|Wed, 05 Oct 2016||#481|
|John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline||
7TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1968 (reader friendly edited)
WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH ALL THIS ?
Krishnamurti: What shall we talk over together this morning?
Krishnamurti: I wonder if we should take up this question: what is the quality of seeing? And perhaps we could combine it (holistically ?) with the question of authority, discipline, the religious mind and what we shall do when we go back home. I wonder what you call 'home': the ( safety of your ?) house, the little garden if you have one, the accustomed things, the usual worries, the habits, the sexual satisfactions, the office and the daily routine is that what you call 'home'? That is rather an interesting point, isn't it? We'll come to that too.
What is the quality of ( an insightful ?) 'seeing'? First, when we see with our eyes, (the visual perception), do we actually see , or is it the ( active interface of our ?) memory , the images, the conclusions, that 'sees'? When we ask this question: 'what is the quality of the mind that sees', do we merely see with the (physical) eyes, or how do we see the object, which awakens a series of (mental) associations, memories, incidents, pleasure and pain and so on?
When we look at something, either we look with ( our mind's ?) eyes that are very clear, or we look with the (self-protective ?) 'image' ? How do you look at a tree, at a cloud, at the lovely morning-light, or your neighbour, or the politician, or your wife, your husband, your children how do you look at them? Is it possible to look at yourself without any image? Is it possible to see very clearly if there is any form of fear? Is there any clarity of perception when I am thinking conceptually? When one observes one's beliefs, dogmas, conclusions, one realizes that as long as one has those ( mental) 'screens', those hindrances, those distractions, it is not possible to see very clearly. If I 'like' you, or if I 'dislike' you, I can't see very clearly what you are.
( Suppose that ?) one has lived seventy, forty or thirty years and one has gathered lots of concepts, many memories of youth, of the pleasures and the delights of sex, one has struggled, got a job, fought one's way through this (ultra competitive ?) culture from schooldays until now. That is the ( stand-by memory of all my ?) past, that is the 'me'. The 'me', the 'I', is a word with great ( psychologically active ?) content, within a (dynamic mental ) framework which is always reshaping itself. And through that 'frame' (of mind) I look and ( conveniently ?) distort everything.
Questioner: The mind is never quiet.
Krishnamurti: Sir, look, we have posed a question, it is an (experiential) challenge. Before you can answer it, there must be an interval ( a space ?) between the question and the answer. In that interval either the mind is quiet to look, or is ( actively) searching to find out the 'right' answer. So what can one do (in this 'space' ?) ? Be quiet, can't one? This is a new challenge, and if you don't understand the whole implication of it; you can't immediately respond. You say: 'let me look, let me listen to that question very quietly, very attentively', and to listen attentively you must give your heart and mind to listen to that question. And then you say, 'is it possible to die, to put aside everything that one knows?' You don't ( have to ?) die to the technological knowledge, the knowledge which is necessary for practical purposes - for going home, for the office (work) you can't die to that. A scientist can't 'die' (totally let go ?) his vast accumulated knowledge. But we are talking of the ( residual ?) knowledge that one has gathered 'psychologically', which has become a form of ( virtual ?) security, which prevents one from looking (with innocence ?) . Is the question clear?
Let's approach it differently. What is love ? Is love (based on ?) the remembrance of pleasurable things and holding on to them - with its (related ?) resentments, temptations, aggression, defence? What do you say? Is love part of jealousy, hate? Have you gone into the question of 'hate' (of dis-liking ?) someone who has done you harm and you ( love to ?) 'hate' that person? Hate is ( a response of our psycho- ?) memory isn't it? Over five years, or two days ago, someone has done me harm; I remember that hurt, that wrong, and I keep on thinking about it. Hate is the (emotional response of that ?) past (incident) right? And is 'love' (rooted ?) in the past? Is love a thing of the intellect? Don't say 'Oh no, it is not, it is of the heart'. If it is 'of the heart', why is there jealousy, envy, division, separation and so on, which is the outcome of ( a dominating ?) conceptual thought ? So for most of us 'love' is (a sentiment mixed up with ?) pleasure, accumulated by thought, given continuity by thought and when that pleasure becomes thwarted, blocked, it turns into jealousy, hate, aggression, fear and so on which are all part of the structure and nature of thought. And can the mind 'die' to all that?
Suppose you have 'insulted' or 'praised' me: I look at it, I listen to what you say very closely, give attention it may be true, or it may not be true. I also see there may be a motive behind that insult or flattery, and I see the truth of it. Can the mind be awake to all this? The mind cannot be awake to all this if it is 'put to sleep' by its ( comforting memory of the ?) past. So, can one 'let go' ( one's psychological dependency on ?) the 'past' happily, easily, without any struggle, just to 'let it go'?
Questioner: Love is something unknown.
Krishnamurti: Is it? Don't you love your wife or husband, your family? Don't you love your country - the 'country' being the bank account there, the accumulated knowledge, your house, all that don't you 'love' it?
Questioner: That's not 'love', that is contaminated.
Krishnamurti: But don't you like to say 'I love my wife' ? Are we playing games with words? You see, one of the difficulties is, that we don't want to face things as they are. We are so frightened, and also we have no humility to actually see the 'what is' in our life.
Questioner: There is an element of the past in love, one loves someone who is dead as if he were present.
Krishnamurti: This is a very interesting question. Once a lady came to see me whose husband had died some years ago, and she said 'I would like to meet my husband again'. Please listen to this, and I said, 'Which husband do you want to meet? The one who slept with you, the one who went to the office and did what he was told, the one who was frightened? Whom do you want to meet?' (You answer it, please!) Now, our question is: someone is dead, and I love him in the present. What is it you love in that person, in the present? I am not being cruel, I am just looking at facts.
Questioner: You love the memories.
Krishnamurti: Is that it?
Questioner: Beyond all this ( memory stuff ?) we have (access to ?) a 'wider consciousness' (from which) 'something' comes and maybe that is the real thing.
Krishnamurti: Is that the 'real' thing? That through all this (holistic ?) perception something comes to us? Maybe, Sir.
Questioner: Isn't it possible to have a creative ( psychic ?) relationship with someone who is dead, because he or she is seen without the conflict of the living relationship?
Krishnamurti: Is it? I didn't have it when he was living, but now I am going to bring about a 'creative relationship' with him - how sad it all is, isn't it? We live ( safely asleep ? ) in 'ideas', ( mental) concepts, formulas, and we don't know what love is.
Questioner: It seems to me, that when we say we 'love', unconsciously we are considering the ( memories of the ?) past. Our attachment to our wife, our friends, our home and country is to something we know and so we are afraid of the future. We are attached to what we know, because we are afraid (of the unknown ?)
Krishnamurti: That's right. You are saying: my 'love' is ( based on ?) the attachment (on the dependency ?) to my family, to my home, to my precious memories, I am afraid to let go, because in letting go I may find I am lonely, and there is (a subliminal ? ) fear. And so the fear of ( the potential danger of ?) loneliness prevents me from being free from ( my psychologically addictive ?) 'attachment'. I may try to cultivate detachment, which is a clever (mind) trick, because I can't let go of attachment, being afraid of my loneliness, of my emptiness, of my incapacity to look at anything with a quality of freshness. So I cling to everything ( I know) , to my money, to my job, to my beliefs, to my gods, to my experiences, to my family, to my country oh, don't you know all this?
Questioner. There is another question, Sir. The things I cling to, do I really know them, or only think I do?
Krishnamurti: That's right, Sir. I cling to my house, I am attached to that house I am ( the memory of ?) that house! So when you are attached to your furniture - my God! just think of it! - you 'are' the furniture, you 'are' the pictures, you 'are' the (memory of all the ?) things that you are getting attached to, and ( spiritually ?) that is worthless.
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 06 Oct 2016||#482|
|John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline||
1ST PUBLIC K DIALOGUE SAANEN 1967 (reader friendly edited)
A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO 'ANGER' MANAGEMENT
K: I think we ought to be clear what these so-called discussions are. They are a dialogue, a form of conversing seriously together about problems, going into them not only analytically, carefully, but also seeing ( experientially ?) the whole structure of each problem: not merely the details of it, but its whole form and content. As this is an (open ?) dialogue between you and the speaker, we ought to be 'vulnerable' to everything that is said, not rejecting anything; so that one begins to be very sensitive, alert to the ( inwardness of the ?) problem itself. If this is somewhat clear, what shall we talk about?
Questioner (1): I don't quite understand the phrase, 'a light onto yourself' ; and also 'having no challenge' related to experience.
Questioner (2): I wonder what is the 'right' use of our f( mental) aculties? You said during the last conference that even art and science as well as financial or political activities may be an 'escape'. What can we do with our faculties which won't be an escape from actual life itself?
Questioner (3): To understand violence one has to understand also the fact of loneliness with its hopes and fears could we go into this?
Questioner (4): Could we discuss the problem of having a goal in life, an aim and purpose and not being conditioned by it?
Questioner (5): What is 'right action'?
Questioner (6): Could you go into the question of identification with regard to feeding the ego?
Questioner (7): What is thinking?
Questioner (8): Could we have a purpose in life without being conditioned?
Questioner (9): My question is also about motive - there is a school which is being started in Santa Barbara and I have a problem - about the motivation of being completely passive. I don't do anything; I just respond to the immediate situation - but there is the question of one's motive.
Krishnamurti: So which of these problems that have been raised shall we take up and go into completely?
Questioner (10): Maybe we can discuss what are the 'fundamental' questions?
Krishnamurti: That's what I was going to ask. What is a fundamental question? For instance, (such ) a 'fundamental' question is this question of violence (and is related to) the problem of being ( inwardly) vulnerable because any form of (psychological ?) resistance is ( also a form of ) violence. We see so much violence in the world today and I want to understand it. Are the roots of this violence 'out there', or ( 'in) here'? If they are ('in) here', then we are questioning violence in itself, as it is ( occuring ?) in me, and which expresses itself outwardly? Therefore, I am (inwardly) vulnerable to discover ( for myself) the truth of it. But if I'm merely examining the (ongoing ) violence outside me, the question becomes of academic interest. So when we put all these questions, are we relating them to ( what we see within ?) ourselves?
Questioner: So, instead of asking the ( academical ) question 'what is violence?', the fundamental (experiential ?) question is 'why am I violent?'
Krishnamurti: It comes to the same thing, Sir. Why am I violent and do I know the nature of violence, do I know what is implied in that violence?Therefore, if we are (experientially ?) discussing violence I must be completely vulnerable (inwardly) , I must 'expose myself to myself' and I must be in a state of mind which demands that I see this thing right to the end, and therefore be vulnerable right through: at no point do I stop and say, I won't go any further. If we could so discuss, go into this, it would be really extraordinary. So shall we take ( this question of ?) violence? Yes?
(Chorus of approvals) Now, 'why' do you want to enter into that subject?
Questioner : Because I realise that we are violent, I am violent.
Questioner: Hostility ?
Krishnamurti: I know, Sir, aggressiveness. But how do you know when you are violent?
Questioner: When I can't get what I want ?
Krishnamurti: Sir, just a minute, let's begin very 'simply' - we all know ( the reaction of ?) 'anger' or 'irritation'. Would you call 'anger' (a reaction of our innate ?) violence? You would, wouldn't you? Now, there is 'righteous' anger and 'unrighteous' anger. When my wife or sister is attacked I'm 'righteously' angry; when my property is taken away from me I'm 'righteously' angry, when my ideas, my principles, my habits, are attacked I am ( getting really ?) angry. So, when we talk about anger is there a 'righteous' anger, or is there only anger? ( Experientially wise ?) there is only anger; not 'righteous' or `unrighteous' anger - right? We have all experienced that; you say something to me which I don't like and I get angry; or, you take away the money, the substance on which I have lived, I get angry; or, my wife runs away with you and I get jealous - that jealousy is 'righteous', because ( I like to think that ?) she is my property. (Laughter) No, no, Sirs, please, don't brush it away by laughing. That is justified legally and morally, in the Church and so on. That is justified. To kill for my country is also justified legally. So, when we are talking about anger, which is a part of violence, do we look at anger in terms of righteous and unrighteous anger, or do I see my anger (as an inherited violent response ?) Now, how do I look at anger?
Questioner : It's (a part of ?) me.
Krishnamurti: But how do you 'feel' about it?
Questioner: I want to protect the 'me' and what I think it belongs to me....
Krishnamurti: Therefore, it is 'righteous' ?
Questioner: It is never righteous, but it is.
Krishnamurti: The moment I protect an idea, the family, the country, the belief, the dogma, the thing that I hold - as long as I (try to) protect it, that very protection indicates ( a potential ?) anger. I don't know if you see this?
Questioner: My violence is ( implicit in) the energy to get something.
Krishnamurti: Yes Sir. Violence is part of this drive to acquire. But for the moment, Sir, we are trying to go into this ( experiential ?) question of 'anger' which is part of ( our animal heritage of ?) violence. How do I regard anger? How do you?
Questioner: Sir, how can I look ( experientially ) at anger when I'm not angry? otherwise it's part of memory....
Krishnamurti: The questioner says, 'at the present moment I am not angry, when I look at anger it is a memory which I have had and I look at that'. That's good enough (for 'in class' purposes ?) . Of course at the present moment your property is not threatened, your wife is not taken away...but wait a minute, you'll get angry presently if I tackle something which you hold on to? - an idea, a belief, a dogma, or if you take ( psychedelic ?) drugs, and I say to you, 'how childish it is', you will be annoyed. Now, are you become aware of (this reaction of ) anger the moment after? - or at the very moment you are (getting) angry?
Questioner: The moment after! I can't feel it in the moment, but I can't stop it.
Krishnamurti: No, please, please look at it, do let's consider before we answer it. We are discussing anger an (elementary) part of this enormous complex thing called violence; how do I look at that anger? Do I look at it with my eyes which say, ' I am justified in being angry' or, do I look at that ( reaction of ) anger by 'condemning' it?
Questioner: Usually I condemn it, but sometimes I don't- it depends on my state of mind ...
Krishnamurti: No, no Madame, it is not about your 'state of mind'. Here is an enormous ( violence related) problem: 'anger'; how do you look at it, how do you consider it? Can you look at it completely 'objectively'? - which means you neither justify it, nor condemn it? Can you do that?
Questioner: Why not just 'be angry'?
Krishnamurti: All right, I 'am' angry. Being angry how do I regard it?
Questioner: At the very moment of anger I do not regard it in any way.
Krishnamurti: Right Sir. That's understood. At the moment of anger, you are in it, you can't look at it (objectively) . But the moment after what is your position?
Questioner: Sir, I think the first reaction is that one wonders about it and then you fall into the temptation to analyse it and (intellectually) look at the problem and its indications. But first you wonder about it.
Krishnamurti: Wait. You wonder about it, which means you want to know why it has come, but what is the motive of your (analytical) examination of that anger?
Questioner: Because it's an uncomfortable (disturbing) feeling.
Krishnamurti: So, you don't like it, therefore you ( subliminally ?) condemn it.
Questioner: Analysis is condemnation ?
Krishnamurti: Of course it is.
Questioner: And that brings up a 'problem' then.
Krishnamurti: Wait, Sir, go step by step into it. So if your attitude towards anger is that of (a subliminal dislike or ?) condemnation, you cannot look at anger objectively, which means (you're not) being ( inwardly open and ?) 'vulnerable' to it.
Questioner: Yes, that's the problem.
Krishnamurti: Now, how will you (experientially ?) understand anger if you look at it objectively, which means, neither condemning it nor justifying it?
Questioner: But that means 'going with it'.
Krishnamurti: Ah, wait. Can I (really) look at you if I'm antagonistic to you? I can't. Or, if you say, 'what a marvellous chap you are', I can't either. So, I must look at you with a certain ( quality of non-personal ?) care in which neither of these two things are involved. Now in the same way can I look at ( that spontaneous reaction of ?) anger, neither justifying it nor condemning it? Which means I am (inwardly) vulnerable to that problem - you understand Sir? - in that there is no ( mental 'fire-wall' ?) protection, I don't resist it, I am watching this extraordinary phenomenon called 'anger' without any ( mental) reaction to it. You understand Sir?
Questioner: I hear your words but I don't really see what you're driving at.
Krishnamurti: I am just saying it is impossible to (experientially ?) understand ( the violent reaction of ?) anger if I justify it or condemn it, that's all.
Questioner: (In French) Is it possible to consider anger without any motive if ( one is culturally conditioned ?) to justify or condemn ?
Krishnamurti: Can we put away this (all controlling ?) feeling of justification or condemnation when we look at your reaction of anger?
Questioner: Anger is not objective and therefore I can't look at anger objectively.
Krishnamurti: Can't I look at my ( spontaneous reaction of ?) anger without identifying with it ( or with the controller of it?) - which means justifying it or condemning it, which means resisting it? I don't see how you're going to go (experientially) into the deeper issues when you don't understand this very simple fact. To comprehend something (inwardly) I must look at it completely 'dispassionately' - right?
Questioner: It is impossible at the very moment when we're angry.
Krishnamurti: At the moment of anger you're lost (out there ?) , but the moment after, or when you are (mentally) preparing yourself not to be angry in the future.
Questioner: Sir, I don't think we know what it means to look at something 'dispassionately'...
Krishnamurti: We're going to go into ( the doingness of ?) it, Sir. If I cannot look at myself dispassionately, I can't go beyond that.
Questioner: How can you look at a passionate state... 'dispassionately'?
Krishnamurti: Without identifying yourself with it, or ( with the controlling 'entity' who is ?) condemning it. But, Sir, you haven't even taken the first ( experiential) step - "to look (non-verbally ?) ". I want to understand myself, 'myself' being a very complex entity - a living thing, not a dead thing! So, I have to learn ( how ?) to look at myself. To ( really ) look at a child I must look at him with care, with affection; not the (personalised ?) affection which says, 'he's my baby'. In the same way I have to look at myself; and part of 'myself' is this ( psychological heritage of ?) violence; and anger is ( part ) of this violence. I say, now that I am angry - can I look at it?
Krishnamurti: Sir, when you say, that the mind cannot look at itself you have stopped all enquiry, you have blocked yourself.
Questioner: (In French) We know anger, but are afraid of (facing) it. Is not anger part of ( the same violent heritage as ? ) fear?
Krishnamurti: Of course, but that's not the problem. Now, let's begin all over again (from a different angle ?) . Have you looked at a tree or a cloud without condemning it or accepting it? Passing by, have you stopped and looked at a tree or a cloud without any movement of thought? Have you? Well, apparently you haven't. I want to understand the beauty, the movement of the tree, I want to look at it. It's outside me so I can look at it (objectively) , it doesn't interfere with my thoughts, with my wife, with my husband, with my property - it is just there! So I can look at it quite objectively, can't I? Now, how do I (actually) look at that tree? Do I look at it with all my thoughts going on , chattering, or, when I do look at that tree, my mind is quiet, because that tree is extraordinarily beautiful ? What do you do?
Questioner: Nothing, but looking.
Krishnamurti: Which means what? In that pure watching there is neither condemnation nor justification, is there? Which means, no interference of ( your all-controlling ?) thought - right? Now, to look at ( violent reactions such as ?) 'anger' is much more difficult, isn't it, because it is 'subjective' ( very personal ?) it affects (emotionally) you.
Questioner: How can I be 'objective' to my condemnation and my justification?
Krishnamurti: When you realize that they 'interfere' when you are looking at (the unfolding of) anger. When I'm concerned with anger and trying to understand it, justification and condemnation interfere with that study of it, therefore I have to put it away (on hold ?).
Questioner: I can't.
Krishnamurti: You can't because to you the ( experiential) study of anger is not (prioritarily ?) important; to me it is enormously important. Therefore as it is so important, these 'minor' ( interfering ?) things don't matter. Sir, if I want to understand ( how to have ?) affection, love (in my heart ?). I must give my whole being to it, I must study it, I must he familiar with it, I must know every corner of it. And because of my tremendous serious intention and interest in that, everything else becomes 'secondary'. So, when you are studying anger, you're either studying it as an (intellectual) curiosity or you're studying it because you want to understand (the source of ?) this 'violence' that is destroying you - destroying the world. I want to understand it, I want to be free of it, I want to be ( psychologically speaking ?) above and beyond it. Therefore, I'm not interested to condemn or justify it since this reduces it to a personal, petty little affair. Right? Can we proceed?
Questioner: It means we have to have energy ( the inner motivation ?) to look at it.
Krishnamurti: Of course, but you're dissipating that energy when you're condemning it or justifying it.
Questioner: (In French) If I don't see very clearly and deeply that I must consider this problem of violence and anger, and by listening to you talking about it I become serious, am I not merely being (artificially) stimulated by you to be interested?
Krishnamurti: You are right. Am I being (intellectually ) stimulated by the speaker, to be interested in anger or am I really interested in it apart from any stimulation? You see how little we have advanced? We have spent an hour over something very simple (providing that one has the serious motivation ?) . That is, I can only look at anger when I'm really passionately interested to find out if it is possible to go beyond it. But apparently you're not ( really) interested in it.
Questioner: In all the questions during the last hour, it appears that none of us is as 'serious' as you are. That makes it rather hopeless...
Krishnamurti: It's up to you, Sirs! You mean to say you are not interested in (stopping the ?) war?
Questioner: ...not the way you are.
Krishnamurti: Don't you want to stop ( the psychological cause of all ?) wars, don't you want to stop ( the global tide of vulgarity and ?) violence? Of course you say you do. But how much vitality, what energy, what will you give to it?
Questioner: Would you discuss the role of ( an authentic ?) meditation in relation to anger?
Krishnamurti: We are 'doing' that Sir. We are really 'meditating' about anger.
Questioner: Maybe we should discuss ( the nature of our ?) communication ?
Krishnamurti: Of course, of course. So, could we ( take a detour and ?) talk over for a while what (a creative ?) communication means. You may be tremendously interested to resolve this problem of violence, but I'm not. I'm casual about the whole thing. How do we 'communicate' with each other? I say to you, 'I love you', and you say 'yes, it's a nice day, isn't it?' and pass by. (No, you laugh. It doesn't mean a thing to you!) When I say, 'I love you', you must listen, you must stop, you must see if I really mean it. Then you can reject whatever you like. But first you must stop, there must be ( a 2-way) communication, there must be a sense of 'togetherness' in understanding the thing.
Questioner: I believe it is a (false) assumption to say that we are not interested.
Krishnamurti: I didn't say that. I said, if you're not interested in ( puting an end to ?) violence, which means your children being 'destroyed', what are you interested in? Are you interested in some abstraction?
Questioner: But we are interested in discussing violence.
Krishnamurti: All right. If you are interested then listen with your heart and mind to find out! So, first I have to learn how to look at anger; I have to learn how to look at my wife, at my husband, at my children; I have to learn how to listen to the politician, I have to learn now - you understand, Sir? I have to learn why I am not objective, why I condemn or justify, I have to learn about it. I can't say, well it's part of my nature. I must know, so I have to tackle the question of learning. What do you think is the state of mind that learns?
Krishnamurti: You don't assume that first I must be silent and then learn. Here is something that you don't know. You don't know how to look at anger, therefore you have to learn, and to learn you have to study why you justify, why you condemn. You condemn and justify because it is part of your social structure, part of your (cultural) inheritance.
Questioner: When I'm angry I see that physics and chemistry are going on inside me.
Krishnamurti: Of course. Chemical changes are taking place when you're angry, but knowing chemical changes are taking place doesn't stop you from anger.
Questioner: So, one has to discover something much more fundamental....
Krishnamurti: Of course, Sir. But to discover something much more fundamental one must have the ( inwardly perceptive ?) capacity to go deeply. If one has a blunt (mental ?) instrument, one can't go deeply. Now what we are doing is to 'sharpen' the instrument, which is your mind. This mind has been made dull by justifying and condemning; if I see that I can only penetrate very deeply when my mind is as sharp as a diamond that can penetrate very deeply, then I (have to ) demand such a mind, not just casually sit back and say, how am I to get it - I want it as I want my next meal. And to have that I must see what makes the mind dull, stupid; what makes the mind dull is this sense of ( self-protective ) invulnerability which has built walls round itself; part of the wall is the condemnation and justification. If the mind can be rid of that, then I can look, study, penetrate.
Questioner: (In French) I feel myself responsible for violence, but I'm surprised that many people here don't seem to feel it.
Krishnamurti: What am I to do, Sir? I don't care whether they take it seriously or not. I take it seriously; that's enough. To me, as a human being, I feel this very strongly, and that's all; what more can I do? I will see that in myself I am not violent. I can't just tell you or somebody else: 'don't be violent'. Is has no meaning, unless you yourself want (or see the necessity of ?) it
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 07 Oct 2016||#483|
|John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline||
SECOND K DIALOGUE SAANEN 1967 (reader friendly edited)
GOING BEYOND CONDITIONING
K: Yesterday we were saying that we would go to the very end of this problem of violence. To do that we have to be quite serious and put our mind and heart into it so that when we do analyse the nature of violence we are not only examining it intellectually, but also (experientially ?) seeing violence in our selves - as aggressivity, anger, hate, enmity and so on. And becoming aware of that violence in oneself, to see if it is at all possible to go above and beyond it and never come back to it again, never in any form be violent in oneself.
Questioner: There seems to be (some inconsistency in your approach ?). You speak of violence and of being aware of it without any movement of the mind searching for an explanation. Now on the contrary you say, let's analyse violence.
Krishnamurti: We said, we have not only to analyse the structure and nature of violence but in the very process of analysing we shall perhaps come upon that state of mind which is totally aware of the whole problem (of its inherited violence ?) . I cannot get rid (radically ?) of my violence through analysis. I could or modify it slightly, live a little more quietly with a little more affection; but (psycho-) analysis, whether with the professional or through oneself will not lead anywhere. When one realizes that this ( dualistic ?) process of analysis has no end and has no meaning, then perhaps one will have a mind that begins to be totally aware of the whole problem.
Questioner: So, you talk of 'not analysing' ?
Krishnamurti: If I do not know how to look (inwardly) , I cannot come upon the other. I cannot have this 'total' perception. It is extremely arduous to realize that analysis in any form doesn't lead anywhere. But I must know how to analyse (properly ?) since in the very process of 'analysis' ( self-introspection ?) my mind becomes extraordinarily sharp, and it is that quality of sharpness, attention, seriousness that will ( hopefully ?) give a total perception. You see, we are so eager to see ( to understand and transcend ?) the whole thing in one glance. But we haven't the (mind's?) eyes (open ?) to look. It is only possible to have that ( perceptive inner) clarity if I can see the detail and then 'jump' (to a 'holistic' insight ?) .
Questioner (1): I am very conscious of my share of responsibility in this disintegrating world. The rich have even more responsibility for this disintegration. There are here rich people who have listened to you, some of them for forty years; they are still more responsible. The presence in this tent of such persons represents a 'static force' in contradiction to what you have been saying for forty years. There is an urgent need for each one of us to understand what you are saying, because of this disintegration. But whose role should it be to denounce vigorously the (psycho-?) 'sabotage' which this static force constitutes?
Questioner (2): I also have a point. This ( global ?) disintegration is coming very quickly now and perhaps one day we shall not be able to hear you in this tent .
Krishnamurti: From what you say, the 'rich' are using the speaker as a (highly stimulating psycho-?) drug and therefore the whole thing becomes 'static'. I don't know why we are concerned with the 'rich' or the 'poor', or whether somebody is using the speaker to stimulate himself (intellectually ?) and therefore remains static.
We are talking about a human being who is (seeing ?) beyond the ( duality ?) 'individual' and 'society', and how to bring about such an (integrated ?) human mind - that's primarily what we are concerned with: bringing about a radical revolution in the (psyche of ?) human being - whether he is rich or poor - anybody! And if we waste our energy in saying, 'well, why haven't the people who have listened to you for forty years changed?' , it would be a tragedy to the speaker if he was expecting something out of it, expecting people to change, to bring about a different society, a different way of life. If I was expecting it, I would be disappointed, I would feel I had not done (properly ?) what I started out to do. It doesn't affect me at all! Whether you change or don't change, it's up to you. The blue sky, the hills, the flowers, the birds don't exist for you; they exist for themselves. So let's proceed, Sir, to discuss this matter of (being inwardly free of violence ?) That is the only question we are concerned with; is it possible for me and for you to end violence in yourselves?
Which means ( as an analytical detour, that ?) I must find out for myself what kind of violence there is in me. Is it a violence to 'defend' myself (or the aggressive kind ?) ? The very process of defending and resisting is a ( sublimated ?) form of violence. When a ( 'peaceful' ?) nation says, I will only defend myself , such a concept obviously (involves that on weekends ?) it is preparing to fight. So both 'defence' and 'offence' contain in themselves, ( a subliminal acceptance of ?) violence. That's one form of violence. Then there is a (more intimate ?) form of violence which is anger, in which is involved hate, jealousy, aggressive acquisitiveness, the demand to dominate, to possess; all those are forms of (psychological ?) violence.
Questioner: Is it not a question of the emotions? - one has 'bouts of anger'.
Krishnamurti: Certainly it is related to emotion. Look, you (sucker punch ?) me for whatever reason (I've insulted you). There is an emotion - anger - but my self-centred thought gives to that feeling a 'continuity'. I hate you hereafter and I'm waiting for an opportunity to hurt you back, which is all the process of ( our dualistic ?) thinking.
Questioner: (In French) Is it not rather the relationship of the emotions?
Krishnamurti: That's only a part of it. Take this whole thing - emotion, thought, the (mental) retaining in memory; and from that memory, (including my ?) conditioned ( 'thoughtful' ?) responses, I act. I am a Catholic, a Communist, I have been conditioned (to think ?) that way and if anybody questions that (ideology) , I get angry, which is an emotional response according to my ( cultural) conditioning.
But here we're saying, can one go to the very roots of our violence and be free of it? Otherwise we are not human beings, we shall live everlastingly in a ('war zone' relationship ?) with each other. But if you say there might be a different way of living, there might be a different process of responding to life, then we can discuss, then we shall be able to 'communicate' with each other.
Questioner (1): In discussing violence we will soon arrive at the central problem, which is how to look without the interference of thought. I think all problems are fragmentations, but there is a central problem. So why are you speaking about violence and not the 'central' problem, how to look at anything?
Krishnamurti: Now, how do I look at my violence (based) conditioning without any distortion? The problem is quite complex since my mind has been for centuries shaped ( to think and act within the safe boundaries of ?) a particular culture, a particular society, and is held within a narrow pattern of the 'me' (self-centred thinking?) . So, first are you and I aware of our (cultural ?) conditioning - ( Eg: ) as a 'Hindu', living abroad, living in a culture which is totality foreign to the Indian culture, brought up along certain ( TS ?) lines as a 'Messiah', and all the rest of it? (I'm doing it as a mirror in which you're actually looking at your own conditioning ) Can you become aware of your conditioning, can you become conscious of it? Look, Sir, as a Hindu Brahmin, from childhood it was said, 'don't kill even a fly, don't say an (evil) word against another, don't be aggressive' - that has conditioned the mind from childhood. And if it is merely a (culturally) conditioned response which says 'don't be violent' then it is another form of (self-imposed ?) violence. You follow? It's like a Catholic saying there is a Saviour and only this Saviour can save him. That's a 'conditioned' response, it has no ( spiritual ?) meaning whatsoever. But this mind which from childhood has been told, 'don't kill, don't hurt, because next life you'll pay for it, therefore behave, be gentle, be kind', can that mind become aware of its own ( cultural ?) conditioning - and then move further?
Questioner: To be without any conditioning, isn't that a kind of death (oblivion ) ?
Krishnamurti: How do you know it means death (oblivion ) ? It might mean a most extraordinary way of living.
Questioner: A (psychological ?) kind of death.
Krishnamurti: But, Sir, I don't know. I won't say it is death. First, my questions is - can I, can you, become aware of your (cultural) conditioning?
Questioner: (In French) One cannot, it is an essential part of ( our survival oriented ?) living.
Krishnamurti: Sir, look. We are conditioned by the climate, by the food we eat, by the newspapers we read, by all our everyday influences and experiences. We are conditioned! Now, can I become aware of that conditioning: just one conditioning?
Questioner: (In French) One can begin with this (sense of cultural ?) certitude. So, I am aware of some of my (cultural) conditioning, but nothing happens.
Krishnamurti: Nothing happens because you don't feel ( the inner aspect ?) that you are caught like a prisoner within four walls of a conditioning. A prisoner ( who is becoming aware of his condition ?) says, 'I am in prison, I want to get out of it!'
Questioner: Sir, I know it is possible to be aware of one's ( cultural ?) conditioning, the state one is in..
Krishnamurti: Look Sir, please, (a) take one ( aspect of this ?) conditioning and (b) become aware of it and (c) see whether you 'enjoy' (living with ) it, or you want to break through all conditioning?
Questioner: Sir, I was aware -to a certain extent- of my conditioning as a Jew during the recent Middle East crisis, and I recall this gave me a mixture of great pleasure and great discomfort.
Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir. When one is becoming aware of one's ( cultural) conditioning, in it there is not only a sense great (security and ?) pleasure, but also - as you say- a great 'discomfort'. Now, do you say, well the pleasure outweighs the discomfort and therefore it's all right. Or, do you say, (this whole situation ) isn't good enough.
Questioner: Something in me says, it isn't good enough.
Krishnamurti: All right, then how far ( inwardly) are you going to go into this question and break it? That is the whole issue. Because most of us are (occasionally ?) aware of our (cultural) conditioning. If one is at all sensitive, thoughtful, earnest, one is aware of one's conditioning, and also of what its ( psychological ?) dangers are. So, how far are you willing to go (experientially ?) into this question of our conditioning (in terms of ?) violence?
Questioner: How far dare any man go in being aware of his conditioning without coming to a 'precipice'?
Krishnamurti: When you come to a ( psychological) 'precipice' you know how dangerous ( slippery ?) your conditioning is. But without coming upon that ( existential ?) 'precipice' you play with ( optimizing ?) your (existing ?) conditioning. So, are you willing to "push the awareness" of your conditioning until you come to that (unknown ?) precipice - when you've got to act! Or, are you merely playing ( games ?) with your conditioning from a safe distance?
Questioner: Most people are not ( deeply) conscious of their conditioning, but are satisfied as they are. They don't see another mode of living, But if we are deeply hurt by circumstances of life as a consequence of our ( ongoing) conditioning, then our ( inward) 'eyes' are opened. But it's a rare event.
Krishnamurti: If you are aware of your conditioning, how far will you go, how deeply, until you come to the point when you've got to act?
Questioner: Why even when seeing a part of my ( self-centred ?) conditioning, I don't see it as a (major existential ?) 'precipice'?
Krishnamurti: That is, you are ( becoming) aware of your own conditioning, but it never comes to the point where you've got to 'act' as when you do when you're confronted with a real danger, as a precipice. Why? Is it that one is (inwardly indolent or ?) lazy?
Krishnamurti: Just wait, Sir. Don't answer so quickly. Is it that one is lazy, that 'laziness' being a lack of ( free ?) energy? Will you lack energy when it is a really dangerous challenge ?
Questioner: If we don't suffer because of our conditioning, we are satisfied. For instance, I feel security in my country.
Krishnamurti: First of all, in becoming aware of my conditioning I don't see what the ( outward consequences ?) of that conditioning are. That's one point. I am a 'nationalist' and I don't see where a (gregarious ?) nationalistic spirit leads to, so ( in the meanwhile ?) I 'enjoy' it, it gives me (both safety and ?) pleasure. But if I saw that the (ultimate) danger of it is a 'war' - I would then act. So, for now, (a) I don't really want to see the danger of it because being a 'nationalist' is an (occasional source of ?) great pleasure; and (b) to 'see the danger' of it I must have ( the motivational ?) energy to go to the very end of it. Why is it that I have no energy? Please stick to that one point.
Questioner: It's also ( perceived as ?) 'dangerous' to stand alone, without a (supporting) group, without being 'attached to' (or belonging to ?) something.
Krishnamurti: Of course, Sir. To 'stand alone', to 'be alone' is ( seen as ?) the most dangerous thing, we'd rather want to 'be with somebody'; but that's a separate point (left for 'homework' ?) .
Questioner: If you really see all the consequences - but we don't really see it that way.
Krishnamurti: That's my point. If we saw that ( our psychological attachment to ?) 'nationalism' is ( eventually) leading to war, to self-destruction - if you saw that (long term ?) 'danger' you would act, wouldn't you? So the question is, you don't 'see' (it as a present danger ?) . Now, what do we mean by this 'seeing' ? I can see 'intellectually' through a thoughtful analysis or examination that the nationalistic spirit does lead to war. Except that in that ( intellectual) 'analysis' there is no emotional content. But when there is an quality of being 'emotionally' (personally ?) involved in my analysis - because it threatens me - then I become vital. So, the question is, what do we mean by (an insightful ?) 'seeing'? Do I see ( sequentially ?) detail by detail and put them all together and then say, well I've seen and so act? Or do I see ( the global danger of ?) my 'nationalistic' conditioning and (its potential ?) results immediately? You follow Sir? It is only when I see something immediately that I can see the ( potential ?) 'danger' - not as a ( linear ?) process of thought, and (sequential ?) analysis. When you 'see' an actual 'precipice' there is an immediate ( call for ?) action. So, (such direct) seeing 'is' ( also the ?) acting. Right? Not, I see something and then create an idea and from that idea act. That's what we are doing. And hence there is a ( time delayed ?) conflict between the idea and action, and therefore that conflict takes away (dissipates ?) your ( total) energy.
Questioner: I've understood that, but....
Questioner: It is easy to see the danger of (getting hooked on ?) 'nationalism', but it is more difficult to see the danger of 'money'...
Krishnamurti: ( Getting 'hooked on' ?) 'money' is equally dangerous. But I see this (still deeper ?) conditioning as an 'idea'. I have (formed an image ?) about my cultural conditioning, and the ( action-related ?) 'idea' being "I must get free of my conditioning". With that ( 'image' based ?) idea I'm getting aware of my conditioning. So, what 'sees' then is not the actual seeing with (a total ?) attention, but an idea sees another idea. Right? And therefore there is no (immediate) action.
So, (to recap:) How (intimately ?) do I see my conditioning? How am I becoming aware of it? Are you aware of it as you are aware now that it is raining? Raining is a 'fact' actuality taking place, it's not an idea. It is actually raining at this moment. You may not like it, you may be saying, how am I going to get my car out (of the mud ?) ; but the fact is it 'is' raining. Now, ( if and ?) when you see your ( self-centred ?) conditioning do you see it as a fact, as you see it is raining?
Questioner: The difference is that in one case the sensory impression has an overriding urgency (as one sees the precipice or hears this rain) but the (inner ?) crisis of the moment is almost invariably diluted by a contrasting stream of impressions that come in and disturb one's attention.
Krishnamurti: Look, Sir. When you see a physical danger there is immediate action because you have been told 'be careful of snakes', or you know somebody who has been bitten and died. So there is that ( culturally conditioned ?) memory which, when you see a ( real) snake, responds immediately. So that response to the danger is already 'old' (pre-programmed ?) ; you know already how dangerous a snake is. That isn't a direct response; it's a cultivated response. ( All our human experience accumulated in ?) 'time' is involved in that response. Right? When you were a child you were told 'be careful', and you remember it when you see a snake. That seeing is a cultivated, quick response. Now hen we move to the (direct ?) awareness of your conditioning, here you have the ( personal) memory that it is ( both safe and ?) pleasurable, that you cannot live in this world without being conditioned and so on. So, there you have a response of 'time', of ( the personal or collective ?) memory. But here we are talking of a response (of direct inner perception ?) which is not of time at all, which is not a cultivated response.
Questioner (1): (In French) So, one must 'efface' (delete that ?) memory.
Questioner (2): The difficulty is, the two seeings, 'I am conditioned', and 'it is raining', are wrongly identified as being 'alike'.
Krishnamurti: Look, Sir, can I see (anything ?) without the ( controlling ?) movement of ( our self-centred ?) thought? The movement of thought is the (verbalised ?) response of memory, therefore it is always old.
Questioner: And the problem comes with memory.
Krishnamurti: WIt is only when you can look (inwardly ?) without the movement of ( self-centred ?) thought - which is ( the mechanistic response of our past ?) memory - it is only then that you can 'break through' your conditioning.
Questioner: That implies....
Krishnamurti: It doesn't 'imply' anything. Do it !
Questioner: It implies a 'dying', Sir.
Krishnamurti: I don't know what it implies, (just try to ?) 'do' it!
Questioner: That means 'abandoning' yourself....
Krishnamurti: You see you're 'theorizing'. Can't I 'look' at you as though I'm meeting you for the first time, though I've known you for forty years? Can I look at that sky, that friend, that face, as though I was looking at it for the first time? If you cannot ( experientially ) 'do' it, then you don't understand this whole business of conditioning.
( Now, if the third answer is 'yes' ?) I may become aware of my conditioning, but that's (holistically speaking ? ) still a very small affair. There's a much deeper issue involved in ( going beyond our psychological ?) conditioning : because we can never look without it, we are always 'living in the past' , (living) with the 'dead'. That's a terrible thing to realize - that I am looking at life from ( the perspective of ?) a 'dead' past. To realize (the sadness of ?) it! To feel it!
Questioner: But we are conditioned since birth. You can only see without it if you don't allow time to enter, which means being 'spontaneously' aware.
Krishnamurti: Sir, I said so! I said, from the moment you are born until the moment you die you are (living in the field of the ?) 'conditioned'. Therefore if you like it, remain in it...
Questioner: Then, we must be continuously aware....
Questioner: I can see this sometimes....
Krishnamurti: Do you realize that ( inwardly) you are a 'dead' human being when you see with ( through the mental screen of ?) conditioning, therefore you are looking at life with the ( eyes of the ) past? That's all. Can one realize (the inwardness of ?) that?
Questioner: How do you know that human beings are 'conditioned', since you don't ( seem to ?) involve yourself? I mean, you tell me....
Krishnamurti: No Sir, I don't tell you anything.
Questioner: But you're talking....
Krishnamurti: I am talking because we said at the beginning of these discussions that it is a ( meditative ?) dialogue, a 'conversation' between two people who are serious, who want to go into this question of violence, of conditioning. And we see that we look at life with our conditioning - 'life' being my relationship to my wife, to my husband, to my neighbour, to society. We are looking at everything with 'closed' eyes. That's all. And how is it possible to 'open' my (inner ?) eyes? Nobody can do it (for me). But a man who says 'such a way of 'living (blind' ?) is not freedom', must find a way out of this; and to find a way out is to become aware of your own conditioning and discover that you look at your own conditioning through conditioned eyes. Find out whether you can live in that ( un-conditioned ?) state!
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 08 Oct 2016||#484|
|John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline||
3RD K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1967 (reader friendly edited)
ANOTHER HOLISTIC APPROACH TO 'PSYCHOLOGICAL' VIOLENCE
K: If we may, we'll continue with what we were talking about yesterday, which was ( the holistic approach to psychological ?) violence. I think we should be clear that we are concerned with bringing about a radical transformation - to go beyond and above this conflict, this violence. Violence, not only (expressed outwardly ?) but also inwardly - the inner conflicts, the contradictions (which breeds aggression, hatred, antagonism) - we are trying to understand what this violence is and whether it is at all possible to go beyond it. And that's what we are going to go into during these remaining dialogues.
Questioner: What is that ( perceptive quality that ?) "sees and acts" at the same time?
Krishnamurti: As long as there is a ( mental) division between our everyday action and our (adopted) 'ideals' there is contradiction; because the 'ideal' (no matter how noble ?) is always 'old'. Ideals are always the result of our past ( experiences) projected into the future; but our daily actions are always in the active present. Now the important thing is to understand this (experientially) , to see how each one of us acts and see what is implied in this action and to ask ourselves the question: is it possible to act without the ( self-protective screen of ?) 'ideas'?
Questioner: Is it ( the outward ) action you speak about, or also the thinking, inside ? When we see (a physical) danger there is rapid action and in that rapid action memory is involved; now, what you are talking about is an action which is instantaneous, yet also a response of memory?
Krishnamurti: Look Sir, let's look at it (from an experiential angle ?) . I ask you a question with which you are very familiar. I ask you, what's your name, where do you live, and your response is immediate. Why? Because you are familiar with ( remembering ) your name, with where you live, so the response is immediate; but even in that (cvasi ?) immediacy there is a time interval (a time delay) in which the mind has 'acted' extra ordinarily quickly and given the answer. If you are asked a more complicated question, you (need to) have a time (gap ?) between the question and the answer. There, your (active ?)memory is operating searching, asking, looking; then after having found the answer you reply. And if the question is very, very complicated you take a longer time - perhaps days, weeks, months. All that implies a (complex 'thinking' ?) activity with the field of memory which is always 'conditioned' (pre-formatted ?) . Now is there (a possibility for ?) an action which is not conditioned (by our past memory ) - an action in which the 'time (to think about' ?) interval does not exist? So (in order to find it out ?) we have to enquire much more deeply (meditatively ?) into this question of what is 'thinking' and what is 'consciousness'.
Questioner: Sir, I don't see why in that time interval always has to be just the ( mechanical ) response of memory. After all, we cannot stop our mind to make an intelligent appraisal when faced with a challenging situation.
Krishnamurti: Wait, follow it! The operation of that (limited?) intelligence has produced violence also. Now, to be free of that violence we have to bring about a different quality of "intelligence". Right? The (opportunistic ?) 'intelligence' that we have cultivated - which is the result of time and memory - that intelligence is ( confined) within the limitations of our self-centred thinking.
Questioner: But this action without any ideational ( backup) may also bring conflict. A well known example might be a little child, he sees for the first time the fire, he is attracted by the light of the fire, but then he touches the fire and he burns himself....
Krishnamurti: We all know this, Sir. What is your point?
Questioner: That he has acted without any (conditioned ?) ideas.
Krishnamurti: And then he has an 'idea' afterwards, and according to that idea he acts. Of course, we know this Sir. That's what we are all doing, all the time.
Questioner: But if we act according to an idea it doesn't always bring a conflict, it gives perhaps a rational event or something like that.... you never know. If you see an animal for the first time and you don't know what kind of animal it is, you look at it without any memory, without any knowledge and you don't know how you will react....
Krishnamurti: Sir, I thought we had explained it enough! We cannot live without memory. Right? If you had no memory at all you would be in a state of amnesia and you wouldn't know what you were doing, your name or where you lived - nothing. Memory obviously has its place.
We were asking if it is possible for a ( psychologically integrated ?) action to take place in which there is no contradiction and no conflict ? That is the ( 1000$ ?) question. An action which will not breed conflict within oneself, because we said conflict in any form is (generating ?) violence. Now, let's proceed ( experientially) find it out for ourselves.
Questioner: Does ( our inner state of ?) conflict arise because we give a 'meaning' to things built through ( our self-centred ?) thought?
Krishnamurti: Look, my question is this: I am conscious, I am conscious of this tent and the people in it, I am conscious that I am speaking, and I am becoming aware of the limitation of my feelings and thoughts and I take cognizance of my limitation. And that 'limitation' is my (self-)consciousness, isn't it?
Questioner: What do you mean by 'limitation', Sir?
Krishnamurti: I am limited by my (self-centred ?) thinking, I am limited by my (self-centred ?) feeling - my 'love' (my 'loving feelings' ?) is (are) full of jealousy and envy. And this is the ( inner space of ?) consciousness in which I live.
Questioner: Without all this (self-centredness ?) there is no conflict ?
Krishnamurti: Wait, wait, we're going to find out. Am I conscious only through my limitation? Am I aware of the ( personal ?) 'content' of my consciousness - of my thoughts, my feelings, my anxieties, my guilts, my hopes, despairs, loneliness - and because I am aware of the content, I am therefore aware of the limitation of my consciousness?
Questioner: But I'm aware of other things too, Sir, I see you there.
Krishnamurti: Hold on to that (thought) for the moment.
Questioner: Do you mean, Sir, that the 'limitations' you see are just what you want to see ? You're creating a boundary with whatever it is you see - it's the boundary of 'my' consciousness.
Krishnamurti: Sir, may I ask you something? What to you is 'consciousness' ?
Questioner: Being awake.
Krishnamurti: When do you know you're 'awake'?
Questioner: I suppose, when I have a (personal ?) experience ?
Krishnamurti: Let's think about this very simply. I go to sleep and I wake up to ( a 'consciousness' of ?) my daily routine, to my daily troubles, to my daily worries, to my daily apprehensions, fears, joys - I'm awake to those things. That's one part of it. I also may be awake to all my motives - if I'm at all aware (inwardly) . Now, what makes me keep awake?
Questioner: The (inner) conflicts and awareness of the limitations of my own thought keep me awake.
Krishnamurti: Sir, if you would have no conflict at all of any kind would you say, I'm (conscious of myself as being ?) awake?
Questioner: I think so. Are you saying that if there is no conflict or something like conflict....
Krishnamurti: No, no I did not say that, Sir. I asked: if you are not in conflict at all, at any level, what would that state (of non-conflictual consciousness ?) be? Would you then say, 'I (am conscious that I ?) am awake? Or, you know you are awake through ( a challenging situation or having a ?) conflict?
Questioner: (In French) I am conscious when I am open to impressions (quand je me sens 'disponible').
Krishnamurti: Sir, when are you ( becoming self-) conscious? When you are hurt? When you have joy, when you respond? Otherwise you're dead or asleep. So you only know that you are conscious, awake, when there is a challenge and a (personal ?) response. That's all! So, I am (self-) 'conscious' only when there is a challenge to which I (have to ?) respond and/or when that response breeds conflict. If the response to the challenge is 'complete' ( holistic ?) there is no conflict. Then I don't even know that 'I' am responding, then I don't even know of the (personal ?) challenge, because I'm so completely awake.
Questioner: ( It depends of what you mean by that ?) 'love'?
Krishnamurti: Please Sir, don't analyse, we'll analyse it presently, just listen. When I say 'I love you' is there conflict?
Questioner: Well, if there is conflict, then you're saying it when you're (inwardly) 'asleep'.
Krishnamurti: Quite right.
Questioner: Sir, even in this ( over simplified ?) business of being 'asleep' all the time or inwardly 'dead' all the time, there must he lapses when one's consciousness may not be (as mechanistic ) as you described it . Could you point out a 'lapse' (a 'break' ?) so we could get your 'feel' of it?
Krishnamurti: Look, Sir, we were trying to find out ( in a roundabout way ?) whether violence, which is ( generating by our inner) conflicts, can come to an end. Right? Not superficially, but deeply. And in enquiring into that we were looking into the whole (mechanistic ?) process of our memory - and into the (self-conscious ?) state of a mind which is living perpetually in conflict. And because we are in conflict, we are in misery, we are (self- ?) conscious. Right? When you are completely happy are you conscious of (yourself as ?) 'being happy'?
Questioner: There is a different quality of consciousness when you are happy.
Krishnamurti: Don't introduce other factors, Sir, take just one fact.
Questioner: But there are other factors.
Krishnamurti: I know, there are lots of other factors, I know that.
Questioner: Then your ( scholastic ?) question does not have any (universally open ?) meaning.
Krishnamurti: It has no meaning if we bring in all the other factors, but I'm just asking a very simple question. When you're tremendously joyous are you conscious that you're joyous?
Questioner (1): No.
Krishnamurti: When you're getting very angry, at that second, are you conscious, or only afterwards? When, for whatever motive, there's an extraordinary state of happiness, you're not at that second, (self-) conscious. Later on it begins, you say, what an extraordinary moment that was, I wish I could have it repeated, and so on and so on. So both conflict and that state in which there is no conflict, are (both available ?) within this field of our consciousness. So, as ( sensible ?) human beings we are asking ourselves: is it possible to be free of this violence? And in asking that question we are exploring; the animal is also violent and we have inherited perhaps that violence, or that violence has been ( artificially ?) created as the result of society, a culture. But the fact is that we are all 'violent' (at various degrees ?) and we're asking if (the psychological roots of ?) that violence can come to an end - in you and in me.
Questioner: Is not ( our self-) consciousness (containing ) the feeling of being separated from other human beings?
Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir, that's part of it; when there is a (mental ?) separation between the 'observer' and what is 'observed'.
Questioner: Sir, did you say that not being (self-) conscious at the moment of anger or passion, and the immediate memory of it, both those things are within the field of consciousness?
Krishnamurti: Aren't they?
Questioner: They have to be, otherwise you couldn't remember.
Krishnamurti: Of course. So, we are trying to find out the nature of conflict, conflict being violence. Now, this conflict in which we have lived has created a ( self-isolating ?) consciousness in which there is the observer and the observed. Right? There is the 'me' and the 'not-me', which means there is a separation between the 'observer' and the 'observed'. Right? Now, will not ( the inner cause of ?) this violence, this conflict, endure as long as there is this separation?
Questioner: The (sense of our ?) separation and the conflict within ourselves will cease when we give up everything on earth.
Krishnamurti: Sir, that's just a theory; 'when we give up everything on earth'. We can't give up everything on this earth. We have to have food, we have to have clothes, shelter. Sir, let's make it very simple: if I want to be free of violence, what am I to do? (We have gone through the ?) obvious things as to give up my 'nationalism', my dogmas - that's gone, finished - it has no meaning any more - but ( deeper down ?) I'm still violent, I'm still aggressive, ambitious. Now I say: what am I to do?
Questioner: Conflict is the result of ( our wrong) education. If you eliminate all those conflicts from education you're no longer violent.
Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir, I understand, but answer me: will you tell me how to be free of violence? That's all I ask. I have tried education, I have tried religion, I have tried to control myself, I have tried to be kind and generous, yet there are moments when I am (getting ?) tremendously (frustrated and ?) violent. My problem, my question is: what am I to do to be free of this violence?
Questioner: But isn't this question is a subtle form of violence ?
Krishnamurti: Put it round the other way, Sir; I want to live completely at peace with myself and with the world - what am I to do?
Questioner: You can't do it.
Krishnamurti: I want to live completely at peace with myself and with the world. What am I to do? When you ask that question what do you reply? Either you say like this gentleman, 'you can't', therefore you have blocked yourself, you have stopped yourself from further enquiry; or you say you can be at peace only when you go to Heaven, that is, when you die.
Questioner: You are left only to 'stand still'....
Krishnamurti: No, I don't want to stand still, I want to live, I am living, I want to love without hate, without jealousy.
Questioner: Then your problem is to try to communicate your wish to the world, only then will you have the possibility of having peace.
Krishnamurti: Ah, no. I don't want to communicate with the world; the world is stupid, the world is brutal. How can I communicate with the world? Sir, you are just talking nonsense.
Questioner: You must be vulnerable.
Krishnamurti: You're just quoting what I said yesterday. That's not my argument. I don't want to have conflict within myself at any cost, I don't want to quarrel with anybody; I want to have great affection, kindliness, love - I don't want anything else.
Questioner: It's not true for me.
Krishnamurti: Then if it is not true for you, why isn't it true for you?
Questioner: Well, I wish it were.
Krishnamurti: Look, we started this discussion by asking ourselves if it is possible to be ( inwardly ?) free of violence. To be free of violence means to live at peace - right? - and if I don't want to have a single breath of conflict in me at any time - sleeping or waking - what am I to do?
Questioner: Respond (adequately ?) to the challenge of life.
Krishnamurti: Please, would you ask that question yourselves? My question to you, is do you really want to live at peace with yourself, which means no conflict?
Questioner: I will repeat again, you cannot live without violence, it's only an ideal that you want to live without violence.
Krishnamurti: Please Sir, I have lived in conflict all my life (I haven't personally, but it doesn't matter) I have lived in conflict with my wife, with my children, with my society, with my boss, with everything, and I say to myself: is there a way of living in which there is no conflict? It is not an idea!
Questioner: Sorry, but this question is not the most important thing; the most important thing is to see ( my inner ?) violence. That takes time.
Krishnamurti: No, no, we have been through that Sir. We have discussed the nature of violence, we have been into that and I'm putting the same question differently. I want to live in this world, not as an idea but actually, every minute of my life, I want to live in a different way, in which there is no conflict, which means no violence.
Questioner (2): Can we have ten minutes of silence?
Krishnamurti: No, please, first put the question to yourself..
Questioner: If I am not mature enough it is impossible to put this question.
Krishnamurti: Then, why aren't you mature? Who's going to make you mature?
Questioner: I am not mature....
Krishnamurti: But Sir, put that question, see what happens. Find out that you are immature. We are avoiding the (inner impact of this ?) question, that's all.
Questioner: Shouldn't it be a question for everyone, and everybody should keep the answer to himself?
Krishnamurti: Keep it to yourself, I'm not asking you to tell me, Put it, and find out what your answer is. Find out how far you will go to live peacefully.
Questioner: At the same moment as you realize, deep in yourself, that this whole ( way of the ?) world leads nowhere, in fact this realization brings in yourself a 'stop'....
Krishnamurti: It's really quite an extraordinary phenomenon this, isn't it? You're all so ready to answer, which means that you have not really put this question to yourself. Perhaps you dare not put the question.
Questioner: (In Italian) I have heard what you said about a different state. But all I see is the (ongoing) conflict, and I don't know if there is a way out.
Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir, but that's not my point. My point is: you have lived in conflict and don't you ask yourself, is that the only thing I have to live for - conflict, conflict? put that question to yourself, Sir? Don't answer me. Put this question to yourself.
Questioner: But we are discussing.
Krishnamurti: Of course, Sir, we are discussing, but first put this question - see what happens to you - then find out what your response is.
Questioner: Can you divide your soul from your body?
Krishnamurti: This is a question which is not relevant to the point. Look, I'm asking you, do please have the goodness to listen. Humanity has lived in conflict for centuries. Is that the way to live? If it is not, then is there a way of living in which there is no conflict at all? Put that question to yourself, not as an idea but as an (experiential ?) thing that you want to find out.
Questioner: If our mind is conditioned, how can we know?
Krishnamurti: It is not a different state that you want to achieve; but here I am in conflict and is there a way out of it?
Questioner: Sir, I think there's only conflict between persons, you and another person or a group of people and when you study them, when you 'are' the other persons, see what they are trying to do, what you're trying to do, see the whole thing dispassionately, this will produce an easier situation; it may not remove conflict but it is a step towards it.
Krishnamurti: Sir, put the question the other ( humanitarian ?) way. Don't you want to stop wars, which means, don't you want to live peacefully every day, to put an end to war?
Questioner: Do you have a method for ending war?
Krishnamurti: Sir, you have heard me often, haven't you?
Questioner: Yes, Sir.
Krishnamurti: Look, how far ( inwardly ?) are you willing to go to have peace in your life?
Questioner: All the way.
Krishnamurti: What does that mean? That means to end conflict, doesn't it? Now, how do you end conflict? Keep it very simple, Sir. How do you end conflict in yourself and live ordinarily? Is it possible?
Questioner: All I can say is that it has not been possible.
Krishnamurti: Why? Go into it, Sir, don't answer me, necessarily.
Krishnamurti: Wait, wait. I quarrel with you because you want my wife, or I quarrel with you because you want my position; I quarrel with you because I'm jealous of you, I quarrel with you because you're much more intelligent than I am, and so on. Am I willing to stop quarrelling with you altogether?
Questioner: But quarrelling is inside the mind as well as outside.
Krishnamurti: I'm talking of ( the quarrelling )'inside', not outside.
Questioner: I don't control my thought-stream....
Krishnamurti: No Sir, it doesn't bang into you. So I have to understand myself - right? I don't want to quarrel with you under any circumstance. I want to live peacefully with you; if you want my shirt I'll give it to you. me, what is important is not to quarrel, therefore the other things subside. To quarrel like so many monkeys, like animals, is uncivilized, immoral in the deep sense. I feel that very strongly, therefore I'll do it. So, Sir, it all boils down to one thing: how deeply, how fundamentally do we want to live without violence? How deeply do we want to live at peace with (yourself and with ?) each other? We may say we want it - but actually! And that's why it's very important to go within oneself, to find out the nature and the structure of one's (inner) being. Therefore, one has to know oneself. Perhaps we can discuss this question of knowing oneself tomorrow.
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 11 Oct 2016||#485|
|John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline||
4TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1967
K: It seems to me important to go into the question of knowing oneself. Because, if I do not under stand myself completely, I have no basis for ( a holistically ?) 'rational' thinking, I have no foundation for the 'right' action, I have no roots in what is virtue. Unless I understand myself, I am (consciously or not ?) living in conflict, in sorrow - which inevitably must express itself in some form of violence.
( For starters ?) where do we begin to understand ourselves? I can only observe myself in ( my everyday ) relationship to ideas, to people, to things. Right? Here I am, a whole bundle of (intelligent ?) energy (caught in its self-created ?) contradictions and in studying my relationship with the outward things as well as inward things, I begin to understand myself. Is this clear?
Questioner: When I observe myself I see my 'self ' in very different states (moods ?) . Is the self a reality, or not?
Krishnamurti: We're ( hopefully ?) going to find it out. ( And for a change ?) we are going to start as though we knew nothing (about ourselves) . So let us begin as though we were on a 'new' journey (into our own psyche?) .
Questioner: When I'm aware of what's happening in me...
Krishnamurti: No, Sir, you've gone far ahead of me. I said you can only understand yourself in ( the context of our ?) relationship.
Questioner: Yes, but what puzzles me is, what you mean by 'relationship'.
Krishnamurti: ( Living in the modern world ?) I am related to ( a lot of people ,as well as with their ideas and ?) things: property and material things. What are (my personal ?) reactions towards those things, to money, to clothes, to food, to houses? By (introspectively ?) studying my reactions I am beginning to understand myself in relation to those things. Right? Are we doing that? You have an ( interactive ?) relationship to your the family, to your property- and that's a very complex question: (if ?) I have plenty of money, what is my relationship to that thing called 'money'? By understanding my reaction I understand (an aspect of ?) myself. My reaction is myself. Right? So I'm beginning to see very clearly what my reaction is with regard to money; whether I hate rich people because I'm poor, or I want to be as rich as the rich man.
So I begin to study myself through (observing ?) my reactions to 'things'. I need food, clothes and shelter, that's absolutely necessary. But what is my (personal ?) reaction to them? Do they give me a sense of inner security? If so, I attach tremendous importance to my property, therefore ( all the time ?) defending my property? And defending my property I'm ( eventuall becoming ?) violent, and therefore I create a society in which, through money, 'I' (my conscious 'self') gain tremendous satisfaction.
So, I've already discovered something about myself - that I'm using my property, (money & things), as a means of inward security, satisfaction, and therefore ( defending and developping my ?) property becomes extraordinarily important. Don't I use property as a status symbol? I'm beginning to understand myself in relation to things - what is my relationship to things. Now, am I in (direct ) contact with my property, with my things, or, am I in contact with the (psychological ?) satisfaction which thos things give me, therefore I use ( my relationship with material ?) 'things' to gain (inner ?) satisfaction, and so those 'things' (I possess ?) become of secondary importance, because my primary (innermost ?) desire is to find (sensory ?) satisfaction and to have security? Right? And I discover ( how my inner contradictions occur ?) - I want property, things, and also begin to see the (psychological trap ?) of it, and I'd want to avoid it; I want to put it aside and yet I want to hold it. Right? So a contradiction (between two opposing desires ?) in me has already begun.
Questioner: (In French) Usually I don't see the (practical) importance of knowing myself, but hearing how you explain it I then discover that it is important - is this not a (stimulating ?) 'escape'?
Krishnamurti: You don't see the (practical ) importance for yourself. Why don't you see it? It's like a man living (inwardly ?) in blindness and saying, it's not ( really) important to have (inwardly perceptive ?) eyes. If you are just being stimulated by the speaker, then it has no (inner) value at all. All right Sir, let's proceed: I discover that in my relationship to (money and ) 'things' they are becoming extraordinarily important. Don't let's fool ourselves. Money, houses, material things that you touch, feel, taste, are extraordinarily important. And why have they become ( so overwhelmingly ?) important? Please follow this. We all need food, shelter and clothes, but why have they become of such colossal importance in our life? What do you say Sirs?
Questioner: They become important to us because we are ( often feeling insufficient and ?) empty inside.
Krishnamurti: In ourselves we are nothing, so we fill that emptiness with furniture - no, no, don't laugh - with ( the knowledge of ?) books, or with money, or with ( top of the line ?) cars. Right? So they become important, because they fill my state of mind which is 'dull' and/or 'empty' . Are we doing that?
Questioner: Sir, I don't think that's our 'conscious' reason for it. To me, my conscious reason is that I see very poor people and all sorts of misery - they can't pay the doctor and so on - and I don't want to be like that. And what keeps me from being like that? It's the material things, so therefore the objects acquire a great importance.
Krishnamurti: Yes Sir, we said that: it is of very great importance.
Questioner: That's the ( material ) reason why we give them importance.
Krishnamurti: That's one of the reasons - I don't want to be like the poor man, therefore I defend what I have (or struggle to get at least something ?) . Right? Therefore I'm ( placing myself ?) in a state of ( psychologically creating or accepting ?) violence.
Questioner: But this problem about which you have spoken now, the attraction to objects in order to fill our emptiness, I think this is psychological, but has its origin in more concrete things. Hence my (physical dependency of them and my ?) attachment - it is due to fear. I feel that if I do not have them I will die.
Krishnamurti: Of course, of course, so you give them such tremendous importance. Is that the (only ?) reason you give importance to food, clothes and shelter?
Questioner: (In French) Money is a just symbol, but in fact it is part of the organization of material life on which the spiritual life is based. One must study it and understand the intricate part money plays in life and its meaning.
Krishnamurti: That is not the ( self-knowing related ?) question, but what is my relationship to it. I want to know my relationship to things: to money, to houses, to food, clothes and shelter. In that way I shall find out about ( the inwardness of ?) myself. That's what we are discussing. not how money conditions us. Of course it conditions; the man who has no money is conditioned by not having it, and the man who has got money is also conditioned. We know that Sir.
Questioner: (In French) We need material things, but why is it that we are feeling empty without them?
Krishnamurti: Sir, look - we are studying ourselves in our relationship to things, to people and to ideas. Probably there is only one relationship, which is the relationship I have in regard to (images and ) ideas, and that is the only thing that matters (psychologically - wise ?) -(mental images ?) and ideas. You follow Sir? Not food, not people, but the image, the symbol I have about food, clothes, shelter and people. Right? There's nothing wrong in having food, clothes and shelter, but it is the idea I have about it. So I have a relationship, not with the actual things or people but only with (their images and ?) symbols and ideas. Isn't that so?
Questioner: I think, Sir, that we ( psychologically ) identify ourselves with these 'things' and they become part of us (as emotionally charged 'images' ?) .
Krishnamurti: Yes, sir, we identify ourselves with things and therefore they become part of us.
Questioner: When I get a lot of money for myself I feel great pleasure for a moment and then the pleasure dies and I must go and get something else. It seems that (inwardly) there is only the image (that counts) , because when I have the object, it doesn't continue to give pleasure, so there must again be the idea of getting more and this goes on and one is never satisfied.
Krishnamurti: I am learning that really things don't matter at all, nor people, but what matters immensely is my (mental images and ?) ideas about things and people (with which I can deal safely and comfortably ?) .
Questioner: So, the relation I have with these (images and ?) 'idea' is actually a relation between me and myself, because the idea is a part of myself.
Krishnamurti: No, no. That is a ( mental) 'conclusion' that doesn't help me to understand myself (experientially ?) . Sir, put it round the other way. What is most important to me and to you (the middle-upper class audience ?) ? Look at yourself, please. Not money, food, clothes and shelter, but what it will give you. Right? You have an 'image', a symbol, an idea about this - about property and about people. Are you related to people? Am I (directly) related to people, to my friend, to my wife, to my husband? Or am I related to the ( mental) 'image' which I have created for myself about people?
Questioner: It's a ( self-protective mental ?) habit.
Krishnamurti: All right, it's a habit. But why have I created this habit? Why am I not directly in relationship with things and with people? Why should I have ( an all controlling interface based on ?) ideas? And if you say, 'that's a habit', then how did that habit come into being? Why am I a slave to this habit?
Questioner: Because (inwardly ) I'm not lively enough ?
Questioner: Because life has frightened me.
Krishnamurti: Therefore, I am living in ( a safe inner world of ?) abstractions. Right? Not in reality, but in abstractions. Therefore, my relationship to you is an abstraction. I am not actually related. I live in abstractions, in ideas, in images, and (realising this) I say: why have I done this? Why have I created the image about you? Don't verbalize yet, but just look at it: what is much more important to me is not the ctual things or people, but the ideas I have about them. And why have I made this more important than things and people?
Questioner: To protect myself ( psychologically ) ?
Krishnamurti: Do look, wait, Sir. Take two minutes and look at it. I am studying myself, not passing an exam. Why have not only I, but all human beings done this? Whether they live in Asia or in Europe or in America, why have human beings done this?
Questioner: Sir, I think that the object itself, or the person, is for us too complicated to understand and therefore we create an image which is much simpler and easier to handle.
Krishnamurti: I have an image about you because the image is very simple, but you are very complicated. You are a living thing - moving, active, throbbing - and I cannot understand you, therefore I create a ( handy ?) image about you. All the churches are filled with symbols, because a symbol is a dead thing. I can clothe it, I can put garlands round it, I can do anything I like, but I can't do that with a living thing.
Questioner: Words in themselves are symbols.
Krishnamurti: Of course.
Questioner: I have an image of myself when I look at you, and then....
Questioner: We don't tell ourselves that the idea is important, we tell ourselves that the thing or the person is important, but the 'importance' which we give to the thing or the person is idea.
Krishnamurti: Of course, that's what we are saying.
Questioner: Would you include among the 'things' your own 'philosophizing'?
Krishnamurti: I am not 'philosophizing'. If I were it would be included among things to be thrown out of the window. Let us stick to this point: I want to understand myself. In that understanding I've discovered something: that to me people are important and that involves ideas and I am attached to ideas. Now, I ask myself, why has this taken place ?
Questioner: It's a kind of defence against something new ( and potentially disturbing ?) - I 'neutralize' things, cover them with my ideas....
Krishnamurti: That means, you're neutralizing, you're blocking, you're denying the ( contact with the ?) living thing, but not your idea - doesn't it? You are a living thing and to live with you without ( the psychological buffer of the ?) ideas means living without the (reassuring ?) 'image'; I have to be on my toes all the time, to watch your moods, your speech, the way you talk, I have to watch everything, and that becomes tremendously exacting, arduous (disturbing ?) . Therefore, it is much simpler to (relate to you through the screen of ?) my 'image' about you.
Questioner: (In French) There are times when ( the actual) things have more importance than ideas - such as in a moment of danger.
Krishnamurti: All right Sir, let's proceed. With regard to dead things I have no ( pre-conceived ?) ideas, but I have 'ideas' (mental images ?) which protect me in my relationship with you as a husband, wife, friend - whatever it is - because you are much too active. So what has happened? I have an image about you which I have built and I keep on adding (or updating ?) to that image. Right? What happens in that state? You become an 'abstraction'; you're not real. My 'image' about you is ( looking far more synthetic and ?) real. What happens then? Have I any (authentic ?) relationship to you at all?
Questioner: There's a destructive quality in what you are saying.
Krishnamurti: No, Madame, watch yourself please. I am living in relationship with you - at least I think I am living in relationship with you - but actually I'm living with the ( comorting ?) 'image' which I have put together about you. So I am 'living in the past'. And (even here and now ?) you're also 'living in the past'. Because you have an 'image' about me and I have an image about you, and (through) these two images ( we) have a ( past based ?) relationship. Then what takes place actually ?
Questioner: A conflict between the ( hyped ?) 'idea' (I have about you ?) and the fact ?
Krishnamurti: The questioner says, 'there is conflict between the fact - you - and the image (I have of you ?) , which is non-fact.' And hence, there is conflict. Wait, wait, watch yourselves. Go into yourselves.
Questioner: Life is a flow and the 'image' is static.
Krishnamurti: All right, is that a discovery you have made?
Krishnamurti: Then if you have found that out , what happens? Then you say, 'I see that I'm always living in ( my safe knowledge of ?) the past'. And life, which is moving, living, is always ( going on ?) in the present, therefore I look at you with 'dead eyes'. Right?
Questioner: Not especially with 'dead eyes'; because if I want to understand a statue I turn it around but I cannot understand the whole statue. I always have only an image.
Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir, that's what we are saying.
Questioner: Why do I need to create ( mental ?) 'images' about every thing?
Krishnamurti: Is it that we are creating 'images' because we are frightened of (facing the complexity of ?) this thing that is our living? Is that so in you?
Questioner: If I were to try and find satisfaction by touching the deeper things 'as they are', I would find that this whole world is very annoying.
Krishnamurti: Of course, that's part of it, I'm bored, I'm frightened - it's all in that field. Now, why do I do this? Go a little deeper. I realize I'm doing this. Why am I doing this?
Questioner : Is it a process of building up a (self-) protective camouflage to hide what actually happens?
Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir, quite right. But why am I doing it?
Questioner: Because I can't live ( completely vulnerable ?) in the present.
Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir. Are you understanding it yourself?
Questioner: Isn't the real question: why do we always keep the memories alive? When I 'think of something' it will lead me either to the past or to the future....
Krishnamurti: Quite right.
Questioner: The 'image' gives a relationship to the past or to the future, not to the present.
Krishnamurti: Quite right, Sir. I agree, then what? I saw a sunset yesterday, it was a great pleasure, a great joy, and it has left a mark and this evening I look at the light on the hill with the 'eyes of yesterday', with the memories of yesterday. I'm doing this all the time. Why am I doing it? Go deeper Sir, go into it. Don't just verbalize it immediately.
Questioner: Because without memories one would be nothing.
Krishnamurti: Is that what you have learnt?
Questioner: Sir, I don't think I know 'reality'. I see things always through images, so I don't really know what 'reality' is.
Krishnamurti: Yes. Why? Please, just stop for a few minutes and find out why you are doing this. One says it is pleasure, the other says it is (the fear of ?) 'emptiness'. But go below the words, below the immediate discovery and understanding.
Questioner: If you watch a child, one minute it is satisfied with one thing, and then with another.... I do the same in a more complicated way.
Krishnamurti: Why am I doing this, why am I building images? Why can't I live with the living thing all the time - the living thing is moving, acting, it may be wrong, it may be right, but why can't I live with that?
Questioner: Can the living thing exist for me at all without the image, Sir?
Questioner: Because if I have the image and you are changing it is so difficult....
Krishnamurti: We said that. It is a protective reaction against a 'living' thing. But why are we doing it?
Questioner: The 'image' is a thought.
Krishnamurti: Why is thought building the image?
Questioner: All my thought can do is just that; that's all it ever does.
Questioner: But to face the 'reality' directly would be intolerable (or terrible ) !
Krishnamurti: Sir, wait a minute. I want to find out why when I look at a sunset today, the past (memories of other ?) sunsets comes into my mind, and when I look at you - husband, wife, children, brother, whoever it is - I look at you through the (past ) 'images' which I have about you practically about everything else. I live (therefore in a safe zone of ?) abstractions and I say to myself, why am I doing it? Now how do I find out?
Questioner: By watching ourselves.
Krishnamurti: How am I watching myself to find out why I create these images?
Questioner: I seem to keep doing it because I'm not aware I'm making these 'images'.
Krishnamurti: First, I'm not aware that I'm building these 'images' , but when (eventually ?) I do become aware, then I ask myself - 'why am I doing this?' You can't answer it for me. I have to find it out for myself. Now, how am I going to find out? First, I must stop listening to my (own mental) chattering. I must stop listening to all your suggestions -do you agree? That means - what?
Questioner: Looking, Sir, just 'looking'.
Krishnamurti: How do I look? Am I (mentally ) quiet or am I restlessly searching for an answer? To observe, to be aware I (the observer ?) must be fairly quiet, mustn't I? That's all. Are you quiet? Or are you waiting for somebody to tell you (the next step ?) ? If you're quiet, and you are aware in that quietness, what is your response?
Questioner: Isn't there simply a matter of 'awareness'?
Krishnamurti: But I haven't understood why I have built this image.
Questioner: Then it seems that you are the only person who is going to be able to answer your question.
Krishnamurti: Not at all! I don't want to take that responsibility. I'll answer it for myself.
Questioner: Sir, may it not be that thought keeps intervening; this thought is our memory, our conditioning, and if we are aware of that - aware of ourselves - then we, the 'I' , don't exist any more?
Krishnamurti: Sir, here is a ( very subtle psychological ?) problem. I have searched every means to find out why I do it, in every avenue, and I can't find an answer, what do I do?
Questioner: I leave it.
Krishnamurti: You leave it, but as I don't want to leave it, I can't just drop it, I want to find out now.
Questioner: You must pause.
Krishnamurti: Yes, you must pause, you must wait. Are you doing it?
Questioner: There's nothing to do but to realize that one doesn't know anything about it.
Krishnamurti: Do you pause, do you keep quiet wait, look?
Questioner: How can I be quiet when asking this question? It is still troubling me.
Krishnamurti: Listen. You have asked a question. And how do you find the answer? To ( experientially ) find an answer, to look, I must have a pause, there must be a lag, there must be quietness to look.
Questioner: But where is the 'asking' in this lag? I forget the asking?
Krishnamurti: Have I? Who is going to tell me? You (K) ? If you tell me, will it be real to me? It's only real if I can find out for myself, and to find out for myself there must be no bias, no prejudice, no tension, therefore I must be quiet, mustn't I? Which means ( that my self-centred ?) thinking must not interfere (since the same self-centred ?) thinking has created the 'images'. Right? And the (self-?) image which my thought has created is old because thought is always 'old'. Therefore I see that the moment thought interferes I shan't find the 'real' (experiential ?) answer'.
Questioner: Instead of thought we should be filled with love.
Krishnamurti: I'm afraid I cannot fill myself with 'love'; I don't know what it means.
Questioner: All right Sir, I think we followed you up to this point.
Krishnamurti: Good! Now let's proceed. I have found that (my self-centred ?) thinking creates ( and updates ?) these 'images' and also thought is constantly interfering and so prevents the (experiential ?) discovery of 'what is' ( the active cause of ?) , why I create these images. Right? Why does thought interfere at all? So my problem is not why the mind creates these images, but why does thought, which is the creator of the image, constantly interfere?
Questioner: Then thought forms the ego....
Krishnamurti: Thought forms the (self-) 'image'; don't bring in a new ( psychologically loaded ?) word, otherwise it will get complicated. We are saying simply. (My self-centred process of ?) thought has created the (self-) image, the image which I have built in my relationship with you, and that same thought says to itself, now I must find out why I'm doing it. Thought is constantly active. Right Sir? So thought thinks it will find out - go slowly, wait - so thought says, I have built this, I don't know why I have built it, but now I must find out. Thought thinks it will find out. But ( not being aware of its inner working ?) what it will find out is another (mental ?) 'image' which it has projected from its own past experience, therefore it is not a (self-revealing ?) discovery, it is merely an activity of (the same self-centred ) thought.
Questioner: So, thought cannot have an (insightful ?) answer.
Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir, that's what we said. Can thought ( the actively 'thinking' brain ?) say to itself, look I have done the mischief now I will be quiet?
Questioner: Sir, if we really go into it deeply (meditatively ?) then we will see that thought ( working in the self-protected mode ?) cannot find an authentic answer.
Krishnamurti: But why don't you see it now ? I have created an 'image' about you through thinking about you, either pleasurably or because you have given me pain. Then I (may eventually come to ?) ask myself, why am I doing this? Now, if thought answers the question, it will be in the same category as the 'image'. Right?
Questioner: But thought is not operating alone, it is operating with our feelings, with all our 'psyche'. So when you're saying that thought discovers that it is the same thing (on the same level ?) as the image - can we look at that still more carefully?
Krishnamurti: I'll do it Sir. Say, I am married to you and I have built an image about you - sexual pleasure, or the insulting things you have said to me, the nagging, the flattery, the hurts - all that has gone to build up an image about you. Who has done this? My own thinking about the sexual pleasure, thought thinking about the insult, thought thinking about the flattery: you say, 'How nice you look today, I like your looks!' I adore you when you say that! - so I have (subliminally) collected all that (psychological junk ?) and ( based on it ?) I have created an 'image' about you. The 'I' (who did this) is the ( self-centred process of ?) thought. Right Sir? So thought has done this ( sub-consciously ?) and (the resulting image ?) is an abstraction, whereas you are real. So I run away from ( seeing the real ?) you in a (comfortable ) abstraction. But then, I (may eventually ?) get hurt if you look at someone else. So, now I say to myself, 'why am I doing all this?' Why is ( my self-centred ?) thought doing all this? - creating the image, ( updating or ?) adding to the image, taking things away from the image, and when it is asking the question, 'why is it doing it?' - who is going to answer it? Is thought going to answer it?
Questioner: Thought cannot give the answer. We must see this.
Krishnamurti: If you understand this , what takes place?
Questioner: Then there's silence.
Krishnamurti: Don't use that word 'silence'. Just look at what takes place - which means that you have no 'image' (about yourself or others ?) . That's what is taking place. When thought says, I have built it and I am going to find out why I have built it, and sees the absurdity of such a question, then all (the sub-conscious mechanism of ?) image-making ceases. Then I can look at you - my wife or husband - without an (self-protective ?) image. Now, to go into it a little more deeply. What takes place when there is no more 'image'?
Questioner: There's no 'observer' then ?
Krishnamurti: No Sir, go into it; don't reduce it. Go slowly Sir.
Questioner: There is a 'real' relationship.
Krishnamurti: ( To recap:) So far we've discovered only one thing: that thought has created the image and thought seeking to find ( experientially) why, will (probably ) create another 'image' (a mental model) in which it will be caught. It's a 'vicious circle' as long as thought is operating. Right? I have discovered that. Therefore thought is no longer ( sub-consciously ?) creating any image. So then, what is my actual relationship to things, to people.
Questioner (1): Direct awareness, Sir.
Questioner (2): When thought ceases, the 'real me', the Self, becomes in a way more apparent.
Krishnamurti: Is there a 'real me' without the ( memory back-up of ?) thought? Sir, don't get caught in your own words, be careful.
Questioner: I see you 'as you are'?
Krishnamurti: No, no, What is the ( quality of our ?) relationship when I have no image about you?
Questioner: The 'dead' person becomes a living thing....
Krishnamurti: Sir, I wish you would do this actually: put away the images you have about me, or about your wife, or about somebody else and 'look'. Then find out what that relationship is.
Questioner: (In French) If I am in ( such a direct) relationship then I can follow the moods and thoughts of that person.
Krishnamurti: That's not what I'm asking, if you don't mind. We are asking: 'if I have no ( psychologically motivated ?) 'image' about money, about property, or about you - my wife or husband or friend - what is that relationship?'
Questioner: To ask this question is to be back in thought.
Krishnamurti: No, no Madame, just look at it. I have no (need to create any ?) 'image' about you - that's a tremendous thing I've discovered. Then I say to myself, 'what is my relationship, what is this relationship then, if I have no image?'
Questioner : Sir, it's an extremely difficult question to go into, because when we try to put it into words, then thought springs into action.
Krishnamurti: Look, Sir, let's make it very simple. You're my friend, I have an image about you. Now, I if have no 'image' about you, what has taken place in me? Not just in my relationship with you, what has actuality taken place in me? I want to know, what has actually taken place in me?
Questioner: Every second is new ?
Krishnamurti: Madame, you're all guessing. This isn't a guessing game.
Questioner: We cannot know because if we 'knew' we would conceptualize it. The fact is that we still have the 'image'.
Krishnamurti: Sir, (if? ) we went ( experientially all the way ?) through the whole process of image making - if you don't do that any more, what takes place?
Questioner (1): The (inner) space where the image was is now (emptied ?) without the image.
Krishnamurti: ( In a nutshell ?) as long as ( the self-centred process of ?) thought is operating its ( 'firewalling ' ?) function is to create (a lot of static mental ?) 'images'. So in the very understanding of that, ( the thinking part of the brain which generates ?) thought is in abeyance, quiet. Then I say to myself, what has taken place? When thought (along with the 'thinker' ?) is completely quiet and not building any images about anything, what has taken place?
Questioner: I cannot stop it, Sir.
Krishnamurti: Then go on, chase the tail.
Questioner: Sir, then thought comes to an end, that's all we know now.
Krishnamurti: I'm showing you Sir; if you (would) do it yourself, it's very simple. Thought has been 'chasing its own tail'. Right? Now thought realizes how silly it is, therefore it stops! And when thought stops chasing its tail what takes place at that moment, at that second?
Questioner: We don't know...
Krishnamurti: If you don't know, you haven't stopped 'chasing the tail'.
Questioner: The 'thinker' disappears ?
Krishnamurti: You see, you're all so eager to ( get the right ?) answer. You haven't really looked at yourself at all. You haven't spent a single minute looking at yourself. If you had, you would have inevitably come to this point, that thought is chasing its own tail all the time. Then thought ( the 'thinking brain' ?) itself realizes how absurd this is and therefore it stops. Now, when it stops what takes place?
Questioner: We would be very still.
Krishnamurti: How quick we are to answer, aren't we! Do we give up the guessing game ? Look, Sir! I am asking something which you're refusing to face (experientially ) . ( The experiential right answer ?) is very simple: the moment thought stops chewing its own tail, you're full of ( a non-dissipated ?) energy - aren't you? Because in that 'chasing' your energy has been dissipated. Right? Then you become (inwardly ?) very 'intense'. Now, what happens to a mind that is very 'intense' ? Have you ever been 'intense'(-ly passionate?) about anything? And if you have been, what happens?
Questioner: Then 'you' are not, as far as....
Krishnamurti: There's no (personal) problem, and therefore 'you' (the creator of problems ?) are not. 'You' are ( self-conscious ?) only when there's ( the 'thinker' vs 'its thoughts' ?) conflict.
Questioner: Then you're out of the door (out of there ?) .
Krishnamurti: You see, you're verbalizing again. Don't do that Sir, please, we have gone (experientially ?) into something very deep: in that (undivided ?) 'intensity' there is neither the 'observer' nor the 'observed'. Sir, when you (have ?) 'love' - is there a (thinking ?) 'observer' ? There is such an 'observer' only when 'love' is (translated in terms of ?) desire and pleasure. When desire and pleasure are not associated with love, then 'love' is intense isn't it? It is something new every day because 'thought' (the 'thinking part of the brain ?) has not touched it.
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 13 Nov 2016||#486|
|John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline||
SAANEN 1ST K PUBLIC DISCUSSION 1966 (reader friendly edited)
CONFUSION AND PERSONAL BELIEFS
K: What shall we discuss?
Questioner: We all have some kind of beliefs and we come here in the hope of attaining what we believe. Madame Curie had a belief and worked enthusiastically till she found what she wanted. Is not some kind of belief necessary to have enthusiasm?
Krishnamurti: Can't your enthusiasm sustain itself without a belief, and is enthusiasm at all necessary, or is a different kind of energy needed, a different kind of vitality, drive? Most of us have enthusiasm for something or other. We are very keen, very enthusiastic about concerts, about physical exercise, or going to a picnic. Unless it is nourished all the time by something or other, it fades away and we have a new enthusiasm for other things. Is there a self-sustaining force, energy, which doesn't depend on a belief?
Questioner: Because we don't know (the truth ?)
Krishnamurti: I have sorrows of various kinds; I'm miserable, unhappy, unfulfilled. Someone tells me that sorrow can end. I say that I want to find out. I don't have to believe what he says. I want to find out if it can actually end. To find out, I have to see what is implied in it. So, my interest is not in the belief that it can end, but rather whether I can go into it so that I have no sorrow. Having a belief that sorrow can end is an ( ages old ?) waste of energy; and I need all my energy to investigate.
Questioner: Because I'm afraid to be alone.
Krishnamurti: Our daily life is a terrible bore, with ( a lot of stress ?) loneliness and anguish and we believe there is something else. We avoid (facing the real) issue.
Questioner: It is not a question of "belief" but of having a purpose. If you have no purpose, then you have no intelligence and no energy.
Krishnamurti: You know people who have purposes, who have ideals, who have beliefs and... are they intelligent?
Questioner: I am aware that between you and myself there is ( a free communication ?) space. Is there any way that I can make myself free in this 'space'?
Krishnamurti: Why do you want an 'ideal contact' in which there is no ( self-divisive ?) space? The fact is that there is that ( self-centred) space, and in that space there is all our misery, conflict and the problems , of relationship.
Questioner: Having a belief is like putting a penny in the slot, hoping a bar of chocolate will come out.
Krishnamurti: If you can (inwardly afford it ?) when you go out, leave behind in the tent all your ideals, and see what happens. First of all, you (may realise that you ?) don't really believe in your ideals. That's a fact. If people really believed in "reincarnation", what they do in this life would be tremendously important, because next (or in the after- ?) life they are going to pay for it if they don't behave properly now. They don't believe it, because they don't believe in leading the real life. It is a (very convenient form of ?) escape.
Questioner: Don't you need a 'dialogue' to face any problem?
Krishnamurti: With whom are you having a dialogue? If there is no confusion, I wouldn't have ( the need for ?) a 'dialogue with myself'. Either I see clearly, or I don't.
Questioner: ( In your talks here ) you have pictured to us a state (of being) , an (inner) space in which there is no sorrow, where there is understanding, compassion. We are looking at that (verbal painting ?) , and we still have distance between 'what is' and 'that'.
Krishnamurti: I am in sorrow, and I have listened to someone, who describes a state in which there is no sorrow, who says that sorrow can end. In living with sorrow there is always cunning, deception, hypocrisy; but with the ending of sorrow, there is wisdom, there is intelligence. He says, "Don't make that into an ideal, into a concept, but see if you can be free from your (ongoing sense of ?) sorrow". We are now asking ourselves why there is this monstrous structure of ideals, concepts, formulas, when they are just words without any reality. The "reality" is that ( within ourselves ?) we are confused; we have problems; we are miserable. We don't ask "How we can end all of that ?". We always ask, "Can I move from this to that?".
Questioner: If I do not believe in God, in religious leaders, and all the rest of it, it is almost like saying, "Whatever happens, I know that I can cope with it".
Krishnamurti: That would be a most 'dangerous' (slippery ?) assertion, because I am not capable. To be capable, to have the necessary vitality, energy, it should not be dissipated in ideals, in beliefs. How can you face facts, if you have a divided mind, if there is an ideal, and the fact? You must have a mind that can say, "I can look at the facts", but you cannot if you have a divided mind, an idealistic mind and a non-idealistic mind.
Questioner: How can you bring up children without ideals, without beliefs? You will isolate them in the world.
Krishnamurti: Do you think that if you bring them up without beliefs, you isolate them, choke them, cut them off from a lot of other people who believe, so that they have no relationships? There are two things involved. First, you yourself have to be free of ideals, beliefs. In the process of helping the child not to have beliefs, you yourself are getting rid of 'beliefs'. If I understand the futility of beliefs, I can help the child to face the ( real ?) world, which is drowned in ( wishful thinking and/or?) beliefs; that child will have intelligence enough not to be isolated.
If you have no (personal attachments to such ?) "beliefs", it's a great relief. You put off a heavy burden. Then you "walk lighter"; then you can look into problems more freely. Can you do it? Can each of you actually, leave all 'beliefs', 'ideations', 'concepts'? If you can't, then let's find out why you can't.
Questioner: Isn't 'belief' a ( more complex) psychological state?
Krishnamurti: It is a very complex psychological state (of self-insufficiency ?) ; it demands that I have beliefs, a purpose, an ideal. Psychologically I can't face what I am - my ugliness, my pettiness, my loneliness. I must ( compensare for it with ?) some kind of entertainment.
Questioner: If you have a belief, it arises from an inner area that is not clear. As soon as you look into that area, you start to think about it, and that's dialogue.
Krishnamurti: You have an area which is not clear, which is confused, and you have another area, which you think is clear. You have a dialogue between these two. That's called thinking, investigating, searching, asking. The area that is confused and the area that is not confused are both the same. There is a conflict between them, which indicates a state of confusion. It's not ( total ?) clarity.
Questioner: Can I look at my confusion? And what is the state that looks at confusion?
Krishnamurti: Why don't I stop and look at myself? When I am confused in a jungle, I don't go around like a monkey all over the place. I stop to take stock of where I am, but I stop.
Questioner: Does that not bring up the question of ( some subliminal ?) 'psychological' fear? We are suddenly faced with the fact that we have been trapped for years.
Krishnamurti: Therefore the problem is whether it is possible to be free of this fear.
Questioner: Once you have faced it, you can no longer have an ideal.
Krishnamurti: Of course. Like a man who says he believes in brotherhood. When everyone is butchering each other, both inwardly and outwardly, why have an ideal of brotherhood? It is tommyrot.
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 16 Nov 2016||#487|
|John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline||
SAANEN 2ND AND 3-RD K PUBLIC DISCUSSION 1966 ( 'experientially friendly' edited )
THE NON-DUALISTIC ACTION
K: We are going to discuss this morning whether a mind, without having (the psycho-logistic support of ?) beliefs, ideas, or concepts, can face what it actually is. We will also go into the question of whether the mind can face ( its own ?) fears without any (psycho-) escapes, such as belief. We will go to the very end of this problem of fear and of what to do about it. Also, to discuss it fully (experientially ?) , we first have to enquire whether action, any kind of activity, is possible without a formula, without an idea, idea being organized thought.
Questioner: Is it possible to face myself? Between "myself" and the "fact" is all the psychological structure of memory, tradition, the culture in which I have been brought up.
Krishnamurti: As we said yesterday, we have built around ourselves ( buffering ?) defences made up of beliefs, ideas, words and symbols, through which we try to face "what is". This, obviously, is not possible.
Questioner: You pointed out (last time) that the ( psychological part of our ?) mind is totally unclear, and that no sensible action can be taken as long as the mind is in that state. If part of the mind is not clear, the whole thing is unclear; so how can we even look at your question, as long as our mind is so unclear?
Krishnamurti: You state that your mind is totally confused. You don't know whether there is God or there is no God; whether there is reincarnation, or no reincarnation; whether you must love your country, when many people say we have gone beyond all that. Some say that you must have a king or a queen, but the republicans say, "Oh, that's old stuff; put it all out". You are brought up in this confusion; you are (part of ?) this confusion. Realizing that whatever you think, whatever you do, whatever your aspirations may be, noble or otherwise, they are all the outcome of this confusion and are therefore still confused, what will you do?
Questioner: Shouldn't I just 'do nothing', and look completely at my confusion?
Krishnamurti: Please tell me what to do.
Questioner: Well, that's what I've done; I've looked at my confusion.
Questioner: We can do a simple action without 'thinking'.
Krishnamurti: We are asking whether it is possible to have no 'beliefs' (psychological assumptions ?) , and if it is possible to act without an 'idea' (without an ideological background ?) . This requires a great deal of attention : why I try to escape from the fact of what I am, (whatever I am). I don't like something in myself; I want to run away from it and either go to a church, to a concert, take a drink, or... come to a meeting like this.
Questioner: I do all these things because I'm feeling lonely.
Krishnamurti: Why do you try to escape from your loneliness? Why don't you face it? Do please ask yourself why you have built ( such a sofisticated ?) network of escapes around yourself ?
Questioner: Deep down in us there is great fear (of the unknown problems this may create ?) ; therefore we 'run away'.
Krishnamurti: I am deeply afraid; therefore I run away. Is that a fact?
Questioner: You run away because you are annoyed.
Krishnamurti: You're saying that you can't face yourselves 'as you are' - afraid, lonely, and therefore you run away. You are not answering my question. Who are you running away from?
Questioner: All the time inside of us there is some sort of 'ideal' (image) of how we should be, and this is in conflict with what we really are.
Krishnamurti: The questioner says, "I am dissatisfied with what I am". Then why do I run away ?
Questioner: I can't stand still. That's why I run.
Krishnamurti: One can talk like this endlessly. Please have patience with me and listen for two minutes. I want to know why I run away. I am (feeling inwardly?) frightened, lonely, anxious, miserable. I don't like it and make a movement away to something else . I'm talking of the interval (gap ?) between them, the act of running. If I can find out (how to deal with ?) that, perhaps I won't run. If I can find out why this movement (away from what I am) takes place, I may be able to solve the problem. I may, although I may not, but I want to know why this action takes place. I know the games which man has played through centuries upon centuries, but have I ever questioned what this movement is, and why does this movement take place?
Questioner: If you ask that question there must be an answer.
Krishnamurti: I say there is an answer. I would like to show it to you, but you don't stop.
Questioner: It isn't from 'this' to 'that'. Probably there is no movement at all.
Krishnamurti: I think I have moved, but I am merely changing from one centre (of interest) to another centre, which is still the "me", which I don't like. When I think I am running away, I am really static. It is a terrible thing to discover that though I think I am moving, I am really static. It isn't like putting on a new coat and discarding the old one, because the 'entity' that puts on the new coat is always the same entity. This doesn't mean that I must get rid of the 'self', which is the philosophy of the Orient.
Questioner: You were speaking in your last talk about space, and if I understood, there is only one space.
Krishnamurti: To go from here to the place where I live there is time; there is space; and there is definitely a movement. I walk, take a car, go by a cycle or by train. I apply the same thing to my (inner life) . I say, "I am this; I am unhappy" and I want to live more happily, and so on. I want to move away from 'what is' to something else. Physically I move away from the tent to my home. There is a movement, and I apply that same (thinking) to myself. I never stop and look; I never ask myself if I am really moving. I think I am moving away from 'what' is to what I think 'I should be'. I am saying to myself, "Is it a movement?"
Questioner: If there is no movement at all, why do we think there is?
Krishnamurti: Up to now all religions, all philosophies have stated that you should change, move from this to that. If. someone comes along and says that it may not be like that at all, you don't even examine it. If the movement from 'this' to 'that' is static, because this is essentially the same although called by a different name, put in a different cloak, then one asks if there is a change at all. You think you are changing, changing, changing, and this change is called evolution. May there not be a totally different way of looking, living?
Questioner: During my whole life, haven't I changed at all?
Krishnamurti: Do you know what would happen to you if you really discovered ( the truth of ?) this fact ? You would be in a state of horror, if you discovered that the movement from 'this' to 'that' is the same as 'this'. What you think you're changing to is what has been. If you realize this, you ask, "What have I done for forty years of my life?".
Questioner: Actually when the difference between the 'experiencer' and the 'experience' is understood and finally abolished, then, once the experience has come and gone, it doesn't really matter what words you use.
Krishnamurti: I quite agree. If it is lost, it has gone down the river.
Krishnamurti: So, ( for homework:) when you go out of this tent, try not to act according to an idea, to a memory.
Questioner: There is ( a subliminal ) fear of a loss of identity if the difference between the experiencer and the experience is abolished.
Krishnamurti: What are you identified with?
Questioner: There an "I" who knows this (sense of existential) despair. How does one overcome that very real moment of terror?
Krishnamurti: You want a quick answer, and there is no quick answer. You can take a pill, a drug, but that's no answer since you'll be back again in the same state tomorrow. But if we take the "voyage" together step by step, not impatiently, not rushing, hesitantly, with care, with affection, you will find it for yourself.
K: We will continue with what we were discussing yesterday: I have to act with regard to the fact, with regard to 'what is', with regard to what I find. There must be ( a holistical ?) action, but 99.9 per cent of our (inner) actions are an approximation of a belief, an idea, a concept, an image and according to that ideation, I act. However, there is conflict between the 'idea' and the action. (Eg:) I see that I am afraid. I have an idea about fear, what I should do how I should avoid it. There is an (ongoing) conflict between the observer and the (thing) observed, and if I don't see it, I can't deal with the object which is called fear.
Questioner: Who is the entity that is looking?
Krishnamurti: We haven't come to that point yet. Let's approach the problem differently. We see ( our inner) life a breeding ground of hopeless despair, loneliness, anger, the desire to dominate, and the feeling that we are suppressed. That's what we call existence, living; and in that field we act. Every action, however much interrelated with each other, creates more conflict, more battle, more confusion. At the end we ask if there is a way of life, a (way of ?) action which in no way brings confusion, conflict ?
Questioner: I don't know about that yet...
Krishnamurti: Then, sir, if you don't know, say, "I don't know", and keep quiet.
Questioner: Will the answer come then?
Krishnamurti: To be ( inwardly ?) quiet needs tremendous intelligence. A man who is napping is very quiet, but to be really quiet, without ( subliminally ?) seeking, without wanting, needs tremendous intelligence; and then perhaps the answer comes, but we are not (yet) in that position, so we must have the patience to go step by step.
Questioner: The everyday process of living breeds conflict and strain.
Krishnamurti: Yes, that's what we have 'stated' (implicitly ?) . As long as there is space, a ( separation ?) interval, between the 'observer' and the 'observed', there must be conflict.
Questioner: Since I do not thoroughly understand either myself as the 'observer', or the actions that I do, how can I talk about some new action?
Krishnamurti: First you have to realize that you never see ( directly) the fact that 'psychologically' there is ( a safe distance between ?) the observer and the observed; between 'me', the ( biased ?) observer, and the thing observed -my anger. You say, "I'm ( getting) angry". That's all you know. You must realize that you have never looked at this 'fact' of the ( mental separation between the ?) observer and the ( inner stuff ?) observed.
Questioner: I am lacking real love.
Krishnamurti: The actual fact is that I lack love. That ( 'love') is the object; the "I" is the observer. We don't realize the ( hidden factor of my inner?) separation. The first thing to understand, to realize is that there is in me psychologically this fact - that I am ( feeling safely ) separated from the thing which I observe. The next ( hidden ?) fact I have to realize is that the 'observer' is nothing but ( a pro-active identification with our past ?) ideas, memories, formulas, opinions.
Questioner: What is the entity who observes and sees the thing, the object?
Krishnamurti: This question is easy to ask, but to find the answer requires a great deal of penetration (and/or ?) insight.
Questioner: Don't (re-) act ?
Questioner: How am I to find union between the observer and the observed?
Krishnamurti: I realize that whatever I do breeds more conflict, more confusion, more misery to myself. So I say, What am I to do?
Questioner: If one watches one's thoughts, one's feelings, one's activities, then one begins to understand.
Krishnamurti: I watch my thought. It goes all over the place, wandering, contradictory. I look at it and try to understand it, to control it, or to identify myself with it. I make an effort, and that effort is a conflict, but when I realize that the thinker ( the 'observer') "is" the thought, "is" the observed, then conflict comes to an end.
Questioner: Alright, we acknowledge that the thought and the thinker are one.
Krishnamurti: There is no acknowledging, there is no 'bringing together'...
Questioner: Why can't we go along quickly together?
Krishnamurti: When we listen to the noise of that airplane passing overhead - not as a listener and the noise, but when we are completely paying attention to the noise, then there is only noise, not the 'listener' and the 'noise'.
Questioner: We are ( pretty much ?) conscious of the fact that there is the centre, and the thought.
Krishnamurti: The 'electronic brain' (aka the computer) replies to a question according to the information it has. ( In the same way) we have stored up information through experience, through heredity, through culture, through impression, through influence, through climate. That 'electronic storing' is ( generating the virtual reality of ?) a 'thinker', who ( for safety reasons) separates himself from the ( the other responses and activities of ?) thought, and then says, "I must do something about it". The 'actual' (holistic ?) fact is that "the thinker 'is' the thought", 'is' the memory, 'is' (both) the experiencer and the experienced. If you really understood this very, very simple 'fact', (the inner quality of ) life would change totally, absolutely, not tomorrow but "now".
Questioner: We 'disappear'.
Krishnamurti: Do you? (Laughter.) I am asking in all seriousness; I didn't mean it cynically or humorously. When you look at the flower without "thinking", what takes place?
Questioner: There is only a 'state of seeing'.
Krishnamurti: What do you all say? Have you ever tried to look at a flower, without going through all the process of analysis and knowledge, of thinking - just looking at it? What takes place?
Questioner: Integration takes place.
Krishnamurti: May I suggest something (for homework ?) ? If you have half an hour to spare this afternoon, look at a tree or a flower, at your wife or your husband. just look, not as the husband who has had innumerable insults, flatteries, hurts, pleasures, sex, and all the rest. Will you try it and see what happens?
Questioner: Perhaps the 'observer' disappears ?
Krishnamurti: Try it!
Questioner: There is no ( sense of inner) conflict then.
Krishnamurti: Now, would you listen to the noise that airplane is making? Just listen to it. (Pause.) Now, what has taken place? You listened. First find out what it means to 'listen'.
Questioner: You become one with the noise.
Questioner: It fills you up; you are filled with it.
Krishnamurti: It matters enormously how you listen. An airplane went over just now, and you listened. You say, "Yes, I listened to that noise; it filled me; or you say, "I didn't like that noise, because I wanted to ask you a question", or, "I want to listen to you". You have to find out, before you listen, what is this "listening"? The noise is not important; but how I listen to the noise is important. ? One of the most difficult things to do is to find out what it is to listen. You can only listen out of silence. When that airplane went over, some of you were listening to the noise; some were not listening, or not understanding what listening is. You can only listen when there is a total (inner) silence.
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 18 Nov 2016||#488|
|John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline||
1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE BROCKWOOD 1975
ON AWARENESS AND THE 'IMAGE MAKING' MECHANISM (experientially friendly edited )
K: This is a dialogue between two friends, talking over not only their own personal affairs, but also with what is happening in the world. Being serious these two friends have the urge to transform themselves ( psychologically) and see what they can do about the world and all the misery and confusion that is going on. So if that is understood then what shall we talk over together this morning?
Q: The compilation of your ( Lutyens) biography has caused much confusion and quite a lot of questions. I have boiled them down to a few. May I at least hand them over to you?
K: Do you want to discuss the Biography, written by Mary Lutyens - do you want to go into that?
Q: Briefly and then finish with it.
K: Basically the question is: why wasn't he conditioned ( by the TS environment) and what is the relationship between that K person and the present K person? One of the other questions is: the Theosophical world, and the Buddhist tradition maintains that there is a Bodhisattva that he manifests himself rarely and that is called in Sanskrit, 'avatar', which means manifestation. And this boy was discovered and prepared for ( being the vehicle of ?) that manifestation. And he went through all kinds of things. And one question that may be asked: must others go through the same process? Christopher Columbus discovered America with sailing boats, dangerous seas and so on. And must we go through all that to go to America? You understand my question? It is much simpler to go by air.
Q: Would you go into the question of what it is to find one's true (free ?) will?
K: Can we talk over together awareness, begin with that and explore the whole thing, including the (free ) will of one's own destiny
Q: Choice is the expression of ( our past) conditioning, is it not?
K: One is educated from childhood to choose, and that is our tradition, that is our habit, that is our mechanical, instinctive reaction. And we think because I chose there is freedom. That is our ( cultural) conditioning. I chose you as my friend, I deny my friendship to another and so on. But one wants to find out if awareness includes choice. Or is awareness a state of observation in which there is no ( personal) choice whatsoever? To be aware implies, doesn't it, not only a physical sensory sensitivity, but a total sensitivity - to nature, to all my reactions, how I respond to others - all that implies awareness, doesn't? I am aware of this tent, the shape of it and so on and so on and so on. One is aware of nature, the world of nature, the trees, the beauty of trees, the silence of the trees, you know the shape and the beauty and the depth, and the solitude of trees. In that awareness there isn't any kind of choice. That is a total awareness, not only neurologically, physiologically but psychologically, to everything around me, to the influences, to all the noise and so on and so on.
Q: That becomes selfishness.
K: Yes, that is unless there is total sensitivity, awareness merely then becomes concentration on oneself.
Q: Which excludes awareness.
K: Yes, that is right. Or is awareness a (free inner) movement of constant observation - not only what I feel, what I think, but also what other people are saying about me, if they say it in front of me, to listen, and to be aware of nature, of what is going on in the world? That is the total awareness. Obviously it can't be 'practised'.
Q: It is a non-movement ?
K: No, it is movement in the senses, alive. So is one so aware? Or we indulge in words of being aware? You understand? To be aware of the people around one, the colour, their attitudes, their walk, the way they eat, the way they think - you know aware - without indulging in judgement.
Q: Is it something to do with motive?
K: Of course. Motive comes into being when there is choice. So is this possible, this sense of total awareness?
Q: Is there a degree of awareness? Can one man be more aware then another?
K: One is educated in schools, colleges, and universities to compare oneself with 'A' who is much cleverer than myself and try to reach his level. This constant ( self- evaluation) measurement, this constant comparison, and therefore constant imitation, is mechanical. So can we find out for ourselves whether it is possible to be totally sensitive and therefore aware?
Q: Can you know if you are totally aware or not? Can we be aware of our awareness?
K: It becomes speculative, verbal, but when you are aware, do you know you are aware? The moment you are (becoming verbally ) aware that you are happy it is no longer happiness.
So we are asking ourselves if there is that quality of (free ?) awareness? Does one watch the sky - you follow? - the evening stars, the moon, , the birds, and people's reactions, you know, the whole of it? And what is the difference between that awareness and attention? In awareness is there a centre from which you are aware? You understand? When I say, I am aware, then from a centre I move, I respond to nature, from a centre I respond to my friends, to my wife, husband or whatever it is - right? If there is a centre from which I respond - that centre being my prejudices, my conditioning, my desires, my fears and all the rest of it - then in that awareness is there a centre? You follow? So in attention there is no centre at all, obviously - you are completely attentive and therefore there is no centre and that attention has no borders.
Q: What do you mean by 'mechanical'?
K: Part of this mechanical process is functioning within the field of conditioning: acting according to a pattern set by society, by influence, by my reading, and accept that pattern or a belief and so on, then that is part of the mechanical process. The other part of the mechanical process is, having had experiences of innumerable kinds which have left memories, and act according to those memories, that is mechanical - like a computer, which is purely mechanical (programmable ?) .
Q: Is ( the self-centred ?) thought of itself mechanical?
K: Of course. That is the whole point.
Q: All thought?
K: All thought, of course. Whether noble thought, ignoble thought, sexual thought or technological thought, it is all thought.
Q: Part of the great genius also?
K: We must go into the question of what is a 'genius' - we won't go into that yet.
Q: So if all thought is mechanical, the expression which you often use 'clear thinking' ( or 'thinking straight' ?) seems to be a contradiction.
K: Clear thinking is to see clearly, obviously, clear thinking is to think clearly, objectively sanely, rationally, wholly.
Q: It is still thought.
K: It is still thought, of course it is.
Q: So what is the use of it?
K: What is the use of clear thinking ? If there was clear thinking I wouldn't belong to any political party. I might create a 'global' party, because obviously ( something has to be done ?) ...
Q: Can we get back to your question as to whether there is a part of the brain which is untouched by ( its temporal ?) conditioning?
K: To go into this requires one to be very careful and hesitant - one has to enquire into this - not say "Yes, there is", or not and you need a great deal of subtlety, a great attentive quality to go step by step into it, not jump.
Q: Are we going to look at the barriers which interfere with an unconditioned mind?
K: No. We are trying to understand the mechanistic mind first. Is there a part of the brain, part of our 'total mind' in which is included the brain, emotions, neurological responses, the total brain, which is not completely mechanistic? And when I put that question to myself I might (imply) that I have got the other. So I must completely understand the movement of desire, have an insight in this - which means ( wishful thinking in terms of ?) time and all that we talked about.
Q: Always ...
K: Of course! So ( living inwardly ?) in the area of ( our past) knowledge is mechanistic. I wonder if you see this?
Q: Why is it so difficult to see ( the truth of ?) this?
K: Because we are not aware of what actually is going on within oneself ...
Q: Aren't we guided to awareness by experience?
K: No. Suppose you have said something that hurts me. That has left a mark on the brain and when I meet you next time that memory responds. But is it possible when you say something cruel, violent, to observe it and not 'register' it ( not take it 'personally' ?) . You try it, and test it out.
Q: It is very difficult because that (our 'personal' ?) memory has already been hurt sir, we never forget it.
K: From childhood we are hurt, which is happening to everybody, in school, at home, at college, in universities, the whole (collective mentality of ?) society is a process of hurting others (in order to make them conform ?) . So there are two problems involved: (a)the past hurts retained in the brain, and (b) not to be hurt again. Now, how is this possible?
Q: If 'you' - the 'image' of yourself is not there ?
K: Go into it slowly. The 'image' that you have built about yourself, that has been hurt. Why do you have an 'image' about yourself? Because that is part of our education, part of our social reactions. There is an image about myself and there is an image about 'you' in relation to my image. So I have got half a dozen 'images' and more. And the (central ?) image about myself has been hurt. Now how am I to dissolve (delete ?) that hurt and not be hurt in the future, tomorrow, or the next moment?
Q: One has to get totally involved ?
K: Look at it and you will find out. You have all been 'hurt' haven't you, and you are afraid (very cautious ?) of being hurt more. So you build a ( mental ?) wall round yourself, and the extreme form of that isolation is total withdrawal from all relationship. And you build a wall and you remain in that (safe inner zone) but you have to live, you have to act.
Q: No more hurts ?
K: If you say "I will find out if it is possible not to be hurt at all" - then you will have to solve the problem of (deleting from your personal memory the ?) past hurts, won't you? So the question is: is it possible not be hurt? Which means is it possible not to have a (self-protective ?) 'image' about yourself, or about another ? And if there is no ( 'self') image, isn't that true (inner) freedom?
Q: Sir, if you have managed to get rid of your self importance...
K: Yes, sir, if you can get rid of your "self importance", your arrogance, your vanity, your etc., etc. then you won't be hurt. But how am I to get rid of all that garbage which I have collected?
Q: I think you can get rid of it by being entirely aware of the relationship between yourself and your physical body and your thinking. How you control your physical body and...
K: That is the traditional, mechanistic response: to control anything, my body, my mind, my emotions !
Q: Surely by destroying one image, are we not immediately building another one?
K: We are going to find out if it is possible to be free of all ( self-protective) images: why does the mind create an image about itself? When I say "I am a Christian", that is a (pretty safe cultural ?) image. That is my ( cultural) conditioning. Go to India and they say "What are you talking about, Christ? I have got my own gods, as good as yours, (only ?) better".
Q: Sir, is that related to the fact that out of fear ( of not being accepted ?) one behaves in a certain way which is not natural for one to behave, and therefore one is not being oneself? And that is making the (politically correct ?) 'image' that you are talking about.
K: The ( deeper self ?) "image" is what we call "oneself". I must express myself. I must fulfil myself - myself is the 'image' (built up ?) according to the environment and culture in which I have been born. wouldn't it?
Q: Basically we cling to the "known".
K: That is the known, tradition is the known. And my mind is afraid to let that "known image" go, because the moment it lets it go it might lose a profitable position in society, might lose status, might lose a certain ( self-gratifying ?) relationship and so, it holds to that image.
Q: If one is listening to what you say and realize that one has an image about oneself, and that there is a large discrepancy between the image one has of oneself and the ideal of freedom, then knowing that there is a discrepancy can one still think of 'freedom' knowing that it is just an idea?
K: That is why sir - is "freedom" a concept , or a reality? We said there is "freedom", the actuality of that state when there is no (self-protective ?) "image" - when I am not (identifying myself as ?) a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Socialist - you follow? - I have no (politically correct ?) label, and also no ( self-made ?) label inside. Is it possible to live in this world without a single ( self-) image ?
Q: When there is no 'observer' there is nothing ( to be ) 'observed' - and yet one comes across something in this silence.
K: Madam, ( for starters ?) is it possible to be free of the 'image' that society, environment, culture, education has built (induced ?) in one? Because one is all that - right? ( Psychologically ?) 'you' are the result of your environment, of your culture, of your knowledge, of your education, of your technological job, of your pleasure, you 'are' ( subliminally identified with ?) all that.
Q: If you are (becoming) aware of your conditioning does that free you?
K: Now are you actually aware that you are conditioned this way, therefore you have got a (politically correct ?) image?
Q: If you don't have the ( socially friendly ) 'image' then you don't know what your place is.
K: Listen to that carefully: "If you have no ( self-) image, you have no place in this world". Which means if you have no 'image' you are insecure. But are you having a place in the world which is secure?
K: Be actual.
Q: Sir when you see that the image that you have built is just a load of words...
K: So you are finding security in a word, and therefore it is not a security at all. You understand sir? We have lived ( inwardly in the illusory safety of ?) words and made those words something fantastically real. So I deny ( the global) security because the words, the labels have become important, not security. I wonder if you see this is what is actually happening, the Arabs and Israel, both want ( their particular form of ?) security - right?
Q: How can we be secure in a "sick" society?
K: I'll show you that there is a complete (inner sense of ?) security, an 'absolute' security, but not in ( hiding behind self-protective ?) images.
Q: To be totally aware every moment, then your conditioning does not exist.
K: Not, 'if' you are aware. Are you aware that you have a (self-created ?) 'image' and that image has been formed by ( the interaction between yourself and ?) your culture, society and all the rest of it? Are you aware of that image? And you can discover that 'image' in ( your daily ) relationships, don't you? How you react in relationship with each other. When you tell me something ugly and I get hurt, that is, the 'image'is hurt, the image is me, carefully put together by ( nice sounding) words. I am a Christian. I believe in this. I do not believe in that. This is my opinion - you follow? Now we are asking ourselves whether it is possible to be free of 'images'?
Q: Who watches all this?
K: If there is a 'watcher' then the ( updating of the old ?) image is continuous. If there is no ( self-conscious ?) 'watcher' there is no (self-conscious ?) 'image', obviously.
Now follow it. In this world (the general feeling is that ?) if I have no ( self-) image, I shall not be secure. And one has found security in ( getting strongly attached to ?) 'things' - to a house, a property, a bank account, that is what we call ( 'material') security. And ( on the side ?) you have also found ( a 'psychologically optimised ') security in ( getting attached to a ?) belief. If I am living in the medieval Italy - it was much safer to believe what other hundred thousands of people believe. And when that belief is questioned I resist. And Protestantism grew out of that and so on and so on.
Now can there be a 'total awareness' of all this (self-protective image stitching mechanism ?) ? So ( deprived of that false sense of security ?) my mind is (got to be ?) tremendously active you understand? Not need to say, "I must be aware", "I must learn how to be aware " - play ( various 'mind) games'. It requires that the brain is ( assuming the responsability of ?) being "alive".
Then we can ( meditatively ?) move on from that ( 'terra firma' ?) to find out if there is in the brain a part that has not been conditioned at all, which is part of the brain which is 'non-mechanistic'. (I am putting a 'false' question, I don't know if you see that. Just listen for two minutes, I am on fire !)
Q: It is 'on fire' ?
K: Yes, therefore it is 'non-mechanistic' and that has got ( access to ?) a totally different kind of energy. Not the 'mechanistic' energy - right? Your brain has been conditioned through centuries, saying survival is only possible if you have an 'image' (making mechanism ?) which is created by the (self-confining) circle in which you live, and that 'circle' gives you ( the solid illusion of ?) complete security. As an ( upper middle class ?) 'Englishman' I am (supposed to be doing ?) better than anybody else, or.... whatever it is.
Q: What about the 'images' (spontaneously occuring in our daily ?) relationship? "Don't belong to an ( elitistic ? ) community". I quite agree with you. You don't want any 'psychological image', but even if you want to drop it you can't ,because the others put it on you.
K: Sir, ( globally speaking ?) if I want to survive physically, what is preventing it? All the 'psychological' barriers which man has created - right? So remove all those 'psychological' barriers (limitations ?) , you have complete security.
Q: No, because the other one puts it on you, not yourself.
K: Nobody can put you (psychologically speaking ?) into prison.
Q: They kill you.
K: Then they kill you, all right. Then you will find out how to meet 'death' - not imagine what you are going to feel when you die, which is another image.
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 19 Nov 2016||#489|
|John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline||
2ND K PUBLIC DIALOGUE BROCKWOOD 1975
THE 'IMAGE' MAKING MECHANISM AND THE 'NEGATIVE' APPROACH TO ATTENTION (Experientially friendly edited)
K: What shall we talk over this morning together?
Q (1) : When I ask myself , "Who is the observer ?" I always come up to an (invisible inner ?) wall. I would like to see the whole of the observer, but I can only see it in fragments: so, how can the observer see the observer with no observer?
Q(2) : When a situation occurs, what keeps one into the 'observingness' that the observer is different from what is observed? It seems a lack of attention to the moment, at that point, but that attention to the point requires a tremendous vitality that we don't have.
Q(3) : May I just ask one more question? Can an 'act of will-power' - I think you call it an 'act of friction' - can this generate the vitality or the passion?
K: Can will (power) generate sufficient energy to see clearly?
Q (4) : For medical reasons, we use hypnosis in medicine. What happens to the brain and the process of thought during hypnosis? Is hypnosis a ( valid) way of looking at one's thought process?
K: We have got so many questions. Shall we begin with the "observer"?
K: And to see the whole of that one needs ( an integrated ?) energy, and how is that energy to be acquired? And will that "energy" reveal the totality of the whole nature and structure of the 'observer'? And what is the quality of the mind that has ( access to ?) this (non-dualistic ?) meditative process ?
Q: The 'observer' cannot see (the whole of it) .
K: Let's enquire. From where shall I begin to be aware of myself - 'myself ' being all the 'beliefs' (root assumtions ?) , conclusions, fears, the anxieties (worries ?) , the sorrow, and so on, the whole of that, where shall we begin to ( unfold ?) the content of this?
Q: Is the starting question "Who I am?"
K: ( Mentally ?) enquiring 'who I am' becomes intellectual, verbal.
Q: When I am very interested in some relationship, I notice that I can really observe. But when I am getting angry (or too 'personal' ?) in my relationship I really can't observe (objectively) what is going on.
K: Sir, what is the meaning of the word itself, 'relationship' ?
Q: It means you are relating to that person, you care for the person, I care for the person.
K: The ( closest experiential ?) meaning in the ( Webster's ?) dictionary, is "to respond" - relationship comes from that word. Now how do I respond in my relationship to you, if you are my wife, husband and all the rest of it? Am I responding according to the (mental) 'image' I have (created) about you? And you are responding according to the 'image' you have about me? Or are we both free of the images and therefore responding accurately?
Q: Isn't it largely ( the working of our ?) sub-consciousness? And what do you mean by 'accurate'?
K: The word 'accurate' means to have great care. Therefore if you care for something you act 'accurately'. If you care for your 'motor car' you must be very well acquainted with it, you must know all the mechanical processes of it.
Q: What about a 'love - hate' relationship?
K: Sir we are just beginning to enquire. ( Eventually ?) we will come to that. Now I have an 'image' about you and you have an 'image' about me. These images have been ( built up ?) in one day or it may be ten years, through pleasure, fear, nagging, domination, possession, various hurts, impatience and so on and so on. Now when we (inter?)act or respond according to that image then that (inter)action, being incomplete, and therefore without what we generally call 'love'. May we go on from there? Are you aware that you have an image about yourself and/or about another? And having that image you respond according to the ( experience of the ?) past, because this image has been (stored in the memory of ?) the past.
Q: And also it is (being processed ?) according to one's selfish desires.
K: Desires, fears , selfishness...
Q: You can't think of another person without a (mental) 'image', so how can you write a letter?
K: First of all can we be ( become ?) aware that we have an image, not only about ourselves but about another?
Q: The two 'images' are in relation, but the image of the other is made from the image you have of yourself.
K: That is what we said sir.
Q: Sir would anything ( more experientially ?) practical help?
K: Sir, this is the most practical thing if you 'listen' to this. The 'practical' is to observe clearly what we 'are' and then act from there. Is one aware that one has an image about another? And is one aware that one has an image about oneself? Are you aware of that? This is a simple (observable ) thing: I may hurt you and you naturally have a (poor ?) image about me. I give you pleasure, and you have a ( good) image about me. And according to that ( response of ?) hurt and pleasure you react; and that reaction, being fragmentary, must be 'inaccurate', not whole. This is simple. Can we go on from there?
Q: From moment to moment (Every now and then ?) .
K: Now if I do have an image why has this image been put together, who is the creator of these images? How has that image been born?
Q: Isn't it a necessary imaginative process?
Q: You say through experience, through various incidents, through words...
Q: And retaining it all as ( psychologically useful ?) memory.
K: Which is all the movement of ( our self-centred process of ?) thought, isn't it? So thought as 'movement', which is ( creating its own psychological continuity in ?) time, has created this 'image' because it wants to protect itself - right?
Q: Then it means that it also can see itself.
K: Sir, you have an 'image' about me, haven't you?
Q: Well it is ( constantly ?) changing...
K: If you are honest, look into yourself, you see you have an 'image'. How has that 'image' been brought about? You have read something, you have listened to something, there is a (certain) reputation, some articles in the papers and so on and so on. So all this has influenced the thought and out of that you have created an "image". So when you respond according to your "image" about the speaker you are responding inaccurately, in that there is no ( love &) care. (We said "care" implies attention, affection, accuracy )
Q: Is not an 'image' a thought (form ?) ?
K: We said that sir, an (artifact of ?) thought. So thought (the thinking brain) has built this 'image' through (processing the related facts in ?) time. It may be one day or fifty years. And I see in my relationship to another this image plays a tremendous part, and if I don't act mechanically, I become aware and see how extraordinarily vital this 'image (making' mechanism ?) is. Then my next question is: is it possible to be free of these (mental) 'images'? I have the image as a Communist, believing in all kinds of ideas, or a Catholic and I act according to that, there is a reaction according to that image.
Q: Images form the whole chaos in the world where we live, so it is not necessary.
K: He says this whole image making is bringing about chaos in the world - the image as a Hindu, as a Buddhist, as a Communist, as a Catholic, as a Protestant, you understand?
Q: In making an 'image' there is a lot of ( biased ?) judgement.
K: But we are asking a little more: whether it is necessary to have these images?
K: Then if it is not necessary why do we keep it (the image making mechanism ) going) ?
Q: Being what we are, we can hardly help it.
K: We are going to find out whether it is possible to be free of this image, and whether it is worthwhile to be free of this image, and what does it mean to be free of the image. If I am committed to Indian nationalism, and you are committed to a Muslim and there is a division and there is conflict. So (our collective ?) thinking has created these images, these labels, these beliefs and so there is contradiction, division, which brings conflict and therefore chaos. That is a fact.
Q: Mr Krishnamurti, if I am a committed Buddhist and I channel my energy into that direction, it doesn't necessarily mean that I am in conflict with those that aren't Buddhist.
K: Just examine that please. If I am a committed human being to Buddhism and another is committed equally to the Christian dogma, and another equally committed to Communism...
Q: That is not my concern.
K: Isn't this what is happening in life? Don't say, it is not my business if you are a Communist. It is my business to see if we can ( globally) live in security, in peace in the world, we are human beings, supposed to be intelligent. Why should I be committed to anything?
Q: Because it gives energy, the power of penetration.
K: You may think it is necessary, other people think it is necessary to be an Englishman, to be a German, to be a Hindu - you follow - or a Catholic, they think it is important. They don't see the danger of it.
Q: Why don't they see the danger?
K: Because I am so 'heavily' ( safely ?) conditioned, it is so profitable, my job depends on it. So the ( experiential ?) point is: if one sees the danger of these images, then how can the mind free itself from these images? That is the next question.
Q: Can I ( still ?) be there when no image is formed?
K: Images, whether they are old or new are the same images.
Q: Yes but when an image is formed can I be aware ?
K: How is an 'image' formed? Is it (spontaneously being ?) formed when I am not paying attention. ( Counter-example:) if you get angry with me and if I am at that moment totally attentive to what you say there is no (personal reaction of) anger. Keep it very simple: I say something that doesn't give you pleasure. Now at that moment if you are completely ( non-personally ?) aware, is there an image (forming) ?
Q: If you don't have to keep that ( personal) image, all the other images are gone.
K: Yes, that is the whole point. Can one be attentive at the moment of listening? You understand? You are listening now, can you be totally attentive, so that when you call me a name, not a pleasant name, or give me pleasure, at that moment, at that precise moment to be totally aware? Have you ever tried this? And if there is no image forming, and therefore no ( personal ?) image (either?) , then what is the relationship between the two? You understand? You have no 'image' because you see the danger of it, but I don't see the danger of it, I have my image and you are related to me, I am your wife, husband, father, whatever it is, girl, boy and all the rest of it. I have the image and you have not. Then what is your relationship to me? And what is my relationship to you?
Q: There is a barrier somewhere.
K: Of course there is a barrier. I want to succeed in this world, make a lot of money, position, prestige, and you say, "How absurd all that is, don't be (so) mechanical, that is just the old ( cultural) pattern being repeated." What happens between you and me?
Q: Division ?
K: I go off to the office where I am brutal, ambitious, ruthless, and I come home and be very pleasant to you, because I want to sleep with you. What is the relationship?
Q: Not good...
K: Is there any relationship at all? And yet this is what we call "love" (& marriage ?).
Q: It depends if the other person has the capacity to see what the truth of the matter is.
K: If I have no (self-) image I see very clearly that you have an 'image'. Sir, look this is happening in the world, this is happening in every family, in every situation in relationship: you ( may ?) have something free and I am not and the battle is between us.
Q: I think that situation is in everything.
K: That is what I am saying. What do you do?
Q: But surely this (virtual 'crisis' ?) situation you have created for us because you want us to be free of images.
K: Of course, of course I want you to be free of images because otherwise we are going to destroy the world.
Q: I have an 'image' about you, and I have had it for a long time. And there are different kinds of other images. I have been trying to get rid of those images because I have read (in your books ?) that they have created problems for me. Now, every time I try to work it out with you and it hasn't helped.
K: I'll show you sir how to get rid of it, how to be free of images.
Q: I don't believe you sir. You are all the time just sitting there talking abstractions. Me having an image about you means you are sitting up on the platform being an 'enlightened' person. I am here as a listener, a disciple or a pupil. Now I feel very strongly that is really not actuality or reality because we are two human beings. But still you are the guru, you are the one who knows and...
K: Please sirs be quiet, he is telling you something please listen. I'll show you something. Please do sit down. I'll show you something.
So the question is: if ( the self-centred process of ?) thought has created these images, can thought dispel these images? Thought can dispel (delete ?) it because it is unsatisfactory, and create another image which will be satisfactory. This is what we do - I don't like that guru for various reasons, because he stinks, or I don't like that guru and I go to another because he praises me, gives me garlands and says, "My dear chap you are the best disciple I have". So if ( the 'image' making mechanism of ?) thought has created this image, can thought undo the image?
Q: Not if you are looking at it intellectually. Looking at it intellectually you are not using your senses.
K: I am asking that first: can the intellect dispel the 'image' (making process ?) ?
Q: No, since the thing that stands in the way is merely your own 'image', the 'I'. You ( have to ) overcome this (handicap ?) .
K: I know, but I don't want to go into the much more complex problem of the 'I'.
Q: You say 'the image' , but what do you mean by the 'I'?
K: How does thought get rid of the image without creating another image?
Q: Thought cannot get rid of the image.
K: If that is so, if thought cannot get rid of the image then what will?
Q: Understanding ?
K: What do you mean by 'understanding'?
Q: Getting rid of the (false?) thoughts.
K: Getting rid of thought. Now who is going to get rid of thought?
Q: Isn't it a question of time? Could it be that our energies are all (dispersed ?) in ( dealing with ?) the ( issues of the) past, and we need them to think now.
K: All the 'images' are in the (stand-by memory of the ?) past, why can't I drop all that and live in "now"?
Q: That is what I meant.
K: Right. How do I get rid of the burden of the past? It comes to the same thing.
Q: Sir if one lives in the present, do the past images still come through?
K: Do you know what it means to "live in the present"? That means not a single (interference of psychological ?) memory except technological memory, not a single breathe of the ( personal ?) past. And therefore you have to understand the 'totality of the past', which is all this memory, experience, knowledge, the 'imagination' (the image making mechanism ?) , the 'images', which is the past.
So let's begin again (back to square one ?) . Are you aware that you have images? If you have those images that are pleasant and you cling to them, and discard those which are unpleasant, you have still images. Right? Then the question is really: can you be free of them?
Q: Go and listen to some music ?
K: The moment that music stops you are back to those 'images'. This is all so childish.
Q: Isn't there a division between wanting to hold on to the images and wanting to let them go.
K: The division is ( created by our split ?) desire, isn't it? I don't like (having ?) that ( damaged self-) image, I am going to let it go. But I like this ( new self-) image, I am going to hold on to it. So it is ( the subliminal activity of ?) desire, isn't it?
Q: I feel that there is a pleasure motive even if I have no image then the other person has no image at all.
K: If I have no image, the other person has no images at all. How 'inaccurate' that is ! Do think clearly: what should I do so that there is no image forming at all? May I talk a few minutes? Will you listen to it?
Q: I think most people in this place came here for 'consolation', rather then any other; I mean it all gets such a bore really because the same words get used over and over again, and everybody is looking like 'zombies'...
K: When you say, "You sitting on that platform, you have gradually assumed, at least in my eyes, a position of authority, you have become my guru". And I say to you, "My friend, just listen, I won't be a guru to anybody. It is monstrous to be a guru". Therefore, (if and ?) when you listen, you listen with care, with affection, with attention, then you begin to learn about yourself, actually as you are. Then from there we can move, we can go forward, but if you don't do that, keep on repeating, "Oh I have got my image, I don't know how to get rid of it" and so on and so on, then we don't move any further. Right?
Now, are you aware that you are conditioned? Don't choose parts of the conditioning. Totally aware of your whole conditioning means to be aware not only at the conscious level but the deeper levels - right? We are conditioned much more at the deeper levels than at the superficial levels - right? Is that clear? One is conditioned very deeply, and superficially less. Now, listening with your heart, with your mind, with your whole being - then is it possible to be totally aware of all this, the whole of our consciousness? To be totally aware implies no 'observer': the observer is the ( controlling interference of the ?) past and therefore when he observes he brings about fragmentation. This is clear, isn't it? When I observe anything from the past, it brings about a fragmentary outlook - right? I only see parts, I don't see the whole. So I realize that when I observe from the past there must be a fragmentary outlook - right? So I have an insight that says, don't look from the ( perspective of the ?) past. That means, without the (all controlling ?) 'observer' who is all the time judging, evaluating, saying this is right, this is wrong. Now if can you listen like this you are facing actually 'what is', facing in yourself what actually is going on. And can you observe another without the past - without all the accumulated memory, insults, hurts, so that you can look at another with clear eyes? If you say, "I don't know how to do it", then we can go into that.
As we said, any form of ( accepting someone's ?) authority in this matter is the reaction of submission to somebody who says he knows. That is your 'image'. The 'Professor' knows mathematics, I don't, so I learn from him, so gradually he becomes my authority. He knows, I don't know - mathematics, geography and all the rest of it. But here, 'psychologically', if I don't know how to approach myself, how to learn about it, therefore I look to another, the same process. But the other is equally ignorant as me, because he doesn't know himself. He is traditionally bound, he accepts obedience, he becomes the authority, he says he knows and my dear chap you don't know, you become my disciple and I will tell you. But 'psychologically' (speaking) , the 'guru' is as ignorant as myself. He has a lot of Sanskrit words, a lot of ideas, a lot of superstitions, and I am so gullible I accept him.
Now we come to the point: how am I to be free of all ( the inner mechanism of ?) 'image making'? I am going to find out by carefully watching why these 'images' are made. I realize 'images' are ( instinctively ?) made when the mind is not giving its attention at the moment something is said. Right? At the moment something is said that gives pleasure, or displeasure, to be aware at that moment, not afterwards. But we become aware afterwards and say "My god, I should have paid attention, I see it is important to be attentive but I don't know how to be attentive, I lose it and when the thing takes place it is so quick and I say to myself I must be attentive." So I 'beat' (or...brainwash ?) myself into 'being attentive' - and therefore I am never ( spontaneously ?) attentive.
So I am now watching (myself indulging in ?) 'inattention'. That is, I look at a bird but never (really ?) look at it, my thoughts are all (somewhere else) ... I am now going to 'look' at that bird, it may take me a second but I am going to look at it. When I walk I am going to watch it. So that out of (the common state of psycho-somatic ?) inattention, without any ( special ?) effort there is total attention. You understand? So when there is this total ('non-personal' quality of ?) attention, when you say something pleasant there is no image forming, or unpleasant there is no image forming because my whole mind, heart, brain, all the ( sensory ?) responses are completely awake and attentive.
And ( for extra study ?) "attention" implies a mind that is completely awake, which means it doesn't demand challenges. It is only when we have 'images' that (the 'wake-up' ?) challenges come. And because of ( the mind being partly occupied with ?) those 'images', the challenges (of life) come and you respond inadequately (partially ?) . Therefore there is a constant battle (to compensate ?) between challenge and response, which means the increase of images and the more it increases the more challenges come, and so there is always the strengthening of images.
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 19 Nov 2016||#490|
|Richard Lewis Bulgaria 12 posts in this forum Offline||
133113 posts in 3094 topics
congratulation, sirs. thanks all for the feed backs;-)
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 20 Nov 2016||#491|
|John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline||
Well, Richard, I don't know whether this is a 'Hello Goodbye' kind of greeting, but perhaps the following excerpt could be adequate
7TH K PUBLIC DISCUSSION SAANEN 1966 (reader friendly edited)
THE FIRST AND THE LAST STEP
K: As this is the last discussion, what shall we talk over together?
Questioner: How is the energy that one has through intense awareness to be maintained?
K: I don't know, either. (Laughter.) We shan't meet again until next year and one of our major issues is: how am I going to live during this whole year? Are we going back to the same old routines, the same old confusion, or there is a totally different way of living, seeing how we can renew the total mind .
Questioner: One is still afraid (to let go the attachments to the 'known' ?) .
Krishnamurti: Is that what prevents a new look at life, at the mountains, at the trees, at the neighbour, whether the neighbour is immediately next to us or in Vietnam? Aren't you really passionate to find out? It seems to me that is the only problem we have. We know our actions are contradictory; we are confused; there is utter despair, loneliness, misery, confusion, worry, problems and this terrible ambition with all its complications. They all don't seem to end; they go on and on and on. After a month in this lovely valley, don't we demand that there be a total change of heart and mind?
Questioner: How can one empty the storehouse which the mind and the brain have collected through these thousands upon thousands of years? How can it empty itself and be young?
Krishnamurti: I am asking the same question. Is it possible for the mind to 'empty' itself and be fresh, young again, uncontaminated, so that when I see the blue sky after yesterday's rain, it is something that I have never seen before? It isn't the same sky; it isn't the same face; it isn't the same problem; there is something new; a revolution has taken place. Don't you want to know what to do, so that this may happen ?
( For starters ?) Let us first realize the simple fact that it is an enormously complex problem and any answer that you give to the problem, whether you are a scientist or a most erudite, a most experienced person is from a fragmentary mind. Why don't you try saying, "I can't answer", and see what happens? When you are confronted with a most complex (psychological) problem, don't you first stop and look? You look; you see what is implied. The more complex it is, the more subtle it is, the quieter the mind becomes. It isn't that the speaker is trying to prevent your asking questions; first find out whether your heart and mind are capable, when confronted with this enormous issue, of not reacting, jumping to conclusions, formulating ideas, wanting to express them, wanting to communicate. Stop all that (mental activity ?) .
If you have done so, then you can begin to ask seriously what is involved in this? You must have an extraordinarily sensitive brain, which doesn't all the time react in the mechanical way, and is not caught in a habit, in repetition, in irritation. Is that possible? The physical brain itself, every corner of it, not just a particular fragment, must be so alive, so alert that it is not caught in any theory, in any opinion, in any argument, in any tradition. For the brain to come upon it, to discover it, there must be a 'meditation' to find out whether the brain can be quiet, free of all the normal so-called 'animalistic' reactions.
Since the brain cells themselves have been conditioned, by the daily repetition of pleasure, pain, love, hate, the first thing to find out is whether the brain can remain without that reaction of the 'animalistic' (mind). That's part of meditation. And the next 'movement' of meditation is to see whether the totality of the mind - which is (including) the brain, the physicho-somatic being, the nervous responses, the emotions, the anxieties - can free itself.
Can we be aware of our simple reactions of hate, envy - the simple things- and from there move, like a river that passes the dirty towns and villages. It keeps on moving, moving, moving. This (inward ?) movement of renewal is only possible if we begin at the most simple level; for that you don't have to read books, attend meetings, join societies or organizations. Begin at the first rung and let the first step, be the last one. There is nowhere to climb, nothing to achieve. The ladder ( of knowledge ?) with so many rungs, steps, doesn't lead anywhere. There is (always ?) only one step, the first step (taken now ?) ; and if we know how to meet that first step, if we know all about it, then there is real humility, and here there is humility, there is ( the timeless opportunity of ?) learning.
Then you will see what ( the sense of inner ?) beauty is: and where beauty is, there is love. So, (eventually ?) we begin to see that in this 'one step', all Life is (contained) ; and to ( inwardly) 'die' to this first step is the beginning of a totally new existence, a totally different quality of mind, because the mind is always renewing itself. Where there is no ('next ?) step', there is love, but there is no love for the man who is climbing the ladder. The ladder and the rungs on the ladder are the invention of the mind, of thought; and thought has placed God on the top rung of the ladder. God is not 'up there' at all. That's just an invention of the (time-bound) mind. There is a totally different dimension (of Consciousness ?) which is not put together by thought. When man is no longer escaping (in the 'climbing the ladder' bussiness ?) he listens to everything. It is that (timeless ?) movement, that 'listening' that brings about a fresh mind, with a great health, capacity and vigour.
One returns to something that is very beautiful: to a mountain, to a river, to a lovely flower. One wants to go back and look at it again. It is natural, healthy; but if that mountain, that river, that flower acts as a stimulant, then it ceases to be beautiful. Then it's merely a drug, and you're lost. Though I said, "Don't attend meetings", I hope we shall meet next year, not as something in the nature of a drug or a stimulant, not for you to listen to words, to ideas, and translate them into concepts and formulas, but that coming together, meeting together, talking things over together, we shall see something extraordinarily beautiful; and without beauty, and therefore without love, our minds and hearts become dull, cynical, bitter, harsh, brutal.
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 21 Nov 2016||#492|
|John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline||
A CONVERSATION BETWEEN K AND PUPUL JAYAKAR, 1983 (experientially- friendly edited)
A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO ENDING 'THOUGHT-TIME' AND GOING BEYOND
PJ: Is the within the human mind a 'within' of things, which is an (inwardly open ?) space without ending? Is it a mirror image of that vastness which exists outwardly ?
K: Are you asking, whether in the human brain there is, or there can be, a space without end, an 'eternity' out of time? Are we are really trying to find out in ourselves whether there is such immensity, whether there is actually a movement ( an inner dimension?) which is not of time, which is 'eternal' (timeless ?) .
PJ: Yes, but how do you start an enquiry like this?
K: We have put the question whether the brain can realize the truth that there is or not this 'eternity'. Now you begin to feel your way into this really fundamental question, a question that has been asked for thousands of years, whether man (the human onsciousness ?) is bound to time for ever, or there is, or there is within the brain - or the brain realizes itself in- a state of eternity (timeless-ness ?) ?
PJ: And in order to proceed into this you start by drawing a distinction between the 'brain' and the 'mind'. Would you elaborate ?
K: We are saying, that the brain is conditioned through ( its materialistic ) experience. That 'conditioning' is functioning within the area of thought. And to discover something new there has to be, at least temporarily, a (silent ?) interval period, when thought is not in movement, when thought is in abeyance.
PJ: The brain is a material thing and it has its own activity.
K: Yes. It has its own ( natural) activity not imposed by thought.
PJ: But for centuries the operation of the brain has been the operation of thought.
K: That's what we are saying, that the whole movement (mental activity ?) of the brain, at least of that part of the brain which has been used, is conditioned by thought. And thought is always limited, and therefore it is conditioned to conflict. That which is limited must create division.
PJ: What is the 'mind' then?
K: 'Mind' is a wholly different dimension ( of our consciousness ?) which has no contact with ( the self-centred process of ?) thought. That part of the brain which has been functioning as an instrument of thought has been (seriously ?) conditioned - and as long as the brain remains (or is indulging ?) in that state there is no entire communication with the Mind. So when that conditioning is not then there is communication between that Mind which is totally on a different (non-material ?) dimension, that can communicate with the brain and act, using thought ( the thinking capacity) .
PJ: But you have already posited a state ( a dimension of human consciousness ?) which is outside the realm of (our self-centred ?) thinking.
K: That's right. Therefore outside the realm of time.
PJ: So, time seems to be the essential core of this problem...
K: Time and thought.
PJ: Thought is the ( by -) product of time. I mean thought 'is' time.
K: That's the real point.
PJ: So, if we could go into this whole business of the 'flow of time', and see at what instant is an 'interception' possible?
K: The 'ending' of it ?
PJ: We can use the word 'ending'. Now the 'time' (of mankind) is coming from a past immemorial.
K: Yes, which is ( the movement of ?) thought.
PJ: Thought is also coming from a past immemorial, projecting itself into a 'future' which is also endless .
K: This future is conditioned by the ( karmic accumulations of the ?) past - in the human 'psyche'.
PJ: So unless the human being ceases to be...
K: ...ceases to be conditioned.
PJ: ... the content will undergo a change, but the mechanism of thought will continue.
K: The mechanism of thought will continue - let's put it round the other way. Now, thought is the chief instrument we have ( available ?) And this (mental) instrument after thousands of years of various efforts, actions, has not only become ( mechanical and ?) 'dull', but (inwardly ?) it has reached the end of its tether because thought is conditioned, divided and in a perpetual state of turmoil. Now can this (inner condition ?) end? That's the question.
PJ: I used the word 'interception'. This ( continuous ) movement of the past as (it is manifested in our ?) thought - the (endless sequencing of ?) yesterdays, todays and tomorrows...
K: We are a bundle of ( latent and active ?) memories. (What we 'are' ) today is the movement of the past modified ( by the present conditions ?) .
PJ: That is true. But ( getting inwardly in ?) contact with this (process of ?) time...
K: What do you mean 'contact with time'? Time is thought.
PJ: The contact with 'time' as a psychological process (can take place only ?) in the present, isn't it?
K: Pupulji, let's be very clear. Don't separate time as though it was something different from thought.
PJ: No, time 'is' thought.
K: So it is ( a joint process of ?) 'time - thought'.
PJ: Yes, as (my) past, (my) present and (my) future.
K: Are you asking, what is the "Now"?
PJ: Yes, because this 'interception' is the contact with 'what is'...
K: Which is what?
PJ: Whatever you are saying now and my listening to you is the 'contact' with 'what is'.
K: May I put it in the way I understand it? The past, the present and the future is a movement of 'time-thought'. How do you come to see the truth of it, the 'fact' of it? To use your wordS - now come into contact with it, with the fact that (mentally ?) I am a whole series of memories, which is, (I 'am' this ) "time-thought".
PJ: Let us be more concrete. The thought that I am going away this afternoon, and that I will be leaving you. It is a thought.
K: It is a thought. It is an actuality.
PJ: But there is also a certain 'pain' of leaving you', the psychological element which come to cover up this ( objective) fact. So what is the 'fact' to be contacted? Not the fact that I am going away, but the pain.
K: And this pain of a thousand (personal) aches (plus the non-personal pain) of centuries of human loneliness, grief, anxiety and all that, is it separate from the 'me' who is feeling it?
PJ: It may not be separate...
K: It 'is' me.
PJ: And how do I (come in ?) touch (with ) it? Only in the present.
K: The ( awareness of the ?) Now contains the ( whole movement of the ?) past, the future and the present. Right?
K: The present ('me') is (containing my) whole past and future. This is the ( time-bound) 'present' - 'me' with all the memories of a thousand years, being (updated and/or ?) modified all the time, and ( projecting itself into ?) the future. All that is the 'present'. Right?
PJ: But this 'present' is also something which is not a static thing, it's over before...
K: Of course. The moment you have said it, it is gone.
PJ: Gone. So what is it that you actually 'see'? What is it you actually observe?
K: The 'fact'.
PJ: What 'fact'?
PJ: Does that (holistic ?) perception emanate from the brain?
K: Either it comes from perceiving with the eyes, nerves and so on, or that perception is an "insight" which has nothing to do with time and thought.
PJ: But it arises within the brain?
K: Is it (originating ) within the sphere of the brain; or that insight comes ( into the brain) when there is the freedom from its conditioning, which is the operation of the Mind, which is supreme Intelligence. Do you follow?
PJ: I don't follow...
K: Let's be clear. The ( commonly active part of our) brain is conditioned by time and thought, "time-thought". As long as that ( temporal ?) conditioning remains ( this flash of Intelligent ?) Insight is not possible. You may have occasional insights into something, but pure insight, which means a 'perception of completeness', that insight is not of time-thought. Therefore that insight is part of that Mind which is in a different dimension.
PJ: Without ( Mind's light ?) there cannot be insight. Let us take the word "insight" - it is 'seeing into'.
K: Seeing, (or comprehending) the 'totality of something', the vastness of something. Right? Such an Insight is possible only when there is cessation of "thought & time". Thought and time are (intrinsically) limited, therefore such ( materialistic) limitation cannot have insight.
PJ: To understand what you are saying I have to have an open ear and eyes that see. Out of that sound, out of that form, out of that whole...
K: ... meaning of the words and so on...
PJ: ...arises a "seeing "which goes beyond. But when you talk of insight, but insight cannot arise without attention.
K: No. Don't introduce the (traditionally loaded ?) word 'attention'.
PJ: But in my (experiential ) approach to this, I can't start with insight. I can only start with 'observation'.
K: You can also start (holistically ?) by realizing the truth that the psychological time and (its associated ) thought are always limited. That's a fact.
PJ: Yes, that is a fact.
K: Therefore whatever it does will always be limited and therefore contradictory, therefore divisive and (creating an inner state of ) endless conflict. That's all I am saying. You can see the 'fact' of that.
PJ: You can see the fact of that outside of yourself.
K: You can see it politically, religiously, all throughout the world, this is a fact, that time and thought in their ( self-centred ?) activity have brought about havoc in the world. That's a fact.
PJ: Yes, yes.
K: So the question is: can that (materialistic ?) limitation ever end? Or is man conditioned for ever to live (inwardly) within the "time - thought" ( " known" ?) area?
PJ: You see the difficulty of understanding a statement like this: do you see the fact that time, thought...
K: ...are limited.
PJ: ...are limited? What does it exactly mean, how does one "see" (the inner truth of ?) that? It is like telling me, "( psychologically-wise ?) you are an illusion".
PJ: It is exactly like telling me that Pupul is an illusion.
K: No, you are not an illusion.
PJ: It is exactly that the moment you say, "after all Pupul is a psychological bundle of the past"...
K: Psychological movement of time and thought, which is the ( self-conscious structure of the human ?) "psyche" is limited. Whatever it does is limited.
PJ: Then I would ask, what is wrong with it being limited?
K: Living in a (state of ?) perpetual conflict.
PJ: Now, to move further. There must be an ending to it.
K: I said there is.
PJ: What is the nature of this 'ending'?
K: To end (the ongoing 'psychological' ?) attachments .
PJ: The flow ceases to flow ?
K: The (time-based ?) movement of thought ceases, psychologically. What is your difficulty? You are making a simple thing (looking terribly ?) difficult.
PJ: No, sir. But...what is that point of insight?
K: What do you mean ?
PJ: Where I see. In what time-space do I see it?
K: Look, Pupul, just let's be simple. ( Our self-centred process of ?) thought and ( its protracted actions in ?) time have divided the world, politically, geographically, religiously. That is a fact. Can't you see the fact?
PJ: I can (see this by ) looking outside...
K: Wait, wait. Don't look outside.
PJ: I don't see the (inwardness of this ?) fact. Because if I really saw the fact...
K: You would stop that kind of (thinking ?) thing.
PJ: ...it would be all over. I don't think it is such a simple thing, because it (the self-identified thought?) has such devious ways.
K: My whole point is to have an 'insight' (into the fact ?) that the movement of ( our self-centred) thought and (its psychological continuity in ?) time is divisive, it is a (mental) movement of endless conflict. That's a fact. Britain fought ( a mini-war ?) for some (Falkland ?) islands, that's a fact. Because British, Argentinians, French, French, German, Russian - they are all ( thinking in a self ?) divisive (way) . And India against somebody else. This is the ( exterior aspect of that ?) whole movement of "time and thought". That's a fact.
PJ: Yes, you can see it quite clearly when it is a matter outside of you.
K: If you can see it outside, this movement, what it does in the world, what misery it has caused in the world, then inwardly our 'psyche' is the (result of the same self-centred ) movement of "time and thought". This (inner) movement has created that (outward division) . The divisive psychological (mental) movement has created the external fact. Right? I am a Hindu, I feel secure. I am a German, I feel secure in (getting inwardly identified ?) with a word, in the feeling that I belong to something.
PJ: You see, Krishnaji, one has seen all this (psychological stuff ?) , being a Hindu, greed, as being a (by) product of this movement of time-thought.
K: That is all I am saying.
PJ: But that is not quite enough...
K: What is your difficulty, Pupul?
PJ: There is within it all a sense of "I exist" (independently of all those psychological qualities ?)
K: That's it. I don't realize the psyche 'is' ( deeply identified to ?) that.
PJ: But that's essentially the human nature.
K: Because you have thought the 'psyche' is something other than the conditioned state, that there was something in me, or in the brain, or in somewhere, which is timeless, which is God, which is this, which is that, and that if I could only reach 'that' everything would be right. That's part of my (cultural) conditioning: because I am uncertain, confused, God will give me safety, perfection, certainty - God or the 'highest principle', or some kind of conviction.
PJ: What is the nature of the ground from which "insight" springs?
K: I have told you. Insight can only take place when there is freedom from time and thought.
PJ: It is a sort of unending (circular logic ?) ...
K: No, it is not. You are complicating a very simple fact: to live in(wardly) in peace only is to flower, is to understand the extraordinary world of peace. ( This sense of inner) peace cannot be brought about by ( the ongoing process of ?) thought.
PJ: You see, Krishnaji, it is the brain itself which listens to that statement ?
K: Yes, it listens. And then what happens? If it 'listens' it is ( getting naturally ?) quiet. It isn't ruminating, it is not going on, " what does he mean", it is not rattling. It is quiet. Right? Wait a minute. When it is actually, a non induced quietness, actually when it listens, and there is quietness, then there is insight. I don't have to explain ten different ways the limitations of thought, ( you just see that ?) "It is so".
PJ: I see what you say. Is there anything further than that?
K: Oh, yes there is a great deal more: if there is a listening to the sound (of your words) , I am not listening, I am only understanding the words. But you want to convey to me something much more than the words, so if the words are making a sound in my hearing I can't understand the depth of what you are saying.
PJ: When you say, (that 'no-thing'ness) contains the all, is it the essence of all human, racial and environmental, and nature and the cosmos, as such?
K: Yes. I am talking of the fact of a realization that (inwardly) there is nothing. The "psyche" is an (ages old ?) " bundle of memories", and those memories are the outcome of a past experience which is ( dead &) gone ; they operate, they function, but "I" am a movement of memories. Now if I have an insight into that, there is nothing. "I" ( as 'self-consciousness' ?) don't exist.
PJ: You said something about 'listening without sound' ?
K: You see the beauty of it?
PJ: Yes, it is possible when the mind itself is totally still.
K: Don't bring in the 'mind' for the moment. When the brain is quiet, absolutely quiet, therefore there is no sound made by the words.
PJ: There is no sound made by the word?
K: Of course. That is real 'listening'. The word has given me ( the information content of ?) what you wanted to convey.
PJ: But the brain has not been active in ( the inner) listening.
K: Yes. And when the brain is active ( it is generating its own inner ?) noise. Let's go back to something else: pure sound can only exist when there is (inner) space and silence, otherwise it is just noise.
So all one's education, all one's past experience and knowledge is a movement (rooted in material ?) becoming, both inwardly, psychologically as well as outwardly. Becoming is the accumulation more and more (experiences and ?) memories, which is called knowledge. Right? Now as long as that movement exists there is fear of 'being nothing'. But when one really sees the fallacy, the illusion of (psychologically) becoming something, that very perception, that insight to see that (inwardly) there is no-thing, there is an ending of this becoming and (of its) conflict. That is, the ending of the movement which is the 'psyche', which is "time-thought" (the time-binding activity of the self-centred thought?) . The ending of that is to be (inwardly as) nothing. ( That inner 'no-thing'-ness) then contains (or joins ?) the ( Mind of the ?) whole Universe.
After all, Pupulji, ( inwardly being as ?) 'nothing' means the entire world of compassion - compassion is no 'thing'. And therefore that no-thingness is supreme Intelligence. That's 'All there Is'.
It is really interesting if one goes into this problem, the astrophysicists are trying to understand the (unknown mystery of the ?) universe. They can only understand in terms of gases, but the immensity of it as part of this (inwardess of our) being, not out there, "in here". Which means, no shadow of "time and thought". Pupul, after all that is real meditation, that's what 'sunya' (the Inner Void ?) means in Sanskrit.
So in ( inwardly being as ?) nothing all the ( consciousness of the ?) world is contained - not the pain, and... those are all so small. I know it sounds (presumptious ?) , when I am suffering that ( self-consciousness ?) is the only thing I have.
Now, having listened to all this, have you said, "By Jove, I have got it, I have got the perfume of it" ?
PJ: Sir, don't ask me that question because anything I say would sound - because as you were speaking there was (the Presence of That ?) Immensity.
K: There was That, I could feel it. But is it for the moment, for a second and it is gone? And then the whole business of remembering it, capturing it, inviting it...
PJ: Oh no, I think one has moved from there. But one realizes that the most difficult thing in the world is to be (inwardly) 'totally simple'.
K: To be simple, that's right. If one is really simple, from that (simplicity of being ?) you can understand the enormous complexity of things. But we start with all the complexities and never see the simplicity. That's our ( standardised cultural) training. We have trained our brain to see the complexity and then try to find an answer to the complexity. But we don't see the extraordinary simplicity of life - of its 'facts', rather.
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 23 Nov 2016||#493|
|John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline||
K IN CONVERSATION WITH J. UPADIAH, ( Pupul Jayakar & Buddhist friends) , JANUARY 1985
STEPPING OUT OF THE STREAM OF SELF-INTEREST
K: Sir, yesterday we talked ( metaphorically) about an ordinary man, fairly well educated, no special profession. He starts looking at the outside world. It is like a great river flowing (timelessly ?) . As it enters the sea it is in a turmoil because it has got great volume of water (pushing from behind ?) for the last million years. And this whole vast river entering into the sea, that is the world. Now, as he follows up that river up(stream) in the mountains, he comes to a point where the river begins on a great mountain, it is very small there. And there he is (sitting down and meditating ?) alone, and he realizes all that river was ( the temporal evolution of ?) himself, he discovers he is the ( total consciousness of the ?) world and that the movement of that (stream of human consciousness is driven by ?) self-interest.
Q1: Yes. But we went a little further yesterday, talking about how that 'self-interest' can go. And I would like to ask whether each individual who is in this stream, has to remain utterly helpless, or whether there is a possibility for him - instead of being completely dragged in that stream, to create a raft, or something by which he can be out of it.
K: Sir, I said that ( that in this meditative inquiry ?) he is always moving up the river. There is no 'island' ( to hang around ?) because he is moving. And that very moving gives him the strength: as I move 'up the river', that (learning momentum ?) creates its own discipline. The man who is ( inwardly ) static needs to discipline (himself) , but the man who is constantly ( learning and ) moving up(stream ?) is following the river (as it ) is moving.
Q2: As you have ( metaphorically) described this Stream of (human) Life, I understand that everyone is being dragged down. So, within ( any decent ?) man there is the urge to rise above these sordid sorrows and worries and everything that happens. But this man by any act that he is doing is not trying to get out of this but he is part of this stream.
K: Sir, he has spent his youth in that, at the "mouth of the river", sex, power, you know all the business. And he sees it is all (coming down to ?) habit, conditioning and he is so exhausted and bored with this whole circus. So, he says, "By Jove, I must move somewhere!" He starts from there.
Q1: You mean (his own) boredom takes him right up to the top?
K: No, I don't say that. He 'moves out' of that ( self-conservative mentality ?) .
Q2: As you have put it this Stream ( of personal & collective Self-Interest ?) is dragging everybody along with it and then you say...
K: If he wants to remain there (enjoying the Delta ?) , he is ( free to stay ?) there. But ( if he is open minded ?) he is curious enough to find out the origin of the river. The vast majority like it there. They like (enjoying) sex, power, position, knowledge, everything - don't they?
Q1: I think nobody denies that. All that is said is that there is some ( 'special' ?) energy (required) which makes him follow the river (upstream) to the...
K: Why not be simple about it? He is curious, he wants to know (the true meaning of his existence ?) . He has been through all that awful business and says, "My God, I am bored with this stuff" - aren't you ( getting) bored with sex when you have had enough of it?
Q5: Krishnaji, there seem to be two different metaphors which are clashing with each other. One is your metaphor of the person finding himself at the foaming mouth of the river, recognizing the river, feeling curious about it, he is there and having been there sufficiently long and experienced some of the things he becomes is curious and then he asks where from?
Q5: And there is another metaphor that the Punditji has brought up, the metaphor of the suffering humanity in which the seeing of the river is seeing the whole (suffering of the ?) world and feeling compassionate about all the people being dragged down. The Buddhism also talks about the world as a (pretty ?) 'sad place'.
K: I know all that.
Q5: So, Panditji is saying: wouldn't it be nice if these poor people instead of being swept by (that cruel stream ?) there would be somebody to give them the way, somebody to give them a help and so on ?
K: Pat him on the back ?
Q5: Or at least a 'traffic policeman'.
K: I don't want (to do) all that. My river is the river of everybody - that is sorrow, that is pain, that is anxiety, that is loneliness, despair, hope, all that.
Q5: Would not describe your river as the river of sorrow?
K: Why reduce everything to 'sorrow'? It is also the river of (pleasure & ?) pain, the river of ( wordly success & ?) fear, the river of all that.
Q5: I like this idea of not talking about the theory of sorrow but of talking about things as they are.
K: As they are.
K: Sir let me finish what I want to say : I am bored with all that (mechanical self-centred existence ?) and I have also become very sceptical, doubtful, questioning. And in this movement ( upstream) he is becoming aware the difficulties of leaving this (delta of the 'known' ?) . So he begins to question why he is finding it ( so terribly ?) difficult. He questions everything, he is 'moving'. Then begins (the true role of ?) humility - right? And with that he is moving, learning, watching. He says I am not different from all mankind, I am all that, but I am watching. And he is climbing, moving ( the dynamic of this inward ?) movement is the 'learning', not accumulating knowledge. So, he (finally ?) comes to a point at the origin of the river and he says, " By Jove all this tremendous effort I have made, effort, climbing, has been utterly useless b because I am still self-centred here, as I was self-centred there. That's all. I have come to that point.
Q1: Perhaps some confusion has arisen because of your using of the word 'origin' : you said this is everything, of course it is (also including my ) desire for transformation, it is everything. Then the question is: what is the very substance of this everything?
K: It is still water, whether it is up there or down here it is still water.
Q1: It is still water...
K: That's all. Sir, I 'am' (the consciousness of ?) humanity and I say "is there any change at all possible?". I thought this 'change' consisted in climbing the hill and going to the (original) source but the whole explanation is here, as well as up there: it is 'self-interest' - right? And I see self-interest has created terrible mess , everybody (competitively ?) fighting each other, nations and so on. Then out of that ( holistic ?) observation I say : what does "change" mean? From this to that ? Or is change (in the very ) ending of this?
Q2: He says is that he goes with you the whole way. And he says that therefore there is no change but there is only ending.
K: You know what that means?
Q2: Yes Sir. He has taken the whole of it. But he says that in that stream itself is the seedling of a (new) beginning because the stream is ( generating its own ?) continuity.
K: No. As I 'am' humanity I 'am' (part of ?) that consciousness. Right? But if I die to that consciousness I am not in it.
Q2: Sir, what he says is that there is a continuity of that stream of consciousness independent of my ending it.
K: Sir, that ( all-time ?) consciousness is sorrow, fear, greed, envy, etcetera, which is the essence (the karmic residue ?) of ( the original choice of ?) self-interest - right? Now I come to that point, and I say is it possible for a human being, who 'is' the entire ( consciousness of ?) humanity, to 'step out' of it?
Q2: Now you have again changed the metaphor...
K: It is the same thing. I am that stream. (The Consciousness of ?) humanity suffers, 'goes through hell' and that Stream goes on because as long as the human beings have not moved out of it that Stream ( of Self-Interest, violence and vulgarity ?) will go on.
Q1: Then there is a stepping out?
K: As long as I am ( swimming ?) in that stream that stream will go on. (Even ) if that ( liberated ?) person who 'is' humanity steps out of that stream, that Stream (of Self-Interest) will go on. But that person who is out of it has (access to a reservoir of ?) Compassion, he has intelligence, therefore that acts. (So, the real question is:) Can one human being step out of it?
Q2: 'Step out'? I can't...
K: Not keep on going with that Stream . That is all. What is the difficulty in that?
Q3: Sir, at one moment you say there is no individual (consciousness) . Then... what steps out?
K: Nothing. [Laughter] Let me explain. I have taken this as something perpetual, which it is, 'time'. So, he's seeing the whole thing as an unitary (time-thought ?) movement that is going on and suddenly realizes there is nothing -( nothing in the sense 'not-a-thing') . 'Thing' is (anything projected by ) thought, which is a material process. So... that is the ending of ( self-identified continuity of ?) thought.
Q1: And in that 'no-thingness'...
K: That is "no-thingness".
Q1: ...there is no duality between the self and...
K: No. He has been through ( the dualistic conflict). He has fought , he has struggled. Does it make any sense Sir?
Q3: Therefore 'ending' and 'stepping out' are the same.
K: Stepping out. ( In a nutshell ?) That is ( the Stream of ?) self-interest perpetuating itself all the time, whether it is 'me' or 'you' or... ( the consciousness of ?) humanity is perpetually caught (entangled ?) in that. And (inwardly) that is ( manifested as ?) thought. He says, "By Jove, no movement !" and when there is no (mental ?) movement you are out of it. 'Out of it' - that is just words. ( But the actuality is that inwardly ?) there is a 'something' else.
Q5: He has never been (psychologically caught ?) in all this ?
K: Jealousy, anxiety, pain, sex and all that. What I want to get at is : Is it possible, except biologically, never to have the 'psyche' ( a 'self-identified' consciousness' ?) as the centre? You understand my question? The moment you see ( the illusory nature of ?) that, you are out, you are finished.
Q2: Could you explain a little more ?
K: Sir, we have the idea of a ( spiritual) path, a goal, achievement. A path demands discipline, control, sacrifice. The horror of it. But somebody like K comes along and says "Don't go through all this stuff. Be aware of nature, be aware of all the senses, and of how the ( memory of the ?) senses create the self -(conscious entity ?). See it as a tremendous movement and in a flash (of insight into all ?) that you are out of it. It is not a matter of climbing, sacrificing, giving up, discipline, practice - oh, that is wrong.
Q5: Then the last thing you said is...
K: See the futility.
Q5: You are saying that there is no place for 'time' in all the understanding of this. The moment that goes it ends.
K: I began by questioning, doubting and asking. Not asking somebody, asking. I end up doubting, questioning, and asking.
Q4: Then...have I moved at all?
K: I don't know. I leave that question alive. That question itself destroys everything.
Q5: No conclusion.
K: No Sir. Punditji, you and I have a dialogue. You put a question, I answer it. Then you answer that question. We keep this up. Asking, answering. We come to a point when the question itself 'is' the answer. The question itself is so vital it bursts the...
Q5: I think it would be helpful if you will describe that particular state once again...
K: K, (or some strange man from the dark Himalayas) comes along, and says why do you go through all this stuff? The Buddhas, the Christ, the disciplines, the sacrifice, the renunciation, control, don't do all that, there is something else (to do more directly ?) Which is, just see this, the 'futility' of it - and when you really see the depth of that 'futility' (of dilligently lighting candles in full sunlight ?) and you ask why it has come, and live with that question, without trying to find a (verbal) answer, then that question ( of self-interest ?) itself opens and withers. Like a flower. If you leave the flower alone, watch it carefully, nurture it, the flower blossoms and withers, at the end of it there is no flower at all. Right? Which ( experientially amounts to inwardly being?) 'nothing' .
Q3: This you have talked about, we all know that, we have talked about it. But you said something else and that is: in seeing this whole stream and in questioning and in ending, the stream continues its flow. The question remains.
K: That's it, that's it.
Q3: And it is such a powerful, potent question that when it remains it has an explosive ( purifying ?) energy independent of me...
K: It is nothing to do with 'me', it is like an (inner) fire (Flame of Attention ?) that is burning.
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 25 Nov 2016||#494|
|John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline||
Exploring the Mind of Krishnamurti ( experientially -friendly edited )
PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): In listening to you over the last thirty years, I have observed a certain manner in which you approach a problem, a certain manner in which you unfold a problem during discussion. I would like to investigate the way you receive a question, the actual way in which you penetrate into it. I would also like to know what follows after you receive a question. I would like to explore (how is working ?) your mind.
K: All right, let’s begin.
PJ: Can we begin with the question: How do you receive a question which is put to you? What is the state of the mind—your mind—which receives?
K: First he 'listens' - without any ( personal ?) conclusions, without any barriers - the mind is ‘empty’? The mind is empty in the sense that there are no preconceived answers and no—because answers have been given before—recording and remembrance of those answers. I am using the word ‘empty’ in that sense. There is a state of ( mental ?) emptiness and out of that K answers.
PJ: Now, in this state , what is the function of attention? You see, sir, the function of attention is to search, but if attention does not search, what happens to the question? You may receive it in emptiness, but what actually happens to the question? Because you do respond.
K: Yes. The question is put, and there is a 'hearing' of it— not only with the ear but also without the usual process of hearing( with the inner ear ?) . It is like a 'seed' (of truth ?) that is put into the earth—the earth acts upon the seed, and the seed acts upon the earth and, gradually, out of that comes a plant or a flower. You see, Pupul, there is the normal, physical, state, wherein a question is heard with the ear; but there is also a state in which the question is heard not with the ear, and out of that ( non-verbal ?) state there is the answer.
PJ: Is it a new ( integrated perceptive ?) instrument ? When one observes you, it is as if your eyes are participating in the listening process as much as your ears. You have, if I may say so, a ‘listening’ eye.
K: I think so. I would like to answer this question by bringing in the word ‘insight’. ‘Insight’ is ( the perception of ?) mind in which there is no remembrance, no quality of reaction and much more than all that. Now when you ask a question, there is a hearing with the 'non-ear' (inner ear ?) , which means that the mind is (free of the known ?) and all the (past ) remembrances, conclusions, ( ready made ?) responses, and so on—being absent, there is an "insight" into the question.
PJ: Does this ( inner) listening come into being with the very ending of the processes of the ( self-conscious ?) mind, or is it something else?
K: When there is an insight the brain cells themselves undergo a ( qualitative ?) change.
PJ: Does insight arise because of the non-hearing?
K: Yes, because of the hearing with the 'non-(physical) ear'.
PJ: Can we investigate ( the nature of ?) this hearing with the (inner ?)-ear or is it impossible to investigate it?
K: It is an (inner) state similar to that of dropping a stone into a completely quiet pond. When you drop a ( verbal ?) 'stone' into such a ( quiet inner ?) pond, it makes little waves which soon disappear. This inner state of listening with the 'non-(physical) ear' is a state of absolute quietness of the mind. Now, when a question is put to such a mind, it is like a little stone that is dropped into a tranquil pond. The response is the little waves.
PJ: Now, is this tranquil inner pond, the ( energy ?) matrix of the mind? Is it the totality ( of our Consciousness the one ?) which receives?
K: You see, Pupul, can the mind be so extraordinarily receptive (transparent ?) that the past has no place in it at all? When there is a listening without the ( physical) ear, that state of listening is not fragmented.
PJ: Now, as there is a non-( physical) ear listening, is there also a non-(physical) eye seeing? Tradition maintains that the (physical) movement of the eye is the outward movement of focusing, of naming. The same visual movement which turns backwards, breaks through the naming process; it dissolves the ' self-) divisive process. In fact it is known as the ‘backward flowing movement’, and it is a term that is used in various ways also by the Chinese.
K: I question the whole thing. You see, Pupul, I wonder if there is a 'looking within' at all, because 'looking within' may imply (another form of self-centred ?) movement of thought.
PJ: Yes sir, but not necessarily.
K: All right. Then if there is no (self-centred ?) movement of thought, what do we mean by ‘looking within’?
PJ: A (non-personal ?) seeing of that which exists at a particular instant, both within and without. There is no 'within' and 'without' in that state.
K: And you are saying that this inward looking dispels the whole structure of ( self-centred ?) thought ?
K: (Long pause) I question that. I question whether there is an inward looking at all. What is there to look inward? One can look inwards, from what you say, into the whole movement of thought. Is that inward looking?
PJ: Let me put it this way: the looking is physical, but what is seen is not physical. Thought is not something that can be ‘seen’ as such.
K: Pupul, all thought (all activity of the 'thinking brain' ?) is a material process.
PJ: But it is so fleeting. There is a distinction between seeing this microphone and seeing a flashing movement of thought.
K: But that flashing movement of thought is still a material process.
PJ: Yes, all right; I agree that it is a material process, but its existence is in a dimension which we call the ‘within’.
K: I see what you are trying to get at. You are saying that thought is not visible; it cannot be perceived as one’s face is in a mirror. Thought cannot be perceived in a mirror ( although the thought patterns can be visualised by electronic equipment?) . So that which is not perceivable (directly with our senses ?) you call the ‘inner’ ?
PJ: Yes, a thought is not perceivable and, yet, it exists.
K: But I would question whether it is the inner at all. I believe that when the Eskimos use the word ‘thought’ they mean 'something outside'. Think about it...
PJ: Then where do I see it? What is the seeing then?
K: You know, Pupul, I don’t think there is a 'seeing' at all.
PJ: And yet, sir, you have kept on speaking of ‘seeing’.
K: Yes, seeing—seeing the flower.
PJ: Seeing also ( one's) anger. Can we investigate your statement, please?
K: Yes, but we must go slowly, for we must be very clear on this point which is rather interesting. Right from the beginning he has said that you must approach the question afresh, and all the rest of it, so that the very throwing of the question into the mill-pond produces the answer. There is no ( mental) 'entity' that answers; that is very important to understand. Now, back to your question regarding the ‘seeing’ of thought: I don’t think there is a ‘seeing’ of thought. For ( usually) ‘seeing’ implies that there is a ‘seer’ and that there is ‘thought’, and that the ‘seer’ and ‘thought’ are separate. The seer is thought. So, for me, there is no inward looking (no-one looking inward ?) .
PJ: Then what do you mean, sir, when you talk of the seeing of ‘what is’?
K: Thought cannot be seen with the ( "me-looking ?) inward" look.
PJ: Then by what is (the activity of ) thought seen, because there is a 'seeing' ?
K: I wouldn’t use the word ‘seeing’. I would use the word ‘aware’. I would say that thought (or the "thinking brain" ?) becomes aware of itself, of its own activity.
PJ: But you have been talking all these years of the seeing of ‘what is’.
K: The seeing of ‘what is’ is the seeing of what is actually happening inwardly which is not the observation of what is happening with the optical eye or with another thought. ‘Seeing’ implies that.
PJ: Can there be a ‘seeing’ without this dualistic (observer-observing ?) state?
K: Yes. ‘Seeing’ implies that there is no opposite.
PJ: Yes, of course, because it has the same quality as the lake.
K: Yes. That’s why, Pupul, I went back to that carefully. When you speak of ‘inward looking’ it sounds to me artificial and traditionally (dualistic ?) . I think the thing works like a lake, like a tranquil mill-pond. Thought itself has to be quiet; it has to be as quiet as the lake. When you put a question to that lake, the question is answered from the lake.
PJ: But, sir, suppose jealousy arises. By the time I grow aware of it, it is already over. I cannot see that which is over.
K: No, you see jealousy arise and there is the ( quiet ) watching of it.
PJ: One of the things which has always puzzled me is this: Can there be a watching of the actual state of jealousy (as it is ) arising? For in such a state it would not even arise.
K: Jealousy is a ( self-centred ?) reaction, which you name ‘jealousy’. The question is: Before 'you' (the 'thinker' in control ? ) name it as ‘jealousy’, can there be a watching of that reaction without the watcher? Can one just ‘see’ ( non-verbally) that reaction? The ( direct) observation of the arising of that reaction—of jealousy, in this instance—is the ( proverbial ?) 'hearing without the ear', the 'seeing without the eye'.
(To recap:) We were saying, first, that a question is asked and that question is like a stone dropped into a mill-pond, a mill-pond that is absolutely still. Now, what we are saying is that not only the question but the very answer is the dropping of the stone into the pond. You see, the answer comes out because of the stone—for otherwise the 'mill-pond' is absolutely quiet, right?
PJ: You say that it is neither optical nor aural. Then why you use the word ‘observing’?
K: I use the word in the sense that in this ( direct) observation there is no centre from which something is observed—the 'centre' being ( a self-identified bunch of psychological ?) memories, various conclusions, ( personal ?) hurts, and so on, So, there is no ( static ?) point from which it is being observed. And in that (fluid ?) observation there is no ( forming of ?) conclusions, no ( mental) association with past events, which means the ( quality of this ?) seeing is as quiet as the ( proverbial ?) "mill-pond". And the question, or what(ever reaction) 'is’, drops into the (quiet) mill-pond which is absolutely quiet and which responds.
PJ: Sir, you just implied that the (mill-pond) 'ripple' is the response.
K: Yes, the ripple is the response. It is a marvellous 'idea' (a great way to look at it ?)
PJ: I have observed you, sir, and you listen to your own responses with the same attention as you listen to a question that is put to you. Do you listen to your response?
K: Yes, I listen to it to see if it is accurate.
PJ: Now, when the average person responds, he normally never ( bothers to ) listen to his own response.
K: No, he never listens.
PJ: He is always listening to what the other is saying. He never listens to his own response. At least I don’t listen to it. I am watching myself, and I see that I don’t listen to my own response. I may listen to my own response afterwards.
K: You see, Pupul, there is a (non-personal) act of listening which is not ‘me’ listening to my responses. There is only "listening".
PJ: Yes, but when you (K) listen there is a total flexibility: there is no 'holding' to an answer.
K: You see, if the pebble is very light, the ripple is just two waves. But if it is a rock it goes down and causes a great many waves. If the challenge is great, the waters must move in a series of waves. So the act of (a holistic ?) listening is not only to the person who questions, who challenges, but also to the answering. It is, in other words, a total state of listening—a listening to both the questioner and the person who replies. And, yes, when the answer, the reply, is not quite as it should be, there naturally is a movement away. Because you are listening, there is a withdrawal from that and, then, you change the movement.
QUESTIONER (Q): Sir, what is the 'mill-pond'?
K: All this ( metaphorical ?) analogy of the 'mill-pond' came about because Pupul began by asking: Can we investigate your mind, K’s mind? If you ask, however, what is ( the nature of ?) that mill-pond which is K’s mind, you will be entering into something else, and I don’t know if I would investigate that.
PJ: You would not, sir?
K: I am not sure, I said.
PJ: But I think it is a thing which has to be raised with you.
K: Raise what?
PJ: What 'is' that mill-pond, sir?
K: First of all, Pupul, whose mill-pond? Is it the mill-pond of K’s mind or the mill-pond of a person who is agitated and all the rest of it? You see, an agitated mind is not a mill-pond.
PJ: We are talking of K’s 'mill-pond'. I mean, what is being attempted here is to see how far one can go into throwing open K’s mind.
K: You are asking: What is the state of the 'mill-pond' that, apparently, K has? I don’t think K is aware of the 'mill-pond'.
PJ: What are you aware of, then, sir?
K: If K is (self-consciously ?) aware of it, it is not an (authentic ?) "mill-pond".
PJ: Sir, if I may ask ( a very personal question ?) , what is the inner nature of your self ?
K: I am being asked what is the inner nature of K’s mind. If I were to reply (experientially ?) I’d say: "Nothing", which means "not a thing". Would you comprehend this state of K’s inner being, which says that there is "nothing", absolutely "no-thing"?
Q: But you said that the mill-pond only shows itself in those ripples.
Q: Otherwise nothing else could be said about it?
K: You see, sir, the word is not the thing (they attempt to describe) . (Laughs shortly) I have fallen back on an old trick. You can’t examine "it"; with what would you be examining it?
PJ: Sir, may I please ask you something else ? I find that in your dialogues, in your discussions, there is a great use of the ( silent) pause. What is the significance of the pause?
K: K pauses probably to see that the answer is from the 'mill-pond'.
PJ: I understand. Now, to come back. During a dialogue it appears that you start at the same level as the person with whom you are discussing. Now, I have a very serious question to ask you here. Is it that the mill-pond that is K’s mind, the mind which is "nothing" (not identified with anything ?) , enters the state of the mind of the person who is living in duality? How do you, sir, comprehend my duality?
K: By listening to what you are saying.
PJ: But you don’t 'know' the nature of my duality.
K: No, but I am listening to you asking: How can 'I' be rid of 'jealousy'? How can 'I' be rid of something or the other? And I say that 'you' can’t get rid of it. My instant reply is that there is no riddance of anything.
PJ: No, but suppose I make a statement. You will immediately see whether that is a theory or a fact. There is a capacity within you to see the truth (of it) .
K: Obviously, everybody has that (latent capacity ?) .
PJ: Not always, sir. ..
K: No, not always.
PJ: Sir, you have been questioned for the last fifty years or so. Now, out of this questioning, which grows intense, you suddenly say, ‘I see’. My question is: What is it that brings about that insight, what is it which suddenly makes everything clear?
K: As I told you, K "listens". There is (a pure ?) listening and, suddenly, there comes, out of nothingness...
PJ: So are you saying, sir, that it arises in the very "listening"?
K: Yes. Because, to me what is important is the "act of listening". There is a listening to the question—the question that is dropped like a pebble into a tranquil pond. It is simple.
PJ: Is this state the same as what takes place when you have an interview and when you sit on a platform?
K: No, no. When K sits on the platform (for a public talk ) it is quite different. But in an interview the person 'is' (impersonating ?) the problem; it is much more concentrated.
PJ: I would like to explore this, for those of us who have had a (personal) interview with you it is like facing a totally empty state (a totally transparent mind ?) .
PJ: There is nothing except oneself reflected. You see, sir, you throw back on the person exactly what 'is' ( psychologically enfolded ?) in the person.
K: Yes. (Long pause) (Suppose ?) I am now Pupul and you are K. I ask you: How did you come to this extraordinary quality of the mill-pond? That would be my inquiry. How did you capture, how did you come by it? What are its characteristics? How did it happen to you and not to me? Tell me the things that prevent the (unfolding in of that ?) mill-pond?
PJ: Please proceed, sir, because you alone can be the questioner as well as the one who answers. No one else can answer.
K: All right, how did you (K) get to it? First of all you have no (inner) sense of comparison. You don’t even feel that you have "got it" and that I haven’t got it. ("you-have-it-and-I-haven’t" means comparison) . So you tell me first of all, ‘Don’t compare (yourself with anybody ?) Can you be totally free of comparison?’
Now, because (and...if ?) I have listened to you very carefully—with the hearing and the non-hearing ear—I am ( becoming) very 'alert' to what you are saying. I see ( the experiential truth of ?) it and say, ‘Yes, I can’t possibly dissipate it through time. It must be done so ( right here and ?) now’. Your very (presence ?) challenges me respond. Your challenge being very vital, very urgent, very forceful, awakens in me the quality of urgency and, so, ( if lucky ?) I understand it completely.
And ( for parting words ?) you also tell me, ‘Don’t accumulate; don’t accumulate (your psychological) problems (such as personal ) hurts, memories, (images ?) just don’t accumulate’. Again because my whole being is 'listening' to you, I understand it instantly. You say to me, ‘Every (psycho ?) problem must be resolved instantly’. Now that, of course, would require a great deal of dialogue back and forth, but at the end of it I would see what you mean. And I would ( start with the ?) ordinary things. I would understand ( the various forms of psychological ?) fear; I would understand ( the various aspects of seeking ?) pleasure. I would not suppress it, but ( in a flash of insight ?) understand the whole movement of it. And with the ( freed inner energy of ?) understanding would come the ending of sorrow; the whole thing would be wiped away ( at one stroke ?) .
If you were to put it to me ( and if I were in your shoes ?) , that’s how I would act...
( In a nutshell ?) You see, (as ) Pupul, I am in a state where I am surrounded by an immense stretch of "water"—a water that is warm, healthy, sane. I am swimming in that marvellous water, and I won’t leave you. And if somebody were to ask me, ‘Why does Mrs Rao or Mrs Williams come and listen to you every year?’ I would reply, ‘If I were ( in the shoes of ?) Mrs Rao or Mrs Williams or Mr Smith I would come and listen every year and, if possible, every day—because the "flower" is different every day. Beauty is different every day’.
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 25 Nov 2016||#495|
|Jan Kasol Czech Republic 18 posts in this forum Offline||
This what K says in your last post is analogous to what I have been saying with the mirror. Mind can be compared to a mirror, thinking process and the observer stain the mirror. Or mind can be compared to a pond. Thought and the observer create ripples in the pond. The silence or quiteness means that the pond is not disturbed by the self-centred thought process anymore .
The observer is a resistance, is an effort, is past reacting to the present, making choice based on conditioning and projectiong to the future. The observer exists withing the field of choice, within the field of dualities. Every duality carries within itself the seed of its own opposite. Your very thinking creates everything, creates opposites, creates choice, creates suffering, creates loneliness, creates pleasure. Every thought is a cage of conditining based on choice. Thought is not free, every thought is limited, thought is based on duality, on comparisons, on contrasts - comparing this and that, making choice, measuring this and that. Only when the whole observer is understood, can there be silence, can the process of choice, comparison and measurement be silenced. And in this silence, there is nothingness. But it is a miraculous nothingness, because that nothingness is alive, is timeless, is limitless, out of it everything is borne and to it everything returns, life and death united in eternal creation. This miraculous nothingness is the only permanent thing in life, is the only eternity, is the root of all existence. It is perfect, nothing can be taken from it and nothing can be added to it. This nothingness is the pond, is the mirror. This nothingness is Life. When the scar, the resistance in the form of the observer, is disolved, there is only creation of Life in nothingness.
The observer is very tricky to understand. His very effort to grasp the K teachings is a process of envy, of comparing myself (the unenlightened) to K (the enlightened), thus the process of opposites, of comparison, of choice, of envy is borne. I want this (what K had) and I do not want that.(what I have). The K teachings has very little value. There is no partial understanding or partial insight, such things are self-delusions of pride. Either there is light or there is darkness. The observer is the darkness. There is no way to practice K teachings, because every kind of practicing is the cultivation of envy. The very reading of K teachings conditions the mind in a particular pattern and starts the process of comparison, of choice, of envy. The only thing that matters is: understand yourself, understand the observer, understand the process of thought, the process of choice, of desire. Only by learning how the mind deceives itself, how it creates its own prison tiled by opposites, how the ego is created by thought identifying itself. The ego is prison and its walls are decorated by what it has accumulated, by what it has identified itself with. Only by understanding acquisitiveness, desire, every motive that drives us, can we be free. Freedom is not a choice. Freedom is the spontaneity of living in the active present. Freedom is freedom from thought, thought creates choice, thought creates opposites, thought measures, compares, thought creates the observer, thought is the acquisitiveness, thought is the limitation. Pleasure and suffering exists withing the realms of duality, the realm of thought. Everything is in us, it cannot be found anywhere external to us. The very searching is running away from it, creating ripples on the pond...
That was my meditation :-)
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 27 Nov 2016||#496|
|John Raica Canada 516 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?
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 27 Nov 2016||#497|
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline||
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...
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...
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.
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 28 Nov 2016||#498|
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline||
Hello John..thanks a lot.
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..
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..
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:
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 ..
This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Mon, 28 Nov 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 28 Nov 2016||#499|
|John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline||
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
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 28 Nov 2016||#500|
|John Raica Canada 516 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.
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 28 Nov 2016||#501|
|John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline||
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.
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 29 Nov 2016||#502|
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline||
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...
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...
and thanks for the horse mouth dialogue..deeply interesting it is..
This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Tue, 29 Nov 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 29 Nov 2016||#503|
|John Raica Canada 516 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.
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?
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?
PJ: What makes the mind incapable of ending (its everyday habits & attachments )?
K: It’s fear (of what might happen without them ?) of course.
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?
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.
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.
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 ?)
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.
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)
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.
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 29 Nov 2016||#504|
|Richard Lewis Bulgaria 12 posts in this forum Offline||
Dear John, excellent post. You saved what can be saved in this moment....;)
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 30 Nov 2016||#505|
|pavani rao India 3 posts in this forum Offline||
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 .
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 30 Nov 2016||#506|
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline||
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..
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 30 Nov 2016||#507|
|John Raica Canada 516 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?
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?)
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?
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.
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...
PJ: The (psychological ?) 'dust' gathers again.
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'.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 01 Dec 2016||#508|
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 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.
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.
yes indeed..using a calculating logic,accumulated knowledge usually the one of others, guessing, evaluating, comparing, creating hierarchies, eliminating etc
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...
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...
This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Thu, 01 Dec 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 01 Dec 2016||#509|
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline||
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...
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....
Well no one has to believe that..as believing means: I don't know...
yes some know where the story goes...
This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Thu, 01 Dec 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 01 Dec 2016||#510|
|John Raica Canada 516 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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 ?
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.
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.
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’.
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?
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?
PJ: You asked just now, ‘Is it possible, psychologically, not to have the burden of a thousand yesterdays?’
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 ?) .
|Back to Top|