|Fri, 02 Dec 2016||#511|
|John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline||
The Nature of God (an experientially friendly edited K dialogue)
PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Can we discuss and investigate into what is 'God'?
J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): Are you asking what is ( the Ground of ) Creation is or whether 'God' is ( synonimous with ?) Reality or Truth?
PJ: Behind this word ‘God’ lies millennia of man’s quest for something that is "absolute", for something that is untouched...
K: Yes, for something that is Universal.
PJ: So, is it possible to inquire into the nature of ‘That’—call it 'God' or 'Creation' or the 'Ground of Being' ?
K: I think it is possible if one can free the mind of all the traditional implications and consequences of the word ‘God’. Can the brain and mind be free to investigate That which the Israelis call the ‘Nameless’ and the Hindus call ‘Brahman’ or the ‘Highest Principle’? The whole world 'believes in God', but can we put away all beliefs? For only then will it be possible to investigate.
PJ: Whatdoes exactly mean to be 'free of belief '?
K: A ( religious ?) person says, ‘I believe in God; God is omnipotent and omnipresent. He exists in all things’. That is the traditional acceptance of that word with all its content. Can one, consciously as well as un-consciously, be free of (the psychological connotations of ?) that word—that word which has played such a tremendous part in the Islamic and Christian world?
PJ: At (the intellectual ) level it is possible to say that one is free, as, for example, if you were to ask me whether I believed in Krishna, Rama or Siva. But that is not the final thing.
K: Shall we then discuss the Ground from which everything originates? How does one find out about that Ground (of all Creation ?) As I said, one can only find out when one is
PJ: There is a possibility of a state of being where any belief in any particular 'God' is negated.
K: Does one negate it verbally or deeply, that is, at the very root of one’s being? Can one say, ‘I know nothing (about God ?) ’ and stop there?
PJ: How does one proceed from there ?
K: Can one negate, completely, the whole (psychological) movement of knowledge, the ( subliminal ?) feeling that one 'knows'? There is deep within one's (consciousness) the whole accumulated experience of man which says "there is God". Of course there have been prophets and seers who have said that there is no such thing as ( a personified ?) God, but their words just add to man's ( cultural ?) knowledge. The question is: Can one negate the ( psychological component of ?) knowledge, of all that one (thinks that he) 'knows'?
PJ: This ( accumulation of ) thousands of years (of human experience ) that forms the matrix of one’s being—how does one touch all that?
K: That is what one has to do (in the context of an authentic meditation ?) .
PJ: Yes, but how does one touch it?
K: Could we begin by inquiring (negatively ?) into why the human mind has struggled in becoming (someone or something ?) — the ( psychological ) becoming that is based on knowledge, on constant movement—not only outwardly but also inwardly?
PJ: We started with an investigation into the nature of God and then you went on to speak of becoming—are they related?
K: I think they are. You see, one’s (inner) being is essentially based on the feeling that lies deep in one that there is something enormous, something incredibly immense—I am talking about that (matrix of ?) knowledge, that that is the (inner) ground on which one stands. So long as that (matrix of the known ?) is there, one is not actually free (to go deeper ?) . Can one investigate into that?
QUESTIONER (Q): Isn't there an inherent (aspiration ?) in every human being towards something 'unknown', something that is beyond what one is taught, beyond what one picks up through one’s (cultural ) heritage?
K: Even if it is an inherent thing, can one totally empty oneself of that which may be ( subliminally ?) implanted from childhood? Can one empty one’s (consciousness) of the centuries of belief that there is 'something' beyond all this? I think that that is the most deep-rooted belief. It is something that is in the (collective ?) unconscious—deep things always are. And I think that if we (really) want to investigate, that 'belief' (collective root assumption ?) must go too.
PJ: Sir, how is it possible, without this ( collective ?) unconscious being exposed, for it to end? How does one ( have the direct ?) experience of that which lies beyond the total particulars of any one person’s knowledge? I can go through the whole of my knowledge, and yet it will not contain it.
K: No. But aren’t you getting a (starting ?) insight into this, namely, that there must be the total negating of everything man has put together?
PJ: I can comprehend the negation of all that arises in the brain. But the layers of the ( collective ?) unconscious, the ground ( of the human consciousness ?) on which one stands, how can one negate that?
K: Just a minute. Man has tried in several ways to negate everything. He has fasted, he has (self-disciplined ?) himself, but he has always remained anchored to something. Like the Christian mystics; they were anchored in (their belief in ) Jesus, and they moved from (that psychological anchorage ?)
PJ: May I ask you a ( personal) question? Do you think we are anchored to you?
K: Maybe, but that’s irrelevant (for this discussion) .
Q: Are we not more anchored to our few (personal) perceptions?
K: If you are, then put them away; weigh the anchor...
Q: In other words, all the answers about God, Reality, etc., are deep in us. That perhaps can be negated, but...
K: I wouldn’t even ( bother to ?) ask that question: "What is God?" For then my brain would start spinning a lot of words.
Q: It seems to me that we have already put the question and gone beyond the (traditional) replies. But behind all that remains the inquiry.
K: What do you mean ‘remains the inquiry’?
Q: I mean that the ( existential ) question whether there is 'something else' seems to be innate in us.
K: If my investigation is a ( self-centred ?) movement (directed ?) towards the understanding of what is called 'God', that mental movement itself is a bondage.
K: Obviously because ( any self-motivated ?) 'movement' means a motion towards something. And such a movement, implies time. ( The self-centred mind ) going towards something, trying to find something, implies ( distance and ?) time—and that (mental movement ?) must stop.
Q: Then how can Pupul ask that question about what id God ?
K: That is the whole point: whether one can do such a thing in the first place. Is that possible—to be (inwardly ?) in 'non-movement'?
PJ: There is a part of us which is still...
K: ...still seeking, searching, demanding ?
PJ: There is a part of us which feels that there is...
K: Yes, that’s it. We never ( really) say, ‘I don’t know’. I think that that is one of our difficulties. We all want to know (more ?) so we bring 'God' into the realm of knowledge. To ( honestly ?) say, ‘I don’t know’ is a state of mind that is absolutely motionless.
PJ: Is it not necessary to wipe out this matrix (of the known ?) ?
K: Oh yes. (But...) can 'you' wipe out the matrix?
PJ: I don’t know...
K: Which is what? When you use the word ‘matrix’ (of the known ?) what do you mean by that?
PJ: I only know that beyond the horizons of my mind, behind the obvious beliefs, there are depths and depths and depths in me. You used a very significant phrase somewhere: ‘Play around with the deep’. So you also point to depths which lie below the surface. Is this depth within the matrix (of the known ?) ?
K: No, it can’t be. But I wonder what you call the 'matrix'?
PJ: I mean by it this ( unconscious ?) depth which I cannot bring to the surface, into the daylight of direct perception, of attention. I mean by ‘matrix’ that which does not come within the purview of my (inner) eyes and ears, but is still there. I know it is there. It is ( the essence of ?) ‘me’. Even though I am not able to see it, to touch it, I have a feeling that perhaps, if there is a right listening to the truth...
K: Then why do you use the word ‘depth’?
PJ: I am using the word ‘depth’ to connote something that is beyond my (available ?) knowledge. You see, if it is available to ( the perception of ) my senses, then it is measurable. But if it is not available, I can do nothing about it. I do not have the instruments to reach it.
K: How do you know that it is all not imagination? Do you know it as a (direct) experience?
PJ: If you say ‘yes’ it is a trap, and even if you say ‘no’ it is a trap.
K: I want to be quite clear, Pupul, that we both understand the meaning of the word (matrix) . I am talking of a feeling.
PJ: Surely, sir, a word can be uttered lightly, from the surface of the mind, and it can also be uttered with great depth (of feeling) behind it. I am saying that there is this "ground" (matrix of the human consciousness ) that contains the whole history of man. There is life in that utterance; it has great weight and depth. Can’t you feel that depth? So, can I not go ( meditatively ?) into it ? If it is possible, then there is nothing to be done, but to just look and listen. There is no question that one can ask oneself.
K: I understand Pupul, but you see that depth —is it the depth of silence? Silence means that the mind, the brain, is utterly still; it is not something that 'comes and goes'.
PJ: How can I answer that?
K: I think one can if there is no sense of ( personal) attachment to it, no sense of memory involved in it.
Let’s begin again (from squre one ?) The whole world 'believes' in God, but unfortunately, I don’t know what 'God' is. Probably I will never find out, and I am not interested in finding out. But what I am concerned with is whether the mind, the brain, can be totally, completely, free from all its accumulated (psychological ?) knowledge & experience. Because if it is not free, it will function always within that field. It might expand enormously, but it will always be confined to that ( 'known' ?) area. And even if the mind moves from that area and says ‘I must find out (God) ’, it will still be carrying on the ( knowledge confined ?) movement.
Then what is left? Could one have the depth of insight into the ( whole ) movement of knowledge, so that the insight stops the movement? The ( inner light of that ?) insight stops the movement, not 'I' or my brain. The stopping of the ( directional ?) movement is the ending of knowledge and the beginning of something else. So I am concerned only with that (indepth) ending of ( 'me' & my ?) knowledge .
Q: Could we talk a little more about this (inner) questioning which seems so complete? Could we discuss having no anchorage (in the known ?) ?
K: Don’t you see the importance of it? And, if you do, ask yourself whether it (the seeing) is merely intellectual.
Q: I do see the importance of it; but apparently that is not enough.
PJ: Somehow there is something we are missing...
K: Look, Pupul, suppose this 'K' person were not here (therefore) each one of us is totally responsible to answer this question. You have to answer.
PJ: Why should I have to answer?
K: I will tell you why. You have to answer because you are part of ( the total consciousness of ?) humanity, and ( that consciousness of ) humanity is asking this question. Every saint, every philosopher, every human being somewhere in his depths is asking this question.
Q: Sir, is not this question ( about what is 'God' ?) somewhere, in a sense, wrong?
K: I said so. But you have to answer it without any reference to what K has said or not said. I come to you with this kind of questions. To me, as a human being, these questions are tremendously important.
PJ: May I ask you something? How does one take a question like this and "leave it" (to abide ?) in one's consciousness? You seem to have a way of taking a question, asking it and, then, "remaining" with it (in silence) .
K: Yes, that is right.
PJ: Now, when we ask such a question, there is a movement of the mind towards it. With you, when such a question is put, there is no ( directional) movement.
K: You’re right. Are you asking ‘how’ to achieve this state?
PJ: I know that I can’t...
K: No, but you are right to ask that question. Do you understand what Pupul said? I am asking you as a human being, just as human beings have for a million years: What is God? I come and put this question to you. Are you ready to answer it or do you 'hold the question' quietly? Hold it—do you understand? For out of that very holding, that holding where there is no reaction, no response, comes the answer.
Q: Could you say something about the nature of that (silent ?) 'holding'?
K: I am talking of a 'holding' that is without any wave, without any motive or movement, a holding that is without any trace of ( a desire ?) to find an answer.
Q: With most of us, we may not try to find an answer either ; we may first remain quietly with an unanswered question, but sooner or later an answer comes that may be something from the deep wells of the unconscious, and that answer rises up to fill that space.
K: I know. Now, just a minute.( In class practice: ) I ask you a question: Do you believe in God? Can you say, ‘I don’t know’? Or do you immediately say, ‘Maybe there is’ and so on? Can you just look at the question without saying a single thing? Can you? If you ask a devout Christian that question, he will immediately say, ‘Of course I believe in God’. You will also get an immediate reaction if you were to ask a Hindu—it’s like pressing a button. But I really don’t know whether there is God or not.
Q: Are you saying, sir, that (silent) ‘holding’ is takes place outside the ( 'known' ?) area?
K: Of course.
Q: In that holding isn’t there an inquiry?
K: No, you see, unless you understand this it can lead to a great deal of misunderstanding. We have been (culturally ) programmed for thousands of years, and the brain replies immediately. If the brain is not ( pre-) programmed, it is watching, looking. Now, can our brains be (inwardly) without a programme?
Q: But this activity of looking is not the holding—right? You have spoken ( metaphorically ?) of "the cup that holds water", and of "the earth that holds the pond". Is there something ( within us ?) that holds like the cup and the earth hold?
K: Pupulji asked me a question that had great depth. You also heard that question, you received that question—what was your response to it?
Q: Which question, sir?
K: She was speaking about the depth, the ground. What was your reaction to that?
Q: I was just listening; I was just trying to understand.
PJ: You see, sir, when a question is normally put to (our knowledgeable ?) mind, it is like a grain of sugar being dropped on the ground—'ants' from all over come towards it.
K: Without the "ants", yes. We are talking of the brain that is in constant ( mentally agitated ?) movement, the energy of which is thought. To quieten thought is the ( first experiential ?) problem. How will you deal with this question? Can you 'question' ( the psychological validity of ?) thought completely? Can you have a (quality of ) mind that is capable of not reacting immediately to a question? Can there be a "delaying" reaction, perhaps even a holding of the question ( on the backburner ?) indefinitely?
Let’s go back, Pupulji. Can I have no ( psychological ?) anchors at all—either in my knowledge or in my beliefs? Can I see that they have no ( spiritual ?) meaning whatsoever? I think it is absolutely essential not to give meaning (an added psychological significance ?) to anything.
PJ: So are you saying that the ( self-conscious ?) 'meditator' is not the ground?
K: Obviously, he is not. If the 'meditator' is there , the Ground (of Creation) is not.
PJ: So, can there be meditation without the 'meditator'?
K: I am speaking of a "meditation without the meditator".
PJ: Let us investigate this: you may ( be right to) say that the "meditator" is not the ground, but...
K: Just a minute. As long as "I" am trying to 'meditate', Meditation is not.
K: Therefore there is only a "mind" that is in a state of meditation.
K: Now that is the Ground. The ( Mind of the ?) Universe is in a state of meditation. And that is the Ground (of all Creation ?) , that is the origin of everything; and that is only possible when the "meditator" is not.
PJ: And that is only possible when there are no "anchors"...
K: Absolutely. That is (happening) when there is absolute freedom from sorrow. That state of meditation comes with the complete ending of the self (- centred consciousness ?) .
( In a nutshell:) The real ( meditational ?) question is whether it is at all possible to be completely, utterly, free of the ( all controlling ?) "meditator". This "meditator" (mental entity - aka the 'thinker', the 'experiencer' etc ?) tries to meditate in order to get somewhere, in order to hide ( or delete ?) something, in order to put his life in order. Whichever way you put it around —you meditate to put your life in order or you put your life in order and then meditate—it is still (a self-conscious ?) "meditator" in operation. Now, if it is possible to be free of this (very ressourceful ?) "meditator", then there would be no question of whether there is God or no God for then that ( meditator-free ?) Meditation "is" (integrated in ?) the Meditation of the Universe.
( Parting question: ) Is it possible to be so utterly free? I am asking that question. Don’t ( bother to ?) reply; hold it. Let it operate. In the holding of it, ( mind's ?) energy is being accumulated and that ( Intelligent ?) energy will act—not you. Do you understand? (Long pause)
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 03 Dec 2016||#512|
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline||
Hello John, to start with I see two aspects in such "prelude", one is the utter natural curiosity for such subject as even by using logic only we inevitably come across not only an ultimate origin but an origin which can only be "not born".....anyone can use logic to go into that..
the second aspect is more about again another polarity here...the quest for such "absolute" indicates that we do not have such absolute in our lives and so are wishing that it takes place....because there is dissatisfaction with our reality : I want the best, I am unhappy so I ,I as the thought process, want happiness....wishful thinking ..!!
Well I guess that to be there thought must relearn to say : I do not know and make no move from that..staying in that state..it mainly if not only does not do it for real any more ...like down below..
Well this is deeply interesting it not it? thought itself is a movement towards the future, always, it may use the past of course and it will as it is its basement,its home, but this is in order to project the desired and-or needed future, like a search for anything to gain, the search for god, the Origin etc the mark of a machine just doing its works as it is set up....randomly, mechanically etc...
in order to work desire must be, so must be self rewarding, self admiration etc all this makes the machine work providing motives and intention....but this is loaded with what will become painful....frustration, fear, anxiety, up to unbearable suffering..etc..like wars...all this is linked.
is it incidental ? for me it cannot be , but no proof of it...it seems clear..
K says that that movement in time of thought towards the future has to stop, thought has to stop...not for good, not all the time but where it has to stop...can this be another quest or is it just a factual statement that it must be so somehow and sometimes, without providing any clues of how because may be there are none ??
right yes, nothing to add here..yet to say that wow this is down to the point..
is missing here this horrible sensation forcing us to potentially go that way..unless we got used to it as part of life, life is suffering, or unless one already has killed himself due to the huge pain due to the attempt to escape..etc
Can I say that something is guiding then ? for me no doubt all this is so well "engineered" ..
again is missing , for me and for us, the trigger-symptom-catalyst we all have at hand.....to start with, which is pushing hard in one single direction etc...utter discontentment at the best up to heavy mental suffering is what I speak of....in many talks k regularly do not mention it anymore at some stage....which is something I do not understand...
let us say that k is beyond that..but we are not !
Why would this be eventually "vital" ? because the symptom of, lets be too simple, suffering, is "willingly" embedded with thought and there is a very define motive behind to be that way, and for me this has a define property to be able to freeze thought in some circumstances........
it is helping us and we try to run away..
etc etc etc etc..
This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sat, 03 Dec 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 03 Dec 2016||#513|
|John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline||
The Brain,the Mind and the Inner Nothingness ( experientially friendly edited )
PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, my question is: Is there a space without ending within oneself, wthin the human mind—which is the mirror image of that vastness which exists (in the physical Universe ) ?
K: Are you asking whether there is or there can be a space without end, a (timeless ?) Eternity within the human ( mind or ?) brain? I’d like to distinguish between the (physical ) 'brain' and the 'mind' - can the (physical) brain realize the truth as to whether there is ( this time-free ) 'eternity' or not? How do you begin to feel, gently, hesitantly, your way into this really fundamental question: whether man's (consciousness ?) is bound to time forever or whether the brain can realize (find ?) itself in a state of eternity, is a question that has been asked for thousands of years. And that is the question we’re asking too.
PJ: Would you, please, elaborate on the distinction you are making between the brain and the mind ?
K: Yes. We are saying that the brain - or at least the active part of it is conditioned- . That conditioning is brought about through ( all our evolutionary ?) experience, (acquired) knowledge and memory. And as ( our evolutionary ?) experience, knowledge and memory are limited, the brain's ( activity of ) thinking is also limited. Therefore, to discover something new, there has to be, at least temporarily, a ( non-thinking ?) period when thought is not in movement, when thought is in abeyance.
PJ: The brain is a material thing and it has its own activity, but for centuries the main operation of the brain has been the operation of thought.
K: That is what we are saying, namely that the whole movement of the brain—at least that part of the brain which has been (routinely) used—is conditioned by ( this self-centred ?) thought, and thought is always limited and therefore it is conditioned to (accept life as an endless ) conflict. That which is limited must create division.
PJ: So, this is our (thinking) brain. What is the "mind" then?
K: The mind ( aka "intelligence" ?) is a wholly different dimension ( of human consciousness ?) which has no contact with thought. Let me explain. That part of the brain which has been functioning ( for ages ) as an instrument of thought—has been (heavily) 'conditioned', and as long as that part of the brain remains in that ( self-polarised ?) state there is no entire communication with the "mind". So, when that 'conditioning' is not (active ?) , then that mind which is in a totally different dimension (of Consciousness) , communicates with the brain and acts—using the thinking capacity of the brain .
PJ: But you’ve already posited state (of non-material intelligence) which is outside the realm of thought.
K: That’s right—outside. And, therefore, outside the realm of (matter and ?) time.
PJ: So, 'time' seems to be the essential core of this problem...
K: Time and thought.
PJ: Thought is a product of ( our physical evolution in ?) time. So, in a ( holistic ?) sense, thought 'is' time.
K: That’s it, that’s the real point.
PJ: Perhaps if we could go into this inner flow of (thought and ?) time, and at what instant an 'interception' is possible... you would perhaps use the word ‘ending’ ?
K: Let’s use simple words...
PJ: Now, this (inner) process of ("thought &) time" is flowing from a past immemorial, projecting itself into a 'future', which is also endless.
K: In terms of thought. ( Thought's real or imaginary continuity into ?) the 'future' is conditioned by the (whole experience of our ?) past—as a human "psyche".
PJ: Yes. So, unless the human brain ceases to be conditioned (by its own past), the content ( of its temporal continuity ?) will undergo a change, but the mechanism of thought will continue.
K: Let’s put it this way: ( our 'thinker-thinking' ?) thought is the chief instrument we have now. And thousands of years of various ( thinking ?) efforts and actions have not only made that instrument dull, but that instrument has also reached the end of its tether. Thought-time ( our 'self'-tethered thinking ?) is limited, conditioned, divided, and in a perpetual state of (conflict and/or inner ?) turmoil. Now, can (its self-projected continuity ?) end? That’s the question.
PJ: Now, ( as inwardly this process of time is ) the movement of the past as "yesterday - today - tomorrow" , how do we come in direct contact with it ? This contact with time, as a psychological process, is possible only in the present moment , isn’t it?
K: Let’s be very careful: don’t separate time as if it were something different from thought. It is "time-thought". Are you asking: What is the ‘now’?
PJ: It’s the ‘interception’ ( of this 'time-thought' process ?) that I’m talking about: the direct contact with the 'fact'.
K: May I put it in the way that I understand it? The past, the present and the future is a movement of "time-thought". How do you come to see the truth of it, the 'fact' of it?
PJ: Let us be more concrete. I am going away this afternoon, and that I may be leaving you (forever ?) , is a thought.
K: It’s not (just ?) a thought; it’s an actuality.
PJ: Actuality, yes; but out of that there is a certain ( personal) pain of leaving you, in which the emotional, psychological elements come to cover up the actual fact. So, what is to be contacted? Not the fact that I’m going away, but this pain.
K: I understand. Are you asking: The ( accumulated ?) pain of a thousand (days ?) years and centuries of loneliness, sorrow, grief, anxiety and all that—is that separate from the ‘me’ who feels it?
PJ: It may not be separate.
K: It 'is' me. (Emphatic)
PJ: And how do I touch it? Only in the present that the whole of this (psychological ?) edifice rests.
K: The ( what I am ?) ‘now’ contains the past, the future and the present. The (temporal ?) present is 'me' with all the memories of a thousand years, and those thousand years (old memories ?) are being modified (refreshed and updated by the brain?) all the time. All that is the ‘now’—the 'me' in present.
PJ: But this ('me' in the ?) present is not static. So what is it that you actually see, what is it that you actually observe?
K: You actually observe the fact that (my self-consciousness in the ?) present is ( the virtual projection of ?) the whole ( background brain activity ?) of time and thought. You, actually, see the truth of that. You have an insight into the fact that the ‘now’ is ( containing ?) all ( the continuous movement of ?) time and thought.
PJ: Does that ( insightful ?) perception emanate from the brain?
K: That perception is an (illuminating flash of ?) insight which has nothing to do with time and thought.
PJ: But it arises within the brain?
K: Or does it arise outside the brain? That is your question, right?
PJ: Yes, and it’s very important.
K: That’s why I want to be clear. Is it ( originating) within the sphere of the brain or is that insight comes ( into the brain only ?) when there is freedom from conditioning, which is the operation of the mind?—That is supreme intelligence, you follow?
PJ: No, I don’t quite follow. ..
K: Let’s be clear. The brain is ( subtly and grossly ?) conditioned by time and thought, ( in short:) "time-thought". As long as that ( mental) 'conditioning' remains (active) , ( the total) "insight" is not possible. You may have occasional insight into something, but not pure insight, which means the comprehension ( or sudden revelation ?) of the totality of things. That (illuminating ?) insight is not ( the result ?) of the 'time-thought' (process ) , and it is a "perception of the wholeness". Therefore that insight is part of that brain which is in a different dimension.
PJ: Let us take this word ‘insight’. It means ‘seeing into’ (or inner-sight ?)
K: Let’s look at that word (inward ?) ‘seeing’. Insight into or the comprehension of the totality, of the vastness of something, is possible only when there is the cessation of the "thought and time" (psychological process) . (Both) 'thought' and 'time' are limited (by their own past ?) ; therefore such 'limitation' cannot have insight.
PJ: Now, this ( illuminating ?) insight cannot arise without attention.
K: No, wait; don’t introduce the (extraneous ?) word ‘attention’. Stick to the same thing: ( the 100% pure ?) insight cannot exist as long as time-thought plays a ( supervising ?) part.
PJ: But which comes first? In my ( experiential) approach to this, I can’t start with insight.
K: You can only start ( holistically ?) by realizing the truth regarding (this inner process of ?) "thought-time". Psychological ( activities of ?) 'time and thought' are always (perceptively ?) limited. That’s a "fact". (Emphatic) Start from that. Start from the realization that time-thought is always limited and, therefore, whatever it does will always be limited and therefore (self-) divisive and giving rise to endless conflicts. That’s all I’m saying. ( even without the 100% pure insight ?) you can see the fact of that.
PJ: You can see the 'fact' of that outside of yourself.
K: You can see it politically, religiously. All through the world it is a fact that time and thought, in their ( self-interested ?) activity, have wrought havoc in the world. That’s a fact.
PJ: Yes, yes.
K: So, now the (inward ) question is: Can this limitation ever end or is man condemned, forever, to live within the 'time-thought' area?
PJ: Do I see the fact that time-thought is limited? How does one see that? It’s like telling me that I am an illusion.
K: I didn’t say that.
PJ: But I’m saying that. Because the moment you say, ‘After all Pupul is a psychological bundle of the past, a psychological movement of 'time and thought' which is the psyche, and that psyche is limited’...
K: Yes, it is limited, and whatever it does is limited.
PJ: Then, I would ask: What’s wrong with it being limited?
K: There is nothing wrong if you want to live in ( an internal 'war zone' of ?) perpetual conflict.
PJ: Now, to end it is not only to feel that it is limited, but there must be an actual (action of ?) ending to it.
K: I say that there is.
PJ: What is ( experiential ?) the nature of this ending?
K: To end ( the psychological dependency or ?) attachment. The movement of thought and time stops—psychologically. What is your difficulty?
PJ: Shouldn't there be a point of ( clear inner ) perception, is a point of 'insight' ?
PJ: What is that 'point of insight'? Where do I see it?
K: Look, Pupul, let’s be simple. Time-thought has divided the world: politically, geographically, religiously. That’s a ( the outer aspect of this ?) fact. Can’t you see the fact?
PJ: I look at it in the outside world but if I really saw the (inner ?) fact...
K: You would stop that kind of thing.
PJ: It would be all over.
K: That’s all I’m saying.
PJ: If it is such a simple thing—which I don’t think it is, because it (the inner fact of time-thought) has such devious ways...
K: If you have an insight into the fact that the ( mental) movement of 'thought-time' is divisive at whatever level, that it is a movement of endless conflict...
PJ: Yes, you can see it clearly when it’s a matter outside you.
K: Now, inwardly the (same) movement 'is' (generating ?) the ( self-centred consciousness) - the 'psyche' is a movement of time-thought. This inward movement has created the external fact. To feel secure in the Hindu world, I am ( inwardly getting attached to the idea of being ?) a Hindu. I feel secure in the ( comforting) feeling that I belong to something.
PJ: I would say that all these (superficial) things —being a 'Hindu' or being 'greedy'—one has seen as being the product of this movement of 'time-thought'.
K: That’s all I’m saying.
PJ: But it’s not quite enough: there is deeper down this sense of ‘I exist’.
K: That’s the whole point: you don’t realize that the 'psyche' is that.
PJ: Yes, that’s essentially the nature of the problem.
K: Why don’t you? Because you think that the 'psyche' ( the psychological individuality ?) is something other than a conditioned state. You think that there is something in you—in the brain or somewhere—which is timeless, which is ( potentially one with ?) God, and that if you could reach That (inwardly) , everything will be all right. That’s part of your ( cultural) conditioning. Because you are feeling inwardly uncertain, confused, ( the idea that God or the 'highest principle' (is always in there ?) gives you ( a superior sense of ?) safety, protection, certainty. That’s all.
PJ: What is the nature of the (inner) Ground from which insight springs?
K: Insight can only take place when there is freedom from "time and thought".
PJ: You see, it’s some sort of unending (circular logic )....
K: No. It is not. You are (over ?) complicating a very simple fact, as most of us do. To live in peace is to flower; it is to understand the extraordinary world of peace (the war is over ?) . (And this sense of inner ?) peace cannot be brought about by thought.
PJ: So, it is the brain itself which listens to this statement ?
K: Yes, it listens, and then what happens? If it (really) listens (non-personally ?) , it’s quiet.
PJ: Yes, it’s quiet.
K: And when there is a quietness that is not ( self-) induced, then there is insight. I don’t have to explain in ten different ways the limitation of thought. It is so.
PJ: I see what you are saying. Is there anything further than that?
K: Oh yes, there is. If the ( self-identified psychological ?) structure of "time and thought" ends, the ‘Now’ has a totally different meaning. The ‘now’ then is "no-thing". And that (inner presence of 'being?) nothing' contains all. Right?
K: But we are (un-consciously ?) afraid to 'be nothing'.
PJ: When you say, ‘Being as nothing contains the all’, do you mean that it is the essence of all the Consciousness of humanity, of the nature and that of the Cosmos as such?
K: (Recap:) The 'psyche' is a ( dynamic) bundle of ( active ?) memories, but those memories are 'dead' (not 'alive' by themselves) . They operate, function in us, but they are the outcome of our past experiences, which are gone. I am a movement of memories. Now, when (and if ?) one has an insight that there is nothing, when one really sees the fallacy, the illusion of (self-) becoming—which an endless (continuity of ?) time-thought and conflict—then there is an ending of that. The 'ending' of that is 'to be nothing'. However, being nothing then contains (or shares ?) the (Mind of the ?) whole Universe— after all, Pupulji, ‘nothing’ means the entire world of compassion. Compassion is no-thing. And, therefore, that (inner) no-thingness is supreme intelligence. That’s all there is. I don’t know if I’m conveying this.
K: So, why are intelligent human beings frightened of being nothing, frightened to see that they really are (identifying themselves with nice-sounding ?) verbal illusions, that they are nothing but ( a dynalic complex of ?) dead (past ?) memories? That’s a fact. I don’t like to think I’m just nothing but memories, but the truth is that I 'am' (my) memories.
PJ: Not a 'varying present'...?
K: It isn’t that one day it’s this, and the next day it is different. That no-thing is no time. Therefore it’s not ending one day, and being another day. You see, Pupul, that after all is real meditation. That’s what ??nya ( the inner Void ?) means in Sanskrit.
So, having listened to all this, what is your comprehension? What is it you realize? Do you say, ‘By Jove, I’ve got it. I’ve got the perfume of it’?
PJ: Sir, one realizes is that the most difficult thing in the world is to be (inwardly) totally simple.
K: Yes. To be simple—that’s right. If one is really simple, one can understand the enormous complexity of things. But we start with all the complexities and never see the simplicity. That’s our training. We have trained our brains to see the complexity, and then try to find an answer to the complexity. But we don’t see the extraordinary simplicity of life, of facts rather.
This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 03 Dec 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 03 Dec 2016||#514|
|Jan Kasol Czech Republic 92 posts in this forum Offline||
These are clear and insightful discussions with K. I would emphasize the relative nature of thought compared to the Absolute, the nothingness. The Absolute is not the opposite of the relative. Thought is always relative, which means trapped in a corridor of opposites. I am unhappy, I want to be happy. I am lonely, I want to be loved. I am in conflict, I want peace. I am in darkness, I want to be enlightened. All the opposites carry within themselves their own opposites. And any "absolute" or "god" or "nothingness" that you conceive as being opposed to something else is a creation of thought. Thought always measures, compares, creates opposites, creates choices such as the better and the worse, the dumb and the wise, the bound and the free, the enlightened and the unenlightened. Thought moves in this corridor of the opposites, always moving from one opposite to the other, always chosing one opposite over another, all its effort is within this corridor. But the Absolute, or the silence, or the nothingness is not an opposite of anything. Every choice, every effort, every thought, every movement is still within this corridor and is limited. Only when the mind understands its total movement and sees its limitation, can it crumble upon itself and enter into silence, can it become Nothing. This Nothingness is not negative at all, it is the source of everything. The observer is a cloud of darkness. All his effort is the darkness. The darkness is the corridor of the opposites created by thought. It is the prison in which we are trapped. And freedom is not the opposite of the prison.
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 03 Dec 2016||#515|
|Jan Kasol Czech Republic 92 posts in this forum Offline||
Thanks for your words, John. It is interesting that you always add to Krishnamurti. When I have been doing some editing in the past (for my personal purposes), I always subtracted, i.e. I tried to delete all those sentences that I either did not consider essential, or that were self-obvious or were endlessly repeated by K so that they became somewhat "Krishnamurti clichés" (such as "you are the world"). In the past (when I had more time), I did some translating of K into Czech language. Now I lack the time and also motivation.
The language barrier is always a problem, especially when describing things like "nothingness" or "absolute". Nothingness is an especially nice word. You cannot become nothing, because if you became that, you would be something. Likewise, you cannot understand nothing, you cannot grasp nothing. You cannot know nothing, because if you knew anything, you would know something. Silence is also a nice word. If you try to do anything about it, you are disturbing the silence. But these words are only pointers, only analogies. It is up to each of one us to discover their meaning for himself. The discovering of their meaning is meditation.
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 06 Dec 2016||#516|
|John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline||
WHAT IS THE MEDITATION WHICH TRANSFORMS THE MIND ?
(...) K: When you discard all the (organised religion) 'nonsense' we can begin to find out, if you are serious, what religion truly means. Because ( a religious mind ?) is the core of any new culture, without religion there is no culture. You may have beautiful paintings, write marvellous literature, compose lovely music, but that doesn't bring about a new ( holistic ?) quality of mind. And we need a new quality of mind when the whole world around us is degenerating.
So we are going together to find out what it means to meditate, and what it means to have the quality of ( an inner) freedom that can come upon that thing that is sacred, and from there move to something that may be timeless. This is a very complex (and demanding ?) question. And what is complex can be understood only when the mind is really very "simple". So, to find out what meditation (truly is ) you have to enquire, you have to put aside your particular (ideas about) of meditation, otherwise you can't find out if what you are doing is true or false. And to enquire into ( the living truth of ?) something "sacred" you cannot possibly accept the authority of any book, any leader, any guru, any system, because your mind must be free to enquire, free to find out. So, you are sitting here listening, can you put ( temporarily ?) aside all that you know about meditation?
( For starters ?) I'd (rather ?) know nothing about what other people have said about it. They might have been as caught in illusions as myself. I am talking as a human being (of integrity ?) who wants to find out what it means to meditate, because perhaps that may be the ( right inner ?) "ambience", the (necessary inner ?) environment, the atmosphere which will reveal that which is sacred.
So the (earnest ?) mind that is enquiring into the meaning of meditation comes upon ( the realisation of ?) this fact; that thought is the ( mechanistic ?) response of memory, memory is the ( storage of all ?) accumulation of knowledge and experience of the past. Therefore in investigating what is meditation the mind has to find out the art of putting thought in its right place. To drive a car, to speak, to do your daily job, technologically, and so on, knowledge there is necessary and thought must function efficiently, clearly, non-personally in that area. And when thought discovers that it has a right place then you will see that thought is no longer a matter of importance.
Then the next question is: the systems, the methods, the various practices that you do, have they any validity? When you 'practise', what does that imply? It implies ( following a prescribed ?) direction, in order to achieve a fixed end. But if ( Truth ) is a living thing you can't practise to arrive at it, it is moving all the time. So when you are practising a method, that direction and the (desired ) end are put together by thought. So you are not out of (the limits of your known ?) , you are still ( caught ?) in the movement of thought. Now, if (and when ?) you have a (global perception or an?) insight into that, no ( need to follow a meditation ?) system, no method, no goal, no direction.
( In a nutshell ?) a mind that is functioning through thought is still acting within the field of time, within the field of fragmentation. So can this mind be free of the (dualistic ?) movement of thought? Can the mind be completely non-fragmented? Can it look at life as a whole? Can the mind be whole, which means without a single fragmentation ? Therefore (the factor of ?) diligence comes into this. A mind is whole when it is ( inwardly ?) 'diligent', which means to have care, means to have great affection, great Love ( which, en passant , is totally different from the 'love' of a man and a woman).
So the mind that is whole is attentive and therefore cares, and has this quality of deep abiding sense of love. Such a mind is the Whole. Can the ( totality of ?) your mind, be absolutely quiet, without (any thought) 'control', without the movement of thought? It will be quiet naturally if you really have the (perceptive clarity of an ?) insight which brings thought in its right place, therefore the mind is( naturally) quiet. You understand what the word 'silence' and 'quiet' means? You know you can make the mind quiet by taking a drug, by repeating a mantram or a word, constantly repeating, repeating, repeating, naturally your mind will become (dead ?) quiet. But the silence we are talking about, the ( living ?) quietness of a mind, that ( quality of ?) silence is not to be bought, is not to be practised, is not something you gain, a reward, a compensation to ( indulging in ?) an ugly life. It is only when the ugly life has been transformed into a life of goodness, in the flowering of that goodness then this Silence comes.
And also you have to enquire what is ( inner ?) beauty? What is beauty? Did you look at the sunset this evening as you are sitting there. The sunset was behind the speaker. Did you look at it? Did you feel the light and the glory of that light on a leaf? So if you want to find out what meditation is, you have to find out what beauty is. Beauty in the face, the beauty of ( right) action, the beauty of behaviour, conduct, the inward beauty, the beauty of the way you walk, the way you talk, the way you gesture, all that is ( part of inner ?) beauty. And without having that (inner quality ?) , meditation becomes merely an escape, a compensation, a meaningless action.
And there is (inner) beauty in frugality, there is beauty in the great austerity of a mind that has (inner) order. Order comes when you understand the whole disorder in which you live, and out of that disorder comes naturally order, which is virtue.
And then we have also to find out in meditation if there is something Eternal, timeless; which means can the mind come upon or 'see' (have the inner vision of ?) That Which Is from everlasting to everlasting? Which means can the (meditating ?) mind be without the past, without the present, without the future? Can that mind be in (an inner state of ?) absolute no-thingness? Don't be frightened of that word. Because it (the mind is) is empty it has got vast (inwardly open ?) space. Have you ever observed in your own mind if you have any ( free inner) space at all there? Or is everything crowded by your ( eveyday) worries, by your 'hopes of self-achievement', by your knowledge, by your ambitions, fears, by your anxieties, your pettiness ? And how can such a mind understand, or be in that state of being that has that enormous (inner) space? Space is always enormous.
A mind that has no (free inner) Space in its everyday life cannot possibly come upon That which is Eternal, which is Timeless. And that is why ( the self-knowing aspect of ?) meditation becomes extraordinarily important: the meditation of which we are talking about transforms the ( inner quality of the ?) mind. And it is only such a mind that is the religious mind. And it is only such a religious mind can bring about a different culture, a different way of life, different relationship, a sense of sacredness and therefore great beauty and honesty. All this comes naturally, without inner effortc, without (endless) conflicts .
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 07 Dec 2016||#517|
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline||
Hello John, this time I have saved your post before you deleted it...as sooner or later I had something to reply or rather add to it..
Yes it is of transformational nature, I would add as a side effect so not as a goal, for me.
> John:So, as the desire for all these
Well this is because what we call sorrow is not experimentally and directly so understood to some sufficient extend, one only notices it when it is over the top but not at its very beginning when it is still a quite "gentle" warning saying: wait there is something wrong here!! , which theoretically if it is tackle at such early time implies that there is no pain or suffering as we know it ...
When one does nothing proper about it , well as soon as it is not that high for some reasons, by comparison we feel OK or even better for some time then again we ll eventually drown into it then feel better etc
when the energy k mentions is there, there is no sorrow , no fear and absolute contentment...I know it by own experiment...the contentment directly is there because the Source is there.
this takes over thought's dictatorship and pushes it where it vitally belongs to...but this is not my case anymore, nor do I know someone surrounded by this energy, it does not mean that there is no one in that case of course. I am sure there are somewhere people on that wavelength ....
But the point here is do we tackle sorrow somehow to be discovered by oneself or not ?..the global answer is : no we do not tackle it, we get rid of it by any possible means ! but as it is the state of thought-me, this won't happen this way..
So this energy taming the "evil" thinking process is not there, what is left ? thought seeking a way out of its misery by all means....not knowing what its misery's roots are..so back to analysing...thought hates sorrow so by all means will try to get rid of it...thought hates itself without knowing it in fact, so it hates life as it is living it !!
there is no such thing as sorrow on one hand and thought on the other hand, it is one item and one of the "purpose" of such unbearable on purpose "cross" is to unify what had been split up by the action of the analytical process in the process of analysing, the observer is the observed etc....analysing is vital in a very specific field only, anywhere else out of this very specific field it is sending a signal that we do not understand at all, and worse that we want to go away without letting it do its job... nor know that it is a helper ...all this means that "something" unknown to us is there which knows the right path for us, but we can know it is real when it works..
*> John : As for the global suffering of
Well we do not have the same approach about sorrow, since the beginning of our talks here, and this is fine for me. I cannot do anything so far about any global suffering is what I understand since not long ago, as it seems that it will be solved one by one...what can be done is at a personal level only..then yes why not smile ,share and all of it at all even smallest humane action indeed.. ,yes this will be done spontaneously so genuinely..and that is already something "positive" as you say ..
This process of sorrow to be left untouched by thought must be more powerful than thought, but at the same time it cannot be mechanical for some reason I have seen but are quite impossible to be put in words but basically thought is THE only one which must decide under the weight of its own "sins" so pain, to go that way so to end its leadership WILLINGLY whatever takes place.. it is an absolute yield made by thought itself..so it is absolutely vital in the process, it is the one which must renounce to its power..somehow !!!...then one sees moment by moments what takes place...any hope will again ruin all this...as in fact this means that thought is back again as a very powerful leader of the brain..ready again to make it worse...this is where we may see the possible non existence of such guy as Jesus, when he supposedly fall many times carrying his crossed, so his sorrow and pain... but this is not important just casual thinking which came to me
.. and of course as you know well, it can produce disasters too if we resist it meaning escape it, this includes facing it..because then our life remains a split up one , separated in two in all fields so including where it must not be that way, with a me at the centre, all this done by thought same for one as it does on the planet ...this process whatever it is called works by reunifying what was split up by thought in fields where one must absolutely not do that...
As to meditation, well I still do not know what that is really, but again it is more than fine with me as well....but I must say,as I told you before that the word itself is quite repulsive to me like many others (heart,love,etc etc) , so of course this does not help ...
Then from there something else may take place, in fact it will somehow...changes , some are radical ,are taking place by themselves and in my view they seem to be unpredictable would you see that too ?
This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Wed, 07 Dec 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 07 Dec 2016||#518|
|Jan Kasol Czech Republic 92 posts in this forum Offline||
self-understanding is not of transformational nature. There is nothing to transform. All (seeming) change is only superficial exchange of garments of conditioning. It is still within the same old pattern of thought. Truth lies in a completely different direction, if you break away from the pattern of thought. And suffering is within the pattern, it is created by thought. Suffering is the other side of the coin of acquisitiveness. They both are the threads by which the pattern is woven.
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 07 Dec 2016||#519|
|Richard Lewis Bulgaria 12 posts in this forum Offline||
Thanks to all for posting - helping each others to fullfill their own self fullfilling prophecies. It remindsme especially on once upon a time...
(anyway, i wish i could spare me the time at the KFA forum;)
This post was last updated by Richard Lewis Wed, 07 Dec 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 09 Dec 2016||#520|
|Dan McDermott United States 155 posts in this forum Offline||
Hi Dan, John, all...
That is a grim picture you paint Dan and it is the way it seems things have gone and are going. For me this morning, a bit of light...I posted this on another forum earlier:
'I think that we have to ultimately realize that we are in our essence 'awareness'. And in that realization, there is nothing of the personal. The personal comes and goes, changes, that is not what we are. Turning one's 'face to the eternal' is realizing that we are in essence, 'awareness'. Only a deep realization of that connection, that reality, can bring about an end to Man's suffering, conflict, confusion and despair'.
In a million or five million years from now, what significance will any of this have? There were other hominids here with us in the beginning all gone now...who knows what they were up to. Obviously we don't belong psychologically trapped in time. Especially the tiny amount of 'time' we get to walk around here. No I saw this A.M. that we have to 'hitch our wagon' to the stars and then some: to Eternity and to Creation. It's the only thing that makes sense. Thought-time is always, inevitably going to lead to fear and misery no matter how good you have it. (Can be offset by pharmaceuticals but that's no solution.) The 'solution' is in realizing what we are 'not' because we cannot 'grasp' the other because it is what we are. All of us are that. It is 'lawful' that we act in the brutal, greedy, violent ways that we do because without the deep realization that we are 'nothing', our fears are always there in the background defending a 'security' that is only 'skin-deep'.
When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."
This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 09 Dec 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 09 Dec 2016||#521|
|Richard Lewis Bulgaria 12 posts in this forum Offline||
Thanks, Dan for excellent comment in which i cannotdistinguish which part of text is from k and which yours...;)
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 09 Dec 2016||#522|
|Dan McDermott United States 155 posts in this forum Offline||
All from 'me' however, it was K.'s conversation with Terrance Stamp that introduced the idea that what we are in essence is 'awareness'. That was years ago I think, but it stuck with me and somehow made more and more 'sense'. This morning I could see in a way that anything short of an 'understanding' that didn't include 'everything' was going to always 'run into conflict'. The 'blissful ignorance'' of the animals is not open to us...our reality, I think is in the eternal. We just can't 'know' it.;-)
When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 10 Dec 2016||#523|
|John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline||
Is there a time-free dimension of insightful perception ? ( an experientially friendly editing of K's last serious dialogue)
PJ: It seems to me that all (the major psychological ) problems of the human brain are born of time.
K: Are born from the (psychological ?) process of time, the (virtual ?) time of becoming something. ‘I am this, I will be that.’ Now, my question is: Is there another (dimension of ?) time outside this ( outward ?) movement which we know and call time? That is, is there a time of non-movement?
PJ: This (dimension of ?) ‘time’ that does not belong to the category of movement, does it belong to the category of matter?
K: Matter as I understand it, is ( some kind of ?) solidified energy; matter is manifested energy. The body is manifested energy.
PJ: You see, sir, the brain is ( living ?) matter. Now, in that matterial (structure of the brain) evolution must exist.
K: Of course. We were monkeys at one time. Gradually, through a million years of evolution, we became Homo sapiens—what we are now.
PJ: You accept that the brain is matter. Therefore you must accept that evolution is inherent in the brain itself, because it is matter: there is the memory 'content' (of all our evolutionary past ?) stored in the brain cells.
K: Yes, and this gathering of memory, knowledge, experience (is manifested psychologically ) ?) as (self-) becoming, as accumulating more knowledge—( the whole mentality of ?) advancing more and more...
PJ: And becoming better. So we apply the (physical) process of evolution which exists in the brain to the (psychological) content in the brain. My question is: Is this content of the brain which is nothing but a gathering of experiences and knowledge, identical with the nature of the brain itself? You see, we all know that ( psychologically -wise ?) becoming is illusion. That is very simple to understand. But you asked : Is there another (dimension of ?) time which doesn’t belong to these (material) categories?
K: That’s what I want to inquire into. Is there an (inner dimension of ?) time which is not manifest?
PJ: When you say that it is not the outcome of (material)manifestation, why do you then use the word ‘time’?
K: I have no other word for the moment.
SP: Are you saying that the very Ground from which any manifestation arises is (has ?) another (dimension of ?) time?
K: I am inquiring into that, (since) Love is not of time.
PJ: You see, forgive me for saying so, sir, the moment you use the words ‘love is not of time ’, it is an absolute statement. And with absolute statements, no discussion is possible.
K: Pupul, that’s rather an unfair statement. We are trying to find out what ( the timeless dimension of ?) Eternity is. We are trying to find out an (inner dimension of ?) Reality which is not of time. We know that what is mortal grows and dies. We are asking whether there is a state (of consciousness ?) or an (inner) movement which is beyond time. Do you understand? Is there a Timeless activity (of Creation ?) which is infinite and measureless? You see, we are using words to measure (or describe ?) the immeasurable, but That which is not measurable is not of time.
PJ: We know 'time' as the (mental ) movement of the past projecting itself into the future. Now, what is the (nature of the ?) perception of that (Timeless ?) instant which is the only Reality?
K: Wait. Let us examine the ‘I must do’, ‘I will become’. That future is the past modifying itself, and that is the psychological time. Now, there is also a timeless action, a (time-free ?) action which is "perception-action". In this timeless action, there is no (time) interval. Do go slowly, if you want to understand it.
PJ: Before I can even go into this, I want to go into what this movement of the ‘past modifying itself in the present’ is.
K: ( The self-centred process of ?) thought modifies itself and going on (to meet its future ?) .
K: Yes. ( Now ) I am afraid of what might happen tomorrow, but (my projection of ?) 'tomorrow' is (implicitey contained ?) both in the 'today' and in the 'yesterday'. (In short?) the 'present', the (temporal) ‘now’, contains the 'past' and the 'future'.
PJ: But an (insightful ?) perception in the present negates both the past and the future.
K: That’s what I am saying. But (such a timeless ) perception requires an inner state without the past. That’s it.
PJ: Yes, so an (insightful ?) perception is obviously the essential element of this perception of the ‘now’.
K: Yes, and that perception is not of ( thought's continuity in ?) time. Because that perception doesn’t contain the past.
PJ: What is this ( timeless ?) ‘now’?
K: The ‘now’ is all time: past time, future time and the present time.
PJ: Now, you see, you can experience (your) past time, and you can experience (your) future time because you project it , but what is the experiencing of the 'now' which (contains ?) ‘all time’?
K: 'You' can’t experience it. Experience implies an 'experiencer' who is experiencing. The experiencer is of time.
PJ: Therefore when you say that the ‘now’ contains the past and the future, how do you contact it? How do I come to this ‘now’ of existence?
K: 'You' cannot come to it. Your brain is conditioned to knowledge, is conditioned to measurement in words. But this cannot be approached that way. And this is where the religious inquiry begins.
PJ: Is it possible to probe into this time which is not of this...?
K: Yes, it is possible, but ( its experiential ?) perception means that there is no 'perceiver'. The 'perceiver' is the past and the future. But the 'perception' is now. Therefore it is timeless just as (its) action is timeless.
PJ: Therefore, in that (time-free ?) perception, the past and the future are totally annihilated.
K: Listening is not of time. If I listen, it is now. So attention has no time. And, therefore, there is no linear or horizontal time. I am saying that ( the totally insightful ?) perception is timeless.
PJ: Yes, then is it possible to probe into it ?
K: Yes. I say, yes. But, please, realize what has happened before we probe. The mind has rid itself of all concepts, all theories, all hopes, all desires. It is now in a state of clarity. Right? So in that state, you can inquire non-verbally. That’s what I want to get at.
AC: I don’t understand.
K: Look, sir, I tell you "love is not of time". Can you listen to the (inner ?) truth of it? Do you understand the simple truth of it? "Love is not of time".
PJ: How do you "listen" (to the truth of something ?) ? Without translating everything into memory. In a dialogue with Krishnaji you can listen without thought operating and, yet, comprehend fully what he is saying. It is in listening at such depths that it—the statement, the question, opens up the ‘what is, it tells you; there is no other action.
SP: Pupulji, what is the comprehension of the statement ‘Love is not of time’?
PJ: Like you take a perfume...
K: Wait, wait. Here is a statement K makes: "Love is not of time". Do you understand the beauty, the depth of it? We all have been trained to be highly intellectual. A man who is not so bright, who has not passed exams and secured professorships, will (perhaps easier ?) understand a simple statement like this. At least I think he will.
AC: Sir, how can there be an inquiry into the state of (a totally insightful ?) perception?
K: Sir, just listen, I will show it to you. I tell you, ‘Love is not of time’. To me that’s a tremendous fact; it is the truth. You say, ‘I really don’t understand you’. And I tell you, ‘You won’t understand it the way you want to understand it, because you want to understand it through the intellectual process’. You won’t understand it (in your familiar way ?) because you want to understand it through the intellectual process: through argument, through a reactionary process, a constant back and forth of words. I say that you won’t understand it that way. You might say that that is the only (available ?) instrument you have and I reply, ‘Look, there is a totally different instrument. I will tell you what that (new perceptive ) instrument is if you can put aside the enormous weight of knowledge which is of time’.
AC: I understand that, sir.
K: So, if you understand that there is a state ( of meditation ?) where words have lost their meaning, but that there is the pure perception of something, you will probe into that perception.
PJ: Can you discuss that?
K: You can’t discuss it.
AC: Yes. You cannot, for how does one inquire without the word? You see, this state, to me, is the end of inquiry.
K: All right, if it is the 'end of inquiry', do you stop there? The brain—does it see this? Then that’s finished. Do you ( experientially ?) get to the point where the brain says, ‘Yes, that’s finished’?
AC: No, the ( thinking ?) brain doesn’t (get to that perceptive stage ?) . The necessary energy lapses. The brain cannot maintain that (high) level of (integrated intelligent ) energy.
K: On the contrary.
AC: But as long as there is energy, there is no further (need for ) inquiry or question.
K: I agree.
Madras, 28 December 1985
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 10 Dec 2016||#524|
|richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline||
That's it yes... no question, no inquiry..
This post was last updated by richard viillar Sat, 10 Dec 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 11 Dec 2016||#525|
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline||
Hello the other Dan! long time no see...t
that is what I call a pretty severe mental condition...cherry on the cake, those of us with most mental condition lead us...apart from some exceptions in the present time..
For me now the subject is quite simple in fact...I feel that my life is inadequate so am I going to change all the planet to make it adequate according to me or am I going to see somehow which is unknown about myself at first and leave the state of the planet for now, yet of course aware of it but not according to the MSM liars of course, I think that there is no inner awareness possible if at least I am not even able to grasp the most obvious as a sort of training too, in the outer..
what I say is there is the pain of life, whatever is the root right now does not matter, I have to leave this warning symptom alone then it is going to speak somehow which does not depend on thought so I leave it alone..then instead of being separated from me as I illusory see it using thought, it is now me..whatever this me is...I personally have no problem with this me...
when I say I leave it alone, this is a conscious thought to do so, a desire to do so, the actual real doing will not be of thought and take place as soon as thought stop interfering..
that is the precious property of any pain of any sort as a symptom and a catalyst...
well , I am in a very good lazy mood so that will be it for now...:-)
hope you're good.
cheerio....from Ireland , thee land of the Hobbits...;-)
This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sun, 11 Dec 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 11 Dec 2016||#526|
|John Raica Canada 532 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'?
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.
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.
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’.
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.’
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 '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.
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.
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.
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 11 Dec 2016||#527|
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline||
Good morning John, just passing by when you "dropped" this text here..
what to add to that quote ? nothing..
As far as I eventually would know anything about that, for me this is not a capacity of thought
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 definitively here, like you I would rather use the word holistic ...then so
then it now says something very different for me...
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..
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 !!!
This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Tue, 13 Dec 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 12 Dec 2016||#528|
|richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline||
"The intellectual explanations of how to do away with suffering make one indifferent to it."
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 16 Dec 2016||#529|
|John Raica Canada 532 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?
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) .
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.
DB: But you are saying, as I understand it, something quite different:
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?
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?
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.
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.
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: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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: 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?
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: 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'.
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.
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 18 Dec 2016||#530|
|John Raica Canada 532 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.
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.
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.
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".
JH: And your (collective ?) unconscious.
K: That's the whole (identitary ?) content of 'me'.
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.
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?
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?
K: So is his?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 20 Dec 2016||#531|
|John Raica Canada 532 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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' ?
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?
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 ?
K: At that very second there is no ( observer-observed ) division, you are entirely consumed by that. Right?
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".
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?
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'.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 21 Dec 2016||#532|
|John Raica Canada 532 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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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'.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 27 Dec 2016||#533|
|John Raica Canada 532 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'.
Buddha has said "you should make the effort, the Buddhas only teach".
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 27 Dec 2016||#534|
|richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline||
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.
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 28 Dec 2016||#535|
|richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline||
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.
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...
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 01 Jan 2017||#536|
|richard viillar France 37 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...
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 04 Jan 2017||#537|
|John Raica Canada 532 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.
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'?
B: Well is that 'thought' as well?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 06 Jan 2017||#538|
|John Raica Canada 532 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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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'.
PJ: I can't say that one doesn't say that...
K: ...but one doesn't do it.
PJ: One does it.
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.
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 08 Jan 2017||#539|
|John Raica Canada 532 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?
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.
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?
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.
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: 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.
PJ: ...being is awakened, if I may say so.
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?
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 11 Jan 2017||#540|
|John Raica Canada 532 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?
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?
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?
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"?
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'.
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.
PJ: So you can cut away the pain and the sorrow.
K: Can you?
PJ: Why not?
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.
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?
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.
|Back to Top|