superficial (cleaning-up ) is over, the (inner ?) room has been swept.

K: Is this 'sweeping', or cleansing, or uncovering, a complete moving away from all the superficial reactions, superficial conditionings, and a trying to enter into the nature of the movement that conditions the mind?

PJ: Obviously, sir, you can’t say that you have swept the room and it is over...

K: Yes.

PJ: The (psychological ?) 'dust' gathers again.

K: Yes.

PJ: You see, sir, it is possible to sweep away the more obvious things, but the subtler things survive in corners which you have not been able to get to.

K: Yes, that’s right. But, let’s go a little more into the 'obvious' things...

PJ: For instance, ambition, or envy...?

K: Yes, and also 'hatred' . To be free of 'hatred', to be (inwardly ?) free of all sense of (enmity and ?) aggressivity?

PJ: But isn't hatred different from the quality of aggression ?

K: Aggressivity is related to hatred, because it’s part of the same movement (of the inherited human violence) . An aggressive person inevitably hurts another, and that hurt breeds hatred.

PJ: Yes, that’s why I say that there are the grosser things and there are the subtler things. Anyone who has known hatred knows that hatred is a very powerful and a very destructive thing. But the aggressivity ( involved in self-comparison and competitivity ?) may, to some extent, be part of one’s nature.

K: Yes, of course, it’s part (of the instinct ?) to survive, and all the rest.

PJ: That’s why I made the distinction between the grosser things which can be swept clean and the...

K: But how does one know what is gross and what is subtle? (Anyways ?) let’s move on.

PJ: That’s why I think the only way to move into this is to see that nothing is trivial.

K: Yes, nothing is (really ?) trivial and all ( 'gut ?) reactions', have their source in one’s ( evolutionary ?) conditioning.

PJ: Please let us pursue this, since I may think that I can live a futile life, a trivial life. I may think that it just doesn’t matter; I may think that nothing (really) matters.

K: You see, Pupul, the very word (inner ?) ‘freedom’, means ( implies ?) affection, love...

PJ: And a tremendous 'discipline’ as an (inner) watchfulness that the trivial (stuff ?) does not, at any time, creep in.

K: You see, the point is: does this (inner) 'watchfulness', which is ( synonimous to ?) 'awareness', need training?

PJ: Sir, we commonly mean by 'discipline' some kind of ( mental or physical) regimentation. But I mean by ‘discipline’ the mind awakening to the (truth of the ?) fact that it must be aware of every movement within itself. Sir, that also is a ( self-) 'discipline'.
Sir, without such 'diligence' ( learning discipline ?) nothing is possible.

K: Go slowly. To be (inwardly) 'diligent’ means to be aware of what you are doing, to be aware of what you are thinking, to be aware of your reactions. And from those reactions, to observe the actions taking place. Now, the (100 $ ) question is: In that awareness, is the action controlled, is the action put into a certain framework?

PJ: No, obviously not.

K: What I am objecting to altogether is (the compulsory connotation of ?) the word ‘discipline’.

PJ: YAre you not restricting the use of that word ( discipline) to mean merely the putting of something into a ( thought controlled ?) framework ?

K: Yes, but I also hold that the very act of learning is its own discipline.

PJ: Yes. But how does this 'act of learning' come to be? Can we take it one step back? From where does the need for observation arise? Why should I observe?

K: For a very simple reason, namely, to see whether it’s possible for a human mind to change itself, to change the ( global consciousness of the ?) world which is entering into such a catastrophic (zone) .

PJ: All right. If I start there, or if I start with my own sorrow—which is very often the real ground from which one starts...

K: Yes.

PJ: The ground is really sorrow. But I think we have moved away.

K: Yes, what we started out with was an inquiry into the Origin, the ground, of all life.
And to inquire into that, you have to inquire into 'yourself', because you are the expression of that. You 'are' life.

PJ: Yes.

K: Now we are trying to discuss the Origin of that (life) , and I can only do that ( experientially ?) by understanding 'myself' - a messy, disordered (yet ?) living 'entity'. How do we approach it ? I said ( one can start by observing that ) the (outer) world is in disorder. I begin with that. (Then I can also observe that ?) there is also disorder inside myself . Now, how do I comprehend or become aware of the origin of this (tide of ?) disorder? If I can begin to understand the origin of disorder, I can move more and more deeply into something which is total order.

PJ: Isn’t it done by being as simple as possible?

K: Yes, that’s what I am trying to say.

PJ: And I have certain instruments of inquiry: eyes, ears, the other senses.

K: Yes, but you don’t inquire with your (outer ?) ears or eyes.

PJ: Don’t you?

K: A little bit, yes. I inquire when I look around at the world outside, or when I read something. The question is: I can’t see the psychological complexity of myself with my (optical ) eyes. I must be (inwardly) aware, sensitively, without any choice, of this ( disordered inner ?) condition.

PJ: Why do you say, sir, that you cannot be aware with your eyes?

K: Do you mean the "inward" eye?

PJ: Is there any other way?

K: Yes, I think there is. Hearing, seeing, feeling: those are actually sensory responses, right?

PJ: Yes. But is there not an inward seeing or listening to a 'psychological' reaction of anger?

K: Do you listen to it with your ears or do you (inwardly ?) "observe" anger?

PJ: How do you "observe" anger?

K: When you are (getting) angry, you look at the cause and the effect of that anger.

PJ: When you are ( really getting ?) angry, you can’t...

K: Yes, you can’t at that moment. So, later on...

PJ: But Sir, the word you just used is ‘look’. You 'see' the nature of the mind...

K: You are asking: do we see, do we hear—inwardly—with our optical eyes, and with our sensory ears?

PJ: If you put it that way, then you never get to the point, because the sensory ear is so used to listening to the outer that it can never comprehend what it is to listen to the within.

K: Would it help if we talked about (an inwardly integrated ?) perception?
I hear you make a statement. I’ve understood the words and see the (verbal) meaning of what you are saying. A verbal communication has obviously taken place. But the deeper significance...

PJ: But while I am listening to you and seeing you, I am also listening and seeing my own mind, the ground of the mind.

K: 'Who' is listening?

PJ: There is listening. Take an act where you are totally attentive. What is the state of the mind in that act of being totally attentive?

K: To answer that question, one must first understand what we mean by 'complete attention'. Attention is not concentration. I think that’s clear.

PJ: Of course, sir, attention is not concentration.

K: Attention means that there is no 'centre' from which 'you' are attending.

PJ: Sir, I would like to ask you one thing. Are we still 'dusting the periphery'?

K: No, no; I don’t want to dust the periphery.

PJ: Unless I understand what attention is, I can’t even take the first step.

K: So, what does attention—to attend completely—mean?

PJ: You see, ‘to attend completely’ is for the ‘I’ not to be there.

K: Yes, that is the real thing. When there is attention, there is no ‘I’. It isn’t a state of I am attending, but only a state of mind which is wholly attentive.

PJ: With all the senses...

K: With all the senses and the whole body.

PJ: The whole being is awake, if I may say so.

K: Yes, you can use that word.

PJ: And if you are in that state when your being is awake, then you can listen, you can observe; you can proceed from there.

K: Because I myself am life and if I am to inquire into what I am, my inquiry has to be correct, accurate, not distorted. It is only then that I may come upon the Ground, the Beginning of all life. It is only then that the origin may be uncovered.

PJ: If we start from there, we will find that the ‘I’ is there in the first step. There’s the observer...

K: I know that there is the ( duality between the ) 'observer' and the 'observed'. But I am inquiring whether that ( duality?) is actually true. So far I have taken it for granted.

PJ: Obviously, sir, when I first start inquiring, I start with the 'observer'. Now you have placed that doubt, in my mind and I ask, ‘Is there really an observer?’

K: Is there an 'observer' separate from the 'observed'?

PJ: Having that statement within me, I look for the 'observer'.

K: Yes. Who is the observer? Let’s look into this slowly. Because if I understand the ( nature of the ?) observer, then perhaps I may see the falseness of the division between the observer and the observed.

PJ: Who will see?

K: The point is not 'who' will see, but the ( insightful ?) perception of what is true. You see, what is of importance is the 'perception', not 'who' sees.

PJ: So, the seeing of what the truth of the observer is, will end the state of division.

K: Yes, that is what I have said a thousand times.

PJ: Yes, for this instant it is so. But I say that I cannot expect to have an understanding of what you say unless the mind is awake and is diligent about being awake. You cannot deny this.

K: No. It has to be diligent; it has to be watchful; it has to be attentive, subtle, hesitant. It has to be all that. I can only inquire into myself through my reactions—the way I think, the way I act, the way I respond to the environment, the way I observe my relationship to another.

PJ: And as I first observe myself, I find that these responses and reactions are rapid, confused, continuous.

K: I know; they are contradictory, and so on.

PJ: So, in the very observing, some (inner) space comes into being.

K: Yes, some (inner) space, some order.

PJ: That’s just the beginning, sir.

K: I know. But I would like to ask a question. Is it necessary to go through all this? Is it necessary to watch my actions, to watch my reactions, my responses? Is it necessary to observe, diligently, my relationship with another? Must I go through all this? Or...?

PJ: The fact is, sir, one has gone through all this.

K: You may have gone through it because you have accepted that (traditional ?) pattern.
That is what we have all done—the thinkers, the sannyasis, the monks, and...

PJ: And Krishnamurti ?

K: I’m not sure.

PJ: Either you have, in the past thirty years, taken a jump or...

K: Wait a minute. We have accepted ( traditionally the validity of ?) this pattern of ( self-) examination, analysis and investigation. We have also accepted these ( self-centred ?) reactions, we have watched the ‘self’ and so on. Now, there is something in it which rings a 'false note'—at least to me.

PJ: You mean to say that a person caught in the whole confusion of existence...

K: Pupul, he won’t even listen to all this.

PJ: So, there has to be ( some free inner) space in order to listen.

K: Yes.

PJ: How does that (inner ?) 'space' arise?

K: You suffer. Now, you can either say, ‘I must find out (the cause of this ?) ’ or you merely say, ‘God exists, and I am comforted by that’ (or .... 'try to make the best of that life' ?)

PJ: Now, sir, you ask: Is it necessary to go through all this?

K: Yes, for I think that it may not be necessary.

PJ: Then show me how ( would you do it ?)

K: I’ll show it to you. We shall call, for the moment, your diligent watching of your reactions, the 'analytical' process of inquiry. Now, this self-investigative process, this constant watching, ( the religiously inclined ?) man has done for thousands of years.

PJ: He has not. He has looked at his mind and tried to suppress...

K: Ah, you see, that’s part of the same pattern (mentality ?) . Suppress, (optimise ?) escape, substitute, transcend—all that is within that (linear cause-effect ) framework.

PJ: Agreed, it’s not the same thing as to observe without doing anything about the observation.

K: But Pupul, if I may point out, you are not answering my question: Must I go through all this? Is it necessary, is it essential, that I go through all this?

PJ: No, but are you trying to say that out of the middle of ( the ongoing inner ?) chaos you can leap to a state of total non-chaos?

K: No, I won’t put it that way.

PJ: Then what are you saying?

K: I am saying that ( the mind of) humanity has already gone through this process. It has been the ( evolutionary moral ?) pattern of our existence—of course, some have gone through the process more diligently, sacrificing everything (they had) , inquiring, analysing, searching, and ...at the end of it all you may be just a 'dead' (stuck in time ?) entity.

PJ: But it may not necessarily be so.

K: May not be. You see, Pupul, very few—very, very, few—have got out of it.

PJ: So, sir, you are saying that all this whole ( evolutionary ?) process is not necessary ?

K: ....and if it is not necessary, then show me the other ?

PJ: Yes, show me the other.

K: I’ll show it to you. But first, step out of this (temporal mentality ?) .

PJ: If I ( manage to ?) 'step out' of the other, it’s already there ?

K: Of course. ( Just 'do it' ?) Step out. Don’t take time to go through all this.

PJ: But then, what is exactly meant by ‘stepping out' of it?

K: I’ll tell you what I mean: (One can have an insight ?) that man has tried this process of introspective observation, diligence and so on, for a million years in different ways, and somehow his mind is not clear at the end of it and (anyway) this (psycho-evolutionary ?) movement is very, very shallow. Now, can you 'listen' to this statement—that the whole process is shallow—and actually see the truth of it? If you do, it means that your (self-centred and ?) disordered mind is now quiet; it is 'listening' to find (the way ?) out. Once you (get to ?) see the truth of this, you are 'out of it'. It’s like putting away something (that for inner purposes proved to be ? ) utterly meaningless.

Let me put it another way. My mind is disorderly. My life is disorderly. You ( the traditional 'Master' ?) come along and say, ‘Be diligent; be watchful of your actions, of your thoughts, of your relationship’. You say, ‘Be watchful all the time’. And I say that that’s impossible because my ( chaotical ?) mind won’t allow me to be diligent all the time. It is not diligent; it is negligent, and I constantly struggle between these two.

PJ: Do you mean to say that a mind which is not capable of observing itself...

K: No. I am saying this to a mind that’s willing to 'listen'...

PJ: Do you really think an ordinary mind can be in that state of listening?

K: That’s very simple.

PJ: Is it?

K: Yes (if approached adequately ?) I say: just listen to a story that I am telling you. ( And if you are really ?) interested, your mind is quiet; you are eager to see what the story is about and so on.

PJ: I’m sorry, sir, but it doesn’t seem to happen that way.

K: I am going to explain what I mean by "listening": not only the listening with the sensory ear, but the listening with the ( mind's ?) 'ear' that has no movement. That is really listening. Now, when you listen so completely, without any movement, to a man who comes along and says, ‘Don’t go through all this diligent process, because it is false, because it is superficial’, what takes place? If you 'hear the truth' of his statement, what takes place? What actually takes place when you see something really true?

( To recap:) this diligent process ( of self-introspection ?) is time-consuming. And my ( earthly ?) life is so short. I’ve got so many ( material ?) problems, and you are adding another; "be diligent". So this (K) man says, ‘I know you have got many problems which are all interrelated. Forget your problems for the moment and "listen" to me’.

PJ: But you are talking of a mind which is already "mature". Such a mind, while listening to a statement like this...

K: You see, Pupul, ( the educational problem is that ?) we have made our minds so immature that we are incapable of listening (with all our being ?) to anything.

PJ: But you see, Krishnaji, you start by making things ( look) 'impossible'...

K: Of course. ( To) see the truth. It has a tremendous...

PJ: Where can I find the energy to deal with an 'impossible' thing?

K: It’s very simple. Can we both, you and I, agree—even temporarily—that this 'diligent process' has really led nowhere? (It has led to various activities—some of which may be beneficial) but in this ( experiential ?) inquiry which says ‘I must go to the very Source of things’ , it is not the way?

PJ: Yes, obviously. I would accept that.

K: That’s all. If you accept that it’s not through a diligent awareness, what has happened to a mind that says 'that this is too trivial, too superficial'? What is the quality of your mind?

PJ: I know what you are trying to say, sir.

K: What is the quality of a mind which has been caught ( for ages ?) in the process of ( the traditionally ?) diligent ( self-) inquiry when it sees that this diligent process will not help it come upon or uncover the Origin ? This process is time-consuming. The other may have no time at all.

PJ: But, the danger is that I will not be concerned with 'sweeping the room'.

K: That very ( honest ?) inquiry demands that the mind and the heart—my whole existence—is orderly.

PJ: Again, you start with the 'impossible' ( with the 'exceptional' case ?)

K: (With great energy) Of course, I start with the 'impossible', Pupul, you have done all that’s possible.

PJ: No, sir.

K: Man has done everything that’s 'possible' (along this line ?) . Man has fasted, sacrificed; man has done everything to find the Origin of things. Man has done all that has been possible, and that has him to led to certain (ethical) benefits—social, and so on. It has also led to ( the accumulation of ?) a great deal of misery for mankind. So, this (K) man tells me that this diligent process is time-consuming and also time-binding. He tells me that as long as I am doing this, I am just 'scratching the surface' (of Creation ?) . The surface (superficial creation ?) may be the most pleasant and ennobling thing—but it’s just the surface. If you actually see, actually fee (in your blood, as it were) that this is ( time-binding approach is not adequate or ?) 'false', you will have already 'stepped out' the ordinary into something that is extra-ordinary.

But ( for the time being ...?) we are not willing to do that. We treat it like learning a (foreign) language - where discipline, diligence & attention are necessary. We carry the same mentality into the ' Other'. That’s what I object to.

PJ: So, I put aside this ( occasionally diligent ?) seeing & listening...

K: Which means what? That the movement of ( that subliminal self-centred ?) diligence has stopped—right? Of course. If ( I see that it was ?) false, it has gone. So what has happened to the ( total quality of ?) the mind that has been caught in diligent inquiry and so on, all of which is time-bound, and has been seen by me to be utterly superficial? What is the state of my mind? It is a totally "new" mind. Such a mind is necessary to inquire into, to uncover the Origin. Now, such a mind has no bondage to time. You see, the diligent process is (based on the subliminal desire ?) to become something; to clarify, to understand, to go beyond. This (new ?) mind has no 'beyond'—it is not becoming something.
Would you go as far as to see the fact that such a mind cannot have any kind of dependence, any kind of attachment?

PJ: Yes, I see that all which you have talked about is the movement of becoming.

K: That’s right. All that ( dilligence) is the perpetuation of the 'self' in a different form, in a different network of words. And when there is that "uncovering of origins", then my life, my actions—everything—is different.

( In a nutshell:) The diligent process ( of self-undersanding) is a time-consuming act which is destructive. It may be necessary in order to learn a technique, but this is not a technique to be learnt. (Long pause)

PJ: Sir, you have an "antique mind", in the sense that it contains the whole of human...

K: You see, Pupul, that’s why it’s important to understand that "I am the world".

PJ: No one else would (sincerely ?) make that kind of statement but you.

K: And one must make it. When you see all the destruction, the brutality, the killing, the wars—every form of violence (and/or vulgarity ?) that has never stopped—where are you? A man who loved couldn’t kill another. I see this process has been going on for thousands and thousands of years—everybody trying to become something. And all the diligent, religious workers are helping man to become something—to achieve illumination, to achieve enlightenment. It’s so absurd.

PJ: With you, sir, the whole movement of the 'dormant' has ended.

K: That is, ‘diligence’ has ended. Becoming has ended. Pupul, let us not make this into some 'elitist' understanding. Any person who pays attention, who wants to hear, who is passionate and not just casual about it and who, really, says, ‘I must find the (inward ?) source of life’, will listen. He will listen—not to me; he will just listen. It’s in the air.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 01 Dec 2016 #493
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

K: Man has done everything that’s 'possible' . Man has fasted, sacrificed; man has done everything to find the Origin of things. Man has done all that has been possible, and that has him to led to certain benefits—social, and so on. It has also led to a great deal of misery for mankind. So, this (K) man tells me that this diligent process is time-consuming and also time-binding. He tells me that as long as I am doing this, I am just 'scratching the surface' . The surface may be the most pleasant and ennobling thing—but it’s just the surface. If you actually see, actually feel (in your blood, as it were) that this is false, you will have already 'stepped out' the ordinary into something that is extra-ordinary.

hello John....

extra ordinary in the sense beyond the ordinary.....

The catch 22 is a big huge wall, too high,too thick and too wide to be destroyed by thought will power whatever the reasons are....the more thought tries anything against it the more the wall becomes higher,thicker and wider...

"we" have tried everything....the worse included. And so what ? What remains is a fight from birth to death, then even dead you still have to pay for that, one pays for birth and for death....

whether we are masochist and say : OK that is life...whether we do not accept that as being where we must go towards...conflict, pain, fear , occasional joy to reach personal desires, immediately followed by nasty feelings ...etc

3000 years of search, using thought had brought machines, comfort for some, misery for others and war for all, but not for the well hidden self called elites, then the peace when all is destroyed, in order to give time for some to rebuilt,then there will be again something to be stolen....and a feeling that all this makes no sense at the highest best ....a cause creating more nasty effects..round and round in circles....

like k says: If you actually see, actually feel (in your blood, as it were) that this is false, you will have already 'stepped out' the ordinary into something that is extra-ordinary.

krishnamurti:
But ( for the time being ...?) we are not willing to do that. We treat it like learning a language - where discipline, diligence & attention are necessary. We carry the same mentality into the ' Other'. That’s what I object to.

yes indeed..using a calculating logic,accumulated knowledge usually the one of others, guessing, evaluating, comparing, creating hierarchies, eliminating etc

krishnamurti:
K: Which means what? That the movement of diligence has stopped—right? Of course. If false, it has gone. So what has happened to the mind that has been caught in diligent inquiry and so on, all of which is time-bound, and has been seen by me to be utterly superficial? What is the state of my mind? It is a totally "new" mind. Such a mind is necessary to inquire into, to uncover the Origin. Now, such a mind has no bondage to time. You see, the diligent process is to become something; to clarify, to understand, to go beyond. This mind has no 'beyond'—it is not becoming something.
Would you go as far as to see the fact that such a mind cannot have any kind of dependence, any kind of attachment?

Well, years of search, fight,resistance, drugs, escapism, hard work, money and possession aim, sex as a drug, entertainment, etc have brought no goodness at all...

I am searching for some goodness, if there is a polarity here, for me there is , this indicates something else..the search for goodness, happiness indicates that I am unhappy and knows no goodness as such....and I want that because what I live is unhappiness and is a suffering...as I imagine an ultimate state where everything is in order, fine, and more like I would lead an enlightened life..where there is no misery, no suffering etc

And I am caught in this vicious circle...I am getting older then I cannot any more postpone death as I can do when young....the boat is sinking...

And for once I see all that in a few seconds or even less....and for once I naturally stop searching out of such perception because this is far too much for thought ...far too much, I am defeated...I let things be hat they are for once...may be for the first time in one's life...

and here something takes place...which cannot be predicted at all...

krishnamurti:
All that diligence is the perpetuation of the 'self' in a different form, in a different network of words. And when there is that "uncovering of origins", then my life, my actions—everything—is different.

The diligent process is a time-consuming act which is destructive. It may be necessary in order to learn a technique, but this is not a technique to be learnt. (Long pause)

Yes when defeated so that freezes the leadership of thought somehow, there is at least some involuntary uncovering of origins of the mess...a little, a lot whatever takes place you take what is there ..you are submerged somehow by it...for some time....then one must better quickly learn so understand somehow that nothing has continuity...

Well that is quite a task is not it ...some other capacities turn themselves on....the good news is that they really seem to be working on their own...sort of antivirus-cleaner-fixing program for our computerised brain ..the bad news is usually thought prevents all that to take place...

etc

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Thu, 01 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 01 Dec 2016 #494
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
But the real problem seems to be that the 'darkness' of the inner room we're living is preventing even the perception of this pretty sad condition.

Yes exactly.

John Raica wrote:
Now, the 'givens' of the whole problem are changing if and when there is some flash of spiritual insight or...simply 'light' (I guess K would call it the intelligence of 'Love' ?) and even for a split second, the whole content of the chamber (including its solid safety locks) is seen. Now then, the light may -and usually does - fade very soon, but what we're left with is a clear image of our 'real' situation.

Indeed even for a split second something is seen, not the usual seeing. The light will fade, yes, then I will learn that it does not last long, a new situation has arisen , I see more clearly in one field, then will fall again into the same sort of trap about different subjects....this will be or not perceived and then it is etc...

John Raica wrote:
In fact this is the actual trigger of an authentic self-knowing process - since then it was something of an 'academic' nature. So in fact a dynamic and irreversible process of learning is starting. And if we are (consciously or not) resisting it what do we have ? A 'sorrow' which apparently has no cause. And I guess that from here we all know how the story goes...

Exactly...it is really a sort of self knowing, the self knowing about itself through self revelation..for me this is another process now turned on, not permanently in what I know and far from it, which does that ..

Such non analytical "process" brings, I was seeing this some minutes ago while looking at the country outside, brings something "good" with it, what came to me was this " a moment of timelessness is lived"...well again this is a bit over the top and grandiloquent, but it is an attempt to put in words what words can"t say..so I forgive myself for that one..

As you say yes resisting it, is sorrow with no perceived so known cause, et pour cause , here is where this sorrow may turn itself into a friendly catalyst if I do the right thing with it....to be learned by oneself...this is the tricky but simple part of it as nothing has to be done basically, something that thought is quite incapable to do...this is what it must learn for itself....no piece of advice will be enough, yet I say that real experiment here is worthy to just say , nevertheless at some stage all talk has to end then there must be a real personal doing so discovery here, this is done alone...like I eat my food...this is where usually "we" put some sort of religious power who knows....
For some time now I suspect that some earth powers have of course done that mischievous action on purpose, as well as having persuaded that to survive one must not cooperate but fight...

Well no one has to believe that..as believing means: I don't know...

yes some know where the story goes...

etc

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Thu, 01 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 01 Dec 2016 #495
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

How Can the Brain Renew Itself?

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): I was wondering whether we could discuss of a "rebirth" in the human mind, that is, whether a mind that is jaded, old and incapable of perception can renew itself totally. For you see, sir, the problem with many of us is that as we grow old we find that the quickness of our minds...

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): ... is lost ?

PJ: Yes, that the capacity to perceive ( directly ) and to take in deeply grows dim.

K: Let’s go into it. The human brain has its own ( self-?) protective nature; there is a protective chemical reaction when it experiences shock, or pain. This human brain is very, very ancient, very, very old. And as far as I can understand, our brains are not individual brains. We may have reduced our brain to a 'personal' thing—in fact most of us think of it as ‘my’ brain and ‘your’ brain and it is from this that is born the whole 'individualistic' concept.

PJ: Yes...

K: Now, are we saying that this (ages old) brain has been so conditioned (by its self-protective attitude to life ?) that it has become superficial, rather coarse, rather vulgar and has it lost what is imbedded very deep down in the unconscious?

PJ: Yes, but man has also asked whether it is possible to free the brain of time—time which is built into this aging process.

K: The more the brain acquires knowledge, the more it limits itself. First let us see how in its thousands of years of ( survivalistic ?) experience it has limited itself. And, living in the modern world with all the noise, with all the terrible shocks and the agonies of war, and so on—has made the brain still more limited, still more enmeshed in conflict. The very limitation brings its own conflict.

PJ: Sir, there is a mind which, because of the sense of the thousands of years, gives to it a density and weight. Then there is a mind which is brittle, which is easily corroded.

K: You use the words ‘mind’ and ‘brain’. What are you talking about?

PJ: The brain.

K: Then keep to the 'brain'. Don’t use the word ‘mind’.

PJ: I’ll use the word ‘brain’. The brain has a certain weight and density to it.

K: Let’s go into it slowly. Do we admit that the brain by its own evolution has conditioned itself and, therefore, it has in it the inherent quality of its own ( fragmentation or ?) destruction?

PJ: Yes...

K: Now, the question is whether that (time ?) built deterioration can ever be stopped. Can the brain cells renew themselves in spite of an ( ages old ?) conditioning and of all the other complexities of this modern world in which we live, can the brain renew itself so as to achieve its original (quality ?) ?

PJ: Would you say that the brain cells of the baby are 'original' in that sense?

K: No, of course not.

PJ: So, what is meant by the 'originality' of the brain cells?

K: The word ‘original’—what does it mean?

PJ: A quality of the 'first time' ?

K: Yes, a pristine quality. ‘Original’ means untouched, uncontaminated by ( past experience and ?) knowledge. So, can our brain wipe away its conditioning and achieve a quality of pristine freshness?

PJ: Scientists say that the brain cells are dying all the time.

K: But the brain also renews itself. Apparently certain cells die and some others are born (or regenerated ?) . The cells are not dying all the time.

PJ: The very fact of aging is an indication that the renewal does not keep pace with the dying of the cells.

K: Yes, but that’s the whole point: can that brain renew itself? Can that inbuilt quality of deterioration end, disappear? That is, can the brain keep young, fresh, alive, with the quality of its originality?

PJ: How would you proceed from there?

K: Before we ( are ready, willing & able to ?) proceed, we have to go into the question of what is our consciousness, for that is part of our whole being. We have to go not only into the 'being-conscious-of-things', both outwardly and inwardly, but also into the whole (psychologically active ?) content of our consciousness. Because without the content there is no (the same ?) consciousness as we know it. The question is: Can that ( time-programmed content ?) end by itself, so that there is a totally different dimension to consciousness?

Now, (what is this content ?) : ( the constant search for ?) pleasure, excitement, sensation, (strong) beliefs, (emotional) reactions, suffering, affection. The whole of that 'is' consciousness.

PJ: Yes...

K: And as long as this (active or latent ?) content exists, the brain must, because of the conflict within ( various trends of this ?) consciousness, wear itself out. And that’s why there is no renewal to it. The brain grows old; it ( slowly) ages and... dies.

PJ: Is the content of consciousness identical with the ( memory stored by the ?) brain cells?

K: Of course; after all, the brain is a product of ( all our evolution in ?) time.
Now, the question really is whether this (self-centred) consciousness with its content can totally end. ( Holistically put ?) can (the) conflicts totally end?

PJ: But with this ( state of inner) conflict totally ending, will "time" end?

K: Yes. After all, that is what the really 'thoughtful' people (as well as sannyasis , alchemists, and other...fiction writers ?) have inquired into. They have all asked the ( impossible ?) question whether there is an end to time.

PJ: Yes; but you are talking of 'time' now as the ( cause & effect of a ) psychological process of conflict ?

K: Yes, of course.

PJ: And because of the (conflicting) nature of our consciousness, the brain wears itself out...

K: That is ( the cause of this generalised state of inner ?) conflict: the (constant ) disturbances, the shocks, the pressures.

PJ: So ( from the brain's point of view ?) the 'physical' and the 'psychological' (causes of conflict ?) are really the same. The pain is physical. The (conflicting ?) content of consciousness is psychological.

K: Which is also an (induced ?) process of the physical.

PJ: Yes.

K: So, it is the psychological as well as the physical which are (involved ?) all this—the ( psycho-somatic or mental ?) reactions which bring about the thought of pain, the thought of agony, the thought of pleasure, the thought of achievement, ambition, belief, faith, and so on.

PJ: That creates a (state of constant ?) disturbance ? So is this 'time' (induced conflict ?) inbuilt in the brain cells ?

K: Yes. So what were we trying to find out?

PJ: What is it that will bring this quality of (a re-)birth into the brain?

K: Let’s be clear what we mean by ‘birth’. Do we mean by ‘birth’ a new, fresh element entering the brain?

PJ: By using the word ‘birth’ I am suggesting freshness, purity... But what is born in a brain that is free? Is it the ancient that is reborn?

K: Let’s be clear, Pupul. First, is it possible to be free of this (time-induced ?) conditioning of the brain that has (karmically ?) brought about its own decay? And, also, is it possible for that consciousness to totally end all its conflicts? For only then will it be (experientially ) possible to have a 'new birth'.
As long as one’s brain, that is, one’s consciousness, is ( in a constant inner/outer ?) conflict, no new element can enter into it. Do you see the fact that as long as I am fighting, struggling to become something...

PJ: Yes, I think one sees that.

K: Now, if one actually sees that "inwardly", then the (1,000 $) question arises whether it is possible to end it—end suffering, end fear, and so on.

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, the 'danger' (the assumed risk ?) is that you can end it—end suffering, and all that—without any renewal (taking place )...

K:Then, we mean two different things by ‘ending’.

PJ: ( So, by ) 'ending' (you mean ) what?

K: Ending 'that which is’—which is my ('self-interest' optimised ?) consciousness. All the thoughts that I have had, all the complexities that have been accumulated through time—the ending of all that. Now, do you end all ‘that which is’ by a deliberate act of (self-centred ?) "will", by a deliberate idea of some 'superior goal'?

PJ: So, is it that you throw yourself to chance?

K: Let’s be clear what do we mean by ‘ending’? Do I 'end' this in order to get that ?

PJ: I am not talking about that 'ending'.

K: I mean by ‘ending’ the total perception of ‘that which is’. In other words, by ‘ending’ I mean having a total perception of my consciousness, a complete perception of that (self-centred ) consciousness which is inside. That 'insight' has no motive, no remembrance; it is an immediate perception, and in the ending of it, there is ( in-coming of ?) something beyond, which is not touched by thought. That’s what I mean by ‘ending’.

PJ: Is it that the totality of that 'million years (old' brain ?) sees itself?

K: Yes, that’s right. Let’s make it a little more definite. Do we see the point that our ( self-centred) consciousness has been cultivated through time? And if I desire to end it, then that very desire creates another object to be gained ?

PJ: Yes.

K: Can there be a (global) perceiving without the (interfering ?) movement of ( our desire projecting itself in ?) the future? Do you understand what I mean? This 'ending' has no ( subliminal projection into the ?) future. There is only "ending". But the brain says, ‘I cannot end that way, because I need (to think about my) future (in order to physically ?) survive’.

PJ: Yes, because inbuilt in it is the (reality of the ?) future.

K: Of course. So is there an ending to the psychological demands, conflicts, and so on, without the thought of the future? Is there an ending to all this without the thought, ‘What will happen (to me ?) if I end (all my attachments ?) ?’ You see, we generally give up something if we are guaranteed something else. I’ll give up, for example, suffering, if you guarantee me that I’ll be happy with the ending of it, or if there is some extraordinary reward awaiting me. This is because my whole brain, my whole consciousness, is based on the notion of 'reward and punishment'. Now, as long as these two elements exist in the brain, the present (self-centred consciousness ?) —modified, of course—will go on, will continue.

PJ: Right...

K: So, can these two (active) principles of "reward and punishment" end so that, when suffering ends, the brain is not seeking a future existence in paradise?

PJ: But even if it is not seeking a future in 'paradise', suffering itself corrodes the brain.

K: Yes. It is very important to understand that the brain is constantly seeking security. It must have security. That’s why tradition, remembrance, the past, have extraordinary significance. Right? The brain needs security. The baby needs security. Security being (materially :) food, clothes, shelter and also (psychologically:) our faith in God, our faith in some ideal, our faith in a better society in the future. Now, the brain says, ‘I must have deep security; otherwise I can’t function’. But just look at it, Pupul: physically there is no ( long term ?) security, because you are going to die. And psychologically too there no actual security at all (just a very strong illusion of it ?) .

PJ: No. But I still say that there is one central demand.

K: What?

PJ: The central demand is to have a mind, to have a brain, which has the flavour of a new existence.

K: Who actually wants such a brain? Not the vast majority of people. They only say, ‘Please, let us be as we are’.

PJ: We are not talking about the 'vast majority'. I am discussing with you, or X is discussing with you...

K: Let’s be clear, Pupul, I question whether there is (a temporal) security in the sense we want security.

PJ: Sir, the brain will never understand.

K: Oh yes, it will. It will.

PJ: Because ( the sense of its continuity in time is ?) inbuilt in it...

K: But that is why I am saying (that an insightful ?) perception is important.

PJ: Perception of what?

K: The perception of what actually ‘is’. Move from there. Slowly, slowly.

PJ: The perception of ‘what is’ includes the creative things it has done, the stupid things it has done, what it considers worthwhile, what it does not consider worthwhile.

K: No, just a minute. We are talking about the perception of ‘what is actually going on'. Right? What is going on around me physically, outwardly, and what is going on or happening psychologically, inwardly—that is (the dynamic aspect of ?) ‘what is’.

PJ: Yes...

K: Now the question is: Can this ‘what is’ be transformed? ‘What is’ is my consciousness which is part of the brain.

PJ: In the emptying of that consciousness...

K: That’s the whole point. Is it possible to empty or to wipe away the whole of my past? The ( active memory of this ?) past is ( creating its own ?) time. The whole of the content of my consciousness is the past, which may project the future, but the future still has its roots in the past. Do you understand?

PJ: Yes.

K: Now, ( in the context of meditation ?) is it possible to empty out everything? This is really a tremendous question. Is it psychologically possible not to have (to carry ?) the burden of thousands of yesterdays?
The ending of that ( carrying the burden of the past ?) is the beginning of the new. The ending of that is the new.

PJ: You asked just now, ‘Is it possible, psychologically, not to have the burden of a thousand yesterdays?’

K: Yes.

PJ: Is the problem in the burden or in the thousand yesterdays?

K: ( The psychological memory of ?) the thousand yesterdays 'is' the burden. You cannot separate the two.

PJ: The (factual memory of the ?) thousands of yesterdays is a fact. The (psychological) burden is because 'I' have given a special content (a personal significance) to many of the experiences I have had.

K: Just a minute. Would there be (an active memory of the ?) thousands yesterdays if there was no remembrance of the sorrows (and joys ?) held in those thousand days? Can I separate the yesterdays by the calendar?

PJ: Yes. You can separate the thousand yesterdays from their (psychological) burden.

K: Show me how.

PJ: You can cut away the thousand yesterdays from their (residual) pain, from the sorrow, which is the burden.

K: Do you know what that means? Have I really wiped out or ended the thousand yesterdays with all their superficialities, their pettiness, their narrowness, brutality, cruelty, ambitions, and so on? Can I wipe all that away? Can all that end? You say, ‘I can cut away’, but who holds the knife? What is the knife, and who or what is the entity that is cutting?

PJ: Why do you draw a distinction between the ending of ‘what is’ and the cutting away?

K: ‘Ending’ to me implies that there is no continuation of something that has been. ‘Cutting away’ implies two parts of the same thing.
Now I’m asking, is it first of all possible to completely 'end' the whole content of human consciousness which has grown through millennia? And that ( self-perpetrating ?) content is this ( global ?) confusion, vulgarity, coarseness, pettiness and the triviality of our stupid lives.

PJ: But it is also the goodness...

K: Goodness is something entirely different. Goodness has no opposite. Goodness is not the outcome of 'that which is not good'. The ending of 'that which is not good' is goodness. Now, is it possible to end all conflict?

PJ: You mean to say, sir, that the very fact of the ending of conflict is the birth of the new?

K: Yes. Do you see the implications of ( this inner ?) conflict? Do you see the depth of it, not just the superficiality? Seeing the superficial (aspects of it ?) is merely to say that I’m no longer belong to this country or that country or this religion or that religion. I am talking of what is deeply imbedded.

PJ: You’re talking of 'conflict' as ( the sense of ?) separation ?

K: Yes, as 'separateness', as ( the sense of self-) isolation which inevitably breeds conflict. ( Ending that ( separateness ) is the 'real' thing. And when there is no conflict, can all ( our psychological ?) problems end? And when a new problem arises, can one end it immediately? Problems mean conflict.

PJ: Why do all these problems arise?

K: A 'problem' is something which is a ( personal ?) challenge, something you have to face.

PJ: Yes...

K: We resolve ( such ) a problem intellectually or physically—which creates still further problems.

PJ: You mean to say, sir, ( this ending is necessary ?) for the birth of the new...

K: Yes, you’re getting it... It must be so. And, therefore, the birth of the new is the most ancient.

PJ: Would you, please, say a little more about it?

K: After all, that is the Ground (of Creation ?), the Origin beyond which there is no other origin. (Long pause)

See, Pupul, this is really a question of whether the brain can ever be free from its own ( temporal ?) bondage. After all, ending something is not total freedom. Right? I can end, for example, my ( personal ) 'hurts'. I can end (or garbage ?) them, very simply. But the ( self-protective ?) images that I have created about myself, and the "maker" of the images is the problem. So the thing is to live a life without a single image. Then there will be no hurt, no fear, and if there is no fear, there will be no sense of safety or comfort—God, and all the rest of it.

Would you say that the Origin of all life is the ancient of ancients, beyond all thought of old or new? Would you say that that is the origin of all life and, also, that when the mind—which includes the brain—reaches that point, it 'is' (made one with ?) the Ground which is totally original, new, uncontaminated?
Meditation has been one of the means to reach it. The silencing of the mind has been one of the ways through which man hopes to bring it about. What I’m saying is that it requires no effort. The very word ‘effort’ means ( the continuation of ?) conflict. 'That' (Ground of Creation ?) which has no conflict, cannot be approached through ( a mentality based on ?) conflict.

PJ: In a sense, sir, does it really mean that there is no 'partial' approach at all in your teaching?

K: How can there be? If I were to approach it through the various paths which the Hindus have discovered—karma (bhakti, raja, jnana ) yoga, and the rest, all of which are partial—I would never be able to come near It.

PJ: Then what does one do? I am an ordinary human being—what do I do?

K: That is the real problem. 'You' cannot do anything (in this regard ?) . You can only do physical activities, but psychologically, 'you' cannot do anything.

PJ: What do you mean by ‘physical’ activity?

K: Creating a garden, building a house...

PJ: But, the physical movement of life is going on. So what does one do?

K: But, if there is no 'psychological' (separateness and ?) fear, there will be no division of countries, and so on. There will be no division—period.

PJ: Yes, but the fact is that there is 'psychological' (division and ?) fear.

K: That’s just it. A brain, which is living in psychological isolation with all its attendant conflicts, can never possibly come to that Ground which is the origin of all life. How can a petty mind, worrying about its beastly little 'self'...?

PJ: Then the whole of life is so futile, sir. If after doing everything (I could) I haven’t even taken the first step, then where am I?

K: What is the first step? Just a minute; go into it. What is the first step?

PJ: I would say that the first step is seeing ‘whatever is’.

K: Seeing ‘what is’. Right. And how do you approach it? For on this depends (the seeing of ?) the totality of ‘what is’. Do you only see ‘what is’ partially? If you see the totality of ‘what is’, it is finished.

PJ: You see, sir, it doesn’t just work like that.

K: Of course not. Because our minds, our thoughts, are fragmented; therefore you approach life, or ‘what is’ actually with a fragmented (compartmented ?) mind, fragmented brain...

PJ: (Interrupting) I’ll say, with time this (inner) fragmentation gets less and it is possible when we listen to you, for the mind to be still, for the mind not to make any movement, not to make any effort. But ( according to you ?) that’s still not the first step.

K: The first step is to observe or to perceive ‘what is’. But I would begin by seeing if I lead a life of fragmentation. (Pause) Is it possible to see the whole complex of ‘what is’? Is it possible to see the whole, and not the fragment? Because if I approach my life—which is my consciousness, the way of thought, feeling, actions—fragmentarily, then I am lost. That’s what is happening in the world. We are totally lost. So is it possible to look at our life as a whole, without fragmentation? Pupul, that is the crux.

PJ: Why doesn’t the ancient mind see this?

K: It won’t. It can’t. How can it see this? How can total, complete, order...

PJ: But you just said that the ancient...

K: Just a minute, That is the ancient. The original Ground is the most ancient.

PJ: Now, that’s ( always ?) there.

K: No.

PJ: What do you mean, ‘No’?

K: 'It is there' as an ( abstract ?) idea. And that is what all people have maintained: "There is God"—that’s just a ( very comforting ?) idea, a projection of our own desire to be to be ( forever ?) happy. (Long pause)

You see, Pupul, the ( 100% 'holistic' ?) question is whether a human being can live a life in which there is no 'fragmentary' action. If somebody were to ask, ‘Where am I to begin?’ I would say, ‘Begin by finding out for yourself if you lead a fragmentary (a dualistic ?) life’. Do you know what a 'fragmentary life' is? It is a way of living is isolation, saying one thing and doing another. Therefore no (authentic ?) relationship with the rest of humanity. So, begin there.
Do you know what that means? Do you know what a tremendous inquiry you have to make to find out?

PJ: What is the nature of this "inquiry"?

K: To observe very clearly without any bias, without any direction, without any motive, how my life is fragmented. Just to observe it (non-personally ?) , not to say, ‘I must not be fragmented and, therefore, I must be whole’. The idea of 'becoming whole' is just another ( trick of perpetuating the existing ?) fragmentation.

PJ: So the birth of the New...

K:... is not possible unless you see (and end ?) this (inner fragmentation ?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Dec 2016 #496
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

The Nature of God (an experientially friendly edited K dialogue)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Can we discuss and investigate into what is 'God'?

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): Are you asking what is ( the Ground of ) Creation is or whether 'God' is ( synonimous with ?) Reality or Truth?

PJ: Behind this word ‘God’ lies millennia of man’s quest for something that is "absolute", for something that is untouched...

K: Yes, for something that is Universal.

PJ: So, is it possible to inquire into the nature of ‘That’—call it 'God' or 'Creation' or the 'Ground of Being' ?

K: I think it is possible if one can free the mind of all the traditional implications and consequences of the word ‘God’. Can the brain and mind be free to investigate That which the Israelis call the ‘Nameless’ and the Hindus call ‘Brahman’ or the ‘Highest Principle’? The whole world 'believes in God', but can we put away all beliefs? For only then will it be possible to investigate.

PJ: Whatdoes exactly mean to be 'free of belief '?

K: A ( religious ?) person says, ‘I believe in God; God is omnipotent and omnipresent. He exists in all things’. That is the traditional acceptance of that word with all its content. Can one, consciously as well as un-consciously, be free of (the psychological connotations of ?) that word—that word which has played such a tremendous part in the Islamic and Christian world?

PJ: At (the intellectual ) level it is possible to say that one is free, as, for example, if you were to ask me whether I believed in Krishna, Rama or Siva. But that is not the final thing.
There is an ( archetypal ?) 'feeling for God' that goes much beyond all this. It seems to be integral to the fact of human life itself. You see, there is a sense that without ‘this’ nothing could exist, the sense that ‘this’ is the ground.

K: Shall we then discuss the Ground from which everything originates? How does one find out about that Ground (of all Creation ?) As I said, one can only find out when one is
absolutely free (of the traditional connotations ?) . Now, our un-conscious being is loaded with all this...

PJ: There is a possibility of a state of being where any belief in any particular 'God' is negated.

K: Does one negate it verbally or deeply, that is, at the very root of one’s being? Can one say, ‘I know nothing (about God ?) ’ and stop there?

PJ: How does one proceed from there ?

K: Can one negate, completely, the whole (psychological) movement of knowledge, the ( subliminal ?) feeling that one 'knows'? There is deep within one's (consciousness) the whole accumulated experience of man which says "there is God". Of course there have been prophets and seers who have said that there is no such thing as ( a personified ?) God, but their words just add to man's ( cultural ?) knowledge. The question is: Can one negate the ( psychological component of ?) knowledge, of all that one (thinks that he) 'knows'?

PJ: This ( accumulation of ) thousands of years (of human experience ) that forms the matrix of one’s being—how does one touch all that?

K: That is what one has to do (in the context of an authentic meditation ?) .

PJ: Yes, but how does one touch it?

K: Could we begin by inquiring (negatively ?) into why the human mind has struggled in becoming (someone or something ?) — the ( psychological ) becoming that is based on knowledge, on constant movement—not only outwardly but also inwardly?

PJ: We started with an investigation into the nature of God and then you went on to speak of becoming—are they related?

K: I think they are. You see, one’s (inner) being is essentially based on the feeling that lies deep in one that there is something enormous, something incredibly immense—I am talking about that (matrix of ?) knowledge, that that is the (inner) ground on which one stands. So long as that (matrix of the known ?) is there, one is not actually free (to go deeper ?) . Can one investigate into that?

QUESTIONER (Q): Isn't there an inherent (aspiration ?) in every human being towards something 'unknown', something that is beyond what one is taught, beyond what one picks up through one’s (cultural ) heritage?

K: Even if it is an inherent thing, can one totally empty oneself of that which may be ( subliminally ?) implanted from childhood? Can one empty one’s (consciousness) of the centuries of belief that there is 'something' beyond all this? I think that that is the most deep-rooted belief. It is something that is in the (collective ?) unconscious—deep things always are. And I think that if we (really) want to investigate, that 'belief' (collective root assumption ?) must go too.

PJ: Sir, how is it possible, without this ( collective ?) unconscious being exposed, for it to end? How does one ( have the direct ?) experience of that which lies beyond the total particulars of any one person’s knowledge? I can go through the whole of my knowledge, and yet it will not contain it.

K: No. But aren’t you getting a (starting ?) insight into this, namely, that there must be the total negating of everything man has put together?

PJ: I can comprehend the negation of all that arises in the brain. But the layers of the ( collective ?) unconscious, the ground ( of the human consciousness ?) on which one stands, how can one negate that?

K: Just a minute. Man has tried in several ways to negate everything. He has fasted, he has (self-disciplined ?) himself, but he has always remained anchored to something. Like the Christian mystics; they were anchored in (their belief in ) Jesus, and they moved from (that psychological anchorage ?)

PJ: May I ask you a ( personal) question? Do you think we are anchored to you?

K: Maybe, but that’s irrelevant (for this discussion) .

Q: Are we not more anchored to our few (personal) perceptions?

K: If you are, then put them away; weigh the anchor...

Q: In other words, all the answers about God, Reality, etc., are deep in us. That perhaps can be negated, but...

K: I wouldn’t even ( bother to ?) ask that question: "What is God?" For then my brain would start spinning a lot of words.

Q: It seems to me that we have already put the question and gone beyond the (traditional) replies. But behind all that remains the inquiry.

K: What do you mean ‘remains the inquiry’?

Q: I mean that the ( existential ) question whether there is 'something else' seems to be innate in us.

K: If my investigation is a ( self-centred ?) movement (directed ?) towards the understanding of what is called 'God', that mental movement itself is a bondage.

Q: Why?

K: Obviously because ( any self-motivated ?) 'movement' means a motion towards something. And such a movement, implies time. ( The self-centred mind ) going towards something, trying to find something, implies ( distance and ?) time—and that (mental movement ?) must stop.

Q: Then how can Pupul ask that question about what id God ?

K: That is the whole point: whether one can do such a thing in the first place. Is that possible—to be (inwardly ?) in 'non-movement'?
( So, back to square one:) Why do we want to find the meaning of God? Why do we want to find the meaning behind all this?

PJ: There is a part of us which is still...

K: ...still seeking, searching, demanding ?

PJ: There is a part of us which feels that there is...

K: Yes, that’s it. We never ( really) say, ‘I don’t know’. I think that that is one of our difficulties. We all want to know (more ?) so we bring 'God' into the realm of knowledge. To ( honestly ?) say, ‘I don’t know’ is a state of mind that is absolutely motionless.

PJ: Is it not necessary to wipe out this matrix (of the known ?) ?

K: Oh yes. (But...) can 'you' wipe out the matrix?

PJ: I don’t know...

K: Which is what? When you use the word ‘matrix’ (of the known ?) what do you mean by that?

PJ: I only know that beyond the horizons of my mind, behind the obvious beliefs, there are depths and depths and depths in me. You used a very significant phrase somewhere: ‘Play around with the deep’. So you also point to depths which lie below the surface. Is this depth within the matrix (of the known ?) ?

K: No, it can’t be. But I wonder what you call the 'matrix'?

PJ: I mean by it this ( unconscious ?) depth which I cannot bring to the surface, into the daylight of direct perception, of attention. I mean by ‘matrix’ that which does not come within the purview of my (inner) eyes and ears, but is still there. I know it is there. It is ( the essence of ?) ‘me’. Even though I am not able to see it, to touch it, I have a feeling that perhaps, if there is a right listening to the truth...

K: Then why do you use the word ‘depth’?

PJ: I am using the word ‘depth’ to connote something that is beyond my (available ?) knowledge. You see, if it is available to ( the perception of ) my senses, then it is measurable. But if it is not available, I can do nothing about it. I do not have the instruments to reach it.

K: How do you know that it is all not imagination? Do you know it as a (direct) experience?

PJ: If you say ‘yes’ it is a trap, and even if you say ‘no’ it is a trap.

K: I want to be quite clear, Pupul, that we both understand the meaning of the word (matrix) . I am talking of a feeling.

PJ: Surely, sir, a word can be uttered lightly, from the surface of the mind, and it can also be uttered with great depth (of feeling) behind it. I am saying that there is this "ground" (matrix of the human consciousness ) that contains the whole history of man. There is life in that utterance; it has great weight and depth. Can’t you feel that depth? So, can I not go ( meditatively ?) into it ? If it is possible, then there is nothing to be done, but to just look and listen. There is no question that one can ask oneself.

K: I understand Pupul, but you see that depth —is it the depth of silence? Silence means that the mind, the brain, is utterly still; it is not something that 'comes and goes'.

PJ: How can I answer that?

K: I think one can if there is no sense of ( personal) attachment to it, no sense of memory involved in it.

Let’s begin again (from squre one ?) The whole world 'believes' in God, but unfortunately, I don’t know what 'God' is. Probably I will never find out, and I am not interested in finding out. But what I am concerned with is whether the mind, the brain, can be totally, completely, free from all its accumulated (psychological ?) knowledge & experience. Because if it is not free, it will function always within that field. It might expand enormously, but it will always be confined to that ( 'known' ?) area. And even if the mind moves from that area and says ‘I must find out (God) ’, it will still be carrying on the ( knowledge confined ?) movement.
My ( experiential ?) concern is whether the brain, the mind, can be completely free from all taint of knowledge. To me that is tremendously significant, because if it is not, it will never be out of that area. Never.
Any movement of the mind out of that area is still a movement that is anchored in ( a central 'knower' and its ?) knowledge; it will then only be a seeking (a higher level of ) knowledge about 'God'. So my concern ( meditationally-wise ?) is with whether the brain, is capable of being completely "immovable" (with nowhere to go ?) .

Then what is left? Could one have the depth of insight into the ( whole ) movement of knowledge, so that the insight stops the movement? The ( inner light of that ?) insight stops the movement, not 'I' or my brain. The stopping of the ( directional ?) movement is the ending of knowledge and the beginning of something else. So I am concerned only with that (indepth) ending of ( 'me' & my ?) knowledge .
There is this enormous feeling that comes when we realize that we are (inwardly) "all- one". The feeling that comes from "oneness", from a harmonious unity, is extraordinary, (but) if it is ( intellectually ?) simulated it is worthless, for then you will only be perpetuating 'yourself' (the 'great holistic thinker' ?) . Right?

Q: Could we talk a little more about this (inner) questioning which seems so complete? Could we discuss having no anchorage (in the known ?) ?

K: Don’t you see the importance of it? And, if you do, ask yourself whether it (the seeing) is merely intellectual.

Q: I do see the importance of it; but apparently that is not enough.

PJ: Somehow there is something we are missing...

K: Look, Pupul, suppose this 'K' person were not here (therefore) each one of us is totally responsible to answer this question. You have to answer.

PJ: Why should I have to answer?

K: I will tell you why. You have to answer because you are part of ( the total consciousness of ?) humanity, and ( that consciousness of ) humanity is asking this question. Every saint, every philosopher, every human being somewhere in his depths is asking this question.

Q: Sir, is not this question ( about what is 'God' ?) somewhere, in a sense, wrong?

K: I said so. But you have to answer it without any reference to what K has said or not said. I come to you with this kind of questions. To me, as a human being, these questions are tremendously important.

PJ: May I ask you something? How does one take a question like this and "leave it" (to abide ?) in one's consciousness? You seem to have a way of taking a question, asking it and, then, "remaining" with it (in silence) .

K: Yes, that is right.

PJ: Now, when we ask such a question, there is a movement of the mind towards it. With you, when such a question is put, there is no ( directional) movement.

K: You’re right. Are you asking ‘how’ to achieve this state?

PJ: I know that I can’t...

K: No, but you are right to ask that question. Do you understand what Pupul said? I am asking you as a human being, just as human beings have for a million years: What is God? I come and put this question to you. Are you ready to answer it or do you 'hold the question' quietly? Hold it—do you understand? For out of that very holding, that holding where there is no reaction, no response, comes the answer.

Q: Could you say something about the nature of that (silent ?) 'holding'?

K: I am talking of a 'holding' that is without any wave, without any motive or movement, a holding that is without any trace of ( a desire ?) to find an answer.

Q: With most of us, we may not try to find an answer either ; we may first remain quietly with an unanswered question, but sooner or later an answer comes that may be something from the deep wells of the unconscious, and that answer rises up to fill that space.

K: I know. Now, just a minute.( In class practice: ) I ask you a question: Do you believe in God? Can you say, ‘I don’t know’? Or do you immediately say, ‘Maybe there is’ and so on? Can you just look at the question without saying a single thing? Can you? If you ask a devout Christian that question, he will immediately say, ‘Of course I believe in God’. You will also get an immediate reaction if you were to ask a Hindu—it’s like pressing a button. But I really don’t know whether there is God or not.

Q: Are you saying, sir, that (silent) ‘holding’ is takes place outside the ( 'known' ?) area?

K: Of course.

Q: In that holding isn’t there an inquiry?

K: No, you see, unless you understand this it can lead to a great deal of misunderstanding. We have been (culturally ) programmed for thousands of years, and the brain replies immediately. If the brain is not ( pre-) programmed, it is watching, looking. Now, can our brains be (inwardly) without a programme?

Q: But this activity of looking is not the holding—right? You have spoken ( metaphorically ?) of "the cup that holds water", and of "the earth that holds the pond". Is there something ( within us ?) that holds like the cup and the earth hold?

K: Pupulji asked me a question that had great depth. You also heard that question, you received that question—what was your response to it?

Q: Which question, sir?

K: She was speaking about the depth, the ground. What was your reaction to that?

Q: I was just listening; I was just trying to understand.

PJ: You see, sir, when a question is normally put to (our knowledgeable ?) mind, it is like a grain of sugar being dropped on the ground—'ants' from all over come towards it.
Similarly, when a question is posed, all the movements, all the responses are awakened, and gravitate towards the question. Now the ($$$ ?) question is: Can the question be asked without the ( directed ?) movements?

K: Without the "ants", yes. We are talking of the brain that is in constant ( mentally agitated ?) movement, the energy of which is thought. To quieten thought is the ( first experiential ?) problem. How will you deal with this question? Can you 'question' ( the psychological validity of ?) thought completely? Can you have a (quality of ) mind that is capable of not reacting immediately to a question? Can there be a "delaying" reaction, perhaps even a holding of the question ( on the backburner ?) indefinitely?

Let’s go back, Pupulji. Can I have no ( psychological ?) anchors at all—either in my knowledge or in my beliefs? Can I see that they have no ( spiritual ?) meaning whatsoever? I think it is absolutely essential not to give meaning (an added psychological significance ?) to anything.
Isn't that a state of mind that is out of time? Isn't that a state of real profound meditation—a meditation in which there is no sense of (personal) achievement; nothing? The state in which there is no "meditator" is the ground, the origin, of all things.

PJ: So are you saying that the ( self-conscious ?) 'meditator' is not the ground?

K: Obviously, he is not. If the 'meditator' is there , the Ground (of Creation) is not.

PJ: So, can there be meditation without the 'meditator'?

K: I am speaking of a "meditation without the meditator".

PJ: Let us investigate this: you may ( be right to) say that the "meditator" is not the ground, but...

K: Just a minute. As long as "I" am trying to 'meditate', Meditation is not.

PJ: Yes...

K: Therefore there is only a "mind" that is in a state of meditation.

PJ: Yes.

K: Now that is the Ground. The ( Mind of the ?) Universe is in a state of meditation. And that is the Ground (of all Creation ?) , that is the origin of everything; and that is only possible when the "meditator" is not.

PJ: And that is only possible when there are no "anchors"...

K: Absolutely. That is (happening) when there is absolute freedom from sorrow. That state of meditation comes with the complete ending of the self (- centred consciousness ?) .
You know, Pupul, "beginning" may be the eternal process, it (Creation ?) may be an "eternal beginning".

( In a nutshell:) The real ( meditational ?) question is whether it is at all possible to be completely, utterly, free of the ( all controlling ?) "meditator". This "meditator" (mental entity - aka the 'thinker', the 'experiencer' etc ?) tries to meditate in order to get somewhere, in order to hide ( or delete ?) something, in order to put his life in order. Whichever way you put it around —you meditate to put your life in order or you put your life in order and then meditate—it is still (a self-conscious ?) "meditator" in operation. Now, if it is possible to be free of this (very ressourceful ?) "meditator", then there would be no question of whether there is God or no God for then that ( meditator-free ?) Meditation "is" (integrated in ?) the Meditation of the Universe.

( Parting question: ) Is it possible to be so utterly free? I am asking that question. Don’t ( bother to ?) reply; hold it. Let it operate. In the holding of it, ( mind's ?) energy is being accumulated and that ( Intelligent ?) energy will act—not you. Do you understand? (Long pause)
So, have we understood the ( experiential approach to the ?) "nature of God"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Dec 2016 #497
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): Are you asking what ( the Ground of ) Creation is or whether 'God' is Reality or Truth?

PJ: Behind this word ‘God’ lies millennia of man’s quest for something that is "absolute", for something that is untouched...

K: Yes, for something that is Universal.


Hello John, to start with I see two aspects in such "prelude", one is the utter natural curiosity for such subject as even by using logic only we inevitably come across not only an ultimate origin but an origin which can only be "not born".....anyone can use logic to go into that..

the second aspect is more about again another polarity here...the quest for such "absolute" indicates that we do not have such absolute in our lives and so are wishing that it takes place....because there is dissatisfaction with our reality : I want the best, I am unhappy so I ,I as the thought process, want happiness....wishful thinking ..!!

John Raica wrote:
K: Can one negate, completely, the whole movement of knowledge, the feeling that one 'knows'? There is deep within one's (consciousness) the whole accumulated experience of man which says "there is God". Of course there have been prophets and seers who have said that there is no such thing as ( a personified ?) God, but their words just add to man's knowledge. The question is: Can one negate the knowledge, of all that one (thinks that he) 'knows'?

Well I guess that to be there thought must relearn to say : I do not know and make no move from that..staying in that state..it mainly if not only does not do it for real any more ...like down below..

John Raica wrote:
K: Just a minute. Man has tried in several ways to negate everything. He has fasted, he has (self-disciplined ?) himself, but he has always remained anchored to something. Like the Christian mystics; they were anchored in (their belief in ) Jesus, and they moved from (that psychological anchorage ?)

John Raica wrote:
K: If my investigation is a ( self-centred ?) movement (directed ?) towards the understanding of what is called 'God', that mental movement itself is a bondage.

Q: Why?

K: Obviously because ( any self-motivated ?) 'movement' means a motion towards something. And such a movement, implies time. ( The self-centred mind ) going towards something, trying to find something, implies ( distance and ?) time—and that (mental movement ?) must stop.

Well this is deeply interesting it not it? thought itself is a movement towards the future, always, it may use the past of course and it will as it is its basement,its home, but this is in order to project the desired and-or needed future, like a search for anything to gain, the search for god, the Origin etc the mark of a machine just doing its works as it is set up....randomly, mechanically etc...

in order to work desire must be, so must be self rewarding, self admiration etc all this makes the machine work providing motives and intention....but this is loaded with what will become painful....frustration, fear, anxiety, up to unbearable suffering..etc..like wars...all this is linked.

is it incidental ? for me it cannot be , but no proof of it...it seems clear..

K says that that movement in time of thought towards the future has to stop, thought has to stop...not for good, not all the time but where it has to stop...can this be another quest or is it just a factual statement that it must be so somehow and sometimes, without providing any clues of how because may be there are none ??

John Raica wrote:
Then what is left? Could one have the depth of insight into the ( whole ) movement of knowledge, so that the insight stops the movement? The insight stops the movement, not 'I' or my brain. The stopping of the ( directional ?) movement is the ending of knowledge and the beginning of something else. So I am concerned only with that (indepth) ending of ( 'me' & my ?) knowledge .
There is this enormous feeling that comes when we realize that we are (inwardly) "all- one". The feeling that comes from "oneness", from a harmonious unity, is extraordinary, (but) if it is ( intellectually ?) simulated it is worthless, for then you will only be perpetuating 'yourself' (the 'great holistic thinker' ?) . Right?

right yes, nothing to add here..yet to say that wow this is down to the point..

is missing here this horrible sensation forcing us to potentially go that way..unless we got used to it as part of life, life is suffering, or unless one already has killed himself due to the huge pain due to the attempt to escape..etc

Can I say that something is guiding then ? for me no doubt all this is so well "engineered" ..

John Raica wrote:
( In a nutshell:) The real question is whether it is at all possible to be completely, utterly, free of the ( all controlling ?) "meditator". This "meditator" (mental entity - aka the 'thinker', the 'experiencer' etc ?) tries to meditate in order to get somewhere, in order to hide ( or delete ?) something, in order to put his life in order. Whichever way you put it around —you meditate to put your life in order or you put your life in order and then meditate—it is still (a self-conscious ?) "meditator" in operation. Now, if it is possible to be free of this (very resourceful ?) "meditator", then there would be no question of whether there is God or no God for then that ( meditator-free ?) Meditation "is" (integrated in ?) the Meditation of the Universe.

( Parting question: ) Is it possible to be so utterly free? I am asking that question. Don’t ( bother to ?) reply; hold it. Let it operate. In the holding of it, ( mind's ?) energy is being accumulated and that ( Intelligent ?) energy will act—not you. Do you understand? (Long pause)
So, have we understood the ( experiential approach to the ?) "nature of God"?...

again is missing , for me and for us, the trigger-symptom-catalyst we all have at hand.....to start with, which is pushing hard in one single direction etc...utter discontentment at the best up to heavy mental suffering is what I speak of....in many talks k regularly do not mention it anymore at some stage....which is something I do not understand...

let us say that k is beyond that..but we are not !

Why would this be eventually "vital" ? because the symptom of, lets be too simple, suffering, is "willingly" embedded with thought and there is a very define motive behind to be that way, and for me this has a define property to be able to freeze thought in some circumstances........

it is helping us and we try to run away..

etc etc etc etc..

cheerio

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sat, 03 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Dec 2016 #498
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

The Brain,the Mind and the Inner Nothingness ( experientially friendly edited )

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, my question is: Is there a space without ending within oneself, wthin the human mind—which is the mirror image of that vastness which exists (in the physical Universe ) ?

K: Are you asking whether there is or there can be a space without end, a (timeless ?) Eternity within the human ( mind or ?) brain? I’d like to distinguish between the (physical ) 'brain' and the 'mind' - can the (physical) brain realize the truth as to whether there is ( this time-free ) 'eternity' or not? How do you begin to feel, gently, hesitantly, your way into this really fundamental question: whether man's (consciousness ?) is bound to time forever or whether the brain can realize (find ?) itself in a state of eternity, is a question that has been asked for thousands of years. And that is the question we’re asking too.

PJ: Would you, please, elaborate on the distinction you are making between the brain and the mind ?

K: Yes. We are saying that the brain - or at least the active part of it is conditioned- . That conditioning is brought about through ( all our evolutionary ?) experience, (acquired) knowledge and memory. And as ( our evolutionary ?) experience, knowledge and memory are limited, the brain's ( activity of ) thinking is also limited. Therefore, to discover something new, there has to be, at least temporarily, a ( non-thinking ?) 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, but for centuries the main operation of the brain has been the operation of thought.

K: That is what we are saying, namely that the whole movement of the brain—at least that part of the brain which has been (routinely) used—is conditioned by ( this self-centred ?) thought, and thought is always limited and therefore it is conditioned to (accept life as an endless ) conflict. That which is limited must create division.

PJ: So, this is our (thinking) brain. What is the "mind" then?

K: The mind ( aka "intelligence" ?) is a wholly different dimension ( of human consciousness ?) which has no contact with thought. Let me explain. That part of the brain which has been functioning ( for ages ) as an instrument of thought—has been (heavily) 'conditioned', and as long as that part of the brain remains in that ( self-polarised ?) state there is no entire communication with the "mind". So, when that 'conditioning' is not (active ?) , then that mind which is in a totally different dimension (of Consciousness) , communicates with the brain and acts—using the thinking capacity of the brain .

PJ: But you’ve already posited state (of non-material intelligence) which is outside the realm of thought.

K: That’s right—outside. And, therefore, outside the realm of (matter and ?) time.

PJ: So, 'time' seems to be the essential core of this problem...

K: Time and thought.

PJ: Thought is a product of ( our physical evolution in ?) time. So, in a ( holistic ?) sense, thought 'is' time.

K: That’s it, that’s the real point.

PJ: Perhaps if we could go into this inner flow of (thought and ?) time, and at what instant an 'interception' is possible... you would perhaps use the word ‘ending’ ?

K: Let’s use simple words...

PJ: Now, this (inner) process of ("thought &) time" is flowing from a past immemorial, projecting itself into a 'future', which is also endless.

K: In terms of thought. ( Thought's real or imaginary continuity into ?) the 'future' is conditioned by the (whole experience of our ?) past—as a human "psyche".

PJ: Yes. So, unless the human brain ceases to be conditioned (by its own past), the content ( of its temporal continuity ?) will undergo a change, but the mechanism of thought will continue.

K: Let’s put it this way: ( our 'thinker-thinking' ?) thought is the chief instrument we have now. And thousands of years of various ( thinking ?) efforts and actions have not only made that instrument dull, but that instrument has also reached the end of its tether. Thought-time ( our 'self'-tethered thinking ?) is limited, conditioned, divided, and in a perpetual state of (conflict and/or inner ?) turmoil. Now, can (its self-projected continuity ?) end? That’s the question.

PJ: Now, ( as inwardly this process of time is ) the movement of the past as "yesterday - today - tomorrow" , how do we come in direct contact with it ? This contact with time, as a psychological process, is possible only in the present moment , isn’t it?

K: Let’s be very careful: don’t separate time as if it were something different from thought. It is "time-thought". Are you asking: What is the ‘now’?

PJ: It’s the ‘interception’ ( of this 'time-thought' process ?) that I’m talking about: the direct contact with the 'fact'.

K: May I put it in the way that 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?
How do you ( get in ?) touch this fact that "I" am a whole series of (personal and collective ?) ) memories which is "time-thought"?

PJ: Let us be more concrete. I am going away this afternoon, and that I may be leaving you (forever ?) , is a thought.

K: It’s not (just ?) a thought; it’s an actuality.

PJ: Actuality, yes; but out of that there is a certain ( personal) pain of leaving you, in which the emotional, psychological elements come to cover up the actual fact. So, what is to be contacted? Not the fact that I’m going away, but this pain.

K: I understand. Are you asking: The ( accumulated ?) pain of a thousand (days ?) years and centuries of loneliness, sorrow, grief, anxiety and all that—is that separate from the ‘me’ who feels it?

PJ: It may not be separate.

K: It 'is' me. (Emphatic)

PJ: And how do I touch it? Only in the present that the whole of this (psychological ?) edifice rests.

K: The ( what I am ?) ‘now’ contains the past, the future and the present. The (temporal ?) present is 'me' with all the memories of a thousand years, and those thousand years (old memories ?) are being modified (refreshed and updated by the brain?) all the time. All that is the ‘now’—the 'me' in present.

PJ: But this ('me' in the ?) present is not static. So what is it that you actually see, what is it that you actually observe?

K: You actually observe the fact that (my self-consciousness in the ?) present is ( the virtual projection of ?) the whole ( background brain activity ?) of time and thought. You, actually, see the truth of that. You have an insight into the fact that the ‘now’ is ( containing ?) all ( the continuous movement of ?) time and thought.

PJ: Does that ( insightful ?) perception emanate from the brain?

K: That perception is an (illuminating flash of ?) insight which has nothing to do with time and thought.

PJ: But it arises within the brain?

K: Or does it arise outside the brain? That is your question, right?

PJ: Yes, and it’s very important.

K: That’s why I want to be clear. Is it ( originating) within the sphere of the brain or is that insight comes ( into the brain only ?) when there is freedom from conditioning, which is the operation of the mind?—That is supreme intelligence, you follow?

PJ: No, I don’t quite follow. ..

K: Let’s be clear. The brain is ( subtly and grossly ?) conditioned by time and thought, ( in short:) "time-thought". As long as that ( mental) 'conditioning' remains (active) , ( the total) "insight" is not possible. You may have occasional insight into something, but not pure insight, which means the comprehension ( or sudden revelation ?) of the totality of things. That (illuminating ?) insight is not ( the result ?) of the 'time-thought' (process ) , and it is a "perception of the wholeness". Therefore that insight is part of that brain which is in a different dimension.

PJ: Let us take this word ‘insight’. It means ‘seeing into’ (or inner-sight ?)

K: Let’s look at that word (inward ?) ‘seeing’. Insight into or the comprehension of the totality, of the vastness of something, is possible only when there is the cessation of the "thought and time" (psychological process) . (Both) 'thought' and 'time' are limited (by their own past ?) ; therefore such 'limitation' cannot have insight.

PJ: Now, this ( illuminating ?) insight cannot arise without attention.

K: No, wait; don’t introduce the (extraneous ?) word ‘attention’. Stick to the same thing: ( the 100% pure ?) insight cannot exist as long as time-thought plays a ( supervising ?) part.

PJ: But which comes first? In my ( experiential) approach to this, I can’t start with insight.
I can only start with (an inner ?) 'observation'.

K: You can only start ( holistically ?) by realizing the truth regarding (this inner process of ?) "thought-time". Psychological ( activities of ?) 'time and thought' are always (perceptively ?) limited. That’s a "fact". (Emphatic) Start from that. Start from the realization that time-thought is always limited and, therefore, whatever it does will always be limited and therefore (self-) divisive and giving rise to endless conflicts. That’s all I’m saying. ( even without the 100% pure insight ?) 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 through the world it is a fact that time and thought, in their ( self-interested ?) activity, have wrought havoc in the world. That’s a fact.

PJ: Yes, yes.

K: So, now the (inward ) question is: Can this limitation ever end or is man condemned, forever, to live within the 'time-thought' area?

PJ: Do I see the fact that time-thought is limited? How does one see that? It’s like telling me that I am an illusion.

K: I didn’t say that.

PJ: But I’m saying that. Because the moment you say, ‘After all Pupul is a psychological bundle of the past, a psychological movement of 'time and thought' which is the psyche, and that psyche is limited’...

K: Yes, it is limited, and whatever it does is limited.

PJ: Then, I would ask: What’s wrong with it being limited?

K: There is nothing wrong if you want to live in ( an internal 'war zone' of ?) perpetual conflict.

PJ: Now, to end it is not only to feel that it is limited, but there must be an actual (action of ?) ending to it.

K: I say that there is.

PJ: What is ( experiential ?) the nature of this ending?

K: To end ( the psychological dependency or ?) attachment. The movement of thought and time stops—psychologically. What is your difficulty?

PJ: Shouldn't there be a point of ( clear inner ) perception, is a point of 'insight' ?

K: Yes.

PJ: What is that 'point of insight'? Where do I see it?

K: Look, Pupul, let’s be simple. Time-thought has divided the world: politically, geographically, religiously. That’s a ( the outer aspect of this ?) fact. Can’t you see the fact?

PJ: I look at it in the outside world but if I really saw the (inner ?) fact...

K: You would stop that kind of thing.

PJ: It would be all over.

K: That’s all I’m saying.

PJ: If it is such a simple thing—which I don’t think it is, because it (the inner fact of time-thought) has such devious ways...

K: If you have an insight into the fact that the ( mental) movement of 'thought-time' is divisive at whatever level, that it is a movement of endless conflict...

PJ: Yes, you can see it clearly when it’s a matter outside you.

K: Now, inwardly the (same) movement 'is' (generating ?) the ( self-centred consciousness) - the 'psyche' is a movement of time-thought. This inward movement has created the external fact. To feel secure in the Hindu world, I am ( inwardly getting attached to the idea of being ?) a Hindu. I feel secure in the ( comforting) feeling that I belong to something.

PJ: I would say that all these (superficial) things —being a 'Hindu' or being 'greedy'—one has seen as being the product of this movement of 'time-thought'.

K: That’s all I’m saying.

PJ: But it’s not quite enough: there is deeper down this sense of ‘I exist’.

K: That’s the whole point: you don’t realize that the 'psyche' is that.

PJ: Yes, that’s essentially the nature of the problem.

K: Why don’t you? Because you think that the 'psyche' ( the psychological individuality ?) is something other than a conditioned state. You think that there is something in you—in the brain or somewhere—which is timeless, which is ( potentially one with ?) God, and that if you could reach That (inwardly) , everything will be all right. That’s part of your ( cultural) conditioning. Because you are feeling inwardly uncertain, confused, ( the idea that God or the 'highest principle' (is always in there ?) gives you ( a superior sense of ?) safety, protection, certainty. That’s all.

PJ: What is the nature of the (inner) Ground from which insight springs?

K: Insight can only take place when there is freedom from "time and thought".

PJ: You see, it’s some sort of unending (circular logic )....

K: No. It is not. You are (over ?) complicating a very simple fact, as most of us do. To live in peace is to flower; it is to understand the extraordinary world of peace (the war is over ?) . (And this sense of inner ?) peace cannot be brought about by thought.

PJ: So, it is the brain itself which listens to this statement ?

K: Yes, it listens, and then what happens? If it (really) listens (non-personally ?) , it’s quiet.

PJ: Yes, it’s quiet.

K: And when there is a quietness that is not ( self-) induced, then there is insight. I don’t have to explain in ten different ways the limitation of thought. It is so.

PJ: I see what you are saying. Is there anything further than that?

K: Oh yes, there is. If the ( self-identified psychological ?) structure of "time and thought" ends, the ‘Now’ has a totally different meaning. The ‘now’ then is "no-thing". And that (inner presence of 'being?) nothing' contains all. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: But we are (un-consciously ?) afraid to 'be nothing'.

PJ: When you say, ‘Being as nothing contains the all’, do you mean that it is the essence of all the Consciousness of humanity, of the nature and that of the Cosmos as such?

K: (Recap:) The 'psyche' is a ( dynamic) bundle of ( active ?) memories, but those memories are 'dead' (not 'alive' by themselves) . They operate, function in us, but they are the outcome of our past experiences, which are gone. I am a movement of memories. Now, when (and if ?) one has an insight that there is nothing, when one really sees the fallacy, the illusion of (self-) becoming—which an endless (continuity of ?) time-thought and conflict—then there is an ending of that. The 'ending' of that is 'to be nothing'. However, being nothing then contains (or shares ?) the (Mind of the ?) whole Universe— after all, Pupulji, ‘nothing’ means the entire world of compassion. Compassion is no-thing. And, therefore, that (inner) no-thingness is supreme intelligence. That’s all there is. I don’t know if I’m conveying this.

PJ: Yes.

K: So, why are intelligent human beings frightened of being nothing, frightened to see that they really are (identifying themselves with nice-sounding ?) verbal illusions, that they are nothing but ( a dynalic complex of ?) dead (past ?) memories? That’s a fact. I don’t like to think I’m just nothing but memories, but the truth is that I 'am' (my) memories.
Now if I have no ( psychological attachments to this ?) memory, I can understand the whole movement of memory, which is time-thought, and see the fact that as long as there is this movement, there must be endless conflict, struggle, pain. And when there is an insight into that, then 'being inwardly nothing' is the (timeless dimension of the ?) Present, and it’s not a ‘varying’ present.

PJ: Not a 'varying present'...?

K: It isn’t that one day it’s this, and the next day it is different. That no-thing is no time. Therefore it’s not ending one day, and being another day. You see, Pupul, that after all is real meditation. That’s what ??nya ( the inner Void ?) means in Sanskrit.
So, we have to grasp, to understand, that in ( inwardly being as ?) 'nothing' all the consciousness of the world contained—not the pain and the anxiety which are all so small. Of course I know that when I’m suffering, that’s the only thing I
have, or when there is fear, that’s the only thing. But unfortunately, you see, I don’t realize that it is such a petty little thing.

So, having listened to all this, what is your comprehension? What is it you realize? Do you say, ‘By Jove, I’ve got it. I’ve got the perfume of it’?

PJ: Sir, one realizes is that the most difficult thing in the world is to be (inwardly) totally simple.

K: Yes. To be simple—that’s right. If one is really simple, one can understand the enormous complexity of things. But we start with all the complexities and never see the simplicity. That’s our training. We have trained our brains 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 facts rather.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 03 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Dec 2016 #499
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 19 posts in this forum Offline

These are clear and insightful discussions with K. I would emphasize the relative nature of thought compared to the Absolute, the nothingness. The Absolute is not the opposite of the relative. Thought is always relative, which means trapped in a corridor of opposites. I am unhappy, I want to be happy. I am lonely, I want to be loved. I am in conflict, I want peace. I am in darkness, I want to be enlightened. All the opposites carry within themselves their own opposites. And any "absolute" or "god" or "nothingness" that you conceive as being opposed to something else is a creation of thought. Thought always measures, compares, creates opposites, creates choices such as the better and the worse, the dumb and the wise, the bound and the free, the enlightened and the unenlightened. Thought moves in this corridor of the opposites, always moving from one opposite to the other, always chosing one opposite over another, all its effort is within this corridor. But the Absolute, or the silence, or the nothingness is not an opposite of anything. Every choice, every effort, every thought, every movement is still within this corridor and is limited. Only when the mind understands its total movement and sees its limitation, can it crumble upon itself and enter into silence, can it become Nothing. This Nothingness is not negative at all, it is the source of everything. The observer is a cloud of darkness. All his effort is the darkness. The darkness is the corridor of the opposites created by thought. It is the prison in which we are trapped. And freedom is not the opposite of the prison.

http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1945-1948-...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Dec 2016 #500
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 19 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks for your words, John. It is interesting that you always add to Krishnamurti. When I have been doing some editing in the past (for my personal purposes), I always subtracted, i.e. I tried to delete all those sentences that I either did not consider essential, or that were self-obvious or were endlessly repeated by K so that they became somewhat "Krishnamurti clichés" (such as "you are the world"). In the past (when I had more time), I did some translating of K into Czech language. Now I lack the time and also motivation.

The language barrier is always a problem, especially when describing things like "nothingness" or "absolute". Nothingness is an especially nice word. You cannot become nothing, because if you became that, you would be something. Likewise, you cannot understand nothing, you cannot grasp nothing. You cannot know nothing, because if you knew anything, you would know something. Silence is also a nice word. If you try to do anything about it, you are disturbing the silence. But these words are only pointers, only analogies. It is up to each of one us to discover their meaning for himself. The discovering of their meaning is meditation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Dec 2016 #501
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

WHAT IS THE MEDITATION WHICH TRANSFORMS THE MIND ?
(an 'experientially' friendly edited text from a K talk in Madras 1974)

(...) K: When you discard all the (organised religion) 'nonsense' we can begin to find out, if you are serious, what religion truly means. Because ( a religious mind ?) is the core of any new culture, without religion there is no culture. You may have beautiful paintings, write marvellous literature, compose lovely music, but that doesn't bring about a new ( holistic ?) quality of mind. And we need a new quality of mind when the whole world around us is degenerating.
( The true significance of ?) religion implies the discovery for one's own mind of what is sacred and if there is such a thing as the "eternal". Also religion means the (inner) beauty, goodness, which means also excellence, and the enquiry into something that is not touched by thought, because thought is ( the result of ?) time, thought is (based on ?) measure. And to find out if there is, or if there is not, something that is nameless, timeless, that has no beginning and no end, all that is ( the true meaning of ?) religion. And as we said, without that quality of ( a religious ?) mind, which is explosive you cannot have a culture which is absolutely necessary, a culture which means being a light to yourself, the (inner ?) light which you have found for yourself.
(The true purpose of ?) meditation is the enquiry into that which is sacred and also to have that quality of a mind that is really 'timeless'.

So we are going together to find out what it means to meditate, and what it means to have the quality of ( an inner) freedom that can come upon that thing that is sacred, and from there move to something that may be timeless. This is a very complex (and demanding ?) question. And what is complex can be understood only when the mind is really very "simple". So, to find out what meditation (truly is ) you have to enquire, you have to put aside your particular (ideas about) of meditation, otherwise you can't find out if what you are doing is true or false. And to enquire into ( the living truth of ?) something "sacred" you cannot possibly accept the authority of any book, any leader, any guru, any system, because your mind must be free to enquire, free to find out. So, you are sitting here listening, can you put ( temporarily ?) aside all that you know about meditation?

( For starters ?) I'd (rather ?) know nothing about what other people have said about it. They might have been as caught in illusions as myself. I am talking as a human being (of integrity ?) who wants to find out what it means to meditate, because perhaps that may be the ( right inner ?) "ambience", the (necessary inner ?) environment, the atmosphere which will reveal that which is sacred.
So what is meditation? Can a mind be free of the ( self-centred ?) movement of thought, which is time? Time is measure (evaluating oneself verbally ?) . Time is ( thinking along a certain ?) direction. Time is (all this mental) movement. And is can (this inner process of ?) time, as (mental ?) movement, find out something that is sacred? We said thought is a material process. And to investigate into what is meditation, what do you do with this extraordinary movement of thought in which (the average human ) mind is caught up? You cannot deny it, it is there.

So the (earnest ?) mind that is enquiring into the meaning of meditation comes upon ( the realisation of ?) this fact; that thought is the ( mechanistic ?) response of memory, memory is the ( storage of all ?) accumulation of knowledge and experience of the past. Therefore in investigating what is meditation the mind has to find out the art of putting thought in its right place. To drive a car, to speak, to do your daily job, technologically, and so on, knowledge there is necessary and thought must function efficiently, clearly, non-personally in that area. And when thought discovers that it has a right place then you will see that thought is no longer a matter of importance.

Then the next question is: the systems, the methods, the various practices that you do, have they any validity? When you 'practise', what does that imply? It implies ( following a prescribed ?) direction, in order to achieve a fixed end. But if ( Truth ) is a living thing you can't practise to arrive at it, it is moving all the time. So when you are practising a method, that direction and the (desired ) end are put together by thought. So you are not out of (the limits of your known ?) , you are still ( caught ?) in the movement of thought. Now, if (and when ?) you have a (global perception or an?) insight into that, no ( need to follow a meditation ?) system, no method, no goal, no direction.

( In a nutshell ?) a mind that is functioning through thought is still acting within the field of time, within the field of fragmentation. So can this mind be free of the (dualistic ?) movement of thought? Can the mind be completely non-fragmented? Can it look at life as a whole? Can the mind be whole, which means without a single fragmentation ? Therefore (the factor of ?) diligence comes into this. A mind is whole when it is ( inwardly ?) 'diligent', which means to have care, means to have great affection, great Love ( which, en passant , is totally different from the 'love' of a man and a woman).

So the mind that is whole is attentive and therefore cares, and has this quality of deep abiding sense of love. Such a mind is the Whole. Can the ( totality of ?) your mind, be absolutely quiet, without (any thought) 'control', without the movement of thought? It will be quiet naturally if you really have the (perceptive clarity of an ?) insight which brings thought in its right place, therefore the mind is( naturally) quiet. You understand what the word 'silence' and 'quiet' means? You know you can make the mind quiet by taking a drug, by repeating a mantram or a word, constantly repeating, repeating, repeating, naturally your mind will become (dead ?) quiet. But the silence we are talking about, the ( living ?) quietness of a mind, that ( quality of ?) silence is not to be bought, is not to be practised, is not something you gain, a reward, a compensation to ( indulging in ?) an ugly life. It is only when the ugly life has been transformed into a life of goodness, in the flowering of that goodness then this Silence comes.

And also you have to enquire what is ( inner ?) beauty? What is beauty? Did you look at the sunset this evening as you are sitting there. The sunset was behind the speaker. Did you look at it? Did you feel the light and the glory of that light on a leaf? So if you want to find out what meditation is, you have to find out what beauty is. Beauty in the face, the beauty of ( right) action, the beauty of behaviour, conduct, the inward beauty, the beauty of the way you walk, the way you talk, the way you gesture, all that is ( part of inner ?) beauty. And without having that (inner quality ?) , meditation becomes merely an escape, a compensation, a meaningless action.

And there is (inner) beauty in frugality, there is beauty in the great austerity of a mind that has (inner) order. Order comes when you understand the whole disorder in which you live, and out of that disorder comes naturally order, which is virtue.
Therefore there is (in meditation this sense of inner ?) order, which is the (inner) beauty of love, the beauty of compassion. The ( living ?) silence of a quiet mind is the essence of that beauty. And because it is silent and because it is not the plaything of thought, then in that silence there comes (a visitation of ?) 'That' which is indestructible, which is sacred. And in the coming of That which Is Sacred your life becomes sacred, your everyday relationship becomes sacred, everything becomes sacred because you have touched 'that' thing which is sacred.

And then we have also to find out in meditation if there is something Eternal, timeless; which means can the mind come upon or 'see' (have the inner vision of ?) That Which Is from everlasting to everlasting? Which means can the (meditating ?) mind be without the past, without the present, without the future? Can that mind be in (an inner state of ?) absolute no-thingness? Don't be frightened of that word. Because it (the mind is) is empty it has got vast (inwardly open ?) space. Have you ever observed in your own mind if you have any ( free inner) space at all there? Or is everything crowded by your ( eveyday) worries, by your 'hopes of self-achievement', by your knowledge, by your ambitions, fears, by your anxieties, your pettiness ? And how can such a mind understand, or be in that state of being that has that enormous (inner) space? Space is always enormous.

A mind that has no (free inner) Space in its everyday life cannot possibly come upon That which is Eternal, which is Timeless. And that is why ( the self-knowing aspect of ?) meditation becomes extraordinarily important: the meditation of which we are talking about transforms the ( inner quality of the ?) mind. And it is only such a mind that is the religious mind. And it is only such a religious mind can bring about a different culture, a different way of life, different relationship, a sense of sacredness and therefore great beauty and honesty. All this comes naturally, without inner effortc, without (endless) conflicts .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Dec 2016 #502
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

Hello John, this time I have saved your post before you deleted it...as sooner or later I had something to reply or rather add to it..

john: The way I'm seeing it, Dan, is
that all this process of
self-understanding is in itself of a
transformational nature- as you are
going along, some causes of 'personal'
sorrows are seen as false ( for
instance, do I suffer for not being in
Trump's luxurious residences ? The
answer is a definite 'No'. Do I regret
for not being young anymore and doing
lots of silly things ? No, again.
Would I rather be in other person's
shoes ? No.

Yes it is of transformational nature, I would add as a side effect so not as a goal, for me.
Again "for me", thought has not the ability to find out the real causes of any suffering-sorrow, this is what my 40 years experience on it says with a 100% ratio..of course thought will find plenty results of possible roots out of analysing what it can analyse like any psycho bla blab will too but for good money, but as it has no access to its own deeper unconscious levels where are stored all unsolved problems roots of what causes a signal to be sent to us that we call pain because it has to increase itself that much as otherwise we ignore it, nevertheless it remains too limited to find out possible roots so it will only find something in its own too limited superficiality..this is my own experience...I may think that the state of the world is what causes my pity full life, when it may be not at all the case is what I am implying...etc

> John:So, as the desire for all these

(apparently !) gratifying achievements
is getting 'quenched', the same energy
is recycled in terms of my present
quality of being. So, as this present
quality of being is getting more
integrated , therefore less
frustrated, there is no much inner
insufficiency and frustration left ,
so the "motivation of sorrow" is
dwindling too. The same energy is
recycled and integrated into a
'passionate' (voir 'compassionate')
energy...QED**

Well this is because what we call sorrow is not experimentally and directly so understood to some sufficient extend, one only notices it when it is over the top but not at its very beginning when it is still a quite "gentle" warning saying: wait there is something wrong here!! , which theoretically if it is tackle at such early time implies that there is no pain or suffering as we know it ...

When one does nothing proper about it , well as soon as it is not that high for some reasons, by comparison we feel OK or even better for some time then again we ll eventually drown into it then feel better etc

when the energy k mentions is there, there is no sorrow , no fear and absolute contentment...I know it by own experiment...the contentment directly is there because the Source is there.

this takes over thought's dictatorship and pushes it where it vitally belongs to...but this is not my case anymore, nor do I know someone surrounded by this energy, it does not mean that there is no one in that case of course. I am sure there are somewhere people on that wavelength ....

But the point here is do we tackle sorrow somehow to be discovered by oneself or not ?..the global answer is : no we do not tackle it, we get rid of it by any possible means ! but as it is the state of thought-me, this won't happen this way..

So this energy taming the "evil" thinking process is not there, what is left ? thought seeking a way out of its misery by all means....not knowing what its misery's roots are..so back to analysing...thought hates sorrow so by all means will try to get rid of it...thought hates itself without knowing it in fact, so it hates life as it is living it !!

there is no such thing as sorrow on one hand and thought on the other hand, it is one item and one of the "purpose" of such unbearable on purpose "cross" is to unify what had been split up by the action of the analytical process in the process of analysing, the observer is the observed etc....analysing is vital in a very specific field only, anywhere else out of this very specific field it is sending a signal that we do not understand at all, and worse that we want to go away without letting it do its job... nor know that it is a helper ...all this means that "something" unknown to us is there which knows the right path for us, but we can know it is real when it works..

*> John : As for the global suffering of

mankind, it is still there, part of
our shared consciousness, but the
'attitude' to it is changing when I
start doing something 'positive'
regarding it- even the smallest
'humane' act- a smile, a meditation,
a significant thing I'm learning and
sharing with others. And I believe
that even K was suggesting somewhere (
in private ?) that this collective
energy of sorrow can be also
'recycled', purified and/or redeemed
(in the meditation context, I presume
?)*

Well we do not have the same approach about sorrow, since the beginning of our talks here, and this is fine for me. I cannot do anything so far about any global suffering is what I understand since not long ago, as it seems that it will be solved one by one...what can be done is at a personal level only..then yes why not smile ,share and all of it at all even smallest humane action indeed.. ,yes this will be done spontaneously so genuinely..and that is already something "positive" as you say ..

This process of sorrow to be left untouched by thought must be more powerful than thought, but at the same time it cannot be mechanical for some reason I have seen but are quite impossible to be put in words but basically thought is THE only one which must decide under the weight of its own "sins" so pain, to go that way so to end its leadership WILLINGLY whatever takes place.. it is an absolute yield made by thought itself..so it is absolutely vital in the process, it is the one which must renounce to its power..somehow !!!...then one sees moment by moments what takes place...any hope will again ruin all this...as in fact this means that thought is back again as a very powerful leader of the brain..ready again to make it worse...this is where we may see the possible non existence of such guy as Jesus, when he supposedly fall many times carrying his crossed, so his sorrow and pain... but this is not important just casual thinking which came to me

.. and of course as you know well, it can produce disasters too if we resist it meaning escape it, this includes facing it..because then our life remains a split up one , separated in two in all fields so including where it must not be that way, with a me at the centre, all this done by thought same for one as it does on the planet ...this process whatever it is called works by reunifying what was split up by thought in fields where one must absolutely not do that...

As to meditation, well I still do not know what that is really, but again it is more than fine with me as well....but I must say,as I told you before that the word itself is quite repulsive to me like many others (heart,love,etc etc) , so of course this does not help ...

Then from there something else may take place, in fact it will somehow...changes , some are radical ,are taking place by themselves and in my view they seem to be unpredictable would you see that too ?

cheers

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Wed, 07 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Dec 2016 #503
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 19 posts in this forum Offline

Daniel Paul. wrote:
Yes it is of transformational nature, I would add as a side effect so not as a goal, for me.
Again "for me", thought has not the ability to find out the real causes of any suffering-sorrow, this is what my 40 years experience on it says with a 100% ratio

self-understanding is not of transformational nature. There is nothing to transform. All (seeming) change is only superficial exchange of garments of conditioning. It is still within the same old pattern of thought. Truth lies in a completely different direction, if you break away from the pattern of thought. And suffering is within the pattern, it is created by thought. Suffering is the other side of the coin of acquisitiveness. They both are the threads by which the pattern is woven.
Any search by thought for the cause of suffering is escaping from suffering and does not solve the cause, rather it strengtens the suffering. You need to see that thought is creating suffering. By you very thinking that you suffer you suffer, by your very thinking of being lonely you are lonely. Suffering is only you self-image of you suffering, observer creating the illusion of being different from suffering. You need to see it in the now, not in the past, not in the future, a not create another escape from the "seeing"
Remember K when he says "no accepting, no condemning". This attitude is the key and is very difficult to understand. Why should you accept anything, why should you condemn anything? Accepting and condemning are based on choice, on conditioning, they are the observer which is past...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Dec 2016 #504
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 12 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks to all for posting - helping each others to fullfill their own self fullfilling prophecies. It remindsme especially on once upon a time...
http://www.jimhull.com/Krishnamurti.html
Cheerio. ...and william brown, if you are here to read: i am with you, my old friend. ...and greets to joe, who teached me the differance in his own special way the difference between a dot and a period.;)

http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/from-darkn...

(anyway, i wish i could spare me the time at the KFA forum;)

This post was last updated by Richard Lewis Wed, 07 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Dec 2016 #505
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 150 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Dan, John, all...

That is a grim picture you paint Dan and it is the way it seems things have gone and are going. For me this morning, a bit of light...I posted this on another forum earlier:

'I think that we have to ultimately realize that we are in our essence 'awareness'. And in that realization, there is nothing of the personal. The personal comes and goes, changes, that is not what we are. Turning one's 'face to the eternal' is realizing that we are in essence, 'awareness'. Only a deep realization of that connection, that reality, can bring about an end to Man's suffering, conflict, confusion and despair'.

In a million or five million years from now, what significance will any of this have? There were other hominids here with us in the beginning all gone now...who knows what they were up to. Obviously we don't belong psychologically trapped in time. Especially the tiny amount of 'time' we get to walk around here. No I saw this A.M. that we have to 'hitch our wagon' to the stars and then some: to Eternity and to Creation. It's the only thing that makes sense. Thought-time is always, inevitably going to lead to fear and misery no matter how good you have it. (Can be offset by pharmaceuticals but that's no solution.) The 'solution' is in realizing what we are 'not' because we cannot 'grasp' the other because it is what we are. All of us are that. It is 'lawful' that we act in the brutal, greedy, violent ways that we do because without the deep realization that we are 'nothing', our fears are always there in the background defending a 'security' that is only 'skin-deep'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 09 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Dec 2016 #506
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 12 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks, Dan for excellent comment in which i cannotdistinguish which part of text is from k and which yours...;)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Dec 2016 #507
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 150 posts in this forum Offline

Richard Lewis wrote:
Thanks, Dan for excellent comment in which i cannotdistinguish which part of text is from k and which yours...;)

All from 'me' however, it was K.'s conversation with Terrance Stamp that introduced the idea that what we are in essence is 'awareness'. That was years ago I think, but it stuck with me and somehow made more and more 'sense'. This morning I could see in a way that anything short of an 'understanding' that didn't include 'everything' was going to always 'run into conflict'. The 'blissful ignorance'' of the animals is not open to us...our reality, I think is in the eternal. We just can't 'know' it.;-)

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Dec 2016 #508
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

Is there a time-free dimension of insightful perception ? ( an experientially friendly editing of K's last serious dialogue)

PJ: It seems to me that all (the major psychological ) problems of the human brain are born of time.

K: Are born from the (psychological ?) process of time, the (virtual ?) time of becoming something. ‘I am this, I will be that.’ Now, my question is: Is there another (dimension of ?) time outside this ( outward ?) movement which we know and call time? That is, is there a time of non-movement?
Let us go slowly into this. Time as we know it is (associated with ?) movement. The gap between one action and another, between one understanding and another, is time.
The whole (mental ?) movement from the past to the present to the future is generally acknowledged as (psychological ) time. The interval between seeing something, thinking about it and acting is time. And I question whether there is a (different dimension of ?) time which doesn’t belong to this category at all.

PJ: This (dimension of ?) ‘time’ that does not belong to the category of movement, does it belong to the category of matter?

K: Matter as I understand it, is ( some kind of ?) solidified energy; matter is manifested energy. The body is manifested energy.

PJ: You see, sir, the brain is ( living ?) matter. Now, in that matterial (structure of the brain) evolution must exist.

K: Of course. We were monkeys at one time. Gradually, through a million years of evolution, we became Homo sapiens—what we are now.

PJ: You accept that the brain is matter. Therefore you must accept that evolution is inherent in the brain itself, because it is matter: there is the memory 'content' (of all our evolutionary past ?) stored in the brain cells.

K: Yes, and this gathering of memory, knowledge, experience (is manifested psychologically ) ?) as (self-) becoming, as accumulating more knowledge—( the whole mentality of ?) advancing more and more...

PJ: And becoming better. So we apply the (physical) process of evolution which exists in the brain to the (psychological) content in the brain. My question is: Is this content of the brain which is nothing but a gathering of experiences and knowledge, identical with the nature of the brain itself? You see, we all know that ( psychologically -wise ?) becoming is illusion. That is very simple to understand. But you asked : Is there another (dimension of ?) time which doesn’t belong to these (material) categories?

K: That’s what I want to inquire into. Is there an (inner dimension of ?) time which is not manifest?

PJ: When you say that it is not the outcome of (material)manifestation, why do you then use the word ‘time’?

K: I have no other word for the moment.

SP: Are you saying that the very Ground from which any manifestation arises is (has ?) another (dimension of ?) time?

K: I am inquiring into that, (since) Love is not of time.

PJ: You see, forgive me for saying so, sir, the moment you use the words ‘love is not of time ’, it is an absolute statement. And with absolute statements, no discussion is possible.

K: Pupul, that’s rather an unfair statement. We are trying to find out what ( the timeless dimension of ?) Eternity is. We are trying to find out an (inner dimension of ?) Reality which is not of time. We know that what is mortal grows and dies. We are asking whether there is a state (of consciousness ?) or an (inner) movement which is beyond time. Do you understand? Is there a Timeless activity (of Creation ?) which is infinite and measureless? You see, we are using words to measure (or describe ?) the immeasurable, but That which is not measurable is not of time.

PJ: We know 'time' as the (mental ) movement of the past projecting itself into the future. Now, what is the (nature of the ?) perception of that (Timeless ?) instant which is the only Reality?

K: Wait. Let us examine the ‘I must do’, ‘I will become’. That future is the past modifying itself, and that is the psychological time. Now, there is also a timeless action, a (time-free ?) action which is "perception-action". In this timeless action, there is no (time) interval. Do go slowly, if you want to understand it.

PJ: Before I can even go into this, I want to go into what this movement of the ‘past modifying itself in the present’ is.

K: ( The self-centred process of ?) thought modifies itself and going on (to meet its future ?) .
PJ: But can we examine that instant where this modification takes place?

K: Yes. ( Now ) I am afraid of what might happen tomorrow, but (my projection of ?) 'tomorrow' is (implicitey contained ?) both in the 'today' and in the 'yesterday'. (In short?) the 'present', the (temporal) ‘now’, contains the 'past' and the 'future'.

PJ: But an (insightful ?) perception in the present negates both the past and the future.

K: That’s what I am saying. But (such a timeless ) perception requires an inner state without the past. That’s it.

PJ: Yes, so an (insightful ?) perception is obviously the essential element of this perception of the ‘now’.

K: Yes, and that perception is not of ( thought's continuity in ?) time. Because that perception doesn’t contain the past.

PJ: What is this ( timeless ?) ‘now’?

K: The ‘now’ is all time: past time, future time and the present time.

PJ: Now, you see, you can experience (your) past time, and you can experience (your) future time because you project it , but what is the experiencing of the 'now' which (contains ?) ‘all time’?

K: 'You' can’t experience it. Experience implies an 'experiencer' who is experiencing. The experiencer is of time.

PJ: Therefore when you say that the ‘now’ contains the past and the future, how do you contact it? How do I come to this ‘now’ of existence?

K: 'You' cannot come to it. Your brain is conditioned to knowledge, is conditioned to measurement in words. But this cannot be approached that way. And this is where the religious inquiry begins.

PJ: Is it possible to probe into this time which is not of this...?

K: Yes, it is possible, but ( its experiential ?) perception means that there is no 'perceiver'. The 'perceiver' is the past and the future. But the 'perception' is now. Therefore it is timeless just as (its) action is timeless.

PJ: Therefore, in that (time-free ?) perception, the past and the future are totally annihilated.

K: Listening is not of time. If I listen, it is now. So attention has no time. And, therefore, there is no linear or horizontal time. I am saying that ( the totally insightful ?) perception is timeless.

PJ: Yes, then is it possible to probe into it ?

K: Yes. I say, yes. But, please, realize what has happened before we probe. The mind has rid itself of all concepts, all theories, all hopes, all desires. It is now in a state of clarity. Right? So in that state, you can inquire non-verbally. That’s what I want to get at.

AC: I don’t understand.

K: Look, sir, I tell you "love is not of time". Can you listen to the (inner ?) truth of it? Do you understand the simple truth of it? "Love is not of time".

PJ: How do you "listen" (to the truth of something ?) ? Without translating everything into memory. In a dialogue with Krishnaji you can listen without thought operating and, yet, comprehend fully what he is saying. It is in listening at such depths that it—the statement, the question, opens up the ‘what is, it tells you; there is no other action.

SP: Pupulji, what is the comprehension of the statement ‘Love is not of time’?

PJ: Like you take a perfume...

K: Wait, wait. Here is a statement K makes: "Love is not of time". Do you understand the beauty, the depth of it? We all have been trained to be highly intellectual. A man who is not so bright, who has not passed exams and secured professorships, will (perhaps easier ?) understand a simple statement like this. At least I think he will.

AC: Sir, how can there be an inquiry into the state of (a totally insightful ?) perception?

K: Sir, just listen, I will show it to you. I tell you, ‘Love is not of time’. To me that’s a tremendous fact; it is the truth. You say, ‘I really don’t understand you’. And I tell you, ‘You won’t understand it the way you want to understand it, because you want to understand it through the intellectual process’. You won’t understand it (in your familiar way ?) because you want to understand it through the intellectual process: through argument, through a reactionary process, a constant back and forth of words. I say that you won’t understand it that way. You might say that that is the only (available ?) instrument you have and I reply, ‘Look, there is a totally different instrument. I will tell you what that (new perceptive ) instrument is if you can put aside the enormous weight of knowledge which is of time’.
Is there a (global ?) comprehension, an insight, an immediate perception without the word, without analysis, without bringing all your knowledge into it? Oh yes, sir.

AC: I understand that, sir.

K: So, if you understand that there is a state ( of meditation ?) where words have lost their meaning, but that there is the pure perception of something, you will probe into that perception.

PJ: Can you discuss that?

K: You can’t discuss it.

AC: Yes. You cannot, for how does one inquire without the word? You see, this state, to me, is the end of inquiry.

K: All right, if it is the 'end of inquiry', do you stop there? The brain—does it see this? Then that’s finished. Do you ( experientially ?) get to the point where the brain says, ‘Yes, that’s finished’?

AC: No, the ( thinking ?) brain doesn’t (get to that perceptive stage ?) . The necessary energy lapses. The brain cannot maintain that (high) level of (integrated intelligent ) energy.

K: On the contrary.

AC: But as long as there is energy, there is no further (need for ) inquiry or question.

K: I agree.

Madras, 28 December 1985

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Dec 2016 #509
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 6 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
AC: But as long as there is energy, there is no further (need for ) inquiry or question.

K: I agree.

Madras, 28 December 1985

That's it yes... no question, no inquiry..

This post was last updated by richard viillar Sat, 10 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Dec 2016 #510
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Hi Dan, John, all...

That is a grim picture you paint Dan and it is the way it seems things have gone and are going. For me this morning, a bit of light...I posted this on another forum earlier:

'I think that we have to ultimately realize that we are in our essence 'awareness'. And in that realization, there is nothing of the personal. The personal comes and goes, changes, that is not what we are. Turning one's 'face to the eternal' is realizing that we are in essence, 'awareness'. Only a deep realization of that connection, that reality, can bring about an end to Man's suffering, conflict, confusion and despair'.

Hello the other Dan! long time no see...t
grim is the state of the full of hope, desires and illusions thinking process, not having reached most of its goal; if it has reached most, it is even in a more difficult position as it perfectly knows that whatever it does is painful and discontentment yet it keeps doing so...

that is what I call a pretty severe mental condition...cherry on the cake, those of us with most mental condition lead us...apart from some exceptions in the present time..

For me now the subject is quite simple in fact...I feel that my life is inadequate so am I going to change all the planet to make it adequate according to me or am I going to see somehow which is unknown about myself at first and leave the state of the planet for now, yet of course aware of it but not according to the MSM liars of course, I think that there is no inner awareness possible if at least I am not even able to grasp the most obvious as a sort of training too, in the outer..

what I say is there is the pain of life, whatever is the root right now does not matter, I have to leave this warning symptom alone then it is going to speak somehow which does not depend on thought so I leave it alone..then instead of being separated from me as I illusory see it using thought, it is now me..whatever this me is...I personally have no problem with this me...

when I say I leave it alone, this is a conscious thought to do so, a desire to do so, the actual real doing will not be of thought and take place as soon as thought stop interfering..

that is the precious property of any pain of any sort as a symptom and a catalyst...

well , I am in a very good lazy mood so that will be it for now...:-)

hope you're good.

cheerio....from Ireland , thee land of the Hobbits...;-)

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sun, 11 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 481 - 510 of 716 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.)