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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?


Displaying posts 511 - 540 of 707 in total
Sun, 11 Dec 2016 #511
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

Who else than Mrs Pupul Jayakar - a close friend and solid supporter- could more thoroughly speak of the 'K Teachings'?
Here are excerpts from her introduction to 'Fire in the Mind' a book collecting some of the most profound K dialogues:

It was in October 1947, two months after Independence, that Krishnaji returned to India from Ojai, California, after an absence of over nine years. A new India awaited him. The partition had left a trail of massacres and hatred that had traumatized the nation’s psyche.
Krishnaji was staying in Bombay and, unlike on his previous visits to India, he made himself available mornings and evenings. Seekers came to sit around him and question him on problems they felt were crucial to an understanding of their own lives and to the country’s new awakening. Most of them were young people—freedom fighters disillusioned in the aftermath of freedom, confused and in despair at the ambitions, hunger for power, sycophancy and double talk that had surfaced soon after Independence. Many creative people came to him: poets, painters, monks and sannyasis—eager to probe, eager to discuss the true and the creative. There were also those burdened with sorrow who came to the sage to be healed.

The majestic presence of Krishnaji and the myths and legends that surrounded his early life overwhelmed many of us, young and old. With great simplicity and denying all hierarchy, Krishnaji spoke to us directly. He brought us into the perceptive field of his concerns, making it possible for us to ask questions and reveal our sorrows, our fears and our hopes.
It was during these months in Bombay that dialogue emerged as a way of exploration into consciousness. It was an approach that was to become central to Krishnaji’s teaching.
There is an ancient tradition of religious discourse in India which stresses dialogue and doubt as crucial to the discovery of truth. But Krishnaji negated the hierarchy inherent in a dialogue between guru and disciple. There were no anchors. No guru, no book, no tradition could give answers to life’s questions, nor free the human mind from bondage. The seeker, the questioner, the human being in sorrow had to accept total responsibility.

At first those who listened found it difficult to follow what lay behind his words. There were a few who were aware that there was a within that could be discovered or explored. With immense patience Krishnaji repeatedly stressed the need to slow down the mind, to pause, to ponder, to question relentlessly, to observe thought without judgement and to perceive thought as ‘what is’.
We had been nurtured on an educational tradition which stressed reason and the perception of the outer world as the actual and we saw the religious mind as based on belief and faith. At first we found it impossible to listen and perceive what lay within us. There was, however, a yearning to seek that which lay hidden at the root of the human mind.

Spontaneously a form was taking shape. Krishnaji sat with us in a circle, listening with great intensity to the questions asked by the participants. There was never an immediate answer, he paused, posed a counter-question, threw the question back to the questioner. He found that in this situation he could directly contact the minds of his companions, draw them close and understand the nature of the obstacles they faced in perceiving thought without distortion. He was aware when questions were asked from direct perception or, when in the process of listening a counter-question born of memory was taking shape as thought in the brain, then consciousness was fragmented, then there was no deep listening.

It was essential to listen with intensity to Krishnaji, to listen critically, even to challenge him. For it was only when challenged that Krishnaji’s responses held the light of vast insights. And yet if our minds failed to understand, with grace, with ease, without effort, Krishnaji would say: ‘Let us begin again. That is patience. That patience has no time. Impatience has time.’
The approach of Krishnaji was entirely new, demanding from us the energy to listen, to perceive, to question and be questioned. For Krishnamurti too it was a challenge. It is possible that new insights were arising as he investigated. He was eager to awaken in us an intelligence that had not crystalized, that was not conditioned by words. It was with such a mind that we could journey with him into the depths of consciousness. ‘In the very act of listening without effort, miracles happen, light penetrates darkness.’

Sensing our confusion and aware of our inability to listen, he asked: ‘What is self-knowing? How do you know yourself? Is it in the observing of a thought springing up? We are reluctant to let go the first thought and so there is a conflict. Or is self-knowing to extinguish the first thought and perceive the second thought and then the third, then dropping the third and following the fourth, so that there is a constant alertness and awareness of the movement of thought and an energy that comes alive born of attention?’

He returned from the West in the early 1960s afire with the ferment in the scientific and technological world and the volcanic energy being released that would inevitably transform human consciousness and generate explosive pressures on humankind. With the eye of prophesy, he looked into the centuries that lay ahead and perceived the velocity of change that was to come about with
the unlocking of the mysteries of nature and the birth of skills that could manipulate and structure what was discovered. He had intimations of a massive search for artificial intelligence that would render certain human faculties obsolete.
The dialogues had assumed a new weight and density; a subtlety of enquiry was transforming perceptive processes. Every cell in Krishnaji’s brain seemed to be awake. Aware of every movement, every sound, in the outer and the inner, he was penetrating in depth into the nature of the scientific mind and the religious mind—the only two minds that could survive in the centuries ahead.
‘Something new is going on, of which we are not aware,’ he said. ‘We are not aware of the significance, the flow, the dynamic quality of the change. There is no time.

The 'religious' (holistic ?) mind is capable of thinking precisely, not in terms of the negative and positive; therefore, that mind can hold within it the scientific mind. But the 'scientific' mind is based on time, knowledge; it is rooted in success and achievement. The religious mind is the real revolutionary mind. It is not a reaction to what has been. The religious mind is the only mind that can respond totally to the present challenge and to all challenges, at all times.

There was passion and an urgency in his dialogues. He demanded a (psychological ?) mutation in the human brain so that automation and the artifacts of technology could not take over the inhuman role of master. For this the investigation into the 'within' could no longer be ignored. Yet it had remained unexplored by the scientific mind. The wisdom humanity lacked was that the mind was the root of the problem-making machinery. It was in this area of perception that the ultimate freedom of humanity lay.
‘What is needed is a new mind that functions wholly. While the scientific mind is disciplined, the religious mind explodes without (following any ?) 'discipline'. Self-knowing is essential because it is only a mind in involved in self-knowing is allowing the new mind to be.’
‘The mutation of the human mind is not in the outer but in the depths of consciousness,’ in those dark caves and ravines of the brain where the primordial, the ancient and the suppressed lie dormant. With great intensity he asked: ‘Can one live with eyes and ears that hold the totality of the past, the
yesterday and the million years, the second before and the primordial? That is mutation; that is revolution.’

Krishnaji was exploring his own mind, probing deeper and deeper into consciousness, entering into darkness and the unknown. ‘I see that 'entering into myself' implies the same movement as entering into space—as energy enters, it gathers momentum.’ ‘When the brain is deeply attentive, listening to what is being said—a state of the active present—and simultaneously self-examining then attention has the quality of fire. (The self-centred ?) consciousness as the movement of time and measure is not. The whole brain is operative.

On his return to India he continued his investigations. A series of dialogues were held on ‘intelligence, computers and the mechanical mind’. Equally intent on exploring the ancient Indian mind, Krishnaji entered into dialogue with the surviving religious traditions of Buddhism and Vedanta. He sought to probe a religious psyche that had long served to nurture a quest for truth. Questioning and being questioned, new challenges emerged and extended the dimensions of enquiry.

*

The K dialogues covering a vast sea of human concerns continued over the years. Fresh minds joined the old stalwarts. Krishnaji was using the mind to penetrate the mind. We were witness to the expansion of the limitless and its impact on the limited mind.
With his old comrades, with Buddhist monks and with scientists, Krishnaji was investigating at depth into the nature of time and dialogue itself. There were moments when the dialogues seemed to touch the very limits of thought and consciousness. There was an ending of time and thought—a state where the 'experiencer', the 'questioner', was not. A profound sense of sacredness permeated the mind, providing a totally new dimension to the whole field of religious enquiry.
In 1985, Krishnaji visited India for the last time. He was desperately ill, but, in spite of the frailty of the body, he continued to hold dialogues. The last discussion was held at Vasanta Vihar, Madras, on 28 December 1985, a month and a half before his death in Ojai, California. In the dialogue he discussed the nature of time and he asked a question: ‘Is there a time of non-movement? Is there a timeless activity which is infinite and measureless? ’ He left
India ten days later, with this question unanswered but alive in our consciousness.

*

Today (1995) , a few years later, some of the finest minds in science have published books investigating not only intelligence but also consciousness. This was possible because the tools and technologies for probing into the brain and its functioning were now available for the first time. Scientific papers are being published on certain 'chemicals' which can wipe out the memory of all distressing experiences, without affecting other memory. The capacity to manipulate the human mind, to (re -?) programme it and change the nature of consciousness, is now a possibility. This threatens the very existence of the rich and profound nature of human consciousness. When we observe this (sad trend ?) the dialogues of Krishnamurti and his exploration into the mind and consciousness become supremely relevant. For they uncover the nature of the within through self-knowing and so bring about a revolution in the mind’s functioning.

There is an (inner ?) Reality which coming upon the mind transforms it, you don’t have to do a thing. It operates, it functions, it has an action of its own, but the mind must feel it, must know it and not speculate, not have all kinds of ideas about it. A mind that is 'seeking' it will never find it, but there is that (timeless inner ?) state unquestionably. And if you have ( access to ?) that state, you will find everything is possible, because that is Creation, that is Love, that is Compassion.
(Bombay, 23 December 1956)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Dec 2016 #512
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
There is an ancient tradition of religious discourse in India which stresses dialogue and doubt as crucial to the discovery of truth. But Krishnaji negated the hierarchy inherent in a dialogue between guru and disciple. There were no anchors. No guru, no book, no tradition could give answers to life’s questions, nor free the human mind from bondage. The seeker, the questioner, the human being in sorrow had to accept total responsibility.

Good morning John, just passing by when you "dropped" this text here..

what to add to that quote ? nothing..

John Raica wrote:
In the very act of listening without effort, miracles happen, light penetrates darkness.’

As far as I eventually would know anything about that, for me this is not a capacity of thought

John Raica wrote:
Aware of every movement, every sound, in the outer and the inner, he was penetrating in depth into the nature of the scientific mind and the religious mind—the only two minds that could survive in the centuries ahead.
‘Something new is going on, of which we are not aware,’ he said. ‘We are not aware of the significance, the flow, the dynamic quality of the change. There is no time.’

then what we have "good" machines...so good wars and so what ? the world possibly had never been so depressed nor utterly meaningless..science brought nothing because it is ONLY a tool nor did man's religions..as they are lies, as real as mickey mouse..

what new is he talking about here ? any light on this ?

John Raica wrote:
The 'religious' (holistic ?) mind is capable of thinking precisely, not in terms of the negative and positive;

John definitively here, like you I would rather use the word holistic ...then so

John Raica wrote:
The holistic mind is the real revolutionary mind. It is not a reaction to what has been. The holistic mind is the only mind that can respond totally to the present challenge and to all challenges, at all times.

then it now says something very different for me...

John Raica wrote:
For this the investigation into the 'within' could no longer be ignored. Yet it had remained unexplored by the scientific mind. The wisdom humanity lacked was that the mind was the root of the problem-making machinery. It was in this area of perception that the ultimate freedom of humanity lay.

Of course it had remained unexplored by the so called scientific mind, sort of new god, science has nothing to do like thought has in such fields, they are totally out of reach for both of them ,as thought is science,and science is thought..both are only tools...they are the container thinking that they are the content so the disaster....and so end up to use themselves in an unperceived catch 22...both the hand and the tool..

John Raica wrote:
I see that 'entering into myself' implies the same movement as entering into space—as energy enters, it gathers momentum.’ ‘When the brain is deeply attentive, listening to what is being said—a state of the active present—and simultaneously self-examining then attention has the quality of fire. (The self-centred ?) consciousness as the movement of time and measure is not. The whole brain is operative.

again thought, for me, says what I know as a matter of experience,thought cannot do that , k ways of putting it here,unless it is what recalls pupul, seems to suggest again that thought is able to do so..I may be totally wrong of course, but right as well

the matter here is what is right and what is not right and not who is..

as often there is no pain, discontentment, suffering, sorrow, all seems fine on this side...one just thinks thoroughly and enters into oneself...with the deepest attention out of the blue..come on !!!

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Tue, 13 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Dec 2016 #513
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 6 posts in this forum Offline

"The intellectual explanations of how to do away with suffering make one indifferent to it."

today qotd

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #514
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

FIRST (out of 3) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM, JOHN HIDLEY & RUPERT SHELDRAKE on 'THE NATURE OF THE MIND' OJAI 1982 (experientially friendly edited )

JOHN HIDLEY: Perhaps we could start with the question of what is the source of 'psychological' disorder.

K: Isn't disorder ( the lack of an universally integrated order ?) the very nature of our 'self (-isolated' consciousness ?) ? Isn't this exclusive, (self-) isolating (mentality ?) isn't that the origin, the beginning of all disorder?
So, I am asking, is not the self-isolating consciousness the beginning of all our disorder? The egotistic attitude towards life, the sense of ( being an isolated ?) individual - emphasis on his salvation, his fulfillment, his happiness, his anxiety, and so on ?
I wonder if the psychologists have really tackled that problem, that the self is the origin, the beginning of all contradiction, divisive activity, self-centred activity, and so on.

JH: The way psychiatrists and psychologists look at this is that the problem is to have an 'adequate' self.

K: Which means what?

JH: They are defining the 'normality'...

K: ...of a "self" (centred mind ?) that is functioning efficiently (in the material area of human existence) .

JH: Yes...

K: Which means furthering more misery...

DAVID BOHM: Well, I feel that the psychiatrists would (sincerely ?) think that a properly organized 'self' could get together with other properly organized selves and make an orderly society.

K: Yes.

DB: But you are saying, as I understand it, something quite different:
that no (self -centred ?) structure can make ( or create a holistic ?) order.

K: That's right. The very ( self-isolating) nature of the 'self' must intrinsically bring disorder.

DB: Yes, but I'm not sure this will be clear. How can that be made clear, evident?

RUPERT SHELDRAKE: Sorry, it seems to me that the context is even broader than that of psychology, because in the world we have all sorts of things which are not human beings with selves, they're animals and plants and all the forces of nature and all the stars and so on. Now we see disorder in nature too. It may not be consciously experienced and a cat that's suffering or a lion suffering or a mouse or even an earthworm that's suffering may not come into a psychiatrist's office and say so, but the fact is that there seems to be disorder and conflict within nature. There are conflicts between forces of nature, inanimate things, earthquakes and so on; there are conflicts within the animal world; there are even conflicts within the plant world - plants compete for light, and bigger ones get higher up in the forest and the smaller ones get shaded out and die. There's conflict between predators and prey; all animals live on other plants or animals. There's every kind of conflict: there's disease, there's suffering, there's parasites; all these things occur in the natural world. So is the context of psychological suffering and disorder something that's merely something to do with the mind or is it something to do with the whole of nature, the fact that the world is full of separate things and that if we have a world which is full of separate things and these separate things are all interacting with each other, that there's always going to be conflict in such a world.

DB: I'm wondering, is it clear that there is that disorder in nature. Would you say that ( the 'psychological' ) disorder ( you are refering ?) is only in human consciousness?

K: Yes.

DB: Then, what is the difference between the disorder in ( the context of human) consciousness and whatever is going on in nature?

K: I saw the other night on the television a cheetah chasing a deer. Would you consider that disorder?

RS: Well, I would consider that it involves suffering.

K: Suffering, yes. So are we saying that it is 'natural' in (the word of ?) nature and in human beings to suffer, to go through agonies, to live in disorder?

RS: Yes.

K: So what do you say to that, sir?

JH: Well, I think that's the way it's looked at by the therapist. To some degree it's felt that this arises in the course of development and that some people have it more than others... suffering - some people are more fortunate in their upbringing, for example, or in their heredity. But it isn't questioned that that may not be necessary in any absolute sense.

K: Dr. Sheldrake says it is accepted. Human condition is to suffer, to struggle, to have anxiety, pain, disorder.

JH: Well, it's certainly necessary (or inevitable ?) to have physical suffering. People get sick, they die, and we're wondering whether or not psychological suffering is analogous to that or whether there's something intrinsically different about it.

K: I do question seriously whether human beings must inevitably live in this (sad psychological ?) state: everlastingly suffering; everlastingly going through this agony of life. If we accept that it's inevitable, as many people do, then there is no answer to it. But is it ?

JH: Well, physical suffering is inevitable: illness, death.

K: Yes, sir, physical suffering, old age, accidents, disease.
JH: Maybe we increase the physical suffering because of our psychological problems.

K: That's it. Recently, personally I have had a minor (prostate ?) operation, there was plenty of pain; quite a lot. And it went on considerably. ( But now ) it's out of my mind completely gone. So is it the psychological nourishing of a remembrance of pain which gives us a sense of continuity in pain?

RS: We can (eventually ?) forget physical pain; but can we forget the kind of psychological pain that's caused by natural things like loss, death of people? I mean, there are certain ( very real) conflicts in nature. For example, among troops of gorillas or baboons - take baboons or even chimpanzees - there's a conflict among the males. Often the strongest male wishes to monopolize all the attractive females. Now some of the younger males want to get in on the act as well. They try going off with these females and this younger male will fight and beat them off. So they'll be kept out of this. This selfish activity of this one male keeps most of the females to himself. The same occurs in red deer, where the stag will monopolize the females. Now these are examples of conflict in the animal kingdom which are quite needless. There would be enough food for these hens without pecking each other. Now these are not exceptions; we can find this kind of thing throughout the animal kingdom. So I don't think that the origin of this kind of selfish conflict is something just to do with human societies and the way they are structured. I think we can see in biological nature this kind of thing.

K: Are you saying that as we are the result of the animal, as we human beings evolved from the animal, we have inherited all this 'pecking order'?

RS: Yes, I think we've inherited a lot of animal tendencies from our animal forbearers. And I think that many of these show up in these 'psychological' problems.

K: Yes, but is it necessary that we should continue that way? We are thoughtful, we are ingenious in our inventions, extraordinarily capable in certain directions, why should we not also say, we won't have this, the way we live, let's change it.

RS: Well, many people had said it, but without very much effect.

K: Why?

RS: Well, that indeed is a question. Is it that we're so completely trapped in the ancestry of the past?

K: Or so heavily conditioned that it's impossible to be free.

RS: Well, there are two possible kinds of conditioning: one is the genuine biological conditioning that comes from our animal heritage, which means that we inherit all these tendencies.

K: Let's accept that.

RS: Now that is undoubtedly extremely strong. It goes right back into our animal past.

K: Right.
RS: The other kind of conditioning is that human nature is like this, there have always been wars and conflicts and all that kind of thing, and therefore there always will be; that the most we can do is try to minimize these, and that there'll always be psychological conflicts within families and between people and that the most we can do is try and minimize these...

K: So, accept the...

RS: ...or at least make them livable with.

K: ...conditioning, modify it. But you cannot fundamentally change it.

RS: Yes, the belief that we can't really change it radically is another kind of conditioning. I'm a victim of it myself. So I don't know if it's possible to get out of it.

K: That is what I want to discuss. Whether it's possible to change the human conditioning. And not accept it (tacitly ?) as most philosophers, the ( Rive Gauche ?) existentialists and others say, your human nature is conditioned. Shouldn't we enquire into whether it's possible to change this conditioning?

RS: I'd like it to be changed, I deeply want it to be changed. So I think that this question of enquiring into the possibility is extremely important. But one of my points, to go back to the conditioning point, is that a lot of this conditioning is deep in our biological nature and people who wish to change it merely by changing the structures of society are operating at too superficial a level.

K: After all, society is created (or tacitly sustained ?) by ourselves and by us is going to be changed, so we have to change ourselves. If we rely on society to change us, we are caught in that same trap.

RS: Yes. But if we start off with a heritage which is built in to us, inherited, which comes from our biological past and we just try to change the society, the other part, the inherited part, is still there.

K: I may have inherited that violence from the from the apes and so on, so on. Can't I change that? The inherited biological conditioning, surely that can be transformed.

RS: Well, all societies surely seek to transform these biological drives we have, and all processes of bringing children up in all societies seek to bring those drives within the control of the society. Otherwise you would have complete anarchy. However, these drives are always brought within certain forms of social and individual aggression is obviously discouraged in most societies. But is it really transformed? Doesn't it just come out again in the aggression of the society as a whole (competition ?) war and so on. So we can see that these basic drives that we inherit are transformed by society.

DB: I think you (K) are meaning by 'transformed' a fundamental change and not just a superficial change or a transfer of the object of aggression from individuals to other groups. So if you talk of a radical transformation you would say really that these would more or less go away, right? That's as I understand it.

RS: Well, they'd be changed from one form (of basic aggressivity ?) to another (more sophisticated forms ?)

DB: ...I don't think that's the meaning which Krishnaji is using for the word 'transform,' but essentially can't we be free of them, you see.

K: Yes. That's right. Sir, why do you divide (separate ?) 'society' and 'me'? As my parents, and the past generations have created this society, so I am part of that ( collective mentality of ?) society. ( Psychologically speaking ?) I 'am' society.

RS: Well, yes. But I think, we have the idea that society and me are not exactly the same. We'd always be in one society or another, so society as a whole, all societies taken together, we would only exist within society, but any particular society is in a sense an accident of our birth or upbringing.

K: But even that society is part of us.

RS: Oh, yes. I mean through growing up in it, it becomes part of us and we become part of it.

K: But, I want to 'abolish' this idea of the inner ?) separation from me and society. I 'am' society, (mentally-wise ?) I am the (personalised ?) result of all these influences, conditionings, whether in the East or in the West or in South or North, it's all part of ( our cultural ?) conditioning.

RS: Yes...

K: So here we are 'attacking' the ( divisive ?) conditioning, not where you are born or East or West.

RS: Oh, yes. But then the problem would be conditioning of every kind: our biological conditioning and our conditioning from society.

K: That's right. Personally I don't separate myself from society, I 'am' (fully responsible for the existing ?) society. I ( as a 'generic' human being ?) have created ( the existing structure of ) society through my desire for security, through my desire to have power, and so on. Like the (other social ?) animals. It's all biologically inherited. And also my own individualistic activity has created (or tacitly accepted ?) this society. So I am asking, since I am (mentally ?) conditioned in that way; is it not possible to be free of it?

RS: Well, I would say first that it's not possible to be free of all of the conditioning. I mean, certain of it is necessary biologically, the conditioning that makes my heart beat...So the question is, how far can you take that? ( Where do we draw the line between the unecessary and the ?) necessary conditioning.

K: I am conditioned to suffer ( to get hurt ?) , psychologically. I am conditioned to go through great conflicts in my relationship with my wife or father, whatever it is. And we are saying, either we investigate into that and free ourselves from (the deeper causes of ?) that conditioning , or accept it and modify (optimise ?) it. Now as a psychologist which one you maintain?

JH: Well, I think generally the approach is to attempt to modify it; to help the patient make (his existing conditioning ) work more effectively.

K: Why?

JH: Part of the reason for that is that it's seen as biological and therefore fixed. A person is born with a certain temperament. His (basic ?) drives are the drives of the animal, and I think also because it isn't clear to therapists that the problem can be dealt with as a whole, (for most of them) it is clear that it can be dealt with as particulars.

K: Is it the psychologists don't think 'holistically'? Our only concern is solving individual problems.

JH: Yes, they are concerned with (and payed for ?) solving individual problems.

K: So therefore they are not thinking of human 'suffering' ( the subliminal accumulation of hurts, conflicts, frustrations ?) as a whole.

JH: Right.

K: ( So they deal with ?) a 'particular' suffering of X who is very depressed.

JH: Right. For his own particular reasons.

K: For particular reasons. We don't enquire into why human beings all over the world are depressed.

JH: Or rather, we don't tackle that as an (universal ?) problem. We try and tackle it with this particular individual who comes in.

K: Therefore you are emphasizing his particular suffering and so sustaining it.

JH: Can we get more clear on that?

K: I come to you for various reasons which you know.

JH: Yes...

K: And you (the 'holistic' psychotherapist ?) tell me that my depression is the depression of the world.

JH: Yes, I don't tell you that. I tell you that your depression (can be cured ?)

K: When you tell me that, are you not helping me to carry on with my (self-centred causes of the ongoing ?) depression? It's 'my' depression which I want to dissolve.

JH: Yes...

K: Which means I am (still ?) only concerned with 'myself'.

JH: Yes, it's within the context of yourself.

K: So you are helping me to be more ( efficiently ?) selfish, more self-concerned, more self-committed.

JH: I would think that I am helping you to be less 'self-concerned' because when you are not depressed, then you don't (necessarily) have to be self-concerned. You feel better and you're able to relate to people more.

K: But again, on a very superficial level.

JH: Meaning that I leave the 'self' (-centred structure ?) intact.

DB: Yes, well, I feel that people generally wouldn't accept this (new condition ?) , that the 'self' is rather unimportant, which is what you're implying. But rather the assumption is that the 'self' (centred consciousness ?) is really there and it has to be improved, you see, most people would say that a certain amount of self-centredness is normal...

K: Yes, sir.

DB: ...so you 'keep it within reason', right?

K: Modify (optimise your ?) selfishness, right? Continue with (your inherited ?) selfishness but... go slow.

DB: So, I think you're saying something which is very "radical", because very few people have entertained the notion of no "self-centredness" (whatsoever).

JH: That's right; it isn't even seen as relevant, really.

DB: I think most people feel that's the way things are, it's the only way.

K: That means 'modified status quo'.

JH: Yes.

K: To me that seems so ( holistically ?) "irrational".

DB: But here must be some reason why you feel so different from other people about it.

K: It seems so "practical", first of all. The way we live is so impractical: the wars, the accumulation of armaments, is totally "impractical".

DB: But that wouldn't be a (logical) argument, you see, because people say, we all understand that, but since that's the way we are, nothing else is possible. You see, you really are challenging the notion that that is the way we are: people say we are individuals, separate and we'll just have to make the best of it. But you are saying something different, I mean, you're not accepting that.

K: All right. Will the people who don't accept it, will they give their minds to find out? Or say, 'buzz off' we don't want to listen to you. That's what most people do.

RS: So, there are some people who accept it, say we can't change it. But there are other people, and I would say that some of the most inspiring leaders of the different religions of the world are among them, who have said (Yes, ) we can change it; there is a way beyond this. Now since these doctrines are widely dispersed, there are in fact large numbers of people in our society and in every society who do think it can be changed. Because all religions hold out the prospect of change, and of going beyond this conditioning.

K: Yes. But I would like to know, when you use the word 'religion,' is it the organized religion, the religion of belief, dogma, rituals, all that? Or is ( the true meaning of ?) "religion" the accumulation of energy to find whether it is possible to be (inwardly ) free. You understand my question?

RS: Well, I think that within all religious traditions that this second kind of 'religion' you talk about has been kept alive and I think that the impetus in all great religions of the world has been that, though it's then been debased and degraded in various ways. But this vision has never left any of these religions, there are still people within them, I think, who still have it. And this is the inner light that keeps them going over and above the simple political part and all the rest of it.

K: I know, I know. But suppose a man like me rejects ( the experiential value of ?) tradition. Rejects anything that has been said about Truth; about God, whatever the other (famous ?) people say. So if you wipe all that out and say, look, I must find out ( not as an isolated individual) whether this Truth or this Illumination come without depending on all that (accumulated experience of the past ?) ? You see, if I am anchored, for example, in Hinduism, in the religious belief of a real Brahmin, I am anchored there. That is not freedom. Because there must be freedom to discover come upon "this".

RS: Well, you put forward the question of a man who rejects all these traditions. What reason do you have for rejecting all these traditions in such a (radical) way? What I was saying is that the inner core of all the great religions of the world is a vision of this possibility of a transformation, whether it's called Salvation or Liberation or Nirvana or what. There's this vision. Now there have always been people within those religions who had this vision and lived this vision; now, perhaps out of your radical rejection of all religions you've always denied that. But if so, I would say, why? Why should we be so radical as to deny...

K: If I am (conditioned as ?) a Buddhist, for example, I believe that the Buddha is my saviour. Suppose I believe that, and that has been told to me from childhood, my parents have been Buddhists and so on, so on, so on. And as long as I have found that security in that idea, or in that belief, in that person, there is no freedom (to inquire inwardly) .

RS: No, but you can move beyond that (cultural) framework, you see, starting from within it that you can move beyond it.

K: That means I wipe out everything.

RS: It means you wipe it out, but there's a difference between an approach where you wipe it out from the beginning...

K: From the beginning, I am talking about.

RS: And there's another approach where you start within it and go beyond it.

K: You see, what is (experientially ?) important, is "breaking down" all the barriers at the beginning, not at the end. Why should I go through number of years to end it, why couldn't I finish (with the psychological burden of the past ?) the first day?

RS: Because (like in any other branch of science ?) you'd have to reinvent and rediscover for yourself a great many things that you would be able to get through more quickly if you didn't.

K: I am a living human being in relationship with him or with her. In that relationship I am in conflict. He says, don't go about religion and illumination and nirvana and all the rest of it. Transform this, live rightly here, then the "door" is (potentially ?) open.

RS: Yes, but surely, isn't that easier said than done?

K: I know it's easier said than done, therefore let's find out. Let me find out with him, or with you, or with her how to live in this (real) world without conflict. Can I find out, or is that impossible?

JH: We don't know.

K: No. Therefore we start from there: we don't know. So let's enquire into that (conflicting relationship issue ?) . Because if my relationship with life is not "right" , how can I find out something that's immensely beyond time, beyond thought, beyond measure. I can't. 'Til we have established right relationship between us, which is order, how can I find that which is supreme order? I don't know if you are meeting me ?

RS: I would have thought that you could easily argue the other way around.
Until you have 'that', you can't get this right; because the whole history of man shows that starting just from (this, doesn't necessarily go anywhere ?)

K: Ah! Therefore you invent 'that' -it may be just invention of thought, and you imagine that to be order, and hope that order will filter into you. And it seems so illogical, irrational, whereas this is so "rational".

RS: But is it possible? You've now completely reversed your argument to start with, you see. He (John Hidley ) started with the patient coming to the psychiatrist's office who wants to get his relationships right, get the human relationships out of this state of disorder and conflict into something that's more tolerable.

K: I'm not sure whether they are doing right.

RS: But they're doing just what you said now, starting with the relationship, and not going into these bigger questions.

K: But I question whether they are really concerned with bringing about a right relationship between human beings, fundamentally, not superficially, or just hope to adjust themselves for the day. I come to you with my personal problem: I cannot get on with somebody, or I am terribly depressed or there is something dishonest in me, I pretend. I come to you. You are telling me, "become more honest", but not find out what is "real" honesty.

JH: Don't we get into the problem of creating the ideal of a "real" honesty at this point?

K: No. It's not an ideal. I am dishonest. You enquire, "why" are you dishonest? Penetrate into it, disturb me. Don't pacify me. Shake me so that I find out what is real honesty.

JH: Okay, that's...

K: I may break away from my conditioning, from anything. You don't disturb me. That's just my point.

JH: I do disturb you...

K: Partially. You don't say to me, "look, you are dishonest, let's go into it".

JH: I do say that.

K: So you go into it, so that he is totally honest.

JH: Well, how deeply do I need to 'go into it' so that I have disturbed you 'totally'?

K: You tell me. Do it now, sir.

JH: Okay. You come in and in our talk we notice that the thing that you are up to is that you are always trying to find some other person to make your life be whole.

K: Yes. I depend on somebody.

JH: Yes, deeply . And you don't even know that. So I 'disturb' you. I tell you that that's what going on and I show you you're doing it with me. I show you you're doing it with your husband. Now is that sufficiently deep?

K: No.

JH: Why?

K: What have you shown me? A verbal picture, an argument, a thing which tells me that I am dishonest. That leaves me where?

JH: Well, even if it's just verbal it just gives you more knowledge about yourself.

K: That's all. Will that (second hand ?) knowledge transform me?

JH: No.

K: No. Then why do I come to you?

JH: Well, you come thinking that maybe somehow I have some answers, because the way society is set up...

K: Why don't you tell me, ( Just ?) 'do it yourself' , don't depend on me. Go into it. Find out, stir.

JH: Okay, I tell you that. And you say to me, "I don't know what you're talking about".

K: That's just it. So how will you help (learn how to ?) go into myself and not depend on you? How will you help me to go into myself so deeply that I understand and 'go beyond'. You know what I mean?

JH: But I don't know how deeply this has to go.

K: So you have to enquire into (my psychological) dependence. Why am I dependent? Security.

JH: Yes...
K: Is there such thing as (a lasting psychological ?) security?

JH: Well, I have my personal experiences as I grew up that taught me what security is.

K: Yes, which is what? A self-projected ideal, a belief, a dogma, which I accept ( at their face value ?) . But they're 'unreal'.

JH: Okay...

K: So, can I push those away?

JH: And then you are no more depressed ?

K: Ah! If I am dependent (on you) and therefore I get angry, jealousy, all the rest of it. That dependence makes me attached and in that attachment there is more fear, there is more anxiety, there is more... So can you help me to find out what is true security? Is there a deep abiding security? Not in (possessing ?) furniture, not in a house, not in my wife or in some idea - find deeply if there is such thing as complete security.

JH: So you're suggesting that if I simply work on this with you and you come to understand that you're dependent that that's not sufficient because you won't have discovered any abiding security.

K: I've previously sought (a sense of inner protection and ) security in (possessing ?) this house, I've sought security in my wife, there isn't any; then I find security in a church, in a god, in a belief, in a faith, in some other symbol. You see what is happening? Your (search for an abiding inner security ?) is all 'externalized' - giving me ( a solid illusion of ?) security in things in which there is no security: in nationalism, all the rest of it. Could you help us to find out (experientially ?) if there is an (inner sense of ?) complete security which is unshakable?

RS: Are you suggesting that this is one of our most fundamental needs?

K: I should think so.

RS: So indeed it's a fundamental question as to whether this sense of an abiding, unshakable (sense of inner) security is possible.

K: Yes. Because if once you have that there is no (psychological) problems any more.

JH: But this isn't clear, is it the individual (mind) that has that?

K: No. (the self-centred ?) 'individual' (mind) can never have that ( sense of universally open ?) security. Because he is in himself divisive.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Dec 2016 #515
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K CONVERSATION WITH David BOHM, John HIDLEY & Rupert SHELDRAKE Ojai 1982

PSYCHOLOGICAL SECURITY ( experientially friendly edited ?)

K: Could we go into the question of what is (the psychological ?) security? What does that word convey?

RS: I would have said ( a sense of personal ?) invulnerability ?

K: Not being able to be hurt - are we talking about 'psychological' hurts?

JH: Yes, when a person comes into my office, his complaint is his psychological hurts.

K: Suppose I come to you. I am hurt from childhood, when I get married she says something, I am hurt. So this whole living process seems to be a series of ( accumulated ) hurts. How do you deal with it?

JH: It seems to build up a self-protective structure and a ( distorted ) perception of the reality that is inflicting hurt.

K: Yes. How do you deal with it?

JH: I try to help you see how you're doing it. For example, if you have built up in you the notion that you're one down; or that you're the victim. Then you perceive yourself to be victimized and you perceive the (outside) world to be a victimizer. And I help you realize that that's what you're doing.

K: But by showing me that, will I get rid of my very deep unconscious hurts that I have, that make me do all kinds of peculiar actions, neurotic, and isolating myself ?

JH: It appears that people get better if they realize that they are doing it. And in some particular cases it seems to help.

K: But aren't you concerned with not being able to hurt at all?

DB: What do you mean by that, not hurting somebody else or not hurting inside of you.

K: ( What I say ?) I may hurt others unwillingly, but I wouldn't hurt voluntarily somebody.

DB: Yes, you really don't intend to hurt anybody.

RS: I don't see the connection between not hurting other people and not being hurt oneself. At least I'm sure there must be one, but it's not obvious. And most people's view of the best way not to be hurt would be to be in such a position that you can hurt others so much they'd never dare. This is the principle of "nuclear retaliation" and so this is a very common principle.
So it's not obvious that not hurting others is related to not being hurt oneself. In fact, usually it's taken to be the reverse. It's usually assumed that if you're in a position to hurt others you'll be very secure.

K: Of course, I mean if you're a king or one of those ( 100% egocentric ?) people who have built a wall round themselves, naturally you can never hurt them.

RS: Yes.

K: But when they were children they were hurt. And (the scars of ?) that hurt remain in the deep recesses of one's own mind. Now, how do you, as a psychoanalyst, help another who is deeply hurt and is unaware of it and to see if it is possible not to be hurt at all?

JH: I don't address the question about is it possible to not be hurt at all. That doesn't come up.

K: Why? Wouldn't that be a reasonable question?

JH: In (psycho)therapy we ask it only in terms of particulars, and you're asking it more generally, is it possible to end this hurt, period. Not just a particular hurt that I happen to have.

K: So how should we proceed?

JH: Well, it would seem that we have to get at the structure that makes hurt possible in the first place, not this hurt or that hurt.

K: I think that (regarding the superficial hurts ?) it is fairly simple. Why am I hurt? Because you said something to me which is not pleasant.

JH: Well, why should that hurt you?

K: Because I (may) have an 'image' about myself as being a great man. You come along and tell me, don't be an ass. And I get hurt.

JH: What is it that's being hurt there?

K: The (subliminal identification with this ?) image which I have about myself. The image gets hurt (dented ?) and the image 'is' (a central part of ?) 'me'.

DB: This ( exceedingly holistic explanation ?) will not be totally clear to many people: how can I be an 'image', or how can an image get hurt, and if an (self-) image is nothing at all, why does it get hurt?

K: Because I have invested into that ( self-protective ?) image a lot of feeling, lot of emotional reactions, all that ( bundle of emotionally charged memories ?) is "me", my ( identitary ?) image.

JH: It doesn't even look like an 'image' to me, though, it looks like something real.

K: Ah, of course, for most ( ignorant ?) people it's very real. But the reality of that image is 'me'.

JH: Well, can we get it clear that it's just an image and not real?

K: Image is never real; the symbol is never real.

JH: You're saying that ( mentally - wise ?) 'I' am just a symbol.

K: Perhaps...

JH: That's a big step.

K: From that arises the question whether it's possible not to have ( self-protecting mental ?) images at all.

RS: Wait a minute. I don't think we've clearly established that I 'am' (just a mental ?) image. You see certain aspects of it may be unrealistic, but, you see, one ( rational ?) approach would be, well, we've got to remove, shave off these unrealistic aspects and that which remains would be the real thing.

K: So, sir, are you raising the ( ages old ?) question, "What am I?"

RS: Well, I suppose so, yes.

K: What am I? I 'am' the physical form; the name, the result of all education...

JH: ... all your experiences, the (kowledgeable ?) structures you've built up that are how you function, your skills.

K: My fears, my activities, my so-called affection; my gods, my country, my language; fears, pleasures, suffering, all that is "me".
That's ( the identitary programming of ?) my consciousness.

JH: And your (collective ?) unconscious.

K: That's the whole (identitary ?) content of 'me'.

JH: Okay...

DB: You could reasonably argue that that's all there is to 'me', but when something happens there's the feeling of 'your' actual presence, at that moment.

K: I don't quite follow you there.

DB: Well, you see if somebody reacts to being hurt or angry, he feels at that moment that there is something deep inside which has been hurt, right?

K: My ( identitary ?) image can be so deep, that's my image at all levels.
That I am a great poet, or a great painter or a great writer. Apart from that (central identitary ) image as a 'writer', I have other ( 'wild-card'?) images I've built around myself besides the (central identitary ?) image about myself . So I may have (subliminally ?) gathered a bundle of partial (collateral ?) images.

DB: So you are saying that there is nothing (in us ?) but this bundle of images ?

K: Of course!

DB: But the (100 $ ?) question is, how are we to see that this is the actually true fact?

K: Ah...

RS: Wait a minute, I'm sitting right here, now, seeing you and all the rest of it. Now I have the feeling that there's a centre of consciousness which is within my body and associated with it which has a centre and it's not you, and it's not you, and it's not David: it's 'me'. And associated with this centre of action, my body, sitting here, there is a whole lot of memories and experiences and without those memories I wouldn't be able to speak, to talk, to recognize anything.

K: Of course, of course...

RS: So there seems to be some ( true ?) substance to this image of myself. There may be false images associated with it, but there seems to be a reality which I feel as I sit here. So it's not entirely illusory.

K: Sir, are you saying that ( consciousness-wise ?) you are basically different from the three of us?

RS: Well, I'm in a different place, I have a different body and in that sense I'm different.

K: Of course, I'll admit that.

RS: Now at another level I'm not basically different in the sense that we can all speak the same language and communicate, so there's something in common. And at a purely physical level all of us have a lot in common with each other, the same kinds of enzymes, chemicals, and so on. And those indeed - hydrogen atoms, oxygen atoms - we have in common with everything else.

K: Yes. Now, is your consciousness different from the ( collective consciousness of the ) rest? (The content of ?) your consciousness: your beliefs, your fears, your anxieties, depressions, faith, all that?

RS: Well, I would say that many of the contents of my consciousness or many of the beliefs, desires, etcetera, I have, other people also have. But I would say the particular combination of experiences, memories, desires, etcetera I have are unique, because I've had a particular set of experiences as you have and as everyone has which makes a unique combination of these different elements.

K: So is mine unique?

RS: Yes.

K: So is his?

RS: Exactly.

K: The illusion ( of our division ?) makes it all common. It's no longer unique.

RS: That's a paradox. We're not 'unique' in the same way -we have a unique set of experiences and environmental factors, memories, etcetera.

K: Apart from the physical environment, linguistic differences and accidents and ( personal ) experiences, deep down we suffer; we are frightened of death, we are anxious, living inwardly in ?) conflict - that's the (common consciousness ?) ground on which we all stand .

DB: I think that what you are saying really implies that what we have in common is essential and fundamental rather than just superficial, you see. Now, I've talked with people about this and they say, everybody agrees we all have these things in common but sorrow, suffering and so on are not so important, the really important point are the higher achievements of culture and things like that, as an example.

RS: You see, I can (intellectually ?) recognize that there is such a thing as a common (consciousness of ?) humanity but I would regard that quite possibly as an abstraction rather than a reality. How do I know that is not an abstraction?

K: Because if you go around the world, you see people suffer, you see human beings in agony, despair, depression, loneliness, lack of affection, lack of care, attention, that (inner condition ?) is part of our consciousness.

RS: Yes...

K: So ( consciousness-wise ?) you are not basically different from me. Deep down, the content of the river is the (same) water. This river is (the) river (of an 'all-one' human consciousness ?) .

RS: Yes, well that is clearly true at some level. But I am not quite sure at what level, you see.

K: I am talking basically, deeply.

RS: But why stop there? I can see something in common with all other human beings, but I can also by looking at animals see something in common with them. We have also a great deal in common with the animals.

K: Surely, surely.

RS: So why stop at ( the consciousness of ?) human beings?

K: I don't: but one feels it is the ( consciousness ?) ground on which all human beings stand. Their relationship with nature, animals and so on, and the content of our consciousness is again the ground of humanity. Love is not English, American or Indian. Sorrow is not yours or mine, it is sorrow .

RS: We might go through it in very different ways though.

K: Different expressions, different reactions, but basically it is sorrow. This division is one of the reasons of war, not only economic, social and all the rest of it. Why can't we wipe that out? It seems so reasonable.

JH: It seems reasonable on a (superficial) level like nationalism, people don't think they 'are' England. But then I have a ( jealous ?) patient and he does think that he is married, and that it is 'his' wife.

K: Why do I want to identify myself with ( the belief in ?) something greater? Like nationalism, like God.

JH: ( Because inwardly ?) I don't feel sufficient.

K: Which means what? I have built a (self-enclosing ?) wall round myself. So all this is making me desperately lonely. And out of that unconscious loneliness I identify with (my belief in ?) God, with the nation, or any (top of the line ?) religious teacher.

JH: Or I get married, I have a child, I make a place for myself. And that's all also identification.

K: Yes. Why do we want to 'identify' with something? The basic question is this whole process of "becoming" (someone or something ?) , from childhood I am asked to become, become, become. From the priest to the bishop, to the cardinal, (and if really lucky ?) to the pope. And in the business world it is the same. I am 'this' but I must become 'that'.

JH: Because what I "am" is not sufficient ?

RS: Well the obvious reason for wanting to become is a feeling of insufficiency, inadequacy, in the state that we are. And one of the reasons for this is that we live in an imperfect world, our relationship with other people are imperfect and we are not content for a variety of reasons with the way we are. So the way out of that ( springs the idea ?) to become something else.

K: Yes. That means escaping from ( facing ?) 'what is'.

RS: It may seem that 'what is' is something we have to escape from.

K: All right. ( Suppose that ?) I am (inwardly competitive, greedy and/or ?) 'violent' and ( culturally we ?) have invented ( the ideal of ?) non-violence. And I am trying to become like that. I'll take years to become that, but in the meantime I am ( still subliminally ?) violent. So I have never escaped from ( the genetic heritage of ?) violence. ( The ideal of 'non-violence' ) is just an invention.

RS: Well you may 'escape' from it in the end...

K: No, I don't want to 'escape'. I want to ( face and ?) understand the nature of my violence, what is implied in it, whether it is possible to live a life without any sense of violence.

RS: But what you are suggesting is a more effective method of 'escaping'. You are not suggesting abandoning the idea of escaping. You are suggesting that the normal way of trying to become non-violent doesn't work. Whereas if you take another approach where you actually look at the violence in a different way you can really become non-violent.

K: I want to see what is the nature of violence, how it arises.

RS: But for what purpose?

K: To see whether it is possible to be free of it completely.

RS: But isn't that (a more direct ?) modality to escape from it?

K: The avoidance ( to face ?) 'what is' is an escape, but to say, look, this is what I 'am' (or what my heritage is ?) , let's look at it, let's observe what its content is, that is not escape.

RS: I see, you are saying that rather than escaping from ( facing one's inner?) violence, which leaves violence intact and still there, you try to dissolve violence, or abolish it.

K: Dissolve.

RS: All right. So this is different from escape, because you are trying to dissolve the thing rather than run away from it.

K: Running away, everybody runs away.

RS: Well it usually works to a limited extent.

K: It is like running away from my ( existential ?) 'agony' by going to football; when I come back home, it is there! I want to see what ( that ages old heritage of ?) violence is and to see if it is possible to be completely free of it.

RS: If I am living in a very 'unpleasant' (all-controlling ?) society, I can escape from it by leaving it and going to another one. But these are always partial answers and they are partially effective.

K: I don't want to be partially free from it. I want to find out if it is possible to totally end it. That's not an 'escape', that's putting my teeth into it.

RS: Yes. But you have to believe ( this freedom ?) it is possible in order to 'put your teeth' into it.

K: I know one can live without violence. But that may be a 'freak' (experience ?) , or one may be a 'biological freak' and so on. But the four of us, came to see what is (this inner ?) violence if we could be free of violence completely.
(Part of our inner heritage of ?) violence is imitation and/or conformity, this constant ( self-measurement and?) comparing. So ( the 1000 $ question is ?) "can I live without comparison ?" , when from childhood I have been trained to compare myself with somebody? I am talking (of the psychological ) comparison, not (the material comparison between a ?) good cloth and bad cloth.

JH: Talking about comparing myself (with others or with an ideal ?) .

K: Comparing myself with you who are bright, who are clever, who have got ( the logistic of media & ?) publicity, when you say a word the whole ( Christian ?) world listens (or...not?) . And I can shout, nobody cares. So I want to be like you. So I am comparing constantly myself with something I think is 'greater' (in the material or in the spiritual world ?) .

JH: So this is where "becoming" comes from, comparing ?

K: That's just ( one aspect of ?) it. So can I live without comparison?

JH: Doesn't that leave me in an insufficient state?

K: To live without comparison? No.

JH: But I start (from a state of feeling inwardly ?) 'insufficient'...

K: So, if I don't compare (myself with others ?) I am ( left with ?) what I am.
(Story time:) The other day, after one of the talks in England, a man came up to me and said, "Sir, you are a beautiful old man but... you are stuck in a rut". I said, "Well, sir, perhaps, I don't know, I'll go into it". So I went up to my room and said, "Am I?", so I went into it very, very carefully, step by step, and found ( in the Webster's Dictionary ?) what does 'stuck in a rut' mean, to be stuck in a groove and move along a particular line. Maybe, so I watch it. So observation of a fact is entirely different from escaping or the suppression of it. I may be stuck ( verbally) in a rut because I speak English, but am I inwardly, caught in a 'groove', like a tram car? So, I am going to watch. I am going to be terribly attentive, sensitive, alert.

JH: So this requires that you don't react in the first place by saying, "No, I couldn't possibly be stuck in a rut.'

K: I wouldn't. You may be telling the truth. So, Sir, is there a 'learning' about oneself which is not a constant accumulation (of knowledge ?) about myself? ( The human psyche being ?) like a river that is flowing, you have to follow it.

JH: Maybe this is part of the question we are asking because we started with how does this disorder occur - because I have a fixed image of myself of someone who knows he is not stuck in a rut, I don't like to think that I am stuck in a rut, and somebody says, yes you are.

K: But you may be.

JH: Yes. So, I have to be open to looking, to see.

K: To "observe".

RS: But also I may say, well I am stuck in a rut, but so is everybody, it is the nature of humanity to get ( inwardly) stuck in ruts.

K: If 'that is the nature of humanity', let's change it, for God's sake !

RS: But what reason have I for believing that we can change it? I may be stuck in a rut, so are you, so is everybody else, so anyone who thinks they are not may be deceiving themselves.

K: Cheating themselves. So I begin to enquire, am I (intellectually ?) cheating myself? I want to be very honest about it. I don't what to cheat, I don't want to be a 'hypocrite'.

RS: You may not be a hypocrite, but the alternative to being a hypocrite is a pessimist.

K: No, I am neither a pessimist or an optimist. I say, look, am I stuck in a rut? I watch all day.

RS: And you perhaps conclude "Yes". But then you can take the 'pessimistic' cause and say, yes, I am... so what?

K: If you prefer ( to indulge in ?) that way of living, go ahead. But I don't want to live that way.

JH: Well the person who comes into (psycho-)therapy usually comes in with both sides going on at the same time. He says that, I have this problem which I want to be free of, I don't want to be stuck in a rut; on the other hand when it gets down to really looking at that, he doesn't want to look at it either because it becomes uncomfortable.

K: Of course... To come back to your original question: the world is in disorder, human beings are (living ) in disorder, and is there a possibility to live free from disorder? That is the real basic question. We said as long as there is this (self-) divisive process of ( looking at ?) life, I am a 'Hindu', you are an 'Arab', I am a 'British' you are an 'Argentine', there must be conflict, war. For what?

JH: As long as I identify on a 'personal' level with 'my job', or with 'my family' and so on, there will be pain.

K: Of course. So is it possible to have responsibility (but) without (self-) identification?

JH: If I am not ( self-) identified will I even go to work?

K: Responsibility means ( having a sense of universal ?) order. But we have become (globally ?) irresponsible by isolating ourselves - British, French.

JH: We handle the problem of (our particular ) 'responsibility' by developing a 'rut' that we can work in.

K: Yes. But (if ?) I see the fact that responsibility is ( part of a more universal ?) order, I am responsible to keep this house clean, it is our earth to live on. And we have divided ourselves because in this division we think there is security.

JH: There is stability and security.

K: Which ( holistically-wise ?) is no security at all.

JH: Well, we have got to go slowly because I think that my job is security, I think that my family is security.

K: You may lose it.

JH: That problem keeps coming up.

K: There is great unemployment - three million people unemployed in England (in 1982) .

JH: Well maybe I could get by without my (present ?) job, but I need to think that I have some self respect.

K: What do you mean by 'self respect'?

JH: What I am trying to say is that there is some place at which I put an identification.

K: Why should I want to identify (myself ?) with anything, sir? That makes immediate isolation.

JH: For stability's sake ?

K: Does isolation bring about stability?

JH: It gives one a sense of something 'hard and firm'.

K: Does it? There have been during the last five thousand years nearly five thousands wars. Is that stability? What is wrong with us?

JH: You are saying that the root of the problem is that I ( instinctively ?) continue to identify myself with one thing after another, if one doesn't work I just find something else. I don't stop ( creating self-protective 'images' and ?) identifying (with them ?) .

K: Yes, sir, which breeds isolation.

JH: But in your example about a person that is "stuck in a rut", you say I can just step back and look at this thing and see if it is true. So you are suggesting that there is something ( within the human psyche ?) ?) that is not identified, something that is free to look.

K: This leads to something else...
( Back to square one:) Why do I want to identify myself? Probably basically it is due to (our instinctive ?) desire to be secure, to be safe, to be protected. And that sense (of teritoriality ?) gives me strength.

JH: Yes. Strength, purpose, and a direction.

K: It gives 'me' strength.

RS: But this is a biological fact. It is not merely an illusion. We again, to come back to the animal kingdom, we see it there: deer go round in flocks, birds have flocks, bees have hives and they are identified with the hive in which they work.

K: But bees don't kill themselves, species don't kill themselves.

RS: Well they do kill other bees that invade their hive. They don't just commit suicide. They kill others. So we see even in the animal kingdom this (territorial ?) identification with the group, in many social animals, and we 'are' social animals...

K: Just a minute. Agreed. But by (psychologically ) identifying ourselves with India, or China, or Germany, is that giving us security ?

RS: To a limited extent it is.

K: A limited extent...

RS: And by identifying ourselves with our families does because this whole question of responsibility seems closely linked to it. If I identify myself with my family, feel my duties towards them - an insult to them, or an attack, is an insult to me, so I rush to their defence...

K: Of course.

RS: ...there is a reciprocal obligation on their part, if I fall ill or sick they'll feed me and look after me; if I get arrested by the police they will try and get me out of prison and so on. So it does give me a kind of (solid illusion of ?) security, it ( may) actually work.

K: It may work (locally ?) , but it is (globally ?) impractical, it is killing each other.

RS: We haven't killed each other yet, there are more human beings than there is a bigger population than the world has ever seen. So the system works only too well, for some reason.

K: So you propose ( another) war to kill them off?

RS: No! But there is some aspect of it that does work, and some security that is genuine that these ( identitary ?) things confer.

K: Yes, sir. At a certain level identification has a certain importance. But at a 'higher' ( global) level it becomes dangerous. That's all we are saying. Of course if you are my brother you look after me.

DB: Well it is very hard to draw up a line, you see that starts spreading out.

K: That's right, spreading out.

RS: But you see the question is where do you draw the line because if you are my brother then you also have the tribal, the clan, or in India, the caste.

K: That's it. Extend it. And then we say, I am Argentine, you are British, he's French and we are economically, and socially, we are ( occasionally ?) murdering each other. And I say that is so insane.

RS: But where do you draw the line ?

K: I wouldn't draw the line. I say I am ( globally ?) responsible as a human being for what is happening in the world, because I am a human being . And seeing what is happening in the world - this terrible division - and I won't be a Hindu, I won't be a Catholic, Protestant, nothing. A hundred, or a thousand people like that, would begin to 'do' something...

JH: So you are saying that the problem comes up because I mistake ( the holistic nature of my ?) security, I think that it rests in some local identification.

K: Which is ( resulting in self-) isolation. And therefore in isolation there is no ( authentic ?) security. And therefore there is no order.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Dec 2016 #516
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

OJAI 3RD K CONVERSATION WITH BOHM, HIDLEY & SHELDRAKE -Ojai 1982)- ('experientially friendly' edited)

Going beyond the limitations of the 'self'-centred consciousness

JH: We would like to talk about the question of whether there is an (inner sense of ?) deep security, and whether the 'self' can be dissolved. You have suggested that if that's possible, then the problems that the individual brings to the office, the problems...

K: Sir, apart from physical security, why do we want ( the extra inner ?) security?

JH: Well, we know moments of peace and happiness, and we want to stabilize that, hold that.

K: Then that becomes a memory.

JH: Yes.

K: Not actual security. A memory that one day we were happy, and I wish we could go back to it. Or you project an idea and a hope someday to achieve it. But why is it that human beings, probably throughout the world, seek security? What is the "raison d'etre" of this the demand for ( psychological ?) security? There is great uncertainty, great sense of emptiness in oneself, loneliness. Really, loneliness - let's take that for an example. I may be married, I may have children and all the rest of it but I still feel isolated, lonely. And it's frightening, depressing, and I realize it is isolating. After all, loneliness is the essence of isolation, in which I have no relationship with anybody. Is that one of the reasons why human beings seek this desire for security?

JH: Yes, to fill that up.

K: Oh much deeper than that. To be secure in my fulfillment, to be free of fear, free of my agony. I want to be free of all those so that I can be completely secure in peace and happiness. Is that the reason why we seek?

JH: And we want that ( inner condition ) to be stable over time.

K: Stable, permanent - if there is anything permanent - is that the reason why we crave this, demand, crave for security? If I am (psychologically) anchored in something which I think is true, I'll act according to those principles. But is it that human beings were incapable of solving their psychological fears ? To be free from them is to be so marvellously secure.

JH: You are saying that if we can solve these problems at a fundamental level...?

K: Otherwise how can I be totally secure (inwardly ) ? So, is it the ( need for ) physical security spilling over to the psychological field? One must have food and clothes and shelter. That's an absolute essential, otherwise you four wouldn't be sitting here. In the search of that, psychologically also I want to be equally secure.

JH: They seem to be equated.

K: Yes, but I'm questioning whether the desire to be secure psychologically does not prevent the (global) physical security (of mankind ?) .

JH: It seems like the 'psychological' desire to be secure arises out of the necessity to function (undisturbed ?) in (the world of ?) reality.

K: If in my search for psychological security I identify myself to a nation (or person, object, idea... ?), that (resulting) isolation is ( eventually ?) going to destroy me (or my inner integrity ?) . So why do we seek this?

JH: Okay, then you're saying that this (self-isolating identification ?) is a ( honest ?) mistake, which is that we attach ourselves to something and seek security in that, and that that's fundamentally wrong.

K: I won't say it is 'right' or 'wrong'. I am asking why? Why do human beings do this? A fact which is right through the world, it's not just for a certain community, all human beings want to be so unshakably safe. Why?

DB: Well, I think people have some answers. You see, if you say there's a young child, or a baby, he feels the need to be loved by his parents and it seems that at a certain stage the infant has the need for a kind of psychological security, which he should grow out of perhaps, but since he isn't properly taken care of by his parent very often, he begins to feel alone, isolated, and from there arises a (compensatory ?) demand that he become inwardly secure.

K: A baby must feel secure.

DB: Yes, psychologically as well as physically, wouldn't you say ?

K: Yes, you protect it with affection, taking it in your lap, cuddling him or her, and holding his hand, you make him feel that he is loved, that he is cared for. That gives him a feeling, here is somebody who is looking after me, and there is security here.

DB: Yes, and then I suppose he will grow up not requiring that security.

K: That's it. I am questioning, as he grows up, and as he faces the world, why does he crave for security?

DB: Well, very few children ever have that "love" to begin with, you see ?

K: Oh, that's it. So is that the (root of the ?) problem?

DB: Well, I don't know, but that's one factor.

K: That we really don't love? And if one loves you don't even think about security.

JH: Yes...

K: But human beings do (damand it) . And does that mean we don't love another?

JH: Yes, it means that what we 'love' is ...

K: ... because you give me something.

JH: Yes. You make me feel like I'm going to get that ( sense of total protection and ?) security for which I crave.

K: But we are skirting around this. Is it that unconsciously we know (or feel ?) that the me, the ego, is really totally unstable.

JH: You are saying that in its nature it's totally unstable?

K: In its ( artificial ?) nature it is unstable. And therefore there is this constant anxiety for security outside and inside.

JH: Why do you say the 'ego' is totally unstable?

K: Isn't it? Isn't our ( self-identified ?) consciousness unstable?

JH: It seems to have two sides to it. One side says that if I could just get such and such, I would be stable.

K: Yes. And there is an (intrinsical) contradiction in that. I may not be.

JH: I'm not yet, but I will be (sometimes in the future ?)

K: But more fundamentally, is not this the 'self' ( the 'self-consciousness' ?) itself in a state of movement, uncertainty, attached (and feeling stuck ?); all that? That's a state of lack of stability. Therefore I am asking: is it that human beings unconsciously knowing the instability of the 'self', want ( a compensatory ?) security in God, the Saviour?

JH: Wanting something absolute?

K: Yes, that'll give complete contentment. Right?
Our (self-) consciousness 'is' ( generated by ?) its (active memory ?) content. And this ( active) 'content' is always in contradiction: I want this thing and some other (wiser ?) desire comes along and says, don't have that, for God's sake !

JH: That's why you're saying in essence it's unstable.

K: Obviously it is unstable. There is this constant contradiction (between various desires ?) , this ( controller-controlled ?) duality, all that (active content ?) exists in our (self-) consciousness: fear, pleasure, fear of death, all that. So that (inner identitary structure) is unstable.

JH: Now sensing all of that, people generally say this problem is too deep or too complex, there's no way to solve it, we can maybe just make some adjustments.

K: Yes, yes. And in that 'adjustment' also there is lack of stability. So unconsciously there must be craving for security. So we invent 'God'.

JH: We keep inventing lots of different things which we hope will give us that security.

K: We create ( the image of ?) 'God', he's our own creation. We are not the creation of God, I wish we were. We would be totally different. So there is this illusory (time-stretched ?) desire for security.

JH: Now wait a minute, why do you say that it's illusory?

K: Because they invent something in which they hope they'll be secure.

JH: Oh, I see. Yes.

K: So, if this (dynamic ?) content of our consciousness can be "changed", would there be need for ( a self-projected ?) security?

JH: If we could eliminate all these contradictions?

K: Yes, contradictions.

JH: Then maybe we would have the security because our consciousness would be stable.

K: So that maybe it. We may not even call it (inner) security. Personally I never thought about security. You might say, well, you were looked after, you are cared for by others and all the rest of it, therefore there is no need for you to think about security, but (inwardly) I don't want security. I need, of course, food, clothes and shelter, that's understood, ( plus ?) somebody to (take care of the daily chores... ?)

JH: We're talking about 'psychological' security.

K: I'm talking of the much deeper issue.

JH: And you're saying that that occurs because the contents of your consciousness are no longer contradictory ?

K: It may not be what we know as ('self-) consciousness', it may be something totally different. All that we 'know' is ( the constant drive for ?) rewards and pleasure and constant conflict in relationship: I love you but...

JH: ...within limits.

K: Within limits. So the ( self-energised ?) content of (my self-) consciousness is all that; which is the 'me'. My consciousness 'is' me. In this complex contradictory dualistic existence, its very fact (of its instability ?) creates the demand for security.

JH: Yes...

K: So can we eliminate this 'self (-consciousness' ?) ?

JH: Well, it seems like there's somebody (in charge ) 'in there', who's going to juggle with all these things and ( hopefully even ?) get rid of all the contradictions.

K: But that means 'you' are different from this (self-) consciousness.

JH: Right.

K: But you ( the 'observer' ?) 'are' that! You 'are' ( the constant search for ?) pleasure, you are fear, you are belief, all that you are. Don't agree with what we are talking about, what I'm saying (but 'test it out' ?) .

JH: I think there are a lot of people who wouldn't agree with that.

K: I know there're a lot of people who wouldn't because they haven't gone into it. They just want to brush all this aside.

JH: Well, let's look closer at all this. Is there a 'self' that separate, that's going to be able to somehow 'iron out' these contradictions?

K: No!

RS: How do you know? I mean it seems to me that there is - well, at least it may be illusory, but it's very easy to think that one is separate from some of these problems and that there's something inside one which can make (the right) decisions.

K: Am 'I' (really ?) separate from 'my fear'? Am 'I' (really ?) separate from the depression I go through?

RS: Well, I think that there's something within one which can (objectively ?) examine these things and that's how it indicates there is some kind of separation.

K: An (objective ?) 'observer' separate from the (inner stuff ?) 'observed' ?

RS: Yes.

K: Is that so?

RS: Well, it seems to be so.

K: It 'seems' to be so!

RS: Now, this seems to be the ( dualistic ?) problem, that it does seem to be so, I mean, in my own experience, of course, and many other people's it does indeed seem that there is an 'observer' observing things like fear and one's own reactions. And it comes out most clearly, I find, in insomnia, if one's trying to sleep there's one part of one that going on with silly worries and ridiculous thoughts round and round; there's another part of one that says, I really want to sleep, I wish I could stop all these silly thoughts. So this isn't just a ( personal) theory, it's an actual fact of experience that there is this kind of (inner) separation.

K: I agree, I agree. But why does that division exist?

RS: It may just be a 'fact'.

K: Is that so? I want to examine it.

RS: Yes, so do I. Isn't it a fact that our consciousness has (different) levels (of awareness ?) , some of which can examine others, one at a time?

K: Kindly consider this: is 'my fear' different from 'me'? I may act upon that fear, I may say, I must suppress it, I may rationalize it, I might transcend it, but the fear 'is' (a part of ?) me. You only invent the 'separation' where you want to act upon it. But otherwise I 'am' ( creating that ?) fear.

RS: The common way of analyzing it would be to say, "I feel afraid", as if the 'afraidness' was separate from the 'I'. 'I' want to get out of this state of 'feeling afraid', leaving the fear behind and somehow escape (or get rid of ?) it. This is the normal way we think.

K: I know.

RS: So what's wrong with that?

K: You keep up this ( dualistic ?) conflict.

DB: But I think he is saying it may be inevitable.

K: I question it.

DB: Yes, well, then how do you propose to show it's not inevitable?

K: First of all, at the very moment of anger, there is no separation. Right?

RS: When you're getting very angry what we normally say is "you lose control of yourself" and the separation disappears, you become the (impersonation of ?) anger, yes.

K: At the moment when you are really angry, there is no separation. The separation only takes place ( a few moments ?) after. "I have been angry." Now, why does this separation take place?

RS: Through memory.

K: Through memory, right. Because I have been angry before. So the ( stored experience of the ?) past is evaluating, the past is recognizing (the reaction as anger) . So the (mental impersonation of the ?) past (experience ) is the 'observer'.

DB: That may not be obvious, you know. For example, I may have physical reactions that go out of control, like sometimes the hand or the body, and then I say I am observing those physical reactions going out of control and I would like to bring them back in, right?

K: Yes.

DB: I think somebody might feel the same way (inwardly) , that his mental reactions are going out of control and that they have momentarily escaped his control and that he's trying to bring them back in. You see, that's the way it may look or feel to many people.

K: So, what?

DB: Well, then it is not clear. Have we made it clear that that is not the case ?

K: Sir, when one is frightened, actually, there's no 'me' separate from ( the reaction of ?) fear. When there is a time interval, there is the division. And when ( the thinker-controlled ?) thought comes in then begins the division. Because thought is ( the response of the ?) memory (of) the past.

RS: Thought involves ( the past) memory - yes.

K: Yes, involves memory and so on. So thought, ( the past) memory, knowledge, is the ( controlling response of the ?) past. So the ( impersonation of the ?) past is the 'observer'; who says 'I' am different from that fear, I must control it.

JH: Let's go through this very slowly because the common experience is that the 'observer' is the present. It seems like he's saying, I'm here now and (thinking about ?) what am I going to do about this the next time it comes up.

K: Yes. But the 'what am I going to do about it' is the ( thoughtful ?) response of the past, because you have already had that kind of experience. Sir, haven't you had a fear that has really shaken you ?

JH: Yes.

K: At that very second there is no ( observer-observed ) division, you are entirely consumed by that. Right?

JH: Yes...

K: Then ( the thinker controlled ?) thought comes along and says, I've been afraid or because of this and because of that, now I must defend myself, or 'rationalize' (reason out that ?) fear and so on. It's so obvious .

DB: You see, I think that, coming back again to the physical reaction which can also consume you and the next moment, you say, I didn't notice it at the time, thought comes in and says, "that's just a physical reaction".

K: Yes.

DB: Now, what is the difference of these two cases ? You see, in the second case it would make sense to say, I know that I have reacted this way before, so I can take such an such an action. In many areas that's a normal procedure for ( the controlling process of ?) thought to come in if something shattering happens, and then a moment later, you think, what was it? Right? Now, in some cases that would be correct, right?

K: Quite right.

DB: Now, why is it in this case it is not ?

K: Ah, I see what you mean. You meet a rattler (snake) on a walk, which I have done very often. You meet a rattler, he rattles and you jump. That is a physical self-protective intelligent response. That's not ( a psychological ?) fear.

DB: Right. Not a psychological fear, it's a simple physical reaction of danger.

K: ...which is a (bodily) intelligent reaction not to be bitten by the rattler.

DB: Yes, but a moment later I can say, I know that's rattler or it's not a rattler, So then thought comes in and it's perfectly all right. Right?

K: Yes.

DB: But here (in the psychological area ?) when I am getting angry or frightened...

K: Then thought comes in.

DB: And it's not all right ?

K: It's not all right. Because ( being psychologically invaded by ?) fear is devastating, it blocks one's mind and thought and all the rest of it, one shrinks in that fear.

DB: Yes, I think I see that. You mean that thought comes in it cannot possibly come in rationally in the midst of fear, right?

K: Yes. Here it becomes irrational. So, I am asking, why doesn't one clear up this messy (self-) consciousness. So many fears and so on, it's a (pretty ?) messy consciousness. Now, why can't we clear it up?

JH: Well, it seems we are always trying to clear it up 'after' the fact.

K: I think the ( holistic ?) difficulty lies in that we don't recognize deeply this this messy consciousness 'is' me. And if it is me, I can't do anything! I don't know if you get the point.

RS: You mean, we think that there's a 'me' separate from this messy consciousness ?

K: We think they are separate. And it is our (cultural) conditioning, to act upon it. But I can't very well do that ( sequentially) with all this messy consciousness which is me. So the problem then arises, what is (the holistic ?) action? We are accustomed to act upon the messy consciousness. But when there is realization of the fact that I 'am' that, I can't act.

JH: Then what is the (right ?) action?

K: That is 'non-action'.

JH: Okay...

K: Ah, that's not 'Okay', that is the total difference.

JH: Yes, I think I understand. On the one hand there's the ( temporally -spread ? ) action of consciousness on itself which just perpetuates things...

K: Yes.

JH: And seeing that, then it ceases to act (dualistically ?) .

RS: You're saying that normally we have the idea that there's a (higher) 'self' which is somehow separate from some of the contents of our consciousness.

K: That's right, that's right, sir.

RS: If someone tells us we're wonderful, we don't want to be separate from that, but if we feel afraid and if somebody tells we're awful, we do want to be separate from that. So it's a rather selective (consciousness ) . But nevertheless we do feel there's something in us which is separate from the contents of this messy consciousness. We normally act in such a way as to change either the contents of the consciousness or our relation to the world, and so on. But we don't normally examine this apparent separation between the self, the me, and the contents of the messy consciousness. Now you're suggesting that in fact this ( 'observer-observed' inner) separation which most of us do experience (as real) , is in fact something we ought to challenge and look at and we ought to face the idea that we actually 'are' the messy consciousness and nothing other.

K: Of course. It's so (holistically ?) obvious.

RS: Well, it isn't so 'obvious', it's very non-obvious and it's a very difficult thing to realize, because one's very much in the habit of thinking one is separate from it.

K: So can we ( holistically ?) 'move away' from our (dualistic) conditioning? Our conditioning 'is' me. And if I (realise that) I am that, then "non - action" is the most positive ('holistic' ?) action.

JH: The way that that would be generally heard, I'm afraid, is that if I don't act on it... it's just going to stay the way it is. So, you're suggesting that by recognizing this, the process of recognizing it, facing up to...

K: It's not facing up. Who is to face up? Not recognize. Who is to recognize it? You see, we always think in those (dualistic ?) terms. I 'am' that, full stop. We never come to that realization, totally ( because we assume ?) there is some part of me which is clear ( and knows what it's doing ?) and that clarity is going to act upon that which is not clear.

RS: Yes...

K: I am saying the 'whole (constantly shifting ?) content' of one's consciousness is unclear, messy. We think there is a (stable & clear ?) part, which is the 'observer', separating himself from the mess. So ( in a holistic approach of one's consciousness ?) the observer 'is' (not separated from ?) the (mess ?) observed.

DB: If that is the case, how is ( a holistic ?) action to take place?

K: When there is an (insightful ?) perception of that which is true, the very ( action of seeing the ?) truth is sufficient, the 'messiness' is finished.

RS: Sir, are you suggesting that the realization of the messiness itself in some way dissolves the messiness?

K: Yes. Not a separative realization that I am messy. The fact is (that our self-centred ?) consciousness is messy, full stop. And 'I' can't act upon it. Because such (dualistic) 'acting upon' is a wastage of energy. We have done all kinds of things to resolve this messy stuff. And it has never been cleared. It may partially occasionally...

JH: Well, in psychotherapy or in our own lives we seem to have insights that are partial, that clear up a particular problem and we gain some inner clarity and order for a time. And then the thing returns in some other form or in the same form. You're suggesting that the thing needs to be done (with) 'across the board' in some way.

K: Before, the ( self-conscious ?) 'observer' (was trying to do something ?) upon the (inner) 'messiness' of his consciousness, right? I'll clear this up, give it time, all the rest of it. But that's a wastage (a splitting ?) of (our inner ?) energy.

JH: Right.

K: When ( you realise the truth of ?) the fact that you 'are' that - you are not wasting ( the 'mind & heart ' ?) energy. Which is ( an all-comprehensive state of ?) "attention". I don't know if you want to go into this...

RS: No, this is very interesting. Please do.

K: Would we agree that the 'acting upon' it is ( holistically-wise ?) a wastage of (our intelligent ?) energy?

JH: Yes. This creates more disorder.

K: There is this constant conflict between (this is ?) 'me' and the (that is ?) 'not me'. Which is all essentially a wastage of ( our total inner ?) energy. Whereas if this messy consciousness 'is' me..

DB: Would you say that the consciousness itself has come to realize it?

K: Yes. Which is ( a state of ?) total attention.
(In a nutshell :) there is attention and inattention. Inattention is (resulting in a splitting or ?) wastage of energy. Attention is ( the total action of this re-integrated ?) energy. When there is ( a holistic ?) observation that consciousness is messy, that ( insight into the truth of this ?) fact can only exist when there is total attention. And when there is total attention, the inner confusion (or darkness ?) doesn't exist any more. It's only 'inattention' that creates the problems.

RS: But, sir, this 'total attention' you're talking about would only be able to have this (enlightening ?) effect if it somehow was something completely in the present and devoid of ( the interferences of our past ?) memory ?

K: Of course, of course, ( the nature of this holistic ?) 'attention' is that. If I attend to what you have said just now, devoid of (the interferences of past) memory, and 'listen' to you not only with the 'sensory' ear, but with the other (inner ?) ear, which is actually in the present. In this (integrated ?) 'attention' there is no 'centre'.

RS: You mean, because the attention and the thing attended become one. The attention is all there is ?

K: There is ( also a lot of accumulated ?) 'messiness' because I have been (inwardly) 'inattentive' ( for ages ?) . Right?

RS: Yes...

K: Sir, I don't know if we can go into the question of "meditation" here ?

JH: That may be a relevant subject. Because it seems that what you're talking about (regarding the clearing up of this inner 'messiness' ?) may happen partially.

K: Ah! It can't happen, then you keep a partial 'mess' and a partial 'not mess'. We're back again the same position (but... with a wiser 'observer' ?) .

RS: But don't you think this kind of "attention" you're talking about is the sort of thing that many people experience occasionally in moments of great beauty, or occasionally a piece of music they're really enjoying, they lose themselves, and so on - don't you think that many of us have had glimpses of this in these kinds of experiences?

K: When I see a ( Swiss ?) mountain, the majesty and the dignity (the intensity of this spontaneous perception ?) drives away my 'self' (consciousness ?) . ( In the same way that the attention of ?) a child ( is totally absorbed by ) with a new toy, the toy absorbs him. The mountain has absorbed 'me'; the toy has absorbed the (inner ?) child.
That means there is something ( extra-ordinary happening ?) outside (myself) which will absorb me, which will make me peaceful. Which means an 'outside agency' will keep me quiet: if your (holistic "presence" ?) absorbs me, when you are gone I am back to myself.

JH: Yes...

K: So I discard any sense of (expectation for an ?) external agency which will absorb me. So I am left with (the messiness of ?) 'myself', that's my ( back to square one ?) point.

JH: So you're suggesting that when these (insights ?) happen partially it's because we're depending on ( being stimulated by someone or ?) something ?

K: Yes, of course. Like a 'Hindu', 'Catholic' or anybody, they depend on ( a constantly refreshed belief in ?) something. Therefore dependence demands attachment.

JH: But isn't it possible to listen to you saying this and have a clear idea of what you are talking about and ( at home ?) try and 'do' that.

K: Ah, that means the 'you' is acting again (because subliminally ?) you want something out of it. But here you are enquiring into something which demands a great deal of thought(-fullness ?) , great deal of intelligence and attention.
( So, back to the holistic 'square one' ?) I say, look, why is there this (wide spread) division, this mess in the world? Because our own consciousness is messy and so the (Consciousness of the ?) world is messy. So from that arises, is it possible to be free of the 'self'? The (root cause of this ?) messy consciousness, is the 'self (-identified' consciousness ?) .

RS: It is not possible to be free from the contents of consciousness, different experiences, as long as my eyes are open (only outwardly ?) , I'm looking, I see all sorts of different things. Now when one's looking at the (beauty of a Swiss ?) mountain, for example, are you suggesting that if I have that same kind of attention to everything I experience, that then this is the...

K: You see, again 'you' experience...

RS: Yes, well, all right, but...

K: When you "are" the experience, that means, there is no (-one there to record the ?) "experience".

RS: There's just attention, you mean ?

K: ( Any dualistic ?) 'experience' involves remembrance. ( The memory of ?) Time, which is the past. If I seek ( to experience ?) Illumination, Enlightenment, I am then trying to do all kinds of things to achieve that.
But ( if I see the truth that ?) I don't know what Illumination is, I am going to find out. Which means the mind must be totally free from all that ( self-centred ?) messy business. So my ( first ?) concern is not ( how to attain ?) Illumination, but whether the (messy ?) content of my consciousness can be cleansed. That's my enquiry. And as long as I (think that I ?) am separate from my consciousness, I can analyze it, I can tear it to pieces or act upon it - which means a perpetual (dualistic ?) conflict between 'me' and 'my consciousness'. I wonder why we accept all this (dualistic approach ?) encouraged, sustained, nourished by ( some clever ?) people outside. Why do we accept the psychological authority, 'spiritual' authority? Again we come back to psychological security: I don't know what to do but you know better than I do; you are my guru. I refuse that position.

RS: Fine. But don't we get into the same (obsession ) with (psychological) security starting from our own responsibility for others, for our children, for example ?

K: Of course.

RS: So then what is the answer to that ?

K: Of course, (If ?) I earn money, have a job, so on, I have to look after myself, my children, perhaps their children too. Physically I am responsible. To give them food, to give the right amount of money, allow their children go to a proper school like my children, I am responsible for all that.

RS: But isn't that going to bring you back to the same position of insecurity and so on that you were trying to dissolve by this rejection of (spiritual ) authority?

K: ( Personally ?) I don't see why I need spiritual or psychological authority. If I know how to read ( the Book of ?) myself, I don't need anybody to tell me. But (at the present moment ?) we have never attempted deeply to (meditatively ?) 'read' this Book of myself. I come to you and say, please, help me to read. And then the whole (inner momentum ?) is lost.

DB: I think Rupert (was aiming at something else: ) suppose you are ( materially ) responsible for a family and the conditions are difficult, you may not have a job and you may start to worry about it and ( before knowing it...?) you become insecure even 'psychologically'.

K: ( Pesonally ?) I don't worry about it: there it is, I have no more money. So, my friend, I have no more money, if you want to stay, share the little food I have, we'll share it.

DB: You're saying that even if you are unemployed and you are responsible for a family it will not disturb the order of the mind, right?

K: Of course not.

DB: ( And if lucky ?) you will find an intelligent way to solve it ?

K: Deal with it. But I don't call it 'worry'. I am responsible, therefore I look after them ...as much as I can.

RS: What if you can't?

K: You can't. Why should I worry and bother, if I can't, it's a fact.

DB: You're saying that it's possible to be completely free of worrying, for example, in the face of great difficulties ?

K: You see, that's what I am saying. Where there is ( an inwardly integrated ?) attention, there is no ( personal ?) worry, (simply) because there is no 'centre' from which 'you are attending'.

RS: There are still problems and there may still be responsibilities that one has.

K: Of course I have ( material ?) problems, so I resolve them.

RS: But if you can't 'resolve' them ?

K: Then... I can't. Why should I worry about it? I can't be the Queen of England.

RS: But if you're a poor Indian, unemployed, your family is starving, there's nothing, you've tried everything, you've failed. And you don't worry. Actually, surprisingly enough, a lot of poor Indians in just that situation don't worry, that's the most amazing thing about India.

K: Yes, that's right.

RS: And it's often regarded as the 'disease of India', the very fact that so many people manage not to worry in those circumstances... to the degree that we would expect.

K: I'd like to ask you a question (JH was working in the local K School) . You've listened to all this (dialogue on the ?) messy consciousness - does one realize it, and emptying the content of fear, the whole business? Does it (really ?) interest you?

JH: Yes.

K: Totally?

JH: Yes.

K: That means what?

JH: It means you just "listen" ?

K: No, it (also) means penetrating deeper and deeper and deeper. Which means you must be free ( of the anchoring in the 'known' ?) to examine. Free from your prejudice, from your previous experiences. Now, are we willing to do that, so (deeply ?) that actually the 'self' (-ishness ?) is not? Can I be so totally without this 'self' (-identification ?) that I can ( holistically and ?) intelligently deal with these problems?

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 20 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Dec 2016 #517
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

4TH K CONVERSATION WITH BOHM, HIDLEY & SHELDRAKE (OJAI 1982)

THE HOLISTIC MIND

K: I feel the lack of attention is really the (cause of this ?) whole process of conflict.

RS: Yes, I can see that if both sides saw this with the utmost clarity...

K: Yes. That means they are giving intelligence to the whole problem.

RS: What happens if only one party in a conflict sees it with that utmost clarity?

K: What happens? One gives complete attention in one's relationship between man and woman; let's begin with that. You have given complete attention. When she insults you, when she flatters you, when she bullies you or when she is attached to you, all that is the lack of attention. If you give complete attention and the wife doesn't, then what happens? That is the same problem. Either you try to explain day after day, go into it with her patiently. After all, attention implies also great deal of care, affection, love. It's not just mental attention. It's "attention" with all your being. Then either she moves along with you, comes over to your side, as it were, or she holds on to her separative contradictory state. Then what happens?

JH: A thing that seems to happen in that situation is that the one's intelligence 'makes room' (creates a communication space ?) in which the other person who is caught in some attachment may have freedom to look.

K: But if the other refuses to look at it, then what is the relationship between the two people?

JH: There is none.

K: That's all. (For instance) you see tribalism is deadly, destructive. You see it basically, fundamentally, and I don't. You have seen it probably immediately and I'll take many years, a long time to come to that. Will you have the care, affection, love, so that you understand (and by-pass ?) my stupidity? I may rebel against you. I may run away from you. But you have 'sown the seed' somewhere in me. That does happen, doesn't it, really, in life?

JH: You said that you have seen it immediately and the other person may take a long time to come to seeing it. So, it seems like in this ( holistic ?) attention that you're talking about, perception is immediate.

K: Of course.

JH: Well, that may be part of the reason the other person is having difficulty seeing it, is that they want it to be ( logically ?) proved to them.

K: You see (my psychological ?) conditioning is destructive. And I don't.
What is our relationship between us two? It's very difficult to communicate with each other...

JH: Yes. You won't know what I'm talking about.

K: And also I'm resisting you all the time. I depend on public opinion, so I'm frightened to let go ( my tribalism because ?) I might lose my job. . So I'd rather stick to it. Then have you any relationship with me ?

JH: No.

K: But if you have 'love' (or affection ?) for me, if you really care for me, you cannot lose that ( quality of ?) relationship.

JH: In other words, I don't just say, "well, I see it and you don't, and if you're not going to listen, the heck with you".

K: You have established a very profound relationship when there is love - not only to this particular person, but to the whole of humanity. What do you say, sir, about all this?

DB: Well, I think that "care and attention" are the essential points. For example in the question of the observer and the observed or the analyzer and the analyzed, the reason why that separation occurs is because there has not been enough 'care and attention' to what's going on, you see, one starts to analyze by ( the force of ?) habit, and one might condemn , for example, something that would not be the right attitude. But one has to give care and attention to exactly what is happening (with)in oneself just as in the relationship with people, right? And it's because there was not the right kind of attention that (observer-observed ?) division arose in the first place, and was sustained, right?

RS: It's quite possible to have perhaps this kind of ( loving ?) attention towards people that we know: wives, children, friends, etcetera, but what about people we don't know? I mean, most of us have never met any ( real ?) Russians, for example, and we feel, many of us, there's this terrible fear of the Russian threat and all the rest of it. And so it's very easy to think, well, we've got to have all these ( dissuasive ?) bombs and so on because the Russians are so terrible. We can think all these things about Russians, we've never met them. So how do we have ( the same loving ?) attention to real or imagined enemies that we don't know?

K: What is an enemy? Is there such thing as an 'enemy'?

RS: Well, they're usually people who are also afraid of us, I mean, the Russians are afraid of us and we're afraid of them. Because they're afraid of us they're in a position of being our enemies.

K: Because we are all thinking in terms of 'tribalism'.

RS: Yes, certainly.

K: Supposing you and I move out of that (tribalistic mentality ?) I'm a human being with all my psychological problems and you are another human being with all your psychological problems. We are human beings, not labels.

DB: ...and suppose the Russians will reject this. Then what's the next step ?

K: So what shall we do? You see (that consciousness-wise ?) I represent all humanity. I 'am' all humanity. To me it's an actuality, not just an emotional or romantic idea. I feel I 'am' the rest of mankind; I am mankind.
Because I suffer or I enjoy, I go through all the tortures and so do you, so do you. So you 'are' the rest of mankind. And therefore you have terrible responsibility in that. So when you meet a Russian or a German or a British or Argentine you treat them as human beings, not as ( socio-politic ?) labels.

RS: Then does this simply mean that in this largely tribal society with governments and weapons of war, there'll just be a few individual scattered here and there who've dissolved tribalism in themselves?

K: Yes. If a hundred of us all over the world really had a 'non-tribalistic' (non-self centred ?) attitude towards life, we would be acting like a light in the midst of darkness. But (eventually ?) this just becomes an idealistic romantic idea and you drop it because each pursues his own way.

RS: Yes...

K: Sir, I think we ought to differentiate between 'attention' and ( mental) 'concentration'. Concentration is focussing your (mental ?) energy on a certain point; and in ( holistic ?) attention, there is no focussing on a certain point. It's "attention".

JH: Concentration seems to have a goal in mind.

K: A goal, motive; it's a restrictive process. I concentrate on a page, but I am looking out of the window and I'll pull it back and keep on this business. Whereas if I give complete attention to what I am looking out of the window, that lizard which is going along the wall, and with that same attention I can look at my (school textbook ?) or look at what I am doing.

RS: But then, if there's no 'controller' of the attention, the attention may be simply a response to whatever the present circumstances are.

K: ( Talking about the 'psychological' role of attention: ) You insult me; (if ?) I'm (fully ?) attentive, there is no (personal ?) 'recording' of that insult.

DB: Yes, that's it.

K: Or you flatter me: "what a marvellous talk you gave the other day" ( I've heard this so often repeated. And I'm bored with it), so really, that's the much more difficult question (implied in attention ?) - is it possible not to record (the 'psychological' stuff ?) , except where it is necessary? It's necessary to record how to drive. Record when you do your business and all the rest of it. But psychologically, what is the need to record?

RS: Isn't it inevitable? Doesn't our memory work automatically?

K: Memory is rather selective.

JH: We seem to remember the things that are important to us, that have some connection with who we think we are and what our goals are.

DB: It seems to me that when there is a 'paying attention' then the (quality of this ?) attention determines what is to be recorded and what is not, so, the recording is not 'automatic' any more.

K: It's not automatic any more. Quite right.

DB: But if (our attention ) comes from the past, from the concentration or from the analysis, then it will be automatic.

K: Another problem which we ought to discuss is religion, meditation, and if there is something sacred in (our) life? Not thought creating ( the image of ?) something sacred, and then worshipping that (man-made) 'sacred'...

RS: Well, that's manifestly 'absurd', but the more sophisticated members of different religions would say that the image points to 'something' beyond thought which is being worshipped.

K: Wait a minute, let's look at it (analytically ?) . We know the symbol is not the real, but why do we create the symbol? If there is something beyond, why do we create the 'intermediary'?

RS: Well, the Jews, who were against all idolatry for exactly this reason, and the Muslims, who don't have images in the mosques.

K: But they have these scripts...

RS: But they think the writing tells them about what lies beyond all symbols, you see.

K: Yes...

RS: Now you could say the writing simply becomes a symbol, but I mean, these are words, and words can help us. We're having a discussion, and your words may help me, for example. If they're written down, then they're written words like Muslim words.

K: So; why do I have to have an intermediary at all?

JH: Because I think I'm here and ( that something sacred ?) it's over there and I don't have it. I need some way to get there.

K: You're not answering my question. Is it that you, the intermediary, understand or have realized or follow truth, therefore you are telling me about it?

JH: Well, maybe I've seen something and I want to tell you about it.

K: Yes, tell me about it, but why do you make yourself (the 'acknowledged' ?) interpreter? Why do you become the intermediary between 'That' and me, who is ignorant, who is suffering? Why don't you deal with my suffering rather than with that?

JH: I think that That will deal with your suffering. If I can get you to...

K: Sir, that has been the old trick of all the priests in the world. We have had priests from time immemorial, right?

JH: Yes...

K: But you haven't released ( me from ?) my sorrow. ( Inwardly ?) I am still suffering after a million years. Help me to be free, without fear, then I'll find out. Is it that you ( the opportunistic 'interpreter' ?) want position, power, status, like the rest of the world? Now this is really quite serious.

DB: If we try to give the priests the most favourable interpretation, they may have been considered as trying to point to this 'sacredness' which we were talking about. That's perhaps the way they would look at it. Now would you say that that would no sense, to have a poetic image to point to the sacred ?

K: But, sir, why don't you help me to see what is (inwardly ?) happening to me?

DB: Yes, that's your point, don't point to the "sacred" right away but look at this (inner disorder ) first.

K: Help me to be free of it, then I'll "walk" (by myself) .

DB: Yes, I understand that.

K: Nobody has gone into this like that. Always god, some saviour, some Brahma, and so on, so on. And this is what we call (organised ?) 'religion'. All the rituals are invented by thought, marvellous architecture by thought, all the things inside the churches, temples, mosques, created by thought. Thought creates it, then thought worships it. But ( the self-centred process of ?) thought is not sacred.

JH: Yes, I see that. So you are saying, is it possible to put a stop to this thought?

K: Yes. Is it possible?

JH: And thought is the thing that gets in the way by creating the 'images' which we take for something really valuable.

K: I start out really looking for something sacred. You (the 'guru' ?) come along and say, I'll tell you all about it. Then you begin to organize it (into a temporal scheme ?) . It's all gone by then, it's finished.

JH: Then I just stay within thought, that's all I have.

K: So, if we understand that there's nothing holy about thought... Right, sir?

DB: Right. Would you also add that 'time' is not sacred ?

K: Nothing in time, of course not.

DB: Nothing in time; many people would say that only the eternal is sacred.

K: But to find out what is eternity, ( the inner thinking in terms of ?) time must stop.

JH: But we get into a real subtle (tricky ?) place here, because you have often said things like, "absolute attention dissolves the self". Then this 'absolute attention' can become an (idealised ?) thought.

K: The idea of it, yes.

JH: So we may go along the route of creating (and following ?) the idea. That seems to always be the (educational ?) danger

K: You make a (holistic) statement: "absolute attention". I don't capture the depth of your meaning, what is implied. I hear it and make it into an idea(l). And then I pursue the (mental implementation of that ?) idea.

JH: That seems to be the process.

K: That's what we do all the time. So (the truth of ?) it has gone. Idea is not what you said. What you said had 'depth' in it.

JH: But we don't realize at the time that we're pursuing an 'idea'...

K: Of course not, because I am used to (intellectually ?) reducing everything to abstract ideas. So do we realize that anything thought does is not sacred?

RS: That seems self-evident to me.

K: All right. That's self-evident. In all the religions as they are now, there is nothing sacred. Right?

RS: There's nothing sacred in the words or the buildings or so on. But in a sense all these religions are supposed to point beyond themselves.

K: Yes. And to go beyond all this, I must start with my being free from understanding my relationship with people (and inwardly ?) if there is confusion (inner darkness ?) in my heart and my mind, what's the good of the other? I am not materialistic. But I say, look, I must start from where I am. To go very far, I must start very near. So I must (start by) understanding myself. I'm (like) the rest of humanity, there is the "book of humanity" in me. I am that book. If I know how to read it from the beginning to the end, then I can I find if there is really something (beyond it ?) that is immense, sacred. But we have had these 'religions' for millions of years. That has distracted from (looking directly at ?) 'what is'.
So, I must start very near. The 'very near' is me (what I am ?) . Can I free myself from fear and sorrow, despair, all that? When there is freedom I can move, I can climb 'mountains'.

RS: Sir, are you saying that the "sacred" would become apparent if we dissolved fear, (self-centredness ?) and all these other things ?

K: Obviously, sir. That's ( the very purpose of ?) real meditation, you see.

RS: Through (paying ?) attention to what is really happening in us.

K: That's it.

RS: And to what is really happening between us and other people and all the rest of it.

K: In our relationships. As we have discussed this too with Dr Bohm, some time ago, having an "insight" into the whole movement of the self, a total (a global ?) perception of what you are, a total and immediate perception of the whole content of your consciousness, not take it bit by bit, that's endless.

JH: Oh, if we're broken up, we look at each little piece...

K: Yes. And because we are (inwardly ?) 'broken up' ( in specialised fragments?) we can never see the whole. Obviously!

JH: Okay...

K: So, is it possible not to be (inwardly ?) broken up? What is to be (inwardly fragmented or ?) 'broken up'? This messy (ego-centric ?) consciousness, of which we talked about yesterday.
You see (at this point in time ?) nobody wants to go so deeply into all this. One hasn't the time because one is (fully) committed to one's job, to one's profession, to one's science, to one's whatever one is doing and they say, " all this is too difficult or too abstract, not practical". These are the words they all use. As though all this, what you are doing and all is terribly 'practical'...
So, sir, let's move from there (to meditation ?) . Is (the inner) silence of the mind a state of attention? Or is it beyond attention?

DB: What would you mean by 'beyond attention'? Let's try to get into that.

K: Is attention an act of ( self-centred ?) will? I will (give 'my' full attention ?) .

JH: No, we said that's "concentration".

K: Where there is (a state of integrated ?) attention is there any kind of effort? What is ( the nature of this ?) attention? The word 'diligent' is implied in attention; to be diligent.

RS: What does 'diligent' mean? Careful?

DB: The literal meaning is "taking pains"...

K: That's right, which is to really care, to have affection, to do everything correctly, orderly. Does this (diligent ) attention demand the (controlling ?) action of thought?

RS: Well, it doesn't demand the action of analysis, in the way you've explained it and insofar as thought is analytical, it doesn't demand that. And it doesn't demand the action of will insofar as will involves an attempt by one part of the mind, to force another part to do something else. It doesn't imply any sense of going anywhere or becoming anything because becoming leads one out of the present.

K: That's right. You can't 'become' attentive. That means in attention there is no (mentality of ?) time. Therefore it is not the result of thought.

RS: Yes...

K: Now: is that attention (related to the inner ?) silence of the mind? Which is a healthy, sane mind: uncluttered, unattached, unanchored, free mind, which is the healthiest mind. I am asking: in that (integrated) attention, is the mind 'silent'? There is no (noisy ?) movement of thought.

RS: Well, it sounds like it, yes. It sounds like a state of 'being' rather than a state of becoming because it's not going anywhere, or coming from anywhere.

K: Again, when you say 'being', are you putting 'being' as a opposite to becoming?

RS: Well, by 'being' I simply mean a state which is not (engaged ) in a process of going somewhere else in time.

K: Which means ( an inner state of ?) 'non-movement'.

RS: I suppose so.

DB: You could say that, yes. But that doesn't mean it's static.

K: No, it's dynamic, of course.

DB: But you see it's a little difficult (to grasp it?)

K: 'Being without movement', it means without thought's (continuity in ?) time, which is the usual mental movement which we know. But the 'other' has its own (inner) dynamism, its own movement, but not this movement, the time movement, the thought movement. Is that what you call (silent) 'being' ?

RS: I suppose it is.

K: We have various forms of 'silence'. Right?

RS: Yes. It may not be silent in the sense of soundless.

K: I am using the word 'silence' in the sense (of a tranquil mind) without a single movement of thought.

RS: Well, in that sense it must be silent almost by definition.

K: Yes. So, has the mind stopped thinking? Has thought found its own place and therefore it's no longer moving, chattering, pushing around ? Because when there is no 'controller', when there is this great silence, then that which is 'eternal' is (coming through ?) . You don't have to enquire about it. It's not something 'you' achieve by fasting, by rituals, by all these absurdities.
Now, Sir, you hear X (K ?) saying that. What do you do with it? Has it any importance or none at all? What is a (holistically ?) healthy mind? That's what we started discussing. What is a healthy mind? A mind that's totally (free ?) unattached to a country, to ideas - totally dispassionately unattached.

JH: And you are suggesting that only then am I in a position to talk to anybody?

K: Obviously! For a healthy mind that says, I 'love' there is no attachment. Is that possible?

RS: Sir, you make it sound so easy and so difficult at the same time because...

K: I don't see why it's (sounding ) difficult.

RS: Because you see, I hear what you say, I think this is absolutely wonderful stuff. I want to have a healthy mind, I want to be in a state of (silent) being, and then I realize that I can't move into that by any act of will or desire. It has to "happen". And it can't happen through any act of my will.

K: No. So ?

RS: I have to 'let it happen' in some sense...

K: So (to recap ?) we begin to enquire. Why am I not (inwardly integrated ?) healthy? (Is it because ?) I am attached to my house, to my wife (and so on...?) Life is relationship. But why should I get attached to a person or to an idea, to a faith, to a symbol, you follow? The whole ( karmic ?) cycle of it. A ( holisticaly inclined ?) mind can be free of all that. Of course it can.

RS: But not just by wanting to be free of it.

K: Not (directly). But (it can be done 'negatively' by ?) seeing the (time-binding ?) consequences of it, seeing what is involved in it: the pain, the pleasure, the agony, the fear, you follow, all that is involved in that.

RS: Yes, one can agree with that, one can even 'see' the movements of one's attachments, one can even see the destructive consequences of all this. But that doesn't in itself seem automatically to dissolve it.

K: Of course not. So, it brings in quite a different question. Which is, sir, do you hear it, merely with your sensory ears or do you really "hear" it? Is it just casual verbal sensory hearing, or (a listening ?) at depth? If you hear it at the greatest depth, then it's part of you.

DB: Well, I think that generally one doesn't hear at the greatest depth because something is blocking it, you see. All the conditioning.

K: And also probably we don't (really ?) want to hear it.

DB: Well, the ( static nature of our ?) conditioning makes us not want to hear it.

K: Of course, of course.

DB: We're unwilling to do so.

K: But if one "sees" the absolute necessity to have a healthy mind, and the demand for it, not only in myself, but in my children, in my society.

JH: But you don't mean by that going around demanding of myself and other people that they become healthy.

K: No, no, no. I demand it in myself. Why is not my mind (holistically integrated and ?) healthy? Then I begin to be diligent in ( paying attention to ? ) what I am doing.

DB: You're saying that we must have to see the 'absolute necessity' of a healthy mind, but I think we've been conditioned to the absolute necessity of maintaining ( a 'survivalistic' mentality and its implied ? ) attachments. And that's what we really feel, right?

RS: Well, not necessarily, you see, there are many people who've seen that there are all these problems, there's something wrong with the mind, they feel that something could be done about it and all that, and then to take up some kind of spiritual practice, meditation, or what not. But you're saying that all these kinds of (methods of ?) meditation, concentrating on chakras and what not are all just the same kind of thing.

K: I have played that trick long ago. And I see the absurdity of all that. That is not going to stop ( the self-centred process of ?) thought.

RS: Well, some of these methods are supposed to. I don't know if they do or not, you see. They've never done it for me, but I don't know if that's because I haven't done them right.

K: So instead of going through all that business, why don't you find out what is (giving continuity to this self-centred ?) thought, whether it can end, what is implied, you follow? Dig (deeper ?)

( To wrap it up :) At the end of these four discussions (on 'the nature of mind' ?) , have you got healthy minds? Have you got a mind that is not confused, demanding, asking? You follow, sir? It's like seeing a rattler and saying, yes, that's a (dangerous ?) rattler, I won't go near it. Finished!

JH: It looks from the inside of me like this is a tremendous deep problem that's very difficult to solve, and you're saying (professorally ?) from the outside that it's just like 'seeing a rattler' and 'you don't go near it', there's nothing ( much ) to it.

K: It is like that with me...

JH: Yes...

K: Because I don't want to achieve Nirvana or Heaven or anything. I say, 'look' ( without the all-controlling interference of the past ?) - you follow?

JH: Well, then why (for me ) it looks so deep when in fact it isn't ?

K: Sir, we are all living so very 'superficially' ( outwardly oriented ?) . And that seems to satisfy us. That's our good house, good wife, good job, good relationship, don't disturb anything. I'll go to church,you go to the mosque, I'll go to the temple, keep things as they are.

JH: Well, then you're saying we don't even want to look at it ?

K: Of course ( we do ?) not. So (in a nutshell ?) a healthy mind is without any (internal duality or ?) conflict. And then it is a 'holistic' mind. And then there's a possibility of that which is Sacred to be. Otherwise... all this (time-bound existence ?) is so childish.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Dec 2016 #518
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K CONVERSATION WITH PROF. BOHM, AND TWO BUDDHIST SCHOLARS BROCKWOOD 1978

Rahula: To begin with I want to mention very briefly a few points which are common between Buddha's teaching and your teaching. And, for instance, Buddha did not accept ( the idea of a ?) God who created the world and who rules this world and rewards and punishes people for their actions. Then Buddha did not accept the old Vedic, Brahmanic idea of eternal, permanent everlasting, unchanging Soul. Then Buddha begins his teaching on the ground that human life is in its predicament, suffering, in conflict, sorrow. And he says that the cause of this conflict, suffering, is due to the selfishness which is created by the wrong idea of 'myself'.
And then Buddha says that when one is free from that desire, attachment, self, he is free from suffering, he is free from conflict. Buddha taught that there is no 'good' attachment and 'bad' attachment - ultimately there is no such division.
Then ( he spoke of ?) the realization of truth, that is to see things as they are; when you see that, you see the reality, you see the truth and you are free from that conflict. And you can't see the ultimate truth, or the absolute truth without seeing the relative truth (in our everyday existence) . That is the Buddhist attitude. I think you say the same thing.
Then he said don't accept anything just because it is given by religion or scriptures, or by the teachers, or by a guru, only if you see for yourself that it is right, then accept it; if you see it is wrong or bad then reject it.

Buddha has said "you should make the effort, the Buddhas only teach".
Then another thing in Buddha's teaching which is (experientially ) extremely important, is "to be mindful". About the last month of his life, at every point wherever he stopped and talked to his disciples he said always, be aware, cultivate awareness, mindfulness. It is called the "presence of mindfulness".
Then another one of the fundamental things in Buddha's teaching, is the statement that everything is impermanent, there is nothing permanent. And to discern nothing is permanent is of tremendous importance for only then is the mind free (of its entanglement in time) . Then another interesting small point I want to mention: a Brahmin asked the Buddha, how did you attain to these spiritual heights, by what precepts, by what discipline, by what knowledge did you attain? Buddha said, "not by knowledge, not by discipline, not by precepts, nor without them".

And now I would like to know what you think about all this.

K: If you were not a scholar of Buddhism, and of the sayings of the Buddha, how would it strike you reading (the K's teachings ?) , without the background of all that? Doesn't ( all this accumulation of ?) knowledge condition human beings - knowledge of scriptures, knowledge of what the saints have said and so on and so on, the whole gamut of so-called sacred books, does that help man at all?

R: Scriptures and all our knowledge do condition man, there is no doubt about it. But I should say that knowledge is not absolutely unnecessary. Buddha has pointed out this very clearly, if you want to cross the river and there is no bridge, you make a boat for yourself and you cross with the help of the boat. Going to the other shore, if you think, oh, this boat has been very useful to me, very helpful, I can't leave it here, I will carry it and you put it on your shoulder, was that man acting rightly? No. Then what you should do is to say, of course this boat was very helpful to me but I have crossed the river, not it is not any more use to me, and I'll leave it here for somebody else to use. That is the attitude for knowledge and learning. Buddha says, even the teachings, even the moral virtues are also like the boat and they have only a relative value and conditioned value.

K: I would like to question whether knowledge has the liberating quality of the mind ?

R: I don't think knowledge can liberate.

K: Knowledge can't, but the feeling that "you know", the weight of knowledge - doesn't that strengthen the self?

R: Certainly.

K: The word ' knowledge' means accumulation of information, accumulation of experience, accumulation of various facts and theories and principles, the past and the present, all that bundle we call knowledge. Does then the past help, because knowledge is the past?

R: All that (weight of the ?) past, disappears the moment you see the truth.

K: But can a mind that is burdened with knowledge see truth?

R: Of course if the mind is burdened and crowded and covered with knowledge...

K: It is, generally. Most minds are filled and crippled with knowledge. I am using the word 'crippled' in the sense of 'weighed down'. Can such a mind perceive what is truth? Or must it be free from ( its attachments to that ?) knowledge?

R: To see the truth the mind must be free from all knowledge.

K: Yes, so why should one accumulate knowledge and then (have to ?) abandon it, and then seek truth?

R: When we take our ordinary life, most of the things which will happen are useful at the beginning, and for instance, in our studies as children at school we can't write without rules, but today I can't write on ruled paper. But at that stage...

K: Wait a minute, sir. I agree. But does not the beginning matter enormously, which might condition the future, as he grows up? You understand what I am saying? I don't know if I am making myself clear. Does freedom lie at the end or the beginning?

R: Freedom has no beginning, no end.

K: I am asking if knowledge leads to freedom? As you say, discipline is necessary at the beginning. And as you grow older, mature, acquire capacities and so on and so on, that discipline, has it not conditioned the mind so that it can never abandon discipline in the usual sense of that word.

R: But you agree that discipline at the beginning, at a certain level is necessary.

K: I question it in order to enquire.

R: Talking from the Buddhist point of view, for all those people who are on the way, who have not yet arrived to truth , ( there is a certain validity for ?) all those disciplines, precepts, and to discriminate between all those things that are good and bad, right and wrong. But an 'Arhat' -the man who has realized the truth - has no discipline because he is beyond that.

K: Yes, I understand this.You are talking about knowledge being useful or necessary, as a boat to cross the river. I want to enquire into that simile whether it is the truth - whether it has the quality of truth. Which means accepting ( the idea of a spiritual ?) evolution - first I discipline myself, control, effort, and as I get more capacity, more energy, more strength I abandon that and move on. I am asking, or enquiring, whether there is such a linear progress at all.

R: What do you think?

K: What do I think? No.

Schloegel: I am very much with you, I can't believe it.

R: Yes, there is no 'progress'.

K: No, we must go into it very carefully, sir, because the whole tradition, both Buddhist, Hindu and Christian, all the religious and non-religious attitudes are caught up in (this mentality of a spiritual progress in ) time, in evolution - I will eventually blossom in goodness. Right? I am saying in that there is (some ?) untruth in it.

S: I entirely agree with that for the very good reason that ever since human beings have existed as far as we know, we have always known in our different cultural context that we should be good. If it would be possible to progress by something like this we would not be the ( self-centred ?) human beings that we are nowadays. We would all have progressed sufficiently.

K: Have we progressed at all?

S: Precisely, we have not progressed - if at all very little.

K: We may have progressed technologically, scientifically, hygienically and all the rest of it but psychologically, inwardly, we have not - we are what we were ten thousand years ago, or more.

S: And so the fact that we know we should do good and have evolved so many systems of 'how to do it' has not managed to help us to become precisely that. And it is this 'working through' that seems to me at stake.

K: We have accepted ( to think about everything in a logic of ?) evolution. Biologically there is evolution. We have transferred that biological fact into psychological existence, thinking psychologically we will evolve.

R: The realization of truth, attainment of truth, or seeing the truth, is (happening) without a plan, is without a scheme.

K: Is out of time.

R: Out of time. Exactly.

K: Then, my mind, which has evolved through centuries, for millenia, which is conditioned by time, which is evolution, which is the acquiring of knowledge, more, more, more, will reveal that extraordinary truth ?

R: It is not that knowledge that will reveal truth.

K: Therefore why should I accumulate knowledge?

R: How can you avoid it?

K: Psychologically avoid it, not technologically.

R: Even psychologically, how can you do that?

K: Ah, that's a different matter. Let's go into it a little more.
Biologically, physically, from childhood up to a certain age, maturity, adolescence and so on, that's a fact. A little oak tree grows into a gigantic oak tree, that's a fact. And is it a fact, or we have created, assumed it is so, psychologically we must grow? Which is, psychologically, eventually I will achieve truth, or truth will take place if I prepare the ground ?
R: No, no. The realization of truth is a revolution, not evolution.

K: Therefore, can the mind be free psychologically of the idea of its progress (in time ?) ?

R: It can be. That is what I told you that revolution is not evolution, a gradual process.

K: So psychologically can there be a revolution?

R: Yes. Certainly.

K: Which means what? No time.

R: There is no time in it.

K: But all the religions, all the scriptures have maintained you must go through certain systems.

R: But not Buddhism.

K: Wait a minute. When you say, you must discipline first and then let go of that discipline.

R: No, I don't say that. I don't perceive it like that, and nor did Buddha.
But I asked you, how do you (propose to ?) proceed with that realization of truth, how do you do that?

K: Suppose one is conditioned ( to think of oneself ?) in the pattern of (one's temporal) evolution - I was (inwardly ) 'ugly' yesterday, but today I am learning about that ugliness and freeing myself and tomorrow I will be free of it. Right? That is our whole attitude, the psychological structure (agenda ?) of our being. This is an everyday fact, not according to the Buddha, not according to scriptures, but average human beings of everyday life, he says, "I am not as good as I should be, but I eventually - give me a couple of weeks, or a couple of years - and I will be awfully good".

R: Certainly that is the attitude of (most decent ?) people.

K: Now wait a minute. The whole world is conditioned by this idea, which may have come from the (transposing the ?) physical progress into the 'psychological' field.

R: Yes, that's fine.

K: Now how is a human being, to break (free from ) this pattern without time?

R: It is only by 'seeing'.

K: But why have we given 'progress' such importance, psychologically?

S: I am not a scholar but I come from the practical side. I am a practitioner but I have done my practice in a Buddhist field, and for me personally as a Westerner, as a one-time scientist, I have found the most satisfactory answer in the Buddhist teaching that "I blind myself"( inwardly) as long as I, with all my bundle of conditioning, 'am' here. That is the point that I would like to contribute.

K: So what are we talking about at the end of this (boring exchange of general ideas ?) ?

N: There seems to be one (hidden ?) difficulty in this. ( The inner comfort and safety provided by the accumulation of ?) knowledge has a certain fascination, and it gives you a peculiar sense of (intellectual ?) freedom. And after years of ( psychologically rewarding ?) study one finds it very difficult to get out of this because you arrive at this ( plateau ?) after twenty five years, and you value it, although it hasn't got the quality of what you might call 'truth'. And this is the hidden difficulty with all practices: when you practice them you achieve something; and this sense of (personal) achievement has brought a certain power, a certain fascination, a certain capacity, maybe a certain clarity.

R: And by that, you get attached to it.

N: Yes. And to break away from it is much more difficult than for an (absolute ) beginner, who may see something more directly than a man who has (tons of ?) 'acquired wisdom'. Isn't it so?

R: That depends on the individual. You can't generalize.

K: Sir, let's come back to: we are all (getting ?) caught in this idea of progress.

R: We have just come to an agreement: humanity accepts the fact that ( its spiritual ?) progress is a gradual evolution - biologically they have proved it, so they apply the same theory to psychological things. We agree this is the general human position.

K: Is that (applying to the direct percetion of ?) truth?

R: I see you are questioning. I don't think it is the truth.

K: Therefore I abandon the whole idea of ('psychological' self-) discipline.

R: I should have said there is no question of 'you' abandoning it. If you abandon it consciously...

K: When a human being sees the falseness of it, actually not theoretically, then it is finished.

R: Absolutely, that is what I tell you all this time.

K: Then why do I (have to ?) read the ( discourses of the ?) Buddha?

R: Simply because we are all ( starting from the position of being culturally ?) conditioned (at various degrees).

Bohm: Could I ask a ( personal) question: do you (Mr R) accept that you are conditioned?

R: I accept it. To be ( to exist physically ?) in time is to be conditioned.

B: Well, Krishnaji has said in some of our discussions, that he was not deeply conditioned in the beginning and that therefore he had a certain ( perceptive clarity of ?) insight that would not be common. Is that fair?

K: I may be a 'biological freak' (mutant ?) , so leave me out of it. What we are trying to discuss (philosophically ?) is this: can we admit the truth that (inwardly ?) 'psychologically' there is no 'evolutionary movement forward' ? So, do we as human beings see the truth or (rather ?) the falseness of what we have done?

R: You mean human beings generally?

K: The whole world.

R: No, ( generally speaking) they don't see it.

K: Therefore when you (the Buddhist scholar) are telling them, get more knowledge, read the scriptures, what the Buddha said and so on - they are full of this (evolutionary) accumulative instinct which (they hope ?) will propel themselves into Heaven.

B: When we say we are all conditioned, how do we know that we are all conditioned? That is really what I wanted to say.

R: That is a very complicated question. As far as our (modern materialistic ?) society is concerned, all are conditioned. But what we are talking about is the realization which has no time, which is unconditioned.

B: But I really wanted to emphasize that if we say we are all conditioned there could be two ways. You see, one way could be to accumulate knowledge about our conditioning, to say we observe the common human experience, we can look at people and see they are generally conditioned. Right? The other way would be to say, do see in a more direct way that we are all conditioned ? That's really what I was trying to drive at.

R: Of course, there are people who 'see' that.

B: The only point I was trying to make is that if we say we are all conditioned then I think there is nothing else to do but some kind of disciplined or gradual approach. That is you begin with (the given fact of ?) your conditioning.

K: Not necessarily.

B: Well let's try to pursue (the other option) . Then how can we be free of the conditioning as we do whatever we do?

R: The freedom from conditioning is to 'see' .

B: Well, the same question, how do we 'see' ?

R: Of course many people have tried various ways.

K: No, no, there are not various ways. The moment you say (there is ) a way, you have already conditioned him.

R: That is what I say. And you (K) are also conditioning (people) by your talks, your lectures are also conditioning. Trying to uncondition the mind is also conditioning it.

K: No, no, I question whether what K is talking about conditions the mind. I doubt it, I question it.

R: The question is how to see (the truth or the falseness of ?) it - is that it?

K: No, sir, not 'how', there is no (technique of ?) 'how' (to see it). First let us see this simple ( 'consciousness ?) fact', sir: I represent all ( share the total consciousness of ?) humanity. Right?

S: In an individual way.

K: No, as a human being, I represent the whole world, because ( due to my self-centredness ?) I suffer, I go through agony, etc., etc., so does every human being. So do I, as a human being, see the falseness of moving from the biological to the psychological, with the same mentality? There we progress, from from the (invention of the ?) wheel to the jet (propelled airplane ?) . As a human being, do I see the ( confusion and/or ?) mischief that human beings have created, moving from there to this? You understand?

R: Yes.

K: Do I see it, as I see this table? Or is it I say, "Yes, I accept the theory of it, the idea of it," and then we are lost. Therefore ( building upon ?) the idea, the theory is the (way of ?) knowledge.

S: If I see it as this table then it is not a theory any more.

K: It is a fact. But the moment you move away from the fact then it becomes idea, knowledge, and the pursuit of it, further away from the fact. I don't know if I am making myself clear ?

R: Yes. I guess that is so. Human beings are (getting stuck or ?) cornered in that.

K: No, no. Sir, it is a fact, that (thinking in terms of psychological) progress, is a false movement? I wonder if I am making myself clear.

B: Are you saying that ( converting facts into ideas) is part of the conditioning?

K: Why have we done this?

S: I want to become something (better than what I am now ?) .

K: Which is you want satisfaction, safety, certainty, a sense of achievement.

S: And it is in the 'wanting'.

K: So why doesn't a human being see what he has actually done, not theoretically?

S: I do not like to see it. I fear it ?

K: Therefore (deep down ?) you are living in illusion.

S: Naturally. But the fact is, that I usually do not see it.

K: But I would just like to know as an enquiry, why human beings have done this, played this ( virtual inner ?) game for millenia. You understand sir? Why this living in this false structure, and then people come along and say, be unselfish, be this and all the rest of it - why?

S: All human beings have a very strong irrational side.

K: I question ( the validity of ) all this. Because we are living not with facts but with ideas and knowledge. And so we give ($$$ ?) importance to knowledge, ideas, theories, philosophy, and all the rest of it.

R: You don't see at all that a certain development, an evolution, even psychologically? A 'bad' man, or a criminal, changing his way of life, and becoming a 'good' man - good in quotes.

K: Yes, we know that, we have dozens of examples of the 'bad' man who tells lies, who does cruel things, and so on, probably one day he realizes it is an ugly business, and says, "I'll change and become 'good'", but that is not Goodness. Goodness is not born out of 'badness'.

N: We might put it this way. In the conventional level the 'bad' ( self-centred ) man becomes the 'good' (self-centred ) man. I think we carry that phrase, that attitude to the ( concept of a self-centred ?) progress psychologically. That's one thing we (love to ) do .

K: Goodness is never the opposite of 'bad (ness' ?) . So what are we talking about when we say, "I will move, change, from my conditioning, which is bad, to freedom from my conditioning, which is good"? Therefore that (idea of ?) 'freedom' is the opposite of my conditioning. Therefore it is not freedom at all. That (concept of inner ?) freedom is born out of my conditioning because I am caught in this prison (of the known ?) and I want to be free. It is a reaction to the prison, which is not freedom.
(In a nutshell ?) I am saying that anything born out of its opposite contains its own opposite.

S: Personally I see this 'tunnel of opposites' as a humanizing factor, this channel ( of ideals ) we are caught in it.

K: That is like saying, 'I have been a tribal entity, now I have become a national entity, and then ultimately an internationalistic one' - it is still (the same mentality of ?) tribalism ( being upgraded and ?) going on.

S: That I quite agree. I see it in the sense of a really barbaric ( Viking ?) stage, I could have laughed when you had broken your leg, nowadays I could not laugh any more.

B: I think both of you (R & S) are saying that we do in some sense make progress, in the sense that we are not as barbaric as we were before. Right?

S: That is what I mean by the humanizing factor.

K: I question whether it is humanizing.

R: I don't like to work in extremes.

K: This is not extremes, this is just facts. Facts are not extremes.

B: Are you saying that this is not a 'genuine' (inner) progress ? You see in the past people were far more barbaric generally than they are today, and therefore would you say that that really doesn't mean very much?

K: We are still 'barbarous'.

B: Let's see if we can get it straight. Now would you say that this psychological 'evolution' that is not significant?

K: No. When I say I am better than I was - it has no meaning.

B: I think we should clarify that.

K: I am greedy, that's a fact. I try to become non-greedy, which is non-fact, but if I remain with the fact that I am greedy, then I can do something about it actually, now. The ideal of non-violence is the opposite of violence, as an (inner) fact . So non-violence is non-fact. So I can then deal with facts, not with non-facts.

R: So what is your point?

K: My point is: if the fact is I am (inwardly) violent, let me deal with that. And to deal with it don't invent 'non-violence'.

S: The question now is: how am I going to deal with it, having seen the fact that I am violent...

K: Then we can proceed, I'll show you.

K: We'll proceed with that. Therefore I must see what I have done. I avoid the fact and run away to non-fact. So don't run but remain with the fact. It is like seeing something dangerous and you say, "It's dangerous I won't go near it". Running away from the fact is (the) "dangerous" move. I am saying, "don't run". Then you "see". So there is no duality.

R: What is 'duality'?

K: Which is the opposite. Violence and non-violence. The whole of, you know, India has been practising non-violence, which is nonsense. There is only violence, let me deal with that. Let human beings deal with violence, not with the ideal of non-violence.

R: We agree, if you see the fact, this is a fact, we must handle this.

K: Therefore there is no ( need to think in terms of inner ?) progress.

R: So?

K: So no ideals. Only facts. Therefore if time is not necessary I can see it now.

R: Yes, agreed.

K: You can see it now. Why don't you?

B: If you take it seriously that time is not necessary then right now one could perhaps clear up the whole thing.

R: Yes, but that does not means all human beings can do it, there are people who can do it.

K: If I can see it, you can see it.

R: I don't think so. I don't agree with you.

K: It is not a question of agreement, but when we have ideals (projected) away from facts time is necessary to get there, progress is necessary. I must have knowledge to progress. All that comes in. Right? So can you abandon ideals?

R: It is possible.

K: Ah, no, the moment you use the word 'possible' time is there. Do it now, do it sir, not - forgive me, I am not being authoritarian - when you say 'it is possible' you have already moved away.

R: I mean to say, that I must say that everybody can't do it.

K: How do you know?

R: That is a fact.

K: No, I won't accept that.

S: I can perhaps come in with a bit of a concrete example. I think that we can possibly come together on that. If I stand on a high - a concrete fact - on a high springboard over a swimming pool and I cannot swim, and I am told just jump in and relax completely, the water will carry you. This is perfectly true I can swim. There is nothing that prevents me except I am frightened of doing it. That is I think the point in question: of course "we can do it", there is no difficulty but there is this basic (subliminal ?) fear which does not stand to reason that makes us shy away.

K: Please forgive me, I am not talking of that, we are not saying that. If one realizes that one is greedy, why do we invent non-greed?

S: I wouldn't know because it seems to me so obvious that if I am greedy then I am greedy.

K: I So to deal with the problem, remove it. I can't have one foot there and one foot here. I must have both my feet here.

S: And if both my feet 'are' here?

K: Now we have to go into something entirely different. How can a human being be free of greed now? That's the question. Not eventually. You see I am not interested in being less greedy next life, who cares, or the day after tomorrow, I am not interested in it, I want to be free now of sorrow, pain. So Now do we go into that? What is 'greed'? The very word is condemnatory. Right, sir? The word has been in my mind for centuries, and that word 'greed' immediately condemns the fact. By saying "I am greedy" I have already condemned it. Right? Now can I look at that fact without the word with all its intimations, all its content, with its tradition? Look at it. You cannot understand the depth and the feeling of greed or be free of it if you are caught in words. So as my whole being is concerned with greed it says, "All right I won't be caught in it, I won't use the word greed". Right? Now is that feeling devoid of the word, (the same ?) 'greed'?

S: No, it isn't.

K: So can my mind look at something like greed, without (all the traditional connotations of the ?) word?

R: That is really 'seeing the fact'.

K: Then only I see the fact. This is where the (experiential ?) difficulty lies, sir. My tradition, my upbringing, my education, everything says be free of that ugly thing. So I am all the time making an effort to be free of that. Right? So I say, all right, I have only the fact, the fact is I am greedy. Right? I want to understand the nature and the structure of that feeling. What is it? What is the nature of that feeling? Is it a remembrance? You understand, sir? If it is a remembrance I am looking at it, the present greed, with past remembrances. The past remembrances have said condemn it. Can I look at it without past remembrances?

S: Exactly.

K: The past remembrance condemns this and therefore strengthens this (feeling of greed) . (But if it is seen as ?) something new, I won't condemn it. . So can I look at it without the word, without the association of words? That doesn't need discipline, that doesn't need practice: can I look at that tree, woman, man, sky, heaven, without the word and find out?
(By Jove, we have been talking an hour and a half!) We had better keep it for tomorrow morning and afternoon.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Dec 2016 #519
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 6 posts in this forum Offline

Bonjour John,

Il est très intéressant de noter ce que pointe du doigt Rahula, à savoir le fait que ce que delivre K en tant qu'enseignement, ses écrits et les écrits de ses oratoires, devient un savoir et, peut comme beaucoup auparavant, peut conditionner.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Dec 2016 #520
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 6 posts in this forum Offline

Salut John,

Oui... je pense qu'il est bon de reconnaître le fait que K était un érudit également et que son éducation/conditionnement lui a donné des connaissances également au niveau d'un savoir religieux.

John Raica wrote:
De la jusqu'a savoir lequel de ces discours l'eveillé Bouddha aurait prefere

Oui.. Je pense que les deux ont un discours bouddhique mais avec une approche différente.. c'est comme si tous les deux parlaient de chocolat, l'un se basant sur les quinze volumes qu'il a étudié et l'autre, sur le goût du chocolat qu'il a dans la bouche...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2017 #521
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 6 posts in this forum Offline

Salut et bonne année John!!

J'ai bien lu cet intéressant échange mais je ne vois toujours pas cet aspect capital de la dualité primaire que je tente de te décrire à savoir Dans le niveau basique de perception, celui où la 'chose' n'est pas encore Pensée, il y a déjà une dualité primaire (entre un "nous/corps" et le reste), inné qui fait que l'on considère déjà ce qui sera nommé (pensé) plus tard, comme autre/séparé...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Jan 2017 #522
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

A K DISCUSSION WITH Maurice WILKENS and David BOHM (Brockwood 1982)-

ON RELATIONSHIP (experientially friendly edited)

K: One of our (current local ?) problems this morning is the difficulty of "thinking together (holistically ?) " and I wonder what prevents people doing that. Is it (a subliminal identification with ?) their(personal ?) opinions , conclusions, concepts, ideals, their deep rooted (cultural ?) prejudices?

B: I feel it is because people have 'opinions' (about how things should be done ?) to which they get identified with, they don't even know it but they are sticking to it.

K: Is that ( the only cause ?) what prevents people from thinking together, co-operating together?

B: Well that is clearly a major factor, you can see it politically: if we wanted to have a global peace we would have the two sides ready to discuss without fixed opinions.

K: Yes, that's right. If we ordinary citizens want them to do it, they will do it. Now how will you help the ordinary citizens to want this?

W: Well I think they have to overcome their own sense of helplessness. And ultimately they need to recognize their own responsibility, it isn't just the politicians who are being awkward, they are being awkward too.

K: It comes back (to the individual person ?) to being responsible in everything you do. But they don't feel that way, they don't feel responsible. They turn to the leaders, the political leaders, religious leaders, or some kind of leader and they depend on them.

W: And then...blame them.

K: Blame them. Exactly! So this whole thing is so topsy turvy,.

B: Well, we can't begin that way because it is no use blaming people for what they are.

K: Therefore one has to begin with oneself.

B: But is it possible that some people could begin anyway, regardless of what the others are doing? You have once suggested that later if some people could do it then eventually others would ( opportunistically or not ?) come in.

K: Yes, quite.

B: So it doesn't mean we are neglecting the others but...

K: ...we keep the door open.

B: Yes, it is not the right (psychological ?) order to begin with the others.

K: I agree. One has to begin with oneself.

B: Or with whoever.
W: But if you say we 'are' our relationships, that what I am is (defined by ?) my relation with other people, therefore one must observe these relationships, in that sense one is beginning with others. One is beginning (both ways ?) ...

K: ...with the others and with oneself, constant interrelationship.

W: Now, when you said that there were these blocks (of psychological identification?) this isn't always the case. Sometimes between two people who have a close relationship and a loving relationship, there is a great deal of being on the same wave length, and immediately a kind of empathic relationship that one mind is not really separate from the other mind. Is this not possibly relevant to this whole thing of the transformation of one's own mind through this process of interaction.

K: Interaction, quite. Sir, (holistically speaking ?) if half a dozen of us really understood this whole business, couldn't we affect the (consciousness of the ?) world? I think we could.

B: Well there was a programme recently on the BBC about Thomas Paine, and it showed that he actually had a significant effect on the whole world. He had a tremendous energy and passion. It was very clear in that programme that he affected the whole of history.

K: Yes, sir. That raises the question: why is it that we are not passionate? Why is it that we are all so luke warm (& 'cool' ?) ? and never having this passion for doing the correct thing, doing the good thing.

B: I think part of the reason for this lack of passion is just the failure to comprehend this point: many many people might feel that it is very important to 'do' something but then they say society is so big...

K: So big that you are smothered.

B: Overwhelmed. So there is some lack of clarity on this point, that it is really possible to do something (even if starting small ?) .

K: Yes, sir, absolutely. I feel it is really possible.

W: I think that the ( standarised mentality of any ?) society conditions us so that we do feel helpless. That is part of the difficulty.

K: Why should it smother us, why should it curtail, or destroy our passion? And what is passion? When does it take place? When is passion 'let loose' (released ?) ?

W: I suppose that if the individuals in any society are being dominated by their own 'self - images' then they want to perpetuate the state of affairs where this appears to be so. And so they will exert a conditioning influence through society to keep us all in this state of helplessness and delusion.

K: Does this 'passion' come with the end of sorrow? Isn't the root of the word 'passion' etymologically connected with suffering?

W: Well that is just an (academic ?) question of scholarship, which I am not up on, but you mean it more deeply presumably ?

K: Of course. You see I have just come from India, there were about seven thousand people in Bombay, a whole cross section of society - the very rich, the middle class and some very poor. I talked to them in English, of course, and you can see they really don't ( bother to ?) understand this extraordinary complexity of life, they just want (immediate ?) solutions to their personal problems, economic problems, spiritual problems, they want 'solutions'. And seeking ( particular ?) solutions doesn't solve the ( global ?) problems.

B: No. But I think that people generally don't understand that (subtle insight ?) , that ( immediate ?) solutions are irrelevant (on the long term) , and that obviously it just helps to dissipate even their ( available intelligent ?) energy.

K: So the (integrated or 'holistic' ?) approach to the problem is important, and the approach is not the (primarily directed to the ?) resolution of the problem but how 'you' look at the problem. Is the problem different from you? Or 'you' are (also part of ?) the problem, the problem isn't (just) 'out there'.

B: But to communicate this to a person who is unemployed feels his problem is out there, if he only had a job he thinks everuthing would be all right. Now you are pointing to something much deeper: "the problem is you"? Now, how would you explan it to somebody who is unemployed ( or simply...down & out ?)

K: Yes, sir, I was listening the other day ( on the TV) to the unemployed, they were being interviewed - they were bitter, angry, furious, for three years they haven't been employed, and they were furious about the leaders, conservative leaders, labour leaders and so on. ( And for obscure reasons ?) they were not concerned about anything except employment, getting money, food, shelter, that's all they are concerned about. I think the vast world is concerned about that and nothing else.

B: But suppose you want to talk to this man, how would you make him concerned with something more?

K: I have talked to a lot of people in India and other places, it is the same problem, sir, whether 'bread' comes first or the 'other thing' comes first. If it is the bread then there is no ( holistic ) solution, and all of them are caught in that (materialistic mentality ?) , "the bread first", and the "other", you can have it you are (decently wealthy or just...?) 'lucky'. But as the vast majority of ( 7 billion ) people are concerned with immediacy, how are you going to shown them anything? You can't. Therefore is it only reserved for the 'well-to-do' who have leisure, who have certain opportunities to be alone, to look at themselves, talk about it? That seems so terribly unfair. But that is a (statistical ?) 'fact'. So will thos people who happen to have some leisure, will they ( endeavour to ?) understand the (holistic responsability for their ?) relationship? Or they use that leisure to 'amuse' themselves, to 'entertain' themselves?

B: Well, then it makes no difference...

K: That's what I am saying. But I think you learn infinitely more when you have (some quality time of ?) 'leisure'.

B: Now you have said that 'passion' is connected with sorrow, so that might be a (valid) approach ?

K: But you see, will even these (upper-middle class ?) leisurely people, even the fairly well educated people, who are really facing the problems of life, and the problems of the world, will they give their time, their energy, to say, look, let us understand the relationship of each other and go into it all. It seems so extraordinarily difficult for most people (even in the context of a leisurely environment such as...?) .

B: Well, that's why we are saying : if some people could ( 'jump- ?) start', this might affect the others. There are people who have leisure and who are interested, but I think they do not quite see the actual possibility of this. There are people who might be ready to do this but they ( do get stuck just because ?) don't see that anything is possible (in their surrounding world ?) .

K: Yes, sir, I know.

B: Now if they could 'see' that something is actually possible, more of them might come in (or...jump in the wagon ?) .

K: So, for instance, help me to see that there is a possibility, there is a door open for me to escape from all this horror, how will you help me? By talking to me, by pointing out all the miseries, all the confusion, by analyzing, by seeking a cause? We have done all that (for 50+ years ?) .

B: That's not enough. Now we were saying that people with great energy, like Thomas Paine, or various other people who have had their impact on history, some good, some bad. And the question is, is it possible that a group of us to...

K: Oh yes, of course, that is the only way.

B: Which will actually penetrate all this...

K: ...(psychological ?) mess ? Of course it is possible. That's what we are trying to do in Brockwood, or any of the other places, is to gather a whole group of people who have a good understanding of ( their responsability in ?) relationship and go into all that. But it seems to take so incredibly long.

Sir, would you say, we are the 'makers of our own time' - the inward time, the inward hope, the inward getting better, the inward idea of becoming something, all that involves time. If we could shorten the time, that is, I am violent, and I think I can get over that violence given enough time. And so I invent time. Whereas actually if I have no time ( left to do it, dealing directly with ?) 'what is' becomes extraordinarily important and it can be changed. I do not know if I am conveying anything...?

W: Well is the following (example ?) relevant here - that if you take someone who has lived their whole life and not been able to in anyway develop much, and they just have a few more days to live, and while they are dying they suddenly... - I have seen an old man recently who was dying and for the first time in his life he seemed to have a (real ?) 'role', he was dying, and no one could take this away from him. Well now, some people would say this (kind of death-bed revelations are ?) very sad, that it's only for a day or two, but surely the length of time doesn't matter at all.

K: Can the mind stop 'measuring' (itself in terms of time ?) ? Which means, (to see that ?) I am the past, the present and the future. I am that. And my ( best projection in ?) time is 'tomorrow' - I hope I will be happy tomorrow. So I am inventing my own (personal agenda of ?) time. So I am the 'master of my time'. Now if I understood this really deeply, then I would deal with 'what is' and finish with it immediately. I don't know if I am conveying something ?

W: Yes, you mean you would be aware of 'what is' instead of being dominated by the thoughts about what was, or what might be in the future. So you would...

K: I would give all my (integrated ressources of intelligent ?) energy to that.

W: To 'what is'. Yes. But then do you mean that the sorrow is a question of memory and of the past? And therefore these ( sad ?) memories from the past are preventing you from experiencing directly 'what is' ?

K: Yes. But if I recognize that I 'am' ( inwardly part of this movement of ?) the past, the present, and the future, then I have to deal immediately with 'what is', not postpone it, not find any excuse and all the rest of it.

And also we were talking with Dr Bohm, at Ojai, whether has man, human beings, taken a wrong turn?

W: It seems he has always been on a 'wrong turn'!

K: And therefore there is no way out? *

B: Well it is the same as we were saying about ( living exclusively within the field of ?) knowledge. That is, knowledge 'is' time. Because it's the ( processed experience of the ?) past coming to the present making the future. It is the same, to be without time is to end the activity of (one's inner ?) knowledge. ( Inwardly speakinf, this ?) knowledge is not merely abstract knowledge, but it is very active, because it makes ( its own continuity in ?) time.

K: Thought is time. Can ( the self-centred process of ?) thought come to a stop? Because ( the self-interest based ?) thought has created all this mess, thought has invented wars, the whole thing is invented by thought.

B: Of course thought has invented all sorts of good things too.

K: Oh, of course. That goes without saying.

B: We want to say that ( if the psychologically active component of ?) thought comes to an end, this doesn't mean that the useful features of thought will stop.

K: No, (the practical function of ?) thought has its place.

B: But thought dominating comes to an end.

K: No, thought as 'time' coming to an end.

B: What kind of thought is left without ( its self-projected continuity in ?) 'time'?

K: Emptiness.

B: Well is that 'thought' as well?

K: No.

B: But I meant, suppose you have to 'think' to do something.

K: There you have to think, of course; but I am questioning this whole issu of thought dominating my (inner ?) life

B: Yes. You mean, thinking about oneself ?

K: Thought about oneself, thought about the future, thought about the past, thought about my family - thinking, thinking, thinking. Thought is limited, my actions are limited, and therefore (inwardly there is ?) more misery. So I am asking myself whether ( this 'psychological' component of ?) thought can come to an end inwardly ? So we can ( wisely ?) put that aside.
But ( the 'meditation' issue is: ) can thought come to an end altogether? Thought is (the response of all our accumulated ?) knowledge, thought is ( both the effect and the cause of our survival in ?) time, ( but unfortunately the self-centred process of human ?) thought is ( self-) limiting, divisive, has created wars, and the churches, and the things inside the churches, and temples and all the rest of it. One sees ( that this self-divisive way of ?) thinking is very, very limited, destructive.

B: You mean to say "that kind of thought" ?

K: We have said that (holistically ?) . So can ( this central, self-divisive component of ?) thought come to an end inwardly? That means can the (self-identified ?) content of (our self-centred ?) consciousness, which is the result of ( millenia of survivalistic ?) thought, can these 'contents' of fear, anxiety, agony, all the beliefs, be wiped out? That is ( defining ?) all that is my consciousness. And that is ( generating its own continuity in ?) time.
And so I am asking can this 'time' (the temporal continuity of ?) thought, come to an end? But the thinking as (a response of our factual ?) knowledge in occupation, in professions, in skill, is obviously necessary.

W: So, if this (inner "time-) thought" (process) comes to an end there is the possibility of some direct apprehension between the people: the (psychological component of ?) thought has come to an end in the sense that our relationship it is not dominated by thoughts of what these people did (to us ?) before, or what they might do in the future, but a direct apprehension of 'what is' at that instance?

K: Now sir, one's everyday mind is chattering, talking endlessly, reading, tremendously active all the time about trivial things and the great things. I am asking (in the wider context of meditation ?) if thought has ( found its right ?) place, why should I continously think about my future, about my past, or about myself, why? Why this (subliminal ?) accumulation (refreshing ?) of psychological knowledge? That is really my question: is this (psychological subprocess of ?) knowledge necessary inwardly?

W: Well it does seem to me that this is part of a creative relationship.

K: Yes, but is thought ( backed by ?) love?

W: No it isn't.

K: Therefore?

W: I do wonder a little bit whether thought doesn't come into love somewhat? I mean it is bound to to some extent.

K: No. I wonder if love is ( the result of ?) thought.

W: No, certainly not.

K: Therefore is it not possible to 'love' (have a sincere affection for ?) another without thought? To 'love' somebody means no ( interference of self-centred ?) thought. And ( ideally ?) it brings about a totally different relationship, a different action.

W: Well, I think there can be a great deal of ( selfish?) thinking in a loving relationship, but it is not the primary...

K: When there is love (the practical aspects of ?) thought can be used, but not the other way round.

W: Not the other way round, yes. The one has a primacy over the other. Whereas our basic trouble is that it tends to be the other way round, we are like computers which are being run by our ( self-centred ?) programmes. I was just trying to transpose what you were saying about "thought coming to an end", tothink what kind of relationship is there without thought.

K: Just see what (hypothetically ?) takes place if I have a relationship with my brother or my wife, and that relationship is not based on thought but basically, deeply on love. And in that love, in that feeling, that strange feeling, why should I think at all? ( The natural intelligence of ?) Love is comprehensive. And when thought ( surreptitiously ?) comes into it, it is (self-) divisive, it destroys the quality, the beauty of it.

W: But isn't this love 'all pervasive' rather than comprehensive because surely love can't express itself adequately without thought.

K: Comprehensive in the sense ( of being holistically ) 'whole'. In itself it has no feeling of duality.

W: I suppose love is much more a quality of the relationship, and a quality of being which pervades.

K: Yes. When thought comes into it then I remember all the things she did, or I did, the troubles, the anxieties, all those creep in. That's one of our great difficulties, we really haven't understood or felt this (Intelligent ?) Love which is not possessiveness, attachment, jealousy, hatred and all that.

W: Isn't Love an awareness of the unity (of All That Is ) ?

K: It isn't that Love is ( consciously ?) aware that' we are all one'. It's like a perfume, it is marvellous perfume. The moment you (isolate and ?) analyse it you dissipate it.

W: All right, it is a perfume but then its quality is associated with this sense of unity, is it not ?

K: But you are giving it a (mental ?) meaning.

W: But I mean, can there be love without any awareness of this Unity?

K: It is much more than that.

W: All right, it is more than that. But can it exist unless that sense of unity is there?

K: Love must exist with (an inner space of ?) freedom - there must be a total freedom to 'love'.

W: But this sense of Unity is part of the whole business, is it not?

K: If we have love there 'is' Unity.

W: Yes, all right. That would satisfy me. I agree with you that just having an intellectual sense of unity won't turn 'love' on.

K: You see all the people who were religiously minded have turned love and devotion to a particular object, or a particular idea, a symbol. It isn't a Love without any (personal ?) hindrance to it. That's the point sir. Can 'love' exist when there is the 'self'? Of course not.

W: If the 'self' is a fixed ( mental ?) image, then love can't exist with any fixed image, with anything fixed because it has no limits.

K: That's right, sir.

W: But it seems to me that in the relationship (in the spirit of ?) dialogue and a movement between two minds with no sense of limit and necessarily outside time, then something new can come up.

K: But can two ( self-centred ?) minds ever meet? It is like two parallel railway lines, they never meet. Our (common?) relationship with each other as wife and husband and so on, is it always parallel, each pursuing his own line, and never actually meeting in the sense of real love for another - a love without object?

W: But I mean, if the relationship can be on a different level then there are no longer lines separated in space.

K: Of course. But to come to that level seems almost impossible if I am attached to my wife and she is attached to me. Is that love? I 'possess' (the image of ?) her, she possesses ( the image of ?) me, with all the ( psycho-somatic ?) complications of relationship. And I say to her, or she says to me, "I love you". And that seems to satisfy us. And I question whether that is 'love' at all.

W: Well it surely makes people feel more comfortable... for a time.

K: But is that (psychological ?) comfort 'love'?

W: I mean it is limited and when one partner dies the other is miserable.

K: The loneliness, the tears, the suffering.
(Moral 'story-time' ?) I used to know a man to whom money was "god". And he had plenty of money. And when he was dying he wanted to look at all the things he possessed. And the possessions were him (he was mentally identified with them ?) . He was ( obliged to ?) die to his possessions outwardly, but inwardly (the image of his ?) possessions were himself. And he was frightened not of his (physical) state coming to an end but of losing that (big bunch of paper rupees ?) (rather than ?) losing (his $ image of ?) 'himself' and (experientially ?) finding something New.
Death is far. Do we want to go into it?

W: Well could I just ask you a (quick) question about death? What about a man who is dying and wants to see all his friends before he dies, is that a (sign of his ongoing ?) attachment to these relationships?

K: Yes, that is attachment. He is going to die and death is a most exclusive action. The other day I saw a man who was dying. And, sir, I have never seen such fear in my life, actually absolutely fearful of ending anything. And I said : what are you frightened of? He said, "I am frightened of separation from my family, from the money I have had, from the things I have done. This, is "my" family, I love them. And I scared stiff of losing them."

W: But suppose the man might want to see all his friends and his family to say...

K: ...Goodbye, old boy. We will meet on the other side!

W: Possibly.

K: I knew a man, sir, it is very interesting, he told his family, next year, in January, I am going to die on such and such a date. And on that date he invited all his friends and his family, he said, "I am dying today", and made the Will. "Please leave me". They all trooped out of the room, and... he died!

W: Yes, that was not an attachment.

K: No. Of course not. But the (psychological ?) consequence of attachment is painful, anxious, there is a certain sense of agony, of losing.

W: Constant insecurity.

K: Insecurity. All the rest follows. And that (personal attachment ?) I call 'love'. I (may) know deeply inside all the travails of this attachment, but I can't let go.

W: But one could also be worried of other people's sorrow. Presumably the acceptance of one's own death would reduce their sorrow ?

K: No. Isn't this sorrow related to to fear? I am afraid of death, I am afraid of ending my career, all the things I have accumulated both physically and inwardly, all that comes to an end. So can I really be free from the fear of death? Which means can I "live with death"? Don't misunderstand that. I am questioning this whole content of consciousness put there by thought, and thought predominates our lives, and I say to myself, hasn't thought its place, and only its place and nowhere else.

(In a nutshell ?) "where love is why should thought exist"? ( the interference of our self-centred ?) thought in relationship is destructive. It is (bringing ?) attachment, possessivity, it is a 'clinging to each other' for comfort, for safety, for security, and all that is not Love.

W: No. But as you said love can make use of thinking, and there is what you call a 'thoughtfulness' in relationship.

K: That's a different matter, yes, yes. Can I (have ?) love for my wife without attachment? ( How) marvellous it is, to love somebody wanting nothing from him/her.

W: That's a great freedom.

K: Yes, sir, so Love is ( coming from this inner ?) freedom.

W: So, if there is (such freedom of ?) love between husband and wife then if one dies you seem to be implying the other would not have sorrow ?

K: That's right, sir.

W: So, you would transcend sorrow.

K: Sorrow is ( the subliminal by-product of ?) thought - (such as ?) the feeling of losing somebody and suddenly finding yourself utterly desolated and lonely.
So if I could understand the nature of (psychological ?) ending, ending something (of which I got personally attached ?) all the time - ending my ambition, to end my sorrow, to end fear, to end the ( time binding ?) complexity of desire. And to end it, which is ( the pschological aspect of ?) death.

W: Yes, I think the Christian (mystics) used to talk about it being necessary to die everyday.

K: That's right. Necessary to die everyday to everything that psychologically you have gathered (and got stuck with ?) .

W: And everyone (here ?) agrees that death is freedom.

K: That is real freedom.

W: There is no difficulty in appreciating that. And you want to transpose that ultimate freedom into all one's life ?

K: Yes, sir. Otherwise we are slaves to choice, slaves to everything.

W: Not Masters of Time but 'Slaves of Time'...

K: 'Slaves of Time', yes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Jan 2017 #523
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

A K CONVERSATION WITH PUPUL JAYAKAR ( 1983)

THE TRUE BASIS OF A NEW CULTURE ( experientially friendly edited )

K: (...) So what ultimately is the difference between the Indian mind, Indian culture, and the Western culture?

PJ: Perhaps there is a certain edge in (the capacity of ?) delving into the within, the insights into things. For centuries the Indian mind has been nurtured on a ground of this feeling. Whereas, in the western world there has always been a movement towards the outer world right from the time of the Greeks.

K: The other day I heard on the television, a very well known Indian was being interviewed. He said the technological world now in India is 'humanizing' the Indian mind. I wonder what he meant by that, humanizing -that instead of living in abstractions, and theories, and complexity of ideations and so on, the technological world is bringing them ( down to ?) to earth ?

PJ: And perhaps it is necessary to some extent...

K: Obviously it is necessary. But I question whether thought is ever East or West. There is only thought, it is not Eastern thought, or Western thought. The expression of thoughts may be different in India, and here it may be different, but it is still a process of human thought (moving predominantly in the field of the known ?) .

PJ: But is it also not true that the centuries of knowledge and 'wisdom' in the East have given a content to the brain cells which make them perceive in a different way?

K: I wonder how accurate what you are saying is. Whenever I go there, there is much more materialism now than there used to be. More concerned with money, position, power and all that. And of course there is over population, and all the complexity of modern civilization. Are you saying that the Indian mind has a tendency to an inward search, much more so than the West?

PJ: I would say so. Just as the Western mind has not only a technological but an environmental (tendency towards ?) the outer. I would say the outer environment is the concern of the West, and the inner environment has been the concern of the East, of India.

K: It has been the concern, but it has been the concern of a very, very few people.

PJ: But it is only the few ( inwardly awake ?) people who create the culture.

K: That is a question that we should discuss. Before we go into that, is there really a ( qualitative ?) distinction between the Eastern thought and Western thought? The Western world is much more concerned, as far as I can see, with 'worldly' affairs.

PJ: But what turned it in that direction?

K: It is a colder climate, and all the inventions, and all the modern technology comes from the Northern part of the world, the northern people.

PJ: Yes, but if it was only climate then...

K: It is not only the climate. It is the climate and the whole 'religious' way of life in the West is very, very different from the East.

PJ: That's what I am saying. Somewhere along the line people of one racial stock divided culturally from the other . And the direction in which the West turned was the discovery of their dialogue with nature, out of which arose technology, out of it arose all the great scientific truths. India also had a dialogue with nature...

K: But of a different nature. So are you trying to say that the Eastern mind, the Indian mind, is more concerned with religious matters than the West? Here in the West it is all rather superficial, though they think it is rather deep. And there, in India, tradition, literature and everything says the world is not so important as the understanding of the self, the understanding of the universe, the understanding of the Highest Principle ( Brahman).

PJ: This swiftness with which the mind can start the enquiry is perhaps different to the West, where enquiry, insights, the great insights have been in different directions.

K: Of course. Here in (the west in ) religious matters, doubt, scepticism, questioning, is absolutely denied. Faith is all important here. In Indian religion, in Buddhism and so on, doubt, questioning, (self-) enquiry becomes all important.

PJ: So, anyhow, today both the cultures are in crisis.

K: Yes, of course. Wouldn't you say that the whole human consciousness is in a crisis?

PJ: At the very root this (major existential crisis ?) is making them search the solution away from themselves. They feel an (inner) inadequacy so they turn to the other culture (where the grass looks 'greener' ?) . It is happening in both countries.

K: But you see, Pupulji, what I want to find out is whether this human consciousness, (currently) in a (major ?) crisis, whether it is possible not only to resolve that crisis, but whether human beings can go beyond their own limitation. I don't know if I am making myself clear?

PJ: The 'outer' and the 'inner' is like the materialistic attitude and the search within. It is two mirror images of these two directions in which man has moved. The problem really is that if man has to survive the two have to be...

K: They must live together ?

PJ: Not live together, but a human culture come into being which would contain both.

K: Now what do you mean by the word 'culture'?

PJ: Isn't culture everything that the brain possesses?

K: Would you say the training of the brain, the refining of the brain and the expression of that refinement in action, in behaviour, in relationship, and also (optionally ?) a process of enquiry that leads to something totally untouched by thought? I would say all this makes a culture.

PJ: Isn't our present culture a closed circuit?

K: You can make of it that way, or you can break it and go beyond.

PJ: ( As it is now) it may be growing but it is all growing within that contour. It remains within a contour. And when you talk of (inner ?) enquiry, search, observation, would you put it into the field of ( a future ?) culture?

K: Of course. Would you say that the whole movement of human culture is like a tide going out and coming in, like the sea, going out and coming in. And the human endeavour is ( getting entangled in ?) this process of going out and coming in, and never enquiring whether that process can ever stop. I mean, we just 'act' and 'react'. That's the nature of a (self-centred ?) human mind. Act and react, like the ebb and flow. I react, and out of that reaction act, and from that action react, back and forth. Right? Now I am asking whether this ( chain ?) reaction of 'reward and punishment' can stop and ( the human mind ) take a totally different turn? As we live now, all our actions are (basically) based on reward and punishment. Right?

PJ: Yes...

K: Physically, psychologically and in every way. And that's all we know, deeply. Now I am asking whether there is another (way of ?) action which is not based on this (mechanistic pattern of ?) action -reaction? You understand what I am talking about?

PJ: As this action, reaction is an impulse of the brain cells...

K: It is our ( racial & cultural ?) conditioning.

PJ: But it is an (instinctive ?) impulse of the brain cells. It is the way the brain cells respond, and the way they receive through the senses. Now the question you asked...

K: Our question is really "what is culture ?".

PJ: Would you say then that 'culture' is that ( accumulated experience and knowledge ?) which is contained in the brain cells?

K: Of course.

PJ: Anything else?

K: All our past memories.

PJ: So if you take all that is there anything else?

K: I understand. This is a difficult question - 'if' there is something else, then that (intelligent ?) 'something else' can operate on the brain cells which are conditioned. But... is there something else within the brain?

PJ: Even physiologically they are saying that the operation of the brain cells today is a very, very minute portion of its capacity.

K: I know that. Why?

PJ: Because ( its pre-formated cultural ?) conditioning limits it, and it has never been free of those processes which limit it.

K: Which means ( the self-centred process of ?) thought is limited.

PJ: Yes. It has put all its eggs in one ('known' ?) basket.

K: Thought is limited. And we are all ( safely ?) functioning within that limitation, because ( the field of self-centred ?) thinking, experience and knowledge is limited for ever.

PJ: What place have the senses in this?

K: Can the senses operate without the interference of thought? You understand my question?

PJ: As they operate today, Krishnaji, they seem to have one root. The movement of the senses as they operate is ( constantly controlled by ?) the movement of thought.

K: Therefore it (the whole self-centred 'thinking-feeling' ?) is limited.

PJ: So, when you ask the question whether is it possible for them to operate free from thought , what does one do with a question of that type?

K: I am enquiring whether the brain cells in themselves can ever bring about a ( qualitative ?) mutation in themselves. Otherwise a totally different new culture...

PJ: But if if they don't bring about a mutation in themselves and if there is nothing else....

K: This is a question the ancient Hindus raised many, many centuries ago - is there an outside agency, God, the Highest Principle and so on, and (if yes ?) whether That ( active factor of Universal Intelligence ?) can operate on the conditioned brain.

PJ: Or is it (dormant ?) and can it awaken within the brain? There are two things. One is an outside agency, or 'energy' operating; or from within the brain cells, in the 'untapped' (dormant ?) portion of the brain there is an awakening which transforms.

K: I understand this question. Let's enquire, let's discuss it.

PJ: May I say something?

K: Please.

PJ: The problem is That ( intelligent ?) 'energy' really never touches the brain cells. There are so many obstacles one has built that the flow of energy from nature, or from (an inner ?) energy never seems to touch and create.
And 'insight' is the ( awakening ?) instrument in the brain cells, the (holistic ?) tool which operates is the brain cells.

K: In the brain.

PJ: Yes, (this ?) 'something' has to happen in the brain.

K: Yes, I say it can happen. Without the (improbable ?) 'idea' that there is an outside agency that will somehow cleanse the brain which has been conditioned, or invent an outside agency, as most religions have done.
Can the ( unconditioned part of the ?) brain "awaken" to its own ( cultural ?) conditioning and so perceive its own limitation, and 'stay' (quietly ?) there for a ( contemplative ?) moment?
You see we are all the time, trying to 'do something', which is (implying that ?) the 'doer' is different from 'that which is being done'. Right?
Suppose I realize that my brain is (mentally ?) conditioned and all my activity, my feelings, and my relationship with others, are limited. I realize that. And then 'I' say: 'this limitation must be broken down' . So I am trying to operating on the 'limitation' (without realising that ?) the 'I' is not separate from the other. Now if we can bridge that (dualistic mentality and see ?) that the 'I' is not separate from the (invisible wall of his ?) 'limitation' which he is trying to break down. The limitation of the 'self' and the limitation of (his cultural ) conditioning are similar, not separate. The 'I' is not separate from its own 'qualities'.

PJ: And from that ( safe position ?) it 'observes'.

K: So, one (central) part (of our psychological conditioning ?) observes the other part.

PJ: When you say that we all the time are 'trying to do' something ...

K: We are trying to operate on the other.

PJ: ...operate on the other...

K: Our whole (inner ?) life is that, apart from the technological world and so on. I am 'this' and I must change into 'that'. So the brain is (culturally) conditioned ( to function ?) in this division: the 'actor' (the 'subject' pretending to be ?) different from (the object of ?) his 'action'.

PJ: That of course, yes.

K: And so that ( dualistic ?) conditioning goes on. But when one realizes the actor 'is' (not separated from his ?) action, then the whole inner outlook changes altogether.
You were asking, Pupulji, what brings about a change in the human brain?

PJ: That is really the crucial point. What is it that makes it end (its own conditioning ) ?

K: Man has lived on this earth for a million years, more, or less. And we are (inwardly almost ?) as 'primitive' ( ignorant ?) as we were before. Basically we have not changed very much. We are killing ( regularly other species, and occasionally even ?) each other, we are seeking power, position, we are corrupt, psychologically. And what will make ( the consciousness of ?) human beings, change all that?

PJ: A great insight ?

K: Insight... Now, take the Indian culture, few people, great ( scholars and ?) thinkers in India, have gone into this question. But the majority of the people are living with a dead tradition . And here too (in the western world ) tradition has a still a tremendous power...

PJ: Yes, a few have great insights into science....

K: So looking at all this, what will make human beings radically bring about a mutation in themselves? Culture has tried to bring about certain changes in human behaviour. Right? And religions have said, behave this way, don't do this, don't kill, but they go on killing. Be brotherly, and they are not brotherly. Love one another, and they don't. These are the edicts, the sanctions, and we are doing everything quite the opposite.

PJ: But cultures have collapsed really.

K: That's what I want to find out. Whether it has collapsed and it has no value at all any more, and so man is now at a loss. If you go to America, for example, they have no tradition. Each one is doing what he likes, he is doing his thing! And they are doing the same thing here in a different (and more politically correct ?) way. So what will bring about a mutation in the brain cells?

PJ: What you are saying is that it doesn't matter whether the Indian consciousness matrix is different, or the Western matrix is different, the (holistic solution of the ?) problem is identical - the mutation in the human brain.

K: Yes, that's it. Let's stick to that. I mean after all Indians, even the poor Indians suffer as they suffer here - lonely, despair, misery, and all that, it is just the same as here. So let's forget the East and West and see what prevents this mutation taking place.

PJ: Sir, is there any other way but perceiving the 'actual'?

K: The actual. That is what we have been maintaining for sixty years, that the 'what is', the 'actual', is more important than the idea of the actual. Facts, if one observes very carefully, this bringz about a change in themselves.
(Eg:) The fact of human sorrow : could we understand the depth and the meaning of sorrow by actually delving into the nature of sorrow - (bearing in mind that this ?) sorrow is not yours or mine. So what is impeding the human brain from enquiring deeply within itself?

PJ: Sir, you used the word 'delving', you used the words 'enquiring into oneself' - both are words connected with movement. Yet you say the ending of movement is...

K: Of course. Movement is time, movement is thought, the ending of movement - now, can that really end, or do we (like to ?) think that it can end? You understand my question? After all, the people who have somewhat gone into this kind of thing, both in the past and the present, have always divided the (self-centred ) 'entity' that enquires and that ( process of thought -time) which is to be enquired into to. That's my objection. I think that is the major (experiential ?) block.
So, I want to come back to this, if I may: what will make the human beings alter - very simply put - the way they behave? Very simply put. This appalling ( lack of compassion and ?) 'brutality', what will change all this? If man himself will not change, who will change it? Religions have tried, throughout the world, to humanize, or make man more intelligent, more considerate, affectionate and so on, they have not succeeded. ( Our standardised modern education and ?) culture has not succeeded.
You perhaps have this perception, I may not have it, so what effect has your (inner clarity of ) perception on me? Does man want to change? Or he says, "Things are still all right, let's go on and we will evolve to a certain stage eventually."

PJ: Most people feel that (if it's still working, why try to 'fix' it ?) .

K: Yes. That's what is so appalling about it. Eventually, give me another thousand years we will all be marvellous human beings. Which is so absurd. In the meantime we are destroying each other.

PJ: Sir, may I ask you something: what is the actual moment of facing the fact? What the actuality of it?

K: We were discussing the other day with a group of (Science ?) people here: a fact is that which is being done now, and/or the remembrance of that which has actually happened yesterday .

PJ: Like the arising of a wave of (irrational) fear, horror, anything ?

K: Yes, yes.

PJ: So how does one actually se it as a fact ? It is seeing it without a "cliche".

K: Without a cliché, without (personal ?) prejudice, without bias. Which means what?

PJ: First of all, negating all the ( thought ?) responses which arise.

K: Negating the remembrances. Now is that possible?

PJ: Yes, that is possible.

K: Possible, why?

PJ: Because the very (energy of ?) attention itself...

K: ...dissipates ( the interfering ) remembrance. Now that means can the brain be so attentive of the incident that happened last week and not carry (it over) remembering. ( Eg) My son is dead. And I have suffered. But my (subliminal attachment to the ?) memory of that son has such strength in my brain that I constantly 'remember' it.

PJ: It arises.

K: It ( cyclically ?) arises and disappears. So can the brain say, yes my son is dead, that is the end of it?

PJ: But does one say that? Or when there is a rising, out of that there is a (resurging of the whole ?) movement of pain ?

K: Which means what? My son is dead and there is this constant remembrance - right? Flowing in and flowing out. That's a ("psychological ?) fact".

PJ: But the negating of that pain and the dissolving of this, doesn't it have a direct action on the brain?

K: That's what I am coming to. My son is dead. That's a (physical) fact. I can't change this fact. It sounds cruel to say it, but he is gone. But I am carrying him all the time (in my souvenirs ?) . Right? The brain is carrying him as memory, and the rememberance is always there, I never say, he's gone, that's a fact. But I ( indulge inwardly in ?) living on memories, which are not actual. And I am asking: the ending of the (my attachment to the memory of that ?) fact. My son is gone, that is a fact.

PJ: What remains when the 'fact' is perceived?

K: Nothing. The (subliminal identification with my ) 'love of my son' son is gone. Which is not denying my ( inner quality of ?) affection, my love.
I don't know if you see.

PJ: You are drawing a distinction between 'love of my son' and...

K: ...and Love. If I (have ) love for my son in the deepest sense of the word, I have love for man, ( for all ?) humanity, I love the earth, the trees, the whole ( Living ?) Universe.
So you asking a really good question: what takes place when there is the pure perception of the fact, without any bias, without any kind of escape and so on, to see the fact completely, is that possible? When one is (submerged in the shock of ?) sorrow of his/her son's death, at that moment you can't say anything to that person. But as (s)he comes out of this confusion and loneliness and despair and sorrow, perhaps (s)he will be sensitive enough to perceive the (psychological implications of the ?) fact.

PJ: Doesn't this perception of the ( psychological ?) fact, need a great deal of ( inner ?) watching? You can't tell a person who has just lost...

K: No, that would be cruel. But to a man who says, what is it all about, death is common to all humanity, a man who is sensitive, asking, enquiring, he is awake, he wants to find an answer to all this...

PJ: Sir, at one level it seems so simple ( sounds like 'just do it !').

K: And I think we must keep it ( experientially ?) simple, not bring about a lot of intellectual theories and ideas into it.

PJ: Then, why is the mind afraid of the simple?

K: I think we are so highly (evolved ) intellectually, it has been part of our education that ( the abstract ?) concepts are essential, it is part of our ( inwardly blind ?) 'culture'. And the man who sees that the ideas are not very important (inwardly) but the facts are, he must be ( inwardly) extraordinarily 'simple' (all-one ?) .

PJ: You see sir, in the whole field of Indian culture the highest (spiritual goal) is the dissolution of the 'self'. And you are talking of the dissolution of the fact, which is essentially the dissolution of the self.

K: Yes. The 'dissolution of the self' has become a (trendy ?) 'concept'. And we are worshipping such "concepts" who are invented by thought, or through analysis and and hold that concept as a most extraordinary thing.
So come back to the point: what will make human beings, throughout the world, behave (responsibly ?) ? Not to kill, have great affection and so on, what will bring it about? Nothing has succeeded. Knowledge hasn't helped him. Right?

PJ: Isn't it because fear is his shadow?

K: We have sought security in so many things and they have all failed. And now we say there must be security somewhere. And I question if there is any ( everlasting ?) 'security' somewhere at all, even in ( the belief in an omnipotent & omniscient ?) 'God' that is a projection of one's own fears.

PJ: What is the action of this dissolution on the brain cells, on the brain itself?

K: I would use the word, "insight". I would say "insight" is (occuring in ?) the absence, total absence of the whole movement of thought as time and remembrance and thought. So there is a "direct" (time-free ?) perception. It is like I have been going north for the last ten thousand years, and my brain is accustomed to enter the north. And somebody comes along and says, "that will lead you nowhere, go east". When I (metaphorically ?) "turn round and go east" the ( perceptive behaviour of the ?) brain cells have changed. Because I have an insight that the (going) 'north' (following the direction of self-interest ?) leads nowhere.

To put it differently: the whole (self-centred activity and ?) movement of thought which is acting throughout the world now, will not solve any of our (inner) problems, except technological. If I see ( the truth of ?) that, I have stopped 'going north'. And at that moment of ending this ( stream of self-interest ?) movement that has been going on for thousands of years, there is an "insight", which brings about a (qualitative ?) mutation in the brain cells.
One sees this very clearly. But one asks, what will make (the consciosness of ?) humanity change. What will make my son, my daughter change? They hear all this and they continue in their old way. Is the ( pressure of our ?) past tradition so strong? I have thought about myself for the last million years and I still am still thinking (in terms of ?) I must fulfil myself, I must become (someone or ?) something. This is my ( subliminal ?) conditioning.
Is the ( inner pressure of our ?) past so tremendously strong? And the past is 'incarnating' all the time. Right? Is that part of our culture, to continue in our conditioning?

PJ: I would say that is part of our culture.

K: Look at it. I have been watching this very seriously, how the ( subliminal mentality of the ?) past is carrying on its own momentum. And we 'are' that. So what is the brain to do? They ( the 'science guys' ?) are saying that one part of the brain is the old, and the other part of the brain is something totally new, and that if we can "open the door" to the new there might be change. Because according to this specialist we are using only a very small part of our brain.

PJ: Obviously when there is attention the ( 'old brain' ?) fragment has ended.
But isn't it a question of that first contact with thought in the mind ?

K: I don't quite follow you.

PJ: I have a feeling, sir, that we talk about observing ( the movement of our self-centred ?) thought. It is an entirely different thing to the actual state of attention.

K: That is, thought being (or becoming ?) aware of itself ?

PJ: Yes. That one instant.

K: I understand that. But aren't we going away from the central issue ? The world is becoming more and more superficial, more and more money-minded, if I may use that word, money, power, position, self-fulfilment, identification, me, me, me. All this is being encouraged by everything around you. Now you, who have travelled, who have seen all this too, what do you make of all this business?

PJ: But those are all 'commitments' which you can't touch. You can only touch the people who are not committed.

K: And who are the people who are not committed?

PJ: I would said today that is the one sign of health: there are people who are not committed to anything. They may not know where to turn, they may not have a direction ...

K: ...but they don't belong to anything.

PJ: They don't belong to anything.

K: There are people like that, I know. But you see, they become rather vague, they become rather confused.

PJ: Yes, because they turn these (things you are talking about ?) into concepts. It is so easy to turn what you say into a ( humanistic ?) concept. And to have 'axioms' which contain what you say. But a new culture is alive because it is only living on insight.

K: I wouldn't use the word 'culture'.

PJ: Well, a human culture which perhaps will be the culture of the mind that dwells in insight ?

K: Yes.

PJ: In such a state, if I may ask, what happens to all the civilizations which the world has seen and known?

K: Gone. ( Like) the Egyptian civilization.

PJ: They may have gone but they are still contained in the (collective memory of the ?) human race. But when you wipe out...

K: Which means, Pupulji, actually, what is 'freedom'? Are we aware that (inwardly ?) we are prisoners of our own fantasies, imaginations and conclusions, ideas, we are prisoners to all that, are we aware of all that?

PJ: I think we are.

K: Pupul, if we are aware, attentive to all that, the thing is 'burnt up'.

PJ: This is, of course, because you don't admit an 'in-between' state.

K: No, that is impossible.

PJ: This is the whole problem.

K: It is like a man who is violent and trying to be non-violent, the 'in-between' state he is violent.

PJ: No, not necessarily. Isn't that also a question of this whole movement of time?

K: Time and thought and so on, which is limiting. If we would first acknowledge, or see the (truth of the ?) fact that ( the activity of our self-centred ?) thought, in any direction, is limited, in any field - then the same (self-centred ?) thought enquiring into itself will be very, very limited.

PJ: I might see that, but the attention necessary for (the truth of ?) it to remain alive in my waking day is not there.

K: No...

PJ: It is a quantum leap, the strength of that attention which...

K: You see how do you have that (timeless energy of ?) passion? How do you have a sustained movement of energy that is not dissipated by thought, by any kind of activity? I think that only comes when you understand sorrow and comes to the ending of sorrow, then to compassion and love and all that. That (quality of compassionate ?) intelligence is that energy which has no depression, none of the 'human' qualities.

PJ: You mean it neither rises nor falls?

K: No. How can it? To rise and fall, 'you' must be aware that it is arising and falling.

PJ: No, but is it possible throughout the day to hold that (quality of attention ?) ...

K: It is there. It is like a perfume that is there. But 'you' don't hold ' It'.
That's why one has to understand the whole (self-centred ?) conditioning of our consciousness. That is the real enquiry, real exploration into this (reservoir of intelligent ?) consciousness, which is the common ground of all humanity. And we never say, look, I am going to study this consciousness which 'is' me, I am going to look into it.

PJ: I can't say that one doesn't say that...

K: ...but one doesn't do it.

PJ: One does it.

K: Partially.

PJ: I won't accept that sir. One does it, one 'attends', one enquires.

K: Then what? Have you come to the end of it?

PJ: Then suddenly one finds that one has been inattentive...

K: No, I don't think that kind of inattention matters. You may be tired, your brain has enquired enough, it is enough for today. There's nothing wrong with it. But you see, I object to this question of ( dividing ?) attention and inattention.

PJ: But that is the basic question in most of our minds. Basically if you ask...

K: I would not put it that way. I would say that where there is this 'ending' of (the self-centred process of time-thought ?) totally there is a "new beginning" which has its own ( self-sustained ?) momentum. But this has nothing to do with the ( self-conscious ?) 'me'. That means one must be so completely free of the (temporal ?) 'self'. And to be free of the 'self' is one of the most difficult things because it hides under different rocks, different trees, different activities.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Jan 2017 #524
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

PARK 1ST K CONVERSATION WITH PUPUL JAYAKAR ( BROCKWOOD 1982)

UNCOVERING THE INNER SOURCE OF CREATION (experientially friendly edited)

K: What would be the question of the greatest significance that is worthwhile discussing ?

PJ: Sir, most of our lives are so futile. And unless one discovers within oneself the capacity to 'leap out' of this futility, for the mind to have the creative spring so that it can move (inteligently in ?) whatever it does. And I have been wondering for the last few months: what is the ground of the 'creative' (mind ) ?

K: I wonder what you mean by 'creative' (mind) . I mean an artist says he is creative, a poet, a thinker, or some new discovery by scientists. Would you call all that creative activity?

PJ: Perhaps.

K: But it is limited. They might not (openly ?) acknowledge it. The greatest scientist may lead a very, very mediocre life, but he may discover extraordinary things and call that creative.

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

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

PJ: A mind (whose) perception rests in the creative.

K: I think we should make it a little clearer.

PJ: You have never answered any questions on the "ground of manifestation", for instance, this 'coming into being' of anything.

K: Are you asking, what is the Source of all Life, both the manifest and not manifest?

PJ: Yes. I would like to probe, if it is possible to probe into what you have said just now, the manifest and the pre-manifest. I won't say 'unmanifest', but that instant before manifestation is.

K: Or birth is.

PJ: Knowing how a baby is born, doesn't give you the 'actuality' of birth. It is the same with everything.

K: I mean various religious people have said, "God is the origin of everything". But that doesn't (experientially ?) convey to the mind that investigates what is this Origin.

PJ: Yes...

K: Now, to delve very, very deeply into the (innermost ?) Origin of all Life, are we trying to probe into this 'something' with thought?

PJ: I understand what you are saying: we have narrowed the word 'creative' to mean, painting, writing a book, or discovering something in science, but basically the whole meaning of (the creation of ?) a tree, a human being, the earth, the sky...

K: Man has asked this question- what is the meaning of all this, and what is the origin of all this. What is the Ground from which this all this arises? That is what you are asking, isn't it?

PJ: Yes.

K: What is the source of all existence, all life, all action? Now how does one enquire into that? How do we come to investigate into something that demands an extraordinary freedom, a non-conditioned mind - if I can use that. And perhaps that very 'freedom' is ( intimately related to ?) 'love' and requires that quality of mind that is both practical, sensitive, and has this quality of great compassion.

PJ: I can't start with that (prerequisite ?) because I don't know what it is.

K: How do we come to that point and from there move?

PJ: So if you put it that way then I am stuck.

K: No, I don't say, 'it must be there'. But isn't that (quality of mind required in ) the process of enquiry?

PJ: I say this question (of Creation) arises in my mind, and I would like to move with this question into it. But if you say that the mind must be free and therefore with love and compassion , then what do I do?

K: We are saying, if you enquire with thought, that doesn't lead very far. So, how does one's mind go into something of supreme order? What is the approach of a mind that wants to enquire into something that it doesn't know, or is not aware of , something that demands a quality of deep subtlety, deep capacity of order, and so on. Where do I begin?

PJ: Obviously by becoming aware of the disorder within oneself.

K: That is, I am after all the 'manifest'. So, I enquire into myself. Take a little (quality ?) time. Where do I begin?

PJ: I begin by 'what is' around me, and 'what is' within me. There can be no other starting point.

K: The world outside, the world inside. What is the criterion which 'measures' (evaluates ?) the outer and the inner?

PJ: But is it necessary to measure?

K: If I have the 'measure ' of what is actually happening in the world outside of me, to observe all that without any bias, and to relate what is happening to what is happening inwardly, I see that it is one movement, not two separate movements.

PJ: Sir, being in the midst of life I see action at various levels, connected with things, connected with me. I also see the responses within me to action, and I move with it.

K: You 'are' it.

PJ: Yes, that's right. Now, with the interior movement it is easy to see I 'am' it; but it is much more difficult with an exterior thing to see that I am it. If you tell me that I am all (responsible for all ?) the wars which are taking place, that is very difficult for me to accept.

K: No, ( consciousness-wise) we 'are' responsible for all the wars that are taking place.

PJ: But that is a distant responsibility. I say, yes, perhaps if I take it to its ultimate I am responsible. But I can't (relate to) it to saying in the same way with which I relate to a response within me. Actually a response within me is a living response, which has much more reality.

K: Why don't you feel a total responsibility for the wars, the brutality, the terrible things that are happening in the world, why doesn't one feel totally responsible?

PJ: How is one totally responsible? By being born ?

K: No, as a (generic ?) human being with all my tradition, all my way of living, way of thinking, acting, as a nationalist, (sharing this collective mentality ?) has contributed to the present state of the world.

PJ: Sir, you are making it (sound ?) so difficult. Suppose a man commits a sadistic murder. I can't say that I am responsible for that sadistic murder. So when you take it to that extent it is impossible for me to feel the reality of it.

K: Let's leave that for the moment.

PJ: It is better to leave that. But let's probe into the (Creative ?) Ground of Existence which is the 'is'-ness of life. So ( we could figure out that ?) the only way to probe is to "move into oneself", whatever that means.

K: All right. Let's take for the moment that word,' going into the whole complex of oneself ' ( holistically ?) not as an 'observer' from the outside. I 'am' all that.

PJ: Let me uncover what I am. And in uncovering what I am, I comprehend that one is uncovering the whole existence of man. In this journey of uncovering, I mean the superficial things are relatively easy, so we won't go into that. What we started out with was: what was the origin, the ground of all life? Then to enquire into that you have to enquire into oneself, because you are the expression of all that. You 'are' (the manifested ?) life. Now the origin of that we are trying to discuss. Right?

PJ: Yes, the origin. The state from which that arises.

K: I can only do that by understanding myself. Myself being so terribly complex, how do I approach - I am just now asking - how do I approach a problem that is complex, that is not to be easily diagnosed, it is like a living, complex, messy, disordered entity.
I said the world is in disorder. I observe it. And I see I am also in disorder. I begin with that. I am in disorder. Human beings have lived and created such disorder in themselves, and therefore outwardly. Now how do I comprehend, be aware of the origin of disorder? You follow what I am saying? If I can begin to understand the origin of disorder I can move more and more deeply into something which is orderly.

PJ: Isn't it by being as simple as possible about it. I have certain instruments of enquiry. I have my eyes, my ears, my senses.

K: Yes, yes. But you don't enquire with your ears, or with your eyes.

PJ: Don't you? Don't you enquire with your eyes and your ears?

K: A little bit. But I can't see the complexity of myself with my ( physical) eyes. I must be aware sensitively, without any choice into this conditioning.

PJ: Yes, but is there not a seeing of anger, the action of anger, and listening to a reaction of anger?

K: Do you listen to it with your ears, or do you observe anger?

PJ: How do you 'observe' anger?

K: By when you are angry, to look at the cause and effect of anger.

PJ: You see the nature of the mind which has been in a state of anger. But you see the nature of the mind - the word you use is 'you see the nature of the mind'.
K: All right.
PJ: It is very important, Krishnaji.
K: I understand what you are saying, that the very act of listening, the act of feeling, inwardly, is it that you see it with your eyes, hear with sensory ears?
PJ: You see if you put it that way we will never get to the point because the sensory ear is so used to listening out that it can never comprehend what is, if you take that and try and push it in, you will never get to it.
K: But would it help if we talked about perception?
PJ: No, sir. I say it would help if you talked about seeing, listening with the eye and ear, because there is a seeing, listening, with the eye.
K: I hear you making that statement. From that hearing I have understood the words and see the meaning of what you are seeing. Right?
PJ: Yes.
K: The verbal communication has taken place. But the deeper significance...
PJ: But that is also taking place. While I am listening to you and seeing you I am also listening and seeing my own mind, the ground of the mind.
K: No.
PJ: Then what is taking place?
K: Listening.
PJ: There is listening. I am not saying, who is listening.
K: No, listening.
PJ: There is listening.
K: Just a minute, Pupulji, we must be clear on this point. There is - we must be go into a little more carefully.
PJ: No, sir, but in an act where you are totally attentive, take an act where you are totally attentive, what is the state of that act of being totally attentive?
K: What is the state of action that is born out of complete attention? I think it is clear. I will answer it. First to answer that question we must understand what we mean by complete action, attention. Attention. It's not concentration.
PJ: No, sir.
K: No, no, I want to be clear on this.
PJ: Of course it is not.
K: So attention means there is no centre from which you are attending.
PJ: No, of course not.
K: No, don't say, "Of course not", see what is implied in it.
PJ: You see, sir, I would like to ask you one thing: are we still dusting the periphery?
K: No.
PJ: If you are not dusting the peripheral...
K: ...argument.
PJ: ...then when you ask that question unless I can understand what attention is I can't even take the first step.
K: No, so I just want to be clear: attention means - what does it mean - I attend completely.
PJ: To see, to attend completely is for the 'I' not to be there.

K: That is the real thing. When there is attention there is no 'I'. It isn't, "I" am attending. There is only that state of mind which is wholly attentive.
The whole (psychosomatic ?) body, the whole...

PJ: ...being is awakened, if I may say so.

K: Yes.

PJ: And if you are in that state where the being is awake then you can listen, observe. Now, can we proceed from there?

K: In enquiring about what I am (inwardly ) , if my enquiry is correct, accurate, the 'ground', the beginning of all life may be may be uncovered.

PJ: If you are starting from there then I will say the first step you will find that the 'I' is there. There is the ( subliminal division between ?) 'observer' and the 'observed'.

K: Oh, of course. I know there is ( an inbuilt tendency to split ?) the observer and the observed. But is that so?

PJ: Obviously, sir, when I first started enquiring I started from the (safe platform of the ?) 'observer'.

K: Yes, I start with the 'observer'. But is there a (real ?) observer different from the observed? Who is this 'observer' ? Go slowly into that. Because if there is an understanding of the 'observer', then perhaps the (observing) mind may see the falseness of this division between the observer and the observed.

PJ: Who will see it?

K: The perception of what is true (or false about it ?) .

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

K: Of division, yes. Yes, that's is what I have said a thousand times.

PJ: But it is not one (final) act, that I end the process of division. You might say it happened once and you have seen everything. But it doesn't happen that way.

K: No. It is generally (understood) that way. But what are you trying to say?

PJ: What I am saying is, (an authentic inner ?) discipline is to have that enquiry alive within one.

K: And that does not need training.

PJ: No but I say that I cannot expect to have an understanding of this unless the mind is awake to this (inner duality ?) and is diligent about being awake to this.

K: Yes. All right.

PJ: You can't deny that.

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.

PJ: It has to observe, and rest in observation, find a new home for itself in observation.

K: Pupul we are wandering off again (in technicalities ?) . How do I enquire into myself except through ( being aware of ?) my reactions - the way I think, the way I act, the way I respond to the environment, my relationship to another.

PJ: If I am starting from there I find that as I first observe myself - these responses, the mental reactions, are all rapid, confused, continuous...

K: I know, contradictory...

PJ: ...contradictory, but in the very observing some ( free inner) space comes into this.

K: Some space, some ( inner) order.

PJ: This is just the beginning.

K: I know, I know. I would like to ask a question. Is it really necessary to go through all this? To watch my reactions, to watch my responses, to observe diligently my relationship with another, intimate or not? Must I go through all this? Or...

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

K: You may have gone through it because you have accepted that traditional pattern. We have all done that: the thinkers, the sannyasis, the monks and...

PJ: ...and Krishnamurti ?

K: I am not sure. I want to discuss this point very seriously.

PJ: Or you may have in the last thirty years 'jumped' .

K: Wait a minute, let's see it for a moment. We have accepted this pattern of self-examination, analysis and investigating these reactions, paying attention to them, and watching, and so on. There is something in it which rings a false note. At least to me.

PJ: There has to be (some free inner ?) space in order to even 'listen' (to these things) . How does that 'space' arise?

K: Pupul, you have suffered and you say, "I must find out"...

PJ: So you're asking , is it necessary to go through all this (process of awakening by suffering ?) ?

K: I am asking that. I think it may not be.

PJ: Then, show me how else it can happen ?

K: I will show it to you in a minute. If as long as you accept this analytical process of self-enquiry, watching diligently your reactions and all that, we use one word for that, this "analytical self-introspective", this constant watching, watching, watching.

PJ: It is not "analytical"...

K: All right, constantly watching, constantly enquiring - you follow? I feel, as I see it, that man has done that for thousands of years .

PJ: He has not, sir. He has done something quite different.

K: What has he done?

PJ: He has looked at his mind and tried to suppress.

K: That's part of the pattern: suppress, escape, substitute, transcend, that's all within that framework.

PJ: It is not the same thing as to observe without trying to do anything about the observation.

K: I am asking, Pupul, must I go through all this? Is it really necessary, is it imperative, is it essential that I must go through this?

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

K: No, I won't put it that way. I am saying that humanity has gone through this process, some ( more) diligently, some sacrificing everything and so on. This has been then (accepted 'spiritual' ?) pattern of our existence. Some have done it (all their adult life) enquired, analysed, searched, introspective examination, diligently watching every action and so on, at the end they may be just a "dead" entity, with some illusory concept.

PJ: Or may not ?

K: May not be, but very few, very, very few have got out of it (of this time-warp ?).

PJ: But when you say, is it not necessary, then you have to...

K: I know, then show me the other way. I'll show it to you. But first 'step out' of this ( temporal mentality ?). I'll show it to you.

PJ: Obviously, if I can 'step out of it', the "other" it is already there.

K: Of course. 'Step out'. Don't take time to go through all this.

PJ: But then, what is meant by 'step out of it'?

K: I'll tell you what I mean. I realise very clearly, perceive, that this whole process of introspective observation, diligence and so on, man has tried it for a million years, in different ways. And somehow his mind is not clear at the end of it, he has got some fixations, he has got some ideas and so on. Somehow the quality of this movement is very, very shallow. Now if you listen to this and see the truth that it 'is' shallow, your disordered mind is now quiet, ( earnestly ?) listening to find out (what else it can do) . Right? If you see the truth of that ( culturally encouraged ?) 'superficiality' you are out of it. It's like putting away something utterly meaningless (since accepting it I constantly ?) struggle between these two: being diligent and negligent. And I see mankind has done this.

PJ: But how do you think such a mind can ( access ?) that state of 'listening' ?

K: That is very simple (for a seriously motivated person ?) .

PJ: Is it?

K: Yes. I say "just listen to a story that I am telling you", and (if ?) you "are" interested, our mind is quiet, you are eager to see what the story is and so on.

PJ: I am sorry, sir, it doesn't happen that way...

K: Just a minute. I ask you, Pupulji, to listen to what I am saying.

PJ: I have listened.

K: Wait a minute. I am going to explain what I mean by 'listening'. Not only with the sensory ear, but with the ( mind's ?) 'ear' that has no movement, that is really listening, that is not translating, that is not comparing- just (passively ?) listening. If I am listening to what you say so completely, then if you are so listening, and this man comes along and says, "Don't go through all this diligent process, it is false, superficial". If you "hear the truth of it", what takes place? What actually takes place when you see something really true?
Now, this 'diligent process' (of self-awareness, self-introspection?) , is time consuming - right? ( But in the context of modern existence ?) I have not time. My life is so short. I have got so many ( materially related ?) problems, and you are adding another - be "diligent" (pay attention inwardly ?) . And I say, please I am worn out with problems, and you have introduced to me another problem. And I say (thanks, but...'no thanks' ?)
Now, I know you have got many (personal ?) problems which are all interrelated (by their common thread of self-interest ?) . So, forget that for the moment and 'listen' to it. That's all.

PJ: Sir, I do listen to music in that way...

K: Ah, listening to music is different (from listening to an insightful truth ?) .

PJ: If I listen to music in that way (non-personal) it should change me totally. It does not.

K: Of course not.

PJ: So, you are talking of a mind which is already "mature", listening to a statement like that.

K: Pupul, I am not sure we have not made our minds so immature that we are incapable of 'listening' to (the truth or falseness of ?) anything.

PJ: But then, Krishnaji, you start by making these things sound 'impossible'.

K: Of course! To "see the truth" (for a mind constantly functioning in the field of thought & time ?) is something 'impossible'...

PJ: But that kind of ( Mind ?) energy which is needed to deal with an 'impossible' thing ?

K: That's what it is. This has been (in the field of the ?) 'possible', this diligent affair. I say that is so 'trivial'.

PJ: Then, I'll ask you: what is the nature of a mind that can deal with an impossible statement like that? What is (required ) ?

K: That which is utterly impossible is 'non-existent' (is still in the field of the non-manifested ?) . ( Living in the field of the 'manifested' ?) we are (generally) thinking that everything is possible (given the practical means and the time ?) .

PJ: See (the paradox ?) you are getting to, sir ? To listen with a 'non-existent' (quality of ?) mind !

K: Look, Pupulji, this 'diligent' process has really led nowhere. It has led to various activities which may be beneficial and so on, but the enquiry into the very Source of everything is not (possible ) through this way, obviously.

PJ: That point I would accept.

K: That's all. So, if you accept that is not (accessible ?) through diligent awareness, what has happened to ( the quality of ? ) your mind? You have then put all this ( heavy burden of diligent endeavour ?) aside.

PJ: Yes...

K: Now, what is then the quality of your mind which has been caught in the process of diligent enquiry, this time consuming diligence, when it sees that it has no deep fundamental value in comprehending , or come upon the Origin? This ('total insight' ?) approach may (require ?) no 'time' at all.

PJ: But the ( psychological ?) danger in what you are saying is, that I will not be concerned with 'sweeping the (inner ?) room'.
K: No, no. That very (fundamental ?) enquiry demands that the mind and the heart, my whole existence is orderly.

PJ: You start with the 'impossible' (from the ' far side' ?) .

K: Of course I start with the 'impossible', Pupulji, otherwise what is 'possible' - you have done all the possible.

PJ: No, not (really ?) sir.

K: You ( as a 'manifestation' of the consciousness of man) have done everything that is possible. One has fasted, sacrificed, done everything to find the Origin of things ( God ?) . And that 'possibility' has led to certain social benefits and so on, and also it has led (inwardly) to (a critical accumulation of ?) a great deal of misery of mankind. So if you ( K) tell me that this diligent process is time consuming and therefore time-binding, and doing this you are just 'scratching the surface' - and if I actually see that this is false, - you have already 'stepped out' from the 'ordinary' (stream of our collective consciousness ?) into something extraordinary.
But we are not ( ready, able and ?) willing to do that. We want to go through all this (time warping ?) . We treat it like learning a language. Learning a language is a disciplinary action, diligent attention and so on and so on. We carry the same mentality into the 'other'. That's what I object to.

PJ: And if I put it aside ?

K: Which means what? The (time-binding ?) movement of diligence has stopped. If that is (seen as ?) false it has gone. So what has happened to my mind? Now it says, "By Jove, I see this to be utterly superficial". And what is that state of mind? It is a totally new mind. And such a mind is necessary to uncover the Origin.
Now such a mind, first of all, such a mind has no bondage to time, which is (involved in the desire ?) to become something, is to clarify, to understand, to go beyond. So this mind is not 'becoming' anything. Would you go as far as that?

PJ: You see, the moment this movement of becoming ends...

K: I am asking you, would you go so far as to see the fact that such a mind cannot have any kind of (psychological) dependence, attachment and so on?

PJ: Yes, that I see, because as this movement of becoming ends, all this which you have talked about 'is' (taking place) .

K: Which is ( ending) the perpetuation of the self in a different form, in a different network of words. You see if you tell me this, and I start out to uncover the Source - and to me that is a passion, I want to find out, I am not just playing a game, and to me it is utterly necessary - if when that uncovering of the origin of all life, when there is that uncovering my life, my actions, everything is different. But following the diligent process, my god, I will die at the end of it - it has a time consuming factor which is (inwardly) so destructive. Time is necessary to learn to technique but this is not a 'technique' to be learnt.

PJ: Sir, you have really a mind of great antiquity. 'Antique' in the sense of containing the whole of human...

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

PJ: No one else can make that kind of statement, Krishnaji.

K: One must make it, otherwise where are you when you see all this destruction, brutality, wars, killing which has never stopped. A man who loved - loved - wouldn't be British, or Argentine or Israel, or Arab, or something, he couldn't kill another.
So (to wrap it up ?) I see this process has been going on for thousands and thousands of years, everybody trying to become something. And all the diligent workers are helping man to become something. Illumination, enlightenment, is to achieve enlightenment. It is absurd!

PJ: You see, sir, with you the whole movement of the 'dormant' has ended.

K: That is (the self-centred ?) diligence is ended. Becoming has ended.

PJ: The whole thing which is (generally) 'dormant'.
K: Pupulji, don't let's make this into "it is only for the few" - only the elite can have this kind of mind. I refuse to accept that (since) that goes back into the old division of the 'elite' and the 'non-elite'. Any person who gives attention, who wants to hear, who really says, "I must find the Source of Life", and is really passionate about it, he will 'listen' - it is 'in the air'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Jan 2017 #525
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

 2ND K CONVERSATION WITH PUPUL JAYAKAR 1982

THE NATURE OF A HOLISTIC "REBIRTH" IN THE HUMAN MIND

PJ: Sir, I was wondering whether one could discuss the wonder and nature of ' a (re-)birth in a human mind that is incapable of (insightful?) perception, can it renew itself ? I think that is also a problem with many of us. As one grows older one finds that the quickness of the mind, the capacity to perceive and take in deeply, dims.

K: Are you asking: is it possible to keep the mind very young, and yet 'ancient'?

PJ: Yes. I also would like to go into the nature of what is meant by the word "ancient". Obviously that ancient quality is unrelated to time.

K: Yes, let's go into it. After all the human brain, as far as one understands, has its own (self-) protective nature, protective chemical reaction when there is a shock, when there is a pain and so on. Our brain is very, very old. It has evolved through time, through tremendous experiences, acquired a great deal of knowledge, both the outward knowledge as well as inward knowledge, and so it is really very, very ancient. And as far as I can see it is not (just ?) a 'personal' brain, it is not my brain and your brain. It can't be.

PJ: But obviously your brain and my brain have a different quality of the ancient in them.

K: Don't let's talk of 'mine' or 'yours' for the moment. I am just exploring the beginning, laying a few bricks. If that is granted, that ( as a species ?) we are very old, very ancient, and that our brains are not 'individualistic' brains - we may think it is 'my' brain, but it can't have evolved through time as a particular brain.

Now are we saying such an ancient brain which has been so (heavily) conditioned, is becoming very, very coarse, superficial, artificial and vulgar. You follow what I mean?

PJ: This is the result of ( its survivalistic ?) evolution in time. Now the ( spiritual ?) search which has gone on for centuries has been whether it is possible to free this of that, because with time also is inbuilt with this aging quality. So when you say it is necessary to have an ancient mind, are you talking of brain which has also inbuilt in it...

K: ...the quality of its own deterioration ? Of course.

PJ: Is that necessarily so ?

K: It is, because ( the residues of its survivalistic ?) experience and knowledge has limited it, has 'conditioned' (made it dependent of the existing material conditions ?) it, has narrowed it down. Right? The more we acquire knowledge (function in the field of the known ?) , the more is the limitation of itself.

PJ: But the 'ancient mind' you are talking about, are you talking about that which it has experienced through time?

K: We will go into that in a moment. First let us see how 'ancient' it is in the normal sense of that word. And how it has in its own million years of experience has limited itself. Therefore there is the quality of deterioration. 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 it still more limited, more in conflict. Because the very limitation brings its own conflict.

PJ: Sir, there is a mind which because the sense of these millions years, gives to it a 'density' and weight.

K: Yes, yes, quite.

PJ: Then there is a mind which is brittle, easily corroded.

K: Which are you talking about - the mind and the brain?

PJ: I am talking about the brain.

K: The brain, don't use the word 'mind'.

PJ: All right, I'll use the word brain. The brain has a certain weight to it, and a density to it, which...

K: Yes, a coarseness , a heaviness, quite.

PJ: A heaviness to it. Now is that what you mean by the 'ancient'?

K: Not quite. I just want to go into it a little bit slowly. If we admit that the brain, by its own evolution, has conditioned itself, and therefore it has the inherent quality of its own destruction, can this deteriorating quality can ever be stopped, can the brain cells renew themselves in spite of its conditioning? Do you follow what I am saying? Whether that brain can renew itself so as to achieve its "originality" .

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

K: No. Of course not.

PJ: So what exactly do you mean by 'originality of the brain cells'?

K: Unique, special ?

PJ: No, it has a quality of 'for the first time'.

K: A pristine quality. Original means that. Untouched, uncontaminated by ( its self-centred) knowledge. And that's the ( 1000$ ?) question - can such a brain which has been conditioned for a million, or two million years, wipe away its (psychological ?) conditioning and reach that quality of pristine freshness of the brain?

PJ: But (the brain scientists ?) would say that the brain cells are dying all the time. Therefore the number of brain cells available (is shrinking ?)

K: And also they are renewing itself. Apparently certain cells die and certain cells are 'reborn' (recycled?) . It is not dying all the time so that the brain goes to pieces, dies.

PJ: No, but with aging is the renewal does not keep pace...

K: Yes, that's it. That's the whole point really, isn't it, is it possible for a brain that has been 'conditioned' (psychologically 'formatted & programmed' ?) , and therefore, as you put it, the built in quality of its own deterioration, can that quality stop, end, disappear?

PJ: Yes...?

K: That is, can the brain keep "young", in the sense fresh, alive, has a quality of its 'originality'.

PJ: And how would you proceed for that ?

K: .... I think we have to go into the question, what is "consciousness" -that part of our whole being, which is our 'consciousness'. Right? Not only being conscious of things, outwardly and inwardly, but the whole psychological "content" of our consciousness. Because without the content there is no (self- centred ?) consciousness as we know it. So can this ( active ?) content, which makes up the (self-centred ?) consciousness, can that content end by itself so that there is a totally different dimension to our consciousness? You follow? Because the brain has the quality of "consciousness". Right? And the "content" is ( generating ) the consciousness. This ( active or dormant ?) 'content' is pleasure, sensations, reactions, faith, agony, suffering, affection, and so on, the whole of that is ( generating the self-) consciousness. And as long as this psychological content exists, because of its conflicts, its confusion , the human brain must wear itself out. And that's why the brain becomes old - in the sense old, aging, dies. There is no 'freshness' (no inner renewal ?) to it.

PJ: Isn't this content of consciousness identically with the (memory stored in the ?) brain cells?

K: Yes, of course.

PJ: Then does it mean that the physical and psychological (memory) are the same thing really then?
K: Yes. And psychological, that's right. The physical reactions and the psychological reactions, they are both 'reactions' (mental responses of memory ?) .

PJ: Because the brain is physical. The content of consciousness is psychological.

K: Which is also a process of the physical. So it is 'psychological' as well as the 'physical', with all their reactions bring about the thought of pain, the thought of agony, the thought of pleasure, the thought of self-achievement, ambition and so on and so on, and belief, faith, is all this.

PJ: It creates disturbance. But the nature of the brain cells is to continue ?

K: Yes. They carry on. The 'tradition' carries on.

PJ: It is inbuilt, that also is inbuilt.

K: Of course. And also for its own protection, the cells with their reactions, they produce their own 'chemicals' to protect itself.

PJ: So (the sense of its own continuity in ?) 'time' is inbuilt ?

K: Of course, after all that is the product of ( our evolution in ?) time.

PJ: So, 'time' is inbuilt in the brain cells...

K: The question really is whether all this consciousness with its (time-binding ?) content can end, in the sense that its inner conflicts can totally end.

PJ: But with conflicts totally ending, will ( the psychological component of ?) time end?

K: Yes. After all that is what the real thoughtful people have enquired whether 'time' has a stop. Right? They have all asked this question.

PJ: So, you are talking of 'time' now as the (time-binding quality generated by the ?) psychological conflict ?

K: Conflict, yes. So what is it that we are trying to find out, or rather investigate together?

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

K: Let's be clear what you mean by 'birth'. A new, a fresh element enter into it ?

PJ: But a being (inwardly re-)born and with the freshness of birth, and purity of ( a new) birth.

K: No, wait a minute, careful. When a baby is born his brain already has the quality of its father, mother, and also the tradition, ( and his growing up ?) is gradually bringing all that out.

PJ: But 'birth' also has that quality of the new. It was not (manifested ?) , and now it is.

K: Ah, you are using 'birth' in the sense of the old (stream of consciousness ?) being (re-) born. The ancient brain, which is neither yours nor mine, the universal ( the generic human ?) brain, is reborn in a baby.

PJ: It is reborn in a baby.

K: And as the baby matures, the brain is the common (the generic human ?) brain.

PJ: Yes, but what is 'reborn' in a mind which is free (of time ?) ? Is it the ancient reborn?

K: Let's be clear. First, is it possible to be free of this ( conflictual ?) conditioning of the brain, which has brought about its own decay, and whether that consciousness can totally end all its ( observer-observed ?) conflicts. Then out of that comes the "new birth". But as long as one's brain, that is one's ( self-centred ?) consciousness, is in conflict, no new element can enter into it. That's obvious, as long as I am fighting, fighting, struggling to become something (else that what I am ?) .

PJ: I think one sees that.

K: All right. Now if one actually 'inwardly sees' it, then the question arises whether it is possible to end it - end, I mean end suffering, end fear.

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, you can end it without any renewal happening .

K: Ah, then we mean two different things by the word 'ending'.

PJ: Ending what?
K: Ending that which is. Which is (the continuity of ?) my (self-centred ?) consciousness - all the ( self-centred ?) thoughts that I have had, all the (psycho-) complexities that have been accumulated through time, the ending of that. Now, either you 'end it' by deliberate act of will (power ?) , or deliberate purpose, by a ( imposing a ) superior goal.

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, when actually this 'ending' happens, which is the coming to a stop, the real standing still of the (self-conscious ?) mind, it happens without any reason. It is not due to any single thing. So is it that you throw yourself to chance?

K: No, no. Let's be clear first, Pupulji, does this ending create its own opposite? I end 'this' in order to get 'that'.

PJ: No, I am not talking of that 'ending'.

K: So I mean by ending, the total perception of 'that which is', total perception of the whole of that (self-centred ?) consciousness, an "insight" that has no motive, no remembrance - it is an immediate perception, and in the ending of it is there is ( a new birth of ?) something beyond, which is not touched by (the man-made ?) thought. That is what I mean by "ending".

PJ: Is it that the totality of the 'one million years mind' sees itself?

K: Yes, that's right. That's the real problem. Pupul, let's make it a little more simple, or a little more (holistically clear?) definite. Do we see the point that our (existing) consciousness has been cultivated through time?

PJ: Yes, that's easy.

K: And any (personal) reaction towards the ending of that is furthering another series of reactions: if I ( do strongly ?) desire to end it, then that very desire creates ( the image of ?) another object to be gained (through that wilful action ?) . So is there a possibility of perceiving without the (motivating ?) movement of the 'future'? You understand what I am saying? The ending has no future, only ending. But if the brain says, I cannot end my attachments to everything (I have) because I need (to project a physical ) 'future' ( just in order ?) to survive ( decently ?) .

PJ: Yes, because inbuilt in the human brain is the ( physical continuity into the ?) future.

K: Yes, of course. So is there an (intelligent ?) ending of the psychological demands, conflicts, ending without the ( subliminal interference of ?) thought : "what will happen (to me ?) if I end"?
Because, look, ( the general mentality is that ?) I can give up something 'if' you will guarantee me (to get) something else. I will give up my suffering if you will guarantee me that I will be (forever ?) happy after ending it. Or there is some extraordinary (opportunity or personal ?) reward awaiting me. Because my whole brain is constructed (around this principle of ?) reward and punishment. Punishment is the ending, and the reward is the gaining. Now as long as these two ( subliminally active ?) elements exist in the brain, the 'future' continuation of (what I am in ?) the present will go on, modified and so on. Right? So can these two (time-binding ?) principles - reward and punishment, end? When ( the ongoing) suffering ends, the brain is not (busy ?) 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. But you see, Pupulji, this is very important to understand that the brain is (subliminally ?) seeking (its own temporal ?) security, it must have security. That's why (the carrying on of our ?) tradition, remembrances (in short: ) the 'past', is given such extraordinary significance. It needs a sense of security - physically in food, clothes and shelter. And psychological security in the faith in God, faith in some ideal of a better society, all these are contributory causes which make the brain say, I must have deep security otherwise I can't function. Right? Now, so physically there is no such security (forever) because it knows it is going to die. And psychologically it has no actual security either. Am I going too fast?

PJ: No, but with all this I still say that there is one central demand: to have a brain which gives the flavour of a new existence.

K: Wait, wait, who demands it? Not the vast majority of people. They say, please keep things as they are.

PJ: But we are not talking here about the vast majority. I am discussing with you, or 'X' is discussing with you. And the experiential difficulty is basically that, (the human brain has ?) many ways of getting security.

K: I question whether there is security in the (permanent ?) sense we want 'security'.

PJ: So the brain will never understand (the necessity of ending anything ?) because inbuilt in its very nature...

K: That's why I am saying (the insight based ?) 'perception' is important.

PJ: Perception of what?

K: Perception of what actually is (going on ?) , first. Both physically, outwardly, and inwardly. What is going on around me and psychologically, inwardly, what is happening. That is 'what is'.

PJ: Yes.

K: Now, the question is: can 'what is' be transformed? Right? Which is my ( dynamic self- ?) consciousness, which is part of the brain.

PJ: But in the emptying of that consciousness, an emptying of that consciousness...

K: By asking that question, is that possible? Is it possible to empty, or to wipe away the whole of the past? The past is the time, the whole of my past, the whole of the content of my consciousness is the past, which may project the future, but it still has it roots in the past. Right? Now is it possible to empty that ? Really this is a tremendous (experiential ?) question, not just an ideological or intellectual question. Is it psychologically possible not to have the ( subliminal ?) burden of a thousand yesterdays? The ending of that is the beginning of the "new", is the new.

PJ: Is the problem in the( subliminal ?) burden, or in the (memory of the ?) 'thousand yesterdays'?

K: The thousand yesterdays 'is' the burden. You can't separate the two.

PJ: No, no...

K: How do you separate the two?

PJ: Because the memory of the thousands of yesterdays is a fact. The 'burden' is when I have given a special significance to many of these experiences which I have had, but the thousand yesterdays are...

K: Just a minute. Would there be a (residual memory of those ?) thousands yesterdays if there was no (personal ?) remembrance of those thousand years of sorrow, or whatever it is, how can I separate them ?

PJ: Yes you can, sir. You can separate a thousand yesterdays from the burden of the thousand yesterdays.

K: Show me how.

PJ: Let us consider one's own life. You can (mentally) separate the thousand yesterdays of one's own life from the pain, sorrow, burdens, all that which is the burden of the thousand yesterdays.

K: Yes.

PJ: So you can cut away the pain and the sorrow.

K: Can you?

PJ: Why not?
K: What do you mean 'cut away'?

PJ: Perceive. You can divide it.

K: I can't cut it away. This whole brain, and all the material processes of the organism is part of it.

PJ: Then what do I do with the ancient mind? Sir, one has understood what one has to do, with the burden of the superficial yesterdays.

K: Do you know what that means? Have I really wiped, or ended a thousand yesterdays, with all its superficialities, its pettiness, its narrowness, its brutalities, cruelty, and ambition and so on, which are all superficial, can I wipe all that away, can that all end? I can say, I can cut away - but which is the knife, which is the entity that is cutting it? It is part of that.

PJ: But when I say I am cutting away, I am cutting away the whole burden.

K: Now wait a minute, Pupulji, I understand. Don't say "I" am cutting away.

PJ: Let's cut, remove the 'I'.

K: You see I do object to 'cutting (it) away' - when you cut something there are two parts (the 'entity who cuts' and the 'stuff to be removed' ?) .

PJ: Yes, but you see, this is where a lot of confusion takes place.

K: Verbal confusion takes place, semantic.

PJ: You cannot cut away the (psychological debris of ?) sixty six years - I am sixty six- But you were using the word, the ( action of ?) seeing 'what is'.

K: The ending of 'what is', that is totally different.

PJ: Why do you want to draw a distinction between the ending of 'what is' and cutting away?

K: In 'ending' there is no continuation of something that has been. I am asking: is it possible to completely end the whole (residual?) content of my consciousness, of human consciousness which has grown through millenia ? Because that ( subliminally active ?) 'content' is ( generating) all this (global ) confusion, vulgarity, coarseness, pettiness, triviality of a 'stupid' (skin-deep existence ?) life.

PJ: But (in the same human consciousness there ?) is also goodness.

K: Oh yes. But goodness is not the (opposite ?) outcome of that which is not good. The 'ending' of that which is not good is goodness. So, is it possible to end all this ( self-sustained inner ?) conflict?

PJ: There is an ending to conflict.

K: Or a 'forgetfulness' of that which has caused conflict, or really end it.

PJ: Do you mean to say that the very fact of the ending of ( our inner ?) conflict is ( the necessary condition for ?) the birth of the new?

K: Yes. If one understand the deeper implications of conflict, (beyond) the superficiality of not belonging to this country, or to that country, or that religion, or that race. Those are all very superficial (negations of the causes of our inner conflict) . I am talking of the deeply embedded things.

PJ: You are (holistically ?) talking of 'conflict' as the sense of (one's self-) separateness ?

K: That is the real thing. ( The instinctive tendency for self- ?) isolation, which inevitably breeds conflict. Is that possible? And what does it mean practically ? There is no conflict(ual attitude ?) . Problems may arise but those problems are dealt with immediately and 'ended'. ( Any unsolved personal ?) problem means ( the perpetuation of that inner ?) conflict.

PJ: Why should problems arise?

K: ( Life challenges you with ) something you have to face. We 'resolve' the problem (fragmentarily ?) intellectually, or physically and so on and so on, which is still creating further problems. I am saying there is no problem. ( For me ) physically or psychologically there is no problem; if I can't live (quietly ?) at Brockwood for a few months, all right, I won't live at Brockwood, if nobody feeds me, all right - you follow. There is no (giving continuity to all these 'personal' ?) problems.

PJ: You mean to say, sir, ( this ending of personal conflicts is the basic requirement ?) for the "birth of the new" ?

K: That's it, you are getting it. And therefore the birth of the new is the (uncovering ?) of the most ancient (original quality ?) .

PJ: Can we go into that? Would you say a little more about it?

K: After all that is the Ground beyond which there is no other ground. That is the Origin beyond which there is no other origin.
You see, Pupulji, this is really a question whether the brain can ever be free from its own (temporal ?) bondage. After all the ending (of one's attachment to ?) something (or other) is not total freedom. I can end, say for example, my (psychological ?) hurts, I can end it very simply. But the (all-purpose 'self-) images' that one has created about oneself, those ( identitary ?) images get hurt, and the 'maker of the images' (self-protective inherited instinct ?) is the problem.
So (in a nutshell:) it leads (to the holistic opportunity of ?) living a life without ( getting identified with ?) a single (psychologically-protective ?) 'image', and therefore there is no hurt and no fear, and if there is no fear ( of further hurts ?) therefore is no ( need to constantly optimise your inner sense of psychological ?) safety through comfort ( entertainment ) and all the rest of it.
Would you say this 'ancient mind' is ( connected to ?) the origin of all life? It must be ancient of ancient, beyond all thought of old or new. That is the (spiritual ?) 'origin' of all life. Is it possible for this ( integrated ?) 'mind' - which includes the brain - to reach that Ground (of Creation) which is totally original, new, uncontaminated ? Meditation has been one of the means to reach it. Silencing the mind has been the way that one hopes will help, will bring about that coming to it. But you see we are all (struggling and ?) making efforts to come to it. What I am saying is that it requires no effort. The very word 'effort' means conflict. You see that (dimension of Creation ?) which has no conflict cannot be approached through conflict. Of course not.

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

K: Impossible. How can there be? If I approach it through various (specialised systems) which the Hindus have discovered, Karma Yoga and all the rest of it, it is just partial. 'You' can't approach it .

PJ: Then what can 'you' do, supposing you are an ordinary human being ?

K: First of all, (inwardly ?) 'you' can't do anything . You can only do physical activities. Psychologically 'you' (the self-centred 'entity' ?) cannot do anything.

PJ: What do you mean by physical activities?

K: Creating a garden, building houses, technological (stuff) .

PJ: But our physical ( existence) is going on.

K: It is going on.

PJ: So what does one do?

K: If there are no (more) 'psychological' fears there will be no division of countries and so on and so on. There would be no division. You follow?

PJ: Yes, but the fact is that there is 'psychological' fear.

K: That's just it. Therefore a brain which is living in psychological isolation, which means conflict, can never possibly come to that (inner ?) Ground which is the origin of all life. Obviously not. How can my petty little self(-consciousness ?) come to It?

PJ: Sir, the whole of human life is (looking still) more futile if after doing everything you haven't taken the first step. Then where are you?

K: What is the first step? Just a minute, go into it, what is the first step?

PJ: I would say the first step is seeing (the truth of ?) whatever is.

K: Seeing the 'what is'. But how do you approach it (non-personally ?) ? On that depends seeing the totality of 'what is', or only you see the partiality of 'what is'. If you see the totality of 'what is', finished.

PJ: It doesn't just work like that.

K: Of course not. Because our (self-centred ?) minds, our thoughts are fragmented, therefore I will approach 'what is' with my fragmented (specialised ?) mind which has broken (itself ) up.

PJ: But with time the (emphasis on the ?) 'fragmented' gets less. And it is possible to listen to you, for the mind to be still, not to make any movements, not to make any effort, but ( you seem to be saying ?) that this is still not the 'first step' ?

K: No. If I perceive ( the inner movement of ?) 'what is' partially (too personally ?) that leads to further complications. Right? Partial perception creates partial problems. Right?
Now is it possible to 'see' the whole (dynamic ?) complex of 'what is'?
That means that I have to (become acutely aware ?) if I lead a fragmented life, a life of ( self-centred specialised ?) fragmentation. That is where I would begin. Because if I approach my life, which is my consciousness, which is the way of thought, feeling, actions and all that, if I approach it 'fragmentarily' ( as a standardised specialist ?) then I am lost. That's what is happening in the world. They are totally lost. Those people who govern us, those people who tell us what is right or wrong, and all the rest of it.
So ( for homework: ) Is it possible to look at our life as a whole without ( the mentality of self-) fragmentation?

PJ: Why doesn't the (traditional ?) mind see this?

K: It can't, it won't. How can (it comprehend the ?) total, complete order?

PJ: But you said that ancient...

K: Just a minute, the Original Ground is the most ancient.

PJ: (But wasn't ?) That (already ?) there.

K: No, no...

PJ: What do you mean, 'no'?

K: ( "God is always there") is a (very comforting ?) idea, which all (religious) people have maintained. That is just an idea, a projection of our own desire to be happy, to be - all the rest of it.But (experientially-wise ?) can a human being live a life in which there is no fragmentary (no self-divisive ?) action? If somebody would ask "Where am I to begin?", I would say, begin there, find out for yourself if you lead a 'fragmentary' life ( saying one thing and doing another, this way of living in isolation, and therefore no authentic relationship with the rest of humanity). So begin there. You know what that means? What tremendous enquiry you have to make to find out ?

PJ: What is (the nature of this?) enquiry?

K: ( Direct, non-verbal ?) observation. To observe very clearly without any bias, without any direction, without any motive, how my life is fragmented. Just to 'observe' it ('as is') . Not say, 'I am fragmented, therefore I must do something to be whole'. The idea of 'becoming whole' is another (projection of the existing ?) fragmentation. So the (holistic nature ?) of this enquiry is observing the way of fragmentation. Which means that thought ( our self-centred thinking ?) itself is a fragment. Right? And that is the cause of our fragmentation. 'I' am becoming something different from 'you'.

PJ: So (to wrap it up ?) the 'birth of the new'...

K: ...is not possible unless you have (a comprehensive insight into ?) this. Obviously.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jan 2017 #526
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

A K CONVERSATION WITH HUSTON SMITH (1968)

Is it possible to live with total lucidity?

Huston Smith: Mr Krishnamurti, this morning I will have only one question to which in one way or another I will be coming back to in various ways: In your writings, in your speaking, time and again you come back to this word, 'lucidity' (aka: 'choiceless awareness' ?) , but is it possible living as we are in this confused and confusing world, torn by conflicting voices without and conflicting tensions within, is it possible in such a world, to live with total lucidity? And if so, how?

Krishnamurti: I wonder, sir, what you mean by that word 'lucid'. Do you mean (inner ?) 'clarity' ?

HS: That's what first (synonime) that comes to mind, yes.

K: Is this (inner) clarity a matter of intellectual perception, or is it a (clarity of a ?) perception with the totality of one's whole being?

HS: The latter.

K: It is not a fragmentary (awareness) , therefore it is not intellectual or emotional, or sentimental. And so is it possible in this confused world, with so many contradictions (conflicting interests ?) , and such misery, and also inwardly, such insufficiency psychologically - is it at all possible for a human being living in this world to find within himself a clarity that is constant, that is "true" in the sense of not contradictory, is it a possible for a human being to find it?

HS: That's (exactly) my question.

K: (For a quick answer ?) I don't see why it shouldn't be found by anybody who is really quite serious, if we could discard completely all the authority of psychological specialists, as well as the specialists in religion, if one could really deeply negate all authority of that kind, then one would be relying totally on oneself.

HS: Well, my impulse after you have said that it is possible to achieve this lucidity, my impulse is to ask you immediately, 'how ?'

K: Wait, sir. What is necessary (for starters ?) is the freedom from the (subliminal ?) authority of someone to tell you, 'do this and you will find it'.

HS: So, are you saying that it is an inappropriate question to ask you how this lucidity is to be achieved?

K: No, not at all, sir. But to have this inner clarity, the first essential thing is freedom. (More specifically the ?) freedom from (accepting any spiritual ?) authority.

HS: I feel in a bind, because this freedom is attractive too and I want to go towards that, but I also want to 'pick your mind' and ask you how to proceed? Am I moving away from my freedom if I ask you how to proceed?

K: I should think that 'how ?' is a wrong (a falsely 'positive'?) question. But if you say, (negatively ?) what are the obstructions that prevent this (inner) clarity, then we can go into it.

HS: So that the 'how' must always be (asked in terms of the ?) immediate (action) , from where one stands, the particular individual.

K: I would never put the 'how ?' at all. The 'how' should never enter into the mind.

HS: Well, then this is a hard teaching. It may be true but I don't feel that it's possible completely to relinquish the question 'how' and everything.

K: Sir, I think we shall be able to better understand each other if we could go into (negating ?) the things that prevent clarity.

HS: All right, fine.

K: Through negation (of the false ?) come to clarity, not through the 'positive' method of following a system.

HS: Fine, the 'negative' approach sounds good.

K: I think that is the only ( experientially friendly ?) way.

HS: Well, we'll see.

K: So what is important is to find out what are the obstructions, the hindrances, the 'blocks' that prevent clear perception of our anxiety, fear, sorrow, and the ache of loneliness, the utter lack of love and all that.

HS: Let's explore the virtues of the 'negative' (approach) . What are these?

K: First of all there must be freedom from ( any spiritual ?) 'authority'.

HS: It seems to me that this goal of 'total freedom' and 'self reliance' is a valid one, and yet along the way it seems to me that we rely, and should rely, on all kinds of authorities in certain practical spheres. When I go to a new territory and I stop to ask the filling station attendant which way to go, I accept his 'authority' as he (presumably) knows more about that than I do. Isn't this...

K: Obviously, sir, but we are considering not authority along any particular line, but the whole problem of (inwardly following ) the authority of the man who says, "I know, you don't".

HS: I see. So one should never turn over one's life to anyone else.

K: Because the churches throughout the world, the different religions, have said, give your life to us, we will direct, we'lll shape it, we will tell you what to do. Do this, follow the Saviour, follow the church and you will find (inner) peace.

HS: All right. I think I see that and one should never abdicate one's own conscience.

K: We started out asking the question, why is it man who has lived (or...survived ?) for two million years and more, why is man not capable of a clear (inward ?) perception and action? That is the question involved.

HS: Right. And your point is that it is because he doesn't accept the full responsibility ?

K: No, I haven't come to that ( responsability ?) point yet. I am saying that we must approach this problem 'negatively' ( by negating the false stuff ?) . Which means (experientially that ?) I must find out what are the obstacles which prevent a clear perception.

HS: Right.

K: Now one of the major ( self-created ?) hindrances, is this (blind ?) acceptance of (spiritual ?) authority.

HS: All right. So "be ye lamps unto yourself".

K: That's right - you must be (or become ?) a "light to yourself".

HS: Very good.

K: To "be a light to yourself" you must deny every (dependence of ?) another's light, however 'great' that light be, whether it be the light of the Buddha, or X Y Z.

HS: But nevertheless you may retain what you find it might be valid.

K: No, no sir. When I reject the authority of the outer I accept the authority of the inner. And my authority of the inner is the result of the cultural conditioning in which I have been brought up.

HS: All right. The only point that I am not quite sure about affirming and maintaining one's own freedom...

K: Ah, you can't. Sir, how can a prisoner affirm that he is free? ( Inwardly speaking ?) he is in a ( self-created ?) prison, and that is the fact from which we must move. What exists is that man has bowed to this total authority.

HS: All right. And this is the first thing we must see and remove ?

K: Absolutely, that must go, for a man that is serious, and wants to find out the truth, or see things very clearly. That is one of the major points. And the freedom from ( the subliminal 'herd ?) fear', which makes him accept the authority (of psychological propaganda ?) .

HS: Right. That seems true also. And so beneath the craving for authority is...

K:... is fear.

HS: The very fear which we look to authority to be free from.

K: That's right. So the fear (of anything unknown ?) makes man violent, not only territorial violence, but sexual violence and different forms of violence.

HS: All right.

K: So the freedom from authority implies the freedom from ( a still deeper ?) fear. And ( going still deeper ?) the freedom from fear implies the cessation of every form of ( self-centred ?) 'violence'.

HS: So, if we stop ( the mentality of self-centred ?) 'violence' then our fear recedes ?

K: Let's put it round the other way, sir. Man 'is' (subliminally or openly ?) violent, linguistically, psychologically, in daily life he is violent, which ultimately leads to war.

HS: There's a lot of it around.

K: And man has accepted ( the mentality of ?) war as the way of life, whether in the office, or at home, or in the playing field, or anywhere war he has accepted as a way of life, which is the very essence of violence and aggression and all that . So as long as man lives a way of life which is ( openly or subliminally ?) violent, he perpetuates fear and therefore violence and also accepts authority.

HS: So these three are a kind of vicious circle, each playing into the other.

K: And the churches say, live peacefully, be kind, love your neighbour, which they don't (really ?) mean it. It is merely a ( smoke screen of ?) verbal assertions that has no (true) meaning at all.

HS: (To recap: ) in trying to see the things that stand between us and lucidity and freedom, we find that ( the traditional acceptance of ?) authority and fear and violence are working together to obstruct us. So, where do we go from there?

K: It's not a matter of 'going to some place', sir, but of understanding this fact that most of us live a life in this (inner & outer) 'ambience' of authority, fear and violence. We can't 'go beyond' it (transcend this condition ?) , unless one is free from it (experientially ?) from the feeling of dependence on authority.

HS: All right.

K: Then, is it possible for a human being to be free completely of fear? Not only at the superficial level of one's consciousness, but also at the deeper level, what is called the 'unconscious'.

HS: Is it possible?

K: That's the question, whether the human being can really be free from ( his unconscious ?) fear.

HS: That's what I wait to hear.

K: I say it is possible, not in abstraction, but actually it is possible.

HS: All right. My (natural) impulse again is to ask: 'how ?'.

K: You see when you (ask someone else ?) "how", you cease to learn.
And when you are learning, if the problem is vital, intense, it has to be solved (here and now ?) so you say : let's learn about it.

HS: All right...

K: So the moment you bring in the 'how' you move away ( experientially ?) from the central fact of learning.

HS: All right, that's fine. Let's continue on the path of learning about this.

K: Learning. So, what does it mean to learn?

HS: It means to perceive how one should proceed in a given domain.

K: No, sir, surely. Here is a problem of ( our unconscious ?) fear. I want to learn about it. First of all I mustn't run away from it.

HS: Well, are we again going at this through the 'negative' route ?

K: Which is what I am doing.

HS: And fear is an 'obstacle' ...

K:... about which I am going to learn. The moment (my inner atitude is one of ?) learning I am free to ( observe ?) it. So the right learning (attitude ?) matters. What is implied in it? First of all there must be complete cessation of condemnation, or justification.

HS: All right. I can see that. If we are going to understand something we keep our (personal) emotions out of it, and try to dispassionately ...

K: ... learn. So to learn there must be no ( mental ?) condemnation, or justification of fear, and therefore no to escape verbally (intellectually ?) from directly facing the 'fact of fear'. So, it is really a very important question: whether the human mind can ever be free of fear.

HS: It certainly is.

K: Which means, whether the mind is capable of actually looking at fear as it occurs.

HS: Facing fear ?

K: Facing fear.

HS: All right, why don't we do just this ?

K: What is ( this reaction of ?) 'fear'? There is every kind of fear: fear of darkness, fear of war, fear of a thunderstorm, so many 'psychological' fears. And you cannot possibly have the time to analyze all the fears, that would take the whole life time, by then you have not understood any fears.

HS: So it is the 'phenomenon of fear' itself rather than any...

K: ...than any particular fear.

HS: Right. Now what should we learn about it ?

K: To learn about something ( of this nature ?) you must be in complete contact with it. Therefore I must look at it, I must face it. Now to ( objectively ?) face something implies a mind that does not want to solve the problem of fear. ( this is very important to understand because if I want to 'solve the problem fear ' I am beyond it already, I am not looking).

HS: You say that if we are trying to solve the problem of fear we are not truly facing it. Is that right?

K: Quite right, sir. The mind must give its complete attention to fear, and if you give partial attention which is to say, I want to solve it and go beyond it, you are not giving it ( all your ?) attention.
Npw, in giving complete attention to the learning about fear there are several problems involved in it. (a) We generally consider 'fear' as something outside us. So there is this question of the 'observer' and the 'observed'. The 'observer' puts ( the observation of ?) fear as something away from him.

HS: I am not sure. When I 'am afraid', I feel it very much in here.

K: In here, but when you (try to ?) observe it, it is different. Then you (subliminally ?) put it outside.

HS: No, that doesn't seem quite right...

K: All right, at the moment of ( the surge of ?) fear there is neither the observer nor the observed.

HS: That is very true.

K: At the moment of a major crisis, at the moment of the actual fear there is no observer.

HS: It fills the horizon.

K: Now, the moment you ( try to get back in control and?) begin to face it, there is this ( subliminal ?) division.

HS: Between the fearful self and the...

K: The non-fearful (rational part of one-) self. So in trying to learn about fear, there is this ( subliminal tendency of ?) division between the observer and the ( fear to be ?) 'observed' (and controlled ?) . Now is it possible to look at fear without the 'observer' ( self-controlling attitude ?) ?
Sir, this is really quite an intricate question, a complex question, one has to go into it very deeply. As long as there is the 'observer' who ( thinks he ?) is going to learn' about the fear ( to have more control over it in the future ?) there is a division.

HS: That's true. We are not in full contact with it.

K: Therefore in that division is the conflict of trying to get rid of fear, or justify fear. So, is it possible to look at fear without the 'observer' - so that you are completely in contact with it all the time ?

HS: Well, then you are directly 'experiencing' fear. It seems better than, 'looking at it', because looking at does seem to imply a division between an observer and the observed.

K: Therefore we are using the word 'observing'. Being aware of fear without choice, ( the 'choice' implies the observer, choosing whether I don't like this, or that). Therefore when the 'observer' is absent (on leave ?) there is a 'choiceless awareness' of fear.

HS: All right.

K: Then what takes place? That's the whole question. The observer creates the linguistic difference between himself and the (naming of the ?) thing observed. Therefore the word prevents being completely in contact with fear.

HS: Yes. Words can be a (smoke ?) screen.

K: Yes. That's all that we are saying: the 'word' (the naming and the verbal processing ?) mustn't interfere.

HS: True. We have to go beyond that.

K: Beyond the word. But is that possible, to be (able to observe ?) beyond the word? Theoretically we may say, yes, but we are a slave to words.

HS: Far too much so.

K: So the ( earnest?) mind has to become aware of its own slavery to words, realizing that the word is never the thing.

HS: Right.

K: So the mind is free of words to look. The authentic relationship between the observer and the observed takes place when the word (and its associated images) is not. So he is directly in contact with fear.
Now there is fear at the conscious level, which one can understand fairly quickly. But there are the deeper layers of fear, so-called at the hidden parts of the mind.. Now to be aware of that that without analysis is it possible ?

HS: Surely it's possible.

K: But is it? There is this whole reservoir of fear - the racial fears, you follow, the whole content of the unconscious. Now, to be aware of all that, which means not through dreams, again that takes too long.

HS: Are you talking about whether we can be explicitly aware of the full reach of mind?

K: Yes. To reach the full content, to reach of the mind which is both the conscious as well as the deeper layers. The totality of consciousness.

HS: Yes. And can we be 'explicitly' aware of all of that? I am not sure.

K: I say it is possible when you are aware during the day of what you say, the words you use, the gestures, the way you talk, the way you walk, what your thoughts are, to be completely and totally aware of all that.

HS: Do you think 'all of that' can be (unfolded ?) before you in this total awareness?

K: Yes, sir. When you are directly in contact with it.

HS: It seems to me that the mind is sort of like an iceberg with region of it...

K: An iceberg is one-tenth below and nine-tenths above. It is possible to see the whole of it, during the day. During the day if you are aware of your thoughts, of your feelings, aware of the motives, which demands a mind that is highly sensitive.

HS: We can certainly be aware of much, much more than we usually are. But when you say we can be aware of all the psychological factors...

K: If you say, "it is not possible", then... it is not possible.

HS: No, I'd like to believe that.

K: No, it's not a question of belief. I don't have to believe in what I see.

HS: For me it is still a matter of belief, but maybe not for you - like so many times when I listen to you speak it seems to me like a 'half truth' is stated as a 'full truth', and I wonder whether that is for the sake of emphasis, or whether it really is, you really mean to carry it all the way.

K: No, sir. To me it really 'is'.

HS: We have been speaking of the elements that block us, the things that block us from a life of lucidity and freedom, authority, violence, fear. Our time is short and I wouldn't like to spend all the time on these obstacles. Is there anything 'affirmative' we can say of this condition ?

K: Sir, anything 'affirmative' indicates authority. ..

HS: Well now when I ask you for an affirmative statement it doesn't seem to me that I am turning over a decision to use ant authority. I just want to hear if you have something interesting to say which I will then stand a judgement upon.

K: With regard to what?

HS: As to whether it speaks to my condition, about the (holistic) state of life that it seems to me we are groping for in our words to describe.

K: Is this what you are asking: is life to be divided into the past, present and future, which becomes fragmentary, and not a total perception of living?

HS: Well again as so often it seems to me that the answer is both, and. In one sense it is a unity and it is present and the present is all we have, but man is a 'time-binding' animal, as they say, who looks before and aft.

K: So man is the result of time, not only evolutionary but chronological as well as psychological ?

HS: Yes.

K: So he is the result of time: the past, the present and the future ?

HS: Right.

K: Now, he lives mostly (immersed ?) in the past.

HS: All right, mostly.

K: He is the past.

HS: All right....

K: No, no, he 'is' the past because he lives in memory.

HS: Not totally.

K: Wait, sir. Follow it step by step. He lives in the past and therefore he thinks and examines and looks from the background of the past.

HS: Which is both good and bad.
K: No, no. When you are calling it good or bad, then we are lost. He lives in the past, examines everything from the past and projects the future from the past. So he lives in the past, he is the past. And when he thinks of the future or the present, he thinks in terms of the past.

HS: All right. It seems to me that most of the time that is true but there are new perceptions that break through, new experiences that break through the whole momentum of the past.

K: New experiences break through only when there is an absence of the past.

HS: Well it seems to me it is like it is a merging of things that we perforce bring with us from the past, but bring to play upon the novelty, the newness of the present. And it is a fusion of those two.

K: Look, sir, if I want to understand something new I must look at it with clear eyes. I can't bring the past with all the recognition process, with all the memories, and then translate what I see as new. Surely, surely, now just a minute: the man who invented the jet, must have forgotten, or be completely familiar with the propeller, and then there was an 'absence' of ( his past ?) knowledge in which he discovered the new.

HS: That's fine.

K: Wait, wait. That is the only way to operate (creatively ?) in life. That is there must be complete an absence of (what one knew in ?) the past, to see the new, or to come upon something new.

HS: All right....
K: You are conceding reluctantly?

HS: I am conceding reluctantly because I agree with the point that you are making, but it is also true that one operates in terms of the ( available) symbols that one has. And it is not as though we begin 'de novo'.

K: But (inwardly ) we have to begin 'de novo' because life demands it, because we have lived ( for ages) in this way, accepting war, brutality, competition, and anxiety, guilt, all that we have accepted that, we live that way.
I am saying (that in order ) to bring about a different way of living the ( psychological dependency of the ?) past must disappear.

HS: We must be open to the new.

K: Yes. Therefore the ( psychological knowledge of the ?) past must have no meaning.

HS: That I can't go along with.

K: That is what is the whole world is objecting to. The established order says, I can't let go for the new to be. And the young people throughout the world say, let's revolt against the old. But they don't understand the whole complexity of it. So they say, what have you given us, except examinations, ( the prospective of a?) job, and repetition of the old (or updated ?) patterns.

HS: Well you are pointing out, it seems to me, the importance of not being slaves to the past. And that's so true and I don't want to object to it in any way. But at the same time there is only one generation, namely ourselves, that separates the future generation from the 'cave man'. If this (industrious ?) 'cave man' were to be totally rescinded we would have to start right now.

K: Oh, no, no. To break (free from ?) the past, sir, demands a great deal of (self inquiry and ?) intelligence, a great deal of sensitivity to the (subliminal influences of this ?) past. You can't just 'break away' from it (and walk ?) .

HS: OK, I am convinced.

K: So the (existential ?) problem really is: Can we live a different way
in which man loves (his fellow ?) men, without competition, without ( a mentality of self-) division. A 'religious' (holistic ?) mind is a mind that has no hatred (no personal resentments ?) , that lives completely without fear, without anxiety, in which there is not a particle of antagonism. Therefore a mind that 'loves' - that is a different dimension of living altogether.

HS: But in some sense everybody wants that.

K: But they won't go after it. They are distracted (amused ?) by so many other things, they are so heavily conditioned by their past, they hold on to it.

HS: But I think there are some who will go after it.

K: Very few.

HS: The numbers don't matter (but... the 'law' of large numbers does ?) .

K: The minority is always the most important thing.

HS: Mr Krishnamurti, as I try to 'listen through' the words to what you are saying, it seems to me that (first) each of us should work out his own salvation, not leaning on any authority outside; (second), not to allow words to form a ( separating screen) 'film' between us and actual experience, not to mistake the menu for the meal; and (third), not to let the past swallow up the present, take possession, to responding to a conditioning of the past, but rather to be always open to the new, the novel, the fresh. And finally (fourth) , it seems to me you are saying that the key to doing this is a radical reversal in our point of view. It is as though we were prisoners straining at the bars for the light, and looking for the glimpse of light that we see 'out there' and wondering how we can get out towards it, while actually the door of the cell is open behind us if only we would turn around, we could walk out into freedom. This is what is sounds to me like you are saying. Is this it?

K: A little bit, sir, a little bit.

HS: All right. What else? What other than that? Or if you want to amplify.

K: Sir, surely sir, in this is involved the everlasting conflict, man caught in ( the illusory safety of ?) his own conditioning, and straining, struggling, beating his head to be free. And again that such 'effort' is necessary. That's part of life. To me that is the highest form of ( spiritual ?) blindness, of limiting man to say, you must everlastingly live in effort.

HS: And you're saying...

K: That living without ( this self-becoming ?) effort requires the greatest sensitivity and the highest form of intelligence. One has to understand how ( this inner) conflict arises, the duality between the fact of 'what is', and ( the mental projection of ?) 'what should be', there is the conflict. If there is no ( wishful thinking about ?) 'what should be', and face the 'what is', it, live with it then there is no conflict at all. It's only when you compare, evaluate with 'what should be', and then look with 'what should be' at the 'what is', then conflict arises.

HS: There should be no tension between the ideal and the actual.

K: No ( psychological ?) ideal at all. The fact is 'burning' there, why should I have an ideal about anything?

HS: Well, when you speak like that it seems to me that you break it into an "either/or", while it seems to me the truth is somehow both of these.

K: Ah, no. Truth is not a mixture of the 'ideal' and the 'what is', then you produce some 'melange' . There is only 'what is' - take a very simple example: we human beings are violent. Why should I have an ideal of non-violence? Why can't I deal directly with the fact?

HS: Of violence?

K: Of 'violence' without (projecting) the ideal non-violence (which, experientially-wise ?) is a distraction. The fact is I am violent, man is violent. Let's tackle that, let's come to grips with that and see if we can't live without violence. There is no dualistic process in this. There is only the fact that I am violent, man is violent, and is it possible to be free of that ? Why should I introduce the 'idealistic' nonsense?

HS: No dualism, you say, no separation, and in your view is it the case that there is no separation?

K: Absolutely.

HS: Isn't there any separation, as 'you' and 'me'?

K: Physically there is.

HS: But you don't feel 'dualistic' (or antagonistic ?)

K: If I felt dualistic I wouldn't even sit down to discuss with you, then intellectually we play ( mind games ?) with each other.

HS: Right. Now perhaps we are saying the same thing, but always it comes out in my mind that we are both separate and united.

K: Sir, when you love somebody with your heart, not with your 'mind', do you feel separate?

HS: I feel both. I feel both separate and together.

K: Then it is not "love".

HS: I wonder, because part of the joy of love is the relationship which involves in some sense, like Ramakrishna said, 'I don't want to be sugar, I want to eat sugar'.

K: I don't know Ramakrishna, I don't want any authority, I don't want to quote any bird.

HS: Don't get 'hung up' on this.

K: Sir, we are dealing with facts, not with what somebody said. The fact is...

HS:... that in love, part of the beauty and the glory of it, is the sense of unity embracing what in certain respects is separate.

K: Sir, let's be a little more 'un-romantic' about it. The fact is when there is love between man and woman, in that is (also) involved possession, domination, authority, jealousy, all that is involved in it. Of course there is. And comfort, sexual pleasure, and the remembrance. A bundle of all that.

HS: And there are some other 'positive' things you have left out...

K: Is love jealousy? Is love (based on ?) pleasure? If it is ( based on ?) pleasure it is merely the activity of ( the self-centred ?) thought, saying, 'Well, I slept with that woman, therefore she is mine' and the remembrance of all that. That's not love. Thought is not love. Thought breeds fear, thought breeds pain, thought breed pleasure, and pleasure is not love.

HS: Thought breeds only the 'negative' (stuff ?) ?

K: What is the 'positive' thing that thought produces, except mechanical things?

HS: A love poem ?

K: The man feels something and puts it down. The putting down is merely a form of communication (skill) . But to 'feel it' has nothing to do with thought. To translate (it artistically ?) then thought is necessary. But to love...

HS: But thought and words can also give form to our feelings which would bring them to satisfying resolutions.

K: Is ( direct ?) relationship a matter of thought?

HS: Not only, but thought can contribute to a relationship.

K: Thought is always the old, relationship is something new.

HS: Yes, but there are 'new thoughts'.

K: Ah! There is no such thing as 'new thoughts'. Forgive me to be so emphatic.

HS: No, I like it.

K: I don't think there is a new thought. Thought can never be free because thought is the response of memory, thought is the response of the past.

HS: When a great poet comes through with the right words to articulate a new perception, nobody has before thought of those particular words.

K: That's a mere matter of a cunning gift of putting words together.

HS: A noble trade...

K: No, sir, ( experientially-wise) that's a minor thing; the major thing is to see the beauty of life and see the immensity of it, and to (have this sense of ?) Love.

(voice from off:) There it ended this conversation with Krishnamurti. But what ended was only the words, not the substance. For Krishnamurti was speaking, as always, of that Life that has no end, and no beginning.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Jan 2017 #527
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

A K small group dialogue in Rishi Valley, 1971 (experientially friendly edited)

FREEDOM AND THE FIELD OF THE KNOWN

Questioner A: You were saying the brain cells themselves are conditioned by the (memory of their own ) past, the biological and historical past, and you said the structure of the brain cells could change. Could we go into that?

Krishnamurti: The brain cells are receiving (sensory and mental inputs ?) all the time; they are recording all the time, in the state of sleeping and in the state of waking. This (background) recording is an independent (non-personal ?) movement. That independent movement creates the mental capacity to think, to rationalize. The intellect can then observe (and control ?) the operation of thought. And that ( controlling activity ?) is again becoming part of the whole structure of the brain cells. Is the capacity to rationalize independent of the brain cells or being a part of them can it ever be independent? You cannot rationalize independently, because the brain cells and the intellect are part of cause-effect; and if the intellect is the product of the brain, the intellect must always be conditioned by memory, by knowledge. It can project very far but it is still tethered. The intellect can seek freedom, it can never find it. It can be free only within the radius of its own tether; in itself it is limited. So freedom must be beyond this intellectual capacity, must be something outside the field (of the 'known'?) .
Now, what is aware that the intellect cannot go beyond the range of its own radius? The intellect sees that there can be no freedom within the field ( of the known ?) and (logically assumes ?) that freedom is outside.

A: Buddhism maintains that this process which has come into existence with a cause, has an end and the perception of it is to see, that in this there is no permanency, and that rebirth is the rebirth of the ignorance of this process. So when you observe this process as impermanent, then it must create absolutely no attachment to this process. All that is given to you is to see the impermanence, and seeing ( the truth of ?) this, there is no attachment to this - in that direct perception , there is no effort at all.

Krishnamurti: Then how are these 'recording instruments' with their own capacity, their own movements, how are they to switch off and enter a different dimension, even for a short period?

A: We come to the point where the intellect realizes that whatever it does is within the field of the known, but then, what?

Krishnamurti: The intellect itself says, this movement is within this field (of the past experience and knowledge). Is there another (inner) movement other than this movement?

A: When you ask 'is there another movement', I cannot 'know' it.

Krishnamurti: I know this ( endless movement within the field of the known ?) is a ( a very intricate ?) prison. And my ( 'wake-up' ?) question is, is there freedom at all? Tradition would say yes, there is Moksha. ( But to postulate this while living in the field of the known ?) is rather immature.

A: Faced with this ('impossible' ?) question, I have absolutely no instrument now to deal with this.

Krishnamurti: I am asking, if there is no freedom within this field, then what is freedom?

A: The intellect can never know.

Krishnamurti: The intellect can only know ( a relative ?) freedom within the field (of the known) , like a man knowing freedom within a prison. It then asks what is freedom? If this is not "it", then what is freedom? Is the human mind everlastingly condemned to live within this field?
I have got it! When the mind says if this (perpetual existence in the known ?) is not it, then what is freedom? Then it says "I do not know" ; (but still ) there is a (subliminal ?) expectation to find out. That means the mind does not really say it does not know, but is waiting for something (extra-ordinary ?) to happen. I see that (new subliminal expectation ?) and I discard that. (Pause) So... I really do not know. I am not waiting, expecting. I am not hoping some answer will come from an outside agency. I am not expecting a thing.
There is the ('ending of time' experiential ?) clue. That ( inner state ?) of 'not-knowing' is freedom. The 'knowing' is the prison. If I do not 'know' what is going to happen tomorrow, I am inwardly free of the past, free of this whole field. So, the mind that lives in a state of not-knowing is a free mind.

The ( Hindu ?) traditionalists went wrong when they said 'do not be attached'. You see, they denied all relationships. They could not solve the (intricate ?) problems of wordly relationship, but they said do not be attached and so broke away from all relationships. They said "Be detached", therefore they withdrew into isolation.
( In a nutshell:) To live with the knowledge of this field is prison. And ( to be ignorant of ?) the prison (of the known ?) is also not freedom.And so a mind that lives in the known, is always in prison. That is all.

Can the ( meditative ?) mind (honestly ?) say "I do not know", which means the (time-binding continuity of ?) 'yesterday' has ended?

A: To pursue this (path ?) requires ruthlessness.

Krishnamurti: It requires tremendous delicacy (and integrity:) . When I said I really do not know, I really do not know. Full stop. See what it does. It means a real humility, a sense of austerity. Then, yesterday has ended. So the man who has ended yesterday is really beginning again. Therefore he has to be 'austere'. I really do not 'know'; what a marvellous thing that is. I do not know if I may die tomorrow. Therefore there is no possibility of having any conclusion at any time, which means, never to have any (psychological ?) burden. The burden is the 'knowing'.

A: Can one come to this point and stay there?

Krishnamurti: You do not have to 'stay there' !

A: The mind has a way of switching back (to what it 'knew' before ?) . Your (insightful ?) words can take us only up to a point...

Krishnamurti: When I say "I really do not know". It does not mean I have forgotten the past. In this (total insight that ?) "I do not know" there is no inclusion of the past nor a discarding of the past, nor a utilization of the past.
A man who says (sees the inner truth of ?) "I really do not know"... is (instantly ?) free of the known.

R: But the (organisational ?) structure of the brain cells remains the same.

Krishnamurti: They become extraordinarily 'flexible'. Being (functionally ?) 'flexible' they can reject, accept; there is a movement (in freedom ?) .

A: We see here something as ( the inner ?) action. So far we only knew ( time-bound ?) activity. We can never reject activity. It goes on. But in laying down bare the temporal activity, it ceases to be a barrier to (inner) action. The normal day to day living is a process which goes on.

Krishnamurti: Are you asking what is "action" to a man who does not know? The man who 'knows' ( assumes that he 'knows' ?) is acting from knowledge and his activity is always within the (inner) prison (of his choice ?) , projecting his (inner) 'prison' into the future. He is always (living) within the field of the known.
Now, what is "action" to the man who says I do not know? He does not even ask, because he is "acting".

( For homework:) You are all missing something, which is, not to know whether "tomorrow" is there. Can you go (meditatively ?) into that? Apart from (the physical, intellectual daily activity ?) the action of a man who 'knows' is always (inwardly ?) mischievous. His everyday action is relationship in the field of the known involved in attachment, in dominance, in subservience. Have the 'professionals' ( of the traditional spirituality ?) talked about (the reality of the everyday ?) relationship?

R: No...

Krishnamurti: To them ( the wordly ?) relationship meant attachment and (sorrow ?) therefore they talked of 'detachment'. But to live in this world, even in the Himalayas, I still need food. There is relationship. That may be the reason why the whole Indian movement of 'detachment' has made the mind so stupid, repetitive.

A: The Buddha in his first sermon said that both 'detachment' and 'attachment' are ignoble. The two represented the (traditional) Hindu idea of running away from the world.

Krishnamurti: Why did they not consider relationship? If you deny the (reality of ?) human relationship, action becomes meaningless. What is action without relationship? Is it doing something mechanical?

A: Action is relationship.

Krishnamurti: Relationship is the primary thing. Otherwise what exists? If my father did not sleep with my mother, I would not exist. So relationship is the basic movement of life. (However a ?) relationship (confined ?) within the field of 'known' is deadly, destructive, corrupt. That is the "worldly".

So, what is (a holistic ?) action? We have separated action from (the human dimension of our ?) relationships: as 'social' action, 'political' action, you but we have not solved this problem of ( direct ?) relationship. Now, if you accept that all living is relationship, then what is action? There is the practical action (in the field ?) of technology , but every other action is non-mechanical. Otherwise I reduce relationship into turning the wheel. That is why we have denied love.

A: Can we examine our relationship with Nature?

Krishnamurti: What is my relationship with nature - the birds, sky, trees, flowers, the moving waters? That is (part of ?) my life. It is not just relationship between man and woman, but all this is part of my life. I am talking of relationship to everything. How can I be attached to the forest, to the river? I can be attached to the (images and ?) words, but not to the waters. You see, we miss the whole thing because we confuse the word with the thing.

A: Is it a question of re-awakening sensitivity?

Krishnamurti: No. The question is what is ( a holistic ?) relationship? Being related to everything. Relationship means care; care means attention; attention means love. That is why relationship is the basis of everything. If you miss that, you miss the whole thing.
Sir,(to recap:) this is (our invisible inner ?) 'prison': to 'know' is the prison and to live in the (time-binding illusion of ?) 'knowing' is also the prison.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Jan 2017 #528
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

A K CONVERSATION WITH PUPUL JAYAKAR AND ACHYUT PATWARDHAN ON

HOW TO READ THE BOOK OF ONESELF ? (experientially friendly edited)

Pupul Jayakar: Yesterday you were talking about reading the 'Book of Oneself', which is ( the pocket version of ?) the Book of Mankind. And you asked a question: with what 'instrument' will I look? So, there are one or two questions which will have to be clarified: What is this instrument what is the nature of what is seen? You have talked about 'what is' from the first time we met you, but what is the nature of this 'what is'?

J Krishnamurti: If I may begin with this, I think the whole history of man from two million years, is part of our consciousness, is part of our story. As human being, we are (encapsulating ?) the whole history of man. If you grant this then the instrument with which I can read this vast complex (psychological ?) history (of mankind) , the only instrument I have is my (objective capacity of ?) thinking . Thought is the only ( available ?) instrument I have. ( However, working in 'darkness' ?) thought has built all the past accumulations, (self-centred ) experience, superstitions, beliefs, the wars, and the human consciousness is the storehouse of all that - the whole ( survivalistic ?) movement of mankind in time is (imbedded in ?) in the ( psychological) background of every human being. So, we can start from there.

PJ: Obviously, Krishnaji, human heritage is my heritage.

K: Yes, but very few are willing to accept (the full implications of ?) that. Most people have never thought (seriously) about this. And if (and when ?) they begin to think about it I am not sure they would see the 'fact' of it. So, if you and Achyutji and a few of us see the truth of it, not the intellectual concept that we we carry with us all the time the vast human heritage, then we can proceed.

A. Patwardhan: Sir, but would you not concede that though all this may have been accumulated through thought...

K: Through time and thought...

AP: ...when I say that I 'am' the inheritor of the entire past of man, it is not a thought process or anything like that, it is not in that way. The way in which I am the inheritor of it all is not (on the level of my ?) verbalized thought, or...

K: Do you as a human being, having studied history of the world and so on, do you see the (inner ?) truth that (consciousness-wise ?) you are the result, and that you hold the whole human heritage and that vast complex Book of the Story of Man?

AP: Yes sir, it is a fact.

K: Now, that fact can be an argumentive fact, argumentive, a conclusion, a concept, or it is so in my blood, in my thoughts, in my life.

AP: It is a totality.

K: Yes. Don't (yet) use the word 'totality' - it 'is so'.

AP: It is so.
K: Now, if we three at least see the truth of it then from there we can proceed. Not raise this question (for homework ?) at the end of the discussion or dialogue that may take place.

PJ: It is as much a truth as the fact that the human body has evolved - let me put it this way, is a universal phenomena. It is in that context that I say I accept I 'am' the human heritage.

K: Now from there proceed: I in me abides the whole (psychological) history of man: his sorrows, his anxieties, his loneliness, his miseries, his happiness, his experiences, and so on. Then the question you raised just now is: what is the instrument with which I read that book?

PJ: But even before I go to examine what is the instrument, what is it that I read?

K: As you are reading it (the content of this 'Book' ?) is moving, living.

PJ: Yes, as I am reading it, its 'future' (updated content ?) is also being projected.

K: (In a nutshell ?) the past, meeting the present modifying itself becomes the future.

PJ: And the very thought that arises now contains in it the germ of the future.
So first of all we have to be clear what is the nature of this 'what is' which we have talked about.

K: Pupulji, forgive me if I point out something. I may not know the nature of it, the content of it, but I want to learn, if it is possible, about the nature of consciousness, not as mine, the consciousness of man which is the past.

PJ: You see the moment you say that I am (supposed to be ?) reading the 'consciousness of man' and not 'my' consciousness, the attitude to that reading has undergone a total change.

K: A total change. That's right. But if one is under the (wide spread ?) illusion that this consciousness is 'mine', separate from every other consciousness, then we are moving in two different directions.

AP: Obviously.

PJ: But there seems a 'trap' there: we say we are the history of mankind in twelve encyclopaedias you would read it one way. But the moment you see it as something which (constantly ?) sprouts within my consciousness, immediately my response to it is of a totally different nature.

K: That's is what I was coming to naturally - if one sees one's consciousness as universal - that is, the ( self-centred ?) consciousness which exists in me is the ( self-centred ?) consciousness of all human beings, then our whole activity of inner perception changes. Right?

PJ: Yes...

K: Now, do I regard this consciousness as 'mine' , as my private ground, my private property ?

PJ: I would say that the consciousness of mankind is revealed on my private ground.

K: You are saying, by understanding my consciousness I recognize that it is the consciousness of man, of all human beings. All right then, I go along with that. But I mustn't insist that it's 'mine'.

PJ: I can come with you so far as to say that whatever is revealed is not 'unique' to me. It is part of the total consciousness of man.

K: But... ?

PJ: ...But it is revealed within my ground.

K: I understand what you are saying: that in the observation, investigation of my consciousness, which I had thought to be separate from everybody else, in that investigation there is the discovery that what I have called my (personal) consciousness, is not my private ground, but it is the consciousness which is the rest of man.

PJ: But you see, sir...the observing of that which arises, (like) the observing of (one's personal) loneliness doesn't bring into it the (generalising ?) factor that it is the loneliness of mankind. It is 'loneliness'.

K: In investigating my sorrow, my loneliness, which I have been scrupulously (considered to be ?) in my private ground, there is the discovery that it is (shared by ?) the rest of mankind. All men are lonely, all people suffer (although they may not acknowledge it ?) . The discovery that it is the ( sorrow of loneliness shared by the ?) whole of mankind is an enormous ( breakthrough ?) perception.

PJ: What brings that (global ?) perception about? Let us take it minutely through a microscope. This feeling of sorrow arises: there is an observing of that thing we call sorrow. What brings in the insight that I am observing not my petty sorrow, but the the sorrow of all mankind ?

K: Wherever you go, loneliness and sorrow are linked together. Go to America, it is there, in Europe it is there, in China, Russia, India, anywhere you go this factor is shared by all of us. Even to admit to oneself how extraordinary : this thing is shared by all of us, a change (in our mentality ?) has already taken place.

PJ: Yes. Can we go back to these two things. One is with what instrument and the second what is it that has to be observed?

K: I observe sorrow, loneliness,( or sorrow of loneliness ?) , they are synonymous those two.

PJ: Which are emotional responses to a situation.

K: To a crisis.

PJ: To a crisis situation. I suddenly have a feeling of shrinking, a feeling...

K: Yes. A feeling of some great loss.

PJ: And I look.

K: No, no. Not 'you'- 'you' don't look.

PJ: That's what I wanted to clear up.

K: Suppose one has lost a great friend, or a person whom you loved, and there is the (physical) ending of that person: what has actually taken place there? The ending of all your relationship with that person. And suddenly realizing how utterly lonely you are because that has been the only relationship that has meant something ( you were relying upon ?) . And suddenly that has gone. And there is the sense of loss. Now: (a) either I remain with it, that is, not let thought or any other ( self-centred ?) feeling interfere with that state. (in short ?) I don't want to escape from (facing the actuality of ?) it. And (furthermore ?) can this mind remain (non-dualistically ?) with that fact?- not as an 'observer' observing the fact, the observer is that state, there is no division between the observer and the thing he is observing. Right? He is the suffering, he is that ending. ( If this be the case ?) it's like a (potential ?) 'jewel' that you are looking, holding. Or more commonly (the option b: ) the moment you want to ( to inwardly distance yourself from ?) it you have entered into a very different ( quality of dualistic ?) consciousness.

PJ: I understand.

K: Now ( supposing I see that ?) the (psychological ?) history of mankind is (enfolded in my own psychological ) history. I want to read that (hidden ?) Book because it is a most extraordinary 'Book' ( which actually ?) is a tremendous ( self-sustained inner ?) 'movement'.

PJ: Can the (average human ?) mind contain the enormity of it?

K: Now wait a minute, we must begin ( to differentiate ) here between what is the Mind and what is the brain? The human 'brain' has infinite capacity. Look what it has done in the technological world, something incredible. Right? But psychologically it has been 'conditioned' through (its evolution in ?) time. So, in the psychological realm, it hasn't moved at all, it has not flowered, so (inwardly ?) it is limited (by its own survivalistic responses ?) . But the 'Mind' is not limited.

PJ: When you talk of the 'Mind' , you speak of what?

K: The whole (field of Intelligent ?) energy , the Mind of the universe, the mind of nature, you follow, everything that has been created 'is' (part of ?) the movement of the Mind.

PJ: Everything that has been created.

K: And is creating. Therefore there is no limit to Creation.

AP: Are you suggesting, sir, that when we say that "I am the entire heritage of man", it is not the brain that can take in this fact?
K: It is the brain that takes in the fact because I have communicated through words, through thought, and you are looking at it through thought and through words, therefore the communication is verbal and thought.

AP: I am trying to pin myself down to this 'fact' that at present whatever I understand I understand through the brain.

K: Ah!

PJ: I asked a question: this "reading" of the Book of Mankind - can a single brain contain it, and you came to differentiate between the brain and the mind. It is pretty clear that the human brain is inwardly limited and that it can only move within its own circle (of its existing knowledge ?) . And you're saying that this (Universal ?) Mind, being the very source of creation has no limits.

K: That's right. Pupul, let's be clear on this point. Thought (the self-centred activity of our brain ?) has created in the physical world, the churches, thought has created wars; thought has created the conflict between man and man. Right? Thought is responsible for all this. And because thought in itself is limited it cannot perceive a Mind that is immeasurable. But it still tries to understand it (conceptually ) because that is its mechanical function of reducing everything to its limited fragmentary activity. Right? And we are saying that as long as that brain is conditioned it can never understand the immensity of the nature of the Mind. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: If you see it, then our (holistic ?) "responsibility" is to uncondition the brain, uncondition the limitation which thought has imposed upon it.

PJ: Sir, here is something I would like to ask. Is it to 'uncondition' the brain which is conditioned and cannot move out of its (known) grooves, or to end the (inner ?) 'movement' of the brain?

K: It comes to the same thing.

PJ: No, sir. The (insightful ?) perception (originating ?) is in the Mind itself. So, is it that the brain finds itself unable to decondition itself ? Or is it to hold the brain in abeyance so that the perception which is the Mind can operate?

K: You are putting in modern language what the old traditions say, 'there is in me God. There is in me some element which is not contaminated, which then operates on that (conditioning)

PJ: But...you have drawn the difference between brain and Mind, between the conditioned and the and the non-conditioned.

K: I said we must differentiate the meaning of these two words. And I say that the brain which is limited cannot (experientially ?) understand what the Mind is. It can only become aware of it, when there is no conditioning.
Leave the Mind alone for the moment. Can thought (the evolutionary thinking brain ?) ever be free from its limitation? It can't. Right? Thought can never be free from its limitation because it is born out of ( a survivalistic ?) limitation. I don't know if you would see this.

PJ: May I ask a question? What is the distinction between thought and the brain?

K: Thought is the (self-centred ?) activity of the brain.

PJ: Is there anything in the brain apart from (this self-centred ?) thinking?

K: I won't fall into that trap! You are now going back to the old...

PJ: No, I am not, sir. But if you accept that the brain has this tremendous potential...

K: And we are only using a very, very small part.

PJ: Obviously. So, it could deal with the ( conditioning of the ?) psyche what it have done with technology...

K: That's all I am saying. I mean then the (Mind of the ?) Universe is open to you. That's all I am saying. If the (thinking ?) brain can free itself from the limitations of the (self-centred ?) 'psyche', then the brain 'is' the Mind when it is totally free. Then there is no inner sense of its own division, but the sense of whole, completeness, wholeness. That's all.

PJ: I understand. Now if I may go further. If the human brain has the energy to pursue (the developpments of modern ?) technology, they go up into space and are (even ) prepared to die (if anything is going wrong) ...

K: No, there is a great deal behind it: national praise by their country. They have been propagandized to die in the name of your country, or in the name of God...

PJ: You are not answering what I am saying. What is that element which enabled man, gave him the curiosity, curiosity to drive in the other direction?

K: I think our (standardised ?) 'education' is responsible for it. Because every culture has emphasized, except perhaps a few dead cultures, that you must earn a livelihood, work, work, work. And to do that study, you know, memorize, repeat, repeat, repeat. That's all we do. This morning I met some of the (local K School ?) students - they haven't thought about anything except (learning ?) mathematics, history, geography, and if you ask them to move a little away from the (field of the known ?) they are feeling (psychologically destabilised and/or ? ) lost.

AP: Even among the (top) scientists, there are only a few who go to the "impossible" questions.

K: But, sir, even those are...

AP: Very few. I say similarly today in the present crisis of the survival of humanity there is sufficient 'motivation', there is sufficient ground for man to say that this is the most intolerable predicament for man, and the brain must be explored.

K: What we are saying is very simple, sir. The brain has extraordinary capacity, and (inwardly) there is (the possibility to awaken ?) a different kind of 'movement' which is not based on ( our past survivalistic ?) experience, knowledge. So, if there is a breakthrough of that 'cycle' (of moving exclusively within the known ?) then I am saying there is no division between the Mind and the (intelligent ?) energy of the brain - this (same intelligent ?) energy of the brain has done the (marvels of the ?) technological world.

PJ: Yes, but it has never been released for this (moving inwardly) .

K: For the 'other'.

AP: I think the word (intelligent ?) energy is much better than the word motivation because it is really the energy of attention.

K: Just 'energy' for the moment. Psychologically my ( perceptive ?) energy is practically nil. And I am saying that when that (subliminal ego-centric ?) limitation has been broken down, or broken through, then there is a ( qualitative mutation into a ?) totally different energy, which now is channelled through technology and therefore that energy is limited. Right?

AP: I'm saying say that man has within him a ( vast potential of intelligent ?) energy which can transcend the limit of thought, and that is the energy of "attention". We must feel that we have a faculty other than thought to pursue the Mind.

K: No, I won't accept that. You see he is introducing again the same old pattern, which is there is an (inner) faculty which is hidden (dormant ?) , which is the energy of God, whatever you like to call it.

AP: I am saying that when I am looking at the real, it is just plain attention.

K: No, it is 'energy'. Keep to that word. Man has used the energy of thought in technology. Right? Right? It is the energy of thought, therefore limited.

AP: Right, quite right.

K: Now the breaking down of the ( survivalstic infrastructure of the ?) 'psyche' is not being done by this energy of thought.

AP: That's obvious.

K: Ah, no, sir, ( experientially ?) it is not 'obvious'.

AP: It is, sir.

PJ: Let me probe a little more. Let us examine those instruments man has readily available now: one is thought, the other are the senses...

K: The sensitivity of the senses ?

PJ: Yes.

K: The sensitivity of the senses and thought are both the same.

AP: How, sir?

K: I'll show it to you in a minute. Our senses are controlled by ( the self-centred process of ?) thought. Right? The (activities of our) senses are now shaped, controlled by thought. That is, my sense of taste, if 'I like it' thought comes in. Or if I 'feel' something or other thought comes in and says, 'Look, be careful, that is painful, don't go through there'. So is there - I am just asking - is there an (integrated activity or ?) 'movement of all the senses', without the interference of ( the self-centred ?) thought? (Eg:) Have you ever looked at the movement of the sea, the vast movement of the tides, the beauty of the waves, the enormous power of the waves, with all your senses 'looking'? In that there is no interference of thought. Now when (the self-centred ?) thought interferes, it must inevitably limit it or (try to optimise the sensation or to ?) control it.

PJ: I'm not wanting to argue with what you have said just now. There is a challenge, and my senses respond according to the conditioning of the mind, but there is a response of the senses...

K: Partial, always partial because ( from the background the self-centred ?) thought is always watching, controlling it, trying to say, 'I must', 'I must not', 'This is wrong', 'That is right'.

PJ: Forgive me, there can be a state of sensitivity when there is nothing contained in those senses. When you think of your brain, you think of it as being located s somewhere in the head. But when the senses do not operate from thought, do not contain thought, the place of operation changes (to the zone of the heart ?) .

K: Of course, when the senses are observing completely, heightened senses, and when you look at the movement of the sea completely that way there is no centre, there is no (interference of the self-centred ?) thought. Right? The moment ( the thinker and its ? ) thought comes in there is also a centre in the (activity of the ?) senses. Right?

PJ: We are part of thought, we are part of the senses.

K: Yes.

PJ: Is there a third movement?

K: Yes, that's the whole point. Is there an (integrated perceptive ?) instrument, or is there an inner state which is not ( controlled by ?) the movement of thought? That is what you are asking, right?

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

K: Let's look at it carefully: when you observe the movement of the sea with all your senses there is no ( self consciousness of this ?) sensory movement. Right? The senses are not aware that they are heightened. Right? Anything that is 'excellent' is not aware of its own excellency. Goodness in the highest sense has no ( self-consciousness ?) of 'being good'.

PJ: So, you were once talking of the 'essence' of all thought, the 'essence' of all senses, so it is this 'essence' itself then is the (new perceptive ?) instrument.

K: I understand what you are saying. But first of all I would like to get this clear between ourselves: when there is the 'heightened excellency' of the senses, the senses are not (self-consciously ?) aware that 'they' are aware. ( Their self-) awareness takes place when ( the 'thinker' and its ?) thought comes in.

PJ: (So, the excellency of your choiceless awarenness ?) is already gone.

K: Now when (the thinking brain ?) is (becoming 'choicelessly ) aware' of its own tremendous limitation, then it has broken through (broken free of its self-limitation ?) . But to realize that, to see that thought has no place in the (directly perceptive ?) movement...see how far we have got ?

PJ: So, what is the (new) instrument with which we read (the Book ) ?

K: I will tell you. This (living 'Story Book' of Mankind ?) is an endless (flowing ) movement. It had no beginning and no end. Right? It (the universal movement of Life ?) has no ending. But (the mentality of ?) my brain being ( space & time) limited, is looking for its ending. Right? I am approaching the book with 'where is the end ( or the meaning ?) of all this?'
Now, to realize there is no ending to it, do you know what it means (experientially ?) ? Then you enter into something called Love. Love has no end. I may love my wife, she dies, or I die, but the thing called 'love' has no end. But if I have identified myself with ( the 'loving image' of ?) my wife and she dies, my love has gone .

So ( to wrap it up your question was : ?) How do I 'read' this (living ) Book (of Mankind ?) ? If you have come to that point, there is no ('reader' nor a ?) 'Book' to read. When you have come to this really deep point that this Book ( of Life ?) has no end and no beginning, you 'are' that Book. (Your) life as ( part of ?) this (timeless ?) movement has no end, it is then (integrated in ?) the (Intelligent Mind of the ?) Universe. Then the Cosmos is this whole thing. (Have we been talking nonsense?)

PJ: No, sir.

K: Pupulji, if ysomebody who is serious heard all this, it is all (sounding) so extraordinarily wild - but it is not. ( In the area of Meditation ?) it is very logical, very clear - at least to me - clear and (if it will be ever ?) stated (in an experientially coherent way ?) in Sorbonne (Paris IV) , or Harvard (USA) , or in New Delhi (India) , it will ( perhaps ?) stand water.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Feb 2017 #529
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

Revisiting a few K dialogues from "TRADITION & REVOLUTION"

Published in the early 70's this collection of K dialogues in India (1970-71) had for me personally a major impact. Firstly because it is a book that sounded as (experientially) true then as it does now. And secondly, because of a strange feeling of coming from 'the Other Shore'. K does not feel obliged to 'justify' his perceptions in the psychologically correct form that was acceptable to the cultural formatting of the 'western' minds (his most ubiquitous companion was Mrs Pupul Jayakar (P)

So, here are a few of these 'revisited' texts that both inspired and...confused my 'inexperienced' mind

'THE FLAME OF SORROW'

Questioner P: Sorrow is ( being totally surrounded by pain ?) - the pain of someone dying, the pain of separation. How is it possible to meet this pain holistically?

Krishnamurti: The traditional escapes with which we are
all familiar are really the ways of avoiding the greatness of sorrow.
We use ( the all-purpose kit of intellectual ?) explanations to meet sorrow but these explanations do not (experientially) answer the question. The only way to (holistically ?) meet sorrow is to be without any movement away from sorrow, outwardly or inwardly, to remain totally with sorrow, without wanting to go beyond it.

P: What is the nature of sorrow?

Krishnamurti: The personal sorrow comes with the loss of ( something or ?) someone you loved, the loneliness, the separation, the anxiety for the other. With death there is also the feeling that
the other has ceased to be, and there was so much that he wanted to
do. All this is personal sorrow. Then there is ( the sorrow of ?) ignorance, not merely of book knowledge, but deeply, really ignorant - the timeless weight of sorrow in man. This sorrow has nothing
personal about it. It exists.

P: There is no immediate cause for this sorrow but it seems to follow man like a shadow. He lives, he loves, he forms attachments and everything ends. In this there is such an infinitude of sorrow.
How is it to end? The other day you said that in sorrow is (originating ?) the whole movement of passion. What does it mean?

Krishnamurti:We know the sorrow which is (the result of the chain of ?) cause and effect: (like when someone close ) dies and I
find myself completely emptied of all hope. In that there is self-pity,
fear; in that there is ( the psychological) pain which is the cause of sorrow. This is the lot of everyone. This is what we mean by sorrow.
Then also there is the sorrow of time, the sorrow of ignoring
one's own destructive conditioning; the sorrow of not knowing oneself; the sorrow of not knowing the beauty that lies at the depth of one's
being and the going beyond.
So, do we see that when we escape from sorrow through various forms of (comforting ?) explanations, we are really frittering away an extraordinary happening?

P: Then what does one do?

Krishnamurti: You have to (tackle) the question, "Is there, a
sorrow without cause and effect?" We know sorrow and the
movement away from sorrow.

P: Is there such a sorrow free of cause and effect ?

Krishnamurti: Man has lived with sorrow from immemorial
times. He has never (really bothered to ?) known how to deal with it. So he has either worshipped (the image of a 'Saviour') or run away from it. They are both the same (outward ?) movement. Now, if my mind does not do either, nor does it use sorrow as an (opportunity for spiritual ?) awakening, what is the relationship between sorrow and love ?

P: They are both (emotional ?) movements of the heart - one is identified as joy and the other as pain.

Krishnamurti: Is love (related to ?) pleasure? Without understanding the nature of pleasure, there is no depth to joy. Joy happens (spontaneously) but (more often than not ) this 'happening' is turned into (a personal pursuit of ?) pleasure. And when that pleasure is denied, there is the beginning of (frustration and ?) sorrow.

P: We know (the pursuit of sensory ?) pleasure is not love. But sorrow and love seem to emerge from the same source.

Krishnamurti: Can there be love if there is sorrow - sorrow being all the
things that we have talked about? In sorrow, there is a factor of separation, of (self-) fragmentation. Is there not a great deal of self-pity in sorrow? Now, what is the relationship of all this to love? Has Love (the sense of unity of All That Is ?) any (personal) dependency? Has love the quality of the "me" and the "you"?

P: But how about passion ?

Krishnamurti: When there is no (mental ?) movement of escape from
sorrow then Love is. Passion is the 'flame of sorrow' and that flame
can only be awakened when sorrow has in it no quality of (self-)
division.

P: In that sense, is that state of sorrow (qualitatively ?) different from the state of love? You say that when in that pain (of sorrow) there is no
resistance, no movement away, the 'flame of passion' emerges. Strangely in the ancient texts, 'kama' (love), 'agni' (fire), and 'yama' (death) are placed on the same level : they 'create', 'purify' and (in order) to
create again there has to be an 'ending'.

Krishnamurti: You see, that is just it. What is the relationship of
a mind which has understood the ending of sorrow? What is the quality of the mind that is no longer afraid of ending, which is 'death'?
When ( the totality of our ?) energy is not dissipated through ( the common avenues of ?) escape, then that (integrated ?) energy
becomes the flame of passion. And (this brings the quality of intelligent ?) Compassion, the 'passion for all'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Feb 2017 #530
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

A SMALL GROUP K DIALOGUE OJAI CALIFORNIA 1977 ( Experientially friendly edited)

ALL ABOUT THE NATURE OF INSIGHT

KRISHNAMURTI: (...) A man came up to me and said, "You are getting old, you are stuck in a groove." And I listened to it. For a couple of days I looked at it and said to myself, "He may be right."

Q: I was going to ask you: to be caught in habit after an (insightful ) perception, could that not ever happen to anybody ?

K: There is partial perception and total perception - let's divide it into those two. When there is a 'total' perception there is no further confusion.

Q: So, you don't get caught in habits anymore ?

K: There is no further confusion.

Q: What if something happens to the brain physically?

K: Then of course it is gone.

Q: So there seems to be a limitation to (the psychological validity of ?) what you say: one assumes that the brain remains healthy.

K: Of course, assuming that the whole organism is healthy. If there is an accident, your brain suffers concussion and something is injured, then it is finished.

Q: (But if this is not the case ) the major danger is that we would mistake a partial perception for the total ?

K: We have to go into this question of what is (an insightful ?) perception. How do you come to it? You cannot have perception if your daily life is in disorder, confused, contradictory. Can I have ( a truly insightful ?) perception if I am attached to my position, to my wife, to my property?

Q: It colours the act of perceiving.

K: So we are saying that a totally (insightful ?) perception can only take place when in your daily life there is no confusion.

Q: Couldn't it be that a total perception can take place in spite of that and wipe the confusion away?

K: If the windows are not clean my view is confused. If I am in fear my perception will be very partial. That is a fact.

Q: But don't you need such a (clear) perception to end fear?

K: Ah, but in investigating fear I have a total perception of fear.

Q: Are you implying that there are certain things you can do which will make for these perceptions?

K: I realize I am distorting perception through fear...

Q:... then I begin to look at fear...

K: Investigate it, look into it.

Q: But I cannot clearly observe fear if I am afraid.

K: Take a fact: you become aware of the fact that there is fear. And you observe also what that fear has done. And you look more and more into it. In looking very deeply into it you have an insight.

Q: I 'may' have an insight...

K: No, you will have insight, which is quite different.

Q: What you are saying is that this confusion due to fear is not complete, that it is always open to mankind to have insight.

K: To anyone who is observing. One suffers and you see what it does. In observing it, in opening it up, you have a certain (clarity of ?) insight. That is all we are saying. That insight may be partial. Therefore one has to be aware that it is partial. Its action is partial and it may appear complete, so watch it.

Q: Could one say that the fear can look at itself?

K: No, no. One is afraid: in looking at that fear without any choosing, you see what fear does. In looking at it more extensively, deeply, widely, suddenly you have an insight into the whole structure of fear.

Q: To simplify it perhaps too much: when we said one can't see through the window because it is dirty, it distorts, the action of examining the fear - the distorting factor - is the cleansing of the window.

K: How you observe is the real thing. That is, (an insightful ?) perception can only take place when there is no division between the 'observer' and the (inner thing) 'observed'. To explore implies there is no division between the observer and the observed. Therefore you are watching the movement of fear and in the very watching of it there is an insight. And yet you see, Krishnamurti says: "I have never done this."

Q: Then how do you know that somebody else can?

K: Suppose you have not gone through all this, but you see it instantly. Because you see it instantly your capacity to reason explains all this. Another listens and says, "I'd like to get that, I don't have to go through that whole process."

Q: Are you saying that all we have been discussing just now is merely a pointer to something else? We don't have to go through all that ?

K: Yes. I want to get at that.

Q: In other words, that ( diligent perception ) helps to clear the ground in some way?

K: Yes.

Q: But it is not really the main point. Are you saying there is a short cut?

K: Must you go through fear, jealousy, anxiety, attachment? Or can you clear the whole thing instantly? Must one go through all this process?
Q: You previously said that you have never done this. And by having that immediate total perception you are able to see what those with the dirty windows can do to clean them. But that isn't necessary, there is perhaps a direct, an immediate way for those who haven't...
K: No. First put the question, see what comes out of it. Dr Bohm says to Krishnamurti: "You have probably not gone through all this. Because you have a direct, a total insight you can argue with reason, with logic; you can act. You are always talking from that total perception, therefore what you say can never be distorted." And another listens to all this and says: "I am frightened, I am jealous, I am this, I am that, and therefore I can't have total perception." So I observe attachment, or fear, or jealousy and I have an insight.
But what we are talking about is: Must one go through all this process?

Q: Couldn't we remove from the problem the personal aspect? We are discussing what is open to man rather than to any individual.

K: Yes. Is it open to any human being without going through all this process?
So, can a human being see the whole thing at a glance? And that very glance is the investigation and the complete, total perception.

Q: This is what you mean when you say "the first step is the last" ?

K: Yes, a total perception.

Q: Then what would one's responsibility be towards someone who is in sorrow?

K: The response to that human being is the response of (an intelligent ?) compassion. Nothing else.

Q: If you see an injured bird it is very easy to deal with that because it really doesn't require very much of you. But when you come in contact with a human being, he has a much more complex set of needs.

K: What can you do actually? Somebody comes to you and says, "I am in deep sorrow". Do you talk to him out of compassion, or from a conclusion, or out of your own particular experience of sorrow which has conditioned you, and you answer him according to your conditioning? A Hindu, who is conditioned in a certain way says: "My dear friend, I am so sorry, but in the next life you will live better. You suffered because you did this and that" - and so on. Or a Christian would respond from some other conclusion. And he takes comfort in it. Because a man who is suffering wants some sort of solace, someone on whose lap he can put his head. So what he is seeking is comfort and avoidance of this terrible pain. Will you offer him any of those escapes? Whatever comes out of an intelligent Compassion will help him.

Q: Are you saying that as far as sorrow is concerned you can't directly help anyone, but the (intelligent ?) energy of compassion itself may be of help?

K: That's right; that's all.

Q: But many such wounded spirits will come to the K Centre here and I think it is going to be a problem to know how to deal with them.

K: There is no problem if you are compassionate. Compassion doesn't create problems. It has no problems, therefore it is compassionate.

Q: You are saying that total compassion is the highest intelligence?

K: Of course. Compassion has its own intelligence and that intelligence acts. But if you have no compassion and no intelligence, then your (personal) conditioning makes you reply whatever he wants. I think that is fairly simple. To go back to the other question: Must a human being go through the whole process? Has no human being said, "I won't go through all this. I absolutely refuse to go through all this (diligent self-investigation ?) "?
You see, we are such creatures of habit. My father is conditioned, generations after generations are conditioned and I am conditioned. And I accept it, I work in it and I operate with it. But if I say, I won't ever operate (in the area of my known ?) conditioned responses, something else may take place.
But you see, a ( culturally standardised ?) human being never says, "I will reject the whole thing". I want to investigate that.

Q: But isn't the key to this somewhere in the very nature of desire? There is some sort of (instinctive) desire for continuity, for security.

K: That's right. ( Being 'psychologically a ' ?) 'bourgeois' implies continuity, security, it implies belonging to something, a lack of taste, vulgarity - all that.

Q: But Krishnaji, if you are saying that Krishnamurti never had the need to say it, we can only conclude that you are some kind of (psychological) "freak".

K: You can, but it doesn't answer the question. Don't you ask: "How does it happen, must I go through all this?"

Q: Krishnaji, you are taking two widely separate things. One is the uncontaminated person, who never had to go through the process because he was never "in the soup", while most other people, apparently, are in a form or other of conditioning: it may be fear, or something else. Therefore the person who has already got this 'sickness' says "This man has never been sick for a day in his life." What good is it to examine that, because one is already sick in some form.

K: Can we put the whole thing ( holistically ?) differently? Do you seek the essence of excellence? Then everything falls away, doesn't it? Or do you seek excellence in certain directions and never the essence of excellence (the excellence of being ?) ? As an an ordinary human being who is fairly intelligent and decent, if he sought the (inner) essence of excellence, would this happen? The essence would meet all this. I wonder if I am conveying something?

Q: Does it exist apart from this ( K-person ?) manifestation?

K: Listen carefully first. The very demand for excellence - and how you demand it - brings the essence of it. You demand it passionately. You demand the highest intelligence, the highest excellence, the essence of it, and when fear arises, then you...

Q: Where does the demand come from?

K: Demand it! Don't say: "Where does it come from?" There may be a (personal) motive, but the very demand washes it all away.

Q: You are saying: Demand this excellence - of which we don't know anything.

K: I don't know what is beyond it, but I want to be morally excellent.

Q: Does that mean "goodness"?

K: I demand the excellence of goodness, I demand the excellent flower of goodness. In that very demand there is a demand for the essence.

Q: Does ( the insightful ?) perception come from this demand?

K: Yes, that's right.

Q: Could you go into what is this 'demand'?

K: It is not a demand which means asking, imploring, wanting - cut out all those.

Q: But then aren't back to prayer ?

K: Oh, no. Leave out all that.

Q: So, are really saying that the impossible is suddenly becoming possible to the average (good listener &) intelligent human being?

K: We are saying that it is possible for the average human being who is fairly decent, fairly kind, who is not a ( psychological ?) 'bourgeois'.

Q: Traditionally we are conditioned to believe that there are special people with no (egotistic ) content of consciousness, so it is very difficult for someone like me to feel that one could really be completely free of it.

K: You see, you have not listened (to the statement) that "what is important in life is (to demand from oneself that ?) supreme excellence which has its own essence." That's all. And to "demand" (such a thing) does not mean praying or getting something from somebody.

Q: The point is, we confuse (this holistic ?) demand with desire.

K: Of course.

Q: So, when people feel that they want to give up desire then there is a danger of giving up this demand as well.

K: Let's find a better word for it. Would it be a " passion for excellence" ?

Q: Many (religious) people have had some great vision, or a dream of something and that has developed a great energy. But you are saying it is not a dream, it is not a vision; but it is nevertheless some perception of this excellence.

K: All those passions feed the ego, feed the me, make me important, consciously or unconsciously. We are cutting out all that. There is this young boy (K) who has a passion to grow up into an extraordinary human being, into something "original".

Q: He sees that it is possible.

K: Yes.

Q: And therefore he has the passion.

K: Yes, that's right. It is possible. Is that what is missing in most human beings? This (existential) passion in a human being who demands the supreme excellence, not in what he writes in his books, but the feeling of it. You know this, don't you? - that may shatter everything else.
But again, this (particular) human being never even asked for it.

Q: Perhaps that is due to our being conditioned to mediocrity, not to make this demand. That is what you mean by 'mediocrity' ?

K: Yes, of course. Mediocrity is lack of great passion.

Q: We are not only conditioned to mediocrity, so our (existential) demand is always along some direction. Now, to have a demand without any direction...

K: That's right. I like the word "demand", because it is a challenge.

Q: Doesn't a demand without direction imply that it is not in time?

K: Of course. It demands no direction, no time, no person. So does total insight bring this passion? Total insight "is" the ( flame of that?) passion which wipes away all confusion. It burns away everything else. Don't you then act as a magnet? The bees go towards the nectar. In the same way don't you act as a magnet when you are passionate to create? Is this lack of (inner) fire the thing that is missing ? If there is something (of this kind ?) missing I would ask for it.

Q: But logically one could ask: Is there an essential difference between the unconditioned and the conditioned human mind ?

K: I see what you mean. Essentially, deeply, is there a difference?

Q: Or... is our conditioning only superficial? When you say, "You are the world, the world is you" - does that statement include the conditioned as well as the unconditioned?

K: It is an obvious fact: "The world is 'me' and 'me' is the world" ?

Q: But only the unconditioned can perceive that?

K: It isn't quite like that...

Q: I may say, "I am the world, the world is me", but then I revert to an action which is a contradiction to that. Therefore it is not an absolute fact for me. There may be moments when the fact of it is seen by me.

K: A person can say this merely as a (convenient ?) intellectual conclusion, or as a momentary feeling. But when one (honestly ) says, "I am the world and the world is me" there is no ( self-conscious) 'me' (involved) . To a man who feels, "The world is me and I am the world", to him there is no 'me'. That human being lives in this world, he must have food, clothes and shelter, a job, transportation, all that, yet there is no me.
So when the world is me and I am the world, there is no me. Can that state of consciousness , that (holistic) quality freely operate in all directions? It must operate in all directions. When you say, "I am the world and the world is me", and there is no me, there is no (self-centred ?) conditioning.

Q: Therefore the 'other person' also is not there, there is no 'you'.

K: There is no 'me', there is no 'you'.

Q: There is no 'me' and no 'you'. But this also means "there is everything".

K: The whole world of living - everything. There is no you, there is no I in that state. Is this too abstract?

Q: Why do you have to say, "I am the world" first, and then deny this?

K: Because it is (seen as ?) an actual fact that I 'am 'the world.

Q: So, there is just everything ?

K: No, this is very dangerous. If you say, "I am everything", then the murderer, the assassin is part of me.

Q: Suppose I say, "I am the world" instead, does that change it?

K: (laughing) All right. I see the actual fact that I "am" (psychologically ?) the result of the world. The world means wars, the whole of society - I am the result of that.

Q: And I see that everybody is the result of that.

K: Yes. The result is 'I' and 'you'.

Q: And that separation.

K: When I say "I am the world", I am saying all that.

Q: You mean to say that I am generated by the world, I am identified with everything ?

K: Yes. I am the product of the world.

Q: And the world is the essence of what I am.

K: Yes. I am the essence of the world. When there is a deep perception of that there is no 'you' or 'me'. I think that holds logically. But there is a (potential) danger in saying that 'I am everything'- I'll accept everything.

Q: You are really saying that (psychologically) one is the product of the whole of society.

K: Yes. I am really the essential result of all this.

Q: Does it help to use the word "Ego"?

K: You see, when you say 'ego', there is a possibility of deception: that 'I' ( my higher self ?) is the very essence of God. You know about that superstition.

Q: But there is still another question. Is the unconditioned mind also a product of all this? Then we come to a contradiction.

K: No, there is no contradiction. The result of the world is this. The result of the world is that also. We are two human beings, which means the result has created the I and the you. When there is an insight into the result there is no "result".

Q: The (conditioned ?) result changes and vanishes when we see it.

K: You see what it means? There is no (personalised ?) causation in the mind and therefore there is no effect. Therefore the mind is whole, and any action born of it is causeless and without effect.

Q: You have to make that more clear, in the sense that you still use the causes and effects concerning ordinary, mechanical things.

K: Quite. This human being, X, is a result. And Y is a result. X says I, and Y says I? Now, if X says I see this and investigates, goes into it and (eventually ?) has a (non-dualistic ?) insight. In ( the timeless light of ?) that "insight" the two results (the division between the 'me' and the 'non-me' ?) ceases. Therefore in that (integrated ?) state ( of mind) there is no cause. That mind acts out of Compassion. Therefore there is no ( promise or expectation of a ?) result. (Eg:) A is suffering, and he says to X, "Please help me to get out of my suffering." If X really has ( the Intelligence of Universal ?) compassion his words have no ( materially measurable ?) "result".

Q: Something 'happens', but there is no (necessarily an expected ?) result.

K: That's it.

Q: But I think people generally are (offering or expecting ?) a result.

K: Yes. Let's put it another (metaphysical ?) way. Does Compassion have a result? When there is (measurable) result there is (a measurable ?) cause. So, when compassion has a cause then you are no longer "compassionate".

Q: It is an extremely subtle thing, because ( in the context of insight) something happens which seems final and yet is not... But doesn't compassion also acts.

K: Compassion is compassion ( a light in itself ?) , it doesn't 'act'. If it acts "because" there is a cause and an effect, then it is not Compassion: it wants a result.

Q: So, it acts "purely". What makes us want a result is our idea of separation. " There is this person suffering and I would like to produce the result that he is not suffering. " But that is based on the idea that there is a 'me' and a '(s)he'.

K: That's it. (To recap:) "The world is me and I am the world". When I say "me", the "you" (implicitly) exist: both of us are there (as self-isolated entities) . The ( worldly) "you" and the ( worldly) 'I' are the results of man's ( self-centred ?) misery, of selfishness, and so on - they are a result.
Now, when one looks (meditatively ?) into the result, goes into (the true nature of ?) it very, very deeply, the ( lucky flash of ?) insight brings about a (non-dualistic) quality in which 'you' and 'I' - who are the result - don't exist. This is (conveniently ?) easy to agree to verbally, but (if and ?) when you see it deeply there is no (inner sense of duality as ?) 'you' and 'me'. Therefore there is no (dualistic measurable ?) result - which means (the pure light of ?) compassion. Now, the person upon whom that (enlightened ?) Compassion acts wants a (personally rewarding ?) result. We say, "Sorry, there is no ( materially quantifiable ?) "result".
But the man who suffers says, "Help me to get out of this", or, "Help me to bring back my son, my wife", or whatever it is. He is demanding a ( manifested ?) result. This ( Intelligent & Compassionate 'something' ?) has no result. The (temporal ?) 'result' is the world.

Q: But does that (intelligent energy of ?) compassion affect the total consciousness of man?

K: Yes. It affects the deep layers of ( the human) consciousness.
( Re-recap ?) The 'I' is the result of the world, the 'you' is the result of the world. But to the (compassionate & intelligent ?) mind who sees this deeply with a profound insight, there is no 'you' or 'I'. Therefore that profound insight is ( the holistic action of ?) compassion - which is Intelligence. And this Intelligence says: If you want a (material ?) result I can't give it to you, I am not the product of a result. Compassion says: This ( enlightened ?) state is not a result, therefore there is no cause.

Q: Does that mean there is no time either?

K: No cause, no result, no time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 Feb 2017 #531
Thumb_stringio Butiam Noone Australia 1 post in this forum Offline

Hi all,

I take very seriously the statement that K made on almost every occasion that he spoke, which was "I am not your Guru" "This is not a lecture" "the Speaker is not important".

However, there is a natural tendency (by conditioning) to secretly place him in that role anyway.

"The word is not the thing".

It is so tempting, to delve into his writings, his speeches and other media to find, in essence, aphorisms or mantras that deliver freedom. But, in reality the words are meaningless.

Trees

For some reason, since I was about 24 I suddenly looked at trees in a strange way. Each tree, no matter how small, immature, scraggly or out of shape started to take on an extraordinary beauty, a freshness and newness that just took my breath away. Though never an artist and in fact quite poor at art in school I took up drawing and painting trees. I had little understanding of what was happening or what it meant or where it fit into the framework of my life, my psychology. Then about 6 years later, I was staying with a friend in a remote forest are in Western Australia when I read a dialogue of K and David Bohm. After reading for about 40 minutes I went for a walk down the long driveway of the property. I remember feeling that everything was just new, fresh, known for the first time, as if I were a baby and knew nothing about any of the things I looked at and just feeling an extraordinary beauty and love for everything, a connection with everything.

The Trap

I had trained in law and philosophy, specifically logic. Both of these disciplines are highly organised branches of thought, both strive to take concepts and arguments that do not lend themselves to mathematical quantification and organise them. This conditioning derailed me frankly. I took to undertaking an exercise in analysis of K, trying to organise it into a cohesive, comprehensible framework of ideas. Put simply I tried to see it as a method - do x, think y, don't think z, don't do w and "whammo" = enlightenment. The desire to recapture that feeling, that being, that I had experienced was so overwhelming that I became completely lost. This was in or about 2000. At that time, there was not near the volume of K material freely available that there is today. I had only one dialogue which I'd read and one tape of one partial series of a talk.

The benefits despite the trap

Notwithstanding that I was lost, there was a particular benefit that flowed. It related to the physical rather than the purely mental (as if there's a real difference :-) ). When I drink too much, I get quite ill, pretty much alcohol poisoning really (irish heritage). I know that if I go over the precipice and throw up, it goes on for hours without let up. On one occasion this began, I was lying down, my head spinning, my stomach churning and of course "I" am feeling sorry for myself and wishing this would stop happening to me. I then kind of gave up on it, on everything and instantaneously fell into this sense that all of this, all these bad feelings and sickness was not "happening to me" but in fact "was me". What ensued was a wild psychic ride downward into what was happening in my body and then I was ok. It's impossible to explain, but it was just ok and none of the usual repercussions followed.

For a long time, I took the view that this was the sole benefit deriving from K for me, I used it in pain situations, even extreme pain (gall bladder pain that morphine did not assist), dental pain etc and used it to great effect. I even experimented with a deriviation of it with other people in pain - I can't explain it, but just being with them and using my hand to somehow, without intention merging with their pain somehow brought them relief. I didn't even believe in it, probably still don't believe in it, but occasionally inexplicably have been moved to try it on occasion.

The next phase

I had thought about K sometimes over the 16 years or so since first reading the K dialogue with Bohm but lifes current swept me along as it can do.

Then in the past 2 years, through life's circumstances I can only say that I became more and more depressed and the world became a dark place. This prompted me to revisit K. I was pleasantly surprised to find such a huge range of his material freely available.

So, of course I began listening to his speeches on YouTube. I tried reading a few texts, but it left me a little cold really, but hearing him speak did not. I guess this time I was more aware of the Trap that I'd fallen into the last time, and whilst I kept falling into it, I was aware of it and thus it was entirely different.

The lightning bolt

The turning point came when I suddenly realised that whatever I experienced from exposure to K speaking could not and should not be sought to be repeated. The memory of it was a shackle, the desire to repeat it just a re-visitation of the trap. After all, why should it be the same on any two occasions - who ever said it would be a constant unchanging "sense" or "experience". Since this lightning bolt, the experiences have been wide ranging and everyoine different, sometimes with and sometimes without physical effects such as a feeling of great pressure in the head, a kind of shivering feeling throughout the body (like that experience we all say is "someone walking over your grave", but one that is more long lasting less intense, gentle even). The falling away of desire to hold onto or repeat any given experience has counter-intuitively led to the very thing such a desire wants - which I love, its the irony of life, the irony of desire, the irony of humanity.

Freedom from the teacher

A strong urge arose for a time to "know" whether K was enlightened, was he Buddha(like), did he transcend etc etc "so on and so on and all that" as he quaintly says. This led to an intellectual investigation of K, the biographies, the journal, the sex scandal, the lawsuits with Raja(whatshisname) and some reading on the other forum here of the criticisms by "anti-K" people.

It was a tumultuous experience really, because it interrupted whatever else it was that was going on. At times I thought I should give up on it, to stop it as it was destroying the other thing. But eventually, I guess it brought me right back to the start, the one thing he wanted everyone to know and to accept at the beginning of his speaking "I am not your guru" "the speaker is unimportant".

Its a conditioning really, isn't it, to want him to be perfect, to have been Buddha(like), to be our saviour - oh we want it so much, to have someone else do it for us, be it for us, give it to us, stand as a righteous and virtuous, totally innocent and impeccable pinnacle of achievement, an example we can strive for... (hahahahaha) the very non-essence of whatever it is he was saying.

He was a man, what he experienced was what he experienced and his putting it into words was perhaps unhelpful and counterproductive to what he thought he was doing. It may even be that the publication of works is counterproductive in many instances.. who can know where it all ends. Perhaps in 1000 years (if humanity survives) his image and memory will be as corrupted as Buddha.

What actually are K's Teachings?

Nothing, not a thing - there's nothing to grasp onto, nothing to learn from - no concept to apply, no activity to undertake, no method, no pattern, no logic and no teaching.

BUT

There is a spark and it can catch fire if you only hear beyond the words, read between the lines and see a tree for the first time (or a lake or a mountain or a stone or a hand or anything for that matter) and then let the fire burn rather than (as my friends annoyingly do when a camp fire is going) poking it, blowing it and trying to control it.

Tone (aka Butiam Noone)

This post was last updated by Butiam Noone Thu, 16 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 Feb 2017 #532
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

A K SEMINAR MADRAS 1979 on:

THE NATURE OF A RELIGIOUS (optional: HOLISTIC ?) LIFE (experientially -friendly edited)

K: We are enquiring into this (perrenial) question of what is a 'religious' (holistic) mind and what we would consider a religious (a 'holistic way of ?) life.

D.S.: You have often said that thought is not the movement of a religious mind. But certainly even a 'religious mind' thinks.

K: Let me explain that (more explicitly ?) . I said, "thought cannot contain the religious mind". Thought in itself being a fragment, whatever it does will bring about fragmentation, and a religious ( or holistic) mind is not fragmentary.

P.K. Sundaram: Thought always dwells on dualities without which it cannot even live. So, the religious mind must transcend the (observer-observed) duality.

K: I am questioning whether there is duality at all.

P.J.: Sir, what do you mean when you question the fact of duality?

K: I question whether duality exists.

S.P.: But we are living in this duality. The thinking process itself functions in duality.

K: Let me expand it a little more. Has the fact an opposite?

S.P.: Will you say thought is a fact?

K: Thought is a fact. But what it has invented, (in terms of a ?) religious mind - is an illusion, 'illusion' being a perception (tainted) with a certain direction, a prejudice, a fixation. We are saying that a fact, that is, greed, anger or envy, has no opposite.

P.J.: Why introduce the word 'illusion' ?

K: I use the word 'illusion' in the sense - sensory perception of external objects which is 'coloured' ( 'biased' ?) by our beliefs, by prejudices, by opinions, by (our collective & personal ?) conclusions. I would call that an "illusion". Now, if the observation is "pure" - in the sense, without any kind of motive, distortion, prejudice, so that there is nothing between your perception and the object which you perceive - then that very perception denies duality.

R.R.: I don't think we have that 'pure' perception...

K: That's the (hidden ?) problem. To me there is only the fact. A fact has no opposite. But we accept (to think in terms of ?) duality: I am angry; I must not be angry.

R.R.: But in my perception I see Mr Achyutji as separate.

K: Which means what? Your perception is conditioned. Can you observe putting aside that conditioning?

S.P.: Would you say that so long as there is conditioning, there is duality?

K: I would.

S.P.: Then is not duality a fact?

K: No. It is the conditioning that says there is duality.

P.J.: You used the phrase: "Can you observe putting aside that conditioning ". What is implied in it?

K: Can the observation be so complete that there is no 'observer' and 'thing observed', only observation? It means to be aware of this (mental) "moving away" from the fact, which creates duality. Then there is pure observation in which there is no duality.

D.S.: Krishnaji, are you saying that in the act of seeing Mr Achyutji, there is also an awareness of this whole (dualistic) movement?

K: Yes.

R.R.: What you have just said is a theoretical idea to me.

K: How would you get to that non-movement of perception ?

R.R.: You mean a perception that does not move (in any direction ?) ? Please explain that.

K. We are saying that when there is perception without the 'observer', then there is no duality. Duality occurs when there is the observer and the observed. The observer is the past. So, through the (knowledgeable ?) 'eyes of the past' the observation creates a duality.

P.J.: The only ( questionable ?) point when you said 'When there is perception without the observer,' you used the word 'when'...

K: Yes, because he says that it is a theory to him.

P.J.: That's why I ask: How is a person to come to a state in which the (conditional) 'when' has ceased?

Uma: I am observing, I find my observation is interrupted and I also know that it is interrupted because I don't have the energy to be in that state of observation.

K: Why don't you have that energy? Perception does not need energy. You just perceive.

D.S.: There is validity when she says you lose energy. In most cases the perception is a commitment to duality.

K: It is your tradition or conditioning. Your whole outlook is that.

A.P.: I see that mankind can survive only as an indivisible whole, but the weight of my knowledge and the requirements of my daily living are stressing separateness, and separateness is so overpowering that it seems to eclipse the perception that man's well-being is indivisible. Do you think I am creating a problem because I am stating it? The problem is implicit in the human situation.

K: What is the meaning of the word 'problem' ? Something not resolved, something which is worrying you, that goes on day after day, for many years. Why don't we resolve something that arises as a problem immediately and not carry on and on?

P.J.: Sir, wthere are many other issues involved here. The issues are that it does not need Krishnaji to tell me that there is a source of energy, perception,(within myself) which I have not touched. Without touching "that", this partial solution of the problem keeps on existing, keeps me within the framework of time, for eternity. I know that the very imperatives of the human situation demand that there must be a source of energy which, once touched, will physically transform our ways of thinking.

K: We started out discussing the place of knowledge in religious life. Let us start from here again and move around. We said knowledge is destroying the world without this (holistic quality of a ?) religious mind. Then we started asking what is a religious mind. Now, what is a religious mind? (For starters it is ?) (an inner) sanity without any illusion, without a belief dictating my enquiry. That means a mind that is free to look.

P.J.: In your very statement you have annihilated the whole premise.

K: Which is what?

P.J.: Which is the 'real' structure of human consciousness: (self-centred) thought, belief, movement, becoming, identity.

K: And dogma. So, our (self-centred) consciousness is the whole movement of thought with its content. I am a Hindu, I believe in puja, I worship, I pray, I am anxious, I am afraid - all that is this whole spectrum of (mental) movement.

P.J.: What place has the word 'sanity' which you use in this context ?

K: One's ( ego-centric) consciousness is an 'insane' consciousness.

G.N.: Do you imply that 'sanity' implies not being caught in make-believe?

K: Sanity means a healthy mind, a healthy body, a healthy inwardness.

G.N.: If one is not sane, can one enquire?

K: How can I be sane when my consciousness is a bundle of contradictions, a bundle of hopes, illusions, fears, pleasures, anxiety, sorrow and all that. Can that consciousness find a religious way of life? Obviously it cannot.

P.J.: In all the (serious) traditional ways of approaching this whole (mixed bag) content of human consciousness, it is symbolized by one word 'I', and the enquiry is into the nature and the dissolution of the 'I'.

K: All right. Let us work at it (along this line ?) . We say in a (holistic) life there is a total absence of the 'self'. Then my enquiry is whether the 'self-(centred' consciousness ?) can be dissolved. So I begin from there and see if it is possible to empty totally that consciousness.

P.J.: What is the nature of that emptying?

K: Can I be free from my attachments? Can I be free from following someone's (spiritual) authority? I go on (untying all these knots ?) and my consciousness is totally stripped of all its contradictions.
Is it possible to be globally aware, holistically, of the total content of our consciousness ? If it is not possible, let us take fragment by fragment - but will that bring about comprehension of the total perception of consciousness?

P.K.S.: Will you not be 'intellectual' in your enquiry?

K: No. Because I am enquiring with my whole being. My heart, my affection, my nerves, my senses, my intellect, my thought, everything is involved in this enquiry.

R.R.: Sir, will you state the conditions of this enquiry?

K: As you observe (in this way) that very observation changes that which is being observed. Why can't you do this ?

R.R.: Because my attention wanders.

K: Which means that when you are looking, in spite of your (instinctual desire for ?) acquiring knowledge, you'll have to put that aside when you are watching. This watching (free of the known ?) is (essential in) the transformation of 'that which is being observed'.

R.R.: Sir, maybe I am not expressing it rightly. If I observe myself, I think it is a fact for me that my attention wanders.

K: Let us begin step by step (for this 'in class assignment'):
'Myself ' is a (dynamic) bundle of ( personal) reactions. So, I begin with things which are very near to me, such as puja I see it, I look at it, I watch it, and (if ?) I see it is absurd I'll put it away for ever.

R.R.: ( Sounds easy but...) it does not seem to work like that.

K: Is it because of your ( whole existence is safely organised in such ?) habits?
R.R.: Yes, that is right.

K: So go into (examining) your habits. Why do you have a mind functioning in a (safe sequence of ?) habits which means a 'mechanical' mind? Is it because it is a very safe mechanical way of life , to feel secure (in a seriously disturbed environment ?) ? And is this (cyclic) repetition of habits giving any real security, or you just invested ( an instinctual desire for ?) security in it?

R.R.: I give it security.

K: Therefore.... wipe it away.

R.R.: This is where the difficulty is. I can see my mind is mechanical or caught in habits, but my understanding does not seem to lead to be 'cutting away' anything.

K: Because your mind is still ( deeply conditioned to ?) function in habits. Are there good habits or bad habits, or are there only habits? And why are you caught in them?
So let us come back to the consciousness that is in turmoil, in contradiction, wanders from one thing to another. There is a ( subliminal) battle that is going on. As long as that (split ?) consciousness is there, you can never pure perceiving. Is it possible to bring about a total absence of this movement of contradiction?

S.P.: I can easily see the truth regarding the mechanical action of puja, and it is out of my system. (And further down the line) the truth regarding many other fragments can be seen and they can be negated. But even then, the (central) problem remains, which is the ending of the total content of the self-centred consciousness. There can be an ending of a fragment but the problem is that of ending the totality of (the active content of this?) consciousness.

K: Are you saying that 'you' (the controlling observer ?) see them sequentially fragment by fragment? Then you can never come to the end of the fragmentation.

S.P.: Unfortunately this is what we see after ten, fifteen years of (diligent) self-observing.

K.: You can't. Therefore, you must ask yourself: is there an observation which is total? (for starters ?) have I understood deeply in my heart, in my whole being, that the sequential examining of my fragmentation will never solve it? If I have understood that;, therefore, I won't touch it. I won't go near a (wiser ?) guru, because they all deal with fragments.

S.P.: Do I have to see all the implications at this point or have I to work it out?

K: I can't see the whole because my whole being, thinking, living, is (ego-centrically ?) fragmented. What is the root of this (inner) fragmentation?

S.P.: This sense of 'I-ness' which acts (spontaneously) ?

K: No, that is intellectual. I said to you, "listen". How do you listen to that statement? Listening with the intellect is fragmentation. Hearing with the ear is fragmentation. Do you listen with your whole, entire being, or do you just say 'Yes, it is a good idea'?

George Sudarshan: Let me go back to our initial question: What is a religious (holistic ?) life? It is the cessation (removal) of the contradiction between causality and spontaneity. Most of the world around us is causal: That is, this being so this happens, if this has happened, it must have been because of such and so. All this is based on comparison, copying. On the other hand, fortunately, we are also subject to the experience of spontaneity, experiences of movement with no cause, without time, in which there is only functioning. Much of the (existential) problem of life is, in fact, reconciling these two things because, somehow or the other, one feels these two are both real experiences and one would like to resolve the contradiction. As far as I have observed, it appears to me that when you are in the "spontaneous" mode of functioning, there is in fact no possibility of it being broken down. When you are happy, you are happy; then there is no question of anxiety about it. However, if you feel that you would like to continue this mode, then, of course, the (spontaneous) mode has already ceased. When you want to maintain an experience which you already have in time, corruption has set in, and it is only a matter of time before it will come to an end. Therefore, the whole question of "how to end fragmentation" is wrong. We cannot logically conceive it, we cannot dictate the rules, we cannot legislate it, we cannot write a manual about it. Therefore, in a certain sense, when it comes, it comes by itself. That is, in fact, the only true mode of existence.

K: So, what do we do? Say I am fragmented and carry on?

G.S.: Would you tell me how to end the process of fragmentation?

K: I will tell you, sir. Thought is always fragmentary. So, if that is the root of fragmentation, can thought stop?

G.S.: Just stop?

K: Not occasionally or spontaneously. To me all that implies a movement in time.

G.S.: As long as you are thinking, that is the (time-creating ?) movement.

K: I said so. Thought is a movement and so (the) time (it is projecting) is a movement. So, can (this thought-generated continuity in ) time stop?

G.S.: Where did that thought arise - in the unfragmented state or the fragmented?

K: In the fragmented state. We answer always from a fragmented mind.

G.S.: Not 'always'....

K: I said it generally. And is there a (thinking ?) which comes of a non-fragmented mind?

G.S.: I am not sure I am following your terminology.

K: We said thought is fragmented, that it is the cause of fragmentation.

G.S.: What I am saying is that fragmentation and thought go together. To say that one is the cause of the other is not true.

K: Cause and effect are the same.

G.S.: So, are they aspects of the same entity?

K: Thought and fragmentation are (manifestations of ?) the same movement, which is part of time. It is the same thing, whether it is one or the other. So, I can ask, can this 'psychological' time, inward time, stop? Can the whole movement stop completely? When I don't become (anything) in time , or when my being is not (entangled ?) in time, there is a "no-thing(ness)" , which means, love is not of time

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Feb 2017 #533
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

NEXT K SEMINAR MADRAS (1979)

EXPLORING THE NATURE OF A HOLISTIC WAY OF LIFE ( experientially friendly edited -

N. Vasudevan Nair: What are the (available existential) choices before mankind, sir? In the enormity of his grief, man faces the world, which is a very devastating experience. He crawls on all fours to catch a blade of grass, he suffers, he is lost. Can there be a complete rebirth or has he to undergo the pain of one birth after another?

K: Would you say that the real question is : What is the challenge for mankind in the present crisis? We can all see the deterioration of (the global consciousness of ?) mankind not only in this country but in every country, and we have not only to stop it but also to bring about a re-birth - a totally different way of life. And we are asking: Is there a way of living which is totally holistic in the sense that we are using the word? And we are trying to investigate what is the nature of this 'holistic' life. Is it possible to find a holistic way of living in this 'modern' world with all the technological advancement, with the crumbling of all (authentic) human relationships?
( And for starters ?) we said that because ( the self-centred process of our ?) thought in itself is limited, all its ( activities or ?) 'movements' are fragmentary. ( This ego-centric process of ) thought itself is fragmented. Would you accept that?

G.N.: We have acquired a lot of knowledge, and from that knowledge there is one way of functioning. Now, what is the difference between acting from knowledge and acting from 'insight'? What is the nature of this 'insight'? Is it possible to communicate this distinction?

K: Are we trying now to explore what is insight?

D.S.: We should also discuss the question of how a fragmented mind can investigate.

K: First, let us see that the movement of (the ego-centric) thought must inevitably be a broken up process. The (next experiential ?) question is, can this fragmentary movement end? Watching one's own life, one discovers that there is conflict, that there is ( confusion and ?) fragmentation. So, the essential point here is the seeing of this whole movement of thought. Is that what you are trying to say? Could we then discuss what (an insightful ?) perception is, not theoretically but actually? Could we go into that and move from there?

P.J.: Sir, could we start with the query: how can thought end?

San: I would happily accept you suggestion that the solution to all the problems would be the cessation of ( this ego-centric) thought, but...how does one achieve that?

K: If ( for starters ?) we all see that ( our self-centred ?) thinking , is in itself limited, broken up, then the next question would be, is it possible to stop (this process of ?) thought, and if it is stopped, then what is my activity in my daily life? Can this self-centred thought realize itself as limited, and, therefore, being limited, limit itself to a certain (mechanical sequence of specialised ?) activities in daily life?

R.D.: Thought can certainly realise that it is limited, but... intellectually.

K: Let us move out of that ( experiential impasse ?) for a while. Can your consciousness become (fully) aware of itself?

P.J.: Has our consciousness a (superior ?) capacity to reflect on itself?

K: Has consciousness the capacity to observe itself ? Is there in consciousness a (non-personal) element that can observes it "as is"? Is there an 'observer' observing, or there is only pure observation ?

P.K.S.: Are we not introducing a (subliminal ) duality within our consciousness by asking " Can our consciousness observe itself ?".

K: Sir, our consciousness is ( a vast field ?) full of duality. I do, I don't, I must not, fear, courage - the whole of that is consciousness.

S.P.: Is ( a choiceless ?) awareness of consciousness part of consciousness?

K: I would like to discuss it. Is there an observation without the observer? If there is, then that ( quality of pure ?) observation can operate on the whole of consciousness. We are missing a very important thing, which is, there is only observation, not the observer.

D.S.: If I (assume to ?) know that there is observation without the observer, I have already introduced a (super-?) 'observer'.

K: As most of us observe with the 'observer' ( instinctively functioning in a 'fool-proof' observer mode ?) , we'll have to examine what this 'observer' (mental platform) is. Who is this ( all knowing ?) 'observer' to whom you give so much importance? That is, this whole (mentality ?) build-up through generations, that the 'observer' is different from that which he is observing.
There is an objective observation of that thing called a 'tree' and I say it is a tree, but here we are talking about (the inward) 'psychological' observation. In this (kind of) observation, there is a ( sense of ?) duality - 'I' and the 'thing I am observing'. It is the observer who brings about this distinction. Now, what is ( the nature of ?) this 'observer'?

S.P.: The whole collection of ( our past ) experience (through a subliminal process of ?) identification is (creating) the 'observer'. This 'observer' (self-identified entity ) has many (psychic ?) depths.

K: That is, knowledge, the past; the past being accumulation of knowledge, experience of mankind - racial, non-racial. The observer is the ( controlling action of all our inner experience of the ?) past.

A.P.: With one (important ) addition - the observer is the past plus the sense of (its temporal) continuity.

K: The (temporal) continuity is the observer who is the ( active memory of the ?) past meeting the present, modifying itself and continuing itself into the future .

San: The 'observer' (aka: the 'ego', 'thinker', 'experiencer', 'censor'...) has ( a whole kit of survival skills at ?) depths which are very difficult to fathom.

K: I know the observer has 'depth', the depth being the ( psychic ?) knowledge of centuries...

P.J.: The nature of the 'observer' is the ('psyche' functioning safely in the ?) field of (the known) .

K: Now, when you say there are depths to the 'observer', I would say the observer himself "is" the field of consciousness. You can keep on expanding the (self-consciousness of the ?) observer endlessly.
But to make it (experientially) simple: Can I observe my wife or my husband without all the (residues of psychological) accumulations that I have had during my twenty years of life with her or him?

P.J.: I may say: 'yes'.

K: That would just be agreeing. We are not meeting the (experientially active) point. Can I observe my wife or husband with whom I have lived, and about whom, during the course of those twenty years, I have accumulated knowledge, as she has about me? Can I observe her without the accumulated knowledge?

San: (On a permanent base ?) it is not possible.

K: The 'observer' is the (active interference of the ?) past. Can you observe ( in a leisurely glimpse ?) your wife, husband, as though you are seeing a human being for the first time? Then your whole relationship changes.

S.P.: There have been occasions when one can see a husband or a friend without any (interfering ?) movement of the past. So, one sees it is possible to see that way. But when you say that the entire relationship is changed 'for ever', then the major experiential difficulty arises.

K: All right. Have we communicated to each other that the observer who is the past and, therefore, time-bound creates the distinction between himself and his wife - dominating her, pushing her? So, the (active memory of our ?) past is always operating. And, therefore, his relationship with her is based not on affection, not on love, but on the past.

S.P.: We can still have affection.

K: I question (the authenticity of ?) it. Can we have affection if there is the operation of the past?

P.K.S.: Then, to come back to our initial question: Is it possible for an observation to be there without the observer?

K: Sir, this is the problem with all of us. Can I observe a thing without all the burden of the past? Because, if it is possible to observe totally, then that observation is not time-bound, it is not a continuity. The moment you do it, don't you fall into a new mode of existence; something totally irrevocable?

P.J.: How is it possible (to be 'totally irrevocable') ?

K: Can (the observing mind ?) see the movement of the past as it operates? Is there an observation of the (chain-reaction of the ?) past - of the whole cycle of hurt, psychologically, physically, which involves resistance, agony, pain, all that? Can there be a (non-personal ?) observation of that hurt, that observation telling the story of the hurt, revealing itself? Is it impractical?

D.S.: Everything we see ( we become aware of ?) in some way is the action of the observer. So, every question arises in the condition of the observer.

K: ( Leaving all futher study of the 'observer' for homework ?)
I tell you this (Universally insightful ?) simple "fact", that "Love is not of time", ( and if its truth is actually seen ?) then duality, the observer, everything ends.

Now, what is a religious (or holistic ?) life? Obviously, all things that go on in the name of religion are not religion - all the rituals, the puja, the gods, all that is out. Then what will it be? All that (psycho-cultural tradition) is thrown out, which means you are throwing out the 'me'.
So, (in a nutshell) the essence of religion is the total absence of the 'me', of the 'self.

San: What is it you mean by 'self'? Is it the ego?

K: Ego, which means my (psychical ?) characteristics, my desires, my fears.

A.P.: Would you accept it if I say that the 'self' is only an (all-purpose psychological ?) adhesive, it has the quality of making things stick to it ?

K: You (still) have to see that you 'are' selfish. The 'self 'is ( a psychic bundle of ?) greed, envy, jealousy, desire for power, position, domination and attachment. End it. And can you live without the 'self' and live in this world?

D.S.: The fact is that in the very nature of the observer arise the questions: How can I be religious, how can I be unselfish, how can I be this, how can I be that? Everybody wants to get another (miracle) drug; everybody is trying to get there.

K: Yes sir, everybody wants to be something else. Everybody is doing something. So, all I say is: Start where 'you' are.

D.S.: You stick to that?

K: I do.

D.S.: But you talked of being 'unselfish'...

M.Z.: Envy, greed jealousy is exactly where you are now.

K: I am saying: Start near. Because, if you know this whole history of man which is 'you', it is finished.

D.S.: You don't have to change that ?

K: It is a book, a vast book, and I read it. I am not trying to change it. I want to 'read' this whole history instantly.

S.P.: Without movement in time, how can you read?

K: I just want to know (as it is now ?) the whole content of myself. My whole consciousness 'is' its content. But you can investigate something when you are free of (cultural & personal ?) prejudice, belief, conclusion.

R.D.: Then the ( living expression of this ?) history is the 'prejudice', and you are saying, 'Read it.'

K: Then it is finished. I have come to the end of the ( history ?) chapter.

S.P.: Then you are not really interested in investigating the content but in stopping?

Rajesh Dalal: I can see intellectually that a system will not end the problem at all. So, I don't seek. Now the question is, what do I do? I have denied systems, denied practice. Now, where am I?

K: If you have put away systems, practices, what is the state of your mind ? You have seen something as being false, and you have dropped it. Your mind has become sharper, more intelligent. ( Once awakened and put to good work ?) that ( quality of compassionate ?) intelligence is going to observe, put away everything that is false. When you put away something false, your mind is lighter. It is like climbing a mountain and throwing away that which you don't need. ( Eventually ?) your mind becomes very, very clear. So your mind has the capacity of perceiving that which is true and that which is false. Discard everything that is false, everything that (the self-centred human ) thought has put together. Then the mind has no illusions.

Sirs (in a nutshell?) this is the whole (Beginner's First Experiential ?) Book: I began with the 'first' chapter which says: 'Become aware of your senses'. And the 'second' chapter says: Human beings have (used) partiallly the senses, exaggerating one sense and denying the others. The 'third' chapter says: See that all the senses can operate (in harmony) ; that means there is no (time-binding identification with a) particular sensory operation. And the 'fourth' chapter.... and so on. I am not going to read the book for you.
( For homework: ?) Read (and complete it interactively ?) as you begin to explore the nature of the 'religious' (holistic way of ?) life

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Feb 2017 #534
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

Butiam Noone wrote:
What actually are K's Teachings? >Nothing, not a thing - there's nothing to grasp onto, nothing to learn from - no concept to apply, no activity to undertake, no method, no pattern, no logic and no teaching.

BUT >There is a spark and it can catch fire if you only hear beyond the words, read between the lines and see a tree for the first time (or a lake or a mountain or a stone or a hand or anything for that matter) and then let the fire burn

Hi, Tone and -better late than never- welcome to this forum dedicated to the experiential implications of the K Teachings. I quite agree with your statement quoted above, there is some 'Spirit of the Teachings' that permeated both his life & his Teachings. What we're doing here - for better or...for worse- is trying to interact with their living Truth. Please do feel free to post your own topics of interests or quotes and certainly someone will read them and eventually ....respond

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 #535
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K SEMINAR MADRAS 1978 ON:

INSIGHTS INTO 'PSYCHOLOGICAL' REGENERATION (experientially friendly edited)

A.P.: Modern society developed during the last two hundred years. It has certain clearly (materialistic ?) postulates - that the problems that affect human society arise from a lack of material resources, from poverty, disease, squalor; and that these can be remedied by control over the material environment. This view persists in men's minds, particularly in countries like India where there is so much poverty. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that these postulates are a facile oversimplification. The abuse of natural resources are a peril to human survival. The criminal misdirection of scientific and technological skill for the production of lethal weapons, atomic and others, and pollution are grave risks to human survival. Science and technology by themselves have no defence against their own misuse.
A still wider question arises about the fragmentation of human consciousness which is tethered to an individualistic view of human development which aggravates the crisis. We are, therefore trying to explore whether human consciousness is capable of a radical regeneration which makes possible a new perspective and a sane and humane relationship. We need to go beyond our present resources of knowledge to come upon that wisdom which is also compassion. So long as we treat the ego as a permanent entity, it appears that love is locked out and we live in a field of approximations. And obviously, this inner regeneration of man's consciousness is tied up with the problem of self-knowing.

K: I think most thoughtful people, have rejected every form of system, institution; no longer are they trustful of communism, socialism, liberalism, the left, right, politically or religiously. I think man has come to a point where he feels that one must have a new quality of mind. I mean by 'mind' the activities of the brain's consciousness, sensory perception and intelligence. One requires an inner revolution with clarity and compassion. Is it possible for human beings to bring about a totally different dimension of the mind?
So, at what level are we having a dialogue - theoretical, philosophical or concerned with our daily existence, our relationship to each other and to our daily activity?

It seems to me that our consciousness is the consciousness of all mankind because every human being goes through fear, anxiety and so on. Can this consciousness be transformed? That is the real question.

P.J.: Speaking of the actual state of human consciousness as it is, each one of us sees within us an 'individual' consciousness separate from the consciousness of another. So, how does one proceed?

K: One has to ask what is this consciousness made up of, what is its 'content'?
Apparently, our consciousness is in a deep crisis (existential) . It is either ( comfortably ?) asleep, or economically pressurized (and 'standardised' ?) , so that ( consciousness-wise ?) we are non-existent, we just survive.
I would like to ask, is one aware of one's total consciousness, of the totality of one's own existence which is the result of society, culture, family, name? And what is the origin of all thinking? That may be the beginning of our consciousness.
What is ( the content of ?) my consciousness? My consciousness is made up of culture, ideas, traditions, propaganda, etc. This 'content' makes up our (self-) consciousness. Without (this conditioned ?) content it has a totally different dimension, but one can only come upon that ( inwardness of ?) consciousness when the (conditioned ?) content is wiped away.
So one has to be very clear whether one is discussing theoretically or by taking up one's own consciousness and investigating it. That is the (experiential ?) challenge.

N. T.: Isn't this (self-) consciousness the result of our past experience?

K: Absolutely.

N. T.: If so, is it not individualistic?

K: The semantic meaning of the word 'experience' is 'to go through'. But we go through (a lot of rewarding and or painful experiences ) and make what we have gone through into ( personal) knowledge.

N.T.: But this 'going through' is individualistic, is it not?

K: If I am (culturally conditioned as ?) a Hindu or Buddhist or Christian, I experience ( along the line of ?) what I have been told. As a devout Catholic, I may experience ( a vision of ?) Virgin Mary and I think it is my personal (mystical) experience. It is not; it is the result of two thousand years of ( collectively processed ?) propaganda.

S.P.: So, the multiplicity of (all human) experiences put together create the (subjective ?) feeling of the 'individual' in each human being ?

K: Of course.

A.P.: But do we know (who we really are ) ? That is the ultimate question.

K: That's it, sir. Do we know ourselves, and what is the (right) manner of knowing oneself?

A.P.: The problem here is our incapacity to know ourselves directly, to deal with ourselves with an (intelligent and ?) compassionate response. When I see a cyclone in Andhra Pradesh, I feel personally involved because it is happening in the state in which I am living. When I read about a cyclone in Bangladesh, it is just an item of news for me. Now, when we say "one world", it does not actually become experiential for us. Because we do not know ourselves, our relationship with the world is a distant relationship.

K: (For starters ?) would you agree that instead of using the term 'consciousness' as a noun, we use it to describe a "movement of time"?
What is the relationship of this 'consciousness' to thought? What is the beginning of any (common ) thought? There is a perception, sensation, contact, then desire and the imagination involved in (the mental processing of ?) that. So, is that the beginning of (any generic activity or ?) 'movement' of thought?

P.J.: Is not also thought the (personal) reaction to a challenge?

K: Yes, if I am aware of the challenge.

P.J.: What is reacting to this challenge?

K: Memory reacts.

R.B.: But for thought to be aware of itself as a (time-binding ?) trap, is it necessary to see the origin of thought?

K: Yes. Then you only register (and retrieve only ) that which is absolutely necessary and not the 'psychological' (residual ?) structures. Why should I register your flattery or your insult? That registration emphasizes the ego.

R.B.: Brain's habit of 'registering' is so instantaneous. How can we learn to 'slow down' the whole (recording & responding?) process?

K: Have you ever tried 'writing down' (or making a 'mental note' ?) objectively of every thought, not just those which are pleasant or unpleasant ? Then you will find that you can 'slow down' (the machinery of ?) thought tremendously. But (the deeper) question is, why do we register psychologically at all? Is it possible to register only that which is absolutely, physically, necessary and not build up the psyche through registration?

I.I.: By becoming older and working at it, one can cut down on this redundant registration.

K: But that has nothing to do with age...

I.I.: It has to do with 'living'.

K: That means it is a slow 'process'. I object to that.

I.I.: That's all I know. Sometimes one has the experience of a flash, lifting you to another level, being transformed, even like a "Phoenix is rising from the ashes".

K: Is it possible to 'accelerate' (optimise ?) this 'non-registering' process that does not depend upon age, circumstances, cultural environment?
Can one have a (profound flash of ?) 'insight' into this whole question of (psychologically biased ?) registration and end it (ASAP ?) ?

I.I.: It seems to me that there are several very great and very small schools of meditation, each suggesting a certain way. I would imagine that these offer us a ladder and for some people it may be rather useful in the beginning. I can even imagine that they are useful in many instances - along with the practical wisdom to take the one which does the job which luckily I have at my disposal.

K: If one sees the real necessity of the 'physical' registration and also has an (some ?) insight into the 'psychological' futility of registration, it is finished. It is as when you (really) see an actual danger, a ( psychological ?) precipice, it is over. In the same way, if one profoundly sees the danger of psychological registration, then the thing is finished.

I.I.: Is it not possible that for some people (this kind of ?) 'enlightenment' comes in several ways? The Arabs have seven words for seven (intermediary) states, and for others (like you ?) it comes like sunrise, the sun comes out and there it is.

K: I don't think it is a matter (of availability ?) for the few or for the many, but rather one of how do you "listen". If I do 'listen' (with the 'mind in the heart' ?) in the very act of listening frees me from (being influenced by ?) both .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Feb 2017 #536
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K SEMINAR MADRAS (1978) : MORE INSIGHTS INTO REGENERATION (Experientially Friendly Edited- 'EFE' )

P.J.: Could we discuss the (perrenial) problem of (ending ?) the sorrow of man, the nature of compassion and meditation? I feel we are in a trap: being in sorrow and not understanding the nature of compassion.

K: May I ask, what are your ideas or concepts about sorrow ?

A.P.: Sorrow is an inescapable part of life. We are helpless victims when a part of humanity is forced to live a subhuman life, with no hope of change in their way of life. Unless one sees some affirmative process, one feels completely lost.

P.J.: Sorrow is something integral to one.

A.P.: I am talking about sorrow. It is integral. Nothing can be more integral than the fact that there is no compassion in me as an authentic response. When I witness the sorrow of another, I am part of that sorrow.

K: I wonder what we mean by the words 'sorrow', 'grief', 'pain'? Every human being goes ( sooner or later ?) through this ugly business of sorrow. Some people think that it is a cleansing process, a process (necessary for reaching ?) enlightening. Some give (karmic) explanations which appear to satisfy them - we did something (wrong) in the past, you are paying for it now.
Strip away all these words; what remains is the actuality, the feeling of sorrow, not the (philosophical ) connotation of that word, not the evocation of the images that word brings up. Now, what is (the nature of ) this deep feeling that we call sorrow? My son dies, and there is a tremendous feeling. Is that ( the personal) sorrow?

P.J.: It is (a very personal form of ?) sorrow.

K: In that is involved ( a 'personal' component of subliminal ?) self-pity, loneliness, a sudden realization that I have lost somebody (on whom I was relying) and I am left alone. I may also suffer for him because he has not lived as long as I have lived and so on. But the root of this enormous sorrow is something what man has carried through timeless centuries.

P.K.S.: What is actually felt when you are in sorrow? I think there is some sense of privation, a want, and this produces a state of mind, a pang which is called sorrow. In it is a sense of your limitation, finitude, helplessness.

K: Sir, hen you meet the poor people next door, perhaps you may feel guilty because you got used to their poverty, their endless degradation. Perhaps you may have great affection for them. Would you call the (existential ?) fact of man living in this appalling way, 'sorrow'?

I.I.: There are different kinds of sorrow in my life. One of them is that sorrow of which we speak, the sorrow when I do something which takes away from somebody else. I live in society. So many things I cannot undertake without taking away big chunks from others. For instance, tomorrow morning I take the jet plane from Madras to Delhi and on this plane which I take for my benefit, I will be co-responsible for an exploitation of many thousands of Indians, each one who in a sensible way pays his taxes and lives in a world dominated by those of us can have that sense of importance of flying in a jet today. I do something which if I didn't, I would have to radically, totally change the way I live. I have not yet decided to make that change. In fact, I create for myself legitimate reasons by word-constructions for taking that plane, and in this sense I feel a very particular kind of sorrow which is the one about which I would want you to enlighten me most.

K: As you said, there are different kinds of sorrow. There is the ( sorrow of a guilty consciousness ?) kind that you described; then there is somebody losing a son, a father and mother; seeing appalling ignorance, and seeing that there is no (true) hope for man in a country like this. And there is the (inner) sorrow of realizing you are nothing. There is also the sorrow of how man treats man and so on. Now, is there an ending to all this (protracted ?) sorrow or is it an everlasting thing? Is there an end to any sorrow at all?

I.I.: Certainly there is no end to this sorrow as long as I am willing to participate in violence.

K: I can see from what you say, that (consciously or not ?) we do exploit other people. But before we can (analytically) discuss that question, could we ask what is 'love'? Perhaps it may (holistically) answer this question, so can we can have a dialogue about this feeling of love ?
Are we reducing 'love' to a purely sensory reaction ?

K.S.: Yes, it begins like that and then we begin to verbalize it, romanticize it.

K: Yes, it begins there and then you build up the picture, the image. Is that it?

K.S.: Yes, I think this is the common case.

K: Love implies much more than the word. It implies a great deal of (inner) beauty. It implies an authentic relationship with nature, love of stars, the earth, stones, the stray dog, all that, and also the love of my wife. If you reduce it to desire and sensation then it becomes a tawdry affair. Your wife treats you, and you treat her, as a biological necessity. Is that love? So I am asking, is desire, pleasure, love? Is sexual comfort love?

I.I.: Is love communion?

K: How can I commune with another if I have an (utilitarian ?) 'image' of her?

I.I.: A (mental) image may be a real obstacle to communion?

K: Sir, ( an authentic) relationship means to be in contact at all levels, not just the physical level which is desire, pleasure. Doesn't ( a compassionate & intelligent ?) 'love' imply that you and I meet at the same level, meet with the same intensity, at the same moment?

I.I.: Yes...

K: Now, that commonly happens only sexually, at the biological level. I question this whole ( hedonistic ?) approach to life, life in which there is this immense thing called Love. Now, does not your heart, mind, say that you have to find it out? Or, is everything reduced to a verbal level?

N. T.: If love is (based on ) sensual pleasure and on the pursuit of desire, it is not love; Love has to be based on compassion.

K: But I want to find it out, I want to have this sense of love. As a human being it is like breathing; I must have it.

N.T.: Love in the absolute sense is (potentially) present in all human beings.

K: If there were (intelligence, comassion and ?) love in every human being, do you think India would be like this - held in poverty, degradation, dishonesty, corruption? What are you all talking about?

Prof. Subramaniam: Sir, if ( according to what you just said ) "love" means being related to another person at all levels, then if I don't understand myself, or if I am not relating at all levels to myself, how can I be related at all levels to another person, whether it is my wife or another ?

K: So, don't you want to come upon this, don't you want to find out? Don't you want to have a sense of this great thing? Unless you have it, I don't see the point of all these (endless seminars &) discussions, pujas, and all that is going on in this country.

R.B.: I think his point was that when there is no 'relatedness' inside oneself, when there are warring elements within oneself, there can't be Love.

K: I would rather put the question this way: don't you want to find out (within yourself ?) this Love, this state of passion (for all ?) ; don't you want to drink at that extraordinary fountain?

R.B.: Sir, we started with the question of "what is sorrow" and you followed it up ( out of the blue ?) with the question of "what is love". Could you say what is the relationship between the two questions?

K: Is love ( to be found in the field of ?) this constant battle, words, theories and living at that level? I personally can't imagine any human being not having this love. If he does not have it, he is (inwardly as good as ?) 'dead'.

A.P.: Is that not the crux of the problem of ( our inner) regeneration?

K: Yes, sir. If you haven't got (access to that universal source of ?) Love, how can you regenerate anything? If you don't look after the plant that you have just put in the earth, if you don't give it water, air, proper nourishment, affection, see that there is plenty of light, the plant won't grow.
Let us leave this (universal) 'love' aside for the moment. Shall we go into what is ( the purpose of an authentic ?) 'meditation'?

P.J.: Without comprehending sorrow and love, how we can we know what is meditation ?

I.I.: But somewhere at the very deepest level, the marvellous, glorious thing which I believe makes for "love" is that, your life and my life at that moment are both made sacred, the forms of renewal of mutual presence.

K: Forgive me, I would rather say that when there is ( this Presence of ?) Love, there is no (personal sense of) 'you' or 'me'.

I.I.: That could be easily understood, but love is also a symbiosis - there is in it more of you and more of me.

K: Sir, when there is (the sense of a ?) great Beauty like that of a Mountain, the majesty of it, the beauty of it, the shade, the light, 'you' don't exist. The beauty of that thing drives away the (self-conscious ?) 'you'. So, I say: Beauty is when 'I' with my problems, with my 'biological love' (bio-love ?), am not ( there ) . ( In short ?) "When 'I' am not, the 'Other' is".

I.I.: And at that moment the transparent flame (of our life) is burning higher and the stream of life is clearer, fresher, and the renewal of this ( whole consciousness of the ?) world goes on.

K: At that moment there is a new rejuvenation taking place, if you like to put it that way. But I am putting it in this (experientially friendly ?) way : there is a sense of an 'Otherness than me'.

I.I.: Yes. That 'Otherness' implies...

K: The 'Otherness' is not the opposite (of our self-consciousness ?) .

P.J.: May I then ask, what is it that makes that Spring (of Otherness ?) flow?

K: I have seen the birth of the great (Ganges) right up in the hills. It starts with a few drops and then collects, and there is a roaring stream at the end of it. Is that (similar with the Stream of Compassionate Intelligence &?) Love?

P.J.: But what is it that makes the Stream flow fully (within one ?)

K: ( Suppose that someone comes ?) to you and say, 'Look, I really don't know what this Love is, please teach me, let me learn what Love is.'
I say, attachment is not love, the mere biological pleasure with all its movements, with all its implications, is not love. So can you be free of (your psychological dependency, traditionally known as ?) 'attachment', negate it completely? Through negation you may (experientially) come to (discover for yourself ) the 'positive' (what that Compassionate Intelligence & Love is) .

P.J.: What is the relationship of sorrow to this "love"?

K: You must relate sorrow, love and death. If you end attachment, end it completely and also jealousy, greed. Do not argue, but end it, which is ( the psychological aspect of ?) death. Both biologically and psychologically 'ending' ( the temporal continuity ?) of something is death. So, will you give up, or 'renounce' - to use a traditional term - ( your psycho-dependency on ?) your status, position, attachments, beliefs, gods? Can you 'throw them into the river' and see what happens? Will (this psychological ?) 'renunciation' help you to understand the (inner) beauty of this Love? Please, sir, you are ( Buddhist ?) monks, you have studied, please tell me.

P.K.S.: Renunciation, sir, can be of many kinds. The renunciation coming out of selfishness certainly won't bring that love.

K: Will my becoming a monk, giving up the world, taking a vow of celibacy, give me this love?

P.K.S.: No. One can be a monk, take vows and yet not have love...

K: So what am I to do?

P.K.S.: From your (insightful) observations we obtained certain (experiential) description of love.

K: I don't want descriptions of love. I want 'food'.

P.K.S.: We have got certain characteristics of love. One of these is unselfishness, the other is non-possessiveness. These are all positive aspects. Certain characteristics that you mention are positive, but in the very nature of ourselves is there is ( a residual ?) jealousy and greed.

K: Right, sir, but I am fighting for a breath of this. I am drowning. Now, I can (experientially) find out something (of this universal quality only ?) through negation: if I start with (not-knowing or ) uncertainty, then something positive occurs. So, (along this 'negative' line ?) what am I to do?
(Step one:) I realise that (at this totally experiential level) nobody can help me. No guru, no book, nothing, will help me. So I discard the whole (psychological authority) ; I won't even touch it. (Step two:) Since I can see that love is not merely a biological thing. I put the biological movement of desire, in its 'right' place ( on hold ?) . So I am free from the biological explanations of love. Now, is love (synonimous to ?) pleasure, the pursuit of an incident which happened yesterday, the memory of that and the cultivation of that? Pleasure implies enjoyment, seeing the beauty of the world, seeing the beauty of nature; so, I put that also in its (right) place. Then what is love? It is not ( a matter of personal) attachment, obviously; it is not jealousy, possessiveness, domination; so I discard all that.
Then ( in step three ?) I ask: what place has the self-centred process of thinking in (the context of any authentic ?) relationship? Has it any place at all? Thought is the response of ( all our self-centred ) knowledge and experience . So thought is not love. So, my relationship to my wife is now no longer based on thought, sensory desire, biological demand or attachment; it is totally "new". So this ending (negation of what love is not ) is a form of death and out of that may come the (positive ?) feeling called Love. We are educated to believe that death is something (taking place compulsorily ?) at the end of our life. I am saying death is at the beginning of Life, because (this psychological ?) death means the ending of my selfishness. Therefore, out of this comes that extraordinary 'Phoenix bird' called love. I think if one has that sense of love, I can take the aeroplane. It doesn't matter if I take a bullock cart or an aeroplane, but I won't deceive myself. I have no illusions.

I.I.: Is it also the end of sorrow?

K: Yes. Sir, do you know the Latin word for sorrow? It is passion. I know most human beings know what lust, biological pleasure and all the rest of it is, but are they actually aware of what sorrow is? Or is it something that you know, recognise, experience after it is over? Do I know ( the full impact of ?) sorrow at the moment my brother, my son, my wife, dies? Or is it always (dealt with the memory of ?) sorrow in the past?

I.I.: Would it not be (an act of ) wisdom to keep sorrow also in its place? If I have the courage to act with the sorrow which I understand, then at the very same time, I will progressively eliminate from my life all those things which cast a very long shadow of sorrow.

K: Sir, why should I carry ( this burden of personal & collective ?) sorrow?

I.I.: Because (willingly or not ?) I do some injustice; otherwise how can I justify that which cannot be justified?

K: I want to find out what is the 'right' action under all circumstances. Right action in the sense of correct, true, non-contradictory, not the action of self-interest. Right action will come about when the mind is not concerned with the 'me'.

P.K.S.: Can I also ask for your definition of 'meditation'? Is it constant awareness?

K: The word 'meditation' implies, (even) according to the (Webster's ?) dictionary, to think over, ponder, to reflect upon, to enquire into something mysterious; not what we have made of it...

P.K.S.: But could it not be applied to cases where something has been known to be true and ascertained to be true, for example, the practice of love.

K: Love is not something to be 'practised'. I said that ( love comes with the psychological ?) ending of something. I end my jealousy. I want to find out what love is. Obviously love is not jealousy. So end it without argument.
Because my whole urge, my whole concern is to find this ('Other' ?) thing, I will come upon it. In the same way, if I want to know what (an authentic ?) meditation is, must I go to Japan, spend years in Zen monasteries and practise (awareness) , or go to India, to all the gurus?
So, what is meditation? Is it the control of thought, and, therefore, control of action? Control implies ( pre-meditated ?) choice and if I choose (to follow a system ?) , there is no (inner) freedom (from the field of the 'known') .

P.K.S.: But still, control is an important element in meditation.

K: So you are saying control is part of meditation. Then who is the 'controller' which is put together by thought? So, can I live a (meditating) life without control?

I.I.: Sir, just for the purpose of this conversation, could we not say that "meditation is the rehearsal of the act of dying"?

K: Forgive me, why should I have a 'rehearsal'?

I.I.: Simply because one day I will be called upon for a last time, and before I could really engage in that supreme activity which is to die (for good ?) ...

K: So why not die now?

I.I.: So, meditation 'is' (essentially an ?) act of dying - I will be happy to put it that way. Only if I say to somebody that meditation means dying, and if I say that tomorrow morning I will have breakfast with you, people won't understand me; that is the reason I suggested the ('rehearsal') term.

K: Is not (the true purpose of ?) "meditation" to come upon something 'sacred', not contaminated by time, something that is Original. Isn't meditation (essentially) an enquiry into that? My enquiry then must be completely undirected, unbiased. Otherwise, I will go off at a tangent. If I have a motive for practising meditation because I am unhappy and, therefore, I want to find that, then my motive dictates. Then I go off into illusions.

I.I.: If I said "Meditation is the readiness for a radical Surprise", will you accept it?

K: Yes, I accept it. So my concern in meditation is - have I a motive? Do I expect a reward? I must be very clear that there is no search for reward or punishment, which means there is no (pre-set mental ?) direction. And also I must be very clear that no element creates an illusion. Illusion comes into being when there is desire, when I want something.
(In a nutshell:) The mind (engaged ?) in meditation must be tremendously aware that it is not (getting) caught in any kind of self-hypnosis, self-created illusion. So ( the 'dusting the periphery' ?) part of meditation is to wipe away the illusory machine. And, if there is ( a 'meditator' in ?) control, it is already directed (by a subliminal self-interest ?) .

Therefore, can I live a (meditative ?) daily life in which there is absolutely no (thought) control, no censor saying 'do this, do that' ? That is the (right ?) beginning of meditation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 #537
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

A SMALL K GROUP DISCUSSION, BOMBAY1973

A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO SILENCE AND DISORDER(experientially -friendly edited )

Questioner: I wonder whether we can talk about what is 'silence' : how it is reached, or whether silence has many facets and forms. Whether there is only one silence which is absence of thought; or whether silence which arises through different experiences or different situations is different in nature, dimension and direction.

Krishnamurti: Where shall we start this? Is there a 'right' approach to silence? And if there is, what is that ? And whether there are different varieties of silence, which means different methods by which to arrive at silence, and what is the nature of silence.
So, (for starters ?) there a right approach to silence ? And what do we mean by the 'right approach'?

Q: The ('bestest' ?) one against hundreds of other approaches .

K: Yes, therefore what is the true, natural, reasonable, logical, and beyond the logic, what is that approach?

Q: Can we define silence as the absence of thought ?

K: I can 'go blank', you know, just looking at something beautiful and go blank. Is that silence?

Q: You seem to be taking us to the true approach rather than explain the nature of true silence ?

K: I think so. Because there are those people who 'mesmerized' themselves into (mental) silence, and/or controled their chattering mind to such an extent that the mind becomes absolutely dull, stupid - but... 'silent'. So it seems more sane to find out is there a natural, sane, healthy approach to silence? Right? Could we proceed from that? What is the necessity of silence?

Q: The (practical) necessity for silence is very easy to understand. People, in ordinary day living, have constantly chattering minds, constantly irritated minds, when it comes to a rest there is a feeling of being refreshed, the mind is refreshed, quite apart from anything else. And there is a whole (spiritual) tradition stating that silence is important, is necessary, and therefore in all these systems there is the watching of the "thought & time" process ...

K: Suppose you don't know a thing about what other people have said, why you should be silent. Would you ask the question?

Q: Even at the level of the (mental) tranquillizer, I would ask the question.

K: So, you asked the question in order to tranquilize the mind, because the mind is chattering and it's wearisome and exhausting, so you say, is there a way of tranquilizing the mind without the drugs? How would I, being inwardly exhausted by the 'chattering' (constant worrying ?) of my mind, ask myself: how can I, quieten the mind? That's natural, I would ask that.

Q: There are many ways of doing it.

K: You all say there are many ways. But I come from an land where we don't know any of these things 'first hand'. So, is it possible to bring about tranquillity to the mind without (causing a new inner ) conflict? I would put that question.

Q: Sir, when I practice Pranayama there's no conflict in it, but there is silence; it doesn't exhaust you. What is the nature of that silence?

K: There, you are breathing, getting more oxygen into your system, and the oxygen naturally helps you to be (more) relaxed. But I am not talking of that. I want to find out whether the mind can become 'tranquil' without any kind of effort, breathing, without any enforcement of any kind. I start from a point where the mind is agitated, chattering, exhausting itself by incessant friction of thought, and it says, is it possible to be really quiet, without any artificial means? Right? To me that is a central issue. That's how I would approach it if I went into this. I would discard any artificial control, drugs, breathing, mantras.

K: All these are artificial, (although they do ) induce a peculiar kind of silence.

Q: Would you include in your (no-no ?) list the silence induced by nature ?
When you look at a (Swiss ?) mountain you do get silent.

K: Ah, when you look at a mountain what takes place? The beauty the 'grandeur' of the mountain absorbs you and makes you silent. That is still artificial. Like a child, given a good toy, is absorbed by the toy and for the time being he is getting very quiet. I would consider any form of (self-conscious ?) inducement to silence as artificial - ( speaking just ?) for K.

Q: Looking at a (Swiss ?) mountain - a 'non-duality' experience, you would say it is not silence?

K: I wouldn't call it "silence". You see a marvellous picture, a marvellous sunset, an enormous chain of mountains, and it's like the toy with the child. That greatness knocks out the (self-consciousness of the ?) 'me' for the moment and the mind becomes (temporarily ?) silent. Experiment with it.

Q: Yes, so you say that is not (the ?) 'silence' ?

K: I wouldn't call that silence, because the moment (of enchantment) is gone, I'm back to my chattering ( worrying ?) or whatever it is. So, if my mind has no motive (to use silence for a specific purpose ?) , how does one come upon it naturally?
If I (really ?) want to listen to what you are saying, or if I want to see something clearly, my mind must be quiet. That's the 'natural' approach to silence . No?

Q: In that is all poise, is all sanity.

K: So I would say, the basis for the depth of silence is poise, harmony, between the mind, the body and the heart - a great (sense of inner) harmony. I would say the real basis is this (inwardly integrated ?) harmony.

Q: It doesn't solve anything. I know conflict, I don't know this 'harmony' .

K: All right. Therefore if there is disharmony between the mind, heart and body, deal with that (inner fragmentation ?) and not with silence. If you deal with silence being disharmonious, then it is (bound to be an) artificial (attempt). This is so. Now I am (finally ?) getting at it: be concerned with the agitated mind, not with silence. Deal with 'what is', and not with 'what might be'. That comes logically, right. I'll stick to this.

Q: But, Sir, how can an agitated mind deal with its own agitation?

K: That's a different question.

Q: But doesn't the agitated mind ask itself the question, 'Can there be silence?'

K: Ah! That is then an 'opposite', a conflict (of interests ?) , this opposite has its roots within its own opposite and so on.

Q: Yes, so that concept of silence is part of the ( ongoing mental) agitation.

K: So (in a nutshell ?) I would say that a (sense of ?) complete (inner) harmony is the (right) foundation for the purity of silence. So what is this harmony between the mind, the body and the heart ? A total sense of being whole, without fragmentation, without the over-development of the intellect, but the intellect operating clearly, objectively, sanely, and the heart, not sentimentally, with outbreaks of hysteria, but has a quality in it of affection, care, love, compassion, vitality, and the body has its own intelligence and unintefered by the intellect or by (personal ?) taste - all that. The feeling of everything is operating, functioning beautifully, like a marvellous machinery (like a Pathek Phillipe watch ?) . Even though it's not (always) physically well. Now.... is this possible? Can the mind, the brain, function efficiently without any friction, distortion, and so the mind is sharp & clear? When the 'centre' ( the subliminal superviser ?) is there it's not possible, obviously, because then the centre is translating everything according to ( suit) its (safety settings & ?) limitations.

Q: So, why does this division between the mind, body & heart arise ?

K: It arises, because through our (fragmentary ?) education, where emphasis is made on the (outward) cultivation of the intellect as memory and reason, (neglecting the intrinsical quality of our everyday ?) living.

Q: That is the over-emphasis on the ('knowing') mind. But even without this (intellectually biased ?) education, there can be an over-emphasis of emotions ...

K: Of course, but (the modern) man worships the intellect much more than the emotions. And emotion is translated into devotion, into sentimentality, into all kinds of extravagance of (artistical ?) expansions of emotionalism and so on. No?

Q: : Why does the human brain give such importance to knowledge?

K: Technologically, psychologically , in their everyday relationships, why have human beings given such extraordinary (psychological) importance to knowledge? It's very simple: for (their outer & inner ?) security, obvioulsy. Knowledge gives you status. Don't you know bureaucrats who are fairly high up, all they want is 'status'.

Q: But that doesn't solve anything for us...

K: No, he asked that question. So, I must come back. Human beings have worshipped knowledge, knowledge is identified with the intellect, with erudition - the scholar, the philosopher, the inventor, the scientist, are all concerned with knowledge. No? And they have created in the world marvellous things; going to the moon (finding new exo-planets ?) , the most extraordinary things and the admiration, the sense of the marvel of knowledge, is overwhelming. . Knowledge is necessary. But when knowledge is misused by the (egotistic ?) centre as the 'me' who has got knowledge, and uses it as a status for itself. I (assume that ?) am more important than the poor chap who has no knowledge. So, we have developed an inordinate admiration, almost verging on worship, for the intellect. All the sacred books and their (scholarly) interpretations, all that. Correct me, if I'm wrong. And in contrast to that there is an (artistical) reaction which says, for goodness sake, let's be a bit more emotional about all this; let me have my feelings, sentimentality and extravagance in expression. All that arises from this. And ( the harmony of the ?) the body is neglected. You see this (incongruency) and practise Yoga to get the body well, and so this division takes place, unnaturally. And now we have to bring about a natural harmony where the intellect functions like a marvellous (Swiss ?) watch, where the emotions and affections, care, love, compassion, all those are healthily functioning, and the body which has been so spoiled, which has been so mis-used, comes into its own intelligence. Now, how do you do it?

Radhaji asked just now, why is there this (watertight) division between the mind, the heart and the body. Why? And how is this division to come into deep harmony, naturally? Now, how do you do it?

Q: Go ( to meditate ?) into silence ?

K: One is aware of this division, isn't one? Intellect, emotion, and the body, there is this tremendous division between all of them. A gap. How is the mind to remove all this gap, and be a whole mechanism functioning beautifully? What do the traditionalists say?

Q: Effort. Clench your teeth.

K: I say, let's deal with disharmony and not with silence, so when there is the (experiential) understanding of disharmony, from that may flow naturally silence. So let's deal with disorder, not with harmony, not with silence. With (the ongoing inner) disorder.

Q: According to our (daily) experience this (inner) disorder never yields. The disorder remains disorder.

K: We are going to find out, sir. Don't maintain it.

Q: No, I don't maintain it; I look at the disorder and the disorder looks at me.

K: Therefore there is a 'duality', a (hidden) contradiction in your observation as the 'observer',and the (disorder that is being ) 'observed'. A division. So let us put aside everything else and consider if it is possible to end this ( momentum of ?) disorder?

Q: Disorder expresses itself.

K: I don't know anything about it. I observe in myself disorder. Why do I call what I observe disorder?

Q: A disturbance is disorder.

K: I just want to go step by step. . Why do I call it disorder? Which means I already have an inkling about what order is.

Q: Of course.

K: So, I am comparing 'what is' (going on now) with what I have known as order and thereby I call it disorder. I say, don't do that; don't compare. Just see what disorder is. Can the mind become aware of disorder without comparing itself with order? Comparison itself may be the cause of disorder. Measurement may be disorder. And as long as I am comparing, there must be disorder. So I see that comparison is really important, not disorder. As long as my mind is comparing, measuring, there must be disorder. Right?

Q: Sir, I look at myself and I see there is disorder because every part of me is pulling in a different direction.

K: I've never felt I'm in disorder, except rarely, occasionally, when something (went really wrong ?) ... and I say to myself, why are all these people talking about disorder? Do they really know disorder? Or they only know it through comparison (with a 'psychological' memory of order) ?

Q: You bring in (holistically encripted ?) words which I find very difficult (to grasp) . There is no conscious comparison of the mind itself which says, this is disorder and I want order.

K: I'm only asking how do you know disorder?

Q: Is it a sense of confusion ? I don't anything else but I know confusion.

K: My mind is in a (generalised ?) state of confusion because it is contradicting itself all the time. All right. You see this disorder and then what?

Q: There must be a way of finding a way out of this.

K: Yes. Then what?

Q: Look, sir, there's (the opportunity of ?) an ending there. I say, what is the nature of this ending ? Is this silence? Or is there an undercurrent still operating? You see, the traditional outlook is the gap between two thoughts is silence.

K: But that's not "silence", silence between two noises is not silence. Listen to that noise outside and there's a gap and you call that silence? I say that absence of noise is not silence.

Q: We moved (in circles ?) from the natural need of silence, to harmony and we found that it was impossible to go into the nature of harmony without going into the nature of our inner disorder.

K: All right. I'm saying (that any ) conflict indicates disorder. So, from there, move.

Q: So, there must be a way of being free of this inner conflict.

K: That's all. Now, how am I to deal with (my inner state of ?) conflict non-artificially? You know nothing, you are listening for the first time, therefore you have to go into it with me. Somebody comes along and says, look, look at this marvellous (but conflicted mental ) machinery and you look.

Q: I see only this much: that I can't think of silence or harmony when I am ( entangled ?) in conflict. That much is clear, sir.

K: So, is the mind capable of freeing itself from conflict? Stick to this one thing, conflict, and see if the mind can be free of it. And don't go around saying, 'how'. Can the mind, knowing what conflict is, and what conflict does, end (the continuity of its inner ?) conflict? (This inner) conflict is (expressing itself in:) comparison, contradiction, imitation, and conformity, suppression, all that; put all that into that (all-in -one ?) word and we said: 'can the mind be free of conflict?'

Q: There is an ending of the state of inner conflict. For a while, at least. But the next question which arises is what do we mean by a "total ending"?

K: That's what we're going to find out.

Q: There is no ending of conflict in the universe ...

K: Don't include the Universe. In the universe apparently everything is moving in order. (See:) Hoyle, "The expanding universe"...

Q: I'm talking of our mental universe.

K: Then let's stick to our mind which seems to be endlessly in conflict. That's all. Don't bring in the Universe. Now, can the mind free itself from conflict. I think the mind can be completely, utterly without conflict.

Q: Forever ?

K: Don't use that word, 'forever', because then you are introducing a word of time, and (thinking in terms of ?) time is another factor of conflict.
Is my mind totally aware that it is in conflict? Or is there a part of the mind that says, there part of me watching conflict? If is there any part which separates itself from the totality of conflict, then that fragment says, 'I must act, I must do, I must suppress, I must go beyond'. So is the mind - please, this is a legitimate question - is the mind totally aware that there is only conflict? So, is our inner conflict a fragment, or total? To put it in different words - is there a total darkness or a slight light somewhere?

Q: If some inner 'light' were not there, how could we be aware of anything?

K: I'm asking you this (holistic) question (because) when there is a fragmentation of the mind, that very fragmentation is conflict. Therefore, is the mind, ever aware that it is (immersed ?) in total conflict? And Pupul says, 'yes'.

Q: I refused to move away. But I don't know anything about 'total conflict'.

K: Therefore, you say partially I am in conflict, therefore you are never (completely immersed ?) with conflict.

Q: Total conflict cannot know itself, unless there is something else to know it.

K: We're going to go into that, a little bit. When the (inner) room is full of furniture there is no (free ) space to move. Is my mind so totally full of this confusion, so that it has no movement away from this, then what takes place? That's what I want to get at, not a partial this and a partial that and ... When the 'steam' is at full (pressure ?) it must do something - 'explode'. But I do not think we look at this confusion, at this inner conflict so totally.
Could I use another (holistic ?) word, "sorrow"? There is no (point in ?) moving away from sorrow. When you move away from sorrow, then it is just escape from it, or suppressing it. Is there such a thing as "being full of sorrow"? When you are so completely full of this thing called 'confusion', 'sorrow', 'conflict', it is no longer there. It's only there when there is the (mental) division (between the 'observer' and the 'sorrow' observed) . That's all. That's why, (it is important to ?) remain with the "truth of the thing", not with the 'conclusion' of the thing. (And in this case ?) the "truth of the thing" is: until the mind is (abiding) completely with something, it cannot but create (further) conflict. ( Eg:) If I love you but ... there is some attachment in it, it is a ( subliminal conflict of interests or ?) 'contradiction' and therefore no (pure ?) love. So I say, is the mind totally full of this sorrow, this confusion, this conflict? I won't move away 'till that is so.

Q: One peculiarity about your approach. When you draw a picture there is always a clear outline, the colours don't match. In reality there are no outlines, there are only colours merging into each other.

K: This, to me, is very clear: if the heart is full of Love, and there is no part of envy (selfishness ?) in it, the problem is finished. It is only when there is a part that is (surreptitiously ?) jealous then the whole problem arises.

Q: Common love is full of jealousies.

K: Ah. Therefore remain with it. Remain with that, be 'full' of envy, be envious. Feel it.

Q: Then its total nature undergoes ( a qualitative ) change ?

K: Tremendous change. It's when you say "I'm envious, but.... I must not be", somewhere in a dark corner, the educational (moral) restraint, then something ( splits and ?) goes wrong. But to say, yes, I am envious, and don't move away from that. 'Moving away' is rationalising, suppressing, so....just remain with that feeling.

Q: What is the difference between you being fully aware of the conflict and repenting the conflict?

K: Oh, oh, oh! Repentance means there is a 'repenter'. An entity who repents, who regrets.

Q: Feeling it fully ?

K: No, don't feel it. If you are jealous, then you are just jealous.

Q: When you are finding yourself in a mess, are you not sorry for yourself?

K: Good God, no. That is the after-thought; 'I wish I wasn't in a mess'. When you are in a mess, be in a mess; see it, don't move away from it. This is merciless. All the rest is playing tricks. When there is ( a surge of ?) sorrow, be completely with it. Took at the beggar there; I don't have to invent sorrow, there it is, right in front of my nose. I'm ( fully immersed ) in it. I won't move an inch from it.

Q: An action takes place.

K: Sir, when you are (completely abiding ) with something, action has taken place. I don't have to do something. A total action has taken place, which is the "ending" of that sorrow (and its transmutation into compassion ?) .

Q: How can we have ( that silence or ?) tranquillity when the beggar is out there?

K: ( This quality of compassionate inner ?) tranquillity is (coming with ) the ending of sorrow.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Feb 2017 #538
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 677 posts in this forum Offline

4 th K SEMINAR MADRAS, 1982 ON
'INTELLIGENCE, COMPUTERS AND THE MECHANICAL MIND' (experientially fiendly edited)

A.C.: If the present human mind is different from merely being a ( programmable ?) thinking machine, what is (that makes ?) the difference? Is it creativity, is it intelligence, and if so, then what is creativity and what is intelligence? So my first question is : Are our minds merely programmed thinking machines, are our minds mechanical?

K: Would you use the word 'mind' to convey the wholeness of the human mind (consciousness ?) ?

A.C.: I am using the word 'mind' in terms of what a human being is. He has a brain with thought, emotions and all the reactions.

K: So you are using the word 'mind' in the sense that it includes all the (dualistic ?) reactions, emotions, remembrances, the confusion, desire, pleasure, sorrow, affection. If all that is the 'mind', then is the human brain 'my' (personal) brain or the brain (the result ?) of this tremendous evolution?

A.C.: It is obviously evolution.

K: So it is not 'my thinking' (either) . Whether it is the thinking a poor man or a rich man or a professor, it is ( still) thinking. . Are we saying then that ( our evolutionary ?) thinking is an integral part of the brain?

A.C.: It seems to be...

K: This thinking has created all the human problems as well as technological problems. And (this subliminally self-centred ?) thinking (aka 'thought' ) is trying to solve the (existential ?) problems and finds that it cannot because thought itself is limited. Thought is the result of (our survivalistic ?) experience, knowledge, memory. (The field of our ?) knowledge is never complete, therefore thought must be limited, and that limited thought keeps creating (its own) problems.

A.C.: Are you saying that thought is limited because it has not been able to know everything?

K: Thought is the result of our vast experience, memory, all that. It is like the ( artificial intelligence of a ?) computer which has had a great deal of (wordly ?) experience, a great deal of knowledge (but intrinsically limited) .

A.C.: In other words, you are saying that all new knowledge is essentially contained in the old knowledge and is a result of thought.

K: Of course. Scientists are adding to this (global bank of knowledge) ; that will go on for the next thousand years, but still whatever is being added to must be limited because ( is directed outwardly and ) there is always something more to be added.

A.C.: Is it limited at any given point of time?

K: Of course. So, (an ever increasing outward) knowledge must always go with (a corresponding inner ?) ignorance.

A.C.: In that case, sir, you are in fact saying that our minds, as we know them and as they operate in our daily life, are entirely 'mechanical'. In which case, ( the (electronic ?) brain is much better than the human brain. The (very industrious ?) computer scientists are saying that we can put a much vaster storehouse of knowledge in the computer by networking computers, etc. Now, superficially, that is true; no human being can remember everything in the encyclopaedia. So, outwardly, the memory of the computer is much better, since it does not have the (irrational) limitations of our subconscious or racial memories.

K: Yes, sir, move from there.

A.P.: Well, is this tantamount to saying that the evolutionary process of the human brain has come to an end ?

K: Achyutji, would you agree on one point - that the computer has a cause as the human brain has a cause? Then what has an (evolutionary ?) cause, also has an (evolutionary ?) end. Now, is there something (in the human mind ?) which is causeless? If there is such a thing as a movement which is causeless, that is Creation.

R.R.: You are saying is that there is an 'extraordinary' (dimension of the ?) mind.

K: No I have not gone into it, yet. But fifty thousand years (of traceable evolution ?) , we have reached this point - between our brain and the computer (it has invented recently ?) there is not much difference; both are created by (our evolutionary ?) thought. Of course the computer cannot look at the beauty of the stars.

R.R.: But it can simulate it.

K: Of course. But it hasn't the perception of the human eye looking at the heavens and saying what a marvellous night this is. So, is there a ( quality of ?) perception which is not the product of (our mechanical) thought?

A.C.: Does the average human mind have (access to ?) such a thing now ?

K: Probably not.

A.C.: The computer hasn't got it either. But in twenty or thirty years' time - the ( thinking capacity of the ?) computer will be superior to human beings.

K: Of course, I am inclined to agree with you.

P.J.: You are assuming that the human has exhausted its creative potential by producing the computer: Having created, having given birth to the baby, the mother dies. I refuse to accept it.

A.C.: Do you know what they are trying to do? Genetic scientists have got together with computer scientists. They are saying, why are you using silicon? The human brain has hydrogen and carbon molecules. So let us take hydrogen and carbon molecules, let us use brain cells to make computers: Another approach is: Our genes are programmed so that some cells become an eye, others become the nose and so on. If you can break that genetic code, you could programme it to become a brain or a computer. There is a lot of research going on in that.

R.S.: Machines can do many things which human beings can't do. Nevertheless, they are the products of human beings and it seems to me unlikely that in any sense these things would supersede human beings. They may supersede particular faculties of human beings.

A.C.: What is it in a human being that you think cannot be done by machines in the next fifty years?

R.S.: Well, it is a subject which we are now coming to - creativity. There are a lot of things which we recognise and understand directly without being able to put everything into explicitly stored-up recognition programmes. I can recognise many different kinds of flowers, trees and animals. If I have to say how I recognise them, what is it that makes me recognize them, it will be very difficult for me to tell you. I think it will be difficult for you, too.

K: But, sir, when you recognize, it is based on memory.

A.C.: They are working on pattern recognition. There is tremendous research going into it today. Computers are beginning to recognise some things visually.

R.S.: But there is a certain intuitive sense.

A.C.: What is intuition?

R.S.: Intuition is grasping something more, seeing something more, having an insight into something which involves a direct kind of knowledge which does not have to go through a process of words, thought and action.

P.J.: Sirs, the problem seems to be that if the brain is working in a closed circuit (of mechanical knowledge) , then what Asit Chandmal says is true. But the 'but' comes in because the whole reason for our being here is, can there be an acceleration of the very capacity of the brain so that it ceases to be a process? Is the brain (functioning only in ?) a closed circuit?

R.S.: You see, I disagree with the (oversimplifying ?) assumption that the brain works entirely mechanically or chemically or electrically and so on. We have a theory of life which says that living organisms are nothing but machines, and then we have a theory which says it has nothing to do with machines. Why can't we model them by machines? This is the basis of your argument, and it seems quite reasonable on the face of it, but there are a number of assumptions.

K: Would you consider that the human brain has (potentially an ?) infinite capacity? Look what it has done in the technological world, including the computers.

A.C.: You can't say that thought is limited and then say that the brain has infinite capacity.

K: ( The survivalistic process of ?) thought has limited the brain, has conditioned the brain. (Eg: ) If I am (opportunistically thinking of myself as ?) a 'Hindu', I believe in all the superstitions, all the nonsense. Right?

A.C.: You are trying to separate (this conditioned ?) thought and the brain.

K: I want to find out if the brain can ever be free from its own (cultural) limitations - call it "thought". If that conditioning is somehow (miraculously ?) removed , is there an instrument which is not thought? This is not a romantic speculation. Thought is a worn-out instrument and it has reached its limit, (the length of ?) its tether, because it has not solved the human problem. So, is there a way of looking which turns inwards? That inward movement is the infinite (potential of the human brain ?) .

Q: Your question is: Is there anything other than thought which could be a new (inwardly perceptive ?) instrument?

K: Yes, and perhaps, that (new perceptive) instrument can look both outward and inward, and that is infinite.

Q: ( A lot of lucrative ?) psychologists (and other clever artizans ?) try to discover what is within; at least they profess to do this.

K: I know, sir, but what they say is all mechanical (guesswork ?) . So I am now asking, is there something which is not thought, which is not mechanical?

A.C.: You are asking what Pupulji was asking the other day: Is there a sensory (integrated ?) perception without thought?

K: Yes. Will you listen to something? Our life is a movement, going out and coming in, like the tide. I create the world, and the world then controls me. And then I react to the world. It is an ( interactive thought- matter?) movement of action and reaction, reward and punishment. Now, as long as this movement exists, I am caught in time, that is evolution. Can this (interacting mental ) 'movement' stop? Because as long as this ( subliminal mental ?) movement exists, I am a mechanical (psycho-entity) .

Q: Only mechanical?

K: Yes, I see a woman and I want her: I see a garden, I want it. It is action and reaction, reward and punishment, punishment and reward. As long as you are caught in that (karmic cycle) , your Intelligence is out; it is a mechanical intelligence: You hate me and I hate you back (in a more elaborate way ?) .

A.C.: I see that.

K: If you see that, Intelligence is something totally different from thought.

R.S.: Perhaps you could rather say it is 'cause and effect', 'action and reaction', instead of 'mechanical' ?

K: Yes, yes.

R.S.: Now, what people ordinarily call intelligence, which perhaps we can better call 'ingenuity', is that in order to get something you want - you may not be able to get it in a straightforward way - you may have to resort to some fairly original way, some new kind of competence, and so on. There is a certain kind of human ingenuity which is not purely mechanical. It is subsumed down to a certain mechanical set of desires and within that is the framework of certain inventiveness. So the basic framework may be one of action-reaction but within that we exhibit considerable ingenuity and inventiveness.

K: I would not call that Intelligence.

R.S.: No, but in the ordinary language it is often called intelligence. An 'intelligent' businessman ( or...developper ?) is one who would think of ways of getting more of what he wants.

K: Yes. I would not call that intelligence.

R.S.: I would call it ingenuity or inventiveness.

K: Call it inventiveness. To be ingenious is solving (the academy award ?) problems of God, problems of Heaven, problems of painting, etc. It is within the same area, in the same field. I may move from one corner to the other corner of the same field and I call that ingenuity and I say all that has nothing to do with intelligence. Intelligence is something totally different.

Q: Will you elaborate on what we call intelligence?

K: I don't want to 'elaborate'. Ingenuity, choice, cleverness, moving from one point to another, from one corner to another but within the same field, that is what we are doing.

P.J.: That is (living 'creatively' ?) the field of the known.

K: Yes, yes. It is essentially based on rewards and punishments.

A.C.: But what is the actual reason that we have evolved like that? It must have had tremendous advantage.

K: Of course, it is completely secure. Secure in the (temporal) sense, at least for the time being, but this 'time being (safety' may also ?) create wars. So would you go along up to this point that this is not Intelligence?

A.C.: Yes...

K: Right. Then let us enquire what is Intelligence. If our (enquiry ?) is not a ( convenient & marketable ?) theory, that means the ( self-sustained ?) movement of (mental) actions and reactions has stopped, and that is (ending) movement of 'time'.

A.C.: When you say 'time', I don't understand.

K: 'Time' in the sense I have evolved in (the temporal continuity of ?) this ( survivalistic ?) process.

Q: That is the movement of life.

K: Yes. And that is "un-intelligence". As long as I am (constantly functioning ?) in this field there is no (free) Intelligence; it is adaptability.
So, if I totally deny, not just intellectually but actually, that this is not intelligence, then what happens to the ( quality of the) mind which has been caught in this? Do you understand my question? As long as we are functioning in time, in the field of cause, effect, action, reaction, which is this movement of the tide going out and coming in, as long as my whole attitude to life is that and I don't move out of that, there is nothing to be said ( except .."carry on " ?) . But if I see that, that will not solve the (unsolved existential) problems of humanity; then I have to look in another direction.

P.J.: What is the nature of this 'looking'?

K: My eyes have always been seeing in this direction (of personal & collective survival ?) only. And you come along and tell me, look in other directions. I can't because my eyesight has been so conditioned that I don't even turn round to look. So I must be first free of this (survivalistic mentality ?) . I can't look in any other direction if I am not free of this.

P.J.: You see, you posed a question which is totally unanswerable - can I see the falsity of it and end it? I have always thought that is a wrong question. It can never see that because perception is self-contained.

K: Wouldnt you say all this (survivalistic ?) movement is the wandering of desire?

P.J.: Yes. This movement is the wandering of desire.

K: So, can this movement of desire be seen as a whole, not 'me' and the object of my desire - can it see itself as a movement of (material) attraction?

P.J.: Or even without bringing in 'attraction', can desire see itself?

K: To understand if desire can see itself, one must go (meditatively ?) into the inner process of desire. Desire exists only when thought comes into sensation.

A.C.: This question is very important. We are constantly operating in that field (of self-centred thinking & desire ?) . Anything operating in that field...

P.J.: Can never deny that field.

K: Of course. There is this movement. As long as I am (personally involved ?) in that movement, you cannot ask me to see it as the false and deny it.

P.J.: Therefore, in what direction do I look?

K: You don't have to look (in any other direction ?). The (first) thing is to stop this ( mental) movement. ( So, for homework:) Find out, discover for yourself how to end this movement. Is that possible at all?

P.J. I think it is possible....

K: ...if there is no entity who can 'stop' it , then...

P.J.: It is just perceiving ?

K: That is all. There is not the perceiver perceiving. There is only a perception of that which is false.

P.J.: The perceiving throws light on the false. There is only perceiving.

K: There is only perceiving. Stick to that. Then we will enquire into what is (the direct ?) perceiving without the word, without the name, without remembrances, perceiving something which one calls 'intuition'? (I don't like to use that (slippery ?) word, forgive me.) Perception is direct insight.

P.J.: Is the question one of being completely awake inwardly ?

K: Would you call that "attention"?

P.J.: To be completely awake "is" attention. And that, the computer can never do.

K: So, is there an end to ( this psychological continuity of ?) thought? ( Inwardly speaking ?) "Time" must have a stop, right?

R.R.: Can I ask you a question: What happens when we perceive with insight?

K: In (the inner light of ?) this perception of insight the (basic functioning of ?) brain cells themselves change. When your brain has been conditioned in time, (indulging ?) in this movement... cause, effect, action, reaction and all that suddenly stops, hasn't the brain undergone a radical (qualitative ?) change? Of course it has.

R.R.: I have to ask you this question again. If there is such a seeing that the brain cells change, what happens after perceiving it?

A.C.: Only the physical brain has changed and I am afraid it dies.

K: That is why we are going into the question of Consciousness.

A.C.: Does this end with death? (If it does not ?) then all that will be different from the computer...

K: ( Wisely dodging the question: ) Sir, how will you translate all this to your 'computer expert' friends?

A.C.: They are going to continue doing what they are doing - trying to produce super-computers.

P.J.: The 'humane' question then comes in. How can man so accelerate the other to bring into being this new perception?

A.C.: One can only see ( what is wrong with ?) this ( self-sustained mental) movement and do nothing else.

K: That is all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Feb 2017 #539
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 19 posts in this forum Offline

This discussion about AI is interesting. Memory and thought are mechanical. But the prediction that machine AI will overcome human intelligence in 20 years (that was 1980's) was overly optimistic and frankly ridiculous. Even now there are some scientists who claim that in 20-30 years we will have a human-level machine AI. They mostly have a computer science background and know little about human brain or psychology. It will probably take hundreds of years till the machines approach human intelligence, maybe never. While the computer AI may perform at some narrow tasks better than human intelligence (like playing chess), it is not flexible at all. It is a rigid program and does not come even close to the plasticity and flexibility of human brain.

This post was last updated by Jan Kasol Tue, 28 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Feb 2017 #540
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 19 posts in this forum Offline

if we wanted to create an artificial intelligence similar to humans, we would need to program it with similar instincts such as self-preservation, inquisitiveness, the drive to acquire information, some mechanism to cope with conflicting information, conflicting drives. Otherwise the machine would have no personality, no individuality. The personality is the ego, the memories, the fears, the possessions. The computer guys working on AI do not realize this and how difficult it would be to programm something like that. Unless the machine had no memories, no sense of identity, no personality, it could not be conscious of itself as separate from the world and others, it would not be conscious. As K says, this sense of individuality, of separateness, egotism, is the basis of counsciousness. This consciousness is limitation, separateness, resistance, conflict. But K says that this consiousness, this resistance, can be transcended, that peace is beyond that. When you have no resistance whatsoever, you are in peace. Freedom is the lack of resistance. Would the artificial intelligence have the capacity to enlightenment?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 511 - 540 of 707 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)