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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?


Displaying posts 541 - 570 of 574 in total
Fri, 13 Jan 2017 #541
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

A K CONVERSATION WITH HUSTON SMITH (1968)

Is it possible to live with total lucidity?

Huston Smith: Mr Krishnamurti, this morning I will have only one question to which in one way or another I will be coming back to in various ways: In your writings, in your speaking, time and again you come back to this word, 'lucidity' (aka: 'choiceless awareness' ?) , but is it possible living as we are in this confused and confusing world, torn by conflicting voices without and conflicting tensions within, is it possible in such a world, to live with total lucidity? And if so, how?

Krishnamurti: I wonder, sir, what you mean by that word 'lucid'. Do you mean (inner ?) 'clarity' ?

HS: That's what first (synonime) that comes to mind, yes.

K: Is this (inner) clarity a matter of intellectual perception, or is it a (clarity of a ?) perception with the totality of one's whole being?

HS: The latter.

K: It is not a fragmentary (awareness) , therefore it is not intellectual or emotional, or sentimental. And so is it possible in this confused world, with so many contradictions (conflicting interests ?) , and such misery, and also inwardly, such insufficiency psychologically - is it at all possible for a human being living in this world to find within himself a clarity that is constant, that is "true" in the sense of not contradictory, is it a possible for a human being to find it?

HS: That's (exactly) my question.

K: (For a quick answer ?) I don't see why it shouldn't be found by anybody who is really quite serious, if we could discard completely all the authority of psychological specialists, as well as the specialists in religion, if one could really deeply negate all authority of that kind, then one would be relying totally on oneself.

HS: Well, my impulse after you have said that it is possible to achieve this lucidity, my impulse is to ask you immediately, 'how ?'

K: Wait, sir. What is necessary (for starters ?) is the freedom from the (subliminal ?) authority of someone to tell you, 'do this and you will find it'.

HS: So, are you saying that it is an inappropriate question to ask you how this lucidity is to be achieved?

K: No, not at all, sir. But to have this inner clarity, the first essential thing is freedom. (More specifically the ?) freedom from (accepting any spiritual ?) authority.

HS: I feel in a bind, because this freedom is attractive too and I want to go towards that, but I also want to 'pick your mind' and ask you how to proceed? Am I moving away from my freedom if I ask you how to proceed?

K: I should think that 'how ?' is a wrong (a falsely 'positive'?) question. But if you say, (negatively ?) what are the obstructions that prevent this (inner) clarity, then we can go into it.

HS: So that the 'how' must always be (asked in terms of the ?) immediate (action) , from where one stands, the particular individual.

K: I would never put the 'how ?' at all. The 'how' should never enter into the mind.

HS: Well, then this is a hard teaching. It may be true but I don't feel that it's possible completely to relinquish the question 'how' and everything.

K: Sir, I think we shall be able to better understand each other if we could go into (negating ?) the things that prevent clarity.

HS: All right, fine.

K: Through negation (of the false ?) come to clarity, not through the 'positive' method of following a system.

HS: Fine, the 'negative' approach sounds good.

K: I think that is the only ( experientially friendly ?) way.

HS: Well, we'll see.

K: So what is important is to find out what are the obstructions, the hindrances, the 'blocks' that prevent clear perception of our anxiety, fear, sorrow, and the ache of loneliness, the utter lack of love and all that.

HS: Let's explore the virtues of the 'negative' (approach) . What are these?

K: First of all there must be freedom from ( any spiritual ?) 'authority'.

HS: It seems to me that this goal of 'total freedom' and 'self reliance' is a valid one, and yet along the way it seems to me that we rely, and should rely, on all kinds of authorities in certain practical spheres. When I go to a new territory and I stop to ask the filling station attendant which way to go, I accept his 'authority' as he (presumably) knows more about that than I do. Isn't this...

K: Obviously, sir, but we are considering not authority along any particular line, but the whole problem of (inwardly following ) the authority of the man who says, "I know, you don't".

HS: I see. So one should never turn over one's life to anyone else.

K: Because the churches throughout the world, the different religions, have said, give your life to us, we will direct, we'lll shape it, we will tell you what to do. Do this, follow the Saviour, follow the church and you will find (inner) peace.

HS: All right. I think I see that and one should never abdicate one's own conscience.

K: We started out asking the question, why is it man who has lived (or...survived ?) for two million years and more, why is man not capable of a clear (inward ?) perception and action? That is the question involved.

HS: Right. And your point is that it is because he doesn't accept the full responsibility ?

K: No, I haven't come to that ( responsability ?) point yet. I am saying that we must approach this problem 'negatively' ( by negating the false stuff ?) . Which means (experientially that ?) I must find out what are the obstacles which prevent a clear perception.

HS: Right.

K: Now one of the major ( self-created ?) hindrances, is this (blind ?) acceptance of (spiritual ?) authority.

HS: All right. So "be ye lamps unto yourself".

K: That's right - you must be (or become ?) a "light to yourself".

HS: Very good.

K: To "be a light to yourself" you must deny every (dependence of ?) another's light, however 'great' that light be, whether it be the light of the Buddha, or X Y Z.

HS: But nevertheless you may retain what you find it might be valid.

K: No, no sir. When I reject the authority of the outer I accept the authority of the inner. And my authority of the inner is the result of the cultural conditioning in which I have been brought up.

HS: All right. The only point that I am not quite sure about affirming and maintaining one's own freedom...

K: Ah, you can't. Sir, how can a prisoner affirm that he is free? ( Inwardly speaking ?) he is in a ( self-created ?) prison, and that is the fact from which we must move. What exists is that man has bowed to this total authority.

HS: All right. And this is the first thing we must see and remove ?

K: Absolutely, that must go, for a man that is serious, and wants to find out the truth, or see things very clearly. That is one of the major points. And the freedom from ( the subliminal 'herd ?) fear', which makes him accept the authority (of psychological propaganda ?) .

HS: Right. That seems true also. And so beneath the craving for authority is...

K:... is fear.

HS: The very fear which we look to authority to be free from.

K: That's right. So the fear (of anything unknown ?) makes man violent, not only territorial violence, but sexual violence and different forms of violence.

HS: All right.

K: So the freedom from authority implies the freedom from ( a still deeper ?) fear. And ( going still deeper ?) the freedom from fear implies the cessation of every form of ( self-centred ?) 'violence'.

HS: So, if we stop ( the mentality of self-centred ?) 'violence' then our fear recedes ?

K: Let's put it round the other way, sir. Man 'is' (subliminally or openly ?) violent, linguistically, psychologically, in daily life he is violent, which ultimately leads to war.

HS: There's a lot of it around.

K: And man has accepted ( the mentality of ?) war as the way of life, whether in the office, or at home, or in the playing field, or anywhere war he has accepted as a way of life, which is the very essence of violence and aggression and all that . So as long as man lives a way of life which is ( openly or subliminally ?) violent, he perpetuates fear and therefore violence and also accepts authority.

HS: So these three are a kind of vicious circle, each playing into the other.

K: And the churches say, live peacefully, be kind, love your neighbour, which they don't (really ?) mean it. It is merely a ( smoke screen of ?) verbal assertions that has no (true) meaning at all.

HS: (To recap: ) in trying to see the things that stand between us and lucidity and freedom, we find that ( the traditional acceptance of ?) authority and fear and violence are working together to obstruct us. So, where do we go from there?

K: It's not a matter of 'going to some place', sir, but of understanding this fact that most of us live a life in this (inner & outer) 'ambience' of authority, fear and violence. We can't 'go beyond' it (transcend this condition ?) , unless one is free from it (experientially ?) from the feeling of dependence on authority.

HS: All right.

K: Then, is it possible for a human being to be free completely of fear? Not only at the superficial level of one's consciousness, but also at the deeper level, what is called the 'unconscious'.

HS: Is it possible?

K: That's the question, whether the human being can really be free from ( his unconscious ?) fear.

HS: That's what I wait to hear.

K: I say it is possible, not in abstraction, but actually it is possible.

HS: All right. My (natural) impulse again is to ask: 'how ?'.

K: You see when you (ask someone else ?) "how", you cease to learn.
And when you are learning, if the problem is vital, intense, it has to be solved (here and now ?) so you say : let's learn about it.

HS: All right...

K: So the moment you bring in the 'how' you move away ( experientially ?) from the central fact of learning.

HS: All right, that's fine. Let's continue on the path of learning about this.

K: Learning. So, what does it mean to learn?

HS: It means to perceive how one should proceed in a given domain.

K: No, sir, surely. Here is a problem of ( our unconscious ?) fear. I want to learn about it. First of all I mustn't run away from it.

HS: Well, are we again going at this through the 'negative' route ?

K: Which is what I am doing.

HS: And fear is an 'obstacle' ...

K:... about which I am going to learn. The moment (my inner atitude is one of ?) learning I am free to ( observe ?) it. So the right learning (attitude ?) matters. What is implied in it? First of all there must be complete cessation of condemnation, or justification.

HS: All right. I can see that. If we are going to understand something we keep our (personal) emotions out of it, and try to dispassionately ...

K: ... learn. So to learn there must be no ( mental ?) condemnation, or justification of fear, and therefore no to escape verbally (intellectually ?) from directly facing the 'fact of fear'. So, it is really a very important question: whether the human mind can ever be free of fear.

HS: It certainly is.

K: Which means, whether the mind is capable of actually looking at fear as it occurs.

HS: Facing fear ?

K: Facing fear.

HS: All right, why don't we do just this ?

K: What is ( this reaction of ?) 'fear'? There is every kind of fear: fear of darkness, fear of war, fear of a thunderstorm, so many 'psychological' fears. And you cannot possibly have the time to analyze all the fears, that would take the whole life time, by then you have not understood any fears.

HS: So it is the 'phenomenon of fear' itself rather than any...

K: ...than any particular fear.

HS: Right. Now what should we learn about it ?

K: To learn about something ( of this nature ?) you must be in complete contact with it. Therefore I must look at it, I must face it. Now to ( objectively ?) face something implies a mind that does not want to solve the problem of fear. ( this is very important to understand because if I want to 'solve the problem fear ' I am beyond it already, I am not looking).

HS: You say that if we are trying to solve the problem of fear we are not truly facing it. Is that right?

K: Quite right, sir. The mind must give its complete attention to fear, and if you give partial attention which is to say, I want to solve it and go beyond it, you are not giving it ( all your ?) attention.
Npw, in giving complete attention to the learning about fear there are several problems involved in it. (a) We generally consider 'fear' as something outside us. So there is this question of the 'observer' and the 'observed'. The 'observer' puts ( the observation of ?) fear as something away from him.

HS: I am not sure. When I 'am afraid', I feel it very much in here.

K: In here, but when you (try to ?) observe it, it is different. Then you (subliminally ?) put it outside.

HS: No, that doesn't seem quite right...

K: All right, at the moment of ( the surge of ?) fear there is neither the observer nor the observed.

HS: That is very true.

K: At the moment of a major crisis, at the moment of the actual fear there is no observer.

HS: It fills the horizon.

K: Now, the moment you ( try to get back in control and?) begin to face it, there is this ( subliminal ?) division.

HS: Between the fearful self and the...

K: The non-fearful (rational part of one-) self. So in trying to learn about fear, there is this ( subliminal tendency of ?) division between the observer and the ( fear to be ?) 'observed' (and controlled ?) . Now is it possible to look at fear without the 'observer' ( self-controlling attitude ?) ?
Sir, this is really quite an intricate question, a complex question, one has to go into it very deeply. As long as there is the 'observer' who ( thinks he ?) is going to learn' about the fear ( to have more control over it in the future ?) there is a division.

HS: That's true. We are not in full contact with it.

K: Therefore in that division is the conflict of trying to get rid of fear, or justify fear. So, is it possible to look at fear without the 'observer' - so that you are completely in contact with it all the time ?

HS: Well, then you are directly 'experiencing' fear. It seems better than, 'looking at it', because looking at does seem to imply a division between an observer and the observed.

K: Therefore we are using the word 'observing'. Being aware of fear without choice, ( the 'choice' implies the observer, choosing whether I don't like this, or that). Therefore when the 'observer' is absent (on leave ?) there is a 'choiceless awareness' of fear.

HS: All right.

K: Then what takes place? That's the whole question. The observer creates the linguistic difference between himself and the (naming of the ?) thing observed. Therefore the word prevents being completely in contact with fear.

HS: Yes. Words can be a (smoke ?) screen.

K: Yes. That's all that we are saying: the 'word' (the naming and the verbal processing ?) mustn't interfere.

HS: True. We have to go beyond that.

K: Beyond the word. But is that possible, to be (able to observe ?) beyond the word? Theoretically we may say, yes, but we are a slave to words.

HS: Far too much so.

K: So the ( earnest?) mind has to become aware of its own slavery to words, realizing that the word is never the thing.

HS: Right.

K: So the mind is free of words to look. The authentic relationship between the observer and the observed takes place when the word (and its associated images) is not. So he is directly in contact with fear.
Now there is fear at the conscious level, which one can understand fairly quickly. But there are the deeper layers of fear, so-called at the hidden parts of the mind.. Now to be aware of that that without analysis is it possible ?

HS: Surely it's possible.

K: But is it? There is this whole reservoir of fear - the racial fears, you follow, the whole content of the unconscious. Now, to be aware of all that, which means not through dreams, again that takes too long.

HS: Are you talking about whether we can be explicitly aware of the full reach of mind?

K: Yes. To reach the full content, to reach of the mind which is both the conscious as well as the deeper layers. The totality of consciousness.

HS: Yes. And can we be 'explicitly' aware of all of that? I am not sure.

K: I say it is possible when you are aware during the day of what you say, the words you use, the gestures, the way you talk, the way you walk, what your thoughts are, to be completely and totally aware of all that.

HS: Do you think 'all of that' can be (unfolded ?) before you in this total awareness?

K: Yes, sir. When you are directly in contact with it.

HS: It seems to me that the mind is sort of like an iceberg with region of it...

K: An iceberg is one-tenth below and nine-tenths above. It is possible to see the whole of it, during the day. During the day if you are aware of your thoughts, of your feelings, aware of the motives, which demands a mind that is highly sensitive.

HS: We can certainly be aware of much, much more than we usually are. But when you say we can be aware of all the psychological factors...

K: If you say, "it is not possible", then... it is not possible.

HS: No, I'd like to believe that.

K: No, it's not a question of belief. I don't have to believe in what I see.

HS: For me it is still a matter of belief, but maybe not for you - like so many times when I listen to you speak it seems to me like a 'half truth' is stated as a 'full truth', and I wonder whether that is for the sake of emphasis, or whether it really is, you really mean to carry it all the way.

K: No, sir. To me it really 'is'.

HS: We have been speaking of the elements that block us, the things that block us from a life of lucidity and freedom, authority, violence, fear. Our time is short and I wouldn't like to spend all the time on these obstacles. Is there anything 'affirmative' we can say of this condition ?

K: Sir, anything 'affirmative' indicates authority. ..

HS: Well now when I ask you for an affirmative statement it doesn't seem to me that I am turning over a decision to use ant authority. I just want to hear if you have something interesting to say which I will then stand a judgement upon.

K: With regard to what?

HS: As to whether it speaks to my condition, about the (holistic) state of life that it seems to me we are groping for in our words to describe.

K: Is this what you are asking: is life to be divided into the past, present and future, which becomes fragmentary, and not a total perception of living?

HS: Well again as so often it seems to me that the answer is both, and. In one sense it is a unity and it is present and the present is all we have, but man is a 'time-binding' animal, as they say, who looks before and aft.

K: So man is the result of time, not only evolutionary but chronological as well as psychological ?

HS: Yes.

K: So he is the result of time: the past, the present and the future ?

HS: Right.

K: Now, he lives mostly (immersed ?) in the past.

HS: All right, mostly.

K: He is the past.

HS: All right....

K: No, no, he 'is' the past because he lives in memory.

HS: Not totally.

K: Wait, sir. Follow it step by step. He lives in the past and therefore he thinks and examines and looks from the background of the past.

HS: Which is both good and bad.
K: No, no. When you are calling it good or bad, then we are lost. He lives in the past, examines everything from the past and projects the future from the past. So he lives in the past, he is the past. And when he thinks of the future or the present, he thinks in terms of the past.

HS: All right. It seems to me that most of the time that is true but there are new perceptions that break through, new experiences that break through the whole momentum of the past.

K: New experiences break through only when there is an absence of the past.

HS: Well it seems to me it is like it is a merging of things that we perforce bring with us from the past, but bring to play upon the novelty, the newness of the present. And it is a fusion of those two.

K: Look, sir, if I want to understand something new I must look at it with clear eyes. I can't bring the past with all the recognition process, with all the memories, and then translate what I see as new. Surely, surely, now just a minute: the man who invented the jet, must have forgotten, or be completely familiar with the propeller, and then there was an 'absence' of ( his past ?) knowledge in which he discovered the new.

HS: That's fine.

K: Wait, wait. That is the only way to operate (creatively ?) in life. That is there must be complete an absence of (what one knew in ?) the past, to see the new, or to come upon something new.

HS: All right....
K: You are conceding reluctantly?

HS: I am conceding reluctantly because I agree with the point that you are making, but it is also true that one operates in terms of the ( available) symbols that one has. And it is not as though we begin 'de novo'.

K: But (inwardly ) we have to begin 'de novo' because life demands it, because we have lived ( for ages) in this way, accepting war, brutality, competition, and anxiety, guilt, all that we have accepted that, we live that way.
I am saying (that in order ) to bring about a different way of living the ( psychological dependency of the ?) past must disappear.

HS: We must be open to the new.

K: Yes. Therefore the ( psychological knowledge of the ?) past must have no meaning.

HS: That I can't go along with.

K: That is what is the whole world is objecting to. The established order says, I can't let go for the new to be. And the young people throughout the world say, let's revolt against the old. But they don't understand the whole complexity of it. So they say, what have you given us, except examinations, ( the prospective of a?) job, and repetition of the old (or updated ?) patterns.

HS: Well you are pointing out, it seems to me, the importance of not being slaves to the past. And that's so true and I don't want to object to it in any way. But at the same time there is only one generation, namely ourselves, that separates the future generation from the 'cave man'. If this (industrious ?) 'cave man' were to be totally rescinded we would have to start right now.

K: Oh, no, no. To break (free from ?) the past, sir, demands a great deal of (self inquiry and ?) intelligence, a great deal of sensitivity to the (subliminal influences of this ?) past. You can't just 'break away' from it (and walk ?) .

HS: OK, I am convinced.

K: So the (existential ?) problem really is: Can we live a different way
in which man loves (his fellow ?) men, without competition, without ( a mentality of self-) division. A 'religious' (holistic ?) mind is a mind that has no hatred (no personal resentments ?) , that lives completely without fear, without anxiety, in which there is not a particle of antagonism. Therefore a mind that 'loves' - that is a different dimension of living altogether.

HS: But in some sense everybody wants that.

K: But they won't go after it. They are distracted (amused ?) by so many other things, they are so heavily conditioned by their past, they hold on to it.

HS: But I think there are some who will go after it.

K: Very few.

HS: The numbers don't matter (but... the 'law' of large numbers does ?) .

K: The minority is always the most important thing.

HS: Mr Krishnamurti, as I try to 'listen through' the words to what you are saying, it seems to me that (first) each of us should work out his own salvation, not leaning on any authority outside; (second), not to allow words to form a ( separating screen) 'film' between us and actual experience, not to mistake the menu for the meal; and (third), not to let the past swallow up the present, take possession, to responding to a conditioning of the past, but rather to be always open to the new, the novel, the fresh. And finally (fourth) , it seems to me you are saying that the key to doing this is a radical reversal in our point of view. It is as though we were prisoners straining at the bars for the light, and looking for the glimpse of light that we see 'out there' and wondering how we can get out towards it, while actually the door of the cell is open behind us if only we would turn around, we could walk out into freedom. This is what is sounds to me like you are saying. Is this it?

K: A little bit, sir, a little bit.

HS: All right. What else? What other than that? Or if you want to amplify.

K: Sir, surely sir, in this is involved the everlasting conflict, man caught in ( the illusory safety of ?) his own conditioning, and straining, struggling, beating his head to be free. And again that such 'effort' is necessary. That's part of life. To me that is the highest form of ( spiritual ?) blindness, of limiting man to say, you must everlastingly live in effort.

HS: And you're saying...

K: That living without ( this self-becoming ?) effort requires the greatest sensitivity and the highest form of intelligence. One has to understand how ( this inner) conflict arises, the duality between the fact of 'what is', and ( the mental projection of ?) 'what should be', there is the conflict. If there is no ( wishful thinking about ?) 'what should be', and face the 'what is', it, live with it then there is no conflict at all. It's only when you compare, evaluate with 'what should be', and then look with 'what should be' at the 'what is', then conflict arises.

HS: There should be no tension between the ideal and the actual.

K: No ( psychological ?) ideal at all. The fact is 'burning' there, why should I have an ideal about anything?

HS: Well, when you speak like that it seems to me that you break it into an "either/or", while it seems to me the truth is somehow both of these.

K: Ah, no. Truth is not a mixture of the 'ideal' and the 'what is', then you produce some 'melange' . There is only 'what is' - take a very simple example: we human beings are violent. Why should I have an ideal of non-violence? Why can't I deal directly with the fact?

HS: Of violence?

K: Of 'violence' without (projecting) the ideal non-violence (which, experientially-wise ?) is a distraction. The fact is I am violent, man is violent. Let's tackle that, let's come to grips with that and see if we can't live without violence. There is no dualistic process in this. There is only the fact that I am violent, man is violent, and is it possible to be free of that ? Why should I introduce the 'idealistic' nonsense?

HS: No dualism, you say, no separation, and in your view is it the case that there is no separation?

K: Absolutely.

HS: Isn't there any separation, as 'you' and 'me'?

K: Physically there is.

HS: But you don't feel 'dualistic' (or antagonistic ?)

K: If I felt dualistic I wouldn't even sit down to discuss with you, then intellectually we play ( mind games ?) with each other.

HS: Right. Now perhaps we are saying the same thing, but always it comes out in my mind that we are both separate and united.

K: Sir, when you love somebody with your heart, not with your 'mind', do you feel separate?

HS: I feel both. I feel both separate and together.

K: Then it is not "love".

HS: I wonder, because part of the joy of love is the relationship which involves in some sense, like Ramakrishna said, 'I don't want to be sugar, I want to eat sugar'.

K: I don't know Ramakrishna, I don't want any authority, I don't want to quote any bird.

HS: Don't get 'hung up' on this.

K: Sir, we are dealing with facts, not with what somebody said. The fact is...

HS:... that in love, part of the beauty and the glory of it, is the sense of unity embracing what in certain respects is separate.

K: Sir, let's be a little more 'un-romantic' about it. The fact is when there is love between man and woman, in that is (also) involved possession, domination, authority, jealousy, all that is involved in it. Of course there is. And comfort, sexual pleasure, and the remembrance. A bundle of all that.

HS: And there are some other 'positive' things you have left out...

K: Is love jealousy? Is love (based on ?) pleasure? If it is ( based on ?) pleasure it is merely the activity of ( the self-centred ?) thought, saying, 'Well, I slept with that woman, therefore she is mine' and the remembrance of all that. That's not love. Thought is not love. Thought breeds fear, thought breeds pain, thought breed pleasure, and pleasure is not love.

HS: Thought breeds only the 'negative' (stuff ?) ?

K: What is the 'positive' thing that thought produces, except mechanical things?

HS: A love poem ?

K: The man feels something and puts it down. The putting down is merely a form of communication (skill) . But to 'feel it' has nothing to do with thought. To translate (it artistically ?) then thought is necessary. But to love...

HS: But thought and words can also give form to our feelings which would bring them to satisfying resolutions.

K: Is ( direct ?) relationship a matter of thought?

HS: Not only, but thought can contribute to a relationship.

K: Thought is always the old, relationship is something new.

HS: Yes, but there are 'new thoughts'.

K: Ah! There is no such thing as 'new thoughts'. Forgive me to be so emphatic.

HS: No, I like it.

K: I don't think there is a new thought. Thought can never be free because thought is the response of memory, thought is the response of the past.

HS: When a great poet comes through with the right words to articulate a new perception, nobody has before thought of those particular words.

K: That's a mere matter of a cunning gift of putting words together.

HS: A noble trade...

K: No, sir, ( experientially-wise) that's a minor thing; the major thing is to see the beauty of life and see the immensity of it, and to (have this sense of ?) Love.

(voice from off:) There it ended this conversation with Krishnamurti. But what ended was only the words, not the substance. For Krishnamurti was speaking, as always, of that Life that has no end, and no beginning.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Jan 2017 #542
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

A K small group dialogue in Rishi Valley, 1971 (experientially friendly edited)

FREEDOM AND THE FIELD OF THE KNOWN

Questioner A: You were saying the brain cells themselves are conditioned by the (memory of their own ) past, the biological and historical past, and you said the structure of the brain cells could change. Could we go into that?

Krishnamurti: The brain cells are receiving (sensory and mental inputs ?) all the time; they are recording all the time, in the state of sleeping and in the state of waking. This (background) recording is an independent (non-personal ?) movement. That independent movement creates the mental capacity to think, to rationalize. The intellect can then observe (and control ?) the operation of thought. And that ( controlling activity ?) is again becoming part of the whole structure of the brain cells. Is the capacity to rationalize independent of the brain cells or being a part of them can it ever be independent? You cannot rationalize independently, because the brain cells and the intellect are part of cause-effect; and if the intellect is the product of the brain, the intellect must always be conditioned by memory, by knowledge. It can project very far but it is still tethered. The intellect can seek freedom, it can never find it. It can be free only within the radius of its own tether; in itself it is limited. So freedom must be beyond this intellectual capacity, must be something outside the field (of the 'known'?) .
Now, what is aware that the intellect cannot go beyond the range of its own radius? The intellect sees that there can be no freedom within the field ( of the known ?) and (logically assumes ?) that freedom is outside.

A: Buddhism maintains that this process which has come into existence with a cause, has an end and the perception of it is to see, that in this there is no permanency, and that rebirth is the rebirth of the ignorance of this process. So when you observe this process as impermanent, then it must create absolutely no attachment to this process. All that is given to you is to see the impermanence, and seeing ( the truth of ?) this, there is no attachment to this - in that direct perception , there is no effort at all.

Krishnamurti: Then how are these 'recording instruments' with their own capacity, their own movements, how are they to switch off and enter a different dimension, even for a short period?

A: We come to the point where the intellect realizes that whatever it does is within the field of the known, but then, what?

Krishnamurti: The intellect itself says, this movement is within this field (of the past experience and knowledge). Is there another (inner) movement other than this movement?

A: When you ask 'is there another movement', I cannot 'know' it.

Krishnamurti: I know this ( endless movement within the field of the known ?) is a ( a very intricate ?) prison. And my ( 'wake-up' ?) question is, is there freedom at all? Tradition would say yes, there is Moksha. ( But to postulate this while living in the field of the known ?) is rather immature.

A: Faced with this ('impossible' ?) question, I have absolutely no instrument now to deal with this.

Krishnamurti: I am asking, if there is no freedom within this field, then what is freedom?

A: The intellect can never know.

Krishnamurti: The intellect can only know ( a relative ?) freedom within the field (of the known) , like a man knowing freedom within a prison. It then asks what is freedom? If this is not "it", then what is freedom? Is the human mind everlastingly condemned to live within this field?
I have got it! When the mind says if this (perpetual existence in the known ?) is not it, then what is freedom? Then it says "I do not know" ; (but still ) there is a (subliminal ?) expectation to find out. That means the mind does not really say it does not know, but is waiting for something (extra-ordinary ?) to happen. I see that (new subliminal expectation ?) and I discard that. (Pause) So... I really do not know. I am not waiting, expecting. I am not hoping some answer will come from an outside agency. I am not expecting a thing.
There is the ('ending of time' experiential ?) clue. That ( inner state ?) of 'not-knowing' is freedom. The 'knowing' is the prison. If I do not 'know' what is going to happen tomorrow, I am inwardly free of the past, free of this whole field. So, the mind that lives in a state of not-knowing is a free mind.

The ( Hindu ?) traditionalists went wrong when they said 'do not be attached'. You see, they denied all relationships. They could not solve the (intricate ?) problems of wordly relationship, but they said do not be attached and so broke away from all relationships. They said "Be detached", therefore they withdrew into isolation.
( In a nutshell:) To live with the knowledge of this field is prison. And ( to be ignorant of ?) the prison (of the known ?) is also not freedom.And so a mind that lives in the known, is always in prison. That is all.

Can the ( meditative ?) mind (honestly ?) say "I do not know", which means the (time-binding continuity of ?) 'yesterday' has ended?

A: To pursue this (path ?) requires ruthlessness.

Krishnamurti: It requires tremendous delicacy (and integrity:) . When I said I really do not know, I really do not know. Full stop. See what it does. It means a real humility, a sense of austerity. Then, yesterday has ended. So the man who has ended yesterday is really beginning again. Therefore he has to be 'austere'. I really do not 'know'; what a marvellous thing that is. I do not know if I may die tomorrow. Therefore there is no possibility of having any conclusion at any time, which means, never to have any (psychological ?) burden. The burden is the 'knowing'.

A: Can one come to this point and stay there?

Krishnamurti: You do not have to 'stay there' !

A: The mind has a way of switching back (to what it 'knew' before ?) . Your (insightful ?) words can take us only up to a point...

Krishnamurti: When I say "I really do not know". It does not mean I have forgotten the past. In this (total insight that ?) "I do not know" there is no inclusion of the past nor a discarding of the past, nor a utilization of the past.
A man who says (sees the inner truth of ?) "I really do not know"... is (instantly ?) free of the known.

R: But the (organisational ?) structure of the brain cells remains the same.

Krishnamurti: They become extraordinarily 'flexible'. Being (functionally ?) 'flexible' they can reject, accept; there is a movement (in freedom ?) .

A: We see here something as ( the inner ?) action. So far we only knew ( time-bound ?) activity. We can never reject activity. It goes on. But in laying down bare the temporal activity, it ceases to be a barrier to (inner) action. The normal day to day living is a process which goes on.

Krishnamurti: Are you asking what is "action" to a man who does not know? The man who 'knows' ( assumes that he 'knows' ?) is acting from knowledge and his activity is always within the (inner) prison (of his choice ?) , projecting his (inner) 'prison' into the future. He is always (living) within the field of the known.
Now, what is "action" to the man who says I do not know? He does not even ask, because he is "acting".

( For homework:) You are all missing something, which is, not to know whether "tomorrow" is there. Can you go (meditatively ?) into that? Apart from (the physical, intellectual daily activity ?) the action of a man who 'knows' is always (inwardly ?) mischievous. His everyday action is relationship in the field of the known involved in attachment, in dominance, in subservience. Have the 'professionals' ( of the traditional spirituality ?) talked about (the reality of the everyday ?) relationship?

R: No...

Krishnamurti: To them ( the wordly ?) relationship meant attachment and (sorrow ?) therefore they talked of 'detachment'. But to live in this world, even in the Himalayas, I still need food. There is relationship. That may be the reason why the whole Indian movement of 'detachment' has made the mind so stupid, repetitive.

A: The Buddha in his first sermon said that both 'detachment' and 'attachment' are ignoble. The two represented the (traditional) Hindu idea of running away from the world.

Krishnamurti: Why did they not consider relationship? If you deny the (reality of ?) human relationship, action becomes meaningless. What is action without relationship? Is it doing something mechanical?

A: Action is relationship.

Krishnamurti: Relationship is the primary thing. Otherwise what exists? If my father did not sleep with my mother, I would not exist. So relationship is the basic movement of life. (However a ?) relationship (confined ?) within the field of 'known' is deadly, destructive, corrupt. That is the "worldly".

So, what is (a holistic ?) action? We have separated action from (the human dimension of our ?) relationships: as 'social' action, 'political' action, you but we have not solved this problem of ( direct ?) relationship. Now, if you accept that all living is relationship, then what is action? There is the practical action (in the field ?) of technology , but every other action is non-mechanical. Otherwise I reduce relationship into turning the wheel. That is why we have denied love.

A: Can we examine our relationship with Nature?

Krishnamurti: What is my relationship with nature - the birds, sky, trees, flowers, the moving waters? That is (part of ?) my life. It is not just relationship between man and woman, but all this is part of my life. I am talking of relationship to everything. How can I be attached to the forest, to the river? I can be attached to the (images and ?) words, but not to the waters. You see, we miss the whole thing because we confuse the word with the thing.

A: Is it a question of re-awakening sensitivity?

Krishnamurti: No. The question is what is ( a holistic ?) relationship? Being related to everything. Relationship means care; care means attention; attention means love. That is why relationship is the basis of everything. If you miss that, you miss the whole thing.
Sir,(to recap:) this is (our invisible inner ?) 'prison': to 'know' is the prison and to live in the (time-binding illusion of ?) 'knowing' is also the prison.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Jan 2017 #543
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

A K CONVERSATION WITH PUPUL JAYAKAR AND ACHYUT PATWARDHAN ON

HOW TO READ THE BOOK OF ONESELF ? (experientially friendly edited)

Pupul Jayakar: Yesterday you were talking about reading the 'Book of Oneself', which is ( the pocket version of ?) the Book of Mankind. And you asked a question: with what 'instrument' will I look? So, there are one or two questions which will have to be clarified: What is this instrument what is the nature of what is seen? You have talked about 'what is' from the first time we met you, but what is the nature of this 'what is'?

J Krishnamurti: If I may begin with this, I think the whole history of man from two million years, is part of our consciousness, is part of our story. As human being, we are (encapsulating ?) the whole history of man. If you grant this then the instrument with which I can read this vast complex (psychological ?) history (of mankind) , the only instrument I have is my (objective capacity of ?) thinking . Thought is the only ( available ?) instrument I have. ( However, working in 'darkness' ?) thought has built all the past accumulations, (self-centred ) experience, superstitions, beliefs, the wars, and the human consciousness is the storehouse of all that - the whole ( survivalistic ?) movement of mankind in time is (imbedded in ?) in the ( psychological) background of every human being. So, we can start from there.

PJ: Obviously, Krishnaji, human heritage is my heritage.

K: Yes, but very few are willing to accept (the full implications of ?) that. Most people have never thought (seriously) about this. And if (and when ?) they begin to think about it I am not sure they would see the 'fact' of it. So, if you and Achyutji and a few of us see the truth of it, not the intellectual concept that we we carry with us all the time the vast human heritage, then we can proceed.

A. Patwardhan: Sir, but would you not concede that though all this may have been accumulated through thought...

K: Through time and thought...

AP: ...when I say that I 'am' the inheritor of the entire past of man, it is not a thought process or anything like that, it is not in that way. The way in which I am the inheritor of it all is not (on the level of my ?) verbalized thought, or...

K: Do you as a human being, having studied history of the world and so on, do you see the (inner ?) truth that (consciousness-wise ?) you are the result, and that you hold the whole human heritage and that vast complex Book of the Story of Man?

AP: Yes sir, it is a fact.

K: Now, that fact can be an argumentive fact, argumentive, a conclusion, a concept, or it is so in my blood, in my thoughts, in my life.

AP: It is a totality.

K: Yes. Don't (yet) use the word 'totality' - it 'is so'.

AP: It is so.
K: Now, if we three at least see the truth of it then from there we can proceed. Not raise this question (for homework ?) at the end of the discussion or dialogue that may take place.

PJ: It is as much a truth as the fact that the human body has evolved - let me put it this way, is a universal phenomena. It is in that context that I say I accept I 'am' the human heritage.

K: Now from there proceed: I in me abides the whole (psychological) history of man: his sorrows, his anxieties, his loneliness, his miseries, his happiness, his experiences, and so on. Then the question you raised just now is: what is the instrument with which I read that book?

PJ: But even before I go to examine what is the instrument, what is it that I read?

K: As you are reading it (the content of this 'Book' ?) is moving, living.

PJ: Yes, as I am reading it, its 'future' (updated content ?) is also being projected.

K: (In a nutshell ?) the past, meeting the present modifying itself becomes the future.

PJ: And the very thought that arises now contains in it the germ of the future.
So first of all we have to be clear what is the nature of this 'what is' which we have talked about.

K: Pupulji, forgive me if I point out something. I may not know the nature of it, the content of it, but I want to learn, if it is possible, about the nature of consciousness, not as mine, the consciousness of man which is the past.

PJ: You see the moment you say that I am (supposed to be ?) reading the 'consciousness of man' and not 'my' consciousness, the attitude to that reading has undergone a total change.

K: A total change. That's right. But if one is under the (wide spread ?) illusion that this consciousness is 'mine', separate from every other consciousness, then we are moving in two different directions.

AP: Obviously.

PJ: But there seems a 'trap' there: we say we are the history of mankind in twelve encyclopaedias you would read it one way. But the moment you see it as something which (constantly ?) sprouts within my consciousness, immediately my response to it is of a totally different nature.

K: That's is what I was coming to naturally - if one sees one's consciousness as universal - that is, the ( self-centred ?) consciousness which exists in me is the ( self-centred ?) consciousness of all human beings, then our whole activity of inner perception changes. Right?

PJ: Yes...

K: Now, do I regard this consciousness as 'mine' , as my private ground, my private property ?

PJ: I would say that the consciousness of mankind is revealed on my private ground.

K: You are saying, by understanding my consciousness I recognize that it is the consciousness of man, of all human beings. All right then, I go along with that. But I mustn't insist that it's 'mine'.

PJ: I can come with you so far as to say that whatever is revealed is not 'unique' to me. It is part of the total consciousness of man.

K: But... ?

PJ: ...But it is revealed within my ground.

K: I understand what you are saying: that in the observation, investigation of my consciousness, which I had thought to be separate from everybody else, in that investigation there is the discovery that what I have called my (personal) consciousness, is not my private ground, but it is the consciousness which is the rest of man.

PJ: But you see, sir...the observing of that which arises, (like) the observing of (one's personal) loneliness doesn't bring into it the (generalising ?) factor that it is the loneliness of mankind. It is 'loneliness'.

K: In investigating my sorrow, my loneliness, which I have been scrupulously (considered to be ?) in my private ground, there is the discovery that it is (shared by ?) the rest of mankind. All men are lonely, all people suffer (although they may not acknowledge it ?) . The discovery that it is the ( sorrow of loneliness shared by the ?) whole of mankind is an enormous ( breakthrough ?) perception.

PJ: What brings that (global ?) perception about? Let us take it minutely through a microscope. This feeling of sorrow arises: there is an observing of that thing we call sorrow. What brings in the insight that I am observing not my petty sorrow, but the the sorrow of all mankind ?

K: Wherever you go, loneliness and sorrow are linked together. Go to America, it is there, in Europe it is there, in China, Russia, India, anywhere you go this factor is shared by all of us. Even to admit to oneself how extraordinary : this thing is shared by all of us, a change (in our mentality ?) has already taken place.

PJ: Yes. Can we go back to these two things. One is with what instrument and the second what is it that has to be observed?

K: I observe sorrow, loneliness,( or sorrow of loneliness ?) , they are synonymous those two.

PJ: Which are emotional responses to a situation.

K: To a crisis.

PJ: To a crisis situation. I suddenly have a feeling of shrinking, a feeling...

K: Yes. A feeling of some great loss.

PJ: And I look.

K: No, no. Not 'you'- 'you' don't look.

PJ: That's what I wanted to clear up.

K: Suppose one has lost a great friend, or a person whom you loved, and there is the (physical) ending of that person: what has actually taken place there? The ending of all your relationship with that person. And suddenly realizing how utterly lonely you are because that has been the only relationship that has meant something ( you were relying upon ?) . And suddenly that has gone. And there is the sense of loss. Now: (a) either I remain with it, that is, not let thought or any other ( self-centred ?) feeling interfere with that state. (in short ?) I don't want to escape from (facing the actuality of ?) it. And (furthermore ?) can this mind remain (non-dualistically ?) with that fact?- not as an 'observer' observing the fact, the observer is that state, there is no division between the observer and the thing he is observing. Right? He is the suffering, he is that ending. ( If this be the case ?) it's like a (potential ?) 'jewel' that you are looking, holding. Or more commonly (the option b: ) the moment you want to ( to inwardly distance yourself from ?) it you have entered into a very different ( quality of dualistic ?) consciousness.

PJ: I understand.

K: Now ( supposing I see that ?) the (psychological ?) history of mankind is (enfolded in my own psychological ) history. I want to read that (hidden ?) Book because it is a most extraordinary 'Book' ( which actually ?) is a tremendous ( self-sustained inner ?) 'movement'.

PJ: Can the (average human ?) mind contain the enormity of it?

K: Now wait a minute, we must begin ( to differentiate ) here between what is the Mind and what is the brain? The human 'brain' has infinite capacity. Look what it has done in the technological world, something incredible. Right? But psychologically it has been 'conditioned' through (its evolution in ?) time. So, in the psychological realm, it hasn't moved at all, it has not flowered, so (inwardly ?) it is limited (by its own survivalistic responses ?) . But the 'Mind' is not limited.

PJ: When you talk of the 'Mind' , you speak of what?

K: The whole (field of Intelligent ?) energy , the Mind of the universe, the mind of nature, you follow, everything that has been created 'is' (part of ?) the movement of the Mind.

PJ: Everything that has been created.

K: And is creating. Therefore there is no limit to Creation.

AP: Are you suggesting, sir, that when we say that "I am the entire heritage of man", it is not the brain that can take in this fact?
K: It is the brain that takes in the fact because I have communicated through words, through thought, and you are looking at it through thought and through words, therefore the communication is verbal and thought.

AP: I am trying to pin myself down to this 'fact' that at present whatever I understand I understand through the brain.

K: Ah!

PJ: I asked a question: this "reading" of the Book of Mankind - can a single brain contain it, and you came to differentiate between the brain and the mind. It is pretty clear that the human brain is inwardly limited and that it can only move within its own circle (of its existing knowledge ?) . And you're saying that this (Universal ?) Mind, being the very source of creation has no limits.

K: That's right. Pupul, let's be clear on this point. Thought (the self-centred activity of our brain ?) has created in the physical world, the churches, thought has created wars; thought has created the conflict between man and man. Right? Thought is responsible for all this. And because thought in itself is limited it cannot perceive a Mind that is immeasurable. But it still tries to understand it (conceptually ) because that is its mechanical function of reducing everything to its limited fragmentary activity. Right? And we are saying that as long as that brain is conditioned it can never understand the immensity of the nature of the Mind. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: If you see it, then our (holistic ?) "responsibility" is to uncondition the brain, uncondition the limitation which thought has imposed upon it.

PJ: Sir, here is something I would like to ask. Is it to 'uncondition' the brain which is conditioned and cannot move out of its (known) grooves, or to end the (inner ?) 'movement' of the brain?

K: It comes to the same thing.

PJ: No, sir. The (insightful ?) perception (originating ?) is in the Mind itself. So, is it that the brain finds itself unable to decondition itself ? Or is it to hold the brain in abeyance so that the perception which is the Mind can operate?

K: You are putting in modern language what the old traditions say, 'there is in me God. There is in me some element which is not contaminated, which then operates on that (conditioning)

PJ: But...you have drawn the difference between brain and Mind, between the conditioned and the and the non-conditioned.

K: I said we must differentiate the meaning of these two words. And I say that the brain which is limited cannot (experientially ?) understand what the Mind is. It can only become aware of it, when there is no conditioning.
Leave the Mind alone for the moment. Can thought (the evolutionary thinking brain ?) ever be free from its limitation? It can't. Right? Thought can never be free from its limitation because it is born out of ( a survivalistic ?) limitation. I don't know if you would see this.

PJ: May I ask a question? What is the distinction between thought and the brain?

K: Thought is the (self-centred ?) activity of the brain.

PJ: Is there anything in the brain apart from (this self-centred ?) thinking?

K: I won't fall into that trap! You are now going back to the old...

PJ: No, I am not, sir. But if you accept that the brain has this tremendous potential...

K: And we are only using a very, very small part.

PJ: Obviously. So, it could deal with the ( conditioning of the ?) psyche what it have done with technology...

K: That's all I am saying. I mean then the (Mind of the ?) Universe is open to you. That's all I am saying. If the (thinking ?) brain can free itself from the limitations of the (self-centred ?) 'psyche', then the brain 'is' the Mind when it is totally free. Then there is no inner sense of its own division, but the sense of whole, completeness, wholeness. That's all.

PJ: I understand. Now if I may go further. If the human brain has the energy to pursue (the developpments of modern ?) technology, they go up into space and are (even ) prepared to die (if anything is going wrong) ...

K: No, there is a great deal behind it: national praise by their country. They have been propagandized to die in the name of your country, or in the name of God...

PJ: You are not answering what I am saying. What is that element which enabled man, gave him the curiosity, curiosity to drive in the other direction?

K: I think our (standardised ?) 'education' is responsible for it. Because every culture has emphasized, except perhaps a few dead cultures, that you must earn a livelihood, work, work, work. And to do that study, you know, memorize, repeat, repeat, repeat. That's all we do. This morning I met some of the (local K School ?) students - they haven't thought about anything except (learning ?) mathematics, history, geography, and if you ask them to move a little away from the (field of the known ?) they are feeling (psychologically destabilised and/or ? ) lost.

AP: Even among the (top) scientists, there are only a few who go to the "impossible" questions.

K: But, sir, even those are...

AP: Very few. I say similarly today in the present crisis of the survival of humanity there is sufficient 'motivation', there is sufficient ground for man to say that this is the most intolerable predicament for man, and the brain must be explored.

K: What we are saying is very simple, sir. The brain has extraordinary capacity, and (inwardly) there is (the possibility to awaken ?) a different kind of 'movement' which is not based on ( our past survivalistic ?) experience, knowledge. So, if there is a breakthrough of that 'cycle' (of moving exclusively within the known ?) then I am saying there is no division between the Mind and the (intelligent ?) energy of the brain - this (same intelligent ?) energy of the brain has done the (marvels of the ?) technological world.

PJ: Yes, but it has never been released for this (moving inwardly) .

K: For the 'other'.

AP: I think the word (intelligent ?) energy is much better than the word motivation because it is really the energy of attention.

K: Just 'energy' for the moment. Psychologically my ( perceptive ?) energy is practically nil. And I am saying that when that (subliminal ego-centric ?) limitation has been broken down, or broken through, then there is a ( qualitative mutation into a ?) totally different energy, which now is channelled through technology and therefore that energy is limited. Right?

AP: I'm saying say that man has within him a ( vast potential of intelligent ?) energy which can transcend the limit of thought, and that is the energy of "attention". We must feel that we have a faculty other than thought to pursue the Mind.

K: No, I won't accept that. You see he is introducing again the same old pattern, which is there is an (inner) faculty which is hidden (dormant ?) , which is the energy of God, whatever you like to call it.

AP: I am saying that when I am looking at the real, it is just plain attention.

K: No, it is 'energy'. Keep to that word. Man has used the energy of thought in technology. Right? Right? It is the energy of thought, therefore limited.

AP: Right, quite right.

K: Now the breaking down of the ( survivalstic infrastructure of the ?) 'psyche' is not being done by this energy of thought.

AP: That's obvious.

K: Ah, no, sir, ( experientially ?) it is not 'obvious'.

AP: It is, sir.

PJ: Let me probe a little more. Let us examine those instruments man has readily available now: one is thought, the other are the senses...

K: The sensitivity of the senses ?

PJ: Yes.

K: The sensitivity of the senses and thought are both the same.

AP: How, sir?

K: I'll show it to you in a minute. Our senses are controlled by ( the self-centred process of ?) thought. Right? The (activities of our) senses are now shaped, controlled by thought. That is, my sense of taste, if 'I like it' thought comes in. Or if I 'feel' something or other thought comes in and says, 'Look, be careful, that is painful, don't go through there'. So is there - I am just asking - is there an (integrated activity or ?) 'movement of all the senses', without the interference of ( the self-centred ?) thought? (Eg:) Have you ever looked at the movement of the sea, the vast movement of the tides, the beauty of the waves, the enormous power of the waves, with all your senses 'looking'? In that there is no interference of thought. Now when (the self-centred ?) thought interferes, it must inevitably limit it or (try to optimise the sensation or to ?) control it.

PJ: I'm not wanting to argue with what you have said just now. There is a challenge, and my senses respond according to the conditioning of the mind, but there is a response of the senses...

K: Partial, always partial because ( from the background the self-centred ?) thought is always watching, controlling it, trying to say, 'I must', 'I must not', 'This is wrong', 'That is right'.

PJ: Forgive me, there can be a state of sensitivity when there is nothing contained in those senses. When you think of your brain, you think of it as being located s somewhere in the head. But when the senses do not operate from thought, do not contain thought, the place of operation changes (to the zone of the heart ?) .

K: Of course, when the senses are observing completely, heightened senses, and when you look at the movement of the sea completely that way there is no centre, there is no (interference of the self-centred ?) thought. Right? The moment ( the thinker and its ? ) thought comes in there is also a centre in the (activity of the ?) senses. Right?

PJ: We are part of thought, we are part of the senses.

K: Yes.

PJ: Is there a third movement?

K: Yes, that's the whole point. Is there an (integrated perceptive ?) instrument, or is there an inner state which is not ( controlled by ?) the movement of thought? That is what you are asking, right?

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

K: Let's look at it carefully: when you observe the movement of the sea with all your senses there is no ( self consciousness of this ?) sensory movement. Right? The senses are not aware that they are heightened. Right? Anything that is 'excellent' is not aware of its own excellency. Goodness in the highest sense has no ( self-consciousness ?) of 'being good'.

PJ: So, you were once talking of the 'essence' of all thought, the 'essence' of all senses, so it is this 'essence' itself then is the (new perceptive ?) instrument.

K: I understand what you are saying. But first of all I would like to get this clear between ourselves: when there is the 'heightened excellency' of the senses, the senses are not (self-consciously ?) aware that 'they' are aware. ( Their self-) awareness takes place when ( the 'thinker' and its ?) thought comes in.

PJ: (So, the excellency of your choiceless awarenness ?) is already gone.

K: Now when (the thinking brain ?) is (becoming 'choicelessly ) aware' of its own tremendous limitation, then it has broken through (broken free of its self-limitation ?) . But to realize that, to see that thought has no place in the (directly perceptive ?) movement...see how far we have got ?

PJ: So, what is the (new) instrument with which we read (the Book ) ?

K: I will tell you. This (living 'Story Book' of Mankind ?) is an endless (flowing ) movement. It had no beginning and no end. Right? It (the universal movement of Life ?) has no ending. But (the mentality of ?) my brain being ( space & time) limited, is looking for its ending. Right? I am approaching the book with 'where is the end ( or the meaning ?) of all this?'
Now, to realize there is no ending to it, do you know what it means (experientially ?) ? Then you enter into something called Love. Love has no end. I may love my wife, she dies, or I die, but the thing called 'love' has no end. But if I have identified myself with ( the 'loving image' of ?) my wife and she dies, my love has gone .

So ( to wrap it up your question was : ?) How do I 'read' this (living ) Book (of Mankind ?) ? If you have come to that point, there is no ('reader' nor a ?) 'Book' to read. When you have come to this really deep point that this Book ( of Life ?) has no end and no beginning, you 'are' that Book. (Your) life as ( part of ?) this (timeless ?) movement has no end, it is then (integrated in ?) the (Intelligent Mind of the ?) Universe. Then the Cosmos is this whole thing. (Have we been talking nonsense?)

PJ: No, sir.

K: Pupulji, if ysomebody who is serious heard all this, it is all (sounding) so extraordinarily wild - but it is not. ( In the area of Meditation ?) it is very logical, very clear - at least to me - clear and (if it will be ever ?) stated (in an experientially coherent way ?) in Sorbonne (Paris IV) , or Harvard (USA) , or in New Delhi (India) , it will ( perhaps ?) stand water.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Feb 2017 #544
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

Revisiting a few K dialogues from "TRADITION & REVOLUTION"

Published in the early 70's this collection of K dialogues in India (1970-71) had for me personally a major impact. Firstly because it is a book that sounded as (experientially) true then as it does now. And secondly, because of a strange feeling of coming from 'the Other Shore'. K does not feel obliged to 'justify' his perceptions in the psychologically correct form that was acceptable to the cultural formatting of the 'western' minds (his most ubiquitous companion was Mrs Pupul Jayakar (P)

So, here are a few of these 'revisited' texts that both inspired and...confused my 'inexperienced' mind

'THE FLAME OF SORROW'

Questioner P: Sorrow is ( being totally surrounded by pain ?) - the pain of someone dying, the pain of separation. How is it possible to meet this pain holistically?

Krishnamurti: The traditional escapes with which we are
all familiar are really the ways of avoiding the greatness of sorrow.
We use ( the all-purpose kit of intellectual ?) explanations to meet sorrow but these explanations do not (experientially) answer the question. The only way to (holistically ?) meet sorrow is to be without any movement away from sorrow, outwardly or inwardly, to remain totally with sorrow, without wanting to go beyond it.

P: What is the nature of sorrow?

Krishnamurti: The personal sorrow comes with the loss of ( something or ?) someone you loved, the loneliness, the separation, the anxiety for the other. With death there is also the feeling that
the other has ceased to be, and there was so much that he wanted to
do. All this is personal sorrow. Then there is ( the sorrow of ?) ignorance, not merely of book knowledge, but deeply, really ignorant - the timeless weight of sorrow in man. This sorrow has nothing
personal about it. It exists.

P: There is no immediate cause for this sorrow but it seems to follow man like a shadow. He lives, he loves, he forms attachments and everything ends. In this there is such an infinitude of sorrow.
How is it to end? The other day you said that in sorrow is (originating ?) the whole movement of passion. What does it mean?

Krishnamurti:We know the sorrow which is (the result of the chain of ?) cause and effect: (like when someone close ) dies and I
find myself completely emptied of all hope. In that there is self-pity,
fear; in that there is ( the psychological) pain which is the cause of sorrow. This is the lot of everyone. This is what we mean by sorrow.
Then also there is the sorrow of time, the sorrow of ignoring
one's own destructive conditioning; the sorrow of not knowing oneself; the sorrow of not knowing the beauty that lies at the depth of one's
being and the going beyond.
So, do we see that when we escape from sorrow through various forms of (comforting ?) explanations, we are really frittering away an extraordinary happening?

P: Then what does one do?

Krishnamurti: You have to (tackle) the question, "Is there, a
sorrow without cause and effect?" We know sorrow and the
movement away from sorrow.

P: Is there such a sorrow free of cause and effect ?

Krishnamurti: Man has lived with sorrow from immemorial
times. He has never (really bothered to ?) known how to deal with it. So he has either worshipped (the image of a 'Saviour') or run away from it. They are both the same (outward ?) movement. Now, if my mind does not do either, nor does it use sorrow as an (opportunity for spiritual ?) awakening, what is the relationship between sorrow and love ?

P: They are both (emotional ?) movements of the heart - one is identified as joy and the other as pain.

Krishnamurti: Is love (related to ?) pleasure? Without understanding the nature of pleasure, there is no depth to joy. Joy happens (spontaneously) but (more often than not ) this 'happening' is turned into (a personal pursuit of ?) pleasure. And when that pleasure is denied, there is the beginning of (frustration and ?) sorrow.

P: We know (the pursuit of sensory ?) pleasure is not love. But sorrow and love seem to emerge from the same source.

Krishnamurti: Can there be love if there is sorrow - sorrow being all the
things that we have talked about? In sorrow, there is a factor of separation, of (self-) fragmentation. Is there not a great deal of self-pity in sorrow? Now, what is the relationship of all this to love? Has Love (the sense of unity of All That Is ?) any (personal) dependency? Has love the quality of the "me" and the "you"?

P: But how about passion ?

Krishnamurti: When there is no (mental ?) movement of escape from
sorrow then Love is. Passion is the 'flame of sorrow' and that flame
can only be awakened when sorrow has in it no quality of (self-)
division.

P: In that sense, is that state of sorrow (qualitatively ?) different from the state of love? You say that when in that pain (of sorrow) there is no
resistance, no movement away, the 'flame of passion' emerges. Strangely in the ancient texts, 'kama' (love), 'agni' (fire), and 'yama' (death) are placed on the same level : they 'create', 'purify' and (in order) to
create again there has to be an 'ending'.

Krishnamurti: You see, that is just it. What is the relationship of
a mind which has understood the ending of sorrow? What is the quality of the mind that is no longer afraid of ending, which is 'death'?
When ( the totality of our ?) energy is not dissipated through ( the common avenues of ?) escape, then that (integrated ?) energy
becomes the flame of passion. And (this brings the quality of intelligent ?) Compassion, the 'passion for all'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Feb 2017 #545
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

A SMALL GROUP K DIALOGUE OJAI CALIFORNIA 1977 ( Experientially friendly edited)

ALL ABOUT THE NATURE OF INSIGHT

KRISHNAMURTI: (...) A man came up to me and said, "You are getting old, you are stuck in a groove." And I listened to it. For a couple of days I looked at it and said to myself, "He may be right."

Q: I was going to ask you: to be caught in habit after an (insightful ) perception, could that not ever happen to anybody ?

K: There is partial perception and total perception - let's divide it into those two. When there is a 'total' perception there is no further confusion.

Q: So, you don't get caught in habits anymore ?

K: There is no further confusion.

Q: What if something happens to the brain physically?

K: Then of course it is gone.

Q: So there seems to be a limitation to (the psychological validity of ?) what you say: one assumes that the brain remains healthy.

K: Of course, assuming that the whole organism is healthy. If there is an accident, your brain suffers concussion and something is injured, then it is finished.

Q: (But if this is not the case ) the major danger is that we would mistake a partial perception for the total ?

K: We have to go into this question of what is (an insightful ?) perception. How do you come to it? You cannot have perception if your daily life is in disorder, confused, contradictory. Can I have ( a truly insightful ?) perception if I am attached to my position, to my wife, to my property?

Q: It colours the act of perceiving.

K: So we are saying that a totally (insightful ?) perception can only take place when in your daily life there is no confusion.

Q: Couldn't it be that a total perception can take place in spite of that and wipe the confusion away?

K: If the windows are not clean my view is confused. If I am in fear my perception will be very partial. That is a fact.

Q: But don't you need such a (clear) perception to end fear?

K: Ah, but in investigating fear I have a total perception of fear.

Q: Are you implying that there are certain things you can do which will make for these perceptions?

K: I realize I am distorting perception through fear...

Q:... then I begin to look at fear...

K: Investigate it, look into it.

Q: But I cannot clearly observe fear if I am afraid.

K: Take a fact: you become aware of the fact that there is fear. And you observe also what that fear has done. And you look more and more into it. In looking very deeply into it you have an insight.

Q: I 'may' have an insight...

K: No, you will have insight, which is quite different.

Q: What you are saying is that this confusion due to fear is not complete, that it is always open to mankind to have insight.

K: To anyone who is observing. One suffers and you see what it does. In observing it, in opening it up, you have a certain (clarity of ?) insight. That is all we are saying. That insight may be partial. Therefore one has to be aware that it is partial. Its action is partial and it may appear complete, so watch it.

Q: Could one say that the fear can look at itself?

K: No, no. One is afraid: in looking at that fear without any choosing, you see what fear does. In looking at it more extensively, deeply, widely, suddenly you have an insight into the whole structure of fear.

Q: To simplify it perhaps too much: when we said one can't see through the window because it is dirty, it distorts, the action of examining the fear - the distorting factor - is the cleansing of the window.

K: How you observe is the real thing. That is, (an insightful ?) perception can only take place when there is no division between the 'observer' and the (inner thing) 'observed'. To explore implies there is no division between the observer and the observed. Therefore you are watching the movement of fear and in the very watching of it there is an insight. And yet you see, Krishnamurti says: "I have never done this."

Q: Then how do you know that somebody else can?

K: Suppose you have not gone through all this, but you see it instantly. Because you see it instantly your capacity to reason explains all this. Another listens and says, "I'd like to get that, I don't have to go through that whole process."

Q: Are you saying that all we have been discussing just now is merely a pointer to something else? We don't have to go through all that ?

K: Yes. I want to get at that.

Q: In other words, that ( diligent perception ) helps to clear the ground in some way?

K: Yes.

Q: But it is not really the main point. Are you saying there is a short cut?

K: Must you go through fear, jealousy, anxiety, attachment? Or can you clear the whole thing instantly? Must one go through all this process?
Q: You previously said that you have never done this. And by having that immediate total perception you are able to see what those with the dirty windows can do to clean them. But that isn't necessary, there is perhaps a direct, an immediate way for those who haven't...
K: No. First put the question, see what comes out of it. Dr Bohm says to Krishnamurti: "You have probably not gone through all this. Because you have a direct, a total insight you can argue with reason, with logic; you can act. You are always talking from that total perception, therefore what you say can never be distorted." And another listens to all this and says: "I am frightened, I am jealous, I am this, I am that, and therefore I can't have total perception." So I observe attachment, or fear, or jealousy and I have an insight.
But what we are talking about is: Must one go through all this process?

Q: Couldn't we remove from the problem the personal aspect? We are discussing what is open to man rather than to any individual.

K: Yes. Is it open to any human being without going through all this process?
So, can a human being see the whole thing at a glance? And that very glance is the investigation and the complete, total perception.

Q: This is what you mean when you say "the first step is the last" ?

K: Yes, a total perception.

Q: Then what would one's responsibility be towards someone who is in sorrow?

K: The response to that human being is the response of (an intelligent ?) compassion. Nothing else.

Q: If you see an injured bird it is very easy to deal with that because it really doesn't require very much of you. But when you come in contact with a human being, he has a much more complex set of needs.

K: What can you do actually? Somebody comes to you and says, "I am in deep sorrow". Do you talk to him out of compassion, or from a conclusion, or out of your own particular experience of sorrow which has conditioned you, and you answer him according to your conditioning? A Hindu, who is conditioned in a certain way says: "My dear friend, I am so sorry, but in the next life you will live better. You suffered because you did this and that" - and so on. Or a Christian would respond from some other conclusion. And he takes comfort in it. Because a man who is suffering wants some sort of solace, someone on whose lap he can put his head. So what he is seeking is comfort and avoidance of this terrible pain. Will you offer him any of those escapes? Whatever comes out of an intelligent Compassion will help him.

Q: Are you saying that as far as sorrow is concerned you can't directly help anyone, but the (intelligent ?) energy of compassion itself may be of help?

K: That's right; that's all.

Q: But many such wounded spirits will come to the K Centre here and I think it is going to be a problem to know how to deal with them.

K: There is no problem if you are compassionate. Compassion doesn't create problems. It has no problems, therefore it is compassionate.

Q: You are saying that total compassion is the highest intelligence?

K: Of course. Compassion has its own intelligence and that intelligence acts. But if you have no compassion and no intelligence, then your (personal) conditioning makes you reply whatever he wants. I think that is fairly simple. To go back to the other question: Must a human being go through the whole process? Has no human being said, "I won't go through all this. I absolutely refuse to go through all this (diligent self-investigation ?) "?
You see, we are such creatures of habit. My father is conditioned, generations after generations are conditioned and I am conditioned. And I accept it, I work in it and I operate with it. But if I say, I won't ever operate (in the area of my known ?) conditioned responses, something else may take place.
But you see, a ( culturally standardised ?) human being never says, "I will reject the whole thing". I want to investigate that.

Q: But isn't the key to this somewhere in the very nature of desire? There is some sort of (instinctive) desire for continuity, for security.

K: That's right. ( Being 'psychologically a ' ?) 'bourgeois' implies continuity, security, it implies belonging to something, a lack of taste, vulgarity - all that.

Q: But Krishnaji, if you are saying that Krishnamurti never had the need to say it, we can only conclude that you are some kind of (psychological) "freak".

K: You can, but it doesn't answer the question. Don't you ask: "How does it happen, must I go through all this?"

Q: Krishnaji, you are taking two widely separate things. One is the uncontaminated person, who never had to go through the process because he was never "in the soup", while most other people, apparently, are in a form or other of conditioning: it may be fear, or something else. Therefore the person who has already got this 'sickness' says "This man has never been sick for a day in his life." What good is it to examine that, because one is already sick in some form.

K: Can we put the whole thing ( holistically ?) differently? Do you seek the essence of excellence? Then everything falls away, doesn't it? Or do you seek excellence in certain directions and never the essence of excellence (the excellence of being ?) ? As an an ordinary human being who is fairly intelligent and decent, if he sought the (inner) essence of excellence, would this happen? The essence would meet all this. I wonder if I am conveying something?

Q: Does it exist apart from this ( K-person ?) manifestation?

K: Listen carefully first. The very demand for excellence - and how you demand it - brings the essence of it. You demand it passionately. You demand the highest intelligence, the highest excellence, the essence of it, and when fear arises, then you...

Q: Where does the demand come from?

K: Demand it! Don't say: "Where does it come from?" There may be a (personal) motive, but the very demand washes it all away.

Q: You are saying: Demand this excellence - of which we don't know anything.

K: I don't know what is beyond it, but I want to be morally excellent.

Q: Does that mean "goodness"?

K: I demand the excellence of goodness, I demand the excellent flower of goodness. In that very demand there is a demand for the essence.

Q: Does ( the insightful ?) perception come from this demand?

K: Yes, that's right.

Q: Could you go into what is this 'demand'?

K: It is not a demand which means asking, imploring, wanting - cut out all those.

Q: But then aren't back to prayer ?

K: Oh, no. Leave out all that.

Q: So, are really saying that the impossible is suddenly becoming possible to the average (good listener &) intelligent human being?

K: We are saying that it is possible for the average human being who is fairly decent, fairly kind, who is not a ( psychological ?) 'bourgeois'.

Q: Traditionally we are conditioned to believe that there are special people with no (egotistic ) content of consciousness, so it is very difficult for someone like me to feel that one could really be completely free of it.

K: You see, you have not listened (to the statement) that "what is important in life is (to demand from oneself that ?) supreme excellence which has its own essence." That's all. And to "demand" (such a thing) does not mean praying or getting something from somebody.

Q: The point is, we confuse (this holistic ?) demand with desire.

K: Of course.

Q: So, when people feel that they want to give up desire then there is a danger of giving up this demand as well.

K: Let's find a better word for it. Would it be a " passion for excellence" ?

Q: Many (religious) people have had some great vision, or a dream of something and that has developed a great energy. But you are saying it is not a dream, it is not a vision; but it is nevertheless some perception of this excellence.

K: All those passions feed the ego, feed the me, make me important, consciously or unconsciously. We are cutting out all that. There is this young boy (K) who has a passion to grow up into an extraordinary human being, into something "original".

Q: He sees that it is possible.

K: Yes.

Q: And therefore he has the passion.

K: Yes, that's right. It is possible. Is that what is missing in most human beings? This (existential) passion in a human being who demands the supreme excellence, not in what he writes in his books, but the feeling of it. You know this, don't you? - that may shatter everything else.
But again, this (particular) human being never even asked for it.

Q: Perhaps that is due to our being conditioned to mediocrity, not to make this demand. That is what you mean by 'mediocrity' ?

K: Yes, of course. Mediocrity is lack of great passion.

Q: We are not only conditioned to mediocrity, so our (existential) demand is always along some direction. Now, to have a demand without any direction...

K: That's right. I like the word "demand", because it is a challenge.

Q: Doesn't a demand without direction imply that it is not in time?

K: Of course. It demands no direction, no time, no person. So does total insight bring this passion? Total insight "is" the ( flame of that?) passion which wipes away all confusion. It burns away everything else. Don't you then act as a magnet? The bees go towards the nectar. In the same way don't you act as a magnet when you are passionate to create? Is this lack of (inner) fire the thing that is missing ? If there is something (of this kind ?) missing I would ask for it.

Q: But logically one could ask: Is there an essential difference between the unconditioned and the conditioned human mind ?

K: I see what you mean. Essentially, deeply, is there a difference?

Q: Or... is our conditioning only superficial? When you say, "You are the world, the world is you" - does that statement include the conditioned as well as the unconditioned?

K: It is an obvious fact: "The world is 'me' and 'me' is the world" ?

Q: But only the unconditioned can perceive that?

K: It isn't quite like that...

Q: I may say, "I am the world, the world is me", but then I revert to an action which is a contradiction to that. Therefore it is not an absolute fact for me. There may be moments when the fact of it is seen by me.

K: A person can say this merely as a (convenient ?) intellectual conclusion, or as a momentary feeling. But when one (honestly ) says, "I am the world and the world is me" there is no ( self-conscious) 'me' (involved) . To a man who feels, "The world is me and I am the world", to him there is no 'me'. That human being lives in this world, he must have food, clothes and shelter, a job, transportation, all that, yet there is no me.
So when the world is me and I am the world, there is no me. Can that state of consciousness , that (holistic) quality freely operate in all directions? It must operate in all directions. When you say, "I am the world and the world is me", and there is no me, there is no (self-centred ?) conditioning.

Q: Therefore the 'other person' also is not there, there is no 'you'.

K: There is no 'me', there is no 'you'.

Q: There is no 'me' and no 'you'. But this also means "there is everything".

K: The whole world of living - everything. There is no you, there is no I in that state. Is this too abstract?

Q: Why do you have to say, "I am the world" first, and then deny this?

K: Because it is (seen as ?) an actual fact that I 'am 'the world.

Q: So, there is just everything ?

K: No, this is very dangerous. If you say, "I am everything", then the murderer, the assassin is part of me.

Q: Suppose I say, "I am the world" instead, does that change it?

K: (laughing) All right. I see the actual fact that I "am" (psychologically ?) the result of the world. The world means wars, the whole of society - I am the result of that.

Q: And I see that everybody is the result of that.

K: Yes. The result is 'I' and 'you'.

Q: And that separation.

K: When I say "I am the world", I am saying all that.

Q: You mean to say that I am generated by the world, I am identified with everything ?

K: Yes. I am the product of the world.

Q: And the world is the essence of what I am.

K: Yes. I am the essence of the world. When there is a deep perception of that there is no 'you' or 'me'. I think that holds logically. But there is a (potential) danger in saying that 'I am everything'- I'll accept everything.

Q: You are really saying that (psychologically) one is the product of the whole of society.

K: Yes. I am really the essential result of all this.

Q: Does it help to use the word "Ego"?

K: You see, when you say 'ego', there is a possibility of deception: that 'I' ( my higher self ?) is the very essence of God. You know about that superstition.

Q: But there is still another question. Is the unconditioned mind also a product of all this? Then we come to a contradiction.

K: No, there is no contradiction. The result of the world is this. The result of the world is that also. We are two human beings, which means the result has created the I and the you. When there is an insight into the result there is no "result".

Q: The (conditioned ?) result changes and vanishes when we see it.

K: You see what it means? There is no (personalised ?) causation in the mind and therefore there is no effect. Therefore the mind is whole, and any action born of it is causeless and without effect.

Q: You have to make that more clear, in the sense that you still use the causes and effects concerning ordinary, mechanical things.

K: Quite. This human being, X, is a result. And Y is a result. X says I, and Y says I? Now, if X says I see this and investigates, goes into it and (eventually ?) has a (non-dualistic ?) insight. In ( the timeless light of ?) that "insight" the two results (the division between the 'me' and the 'non-me' ?) ceases. Therefore in that (integrated ?) state ( of mind) there is no cause. That mind acts out of Compassion. Therefore there is no ( promise or expectation of a ?) result. (Eg:) A is suffering, and he says to X, "Please help me to get out of my suffering." If X really has ( the Intelligence of Universal ?) compassion his words have no ( materially measurable ?) "result".

Q: Something 'happens', but there is no (necessarily an expected ?) result.

K: That's it.

Q: But I think people generally are (offering or expecting ?) a result.

K: Yes. Let's put it another (metaphysical ?) way. Does Compassion have a result? When there is (measurable) result there is (a measurable ?) cause. So, when compassion has a cause then you are no longer "compassionate".

Q: It is an extremely subtle thing, because ( in the context of insight) something happens which seems final and yet is not... But doesn't compassion also acts.

K: Compassion is compassion ( a light in itself ?) , it doesn't 'act'. If it acts "because" there is a cause and an effect, then it is not Compassion: it wants a result.

Q: So, it acts "purely". What makes us want a result is our idea of separation. " There is this person suffering and I would like to produce the result that he is not suffering. " But that is based on the idea that there is a 'me' and a '(s)he'.

K: That's it. (To recap:) "The world is me and I am the world". When I say "me", the "you" (implicitly) exist: both of us are there (as self-isolated entities) . The ( worldly) "you" and the ( worldly) 'I' are the results of man's ( self-centred ?) misery, of selfishness, and so on - they are a result.
Now, when one looks (meditatively ?) into the result, goes into (the true nature of ?) it very, very deeply, the ( lucky flash of ?) insight brings about a (non-dualistic) quality in which 'you' and 'I' - who are the result - don't exist. This is (conveniently ?) easy to agree to verbally, but (if and ?) when you see it deeply there is no (inner sense of duality as ?) 'you' and 'me'. Therefore there is no (dualistic measurable ?) result - which means (the pure light of ?) compassion. Now, the person upon whom that (enlightened ?) Compassion acts wants a (personally rewarding ?) result. We say, "Sorry, there is no ( materially quantifiable ?) "result".
But the man who suffers says, "Help me to get out of this", or, "Help me to bring back my son, my wife", or whatever it is. He is demanding a ( manifested ?) result. This ( Intelligent & Compassionate 'something' ?) has no result. The (temporal ?) 'result' is the world.

Q: But does that (intelligent energy of ?) compassion affect the total consciousness of man?

K: Yes. It affects the deep layers of ( the human) consciousness.
( Re-recap ?) The 'I' is the result of the world, the 'you' is the result of the world. But to the (compassionate & intelligent ?) mind who sees this deeply with a profound insight, there is no 'you' or 'I'. Therefore that profound insight is ( the holistic action of ?) compassion - which is Intelligence. And this Intelligence says: If you want a (material ?) result I can't give it to you, I am not the product of a result. Compassion says: This ( enlightened ?) state is not a result, therefore there is no cause.

Q: Does that mean there is no time either?

K: No cause, no result, no time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 Feb 2017 #546
Thumb_stringio Butiam Noone Australia 1 post in this forum Offline

Hi all,

I take very seriously the statement that K made on almost every occasion that he spoke, which was "I am not your Guru" "This is not a lecture" "the Speaker is not important".

However, there is a natural tendency (by conditioning) to secretly place him in that role anyway.

"The word is not the thing".

It is so tempting, to delve into his writings, his speeches and other media to find, in essence, aphorisms or mantras that deliver freedom. But, in reality the words are meaningless.

Trees

For some reason, since I was about 24 I suddenly looked at trees in a strange way. Each tree, no matter how small, immature, scraggly or out of shape started to take on an extraordinary beauty, a freshness and newness that just took my breath away. Though never an artist and in fact quite poor at art in school I took up drawing and painting trees. I had little understanding of what was happening or what it meant or where it fit into the framework of my life, my psychology. Then about 6 years later, I was staying with a friend in a remote forest are in Western Australia when I read a dialogue of K and David Bohm. After reading for about 40 minutes I went for a walk down the long driveway of the property. I remember feeling that everything was just new, fresh, known for the first time, as if I were a baby and knew nothing about any of the things I looked at and just feeling an extraordinary beauty and love for everything, a connection with everything.

The Trap

I had trained in law and philosophy, specifically logic. Both of these disciplines are highly organised branches of thought, both strive to take concepts and arguments that do not lend themselves to mathematical quantification and organise them. This conditioning derailed me frankly. I took to undertaking an exercise in analysis of K, trying to organise it into a cohesive, comprehensible framework of ideas. Put simply I tried to see it as a method - do x, think y, don't think z, don't do w and "whammo" = enlightenment. The desire to recapture that feeling, that being, that I had experienced was so overwhelming that I became completely lost. This was in or about 2000. At that time, there was not near the volume of K material freely available that there is today. I had only one dialogue which I'd read and one tape of one partial series of a talk.

The benefits despite the trap

Notwithstanding that I was lost, there was a particular benefit that flowed. It related to the physical rather than the purely mental (as if there's a real difference :-) ). When I drink too much, I get quite ill, pretty much alcohol poisoning really (irish heritage). I know that if I go over the precipice and throw up, it goes on for hours without let up. On one occasion this began, I was lying down, my head spinning, my stomach churning and of course "I" am feeling sorry for myself and wishing this would stop happening to me. I then kind of gave up on it, on everything and instantaneously fell into this sense that all of this, all these bad feelings and sickness was not "happening to me" but in fact "was me". What ensued was a wild psychic ride downward into what was happening in my body and then I was ok. It's impossible to explain, but it was just ok and none of the usual repercussions followed.

For a long time, I took the view that this was the sole benefit deriving from K for me, I used it in pain situations, even extreme pain (gall bladder pain that morphine did not assist), dental pain etc and used it to great effect. I even experimented with a deriviation of it with other people in pain - I can't explain it, but just being with them and using my hand to somehow, without intention merging with their pain somehow brought them relief. I didn't even believe in it, probably still don't believe in it, but occasionally inexplicably have been moved to try it on occasion.

The next phase

I had thought about K sometimes over the 16 years or so since first reading the K dialogue with Bohm but lifes current swept me along as it can do.

Then in the past 2 years, through life's circumstances I can only say that I became more and more depressed and the world became a dark place. This prompted me to revisit K. I was pleasantly surprised to find such a huge range of his material freely available.

So, of course I began listening to his speeches on YouTube. I tried reading a few texts, but it left me a little cold really, but hearing him speak did not. I guess this time I was more aware of the Trap that I'd fallen into the last time, and whilst I kept falling into it, I was aware of it and thus it was entirely different.

The lightning bolt

The turning point came when I suddenly realised that whatever I experienced from exposure to K speaking could not and should not be sought to be repeated. The memory of it was a shackle, the desire to repeat it just a re-visitation of the trap. After all, why should it be the same on any two occasions - who ever said it would be a constant unchanging "sense" or "experience". Since this lightning bolt, the experiences have been wide ranging and everyoine different, sometimes with and sometimes without physical effects such as a feeling of great pressure in the head, a kind of shivering feeling throughout the body (like that experience we all say is "someone walking over your grave", but one that is more long lasting less intense, gentle even). The falling away of desire to hold onto or repeat any given experience has counter-intuitively led to the very thing such a desire wants - which I love, its the irony of life, the irony of desire, the irony of humanity.

Freedom from the teacher

A strong urge arose for a time to "know" whether K was enlightened, was he Buddha(like), did he transcend etc etc "so on and so on and all that" as he quaintly says. This led to an intellectual investigation of K, the biographies, the journal, the sex scandal, the lawsuits with Raja(whatshisname) and some reading on the other forum here of the criticisms by "anti-K" people.

It was a tumultuous experience really, because it interrupted whatever else it was that was going on. At times I thought I should give up on it, to stop it as it was destroying the other thing. But eventually, I guess it brought me right back to the start, the one thing he wanted everyone to know and to accept at the beginning of his speaking "I am not your guru" "the speaker is unimportant".

Its a conditioning really, isn't it, to want him to be perfect, to have been Buddha(like), to be our saviour - oh we want it so much, to have someone else do it for us, be it for us, give it to us, stand as a righteous and virtuous, totally innocent and impeccable pinnacle of achievement, an example we can strive for... (hahahahaha) the very non-essence of whatever it is he was saying.

He was a man, what he experienced was what he experienced and his putting it into words was perhaps unhelpful and counterproductive to what he thought he was doing. It may even be that the publication of works is counterproductive in many instances.. who can know where it all ends. Perhaps in 1000 years (if humanity survives) his image and memory will be as corrupted as Buddha.

What actually are K's Teachings?

Nothing, not a thing - there's nothing to grasp onto, nothing to learn from - no concept to apply, no activity to undertake, no method, no pattern, no logic and no teaching.

BUT

There is a spark and it can catch fire if you only hear beyond the words, read between the lines and see a tree for the first time (or a lake or a mountain or a stone or a hand or anything for that matter) and then let the fire burn rather than (as my friends annoyingly do when a camp fire is going) poking it, blowing it and trying to control it.

Tone (aka Butiam Noone)

This post was last updated by Butiam Noone Thu, 16 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 Feb 2017 #547
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

A K SEMINAR MADRAS 1979 on:

THE NATURE OF A RELIGIOUS (optional: HOLISTIC ?) LIFE (experientially -friendly edited)

K: We are enquiring into this (perrenial) question of what is a 'religious' (holistic) mind and what we would consider a religious (a 'holistic way of ?) life.

D.S.: You have often said that thought is not the movement of a religious mind. But certainly even a 'religious mind' thinks.

K: Let me explain that (more explicitly ?) . I said, "thought cannot contain the religious mind". Thought in itself being a fragment, whatever it does will bring about fragmentation, and a religious ( or holistic) mind is not fragmentary.

P.K. Sundaram: Thought always dwells on dualities without which it cannot even live. So, the religious mind must transcend the (observer-observed) duality.

K: I am questioning whether there is duality at all.

P.J.: Sir, what do you mean when you question the fact of duality?

K: I question whether duality exists.

S.P.: But we are living in this duality. The thinking process itself functions in duality.

K: Let me expand it a little more. Has the fact an opposite?

S.P.: Will you say thought is a fact?

K: Thought is a fact. But what it has invented, (in terms of a ?) religious mind - is an illusion, 'illusion' being a perception (tainted) with a certain direction, a prejudice, a fixation. We are saying that a fact, that is, greed, anger or envy, has no opposite.

P.J.: Why introduce the word 'illusion' ?

K: I use the word 'illusion' in the sense - sensory perception of external objects which is 'coloured' ( 'biased' ?) by our beliefs, by prejudices, by opinions, by (our collective & personal ?) conclusions. I would call that an "illusion". Now, if the observation is "pure" - in the sense, without any kind of motive, distortion, prejudice, so that there is nothing between your perception and the object which you perceive - then that very perception denies duality.

R.R.: I don't think we have that 'pure' perception...

K: That's the (hidden ?) problem. To me there is only the fact. A fact has no opposite. But we accept (to think in terms of ?) duality: I am angry; I must not be angry.

R.R.: But in my perception I see Mr Achyutji as separate.

K: Which means what? Your perception is conditioned. Can you observe putting aside that conditioning?

S.P.: Would you say that so long as there is conditioning, there is duality?

K: I would.

S.P.: Then is not duality a fact?

K: No. It is the conditioning that says there is duality.

P.J.: You used the phrase: "Can you observe putting aside that conditioning ". What is implied in it?

K: Can the observation be so complete that there is no 'observer' and 'thing observed', only observation? It means to be aware of this (mental) "moving away" from the fact, which creates duality. Then there is pure observation in which there is no duality.

D.S.: Krishnaji, are you saying that in the act of seeing Mr Achyutji, there is also an awareness of this whole (dualistic) movement?

K: Yes.

R.R.: What you have just said is a theoretical idea to me.

K: How would you get to that non-movement of perception ?

R.R.: You mean a perception that does not move (in any direction ?) ? Please explain that.

K. We are saying that when there is perception without the 'observer', then there is no duality. Duality occurs when there is the observer and the observed. The observer is the past. So, through the (knowledgeable ?) 'eyes of the past' the observation creates a duality.

P.J.: The only ( questionable ?) point when you said 'When there is perception without the observer,' you used the word 'when'...

K: Yes, because he says that it is a theory to him.

P.J.: That's why I ask: How is a person to come to a state in which the (conditional) 'when' has ceased?

Uma: I am observing, I find my observation is interrupted and I also know that it is interrupted because I don't have the energy to be in that state of observation.

K: Why don't you have that energy? Perception does not need energy. You just perceive.

D.S.: There is validity when she says you lose energy. In most cases the perception is a commitment to duality.

K: It is your tradition or conditioning. Your whole outlook is that.

A.P.: I see that mankind can survive only as an indivisible whole, but the weight of my knowledge and the requirements of my daily living are stressing separateness, and separateness is so overpowering that it seems to eclipse the perception that man's well-being is indivisible. Do you think I am creating a problem because I am stating it? The problem is implicit in the human situation.

K: What is the meaning of the word 'problem' ? Something not resolved, something which is worrying you, that goes on day after day, for many years. Why don't we resolve something that arises as a problem immediately and not carry on and on?

P.J.: Sir, wthere are many other issues involved here. The issues are that it does not need Krishnaji to tell me that there is a source of energy, perception,(within myself) which I have not touched. Without touching "that", this partial solution of the problem keeps on existing, keeps me within the framework of time, for eternity. I know that the very imperatives of the human situation demand that there must be a source of energy which, once touched, will physically transform our ways of thinking.

K: We started out discussing the place of knowledge in religious life. Let us start from here again and move around. We said knowledge is destroying the world without this (holistic quality of a ?) religious mind. Then we started asking what is a religious mind. Now, what is a religious mind? (For starters it is ?) (an inner) sanity without any illusion, without a belief dictating my enquiry. That means a mind that is free to look.

P.J.: In your very statement you have annihilated the whole premise.

K: Which is what?

P.J.: Which is the 'real' structure of human consciousness: (self-centred) thought, belief, movement, becoming, identity.

K: And dogma. So, our (self-centred) consciousness is the whole movement of thought with its content. I am a Hindu, I believe in puja, I worship, I pray, I am anxious, I am afraid - all that is this whole spectrum of (mental) movement.

P.J.: What place has the word 'sanity' which you use in this context ?

K: One's ( ego-centric) consciousness is an 'insane' consciousness.

G.N.: Do you imply that 'sanity' implies not being caught in make-believe?

K: Sanity means a healthy mind, a healthy body, a healthy inwardness.

G.N.: If one is not sane, can one enquire?

K: How can I be sane when my consciousness is a bundle of contradictions, a bundle of hopes, illusions, fears, pleasures, anxiety, sorrow and all that. Can that consciousness find a religious way of life? Obviously it cannot.

P.J.: In all the (serious) traditional ways of approaching this whole (mixed bag) content of human consciousness, it is symbolized by one word 'I', and the enquiry is into the nature and the dissolution of the 'I'.

K: All right. Let us work at it (along this line ?) . We say in a (holistic) life there is a total absence of the 'self'. Then my enquiry is whether the 'self-(centred' consciousness ?) can be dissolved. So I begin from there and see if it is possible to empty totally that consciousness.

P.J.: What is the nature of that emptying?

K: Can I be free from my attachments? Can I be free from following someone's (spiritual) authority? I go on (untying all these knots ?) and my consciousness is totally stripped of all its contradictions.
Is it possible to be globally aware, holistically, of the total content of our consciousness ? If it is not possible, let us take fragment by fragment - but will that bring about comprehension of the total perception of consciousness?

P.K.S.: Will you not be 'intellectual' in your enquiry?

K: No. Because I am enquiring with my whole being. My heart, my affection, my nerves, my senses, my intellect, my thought, everything is involved in this enquiry.

R.R.: Sir, will you state the conditions of this enquiry?

K: As you observe (in this way) that very observation changes that which is being observed. Why can't you do this ?

R.R.: Because my attention wanders.

K: Which means that when you are looking, in spite of your (instinctual desire for ?) acquiring knowledge, you'll have to put that aside when you are watching. This watching (free of the known ?) is (essential in) the transformation of 'that which is being observed'.

R.R.: Sir, maybe I am not expressing it rightly. If I observe myself, I think it is a fact for me that my attention wanders.

K: Let us begin step by step (for this 'in class assignment'):
'Myself ' is a (dynamic) bundle of ( personal) reactions. So, I begin with things which are very near to me, such as puja I see it, I look at it, I watch it, and (if ?) I see it is absurd I'll put it away for ever.

R.R.: ( Sounds easy but...) it does not seem to work like that.

K: Is it because of your ( whole existence is safely organised in such ?) habits?
R.R.: Yes, that is right.

K: So go into (examining) your habits. Why do you have a mind functioning in a (safe sequence of ?) habits which means a 'mechanical' mind? Is it because it is a very safe mechanical way of life , to feel secure (in a seriously disturbed environment ?) ? And is this (cyclic) repetition of habits giving any real security, or you just invested ( an instinctual desire for ?) security in it?

R.R.: I give it security.

K: Therefore.... wipe it away.

R.R.: This is where the difficulty is. I can see my mind is mechanical or caught in habits, but my understanding does not seem to lead to be 'cutting away' anything.

K: Because your mind is still ( deeply conditioned to ?) function in habits. Are there good habits or bad habits, or are there only habits? And why are you caught in them?
So let us come back to the consciousness that is in turmoil, in contradiction, wanders from one thing to another. There is a ( subliminal) battle that is going on. As long as that (split ?) consciousness is there, you can never pure perceiving. Is it possible to bring about a total absence of this movement of contradiction?

S.P.: I can easily see the truth regarding the mechanical action of puja, and it is out of my system. (And further down the line) the truth regarding many other fragments can be seen and they can be negated. But even then, the (central) problem remains, which is the ending of the total content of the self-centred consciousness. There can be an ending of a fragment but the problem is that of ending the totality of (the active content of this?) consciousness.

K: Are you saying that 'you' (the controlling observer ?) see them sequentially fragment by fragment? Then you can never come to the end of the fragmentation.

S.P.: Unfortunately this is what we see after ten, fifteen years of (diligent) self-observing.

K.: You can't. Therefore, you must ask yourself: is there an observation which is total? (for starters ?) have I understood deeply in my heart, in my whole being, that the sequential examining of my fragmentation will never solve it? If I have understood that;, therefore, I won't touch it. I won't go near a (wiser ?) guru, because they all deal with fragments.

S.P.: Do I have to see all the implications at this point or have I to work it out?

K: I can't see the whole because my whole being, thinking, living, is (ego-centrically ?) fragmented. What is the root of this (inner) fragmentation?

S.P.: This sense of 'I-ness' which acts (spontaneously) ?

K: No, that is intellectual. I said to you, "listen". How do you listen to that statement? Listening with the intellect is fragmentation. Hearing with the ear is fragmentation. Do you listen with your whole, entire being, or do you just say 'Yes, it is a good idea'?

George Sudarshan: Let me go back to our initial question: What is a religious (holistic ?) life? It is the cessation (removal) of the contradiction between causality and spontaneity. Most of the world around us is causal: That is, this being so this happens, if this has happened, it must have been because of such and so. All this is based on comparison, copying. On the other hand, fortunately, we are also subject to the experience of spontaneity, experiences of movement with no cause, without time, in which there is only functioning. Much of the (existential) problem of life is, in fact, reconciling these two things because, somehow or the other, one feels these two are both real experiences and one would like to resolve the contradiction. As far as I have observed, it appears to me that when you are in the "spontaneous" mode of functioning, there is in fact no possibility of it being broken down. When you are happy, you are happy; then there is no question of anxiety about it. However, if you feel that you would like to continue this mode, then, of course, the (spontaneous) mode has already ceased. When you want to maintain an experience which you already have in time, corruption has set in, and it is only a matter of time before it will come to an end. Therefore, the whole question of "how to end fragmentation" is wrong. We cannot logically conceive it, we cannot dictate the rules, we cannot legislate it, we cannot write a manual about it. Therefore, in a certain sense, when it comes, it comes by itself. That is, in fact, the only true mode of existence.

K: So, what do we do? Say I am fragmented and carry on?

G.S.: Would you tell me how to end the process of fragmentation?

K: I will tell you, sir. Thought is always fragmentary. So, if that is the root of fragmentation, can thought stop?

G.S.: Just stop?

K: Not occasionally or spontaneously. To me all that implies a movement in time.

G.S.: As long as you are thinking, that is the (time-creating ?) movement.

K: I said so. Thought is a movement and so (the) time (it is projecting) is a movement. So, can (this thought-generated continuity in ) time stop?

G.S.: Where did that thought arise - in the unfragmented state or the fragmented?

K: In the fragmented state. We answer always from a fragmented mind.

G.S.: Not 'always'....

K: I said it generally. And is there a (thinking ?) which comes of a non-fragmented mind?

G.S.: I am not sure I am following your terminology.

K: We said thought is fragmented, that it is the cause of fragmentation.

G.S.: What I am saying is that fragmentation and thought go together. To say that one is the cause of the other is not true.

K: Cause and effect are the same.

G.S.: So, are they aspects of the same entity?

K: Thought and fragmentation are (manifestations of ?) the same movement, which is part of time. It is the same thing, whether it is one or the other. So, I can ask, can this 'psychological' time, inward time, stop? Can the whole movement stop completely? When I don't become (anything) in time , or when my being is not (entangled ?) in time, there is a "no-thing(ness)" , which means, love is not of time

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Feb 2017 #548
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

NEXT K SEMINAR MADRAS (1979)

EXPLORING THE NATURE OF A HOLISTIC WAY OF LIFE ( experientially friendly edited -

N. Vasudevan Nair: What are the (available existential) choices before mankind, sir? In the enormity of his grief, man faces the world, which is a very devastating experience. He crawls on all fours to catch a blade of grass, he suffers, he is lost. Can there be a complete rebirth or has he to undergo the pain of one birth after another?

K: Would you say that the real question is : What is the challenge for mankind in the present crisis? We can all see the deterioration of (the global consciousness of ?) mankind not only in this country but in every country, and we have not only to stop it but also to bring about a re-birth - a totally different way of life. And we are asking: Is there a way of living which is totally holistic in the sense that we are using the word? And we are trying to investigate what is the nature of this 'holistic' life. Is it possible to find a holistic way of living in this 'modern' world with all the technological advancement, with the crumbling of all (authentic) human relationships?
( And for starters ?) we said that because ( the self-centred process of our ?) thought in itself is limited, all its ( activities or ?) 'movements' are fragmentary. ( This ego-centric process of ) thought itself is fragmented. Would you accept that?

G.N.: We have acquired a lot of knowledge, and from that knowledge there is one way of functioning. Now, what is the difference between acting from knowledge and acting from 'insight'? What is the nature of this 'insight'? Is it possible to communicate this distinction?

K: Are we trying now to explore what is insight?

D.S.: We should also discuss the question of how a fragmented mind can investigate.

K: First, let us see that the movement of (the ego-centric) thought must inevitably be a broken up process. The (next experiential ?) question is, can this fragmentary movement end? Watching one's own life, one discovers that there is conflict, that there is ( confusion and ?) fragmentation. So, the essential point here is the seeing of this whole movement of thought. Is that what you are trying to say? Could we then discuss what (an insightful ?) perception is, not theoretically but actually? Could we go into that and move from there?

P.J.: Sir, could we start with the query: how can thought end?

San: I would happily accept you suggestion that the solution to all the problems would be the cessation of ( this ego-centric) thought, but...how does one achieve that?

K: If ( for starters ?) we all see that ( our self-centred ?) thinking , is in itself limited, broken up, then the next question would be, is it possible to stop (this process of ?) thought, and if it is stopped, then what is my activity in my daily life? Can this self-centred thought realize itself as limited, and, therefore, being limited, limit itself to a certain (mechanical sequence of specialised ?) activities in daily life?

R.D.: Thought can certainly realise that it is limited, but... intellectually.

K: Let us move out of that ( experiential impasse ?) for a while. Can your consciousness become (fully) aware of itself?

P.J.: Has our consciousness a (superior ?) capacity to reflect on itself?

K: Has consciousness the capacity to observe itself ? Is there in consciousness a (non-personal) element that can observes it "as is"? Is there an 'observer' observing, or there is only pure observation ?

P.K.S.: Are we not introducing a (subliminal ) duality within our consciousness by asking " Can our consciousness observe itself ?".

K: Sir, our consciousness is ( a vast field ?) full of duality. I do, I don't, I must not, fear, courage - the whole of that is consciousness.

S.P.: Is ( a choiceless ?) awareness of consciousness part of consciousness?

K: I would like to discuss it. Is there an observation without the observer? If there is, then that ( quality of pure ?) observation can operate on the whole of consciousness. We are missing a very important thing, which is, there is only observation, not the observer.

D.S.: If I (assume to ?) know that there is observation without the observer, I have already introduced a (super-?) 'observer'.

K: As most of us observe with the 'observer' ( instinctively functioning in a 'fool-proof' observer mode ?) , we'll have to examine what this 'observer' (mental platform) is. Who is this ( all knowing ?) 'observer' to whom you give so much importance? That is, this whole (mentality ?) build-up through generations, that the 'observer' is different from that which he is observing.
There is an objective observation of that thing called a 'tree' and I say it is a tree, but here we are talking about (the inward) 'psychological' observation. In this (kind of) observation, there is a ( sense of ?) duality - 'I' and the 'thing I am observing'. It is the observer who brings about this distinction. Now, what is ( the nature of ?) this 'observer'?

S.P.: The whole collection of ( our past ) experience (through a subliminal process of ?) identification is (creating) the 'observer'. This 'observer' (self-identified entity ) has many (psychic ?) depths.

K: That is, knowledge, the past; the past being accumulation of knowledge, experience of mankind - racial, non-racial. The observer is the ( controlling action of all our inner experience of the ?) past.

A.P.: With one (important ) addition - the observer is the past plus the sense of (its temporal) continuity.

K: The (temporal) continuity is the observer who is the ( active memory of the ?) past meeting the present, modifying itself and continuing itself into the future .

San: The 'observer' (aka: the 'ego', 'thinker', 'experiencer', 'censor'...) has ( a whole kit of survival skills at ?) depths which are very difficult to fathom.

K: I know the observer has 'depth', the depth being the ( psychic ?) knowledge of centuries...

P.J.: The nature of the 'observer' is the ('psyche' functioning safely in the ?) field of (the known) .

K: Now, when you say there are depths to the 'observer', I would say the observer himself "is" the field of consciousness. You can keep on expanding the (self-consciousness of the ?) observer endlessly.
But to make it (experientially) simple: Can I observe my wife or my husband without all the (residues of psychological) accumulations that I have had during my twenty years of life with her or him?

P.J.: I may say: 'yes'.

K: That would just be agreeing. We are not meeting the (experientially active) point. Can I observe my wife or husband with whom I have lived, and about whom, during the course of those twenty years, I have accumulated knowledge, as she has about me? Can I observe her without the accumulated knowledge?

San: (On a permanent base ?) it is not possible.

K: The 'observer' is the (active interference of the ?) past. Can you observe ( in a leisurely glimpse ?) your wife, husband, as though you are seeing a human being for the first time? Then your whole relationship changes.

S.P.: There have been occasions when one can see a husband or a friend without any (interfering ?) movement of the past. So, one sees it is possible to see that way. But when you say that the entire relationship is changed 'for ever', then the major experiential difficulty arises.

K: All right. Have we communicated to each other that the observer who is the past and, therefore, time-bound creates the distinction between himself and his wife - dominating her, pushing her? So, the (active memory of our ?) past is always operating. And, therefore, his relationship with her is based not on affection, not on love, but on the past.

S.P.: We can still have affection.

K: I question (the authenticity of ?) it. Can we have affection if there is the operation of the past?

P.K.S.: Then, to come back to our initial question: Is it possible for an observation to be there without the observer?

K: Sir, this is the problem with all of us. Can I observe a thing without all the burden of the past? Because, if it is possible to observe totally, then that observation is not time-bound, it is not a continuity. The moment you do it, don't you fall into a new mode of existence; something totally irrevocable?

P.J.: How is it possible (to be 'totally irrevocable') ?

K: Can (the observing mind ?) see the movement of the past as it operates? Is there an observation of the (chain-reaction of the ?) past - of the whole cycle of hurt, psychologically, physically, which involves resistance, agony, pain, all that? Can there be a (non-personal ?) observation of that hurt, that observation telling the story of the hurt, revealing itself? Is it impractical?

D.S.: Everything we see ( we become aware of ?) in some way is the action of the observer. So, every question arises in the condition of the observer.

K: ( Leaving all futher study of the 'observer' for homework ?)
I tell you this (Universally insightful ?) simple "fact", that "Love is not of time", ( and if its truth is actually seen ?) then duality, the observer, everything ends.

Now, what is a religious (or holistic ?) life? Obviously, all things that go on in the name of religion are not religion - all the rituals, the puja, the gods, all that is out. Then what will it be? All that (psycho-cultural tradition) is thrown out, which means you are throwing out the 'me'.
So, (in a nutshell) the essence of religion is the total absence of the 'me', of the 'self.

San: What is it you mean by 'self'? Is it the ego?

K: Ego, which means my (psychical ?) characteristics, my desires, my fears.

A.P.: Would you accept it if I say that the 'self' is only an (all-purpose psychological ?) adhesive, it has the quality of making things stick to it ?

K: You (still) have to see that you 'are' selfish. The 'self 'is ( a psychic bundle of ?) greed, envy, jealousy, desire for power, position, domination and attachment. End it. And can you live without the 'self' and live in this world?

D.S.: The fact is that in the very nature of the observer arise the questions: How can I be religious, how can I be unselfish, how can I be this, how can I be that? Everybody wants to get another (miracle) drug; everybody is trying to get there.

K: Yes sir, everybody wants to be something else. Everybody is doing something. So, all I say is: Start where 'you' are.

D.S.: You stick to that?

K: I do.

D.S.: But you talked of being 'unselfish'...

M.Z.: Envy, greed jealousy is exactly where you are now.

K: I am saying: Start near. Because, if you know this whole history of man which is 'you', it is finished.

D.S.: You don't have to change that ?

K: It is a book, a vast book, and I read it. I am not trying to change it. I want to 'read' this whole history instantly.

S.P.: Without movement in time, how can you read?

K: I just want to know (as it is now ?) the whole content of myself. My whole consciousness 'is' its content. But you can investigate something when you are free of (cultural & personal ?) prejudice, belief, conclusion.

R.D.: Then the ( living expression of this ?) history is the 'prejudice', and you are saying, 'Read it.'

K: Then it is finished. I have come to the end of the ( history ?) chapter.

S.P.: Then you are not really interested in investigating the content but in stopping?

Rajesh Dalal: I can see intellectually that a system will not end the problem at all. So, I don't seek. Now the question is, what do I do? I have denied systems, denied practice. Now, where am I?

K: If you have put away systems, practices, what is the state of your mind ? You have seen something as being false, and you have dropped it. Your mind has become sharper, more intelligent. ( Once awakened and put to good work ?) that ( quality of compassionate ?) intelligence is going to observe, put away everything that is false. When you put away something false, your mind is lighter. It is like climbing a mountain and throwing away that which you don't need. ( Eventually ?) your mind becomes very, very clear. So your mind has the capacity of perceiving that which is true and that which is false. Discard everything that is false, everything that (the self-centred human ) thought has put together. Then the mind has no illusions.

Sirs (in a nutshell?) this is the whole (Beginner's First Experiential ?) Book: I began with the 'first' chapter which says: 'Become aware of your senses'. And the 'second' chapter says: Human beings have (used) partiallly the senses, exaggerating one sense and denying the others. The 'third' chapter says: See that all the senses can operate (in harmony) ; that means there is no (time-binding identification with a) particular sensory operation. And the 'fourth' chapter.... and so on. I am not going to read the book for you.
( For homework: ?) Read (and complete it interactively ?) as you begin to explore the nature of the 'religious' (holistic way of ?) life

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Feb 2017 #549
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

Butiam Noone wrote:
What actually are K's Teachings? >Nothing, not a thing - there's nothing to grasp onto, nothing to learn from - no concept to apply, no activity to undertake, no method, no pattern, no logic and no teaching.

BUT >There is a spark and it can catch fire if you only hear beyond the words, read between the lines and see a tree for the first time (or a lake or a mountain or a stone or a hand or anything for that matter) and then let the fire burn

Hi, Tone and -better late than never- welcome to this forum dedicated to the experiential implications of the K Teachings. I quite agree with your statement quoted above, there is some 'Spirit of the Teachings' that permeated both his life & his Teachings. What we're doing here - for better or...for worse- is trying to interact with their living Truth. Please do feel free to post your own topics of interests or quotes and certainly someone will read them and eventually ....respond

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 #550
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K SEMINAR MADRAS 1978 ON:

INSIGHTS INTO 'PSYCHOLOGICAL' REGENERATION (experientially friendly edited)

A.P.: Modern society developed during the last two hundred years. It has certain clearly (materialistic ?) postulates - that the problems that affect human society arise from a lack of material resources, from poverty, disease, squalor; and that these can be remedied by control over the material environment. This view persists in men's minds, particularly in countries like India where there is so much poverty. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that these postulates are a facile oversimplification. The abuse of natural resources are a peril to human survival. The criminal misdirection of scientific and technological skill for the production of lethal weapons, atomic and others, and pollution are grave risks to human survival. Science and technology by themselves have no defence against their own misuse.
A still wider question arises about the fragmentation of human consciousness which is tethered to an individualistic view of human development which aggravates the crisis. We are, therefore trying to explore whether human consciousness is capable of a radical regeneration which makes possible a new perspective and a sane and humane relationship. We need to go beyond our present resources of knowledge to come upon that wisdom which is also compassion. So long as we treat the ego as a permanent entity, it appears that love is locked out and we live in a field of approximations. And obviously, this inner regeneration of man's consciousness is tied up with the problem of self-knowing.

K: I think most thoughtful people, have rejected every form of system, institution; no longer are they trustful of communism, socialism, liberalism, the left, right, politically or religiously. I think man has come to a point where he feels that one must have a new quality of mind. I mean by 'mind' the activities of the brain's consciousness, sensory perception and intelligence. One requires an inner revolution with clarity and compassion. Is it possible for human beings to bring about a totally different dimension of the mind?
So, at what level are we having a dialogue - theoretical, philosophical or concerned with our daily existence, our relationship to each other and to our daily activity?

It seems to me that our consciousness is the consciousness of all mankind because every human being goes through fear, anxiety and so on. Can this consciousness be transformed? That is the real question.

P.J.: Speaking of the actual state of human consciousness as it is, each one of us sees within us an 'individual' consciousness separate from the consciousness of another. So, how does one proceed?

K: One has to ask what is this consciousness made up of, what is its 'content'?
Apparently, our consciousness is in a deep crisis (existential) . It is either ( comfortably ?) asleep, or economically pressurized (and 'standardised' ?) , so that ( consciousness-wise ?) we are non-existent, we just survive.
I would like to ask, is one aware of one's total consciousness, of the totality of one's own existence which is the result of society, culture, family, name? And what is the origin of all thinking? That may be the beginning of our consciousness.
What is ( the content of ?) my consciousness? My consciousness is made up of culture, ideas, traditions, propaganda, etc. This 'content' makes up our (self-) consciousness. Without (this conditioned ?) content it has a totally different dimension, but one can only come upon that ( inwardness of ?) consciousness when the (conditioned ?) content is wiped away.
So one has to be very clear whether one is discussing theoretically or by taking up one's own consciousness and investigating it. That is the (experiential ?) challenge.

N. T.: Isn't this (self-) consciousness the result of our past experience?

K: Absolutely.

N. T.: If so, is it not individualistic?

K: The semantic meaning of the word 'experience' is 'to go through'. But we go through (a lot of rewarding and or painful experiences ) and make what we have gone through into ( personal) knowledge.

N.T.: But this 'going through' is individualistic, is it not?

K: If I am (culturally conditioned as ?) a Hindu or Buddhist or Christian, I experience ( along the line of ?) what I have been told. As a devout Catholic, I may experience ( a vision of ?) Virgin Mary and I think it is my personal (mystical) experience. It is not; it is the result of two thousand years of ( collectively processed ?) propaganda.

S.P.: So, the multiplicity of (all human) experiences put together create the (subjective ?) feeling of the 'individual' in each human being ?

K: Of course.

A.P.: But do we know (who we really are ) ? That is the ultimate question.

K: That's it, sir. Do we know ourselves, and what is the (right) manner of knowing oneself?

A.P.: The problem here is our incapacity to know ourselves directly, to deal with ourselves with an (intelligent and ?) compassionate response. When I see a cyclone in Andhra Pradesh, I feel personally involved because it is happening in the state in which I am living. When I read about a cyclone in Bangladesh, it is just an item of news for me. Now, when we say "one world", it does not actually become experiential for us. Because we do not know ourselves, our relationship with the world is a distant relationship.

K: (For starters ?) would you agree that instead of using the term 'consciousness' as a noun, we use it to describe a "movement of time"?
What is the relationship of this 'consciousness' to thought? What is the beginning of any (common ) thought? There is a perception, sensation, contact, then desire and the imagination involved in (the mental processing of ?) that. So, is that the beginning of (any generic activity or ?) 'movement' of thought?

P.J.: Is not also thought the (personal) reaction to a challenge?

K: Yes, if I am aware of the challenge.

P.J.: What is reacting to this challenge?

K: Memory reacts.

R.B.: But for thought to be aware of itself as a (time-binding ?) trap, is it necessary to see the origin of thought?

K: Yes. Then you only register (and retrieve only ) that which is absolutely necessary and not the 'psychological' (residual ?) structures. Why should I register your flattery or your insult? That registration emphasizes the ego.

R.B.: Brain's habit of 'registering' is so instantaneous. How can we learn to 'slow down' the whole (recording & responding?) process?

K: Have you ever tried 'writing down' (or making a 'mental note' ?) objectively of every thought, not just those which are pleasant or unpleasant ? Then you will find that you can 'slow down' (the machinery of ?) thought tremendously. But (the deeper) question is, why do we register psychologically at all? Is it possible to register only that which is absolutely, physically, necessary and not build up the psyche through registration?

I.I.: By becoming older and working at it, one can cut down on this redundant registration.

K: But that has nothing to do with age...

I.I.: It has to do with 'living'.

K: That means it is a slow 'process'. I object to that.

I.I.: That's all I know. Sometimes one has the experience of a flash, lifting you to another level, being transformed, even like a "Phoenix is rising from the ashes".

K: Is it possible to 'accelerate' (optimise ?) this 'non-registering' process that does not depend upon age, circumstances, cultural environment?
Can one have a (profound flash of ?) 'insight' into this whole question of (psychologically biased ?) registration and end it (ASAP ?) ?

I.I.: It seems to me that there are several very great and very small schools of meditation, each suggesting a certain way. I would imagine that these offer us a ladder and for some people it may be rather useful in the beginning. I can even imagine that they are useful in many instances - along with the practical wisdom to take the one which does the job which luckily I have at my disposal.

K: If one sees the real necessity of the 'physical' registration and also has an (some ?) insight into the 'psychological' futility of registration, it is finished. It is as when you (really) see an actual danger, a ( psychological ?) precipice, it is over. In the same way, if one profoundly sees the danger of psychological registration, then the thing is finished.

I.I.: Is it not possible that for some people (this kind of ?) 'enlightenment' comes in several ways? The Arabs have seven words for seven (intermediary) states, and for others (like you ?) it comes like sunrise, the sun comes out and there it is.

K: I don't think it is a matter (of availability ?) for the few or for the many, but rather one of how do you "listen". If I do 'listen' (with the 'mind in the heart' ?) in the very act of listening frees me from (being influenced by ?) both .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Feb 2017 #551
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K SEMINAR MADRAS (1978) : MORE INSIGHTS INTO REGENERATION (Experientially Friendly Edited- 'EFE' )

P.J.: Could we discuss the (perrenial) problem of (ending ?) the sorrow of man, the nature of compassion and meditation? I feel we are in a trap: being in sorrow and not understanding the nature of compassion.

K: May I ask, what are your ideas or concepts about sorrow ?

A.P.: Sorrow is an inescapable part of life. We are helpless victims when a part of humanity is forced to live a subhuman life, with no hope of change in their way of life. Unless one sees some affirmative process, one feels completely lost.

P.J.: Sorrow is something integral to one.

A.P.: I am talking about sorrow. It is integral. Nothing can be more integral than the fact that there is no compassion in me as an authentic response. When I witness the sorrow of another, I am part of that sorrow.

K: I wonder what we mean by the words 'sorrow', 'grief', 'pain'? Every human being goes ( sooner or later ?) through this ugly business of sorrow. Some people think that it is a cleansing process, a process (necessary for reaching ?) enlightening. Some give (karmic) explanations which appear to satisfy them - we did something (wrong) in the past, you are paying for it now.
Strip away all these words; what remains is the actuality, the feeling of sorrow, not the (philosophical ) connotation of that word, not the evocation of the images that word brings up. Now, what is (the nature of ) this deep feeling that we call sorrow? My son dies, and there is a tremendous feeling. Is that ( the personal) sorrow?

P.J.: It is (a very personal form of ?) sorrow.

K: In that is involved ( a 'personal' component of subliminal ?) self-pity, loneliness, a sudden realization that I have lost somebody (on whom I was relying) and I am left alone. I may also suffer for him because he has not lived as long as I have lived and so on. But the root of this enormous sorrow is something what man has carried through timeless centuries.

P.K.S.: What is actually felt when you are in sorrow? I think there is some sense of privation, a want, and this produces a state of mind, a pang which is called sorrow. In it is a sense of your limitation, finitude, helplessness.

K: Sir, hen you meet the poor people next door, perhaps you may feel guilty because you got used to their poverty, their endless degradation. Perhaps you may have great affection for them. Would you call the (existential ?) fact of man living in this appalling way, 'sorrow'?

I.I.: There are different kinds of sorrow in my life. One of them is that sorrow of which we speak, the sorrow when I do something which takes away from somebody else. I live in society. So many things I cannot undertake without taking away big chunks from others. For instance, tomorrow morning I take the jet plane from Madras to Delhi and on this plane which I take for my benefit, I will be co-responsible for an exploitation of many thousands of Indians, each one who in a sensible way pays his taxes and lives in a world dominated by those of us can have that sense of importance of flying in a jet today. I do something which if I didn't, I would have to radically, totally change the way I live. I have not yet decided to make that change. In fact, I create for myself legitimate reasons by word-constructions for taking that plane, and in this sense I feel a very particular kind of sorrow which is the one about which I would want you to enlighten me most.

K: As you said, there are different kinds of sorrow. There is the ( sorrow of a guilty consciousness ?) kind that you described; then there is somebody losing a son, a father and mother; seeing appalling ignorance, and seeing that there is no (true) hope for man in a country like this. And there is the (inner) sorrow of realizing you are nothing. There is also the sorrow of how man treats man and so on. Now, is there an ending to all this (protracted ?) sorrow or is it an everlasting thing? Is there an end to any sorrow at all?

I.I.: Certainly there is no end to this sorrow as long as I am willing to participate in violence.

K: I can see from what you say, that (consciously or not ?) we do exploit other people. But before we can (analytically) discuss that question, could we ask what is 'love'? Perhaps it may (holistically) answer this question, so can we can have a dialogue about this feeling of love ?
Are we reducing 'love' to a purely sensory reaction ?

K.S.: Yes, it begins like that and then we begin to verbalize it, romanticize it.

K: Yes, it begins there and then you build up the picture, the image. Is that it?

K.S.: Yes, I think this is the common case.

K: Love implies much more than the word. It implies a great deal of (inner) beauty. It implies an authentic relationship with nature, love of stars, the earth, stones, the stray dog, all that, and also the love of my wife. If you reduce it to desire and sensation then it becomes a tawdry affair. Your wife treats you, and you treat her, as a biological necessity. Is that love? So I am asking, is desire, pleasure, love? Is sexual comfort love?

I.I.: Is love communion?

K: How can I commune with another if I have an (utilitarian ?) 'image' of her?

I.I.: A (mental) image may be a real obstacle to communion?

K: Sir, ( an authentic) relationship means to be in contact at all levels, not just the physical level which is desire, pleasure. Doesn't ( a compassionate & intelligent ?) 'love' imply that you and I meet at the same level, meet with the same intensity, at the same moment?

I.I.: Yes...

K: Now, that commonly happens only sexually, at the biological level. I question this whole ( hedonistic ?) approach to life, life in which there is this immense thing called Love. Now, does not your heart, mind, say that you have to find it out? Or, is everything reduced to a verbal level?

N. T.: If love is (based on ) sensual pleasure and on the pursuit of desire, it is not love; Love has to be based on compassion.

K: But I want to find it out, I want to have this sense of love. As a human being it is like breathing; I must have it.

N.T.: Love in the absolute sense is (potentially) present in all human beings.

K: If there were (intelligence, comassion and ?) love in every human being, do you think India would be like this - held in poverty, degradation, dishonesty, corruption? What are you all talking about?

Prof. Subramaniam: Sir, if ( according to what you just said ) "love" means being related to another person at all levels, then if I don't understand myself, or if I am not relating at all levels to myself, how can I be related at all levels to another person, whether it is my wife or another ?

K: So, don't you want to come upon this, don't you want to find out? Don't you want to have a sense of this great thing? Unless you have it, I don't see the point of all these (endless seminars &) discussions, pujas, and all that is going on in this country.

R.B.: I think his point was that when there is no 'relatedness' inside oneself, when there are warring elements within oneself, there can't be Love.

K: I would rather put the question this way: don't you want to find out (within yourself ?) this Love, this state of passion (for all ?) ; don't you want to drink at that extraordinary fountain?

R.B.: Sir, we started with the question of "what is sorrow" and you followed it up ( out of the blue ?) with the question of "what is love". Could you say what is the relationship between the two questions?

K: Is love ( to be found in the field of ?) this constant battle, words, theories and living at that level? I personally can't imagine any human being not having this love. If he does not have it, he is (inwardly as good as ?) 'dead'.

A.P.: Is that not the crux of the problem of ( our inner) regeneration?

K: Yes, sir. If you haven't got (access to that universal source of ?) Love, how can you regenerate anything? If you don't look after the plant that you have just put in the earth, if you don't give it water, air, proper nourishment, affection, see that there is plenty of light, the plant won't grow.
Let us leave this (universal) 'love' aside for the moment. Shall we go into what is ( the purpose of an authentic ?) 'meditation'?

P.J.: Without comprehending sorrow and love, how we can we know what is meditation ?

I.I.: But somewhere at the very deepest level, the marvellous, glorious thing which I believe makes for "love" is that, your life and my life at that moment are both made sacred, the forms of renewal of mutual presence.

K: Forgive me, I would rather say that when there is ( this Presence of ?) Love, there is no (personal sense of) 'you' or 'me'.

I.I.: That could be easily understood, but love is also a symbiosis - there is in it more of you and more of me.

K: Sir, when there is (the sense of a ?) great Beauty like that of a Mountain, the majesty of it, the beauty of it, the shade, the light, 'you' don't exist. The beauty of that thing drives away the (self-conscious ?) 'you'. So, I say: Beauty is when 'I' with my problems, with my 'biological love' (bio-love ?), am not ( there ) . ( In short ?) "When 'I' am not, the 'Other' is".

I.I.: And at that moment the transparent flame (of our life) is burning higher and the stream of life is clearer, fresher, and the renewal of this ( whole consciousness of the ?) world goes on.

K: At that moment there is a new rejuvenation taking place, if you like to put it that way. But I am putting it in this (experientially friendly ?) way : there is a sense of an 'Otherness than me'.

I.I.: Yes. That 'Otherness' implies...

K: The 'Otherness' is not the opposite (of our self-consciousness ?) .

P.J.: May I then ask, what is it that makes that Spring (of Otherness ?) flow?

K: I have seen the birth of the great (Ganges) right up in the hills. It starts with a few drops and then collects, and there is a roaring stream at the end of it. Is that (similar with the Stream of Compassionate Intelligence &?) Love?

P.J.: But what is it that makes the Stream flow fully (within one ?)

K: ( Suppose that someone comes ?) to you and say, 'Look, I really don't know what this Love is, please teach me, let me learn what Love is.'
I say, attachment is not love, the mere biological pleasure with all its movements, with all its implications, is not love. So can you be free of (your psychological dependency, traditionally known as ?) 'attachment', negate it completely? Through negation you may (experientially) come to (discover for yourself ) the 'positive' (what that Compassionate Intelligence & Love is) .

P.J.: What is the relationship of sorrow to this "love"?

K: You must relate sorrow, love and death. If you end attachment, end it completely and also jealousy, greed. Do not argue, but end it, which is ( the psychological aspect of ?) death. Both biologically and psychologically 'ending' ( the temporal continuity ?) of something is death. So, will you give up, or 'renounce' - to use a traditional term - ( your psycho-dependency on ?) your status, position, attachments, beliefs, gods? Can you 'throw them into the river' and see what happens? Will (this psychological ?) 'renunciation' help you to understand the (inner) beauty of this Love? Please, sir, you are ( Buddhist ?) monks, you have studied, please tell me.

P.K.S.: Renunciation, sir, can be of many kinds. The renunciation coming out of selfishness certainly won't bring that love.

K: Will my becoming a monk, giving up the world, taking a vow of celibacy, give me this love?

P.K.S.: No. One can be a monk, take vows and yet not have love...

K: So what am I to do?

P.K.S.: From your (insightful) observations we obtained certain (experiential) description of love.

K: I don't want descriptions of love. I want 'food'.

P.K.S.: We have got certain characteristics of love. One of these is unselfishness, the other is non-possessiveness. These are all positive aspects. Certain characteristics that you mention are positive, but in the very nature of ourselves is there is ( a residual ?) jealousy and greed.

K: Right, sir, but I am fighting for a breath of this. I am drowning. Now, I can (experientially) find out something (of this universal quality only ?) through negation: if I start with (not-knowing or ) uncertainty, then something positive occurs. So, (along this 'negative' line ?) what am I to do?
(Step one:) I realise that (at this totally experiential level) nobody can help me. No guru, no book, nothing, will help me. So I discard the whole (psychological authority) ; I won't even touch it. (Step two:) Since I can see that love is not merely a biological thing. I put the biological movement of desire, in its 'right' place ( on hold ?) . So I am free from the biological explanations of love. Now, is love (synonimous to ?) pleasure, the pursuit of an incident which happened yesterday, the memory of that and the cultivation of that? Pleasure implies enjoyment, seeing the beauty of the world, seeing the beauty of nature; so, I put that also in its (right) place. Then what is love? It is not ( a matter of personal) attachment, obviously; it is not jealousy, possessiveness, domination; so I discard all that.
Then ( in step three ?) I ask: what place has the self-centred process of thinking in (the context of any authentic ?) relationship? Has it any place at all? Thought is the response of ( all our self-centred ) knowledge and experience . So thought is not love. So, my relationship to my wife is now no longer based on thought, sensory desire, biological demand or attachment; it is totally "new". So this ending (negation of what love is not ) is a form of death and out of that may come the (positive ?) feeling called Love. We are educated to believe that death is something (taking place compulsorily ?) at the end of our life. I am saying death is at the beginning of Life, because (this psychological ?) death means the ending of my selfishness. Therefore, out of this comes that extraordinary 'Phoenix bird' called love. I think if one has that sense of love, I can take the aeroplane. It doesn't matter if I take a bullock cart or an aeroplane, but I won't deceive myself. I have no illusions.

I.I.: Is it also the end of sorrow?

K: Yes. Sir, do you know the Latin word for sorrow? It is passion. I know most human beings know what lust, biological pleasure and all the rest of it is, but are they actually aware of what sorrow is? Or is it something that you know, recognise, experience after it is over? Do I know ( the full impact of ?) sorrow at the moment my brother, my son, my wife, dies? Or is it always (dealt with the memory of ?) sorrow in the past?

I.I.: Would it not be (an act of ) wisdom to keep sorrow also in its place? If I have the courage to act with the sorrow which I understand, then at the very same time, I will progressively eliminate from my life all those things which cast a very long shadow of sorrow.

K: Sir, why should I carry ( this burden of personal & collective ?) sorrow?

I.I.: Because (willingly or not ?) I do some injustice; otherwise how can I justify that which cannot be justified?

K: I want to find out what is the 'right' action under all circumstances. Right action in the sense of correct, true, non-contradictory, not the action of self-interest. Right action will come about when the mind is not concerned with the 'me'.

P.K.S.: Can I also ask for your definition of 'meditation'? Is it constant awareness?

K: The word 'meditation' implies, (even) according to the (Webster's ?) dictionary, to think over, ponder, to reflect upon, to enquire into something mysterious; not what we have made of it...

P.K.S.: But could it not be applied to cases where something has been known to be true and ascertained to be true, for example, the practice of love.

K: Love is not something to be 'practised'. I said that ( love comes with the psychological ?) ending of something. I end my jealousy. I want to find out what love is. Obviously love is not jealousy. So end it without argument.
Because my whole urge, my whole concern is to find this ('Other' ?) thing, I will come upon it. In the same way, if I want to know what (an authentic ?) meditation is, must I go to Japan, spend years in Zen monasteries and practise (awareness) , or go to India, to all the gurus?
So, what is meditation? Is it the control of thought, and, therefore, control of action? Control implies ( pre-meditated ?) choice and if I choose (to follow a system ?) , there is no (inner) freedom (from the field of the 'known') .

P.K.S.: But still, control is an important element in meditation.

K: So you are saying control is part of meditation. Then who is the 'controller' which is put together by thought? So, can I live a (meditating) life without control?

I.I.: Sir, just for the purpose of this conversation, could we not say that "meditation is the rehearsal of the act of dying"?

K: Forgive me, why should I have a 'rehearsal'?

I.I.: Simply because one day I will be called upon for a last time, and before I could really engage in that supreme activity which is to die (for good ?) ...

K: So why not die now?

I.I.: So, meditation 'is' (essentially an ?) act of dying - I will be happy to put it that way. Only if I say to somebody that meditation means dying, and if I say that tomorrow morning I will have breakfast with you, people won't understand me; that is the reason I suggested the ('rehearsal') term.

K: Is not (the true purpose of ?) "meditation" to come upon something 'sacred', not contaminated by time, something that is Original. Isn't meditation (essentially) an enquiry into that? My enquiry then must be completely undirected, unbiased. Otherwise, I will go off at a tangent. If I have a motive for practising meditation because I am unhappy and, therefore, I want to find that, then my motive dictates. Then I go off into illusions.

I.I.: If I said "Meditation is the readiness for a radical Surprise", will you accept it?

K: Yes, I accept it. So my concern in meditation is - have I a motive? Do I expect a reward? I must be very clear that there is no search for reward or punishment, which means there is no (pre-set mental ?) direction. And also I must be very clear that no element creates an illusion. Illusion comes into being when there is desire, when I want something.
(In a nutshell:) The mind (engaged ?) in meditation must be tremendously aware that it is not (getting) caught in any kind of self-hypnosis, self-created illusion. So ( the 'dusting the periphery' ?) part of meditation is to wipe away the illusory machine. And, if there is ( a 'meditator' in ?) control, it is already directed (by a subliminal self-interest ?) .

Therefore, can I live a (meditative ?) daily life in which there is absolutely no (thought) control, no censor saying 'do this, do that' ? That is the (right ?) beginning of meditation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 #552
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

A SMALL K GROUP DISCUSSION, BOMBAY1973

A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO SILENCE AND DISORDER(experientially -friendly edited )

Questioner: I wonder whether we can talk about what is 'silence' : how it is reached, or whether silence has many facets and forms. Whether there is only one silence which is absence of thought; or whether silence which arises through different experiences or different situations is different in nature, dimension and direction.

Krishnamurti: Where shall we start this? Is there a 'right' approach to silence? And if there is, what is that ? And whether there are different varieties of silence, which means different methods by which to arrive at silence, and what is the nature of silence.
So, (for starters ?) there a right approach to silence ? And what do we mean by the 'right approach'?

Q: The ('bestest' ?) one against hundreds of other approaches .

K: Yes, therefore what is the true, natural, reasonable, logical, and beyond the logic, what is that approach?

Q: Can we define silence as the absence of thought ?

K: I can 'go blank', you know, just looking at something beautiful and go blank. Is that silence?

Q: You seem to be taking us to the true approach rather than explain the nature of true silence ?

K: I think so. Because there are those people who 'mesmerized' themselves into (mental) silence, and/or controled their chattering mind to such an extent that the mind becomes absolutely dull, stupid - but... 'silent'. So it seems more sane to find out is there a natural, sane, healthy approach to silence? Right? Could we proceed from that? What is the necessity of silence?

Q: The (practical) necessity for silence is very easy to understand. People, in ordinary day living, have constantly chattering minds, constantly irritated minds, when it comes to a rest there is a feeling of being refreshed, the mind is refreshed, quite apart from anything else. And there is a whole (spiritual) tradition stating that silence is important, is necessary, and therefore in all these systems there is the watching of the "thought & time" process ...

K: Suppose you don't know a thing about what other people have said, why you should be silent. Would you ask the question?

Q: Even at the level of the (mental) tranquillizer, I would ask the question.

K: So, you asked the question in order to tranquilize the mind, because the mind is chattering and it's wearisome and exhausting, so you say, is there a way of tranquilizing the mind without the drugs? How would I, being inwardly exhausted by the 'chattering' (constant worrying ?) of my mind, ask myself: how can I, quieten the mind? That's natural, I would ask that.

Q: There are many ways of doing it.

K: You all say there are many ways. But I come from an land where we don't know any of these things 'first hand'. So, is it possible to bring about tranquillity to the mind without (causing a new inner ) conflict? I would put that question.

Q: Sir, when I practice Pranayama there's no conflict in it, but there is silence; it doesn't exhaust you. What is the nature of that silence?

K: There, you are breathing, getting more oxygen into your system, and the oxygen naturally helps you to be (more) relaxed. But I am not talking of that. I want to find out whether the mind can become 'tranquil' without any kind of effort, breathing, without any enforcement of any kind. I start from a point where the mind is agitated, chattering, exhausting itself by incessant friction of thought, and it says, is it possible to be really quiet, without any artificial means? Right? To me that is a central issue. That's how I would approach it if I went into this. I would discard any artificial control, drugs, breathing, mantras.

K: All these are artificial, (although they do ) induce a peculiar kind of silence.

Q: Would you include in your (no-no ?) list the silence induced by nature ?
When you look at a (Swiss ?) mountain you do get silent.

K: Ah, when you look at a mountain what takes place? The beauty the 'grandeur' of the mountain absorbs you and makes you silent. That is still artificial. Like a child, given a good toy, is absorbed by the toy and for the time being he is getting very quiet. I would consider any form of (self-conscious ?) inducement to silence as artificial - ( speaking just ?) for K.

Q: Looking at a (Swiss ?) mountain - a 'non-duality' experience, you would say it is not silence?

K: I wouldn't call it "silence". You see a marvellous picture, a marvellous sunset, an enormous chain of mountains, and it's like the toy with the child. That greatness knocks out the (self-consciousness of the ?) 'me' for the moment and the mind becomes (temporarily ?) silent. Experiment with it.

Q: Yes, so you say that is not (the ?) 'silence' ?

K: I wouldn't call that silence, because the moment (of enchantment) is gone, I'm back to my chattering ( worrying ?) or whatever it is. So, if my mind has no motive (to use silence for a specific purpose ?) , how does one come upon it naturally?
If I (really ?) want to listen to what you are saying, or if I want to see something clearly, my mind must be quiet. That's the 'natural' approach to silence . No?

Q: In that is all poise, is all sanity.

K: So I would say, the basis for the depth of silence is poise, harmony, between the mind, the body and the heart - a great (sense of inner) harmony. I would say the real basis is this (inwardly integrated ?) harmony.

Q: It doesn't solve anything. I know conflict, I don't know this 'harmony' .

K: All right. Therefore if there is disharmony between the mind, heart and body, deal with that (inner fragmentation ?) and not with silence. If you deal with silence being disharmonious, then it is (bound to be an) artificial (attempt). This is so. Now I am (finally ?) getting at it: be concerned with the agitated mind, not with silence. Deal with 'what is', and not with 'what might be'. That comes logically, right. I'll stick to this.

Q: But, Sir, how can an agitated mind deal with its own agitation?

K: That's a different question.

Q: But doesn't the agitated mind ask itself the question, 'Can there be silence?'

K: Ah! That is then an 'opposite', a conflict (of interests ?) , this opposite has its roots within its own opposite and so on.

Q: Yes, so that concept of silence is part of the ( ongoing mental) agitation.

K: So (in a nutshell ?) I would say that a (sense of ?) complete (inner) harmony is the (right) foundation for the purity of silence. So what is this harmony between the mind, the body and the heart ? A total sense of being whole, without fragmentation, without the over-development of the intellect, but the intellect operating clearly, objectively, sanely, and the heart, not sentimentally, with outbreaks of hysteria, but has a quality in it of affection, care, love, compassion, vitality, and the body has its own intelligence and unintefered by the intellect or by (personal ?) taste - all that. The feeling of everything is operating, functioning beautifully, like a marvellous machinery (like a Pathek Phillipe watch ?) . Even though it's not (always) physically well. Now.... is this possible? Can the mind, the brain, function efficiently without any friction, distortion, and so the mind is sharp & clear? When the 'centre' ( the subliminal superviser ?) is there it's not possible, obviously, because then the centre is translating everything according to ( suit) its (safety settings & ?) limitations.

Q: So, why does this division between the mind, body & heart arise ?

K: It arises, because through our (fragmentary ?) education, where emphasis is made on the (outward) cultivation of the intellect as memory and reason, (neglecting the intrinsical quality of our everyday ?) living.

Q: That is the over-emphasis on the ('knowing') mind. But even without this (intellectually biased ?) education, there can be an over-emphasis of emotions ...

K: Of course, but (the modern) man worships the intellect much more than the emotions. And emotion is translated into devotion, into sentimentality, into all kinds of extravagance of (artistical ?) expansions of emotionalism and so on. No?

Q: : Why does the human brain give such importance to knowledge?

K: Technologically, psychologically , in their everyday relationships, why have human beings given such extraordinary (psychological) importance to knowledge? It's very simple: for (their outer & inner ?) security, obvioulsy. Knowledge gives you status. Don't you know bureaucrats who are fairly high up, all they want is 'status'.

Q: But that doesn't solve anything for us...

K: No, he asked that question. So, I must come back. Human beings have worshipped knowledge, knowledge is identified with the intellect, with erudition - the scholar, the philosopher, the inventor, the scientist, are all concerned with knowledge. No? And they have created in the world marvellous things; going to the moon (finding new exo-planets ?) , the most extraordinary things and the admiration, the sense of the marvel of knowledge, is overwhelming. . Knowledge is necessary. But when knowledge is misused by the (egotistic ?) centre as the 'me' who has got knowledge, and uses it as a status for itself. I (assume that ?) am more important than the poor chap who has no knowledge. So, we have developed an inordinate admiration, almost verging on worship, for the intellect. All the sacred books and their (scholarly) interpretations, all that. Correct me, if I'm wrong. And in contrast to that there is an (artistical) reaction which says, for goodness sake, let's be a bit more emotional about all this; let me have my feelings, sentimentality and extravagance in expression. All that arises from this. And ( the harmony of the ?) the body is neglected. You see this (incongruency) and practise Yoga to get the body well, and so this division takes place, unnaturally. And now we have to bring about a natural harmony where the intellect functions like a marvellous (Swiss ?) watch, where the emotions and affections, care, love, compassion, all those are healthily functioning, and the body which has been so spoiled, which has been so mis-used, comes into its own intelligence. Now, how do you do it?

Radhaji asked just now, why is there this (watertight) division between the mind, the heart and the body. Why? And how is this division to come into deep harmony, naturally? Now, how do you do it?

Q: Go ( to meditate ?) into silence ?

K: One is aware of this division, isn't one? Intellect, emotion, and the body, there is this tremendous division between all of them. A gap. How is the mind to remove all this gap, and be a whole mechanism functioning beautifully? What do the traditionalists say?

Q: Effort. Clench your teeth.

K: I say, let's deal with disharmony and not with silence, so when there is the (experiential) understanding of disharmony, from that may flow naturally silence. So let's deal with disorder, not with harmony, not with silence. With (the ongoing inner) disorder.

Q: According to our (daily) experience this (inner) disorder never yields. The disorder remains disorder.

K: We are going to find out, sir. Don't maintain it.

Q: No, I don't maintain it; I look at the disorder and the disorder looks at me.

K: Therefore there is a 'duality', a (hidden) contradiction in your observation as the 'observer',and the (disorder that is being ) 'observed'. A division. So let us put aside everything else and consider if it is possible to end this ( momentum of ?) disorder?

Q: Disorder expresses itself.

K: I don't know anything about it. I observe in myself disorder. Why do I call what I observe disorder?

Q: A disturbance is disorder.

K: I just want to go step by step. . Why do I call it disorder? Which means I already have an inkling about what order is.

Q: Of course.

K: So, I am comparing 'what is' (going on now) with what I have known as order and thereby I call it disorder. I say, don't do that; don't compare. Just see what disorder is. Can the mind become aware of disorder without comparing itself with order? Comparison itself may be the cause of disorder. Measurement may be disorder. And as long as I am comparing, there must be disorder. So I see that comparison is really important, not disorder. As long as my mind is comparing, measuring, there must be disorder. Right?

Q: Sir, I look at myself and I see there is disorder because every part of me is pulling in a different direction.

K: I've never felt I'm in disorder, except rarely, occasionally, when something (went really wrong ?) ... and I say to myself, why are all these people talking about disorder? Do they really know disorder? Or they only know it through comparison (with a 'psychological' memory of order) ?

Q: You bring in (holistically encripted ?) words which I find very difficult (to grasp) . There is no conscious comparison of the mind itself which says, this is disorder and I want order.

K: I'm only asking how do you know disorder?

Q: Is it a sense of confusion ? I don't anything else but I know confusion.

K: My mind is in a (generalised ?) state of confusion because it is contradicting itself all the time. All right. You see this disorder and then what?

Q: There must be a way of finding a way out of this.

K: Yes. Then what?

Q: Look, sir, there's (the opportunity of ?) an ending there. I say, what is the nature of this ending ? Is this silence? Or is there an undercurrent still operating? You see, the traditional outlook is the gap between two thoughts is silence.

K: But that's not "silence", silence between two noises is not silence. Listen to that noise outside and there's a gap and you call that silence? I say that absence of noise is not silence.

Q: We moved (in circles ?) from the natural need of silence, to harmony and we found that it was impossible to go into the nature of harmony without going into the nature of our inner disorder.

K: All right. I'm saying (that any ) conflict indicates disorder. So, from there, move.

Q: So, there must be a way of being free of this inner conflict.

K: That's all. Now, how am I to deal with (my inner state of ?) conflict non-artificially? You know nothing, you are listening for the first time, therefore you have to go into it with me. Somebody comes along and says, look, look at this marvellous (but conflicted mental ) machinery and you look.

Q: I see only this much: that I can't think of silence or harmony when I am ( entangled ?) in conflict. That much is clear, sir.

K: So, is the mind capable of freeing itself from conflict? Stick to this one thing, conflict, and see if the mind can be free of it. And don't go around saying, 'how'. Can the mind, knowing what conflict is, and what conflict does, end (the continuity of its inner ?) conflict? (This inner) conflict is (expressing itself in:) comparison, contradiction, imitation, and conformity, suppression, all that; put all that into that (all-in -one ?) word and we said: 'can the mind be free of conflict?'

Q: There is an ending of the state of inner conflict. For a while, at least. But the next question which arises is what do we mean by a "total ending"?

K: That's what we're going to find out.

Q: There is no ending of conflict in the universe ...

K: Don't include the Universe. In the universe apparently everything is moving in order. (See:) Hoyle, "The expanding universe"...

Q: I'm talking of our mental universe.

K: Then let's stick to our mind which seems to be endlessly in conflict. That's all. Don't bring in the Universe. Now, can the mind free itself from conflict. I think the mind can be completely, utterly without conflict.

Q: Forever ?

K: Don't use that word, 'forever', because then you are introducing a word of time, and (thinking in terms of ?) time is another factor of conflict.
Is my mind totally aware that it is in conflict? Or is there a part of the mind that says, there part of me watching conflict? If is there any part which separates itself from the totality of conflict, then that fragment says, 'I must act, I must do, I must suppress, I must go beyond'. So is the mind - please, this is a legitimate question - is the mind totally aware that there is only conflict? So, is our inner conflict a fragment, or total? To put it in different words - is there a total darkness or a slight light somewhere?

Q: If some inner 'light' were not there, how could we be aware of anything?

K: I'm asking you this (holistic) question (because) when there is a fragmentation of the mind, that very fragmentation is conflict. Therefore, is the mind, ever aware that it is (immersed ?) in total conflict? And Pupul says, 'yes'.

Q: I refused to move away. But I don't know anything about 'total conflict'.

K: Therefore, you say partially I am in conflict, therefore you are never (completely immersed ?) with conflict.

Q: Total conflict cannot know itself, unless there is something else to know it.

K: We're going to go into that, a little bit. When the (inner) room is full of furniture there is no (free ) space to move. Is my mind so totally full of this confusion, so that it has no movement away from this, then what takes place? That's what I want to get at, not a partial this and a partial that and ... When the 'steam' is at full (pressure ?) it must do something - 'explode'. But I do not think we look at this confusion, at this inner conflict so totally.
Could I use another (holistic ?) word, "sorrow"? There is no (point in ?) moving away from sorrow. When you move away from sorrow, then it is just escape from it, or suppressing it. Is there such a thing as "being full of sorrow"? When you are so completely full of this thing called 'confusion', 'sorrow', 'conflict', it is no longer there. It's only there when there is the (mental) division (between the 'observer' and the 'sorrow' observed) . That's all. That's why, (it is important to ?) remain with the "truth of the thing", not with the 'conclusion' of the thing. (And in this case ?) the "truth of the thing" is: until the mind is (abiding) completely with something, it cannot but create (further) conflict. ( Eg:) If I love you but ... there is some attachment in it, it is a ( subliminal conflict of interests or ?) 'contradiction' and therefore no (pure ?) love. So I say, is the mind totally full of this sorrow, this confusion, this conflict? I won't move away 'till that is so.

Q: One peculiarity about your approach. When you draw a picture there is always a clear outline, the colours don't match. In reality there are no outlines, there are only colours merging into each other.

K: This, to me, is very clear: if the heart is full of Love, and there is no part of envy (selfishness ?) in it, the problem is finished. It is only when there is a part that is (surreptitiously ?) jealous then the whole problem arises.

Q: Common love is full of jealousies.

K: Ah. Therefore remain with it. Remain with that, be 'full' of envy, be envious. Feel it.

Q: Then its total nature undergoes ( a qualitative ) change ?

K: Tremendous change. It's when you say "I'm envious, but.... I must not be", somewhere in a dark corner, the educational (moral) restraint, then something ( splits and ?) goes wrong. But to say, yes, I am envious, and don't move away from that. 'Moving away' is rationalising, suppressing, so....just remain with that feeling.

Q: What is the difference between you being fully aware of the conflict and repenting the conflict?

K: Oh, oh, oh! Repentance means there is a 'repenter'. An entity who repents, who regrets.

Q: Feeling it fully ?

K: No, don't feel it. If you are jealous, then you are just jealous.

Q: When you are finding yourself in a mess, are you not sorry for yourself?

K: Good God, no. That is the after-thought; 'I wish I wasn't in a mess'. When you are in a mess, be in a mess; see it, don't move away from it. This is merciless. All the rest is playing tricks. When there is ( a surge of ?) sorrow, be completely with it. Took at the beggar there; I don't have to invent sorrow, there it is, right in front of my nose. I'm ( fully immersed ) in it. I won't move an inch from it.

Q: An action takes place.

K: Sir, when you are (completely abiding ) with something, action has taken place. I don't have to do something. A total action has taken place, which is the "ending" of that sorrow (and its transmutation into compassion ?) .

Q: How can we have ( that silence or ?) tranquillity when the beggar is out there?

K: ( This quality of compassionate inner ?) tranquillity is (coming with ) the ending of sorrow.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Feb 2017 #553
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

4 th K SEMINAR MADRAS, 1982 ON
'INTELLIGENCE, COMPUTERS AND THE MECHANICAL MIND' (experientially fiendly edited)

A.C.: If the present human mind is different from merely being a ( programmable ?) thinking machine, what is (that makes ?) the difference? Is it creativity, is it intelligence, and if so, then what is creativity and what is intelligence? So my first question is : Are our minds merely programmed thinking machines, are our minds mechanical?

K: Would you use the word 'mind' to convey the wholeness of the human mind (consciousness ?) ?

A.C.: I am using the word 'mind' in terms of what a human being is. He has a brain with thought, emotions and all the reactions.

K: So you are using the word 'mind' in the sense that it includes all the (dualistic ?) reactions, emotions, remembrances, the confusion, desire, pleasure, sorrow, affection. If all that is the 'mind', then is the human brain 'my' (personal) brain or the brain (the result ?) of this tremendous evolution?

A.C.: It is obviously evolution.

K: So it is not 'my thinking' (either) . Whether it is the thinking a poor man or a rich man or a professor, it is ( still) thinking. . Are we saying then that ( our evolutionary ?) thinking is an integral part of the brain?

A.C.: It seems to be...

K: This thinking has created all the human problems as well as technological problems. And (this subliminally self-centred ?) thinking (aka 'thought' ) is trying to solve the (existential ?) problems and finds that it cannot because thought itself is limited. Thought is the result of (our survivalistic ?) experience, knowledge, memory. (The field of our ?) knowledge is never complete, therefore thought must be limited, and that limited thought keeps creating (its own) problems.

A.C.: Are you saying that thought is limited because it has not been able to know everything?

K: Thought is the result of our vast experience, memory, all that. It is like the ( artificial intelligence of a ?) computer which has had a great deal of (wordly ?) experience, a great deal of knowledge (but intrinsically limited) .

A.C.: In other words, you are saying that all new knowledge is essentially contained in the old knowledge and is a result of thought.

K: Of course. Scientists are adding to this (global bank of knowledge) ; that will go on for the next thousand years, but still whatever is being added to must be limited because ( is directed outwardly and ) there is always something more to be added.

A.C.: Is it limited at any given point of time?

K: Of course. So, (an ever increasing outward) knowledge must always go with (a corresponding inner ?) ignorance.

A.C.: In that case, sir, you are in fact saying that our minds, as we know them and as they operate in our daily life, are entirely 'mechanical'. In which case, ( the (electronic ?) brain is much better than the human brain. The (very industrious ?) computer scientists are saying that we can put a much vaster storehouse of knowledge in the computer by networking computers, etc. Now, superficially, that is true; no human being can remember everything in the encyclopaedia. So, outwardly, the memory of the computer is much better, since it does not have the (irrational) limitations of our subconscious or racial memories.

K: Yes, sir, move from there.

A.P.: Well, is this tantamount to saying that the evolutionary process of the human brain has come to an end ?

K: Achyutji, would you agree on one point - that the computer has a cause as the human brain has a cause? Then what has an (evolutionary ?) cause, also has an (evolutionary ?) end. Now, is there something (in the human mind ?) which is causeless? If there is such a thing as a movement which is causeless, that is Creation.

R.R.: You are saying is that there is an 'extraordinary' (dimension of the ?) mind.

K: No I have not gone into it, yet. But fifty thousand years (of traceable evolution ?) , we have reached this point - between our brain and the computer (it has invented recently ?) there is not much difference; both are created by (our evolutionary ?) thought. Of course the computer cannot look at the beauty of the stars.

R.R.: But it can simulate it.

K: Of course. But it hasn't the perception of the human eye looking at the heavens and saying what a marvellous night this is. So, is there a ( quality of ?) perception which is not the product of (our mechanical) thought?

A.C.: Does the average human mind have (access to ?) such a thing now ?

K: Probably not.

A.C.: The computer hasn't got it either. But in twenty or thirty years' time - the ( thinking capacity of the ?) computer will be superior to human beings.

K: Of course, I am inclined to agree with you.

P.J.: You are assuming that the human has exhausted its creative potential by producing the computer: Having created, having given birth to the baby, the mother dies. I refuse to accept it.

A.C.: Do you know what they are trying to do? Genetic scientists have got together with computer scientists. They are saying, why are you using silicon? The human brain has hydrogen and carbon molecules. So let us take hydrogen and carbon molecules, let us use brain cells to make computers: Another approach is: Our genes are programmed so that some cells become an eye, others become the nose and so on. If you can break that genetic code, you could programme it to become a brain or a computer. There is a lot of research going on in that.

R.S.: Machines can do many things which human beings can't do. Nevertheless, they are the products of human beings and it seems to me unlikely that in any sense these things would supersede human beings. They may supersede particular faculties of human beings.

A.C.: What is it in a human being that you think cannot be done by machines in the next fifty years?

R.S.: Well, it is a subject which we are now coming to - creativity. There are a lot of things which we recognise and understand directly without being able to put everything into explicitly stored-up recognition programmes. I can recognise many different kinds of flowers, trees and animals. If I have to say how I recognise them, what is it that makes me recognize them, it will be very difficult for me to tell you. I think it will be difficult for you, too.

K: But, sir, when you recognize, it is based on memory.

A.C.: They are working on pattern recognition. There is tremendous research going into it today. Computers are beginning to recognise some things visually.

R.S.: But there is a certain intuitive sense.

A.C.: What is intuition?

R.S.: Intuition is grasping something more, seeing something more, having an insight into something which involves a direct kind of knowledge which does not have to go through a process of words, thought and action.

P.J.: Sirs, the problem seems to be that if the brain is working in a closed circuit (of mechanical knowledge) , then what Asit Chandmal says is true. But the 'but' comes in because the whole reason for our being here is, can there be an acceleration of the very capacity of the brain so that it ceases to be a process? Is the brain (functioning only in ?) a closed circuit?

R.S.: You see, I disagree with the (oversimplifying ?) assumption that the brain works entirely mechanically or chemically or electrically and so on. We have a theory of life which says that living organisms are nothing but machines, and then we have a theory which says it has nothing to do with machines. Why can't we model them by machines? This is the basis of your argument, and it seems quite reasonable on the face of it, but there are a number of assumptions.

K: Would you consider that the human brain has (potentially an ?) infinite capacity? Look what it has done in the technological world, including the computers.

A.C.: You can't say that thought is limited and then say that the brain has infinite capacity.

K: ( The survivalistic process of ?) thought has limited the brain, has conditioned the brain. (Eg: ) If I am (opportunistically thinking of myself as ?) a 'Hindu', I believe in all the superstitions, all the nonsense. Right?

A.C.: You are trying to separate (this conditioned ?) thought and the brain.

K: I want to find out if the brain can ever be free from its own (cultural) limitations - call it "thought". If that conditioning is somehow (miraculously ?) removed , is there an instrument which is not thought? This is not a romantic speculation. Thought is a worn-out instrument and it has reached its limit, (the length of ?) its tether, because it has not solved the human problem. So, is there a way of looking which turns inwards? That inward movement is the infinite (potential of the human brain ?) .

Q: Your question is: Is there anything other than thought which could be a new (inwardly perceptive ?) instrument?

K: Yes, and perhaps, that (new perceptive) instrument can look both outward and inward, and that is infinite.

Q: ( A lot of lucrative ?) psychologists (and other clever artizans ?) try to discover what is within; at least they profess to do this.

K: I know, sir, but what they say is all mechanical (guesswork ?) . So I am now asking, is there something which is not thought, which is not mechanical?

A.C.: You are asking what Pupulji was asking the other day: Is there a sensory (integrated ?) perception without thought?

K: Yes. Will you listen to something? Our life is a movement, going out and coming in, like the tide. I create the world, and the world then controls me. And then I react to the world. It is an ( interactive thought- matter?) movement of action and reaction, reward and punishment. Now, as long as this movement exists, I am caught in time, that is evolution. Can this (interacting mental ) 'movement' stop? Because as long as this ( subliminal mental ?) movement exists, I am a mechanical (psycho-entity) .

Q: Only mechanical?

K: Yes, I see a woman and I want her: I see a garden, I want it. It is action and reaction, reward and punishment, punishment and reward. As long as you are caught in that (karmic cycle) , your Intelligence is out; it is a mechanical intelligence: You hate me and I hate you back (in a more elaborate way ?) .

A.C.: I see that.

K: If you see that, Intelligence is something totally different from thought.

R.S.: Perhaps you could rather say it is 'cause and effect', 'action and reaction', instead of 'mechanical' ?

K: Yes, yes.

R.S.: Now, what people ordinarily call intelligence, which perhaps we can better call 'ingenuity', is that in order to get something you want - you may not be able to get it in a straightforward way - you may have to resort to some fairly original way, some new kind of competence, and so on. There is a certain kind of human ingenuity which is not purely mechanical. It is subsumed down to a certain mechanical set of desires and within that is the framework of certain inventiveness. So the basic framework may be one of action-reaction but within that we exhibit considerable ingenuity and inventiveness.

K: I would not call that Intelligence.

R.S.: No, but in the ordinary language it is often called intelligence. An 'intelligent' businessman ( or...developper ?) is one who would think of ways of getting more of what he wants.

K: Yes. I would not call that intelligence.

R.S.: I would call it ingenuity or inventiveness.

K: Call it inventiveness. To be ingenious is solving (the academy award ?) problems of God, problems of Heaven, problems of painting, etc. It is within the same area, in the same field. I may move from one corner to the other corner of the same field and I call that ingenuity and I say all that has nothing to do with intelligence. Intelligence is something totally different.

Q: Will you elaborate on what we call intelligence?

K: I don't want to 'elaborate'. Ingenuity, choice, cleverness, moving from one point to another, from one corner to another but within the same field, that is what we are doing.

P.J.: That is (living 'creatively' ?) the field of the known.

K: Yes, yes. It is essentially based on rewards and punishments.

A.C.: But what is the actual reason that we have evolved like that? It must have had tremendous advantage.

K: Of course, it is completely secure. Secure in the (temporal) sense, at least for the time being, but this 'time being (safety' may also ?) create wars. So would you go along up to this point that this is not Intelligence?

A.C.: Yes...

K: Right. Then let us enquire what is Intelligence. If our (enquiry ?) is not a ( convenient & marketable ?) theory, that means the ( self-sustained ?) movement of (mental) actions and reactions has stopped, and that is (ending) movement of 'time'.

A.C.: When you say 'time', I don't understand.

K: 'Time' in the sense I have evolved in (the temporal continuity of ?) this ( survivalistic ?) process.

Q: That is the movement of life.

K: Yes. And that is "un-intelligence". As long as I am (constantly functioning ?) in this field there is no (free) Intelligence; it is adaptability.
So, if I totally deny, not just intellectually but actually, that this is not intelligence, then what happens to the ( quality of the) mind which has been caught in this? Do you understand my question? As long as we are functioning in time, in the field of cause, effect, action, reaction, which is this movement of the tide going out and coming in, as long as my whole attitude to life is that and I don't move out of that, there is nothing to be said ( except .."carry on " ?) . But if I see that, that will not solve the (unsolved existential) problems of humanity; then I have to look in another direction.

P.J.: What is the nature of this 'looking'?

K: My eyes have always been seeing in this direction (of personal & collective survival ?) only. And you come along and tell me, look in other directions. I can't because my eyesight has been so conditioned that I don't even turn round to look. So I must be first free of this (survivalistic mentality ?) . I can't look in any other direction if I am not free of this.

P.J.: You see, you posed a question which is totally unanswerable - can I see the falsity of it and end it? I have always thought that is a wrong question. It can never see that because perception is self-contained.

K: Wouldnt you say all this (survivalistic ?) movement is the wandering of desire?

P.J.: Yes. This movement is the wandering of desire.

K: So, can this movement of desire be seen as a whole, not 'me' and the object of my desire - can it see itself as a movement of (material) attraction?

P.J.: Or even without bringing in 'attraction', can desire see itself?

K: To understand if desire can see itself, one must go (meditatively ?) into the inner process of desire. Desire exists only when thought comes into sensation.

A.C.: This question is very important. We are constantly operating in that field (of self-centred thinking & desire ?) . Anything operating in that field...

P.J.: Can never deny that field.

K: Of course. There is this movement. As long as I am (personally involved ?) in that movement, you cannot ask me to see it as the false and deny it.

P.J.: Therefore, in what direction do I look?

K: You don't have to look (in any other direction ?). The (first) thing is to stop this ( mental) movement. ( So, for homework:) Find out, discover for yourself how to end this movement. Is that possible at all?

P.J. I think it is possible....

K: ...if there is no entity who can 'stop' it , then...

P.J.: It is just perceiving ?

K: That is all. There is not the perceiver perceiving. There is only a perception of that which is false.

P.J.: The perceiving throws light on the false. There is only perceiving.

K: There is only perceiving. Stick to that. Then we will enquire into what is (the direct ?) perceiving without the word, without the name, without remembrances, perceiving something which one calls 'intuition'? (I don't like to use that (slippery ?) word, forgive me.) Perception is direct insight.

P.J.: Is the question one of being completely awake inwardly ?

K: Would you call that "attention"?

P.J.: To be completely awake "is" attention. And that, the computer can never do.

K: So, is there an end to ( this psychological continuity of ?) thought? ( Inwardly speaking ?) "Time" must have a stop, right?

R.R.: Can I ask you a question: What happens when we perceive with insight?

K: In (the inner light of ?) this perception of insight the (basic functioning of ?) brain cells themselves change. When your brain has been conditioned in time, (indulging ?) in this movement... cause, effect, action, reaction and all that suddenly stops, hasn't the brain undergone a radical (qualitative ?) change? Of course it has.

R.R.: I have to ask you this question again. If there is such a seeing that the brain cells change, what happens after perceiving it?

A.C.: Only the physical brain has changed and I am afraid it dies.

K: That is why we are going into the question of Consciousness.

A.C.: Does this end with death? (If it does not ?) then all that will be different from the computer...

K: ( Wisely dodging the question: ) Sir, how will you translate all this to your 'computer expert' friends?

A.C.: They are going to continue doing what they are doing - trying to produce super-computers.

P.J.: The 'humane' question then comes in. How can man so accelerate the other to bring into being this new perception?

A.C.: One can only see ( what is wrong with ?) this ( self-sustained mental) movement and do nothing else.

K: That is all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Feb 2017 #554
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 92 posts in this forum Offline

This discussion about AI is interesting. Memory and thought are mechanical. But the prediction that machine AI will overcome human intelligence in 20 years (that was 1980's) was overly optimistic and frankly ridiculous. Even now there are some scientists who claim that in 20-30 years we will have a human-level machine AI. They mostly have a computer science background and know little about human brain or psychology. It will probably take hundreds of years till the machines approach human intelligence, maybe never. While the computer AI may perform at some narrow tasks better than human intelligence (like playing chess), it is not flexible at all. It is a rigid program and does not come even close to the plasticity and flexibility of human brain.

This post was last updated by Jan Kasol Tue, 28 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Feb 2017 #555
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 92 posts in this forum Offline

if we wanted to create an artificial intelligence similar to humans, we would need to program it with similar instincts such as self-preservation, inquisitiveness, the drive to acquire information, some mechanism to cope with conflicting information, conflicting drives. Otherwise the machine would have no personality, no individuality. The personality is the ego, the memories, the fears, the possessions. The computer guys working on AI do not realize this and how difficult it would be to programm something like that. Unless the machine had no memories, no sense of identity, no personality, it could not be conscious of itself as separate from the world and others, it would not be conscious. As K says, this sense of individuality, of separateness, egotism, is the basis of counsciousness. This consciousness is limitation, separateness, resistance, conflict. But K says that this consiousness, this resistance, can be transcended, that peace is beyond that. When you have no resistance whatsoever, you are in peace. Freedom is the lack of resistance. Would the artificial intelligence have the capacity to enlightenment?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Mar 2017 #556
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 198 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Memory and thought are mechanical.

Are we to take that as fact without further investigation, inquiry?

Certainly, one can point to many mechanical aspects of thought and memory but does the word "mechanical" convey the whole?

Firstly, what is meant by the word "mechanical?"

(Should this be taken to a new thread rather than a deviation from this one??)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Mar 2017 #557
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 155 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Firstly, what is meant by the word "mechanical?"

Apart from machines with gears and things...I think it's about the 'association' of words, subjects, ideas etc. One thought brings about another and another and another...and next thing you know you can land someone on the moon! But what we are interested in here (?) is another 'faculty', another instrument that is not dependent on memory, on the past, that is not 'thought' (with its 'past', 'present' and 'future'). That which can move with what K. has called 'what is',(the swift 'movement' of life, of 'creation')...the understanding, if not the 'ending', of psychological 'thought/time'.

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 Thu, 02 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Mar 2017 #558
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Firstly, what is meant by the word "mechanical?"

(Should this be taken to a new thread rather than a deviation from this one??)

Hi, Paul, and...welcome back. Feel free to start a new thread or ontinue posting in this one. After all the 'live' interaction with these Teachings are as valuable ( for ourselves at least ?) as the 'body of teachings' itself.

As for the generic term 'mechanical'- which K used almost as currently as 'thought' and 'time'- all of them having a rather 'slippery' nature since the intellectual mind is grasping its meaning in no time and starts building its more complex strategies on the assumption that at least this point is clear. Unfortunately it seems to be the case with most of K's 'almost-too-obvious' insights: they enter through one ear and exit ASAP through the other.

In fact, this 'mechanical' aspect of our everyday existence has many levels, some being imbedded in our personal identity . Dan has pointed out its 'temporal' aspect of creating a repetitive 'continuity'. But perhaps more generally it may mean 'mechanical' in the sense of functioning almost exclusively within the field of the known, like a computer which is functioning 'mechanically' within the sphere of its own available memory.

My point here is that in order to 'see' this 'mechanicity' you have to be 'out of it' at least for a split second, if not the 'onboard computer' will subliminally reject it as an ' all too obvious' but...soooo superficial generalisation.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 02 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Mar 2017 #559
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

ANOTHER K-SEMINAR IN RISHI VALLEY 1980 ON:

THE EXISTENTIAL CHALLENGE OF THE 'COMPUTER' AND THE (OPTIONAL ?) FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN (experientially -friendly edited )

K: Asit and I have been talking about the relationship of the human mind to the computer. He is involved in the manufacture of computers. And we have been trying, in different parts of the world, wherever we met, to find out what is "Intelligence". Is there a (way of ?) action which the computer cannot possibly do, something far more penetrating than anything man can do externally ?

A.C.: They are (even) trying to control genetic characteristics completely and it is only a matter of time before 'computer-brain' interfaces are created. The next point is that in affluent societies, because of the tremendous increase in physical appliances like motor cars and washing machines, the body has deteriorated. Now, since more and more mental functions are going to be taken over by computer, the (quality of human ) mind is going to deteriorate not only at the level of what you are talking about, but even in ordinary functioning. I see this as an enormous problem. How does one face this problem in a world which is (clearly) moving in this direction?

P.J.: Is it not a problem of what is "humanness"? What is it to be a human being apart from all this?

K: Apparently, a human being, as he is now , is (inwardly) a mass of accumulated knowledge and reactions according to that knowledge. And as the computer is going to take charge of all that, what then is the human being? What is the function of a school then? Think a great deal about this. This is not something that needs a quick response. This is tremendously serious. What is a human being if his fears, his sorrows, his anxieties are all wiped away by chemicals or by some implanted electric circuitry? I don't think we get the fullness of it.

A.P.: Do I understand that while, on the one hand, man has developed these extraordinary capacities, there is also a corresponding process of deterioration in the (quality of our body and ?) mind which is a side-effect of super mechanization?

K: Can we start with the assumption that these things are going to happen, whether we like it or not? They are happening, unless we are blind or uninformed. Then, let us enquire if the human mind is deprived chemically of its problems or by the computer, whether it can survive at all.

A.P.: I am not quite clear about one point: there is in each human being a feeling of a void, of emptiness, which needs to be filled.

K: It will be filled by chemicals.

A.P.: I am questioning that. There is a strange void in every human being. There is a 'seed' (of truth ?) that is groping. At some point you will see that there is something which will remain untouched.

A.C.: What if you don't find that?

A.P.: Before you come to the finding of that, at least you must posit a need for that.

K: I am positing a need.

A.P.: What is the need?

K: The need is that (the genetic engineering and the ?) chemicals, and the computer are going to destroy my brain.

A.C.: If this technology continues, there won't be any (existential) void in any human beings because eventually they may die out as a species. At the same time, as a human being, I feel there is something else which I want to find out. Is there something which is different, which needs to be preserved? Can I understand (the nature of our timeless ?) intelligence? How am I going to preserve that against all these dangers?

K: Look, sir, let us take for granted the computer is going to take man over (all our daily chores) . And if the brain is not exercised as it is being exercised with problems of anxieties, fears, etc., then it will inevitably deteriorate. And deterioration means man gradually becoming a (domestic ?) 'robot'. Then I say to myself, as a human being who has (successfully ?) survived for several million years, is he to end like this? It may be so - and probably will.

A.C.: It seems to me that the (psychological impact) of (modern) technology is a very evil thing because there is a certain goodness in us ( our soul ?) which is being destroyed.

K: Agreed. But why do you call it 'evil'?

A.C.: Evil because it is destroying the world.

K: But we are destroying ourselves. It is not the machine that is destroying us, we are destroying ourselves. The human mind is deteriorating because it does not allow anything to penetrate its values, dogmas. It is stuck there. If I have a strong conviction or opinion, I am deteriorating. The machine is just going to help us to deteriorate faster. Then what is a human being if he has no (psychological & material ?) problems and is only pursuing pleasure? I think that is the root of it. This is what man seeks even now, in different forms . And he will be encouraged in that by the ( entertainment industry plus the ?) (e-) machines , and/or by the ( genetic engineering and/or ?) drugs. The human being will be nothing, but ( a hedonistic robot ?) involved in the pursuit of pleasure.
So, what is it that man has pursued all through his existence? From time immemorial what is the stream he has always followed? Pleasure?

A.C.: ... but also the ending of sorrow.

K: Essentially (safety & ) pleasure. I want pleasure at any price and my (occasional sense of frustration and/ or ?) suffering is an indication that I am not having (enough ?) pleasure. Look, sirs, the computer, (and the genetic engineering and/or ?) the chemicals, are taking over man. This is neither good nor bad - it is happening.

Now, can we move to something else, which is, ( all our search for safety & ?) pleasure is always in the (field of the already ?) 'known' and it is a 'time' movement. I have no pleasure today but day after tomorrow it might happen. My whole life is in the (field of the ?) known. I project the known into the future modifying it but it is still the known. I have no pleasure in the unknown. And the computer, (plus the genetic engineering & the entertainment industry ?) is (are) in the field of the known. Now the real (existential ?) question is whether there is freedom from the known. That is the real question because pleasure is there, suffering is there, fear is there, the whole movement of the mind is in the known. Computers, chemicals, genetics, cloning are all in the field of the known. So, can there be (an inner) freedom from the known? (Living caught in the ?) known is destroying man.

P.J.: A very interesting thing struck me just now. The present mind of man, in the way it is functioning, is threatened. It is being destroyed. Either the machine takes it over and it is destroyed, or the other (inner challenge of the ) freedom from the known will also destroy its present functioning. The challenge is much deeper.

K: Yes. You got it. The (field of the ?) known in which our minds are functioning is destroying us. The known is also (including) the future projections as the e-machines, drugs, genetics, cloning all that is born out of these. So both are (sooner or later ?) destroying us.

A.C.: She is also saying that the freedom from the known, will also destroy the mind as we know it now.

K: Wait. The (inner) freedom is not 'from' something. It is an ending. Do you follow?

A.C.: Are you saying, sir, that this "freedom from the known" is of such a nature that thought finds its right place, and also the mind has its place?

K: I say there is only freedom, but not (just ?) 'from the known'.

P.J.: I say that what we now call the human mind operates in a certain (traditional) way and it now is put under pressure by technological advances. This other, "freedom from the known", also is totally destructive of this function of the mind. Therefore, a new mind - whether born of technology or one which is free of the known - is inevitable. They are the only two things; the present position is out.

K: Let us be clear. Either there must be a new mind or the present thing is going to destroy the mind. Right? But this 'new mind' can only exist actually when ( the psychological continuity of?) knowledge ends. Knowledge has created the machine and we live on knowledge. We are ( thinking ?) machines. Therefore, the question is, can (this inner movement of ?) knowledge ( aka: 'thought & time' ?) end? Not "can there be freedom from knowledge?" because then you are avoiding or escaping from (facing this ages old process of self-centred ?) knowledge.

A.C.: Knowledge can't end...

K: It can. Action is freedom from knowledge.

A.C.: Knowledge can't end.

K: Yes, sir.

P.J.: What do you mean when you say 'all knowledge ends' ?

K: The 'knowledge' ( regarding the psychological activity within the field of the ?) known, not the technological knowledge. Can that (inner activity of ?) knowledge end? And who is to end knowledge? The (self-conscious ?) entity who wants to end knowledge is still part of knowledge. So there is no 'entity' apart from (the field of ?) knowledge, which can end knowledge. Please go slowly.

A.C.: So, sir, there is (in the human psyche ) the tremendous force of self-preservation and there is only knowledge. And you are asking, can knowledge end, which means self-annihilation?

K: No, I am leaving now, for the moment, the ending of the 'self'. I am saying that both the computer, which includes all technology, and my life are based on knowledge. So there is no division between the two.

A.C.: I can follow that.

K: This is a tremendous thing (to realise?) that so long as we are living (predominantly in the field of ?) knowledge, our brain is being (slowly ?) destroyed through (its own ?) routine, or by the machine, etc.
So, the human mind is (stuck in its own ?) knowledge. Now, let's move from there. When this mind ( stuck in the known) says it must be free, whatever it does, it is within the field of knowledge. So, what is the state of the mind that is completely aware, or knows, or is cognizant that it 'is' entirely (stuck in ?) knowledge? Now what is taking place? Apparently knowledge is a (mental ?) movement. Knowledge has been acquired through movement. So, knowledge is movement. So, time, all that, is movement.

A.C.: You are speaking of the state of mind when (the inner movement of knowledge in ?) time comes to a stop ?

K: That is freedom. Can this 'time' movement stop? ( If yes ?) that means perception is free from knowledge and our action is not out of knowledge. The perception of the danger of a snake, is also 'action', but that perception is based on centuries of conditioning about the (collective human experience acquired in dealing with ?) snake. The perception (of myself as being ?) a Hindu, which has been going on for three thousand years is (part of ?) the same movement. So we are living in the field (of what is already known) all the time. That (mechanistic existence in the known ?) is destructive, not the (e-) machine. Unless that machinery of the mind stops we are going to destroy ourselves (in various creative ways ?) .
So, is there a (time-free ?) perception which is not born out of knowledge? Because when this (inner) movement (in the known ?) stops, there must be action.

A,C.: In other words, you act in the world (like the legendary Arjuna ?) , but nothing 'sticks' (to you) , no 'marks' are left. Nothing takes root.

K: Which means what? A (quality of holistic ?) perception which is not of knowledge. Is there such perception? Of course, there is an (inner quality of human) perception which cannot be computerized. But is our enquiry born out of the instinct for pleasure?

P.J.: I don't know whether it is for pleasure or for something else.

A C.: It doesn't matter whether the computer can do it or not. It is essential that we do it.

P.J.: Which leads to the position that there is something (a lot of inner stuff ?) to enquire into.

K: You see how deep-rooted it is!

A.C.: The (1000$) question is, what is the mechanism of the mind, what is the structure of the mind which operates with direct perception, with insight, with no accumulation.

K: Look how long it has taken just to come to that point, which is "perception without record". And why? Because we function in ( the linear logic of ?) time.

A.C.: In other words, you are saying is that we don't have to go through this process. If we have come to this point, and do not act, it is very dangerous, much more dangerous than not having a discussion at all.

K: That is what I am saying. It is a tremendous (potential ?) danger. Have you come to a point where you see what the mind has invented? - the machine which is the computer, drugs, chemicals, cloning, all this. It is the same as our minds. Our minds are as "mechanical" ( as artificially intelligent ?) as that. And we are acting always in that area (of the known?) . And, therefore, we are destroying ourselves. It is not the (e-) machine that is destroying us.

P.J.: One can say at the end of it, is that we have not done our 'homework'.

K: I am not sure if you are not back in ( the causal mentality of ?) time. You know, sir, a ( great ?) pianist once said, "If you practise, you are practising the wrong thing".

P.J.: This ( meditative homework ?) is not a question of practice...

K: Pupulji, we are handling a ('time' ) bomb. It may (or... not ?) go off any moment. I don't know if you realize that this is the 'real' revolution.

A.C.: And not only for ( the greater benefit of the local ?) teachers and students....

K: Of course, of course. So, sir, the (gist of the 'freedom from the known' ? ) question is the ending of that ('thought & time' ? ) movement, not ending ( the practical aspects of ) knowledge. This is the real question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Mar 2017 #560
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

3rd (and last) K Discussion With Buddhists Varanasi 11th November 1985

BEYOND THE LIMITATIONS OF SELF-INTEREST

KRISHNAMURTI (K): We all have self-interest; it is (covered up) in knowledge, in language, in science, in every part of our life and that has created havoc. So, I would like to ask if there a line of demarcation, where self-interest ends and where a state which is not self-interest begins? And where do we draw the line and say: here it is necessary, there it is not necessary at all? - in our everyday life; not in science, in mathematics, in knowledge. God is my self-interest, so are ceremonies, scholarship, science.

P1: When I try to discover myself in my relationship to other people, then I find an element of self-interest, and I can, with some effort, try to be free of this self-interest, and I do unburden myself to a certain extent.

K: You are missing my point: from childhood the problems begin - I have to go to school, I have to read and learn, I have to learn mathematics (and eventually). the whole of my life becomes a problem because I meet life as a problem . Problema comes from Greek; it means something hurled at you and you have to reply to it. . And I say, I don't want to live that way, it is wrong to live that way. So I am asking myself, does self-interest create the problem, or can the mind, brain, be free of problems and therefore tackle problems? You see the difference? I don't know if I am making myself clear. It is a fact that I have to go to school, learn, read, and so on. My brain gradually gets conditioned to living with (unsolved) problems, everything becomes a problem. So I come to you (K) to solve the problems the brain has, which may be (all ?) linked with self-interest.

P1: Creating or receiving problems and trying to solve them has become a rule of life for us, and this way of doing things nurtures my being.

K: Therefore your 'being' is a problem. Your identify with the country, with the literature, with the language, with the gods; you are (openly or subliminally ?) identified, therefore you have taken root in a place, therefore that becomes your 'being'. There is no separate being apart from that - no 'spiritual' being, I am entirely sceptical. So I say to myself, why have you made life which is meant to be lived like a tree growing beautifully, into this? You have destroyed (the wholeness of human ?) living by knowledge, by science, by computers - you have destroyed my living. I can retire into the mountains, but that makes no meaning.

P1: Why are you so keen to safeguard what you call 'living'?

K: I say, why do I (accept to ?) live this way? If I don't want to have (psychological ?) problems does not mean that I deny life. I don't want problems, therefore I meet problems. Because my brain won't work in problems, I can meet all problems.

P1: You are saying that (psycho-) problems should not enter, problems should not constrain your being? You don't want to deny life, but you want not to be affected by problems.

K: Why can't my brain be simple enough, free enough to say this (cultural heritage of self-interest ?) is the (central) problem and solve it? That is, the brain is free to solve it, not add another problem to it.

P2: If I may say so, sir, the problem does not come from outside; the problem arises in this brain, which feeds on this problem, which creates this problem. Why doesn't it immediately destroy it at that very instant?

K: Because it has not 'solved' (experientially ?) any problem.

P1: Does the brain have this capacity of 'ending'?

K: Yes, but I must make clear one point. The brain is the (processing ?) centre of all our sensations, all our reactions, our knowledge, our relationships, quarrels and all that. It is the centre of "our consciousness", and this consciousness we treat as 'my' consciousness. I say, it is not 'mine'; it is not personalized as 'K'. It is not 'mine' or 'yours' because every human being on earth (sooner or later ?) goes through this torture - (of loneliness ?) pain, sorrow, (search for ?) pleasure, fear, anxiety, uncertainty, hoping for something better and so on; that is our (shared ?) consciousness. So this (is the consciousness of ?) is humanity. I 'am' humanity - not all of you plus me. I am humanity.

P3: It seems to me that we know of two kinds of action: one which is thought out by the brain, calculated, and which therefore invariably contains the seed of self-interest, is motivated by self-interest. But there is also spontaneous action which we experience occasionally, which is born just out of love, not as a product of thinking. And because man does not know what to do with this kind of action he has cultivated what his brain can do well (in its material world?) , what it can calculate, what it can achieve, and the whole world is therefore filled with such activity, such action. And that has become our life. And the 'other', which is the vital, is occasional.

K: I am not coming to that for the moment. ( However) the 'mind' (the energy field of the psycho-somatic organism ?) is different from the (self-centred activity of the ?) brain - totally dissociated - has no relationship whatsoever. Love has no relationship with self-interest. The fact is that love may exist, but love and self-interest cannot exist together. The (personal 'psycho-)problems' have no meaning if the other exist. If the 'other' (dimension of being) is, problems are not.

P3: I would not say that the (predominantly self-centred) existence of our brain denies love completely.

K: Sir, I say it is like having occasionally ( for breakfast ) a bad egg. I want a good egg every day - not occasionally. So I am asking you all, where does self-interest begin and where does it end? Is there an end to self-interest? Or is all our action born out of self-interest? Occasionally I may look out of the window but ( the opening of ?) that window is very narrow; I am in a prison.
So please follow me for a minute. There is a tremendous order in the universe. A black hole is a part of that order. But wherever man enters he creates disorder. So I say, can I, as a human being who 'is' the rest of humanity, create order in myself first? Order means no self-interest.

P4: Sir, it is not easy to deny on the basis of our common consciousness the nucleus that comes to shape itself as the limited self, the acquisitive self, for which all the problems are real, not imaginary. I mean I have disease, I have death - in what way could these be considered as no problems?

K: Are you saying that the 'self' (centredness ?) is the (core ) problem? Why don't we say, if the self is the problem, let me understand it, let me look at this ( potential ?) 'jewel' without condemning it. The very condemnation is (creating ) the problem. Do you follow what I mean? Therefore, I won't condemn it, but let me first look at it.

P4: Sir, consider a person who has a thorn in his body and is feeling pain. The pain of the thorn is similar to the constraints and problems impinging upon the self.

K: If I have a thorn in my foot, I look at it first, I know the pain. I ask myself, why did I tread on it, why wasn't I aware of it? What is wrong with my observation, my eyes? If I saw it I wouldn't have touched it. Therefore I didn't see it. Only when the pain is there, then I act. So my (capacity of direct ?) observation is at fault. So I say, what happened to my brain which didn't see that? Probably it was thinking of something else. Why was it 'thinking of something' else when I am on the Path? So you see, sir?

P5: But in the case of our 'psychological' problems, the 'observer' and 'what is observed' are hopelessly entangled...

K: Let us stick to one problem, one issue. Where does self-interest begin and where does it end, and is there an 'ending' to it at all? And if it ends, what is that ( consciousness ?) state?

P6: Probably, self-interest begins with the self (-consciousness ?) itself and this self-(consciousness) comes with the (physical) body.

K: I am not sure...

P6: To my mind the very notion of self-(consciousness) begins with the coming into being of this body, and the self and self-interest go together. Self-interest can only end when the 'self' (consciousness) ends. And a part of this self-consciousness remains so long as the body remains. So, in an ultimate sense, it can only end with death. Short of that, we can only refine self-interest with the gradual perceiving of it, but we cannot wholly deny it so long as the body exists. That is how I see it.

K: I understand. They are discovering in science that when the baby is born and suckling, it feels secure and it begins to learn who are the friends of the mother, who treat her differently, who are against her; it begins to feel all this because the mother feels it. It comes through the mother - who is friendly, who is not friendly. The baby begins to rely on the mother. So there it begins. It felt very safe in the womb, and suddenly, put out in the world it begins to realize that the mother is the only safety. There it begins to be secure. And that's our life. But I question whether there is ( a real need for a 'psychological' ?) security at all.

P3: Sir, the (natural) instinct of self-preservation is present in the animal too, but when it evolved into man, it started creating problems. The animal does not create problems. If we believe what the scientists say, that man evolved from the animal, then he has all the instincts which the animal has. The essential difference is that man has in addition the ability to 'think', and this ability to think has also created all those problems. So, what you are really asking is, can we use this (evolutionary thinking) ability not to create problems but to do something entirely different?

K: Yes, sir that's right.

P7: The brain is the source of all problems. It has created the 'self' and also all the problems. You suggest that the brain can end ( creating ?) problems. Then what is the difference between that brain which has ended them and the 'mind'?

K: See, you are asking a question that involves (the psychological) 'death'. Before I can answer that question I must answer what death is. We know what is our birth, mother, father, all the rest of it, and the baby is born and goes through this extraordinary tragedy. It is a bigger tragedy than any Shakespeare ever wrote. So I know what is birth. Now, what is death? You tell me.

P1: When we were discussing 'time' the other day, you spoke of a (timeless dimension of the ?) 'Now' in which was contained all time, both living and death. The brain, having the capacity to see the flow of (our temporal) living, also has the capacity to reveal that ending which is death. That is the (scholastically correct ?) answer.

K: I said: (in te time-bound ) 'living' there is ( a psychological content of ?) attachment, pain, fear, pleasure, anxiety, uncertainty, and 'death' is out there, far away. I keep a careful distance. I have got property, books, jewels; that is my life. I keep it here and death is there. I say, bring the two together, not tomorrow, but 'now' - which means to end ( the psychical continuity of ?) all this now. Because that's what ( the real event of our ) Death is going to say: you can't take anything with you; so invite death and live with it. Death is 'now', not tomorrow.

P1: There is something lacking in this. I may be able to invite death now and the brain may be still for a time, but then all the (unsolved ?) problems of my life come back.

K: Suppose I am attached to him(or her ?) I have lived with him (her) , we walked together, We played together, (s) he is my companion, and I got 'attached' (got psychologically dependent on?) to him. So death tells me, "Free yourself ( of this psycho-dependence ?) now, not ten years later. And I say, Quite right, I will be free of (my attachment for ?) him. Though I am still his friend, I am not dependent on him at all. Because, I can't take him with me. What's wrong with that? You are not arguing against that?

P5: Which means, sir, you have to end all gratification...

K: No, I am not saying that. I said, end the attachment. That's all.

P8: Sir, is it possible to end that so long as the two bodies exist?

K: Oh, yes, sir. Our bodies are not tied together; they are two separate bodies. Psychologically I take him as a friend and get slowly attached to him inwardly. I am not attached to him outwardly because he goes one way and I go another - he drinks, I don't, and so on. But still he is a friend of mine. And death comes and says "you can't take him with you". That is a fact. So I say, All right, I will be detached now.

P3: Sir, isn't it that the problem comes not because you get pleasure from your friend or your wife, but because you begin to use that pleasure as a means of (self-) fulfilment for yourself, and therefore you want a continuity of that and you want to possess that person?

K: Yes. But you see, sir, you are not meeting my point. I asked you where self-interest begins and where it ends. Isn't this 'ending' more important than anything else? - ending? And what is then that state (of mind ?) in which there is no self-interest at all? Is it (the deep sense of 'love' that comes with this ?) 'death'? - which means an ending. ( Psychically-wise ?) death means 'ending' - ending (the psycho-dependency on ?) everything. So it says, 'Be intelligent, old boy, live together with death.'

P3: Which means die but keep the body. The other (physical) death is coming anyway.

K: (The death of the ?) body? Give it to the birds or throw it into the river. But psychologically, this tremendous (inner safety ?) structure I have built I can't take with me.

P3: Is ( this self-interest ?) an instinct, sir? Is it an inheritance through the genes?

K: Yes, probably. But animals don't 'think' this way; I have watched several animals.

P3: No, therefore I am not sure if it is an instinct.

K: That's all I am saying. Don't reduce it to an instinct, sir.

P8: What was that (weird ?) joke you were going to tell us?

K: A man dies and meets his friend in heaven. They talk and he says, 'If I am dead, why do I feel so awful?'

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 09 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 Mar 2017 #561
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 92 posts in this forum Offline

Concerning the topic of this thread, I was thinking what to me is the most important message of Krishnamurti and it would probably be this: We are fundamentally free and we alone are fully responsible for how we perceive, how we think, how we feel and how we act. We lose the freedom by being entangled in our dependecies, fears, wishes, beliefs, thoughts. And because we are fully responsible, only we can free ourself from these falsehoods. We are generally slaves to our mental states, we are driven by fears, by greed, by attachments, by our possessions. What we do not realize is that we do not have to be slaves of our mind, but we can become free in the now. For example if we (mentally) suffer, we are trapped in the suffering, we are slaves to it. But why do we suffer? Who forces us to suffer? Do we have to suffer? Or can we be free of it instantly, in the now? This message of the fundamental freedom of man and self-responsiblity for the states of our minds is for me the most important message of Krishnamurti. Buddha said something similar with his 4 noble truths: there is suffering and there is a way out of suffering. I was brought to this by reading the early talks

Krishnamurti in 1929 (same year as the dissolution of the order): "Every individual in the world, whatever his circumstances may be, is absolutely and entirely responsible to himself. In the self alone, therefore, lies the possibility, the power of freeing himself entirely, wholly, unconditionally from the entanglements, the corruption of imperfect love. He is the only person who can conquer his own weakness, who can master his own passions, who can control his own desires, and who is entirely responsible for his own ambitions. ....Knowing therefore the purpose of life, and knowing that the individual is entirely and absolutely responsible to himself, you overcome fear of any kind. It is fear that throttles, suffocates every human being. It is the phantom which follows every human being as a shadow, because he does not realise that for every action, and the result of that action, for every desire, and the fulfilment of that desire, he is wholly responsible. With that realisation fear of every kind disappears, because the individual is absolutely master of himself. When you have no fear you really begin to live. You live, not in the future nor in the past, neither hoping for salvation in the future nor looking to the dead past for your strength, but — because you have no fear — in that moment of eternity, which is NOW. It is NOW that matters, not the future nor the past. It is what you do, what you think, how you live and how you act NOW that has value. Truth is neither in the future nor in the past. The man who is not bound by fear lives entirely responsible to himself, concentrated in that moment which is NOW, which is eternity. For such a man there is neither birth nor death. Most people are afraid of death because they are afraid to live. They are more concerned about death than about how to live in the immediate moment, which is eternity, which is NOW"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Mar 2017 #562
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

THE HUMBLE NATURE OF INNER EXPLORATION (reader friendly edited from Traditionn & Revolution )

Questioner A: All our lives we have been thinking in terms of causality and trying to operate analytically on it. Buddha discovered the cause of suffering and was liberated from suffering. However, you say that (inwardly) the cause is (becoming) effect and effect is (becoming a new ) cause, and you point out that in this (succession of) cause and effect, time is inescapable. Can we explore the validity of the cause-effect sequence in respect of self-understanding.

Krishnamurti: What does it mean to 'explore'? What is the state of the mind which explores ? Now, I do not know the (deeper) causation of my actions. There may be obvious causes and other causes which are undiscoverable by the conscious mind. I can see the superficial causes for actions, but they may have very deep roots in the recesses of one's own being. Now, (a) can the conscious mind not only examine the superficial but also uncover the deeper? (b) Can the conscious mind ever examine the deeper layers? And (c) what is the state of the mind which explores? These three questions are important. Otherwise discovering the (immediate) cause has no (deeper) meaning.

So, (starting with c) what is the state of the mind, the (non-dualistic ?) quality of the mind that can explore? You say the Buddha said this, somebody else said that, and so on, but what is the quality of the mind that has the capacity, that can explore? Obviously, it must be a free mind. Have you a mind that is free from any conclusion? Otherwise you cannot explore.

A: We may have some unconfessed postulates but we can see them and drop them.

Krishnamurti: What you are doing (traditionally) is analysis. You are analysing step by step. When you analyse, there is the 'analyser' and the thing analysed. The analyser must be extremely clear-sighted to analyse, and if this analysis is in any way twisted, it is not worth anything. Moreover, the analytical, intellectual process implies time. By the time you have enquired through analysis, through time, other factors enter which distort the cause. So (in a nutshell ?) the 'way of analysis' is entirely wrong (for an authentic inner exploration) . So, there has to be a dropping of analysis.

A: The process of analysis is to us something concrete. You said that while we operate on the cause, some other factors enter. Does it mean the analysis of the problem becomes inconsequential?

Krishnamurti: I think the whole process is (experientially speaking ?) wrong. By the time I find ( the root cause of ) what I sought, I am exhausted, 'dead' (burnt out ?) . It is difficult with the conscious mind to analyse, to examine the hidden layers. So I feel this whole intellectual process is wrong. I say this without any disrespect.

A: We have only that tool - the intellect, as a means of objective self- examination. However, the intellect is only a fragment and therefore, the examination by a fragment can only bring about a fragmentary (partial) understanding. So, what do we do?

Krishnamurti: Has the intellect the capacity to examine (holistically) or does it examine only partially? If I see the truth of the fact that the intellect being partial can examine only partially and therefore I no longer use the intellect ( as a tool of inward observation).

A: When the mind turns away from analysis, it falls into other traps; so this has to be done rigorously with the intellect.

Krishnamurti: Analysis is not the way.

A: Then, with what instrument do we explore? You seem to arrive there by some path which is not analytical.

Krishnamurti: I tell you analysis is not the way of understanding. Why don't you see the truth that ( the subliminally dualistic process of ?) analysis is not the way?

A: In his effort to understand environment, nature, outer phenomenon man has developed certain instruments, and inwardly we use the same instruments; but they are inadequate.

Krishnamurti: Analysis, as a process, involves ( analyser's continuity in ?) time. As it involves time, it must be partial. The partial is brought about by the intellect, because the intellect is part of the whole structure.

A: Then what is the instrument which explores when you put this question?

Krishnamurti: Seeing that analysis is not the way frees the mind from a false process altogether. So the mind is (becoming) much more vital. It is like a man walking with a heavy burden and the heavy burden is removed.

A: But with us this 'burden' comes back...

Krishnamurti: The moment you perceive something to be true (or to be false) , how can it return? The moment you see that a 'snake' is dangerous, you do not go back to the snake.

A: The moment you see this clearly, the ( analytic) instrument stops operating.

Krishnamurti: But the (mind's perceptive ?) instrument is now very sharp, very clear; it abstains from any partial action taking place.

A: One comes to believe in the need for some support or for help when one comes to this point.

Krishnamurti: The fact is, our intellect is an incomplete instrument and cannot understand a total movement. Then what is examination? If the intellect cannot explore, what is the instrument that can explore? What do Sankara, Nagarjuna, Buddha say about this?

A: They say explore with the help of the "terra firma".

Krishnamurti: That is with partial energy, explore the whole energy (of one's being ?) . How can it?

R: The Vedantic concept is that with the intellect you cannot see, but with the Self or the atman, which is of the very nature of perception, you can see.

Krishnamurti: We are asking: What is the quality of the mind that can explore - mind being not only the intellect but the brain cells, the biological, the physical, the nerves, the whole thing, the total, the complete. This (integrated ?) mind asks what the nature of perception is that is total. And (once integrated ?) it may not need to examine at all, because that which has to be examined is of the partial field - division, analysis, exploration. I am asking what total perception is, what is the quality of total perception? When you look out of the window and see these bushes, how do you look at them? You are usually ( multi-tasking: ) thinking about something else and at the same time looking. If I (K) look at a picture, I look. I do not say this painter is so and so, this painter is better than somebody else. I have no measure. I do not verbalize. The mind has finished with the partial , so when I do look, I look.

R: The element of habit is so strong.

Krishnamurti: Therefore, the mind which is caught in habit cannot explore. So we have to (step back and) examine first the mind which is caught in habit and not exploration. We have to understand habit. Let us tackle that.

R: For us the usual perception is only there in the form of recognition.

Krishnamurti: Recognition is part of the habit of (mental) association. I am saying you cannot examine, explore with a mind which is used to habit. Therefore, find out the mechanism of habit. How have habits been formed? How is it that the mind falls into habit? Is it because it is the easiest way to function? I do not have to think (again) about it.

A: I look at a tree. I do not have to think about it. And yet the mind says it is a tree.

Krishnamurti: It is a (mental) habit. Why does the mind fall into habit? It is the easiest way to live; it is easy to live mechanically. Sexually and in every other way it is easy to live that way. I can live life without any change, because in that I find complete security. In habit there is no examination, searching, asking.

R: I live within the field of habit.

Krishnamurti: So habit can only function within a very small field. Like a professor who is marvellous but functions in a very small field; like a monk who operates within a very small cell. The mind wanting safety, security, no change, lives in (settled) patterns. This was an (analytical or ) partial examination. But it does not free the mind from patterns. So what shall I do?

A: Having seen that this partial understanding is no understanding, how does the mind free itself totally from habit?

Krishnamurti: I am going to show you: as you are no longer going to examine the causes of habit, the mind is free of the burden of analysis which is also part of our (cultural) habits. So you have got rid of it.

R: Yes, but...

Krishnamurti: No. It must go. Not merely verbally. (Bear in mind that ?) habit is not only symptomatic, but psychosomatic. When we have (experientially ) examined habit as we have done it here , it is over.

A: Then why aren't we free of habit ?

Krishnamurti: Because you started out saying "I know". There is a certain sense of arrogance. You do not say "I want to find out." Then what is total perception when the mind is free from habit? "Habit" implies ( on the mental level) conclusions, formulas, ideas, principles. ( Safely functioning in ?) habits is the essence of the observer.

R: It is all that we know of the "I".

Krishnamurti: That is where the damage is done, the damage which the other people ( of traditional wisdom) have established. I may prefer this one, or the other one, and so on. But I will not let ( the 'knowing' habit ?) go because that is both my vanity (and my psycho-security ?) . Therefore, Sirs, ( an attitude of authentic inner ?) humility is necessary: I know absolutely nothing, and I am not going to repeat a word which I have myself not found. I know this (relying on our past) knowledge is not the way of inner exploration . The 'door' which I thought was real is not 'the door'. What happens later? If I stop moving in that direction, I will (eventually ?) find out.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Mar 2017 #563
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

INNER ORDER AND (THE ILLUSORY SCREEN OF ) IDEATION (a reader friendly edited text from Tradition & Revolution)

Questioner A: The greatest hindrance to (direct) perception is ( our protective screen of ?) ideas. What is the difference between fact and the idea about a fact?

Krishnamurti: What is (direct ) perception, the 'seeing', to you? You see this chest of drawers; when you see this piece of furniture, do you have the image first or do you see first, have the image and then recognize?

R: Instantaneously the (mental) image arises, then we call it 'chest of drawers'.

A: There is a visual seeing, and the immediate naming.

Krishnamurti: So I do not have the image first. There is seeing,
( a memory processing as ) association, recognition, naming. That is fairly easy (in our interaction with material things) . I see you this morning. I saw you yesterday and, therefore, there is a certain 'image' of you. So ( for any relational purposes ?) that image 'is' you. But is there a (qualitative ?) difference between the physical object of perception and the mental image of perception? Take a simple thing. You see a snake. The brain cells are conditioned to ( recognise the danger of ?) snakes; they "know" that snakes are dangerous. The brain is conditioned from childhood to that danger and so it reacts.

A: Our (experiential) question is that even before fully seeing the fact, the idea about the fact arises which may not necessarily be factual.

Krishnamurti: Are you saying that there is (a reaction of) violence (such as) one feels (really) angry, then the naming of the feeling and the naming is to strengthen our (known experience of the ?) past?

A: I meet my brother. He has quarrelled with me and I am on
my guard when I meet him next. So I am unable to see him at all. I
am only seeing the idea.

R: The brain cells carry the image of the (previous) hurt.

Krishnamurti: There is ( a psychological reaction of ) violence, anger. At the very moment of ( the exploding ?) anger, there is no naming. A second later, I ( take a step back and ?) call it "anger". The naming of
that feeling as "anger" is to record that fact and strengthen the ( security of relying on the ?) past memory, which has recognized that feeling as 'anger'.

R: This is something which is different from naming.

Krishnamurti: We are coming to that. ( Outwardly) there is the "chest of
drawers", there is the "person", then all the emotional reactions.( And inwardly if ) one is (getting) angry; at the moment of anger there is no naming, a second later there is naming.
So, why do we name? Why do we say "I am angry"? Is it merely habit; an instant ( mental) response?

A: A defence mechanism starts (with namid) . The verbal recognition itself is creating a situation which says "I do not want to get into conflict."

Krishnamurti: That is one part of it - naming as a process of self-defence. Why does one name a particular reaction?

R: Otherwise, one would not feel (in control of whatever happens within oneself ?)

Krishnamurti: Why do I name? You have hurt me and I name it and form a certain self-defence.

A: If I did not name, there would not be a (sense of my ?) continuity.

Krishnamurti: Why does the mind give it a continuity?

R: To feel that it exists.

Krishnamurti: Why has naming become so important (for me inwardly ) ? I name my house, my wife, my child. Naming strengthens the 'me' (my 'self-consciousness' ?) . If I did not name, what
would happen? Anger would be over (or...it would take over ?) .
Why does the brain, the mind, likes to operate in continuity? Why is there this (constant) verbalization all the time?

A: Verbalization establishes that there is some (accumulative ?) residue .

Krishnamurti: Why do we do this? It may be a habit ( to 'play safe' ?) , a form of giving continuity to a sense of anger and the not ending of it. All
that indicates that the mind needs ( some self-centred ?) occupation. Now, why is the mind demanding to be occupied with money, sex, God, with? Why?

A: Because by doing this our mind gets 'stimulated' all the time. If there were no stimulus, the mind would fall asleep.

Krishnamurti: Is it so? Isn't this very 'occupation' ( mental chattering ?) putting the ( perceptive capacity of our ?) mind to sleep?

A: Perhaps, but then, why does our mind slacken when it is not occupied?

Krishnamurti: The moment we begin to enquire why there is this necessity for any kind of occupation, the (totality of our) mind is already (becoming) alive.

A: Mere absence of occupation is not enough...

Krishnamurti: Of course, there are many who get duller and
duller every day without any (mental) occupation. But the (experiential ?) question is why does your mind want to be occupied? Is it a fear of ( facing an inner sense of ?) "emptiness" that makes the mind want to be constantly occupied (pretending to be busy ?) ?
In ( an authentic inner ) enquiry the mind will not go to sleep. It is
only the mind that is not occupied which can enquire.
So ( in a nutshell: ) most of us fall into ( self-comforting ?) habits which prevent looking. (Eg:) I am (identifying myself as ?) a Hindu and for the rest of my life I am (remaining a traditionalist ?) Hindu. You are a
Muslim and for the rest of your life you are a Muslim. But if I ask
myself "why" I am a Hindu, I open the door to ( a rather uncomfortable process of self- ?) enquiry.
So naming may be part of this fear of not knowing what to do (outside the safety of the known experience ?) .

A: Fear of "leaving the shore of the known" ?

Krishnamurti: That is all. So (back to direct perception ?) can the mind, the brain cells, can they observe the (occuring) reaction called 'anger', not name it and so ( having the unique opportunity to ?) finish with it? If it does that, there is no (psychological) 'carrying over'. And therefore when next time (a new psychological) reaction arises, it has quite a different meaning, a different quality.

A: Our difficulty is that we meet ( our violent reactions such as ?) anger with ( the self-protecting screen of moral & ethical ?) ideas.

Krishnamurti: Let us begin again: I see the truth that by naming we give continuity (to our inner living within the field of the known ?) . So I do not name: I see the ( existential ?) 'danger' of it and do not touch it.
I see that the naming of the fact gives ( a time-binding) duration. So
naming is finished. Therefore, ( seen in a known-free context, the good-old reaction of ?) anger undergoes a (qualitative ?) change.

R: It seems as if during the moment when we are capable of directly
observing anger, anger disappears, but anger exists in the moment
when we are not capable of observing.

Krishnamurti: Suppose that you call me "a fool". I get angry because I do not like your calling me a fool. I see that. Then I also see the falsity of naming. So where is the (angry) response? Instead of naming,
this happens instantly (in no time ?) and therefore, there is no (personal) hurt (recorded ) at all.
Achyut 's initial question was : why do we have 'formulas' at all ? that is ( a self-protective shield of ?) ideas first and then perception, action.

A: Instead of one act of direct perception we have our deep (time stretching ?) conditioning. All these together, the cultural background, the sociological, the anthropological - give us a sense of (psychological) security (in a hectic real world) .

Krishnamurti: Why do you do this, Sir?

R: Because...we have been brought up that way ?

Krishnamurti: That is not good enough. Do you not know why
we do this? Because we know (we like to think that 'playing safe' inwardly?) is economically and sociologically beneficial. Tribalism still persists (in crude or sophisticated forms?) . Just try to 'step out' of the formulas, patterns of Hinduism, Islam, you will then see what happens...

Personally, I have no (such) formulas. But...why do you have them ?
(These ) formulations, which are (fool proof ?) patterns, give you a safe conduct in action. We lay down the line according to which we act and in that there is safety. So fear of insecurity must be one of the reasons why we have (subliminally shielded ourselves with ?) formulas, ideas. The (self-centred) mind wants to be certain. The brain cells function perfectly only when there is complete security. I do not know if you have noticed it in yourself. The brain cells function only when there is perfect order. And there is (a pretty good illusion of ?) perfect order in a (preset) formula.

A: You mean that also 'physiologically' we have an inbuilt desire for order ?

Krishnamurti: Even physiologically, if I do not have a certain
type of order, the organism rebels. ( An intrinsical sense of harmony and ?) order is absolutely necessary, essential. And...(living in preset ?) formulas is the safest way to have order.
Have you not noticed that before you go to sleep, the brain cells
establish order? "I should not have done this, I should not have said
that." And when going to sleep, unless you establish order, the brain
tries to create its own (compensative) order. These are all facts. The brain cells demand order which is security. And ( living in preset ) formulas are one of the safest ways of conducting one's life without disorder. Formulas are necessary for a mind that hopes to find (a mechanistic form of ?) order: It hopes to find order in
tribalism - the Brahmin tribe, the Hindu tribe, the National tribe -
and if you step out of that, there is danger (of sleeping in the street ?) . So to call oneself an Indian is to be safe. To belong to Jehovah, is to be treated as one belonging to that group. As long as I belong to some sect, some guru, I am (living in the perfect illusion of being) safe.
But what happens when I see the real danger, then what happens? Then I do not seek safety in formula, then I enquire whether there is safety in
any other direction, whether there is such a thing as safety.

A: But the brain needs safety.

Krishnamurti: The brain must have "order".

A: Order is not safety ?

Krishnamurti: Order is safety, order is harmony, but the very
search for (a pre-formulated) order ends in disorder. So, seeing this, I drop all formulas. This 'dropping' is (an inward act of ?) intelligence. In the very dropping the mind has become (hopefully ?) very intelligent. Intelligence is order. In "enlightenment" there is order. Therefore, the brain can function in perfect condition. Then all our relationship has quite a different meaning.
(To recap:) As long as the brain cells are seeking order in (the context of the existing socio-cultural ?) disorder, they do not see the nature of this disorder. They do not understand what is disorder. It is only when the brain cells reject tribalism, formulas, that in the very rejection is (an awakening of a timeless ?) Intelligence, which is (part of an Universal ?) Order.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 Mar 2017 #564
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

INNER BEAUTY AND DIRECT PERCEPTION

Questioner A: I think we should go into the question of perception
of Beauty. You said the other day that the tradition had ignored the
field of beauty. We need to explore into this.

Krishnamurti: So what is the question? What is beauty?

R: One source of tradition maintains that beauty is the sense of
happiness which comes when there is the ending of desire or thirst
for experience.

Krishnamurti: Is this a theory or a reality?

R: The writer expressed what he felt; after all, he wrote a long
time ago and only fragments of his writings remain.

A: Kalidasa says that the experience of beauty is new every
moment.

R: Both in ancient India and Greece there was this feeling that ultimate
perceptions are perceptions of beauty, truth and goodness.

Krishnamurti: Are we discussing beauty or perception? We will
discuss perception. What is the traditional approach to perception?

A: (The insightful ?) perception is seeing the self-nature of things, the essential quality of things.

Krishnamurti: I am talking not of 'what you see' but about the 'act of seeing'. Like hunger is in itself: it is not related to food.
Is there a seeing without (associating ?) the (mental) image, without the object?

A: What do you mean by 'seeing without object'? One can see without
( the interference of ) knowledge. As you say, there is a cupboard without the image but still we know it is a cupboard, which means it is an object.

Krishnamurti: There is the little bush, and whether I see it or
not, it will grow into a tree. It is independent of my seeing. I can
call it mango and, therefore, associate it with the species mango,
and the mango will grow even if I do not see it.

A: In the Buddhist meditation they have referred to sky when
they talk about perception without object. The sky is an object and
yet not an object.

Krishnamurti: The dictionary meaning of the word "perception"
is to become aware of, to apprehend. That is, when you see the cupboard and you have a preconception of it; that is not (pure) perception. Is there
seeing without preconception? Only the mind that has no
conclusion, such a mind can see. To look at that ( person or ?) 'cupboard' without my previous accumulation of prejudices or hurts is to look (free of the known ?) .
Is there a looking without the (previous) knowledge of the object? Of course, there is. Can you look at that tree, without the knowledge of the bush, the image, the symbol, and all the rest of it? Just look.
Someone came to see me. He was an (Italian ?) movie director. He had
taken LSD, and they had tape recorded it. He was sitting back in a
chair and waited for the effect. Nothing happened. He waited and
moved his position a little. Immediately the 'space' (the distance ?) between him and the object disappeared. The 'observer' before had ( a self-protective mental ?) 'space' between
himself and the thing he observed, which happened to be a flower.
The moment this (psychological distance or ?) space disappeared, it was not the flower, it was something extraordinary. (Unfortunately ?) that was an effect of the drug. But here ( in a 'drug free' meditation ?) it
is different. The space between the observer and observed is not;
the 'observer' is the holder of the knowledge and it is knowledge
that recognizes the cupboard. The 'observer' with his (background of ) knowledge recognizes the cupboard. . So the 'observer' is (the movement of ?) knowledge as the "past". Now we are asking, is
there a perception without the 'observer', that is, free of knowledge, which is the (guiding interference of the ?) past? Perception for itself, not for or about something.

R: If the knowledge of the past is not there, the 'observer' is not there.

Krishnamurti: Therefore, it is (experientially) possible to see without the
'observer'. I am saying "possible". We should not deal with theories but see that the (knowledgeable interference of the ?) 'observer'
is the (active ?) residue of the past. So this 'observer' cannot possibly see (the true nature of anything) . He can see only through the screen of the past. Therefore, this ( mental ?) seeing is partial. If there is to be ( a direct ?) perception, the 'observer' must not be there. Is there an act of perception, without the observer? 'Act' means immediate perceptive action, not a continuous action?
(The word itself, "act", means "doing", not having done or will do).
So, (the insightful) perception is an action, but not in terms of knowledge; not the action of the actor with his knowledge.

R: Traditionalists talk about 'mediate' and 'immediate' perception.
Mediate perception is through the instrument, through a medium,
whereas the immediate perception does not require a sense-organ
with which you see. Perhaps this 'immediate perception' is nearer to what you are talking about.

Krishnamurti: The perception of (backed by) knowledge and action,
is action from the past. That is one thing. Perception as action is
another.

A: Perception itself is action, so there is no time (gap) involved.

Krishnamurti: This 'time' interval (time delay ?) comes to an end between action and knowledge, knowledge as the observer. That knowledge and action is time-binding and the other is not. So this is clear. Then what is Beauty in relation to (this direct ) Perception?
What is necessary for the perceiving of Beauty? And, what is Beauty?
We say that a building is 'beautiful', that poem is 'beautiful', or
that woman is 'beautiful'. The feeling of a certain quality is beauty -so the physical expression becoming the means of recognition of beauty. I see a building, and say 'how marvellous'.
Now put that aside. (The inner sense of ?) Beauty is not (a matter of physical) expression. Beauty is not (in) the object. What is beauty then? Is it in the (eyes of the ?) 'beholder'? The beholder is
the (savvy ?) observer who with his past (experizncz & ?) knowledge recognizes something to be beautiful, because his culture has told him it is beautiful, his culture has conditioned him.

A: The woman who gives pleasure is 'beautiful', and when she (gets old and ?) does not give pleasure, she is no longer 'beautiful'...

Krishnamurti: What is the quality of the mind that has discarded everything that man has said about beauty because I see it (the essence of beauty) is not in anything that has been said.
Obviously this mind is very sensitive, because it was carrying a
(heavy cultural) burden before and now it is 'lighter'. Therefore, it is now more sensitive, alert, awake.

R: You said you have discarded the object and the (man-made) thought
which has created the object ?

Krishnamurti: Thought is the knowledge, which has been accumulated
through (a standardising) culture which says 'beauty is this'.
Thought is the response of memory which has created the (image of the ?) object. I have discarded (wisely put aside ?) all that, the idea of beauty as truth, goodness, love. The perception of these (artificial cultural values) is (has its own ?) action and the action is not "I am putting them away", but the putting away. This freedom implies not freedom from something, but 'freedom' (from the known ?). The mind is now?) highly sensitive. Then what takes place? The mind is free, highly
sensitive, is no longer burdened by the (conditioning of the) past; which means that in that mind there is no 'observer' at all; which means there is no (self-conscious ?) "me" observing, because the "me" observing is a very, very limited affair. The "me", the past, is the observer, the "me" is the past.

See what we have done? There is object, knowledge and perception;
through knowledge we recognize the object; and we are asking the
question, is there a perception without (the background of our past ?) knowledge, without the (all controlling ?) 'observer'?
And we ask again: what is beauty? Beauty is generally associated
with object; the object created by thought, feeling, thinking. And
we discard that. Then I ask myself what is the (inner) quality of the mind that has discarded. It is really free (of its 'known'?) Freedom implies a mind that is highly sensitive. In the action of (intelligent ?) discarding, it has brought about its own (integrated ?) sensitivity, which means there is no centre in that activity. Therefore, it is a 'sensitivity' without time, without a centre as the observer, which means a state of mind that is intensely (com)passionate.

R: When the object and the knowledge of the object are gone,
there is no 'focus' (for the new perception).

Krishnamurti: Do not use the word 'focus'. The mind discarding
what " is not (true?)", is free. The act of perceiving what " is not" has
released the mind and the mind is "free".

A: So, the act of perceiving (the false) and discarding (the burden ?) of that knowledge are instantaneous and simultaneous.

Krishnamurti: That is (the essential inner ?) freedom. The act of perceiving (of the false values ?) has brought about freedom, not from something. When the mind is so sensitive, there is no centre, there is no "me" in it, there is the total abandonment of the the self-consciousness (acting ?) as the observer. Then the mind is full of ( an intelligent & compassionate ?) energy because it is no longer caught in the division of sorrow, pain and pleasure. It is intensely passionate and it is such a mind
that sees (non-dualistically ?) what is "beautiful".

I see now something else: suffering is a partial activity of (one's total ?)
energy. It is a fragmentary (self-fragmented ?) energy.
(Our total ?) energy is (getting involved in ?) pleasure, energy is pain; to go to the office, to learn is energy. (However, for obscure survivalistic purposes ?) human beings have divided this energy into (specialised) 'fragments'. When there is no (isolated ?) activity of these fragments, there is a complete focussing of all (our inner) energy.

(Eg: suppose that ?) I hate someone and (at the same time ?) I love somebody else . Both are (expressions of my total) energy - fragmentary energy acting in opposite directions - which (eventually will ?) breed
conflict. Similarly, (my existential ?) suffering is a form of (my total ) energy; a ( polarised ?) fragment which we call "suffering".

So (in a nutshell ?) all our way of living is presently 'fragmented' . Each ( of these compartmentalised fragments ?) is fighting the others (or patiently waits for its turn ?) . Now, if (this fragmentation is transcended and ?) there is a harmonious whole, and that (integrated inner) energy is 'passion'. So (the experiential clue to that ?) energy is the mind that is free, sensitive, in which the (self-consciousness ?) "me" as the (identification with the ?) past is completely dissolved and, therefore, such a mind is full of energy and passion, and therefore that 'is' (the inner sense of ?) Beauty.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Mar 2017 #565
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

'ENERGY AND FRAGMENTATION'

Questioner A: After listening to yesterday's talk, I was wondering what is meant by this ( integrated ?) energy? We only know fragmentary energy.

Krishnamurti: Would you put it differently? Would you say that all (our inner ) energy is (presently in a fragmentary condition ?)?

A: Hear youring talks and looking at the fields of my daily activity, I seem to know nothing but the fragmentary energy.

Krishnamurti: That is ( a total) energy which is (being) fragmented.

A: I don't know what you are talking about.

Krishnamurti: There is the 'physical' energy, the 'intellectual' energy,
the 'emotional' energy, there is the energy of anger, of greed; they are
all various forms of energy, like human energy and cosmic energy.
They are all divided, but they are "energy".

A: I listen to you, but I never seem to (experientially ) come upon (the actuality of ?) what you're saying.

Krishnamurti: Traditionally it has been said thatthe sexual energy must
be controlled.

A: Traditionalists hold that unless all dissipations of energy are
halted, one will never know the "other". It does not seem to be that
way. Between this 'suppression' and the 'negation' you speak about, there
is no relationship. The truth is I only know fragmented energy.

Krishnamurti: It may be the traditional approach that holds us to
a particular pattern, to that energy which is fragmentary.

A: It may be because every form of energy we know is destructive. Our intellectual energy creates systems and patterns; our emotional energy is (wasted in 'love-hate' ?) reactions against other individuals.

Krishnamurti: Yesterday did the "speaker " not say that all energy
springs from one source of energy?

A: What you are saying comes from a different (loving ?) source. When our intellect sees its inadequacy, that is the highest truth the intellect can perceive. It is only when you come to this that there is the "other". All that we seem to know is the fragmentary energy , and you speak of something else.

Krishnamurti: Then what will you do? How do you stop the (ongoing ?)
fragmentation of energy?

A: I would not say 'how', because that action itself is a (self-) becoming
process.

Krishnamurti: Then what will you do? How do the traditionalists, approach this problem of various forms of energy contradicting each other and one form of energy assuming the dictatorship of the rest, trying to control, to suppress?

A: It is by (achieving the) 'shunyata', or (inner) voidness. Having eliminated (or negated all the fragments ?) , there is an (inner) "void". In that (inner) void is everything. Now, did you come to this (inner emptiness ?) spontaneously?

Krishnamurti: So, what is the question we were trying to discuss, or explore?

A: We only know the various fragmented expressions of
energy. Is it possible to see the entire field? Or is it a wrong
question?

Krishnamurti: If one fragment or many fragments exist, who is
the entity that is going to observe the totality of energy? Are our
minds so conditioned that we cannot break ourselves from our (fragmentary ?) conditioning?

A: We are so conditioned...

Krishnamurti: What is the problem? I have been seeing only
this fragment (pointing to a portion of the carpet) and you say this
fragment would not exist if there was not the total carpet. There is this
little bit of carpet which is part of this whole carpet. I am saying in
this fragment there are many other fragments. My whole life has
been spent in (dealing with fragments). You come along and say this
is part of the whole, this would not exist if the 'other' did not exist.
I agree that this can only exist because of the whole carpet but I have never, never looked at the whole carpet. And I do not know how to
remove my eyes and look at the whole carpet. If I could do that, there
is no contradiction. If I can remove my eyes and look at the whole
carpet, I see there is no contradiction, no duality. But if I say I must
suppress the fragment in order to see the whole, there is duality.

R: It is intellectually clear.

Krishnamurti: It is a very good exercise. Then what do you do?
The intellect is also a part. It is one of the fragments within the
carpet. I am still not looking at the carpet. If the 'intellect' sees,
my perception is back to the fragment.

First, intellectually I have to understand what is being said. This
is part of the whole. And as long as perception is focused on the
fragment, there is no perception of the whole carpet. You say I
understand this intellectually, you are looking at the
whole with different parts.

R: What is looking is also a fragment.

Krishnamurti: Therefore, deny the fragment. (Pause)
You see, we are used to reading in straight lines. Therefore, we
are always 'thinking in straight lines'. If we were used to reading,
like the Chinese, vertically, then our whole thinking would be
'vertical'. So our thinking itself is a linear thinking. All that is a form of
fragmentation. So, what is the question? Is there a (quality of ?) perception which is not 'linear' (horizontal ) nor 'vertical', and, therefore, non-fragmentary?
How do you see something totally? What is the capacity of
perception that sees the whole structure of human life, the whole
field, at a glance?

I think I see something: there is the whole (energy ?) field of life, the physical, the emotional, the intellectual, the psychosomatic existence; and in that there are various contradictions - sorrows, anxieties, guilts,
ambitions, humility, pride - this is the whole field of our (known) existence. Now, how does the mind 'see the whole' of this field? There is this whole field of existence; now, how do I look at this whole map with all the little bridges, hamlets, towns, all that at one glance?
You come and tell me, look, if you try to answer the whole of
existence through (emphasising) one of the fragments, you will only create more confusion. Therefore you say, the whole of it. You say that and 'disappear'. I see the beauty, logic, the sanity of it. I say, how am I to proceed?

A: There is very great intensity, passion in this because I also
feel this is the precipice. There is no sluggishness left. It is all there
at this moment.

Krishnamurti: You have this baby left in your lap. What is it that
prevents a total perception of this vast complex, existence?
Have you an answer? I have got it: When I enter the room, one object catches my eye. The lovely bedspread, and I casually look at other things. I say that is rather beautiful, the colouring, the design and it gives great pleasure. So, there is this whole field of human existence.
The eye catches the one thing. What is it that prevents the seeing of
other things; that which makes other things shadowy, distant?

R: The 'observer' ?

Krishnamurti: Go slow. That (catchy fragment ?) is beautiful but my observation of the 'other (of the totality) ' is still vague. Now, in this vast field of existence, I catch one thing and the
rest recedes, becomes very vague. Why is it that one thing becomes
important? Or why has perception focused on that? Why is my perception attracted to this only?

R: Because it is pleasant.

Krishnamurti: Which means, the element of pleasure.
There is this whole field and one thing only attracts me. So what
happens? I translate the whole field of my existence into
pleasure. I enter this room, I look at the bedspread and I say I like
it and there it is. And there is this vast existence and in it, the one
thing that attracts me is the maintenance of pleasure at any price.

A: For most people life is rather painful.

Krishnamurti: It is painful because we are thinking (of it) in terms of
pleasure. Pleasure is the principle, is the factor which is preventing
me from seeing the whole. I see this whole field of human life only in terms of pursuing pleasure. Doesn't that prevent total perception?

R: It is very complex. Here is the fragment which is part of the
whole. Then our attention is on this fragment. What is giving
attention is a fragment. So, my search for pleasure itself is a fragment ?

Krishnamurti: No, no. I want pleasure (and safety?) throughout all my life. I want sex, position, prestige, god, virtue, ideas - this is
understood - pleasure through everything.
And I do not see pleasure is the 'thorn'. I do not see that. So, in
(my everyday) perception there is one guiding factor, and if that is the guiding factor, how can I see the whole field which pleasure has brought
about? I want pleasure; therefore, I create a society which will give
me pleasure. And that society has its morality, and that morality is always based on the principle of pleasure.

Now, how can the mind see the whole of the field when there is only
the search for pleasure? What is the (thorny ?) 'factor' of pleasure? It must always be personal - it must be 'mine', not 'yours'. I may sacrifice my pleasure for the greater pleasure in collective work, but it is still
pleasure. The 'pleasure' factor is always 'personal'.
So, look what I have done, my life then becomes a movement of
pleasure (or of compensating the lack of it ?).

A: The validity of everything is pleasure.

Krishnamurti: So, as long as the mind is pursuing pleasure as
the "me"( I-me-mine ?) , how can I see this whole thing? Therefore (for homework ?) I must understand (this instinctual drive for ?) pleasure, not suppress it, not deny it.
So, (to wrap it up ?) it is important to 'see the whole (of one's existence ?), not the particular (aspects of it ?) and the
(emphasis on the) particular must always exist when there is the pursuit of pleasure. And there must be a (global) understanding of (this drive for) pleasure, not the cutting it off by the intellect.

A: It cannot really be cut off.

Krishnamurti: But what religions have taught is to 'cut it off' with the (help of the) intellect. That is the traditional way.
So, I see the central factor that when one thing becomes all
important, then I do not see the whole of life. Why is there this
pursuit of pleasure?

A: The pleasure principle is too strong, the biological needs are so deeply ingrained in us.

Krishnamurti: There is nothing wrong in that - we need good,
clean food. What is wrong with that? A clean floor to sleep on,
what is wrong? But see what happens - I must have it 'tomorrow'.
That means today's biological need has been made into tomorrow's
pleasure; which is: (our self-centred ?) thought has taken over. So (the time-binding trend of ?) thinking is the factor one has to understand, not pleasure.

A: We have come to see that pleasure is transferred in thought.

Krishnamurti: Now you have got it ! So, before you (try to ) do anything with pleasure, understand (the time-binding trend of your ?) thinking.
Before you strengthen pleasure, before you nourish it, first find out
what is thinking.

A: The movement of thought as (subliminally driven by safety and ?) pleasure has to be understood.

Krishnamurti: But it is thought itself which sustains this. What
shall I do with my (self-centred ?) thinking? How do I stop thinking about sex or food, how?

A: We started this dialogue with energy. At this point it( our total energy ?) becomes fragmented.

Krishnamurti: (The ego-centric process of our ?) thought in essence is the maker of fragments. Tradition has talked of the 'suppression' (or sublimation ?) of thought. ( So, for homework :) Act and forget it completely and do not carry it over.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Mar 2017 #566
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

A K DIALOGUE IN MADRAS, 1971

'INNER FREEDOM AND THE FIELD OF THE KNOWN (experientially friendly edited )

Questioner A: You were saying that the brain cells themselves are
conditioned by their biological and historical past, and you
said the structure of the brain cells could change. Could we go into
that? The brain cells seem to have an activity of their own?

Krishnamurti: The brain cells are receiving all the time; they are recording all the time, in the state of sleeping and in the state of waking. This recording is an independent movement (which eventually) creates the (the intellectual) capacity to think, to rationalize, which can then observe the operation of the movement of thought. And that is again part of the whole structure of the brain cells. So, what is your question?

A: How is the structure of the brain cells to change?

Krishnamurti: The intellect can be free only within the radius of its own tether (within the field of the known ?) ; in itself it is a limited (instrument?) . Freedom must be beyond this intellectual capacity, must be something outside the field.

( To recap:) It was said that the brain cells are the 'recording' machine. They are recording everything. This (ages old ?) recording capacity has created an instrument: thought's capacity to investigate, to explore, to criticize, which you can call the intellect. Then the intellect sees that there can be no freedom within the field (of its past experiences and knowledge) and (assumes ?) that freedom is outside the field of itself.
After having stated that, what happens? It sees that whatever movement
it makes is within the field. Whatever movement springs from it is
within the field; extend the field horizontally or vertically but it is
still within the field (of the known) . Therefore it is always within a ( 'high security' psycholological ?) prison.
This is the 'movement' man has been caught in. And not knowing
how to get out of it, he has invented the 'atman' (aka the 'soul' ?) .

A: The Buddhist (scholars) say this process is a 'dead-end' and that the (intelligent ?) perception of this dead-end is to see that in this (time-binding continuity ?) there is no permanency, and that rebirth is the rebirth of the ignorance of this process. So all that is given to you is
to see the impermanence, and seeing this, there is no attachment to
this. The Buddha saw only once - ( the truth about) disease, old age and death. Seeing it once, he never turned back. The boy Krishnamurti also never looked back. The Buddha said, see the impermanency of it, in that,
there is no effort at all, while Krishnamurti says just "see".

Krishnamurti: Then what is the (next experiential ?) question? How are these recording brain cells with their own capacity, their own
movements, how are they to 'switch off' and enter a different
dimension, even for a short period?

A: We came to the point where the intellect realizes that whatever it does is within the field (of the known) and then, what?

Krishnamurti: The question then is, is there a "movement" ( a different inner activity ?) other than this movement? Otherwise there is no freedom. A thinking that functions from a centre within its own radius, however wide, is never free. (Pause...)

A: When it asks is there another movement, I obviously cannot know it.

Krishnamurti: I know this (living in the known ?) is ( a highly sophisticated inner ?) prison. I do not know what freedom is.

A: Faced with this question, I have absolutely no mental instrument to deal with this.

Krishnamurti: No, you still have the instrument of rationalization,
the intellect. But I am asking, if there is no freedom within this field, then what 'is' freedom?

A: The intellect can never know.

Krishnamurti: The intellect can only know ( relative) freedom within the field, like a man knowing ( a certain) freedom (of movement) within
( the walls of ?) a prison. It then asks what is freedom? If this is not "it", then what is freedom? The intellect rejects that there can be no freedom because it is inconceivable that there is no way out of this prison. Is the human mind everlastingly condemned to live within this field? What is the point of it all? (Pause)

I have got it: (arrived at this major threshold ?) the mind says I do not know....but it may be still waiting for something ( miraculous) to happen. I see that ( "waiting for Godot" scenario ?) and I discard that. (Pause...) So ( the botom line is that ?) I really "do not know" and I am no longer hoping that something will happen, some (providential) answer will come from an 'outside agency' I am not expecting a thing.
There it is, the (experienial) "clue".
I know there is no freedom here. Man revolts against the whole idea that he can never be free, that he is 'condemned' to live (trapped ?) in this (self-enclosed ?) world. It is not just the intellect
that revolts, but the whole organism, the whole perception. Right?
Therefore it says "I really do not know". And that inner (state of ?) "not-knowing" is the freedom . (Psychologically speaking ?) "knowing" is ( a high security inner?) prison.
If I do not know what is going to happen (to me) 'tomorrow', I
am free of the (burden of my?) past, free of this field.

To live within the 'knowing' of this field is prison and not to know the prison is also not freedom. And so a mind that lives in the known, is always in prison. So, the mind that lives (inwardly ) in a state of 'not-knowing' is a free mind.

Can the mind say "I do not know", which means the (psychological continuity of ?) 'yesterday' has ended?
It is the knowledge of this (illusory ?) continuity which is the prison.

A: To pursue this requires 'ruthlessness'.

Krishnamurti: It requires a tremendous delicacy. When I
said I really do not know, I really do not know. Full stop. See what
it does. It means a real humility, a sense of austerity. Then, (the psychological burden of ?) yesterday has ended. So the man who has ended (died to ?) 'yesterday' is really beginning (born ?) again. I really do not know; what a marvellous thing that is. I do not know if I may die
tomorrow. Therefore there is no possibility of having any
conclusion at any time, which means, never to have any (psycho-) burden. This burden is (implicit in ?) the 'knowing'.

A: Can one come to this point and stay there? The mind has a way of switching back.

Krishnamurti: Do not put it that way. In the ( inner realisation that ?) "I do not know" there is no inclusion of the past nor a discarding of the past, nor a utilization of the past. The 'past' is knowledge, the past is accumulation, the past is the intellect.
So, the man who (sincerely ?) says "I really do not know" is free of the known.

R: But the structure of the brain cells doesn't remain ?

Krishnamurti: They become extraordinarily flexible. Being
flexible they can reject, accept; there is movement.

A: We see now something as (the perceptive ?) action.

Krishnamurti: Are you asking what is action to a man who does not know? The man who knows is acting from
knowledge and his action, his activity is always within the prison,
projecting that prison into the future. It is always (time-bound) within the field of the known. What is action to the man who says I do not know? He does not even ask, because he is acting.

You are missing something, which is: not to know whether your
'tomorrow' is there. Can you go into that? I will have my meal in the
afternoon, I will go for a walk; apart from that all action to a man
who knows is (inwardly a?) total inaction; his action is always (psychologically ) mischievous since such action is ( a functional) relationship in the field of the known. It is there in detachment, in
attachment, in dominance, in subservience. But relationship is the basic movement of life. Relationship within the field of knowledge is deadly, destructive, corrupt. That is the "worldly".
So, if you accept that all living is relationship, then what is action? There is the action (in the field of ?) of technology, but every other action is nonmechanical. Otherwise I reduce relationship into turning the wheel. That is why we have denied "love".

A: Can we examine our relationship with nature?

Krishnamurti: What is my relationship with nature - the birds,
sky, trees, flowers, the moving waters? That is part of my
life. I am talking of relationship to everything. How can I be
attached to the forest, to the river? I can be attached to the words,
but not to the waters. You see, we miss the whole thing because we
confuse the word with the thing.

A: Is it a question of re-awakening sensitivity?

Krishnamurti: No. The question is what is relationship? To be
related to everything. Relationship means care; care means
attention; attention means love. That is why ( an integrated ) relationship (with All that Is ?) is the basis of everything. If you miss that (point), you (inwardly) miss the whole thing.
Yes, Sir, to know is the prison and to live in the knowing is also the prison

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 #567
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

A K Dialogue in RISHI VALLEY 1971

SORROW AND THE MATRIX OF TRADITION

Questioner B: In Buddhism they mention three categories of
people in the world: the 'worldly' man who has his
pleasures, pain, etc; the 'path-winner', the person who has a glimpse
of the (right spiritual ?) direction (he wanders away but
always comes back, till such time when there is no more going
back to the first stage) ; then the 'arhat'.

Krishnamurti: Are you asking how is the worldly man to have a glimpse? What does tradition say?

B: The Buddhist tradition says that a man in sorrow has a
glimpse of this. Then he is the path-winner and then he 'works out'
his salvation and becomes an 'arhat'. My question is : what kind of operation or movement is involved in the second stage?

Krishnamurti: It is a question of ( the 'observer vs observed' ?) duality. Being in the world implies duality, then there is a getting a glimpse of a non-dualistic state and the getting back to the dualistic state; is that it?

C: They say there is no duality at all, but on account of the
intellectual (self-centred ?) process you create this duality. Once you realize the (truth of ?) non-duality, then there is no question of 'worldliness' creeping into it.

Krishnamurti: The mind caught in the dualistic state, by
negating its beliefs, rituals, etc., will it come to the "other"?
One lives inwardly in a dualistic state in which there is pain, sorrow, conflict and all that. That is a fact. And man says, how am I to get out of it? The 'nondualistic' state is ( for him) merely a theory. He might have read about it, but it is (just a) second-hand information. It has no (experiential ?) value. I only know the dualistic state in which there is sorrow, pain. That is a fact. That is from where I'd start.

C: Some people who have inner conflicts and misery do realize that the
dualistic state is the cause of the trouble. So they want to get rid of
it. Some others do not start from this, but they feel discontented and read, and having read, they start imagining the ( potential benefits of a ?) non-dualistic state.

Krishnamurti: The fact (of duality ) is one thing and the idea about this fact is another. We are not concerned with the man who (is indulging in ?) the conclusions derived by a ( scholarly ?) specialist. We are
discussing about a man who (realises that he) is (living ?) in (a state of inner confusion and/or ?) conflict and is discontented with that conflict. How does he get out of it?

C: The traditional way is that man attains by negating (the false) and resolves by ( the right kind of ?) knowledge.

Krishnamurti: Proceed step by step. Suppose that I ( realise that ?) I am in conflict. Now, how do I "resolve" it? You say by knowledge. What is this 'knowledge'?

C: The realization of conflict is knowledge.

Krishnamurti: To know that I am in conflict, is that knowledge? Or do you call knowledge what I should do about that conflict? What is the sanskrit equivalent of this word?

C: Jnana.

Krishnamurti: What does that mean? Is it the knowledge about the cause of conflict?

C: Jnana will also apply to the nature of conflict and how it
arises.

Krishnamurti: To know the cause is to know the structure and the nature of pain. Do you call that knowledge?

C: Sir, jnana has been divided as that which pertains to the
phenomenal world and that which refers to the non-phenomenal
world.

Krishnamurti: We know what the word "knowledge" is. What
do you mean by the word "conflict"?

C: Dwandva - conflict between the two - pleasure and pain, happiness and sorrow.

Krishnamurti: So let us proceed: I am in conflict: I am unhappy and I want to do something which makes for happiness. I acquire knowledge about it by seeing the cause, the nature, the structure of this conflict. The
understanding of the cause, the nature, the structure of this conflict
is knowledge: And knowing that, having this (scholarly ?) knowledge, will it free the mind from conflict?
Suppose I know that I am jealous because my wife looks at another
man or you have a better job than me. I know ( the immediate cause of ?) why I am jealous. I would like to be in your place. I would like my wife not to look at you: I know the cause, I know the effect; the reaction of it is I am jealous. I see the full structure of it as an engineer sees a structure, but.... this 'knowing' does it free me from it? Obviously it does not.

C: The knowledge which will resolve conflict is the kind of
knowledge in which there is no duality.

Krishnamurti: How do you know - because somebody else has said it?

C: By looking into why jealousy arises. Why should I be
jealous?

Krishnamurti: That is analysis. Does analysis free the mind from conflict?

C: Analysis alone will not.

Krishnamurti: Knowledge is the result of analysis. I analyse. I
see why I am jealous. I was angry with my wife and so on, and she
has left me. Does this knowledge free me from the (subliminal ?) fear of living alone ?
I am jealous because I have tried to 'possess' her, and I want to possess her because I am afraid to live alone - this is part of the knowledge (provided by self-analysis) . And you are saying that this knowledge is going to free you from jealousy. Does it?

C: No, Sir. I may analyse jealousy, or I may also say what does it matter if she goes? It all depends on the (degree of attachment of the ?) individual.

Krishnamurti: That is all intellection. Intellection is part of
analysis. As long as there is the intellect, knowledge, you are not
free. So all this knowledge is intellectual.

C: "Jnana" is not this intellectua1 process. The intellectual
process ends with manas and buddhi.

Krishnamurti: So you are saying there is another factor which is
beyond intellect, knowledge. Analysis, accumulation of knowledge
through analysis is one kind of knowledge, and there is another,
some other factor beyond that.

C: Yes, which enables the "buddhi" (the timele-free intelligence ?) to see, to discriminate.

Krishnamurti: Then what will end conflict? Do they say there is a superior entity ?

C: They postulate an 'entity' which does not (need ?) experience.

Krishnamurti: This postulated 'entity' is another opinion which I
have acquired from somebody else.
(To recap:) First I am becoming aware, I get to know that I am (inwardly living ?) in conflict. I try to analyse it. Through analysis I have acquired the knowledge that I am jealous, and why I am jealous, but apparently that knowledge cannot get rid of jealousy. Then what will get rid of it? Do not invent a 'superior Self', since I know nothing about it: I know only conflict, analysis, knowledge and I see knowledge does not get rid of conflict.

B: What is the sub-stratum of all (human) experience? What is that out of which all experiences arise?

C: Traditionalists consider that 'knowledge' as gathering of
experience, memory, belongs to the realm of manas and buddhi,
and this is made possible by the atman which sheds light, and
without atman, the manas cannot function.

Krishnamurti: What is the material (support) upon which experience
leaves a mark? Obviously, the brain cells are the material on which every incident leaves a mark, every experience, conscious or unconscious. All the time the brain is receiving. I see that flower, it has
already registered; I see you, it has already registered. A constant ( sub-conscious ?) activity of recording (and/or remembering ?) is going on. It is there. The racial inheritance, the personal inheritance; all this is leaving a mark on the brain. So brain is the repository of all recording - sensory, nonsensory.
That is the "tape" (or 'flash memory' ?) which has been collected for centuries. That is ( the basis of any ?) knowledge. But this (accumulated ?) knowledge does not necessarily free the mind from conflict. Right? Then what will free the mind ?

C: Thinking about it is not realizing it. The only experience which they cite is that you have a sound deep sleep and you wake up. How do you remember that you had a sound sleep? In deep sleep the mind does not work.

Krishnamurti: How do you know when it does not work? The
brain cells are working (24/7 ?) day and night.
So, how can the mind resolve the factor of sorrow? It can only resolve it by looking at it without knowledge.

C: Is this possible?

Krishnamurti: Test it out. Then how do I look at suffering - with knowledge or without knowledge? Do I look at it with the 'eyes of the past'? Do I look with eyes which are filled with the (experience of the ?) past, therefore, translate everything in terms of the past?

B: We cannot use the past as a means to free ourselves from
suffering.

Krishnamurti: Then you are directly in relationship with suffering, not the 'observer' observing (his burden of ?) 'suffering'. I look at suffering without the image and the image is the past. If the mind can look at it without the ( accumulated knowledge of the ?) past, there must be a different meaning altogether. So, I have to test it. Can the human mind look without (relying on its ?) past memory? Can I look at that flower without past knowledge? Test it; you can do it or not do it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Mar 2017 #568
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

A K DISCUSSION IN RISHI VALLEY (1971)

THE GURU, TRADITION AND INNER FREEDOM (reader friendly edited)

Krishnamurti: Could we enquire if there is anything new in what we are saying ?

SW: Even in the traditional approach , we find two clear directions. The 'orthodox' direction which goes by verbal interpretation of facts and the
'breakaway' tradition, as seen in Dattatreya and the Yoga Vasishtha.
The seers who broke away, said "no guru", "We have discovered it
for ourselves", "I will not swear by the Vedas", "the whole of
nature, the whole world is my guru", "observe and understand the
world". Buddha's teaching represents the core of the breakaway pattern. If you read the Yoga Vasishtha, it says that the mind is full of
thoughts, conflicts; and these conflicts arise because of desire and
fear; unless you are able to resolve them, you cannot understand. It
talks of 'negative' thinking. The Yoga Vasishtha says that
giving initiations and such other actions are meaningless.
Awakening of the disciple is in (his own) right understanding and
awareness. That alone is the most primary responsible fact.

R: How is it that the 'guru' tradition has become so important (in India)?

Krishnamurti: Shall we begin with that? What does the word "guru" mean?

SW: "Desika" is the right word, not 'guru'. Desika means one
who helps to awaken the disciple; one who helps the seeker to
understand. The word means "one who learns". "Guru" means vast, beyond, great.

Krishnamurti: The guru is one who is great, beyond, one who is
profound, then what relationship has he to a disciple?

SW: In the Upanishads, it is one of love and compassion. The
Upanishads maintain that compassion is the (true) contact between the
guru and the disciple.

Krishnamurti: How has that tradition now become 'authoritarian'?
How has a sense of discipline, of following, of acceptance of
whatever the guru says, how has that been introduced into the
relationship? The authoritarian, compulsive, destructive
relationship comes in the way of real thinking, it destroys (any intelligent ) initiative. How has this relationship come into being?

SW: It is difficult to say. The two approaches must have existed
for a long time. In one tradition, the "guru" is taken as a friend, as a
person the disciple loves; in that the "guru" is not authoritarian at all.
The other tradition exploits. It wants authority, followers.

R: We come back again to your first question - apart from the question of gurus what is the fundamental answer to life?

Krishnamurti: I wonder if we could find out. Question me about everything, from the beginning to the end. It is like going to a well with tremendous thirst, wanting to find out everything. Do it that way, Sir. Then I think it will be profitable.

SW: Then: (just a quick question ?) Can I be absolutely free?

Krishnamurti: Break all the "windows", because I feel wisdom is
infinite. It has no limits, and because it has no frontiers, it is totally
impersonal. So with all what you know and what you have
understood from your own meditations, from your own life, you
come to me. Do not be satisfied by just a few words. Dig deep.

SW: I would like to know, how you came to it yourself?

Krishnamurti: You see, Sir, he ( 'K' ) apparently never went through
any practice, discipline, jealousy, envy, ambition, competition,
wanting power, position, prestige, fame (since from the beginning ?) he did not want any of them. And therefore there was never any question of giving up. So when I say "I really do not know", I think that would be the truth.

A: You may have had nothing to 'give up' and therefore no need for self-
discipline, no sadhana, but what about people like us who have something to give up?

Krishnamurti: I really could not tell you. What importance is it how I got it?

SW: It is curiosity, it is joy.

Krishnamurti: Let us go beyond that.

SW: But the moment you speak about awareness, attention, sensitivity, one is so full of wonder, appreciation. How did you come to this? And when we analyse what you say, it is so rational and so full of meaning.

Krishnamurti: The boy (K) was not conditioned by the tradition nor by any other factors through his life -it did not touch him. First of all, I do
not know why it did not touch him. How is it that a man like K, not having read the sacred books, the scriptures of the east or west, how is it that not having experienced, given up, sacrificed, gone through the gamut of all this, how does he say these things? I really could not say, Sir.

SW: I am not asking how you came by it but in your talks there is
such cogency, rationality, such perfect logical sequences. It comes
and the listener finds beauty, joy. It is in his heart.

Krishnamurti: It comes - not from the heart or from the mind, but 'it' comes. Would you say that it would (probably ?) come to any person who is really nonselfish?

SW: Perfectly, yes.

Krishnamurti: I think it would be the most 'logical' answer.

SW: Or is it that you saw the misery of mankind and then got
it?

Krishnamurti: No. There was that boy and he had never read philosophy, psychology, or the sacred books and he never practised anything. (But ?) there was the quality of speaking from "emptiness". You understand, Sir, there is never any accumulation (of residual knowledge ?) from which he speaks. So your question involves a much greater question, which is, whether ( Divine ?) Wisdom or whatever you would like to call it, can be contained in any particular consciousness or It lies beyond all particular consciousness?

Sir, look at this (Rishi Valley) valley, the hills, the trees, the rocks - without the (physical) content of the valley, there is no "valley".
Now (similarly) if there is no (active psychological ? ) content in our consciousness, there is no (self-)consciousness - in the sense of the limited consciousness . When you ask a
question, "How is it that he says these things?" , what can be answered, is that when "It" happens, the mind is completely empty. This does not mean that you become a "medium".
So, having said that what (else) would you want to find out? You have capacity, you have read a great deal, you have knowledge, experience, you have practised and meditated - from there, ask.

SW: ( Self-) consciousness is bondage. Only from emptiness can one
have entry into It.

Krishnamurti: So you are asking how can a human being empty
the mind?

SW: There is this traditional idea that there are three levels or
(qualitative) differences in the persons who can receive (this wisdom ?) or learn and what one can learn, depends on that difference. They are mentioned as 'sattva', 'rajas' and 'tamas'.
Those who belong to the first category - "sattva" - can have (a total)
understanding just by 'listening' to a teacher. The "rajas", category have to listen first and recollect it when they face a problem of life. The "tamas" ones cannot learn (this kind of stuff ?) because their minds are too gross. Now, in order to make the mind subtle, there are many methods, upasanas. Yoga starts with breath-control, meditation, the standing on the head. Even then, they say these asanas are only meant as a cleansing. It is said, "Whatever you do, be passive, observe 'what
is'".

Krishnamurti: You say, as human beings are now constituted, there
are levels, gradations of receptivity. They are not through with the
(self-) 'becoming' process and for such people, is it possible to come upon this?

SW: That is one part of it. The other is that with most people,
there are moments of understanding. But they slip away. It is a
constant struggle. What does one do?

Krishnamurti: Knowing there are levels, is it possible to cut across these levels?

A: I'd say that my life is a life of becoming. But when I come and listen to you saying that time is irrelevant, I say "yes" because it is clear, but later on I am back again in the field of time, effort, etc., and this thing which I feel I understand, slips away.

Krishnamurti: When I listen, I seem to understand, but when I go away it is gone. And the other point is, how is one who is not bright, to break through his conditioning and come upon it? What is your answer to this?

SW: The traditional answer, let thisvman do some type of meditation by which the mind is made much more alert.

Krishnamurti: First of all take a mind that has no capacity; how is such a mind capable of seeing, understanding, without practice, without the
time process? My mind is dull. My mind has not the clarity to understand this thing immediately. So you tell me to practice, to breathe, to eat less, you ask me to practice all the methods and systems which will help to make my mind sharp, clear & sensitive. All that involves time and when you allow time, there are other factors which enter into the mind, so before I reach there I see something beautiful and I am carried away. The ( Narrow) Way is not a straight path on which I walk. Innumerable factors are happening and these incidents, happenings, impressions are going to change the direction of movement. And that thing which I am trying to understand is not a fixed point either.

A: This point that (the understanding of ) Truth is not a fixed thing should be explored.

Krishnamurti: My mind is confused, is disturbed, and you tell me to understand by doing these things. So you have (implicitly ?) established this 'understanding' as a fixed point, and it is not a fixed point.

SW: It ( the understanding of truth ?) is not a fixed point.

Krishnamurti Obviously. So, that (gradual) way (of understanding ) is not the way at all. I say that is a false (approach) altogether. Then as you are denying the whole (time-factor ?) thing, you have wiped away a tremendous field of practices, meditations and (inner) knowledge. Then what have I left? I am (still) left with the fact that I am (inwardly ?) confused, that I am 'dull' ( unperceptive) .

Now, ( as an analytical detour ?) how do I know I am dull, how do I know I am confused? Through comparison, because I see that you are very (bright &) perceptive and through comparison I say, "I am dull".
(However, if ?) I do not compare (myself with you ?) and see that through comparison I have reduced myself to a state which I call 'dull',
am I "dull" then, if I do not compare?
So (to recap:) a) I have rejected the 'fixed end' to which you evolve through time (in order to reach) Enlightenment. and b) I realise that comparison ( with the 'wise guy' ?) is not the way either .

SW: Does it mean that this (inner ) understanding is not vitally connected with (one's sensitivity & mental ) capacity at all?

Krishnamurti: I listen to you, but I do not understand. I do not (even) know what it is that I do not understand, but you show it to me - time, process, fixed point, etc. and (if ?) I deny them, what has happened to my mind? In that very rejection (of the false inner approach ?) the mind has become less dull. The rejection of the false makes the mind clear; and the rejection of (self-) comparison which is also false, makes the mind "sharp".

So, if I have completely rejected ( inner & outer ?) comparison and conformity, what have I left? The (inner) thing I have called dull is
not dull. It is "what it is". What have I left at the end of all this? I will not measure myself with somebody who is ( presumably ?) superior to me and I will not tread this (traditional) Path which is beautifully laid down for me. So I reject all the structures which man has imposed upon me to achieve enlightenment.

So, I start from the beginning. I know nothing about enlightenment, (self) understanding, process, comparison, becoming. I have thrown them away. I do not know. ( Achieving 'spiritual' ?) knowledge is
the means of getting hurt and tradition is the instrument by which I
get hurt. I reject that instrument and, therefore I start with a (state of ?) complete innocence (or 'not-knowing' ?) . Innocence means a mind that is incapable of being hurt.
Now, I say to myself, why go through all that (accumulative) process if I
have to discard it? Why did you not tell me do not compare; ( since the direct perception of ?) truth is not a fixed point? Cn one flower in goodness through (constant ) comparison?

Can ( the authentic inner ) humility be gained through time, practice? Obviously not. So why don't you tell me: "you know nothing and I know nothing, let us find out if what all the things human beings have imposed on other human beings are true or false". I think
that is why, Sir, the so-called 'man of error' is (at least ...potentially ?) much nearer the Truth than the man who practises to reach the Truth.
A man who "practises truth" becomes impure, unchaste.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 23 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 #569
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

A K DIALOGUE ON "FREEDOM AND THE PRISON" (experientially friendly edited )

Krishnamurti: Could we discuss this morning what ( the authentic ?) perception means ?

SW: When I come to this room, I see the design of the carpet. Very soon I am seeing and not seeing. The physical eye is also not seeing all in a uniform state. In the awareness of "I see" there must be some factor other than the physical contact of the object and the senses . The first awareness of inattention comes to me that way.

Krishnamurti: I have not come to that point. I am trying to
understand what that word 'perception' conveys. All that I know is that there is a sensory perception. I see you sitting there. Then there is the (mental) image which sensory perception plus the intellectual capacity of thought holds. That is what we generally call perception, is it not?

A: I see an object. Then there is an image of that object. Then
there is the memory of that image. Then I see something else and
again the whole process begins.

Krishnamurti: All the sensory impressions, the impressions that
are recorded, the conscious and the unconscious, the various
images, conclusions, prejudices, all that is involved in ( the everyday) perception - thousands of images are recorded and held in the brain cells. And when I meet you I turn on attention and the images emerge.
This is what we call perception, is it not? This is the machinery that
is in operation in the word 'perception', is it not? This is the
ordinary operational process of ( our everyday) perception. Now, what is wrong with it?

A: Is not the factor of sensitivity and the varying degrees of
sensitivity a vital element in perception? My perception of squalor is different from that of yours. Can you separate perception from the degrees of sensitivity? Perception is not the same to you and me.

Krishnamurti: When I have (stored ?) all these accumulated images,
conscious or unconscious, my mind is loaded with them. Where is
the place for sensitivity?

A: Perception is not a passive act of memory. There is always
something new in every new perception. But with
every new response the factor of degree is inherent. I do not understand why and from where the degree comes, because ignorance is imponderable.

Krishnamurti: The mind which is crowded with (its past ?) impressions and information about the object, 'sees', but its whole
structure is never empty. It is full and through this burden it looks at you with its associations, with jealousy, pleasure, pain.
What is wrong with that?

R: I am never face to face. I see there is sensory perception,
then the images, then the like, dislike; those are facts also, but they are
facts which I do not realize.

Krishnamurti: They are facts, as much as the fact that you are
sitting here. Then what takes place? Each time I see you through a
( self-protective mental ?) screen. What is wrong with that? Is it not a natural process?

SW: In that state I do not 'see' at all.

Krishnamurti: First I want to be clear about this. There are
thousands of impressions, sensory perceptions, thousands of conclusions - let us cover the whole of that (active mental background ?) by the word "conclusions". I look through ( the protective screen of ?) these conclusions, and each succeeding sensory perception thickens my previous 'conclusions'. This is the process which is going on all the time, all through life. So this image-making and its 'conclusions' are of the past, while the sensory perception is immediate. So, I am looking at you through the 'eyes of the past'. That is what we are doing. Now, what is wrong with it, Sir? What started with (a new sensory ?) perception is not perception at all, all our visual perceptions are (ASAP ?) translated in terms of (mental) 'conclusions'. Now, what takes place? That is a fact which we all know. That is the movement of tradition, is it not? Experience, knowledge, tradition, all that is contained in the word "past" and n the word "conclusion"; and that is the (acting ?) structure of the brain cells. The brain cells are (storing and relying upon the memory of ?) the past because in that there is safety - both in the biological processes as well as in the psychological accumulations. In that there is tremendous safety.

SW: How is there safety? Am I really safe?

Krishnamurti: Do not question it yet. Otherwise you would not know your name, you would not know how to go to Bangalore or wouldn't recognize your wife. ( In living safely ?) in that field of tradition, knowledge, experience, conclusions, there is nothing new,
therefore there is nothing disturbing, therefore there is an (overall) feeling of complete safety.

SW: Agreed, there is nothing to disturb.

Krishnamurti: Anything new is (potentially ?) disturbing and as the brain cells need order they find this order in the past.

A: But to come back to your question, what is wrong with that?

Krishnamurti: There is nothing wrong in that. I am enquiring
into the nature of sensory, visual perception, into the operations of
the brain, the mechanism of thought, and how the mind operates;
there is safety in sensory perception, image, conclusion, the past.
All that is (the inner movement of ?) tradition. In tradition there is safety: In the past there is complete security.

SW: But this security also implies struggle.

Krishnamurti: ( The need for inner) security implies the sense of not wanting to be disturbed. I do not know if you have noticed it: the brain needs ( a deep sense of protection & ?) order. It needs order and therefore it will find its order in (the existing outer & inner?) disorder and ( eventually ?) becomes ( inwardly dull or ?) neurotic. See this?
The brain demands order because in order there is security.

SW: That is perfectly clear.

Krishnamurti: In ( following the safe ways of ?) tradition there is ( a sense of ?) order. In continuity there is order. The brain seeking order creates security, a harbour where it feels safe.
And ( if someone like ?) K comes along with revolutionary ideas and tells you, this is not ( an authentic ?) order, there is a conflict between you and him. You reduce life's new (challenges ?) in terms of the old and there find ( a static ?) safety & security. Why does the mind do this?

A: We have discovered something - that the moment I see
something new which creates a disturbance, my "perception" is the
instrument by which I convert the new into the old.

Krishnamurti: That is the biological process of the (animal ?) brain. It is a biological necessity for the brain, because in that it finds the most
efficient way of working. Now, unless these brain cells themselves understand the ( potential) danger of ( fully relying on their experience of ?) the past, the danger of ( instinctively ?) seeking security in the past, these brain cells will not ( be ready, able and willing to ?) see anything new. ( Or even ?) if they see something new, they will (process or ?) 'translate' it in terms of their old (experience) .
Therefore, the brain cells themselves have to see the immense (psychological ?) danger of what they consider security in the past.

A: Which means a total (qualitative inner ?) change.

Krishnamurti: See the beauty of it ? This is the truth and that is why it is
beautiful. How is the (old ?) brain which is so insistently demanding security, how is that brain to see that in the past there is no ( actual ?) security, but always in the new?
The brain cells are seeking security, both in disorder and in
order. If you offer a system, a methodological order, the brain
accepts it. That is the whole biological process. That is the whole
traditional process - security in the past, never in the future, never
in the present, but the absolute security in the past. Absolute.
And that is (living in the area of ?) knowledge: biological knowledge, technological knowledge and the knowledge which has been gathered through experience. In knowledge there is security and knowledge is the
past. So what is the next question?

SW: There is also a 'modified continuity' in this process. This creates
the general feeling of our 'progress'.

Krishnamurti: The moment you have knowledge it can be
continued, modified, but it is still within the field of knowledge;
the whole thing is there. What is wrong with this?

SW: All that you say is factual. However, there is another factor: there is something radically wanting in this.

Krishnamurti: What is this (obscure feeling that ?) something is not quite right? I will show you: the mind is always a prisoner. Its present life is a repetitive, mechanical continuity with no ( authentic sense of ) freedom, but it still wants freedom, because in freedom there is joy, there is beauty, there is something new happening. So it pursues God, Truth, Enlightenment, but is always anchored to the past. This anchorage is biologically necessary. Can the brain see that its knowledge is ( at the practical level is ) essential and can
the same brain also see the (inner ?) danger of ( holding on to the ?) knowledge which brings about division?

Doesn't ( our 'psychological' ?) knowledge bring division? Isn't this (kind of ?) knowledge the factor that divides?

SW: Yes, of course...

Krishnamurti: Do not agree. "See." Can the brain cells seek
security in ( their practical) knowledge, and know that in knowledge there is danger of division?

A: Knowing that knowledge is necessary here....

Krishnamurti: And also that knowledge is ( a potential ?) danger (psychologically) because it divides.

SW: Well, to see both these aspects at the same time is difficult...

Krishnamurti: "See" it at the same time. Otherwise you will not
"see" it.

A: But ( psychologically speaking ?) knowledge divides what?

Krishnamurti: Knowledge (the 'all-knowing' attitude to life is?) in itself divisive. It divides the 'known' and the 'unknown', (and creates the time-sequence of ?) 'yesterday', 'today' and 'tomorrow'. The 'today' is (an updated version of ?) yesterday and the 'tomorrow' is also ( a 'today' only slightly ?) modified. ( In the relationship area ) knowledge is the "I know you"; the "image", the ( personally biased ?) conclusions. You, in the meantime, (might ?) have changed (or ...not ?) but my 'image' of you divides us. The dividing factor is the building of the image.
So can the brain cells see that knowledge is necessary to
be physically secure and can the same brain cells see (realise ?) that (their 'psychological ?) knowledge' based on images derived from (personal ?) conclusion is divisive?

SW: Well, there are two types of 'image-making'. In technological
knowledge also there is a recording, and that is also a form of
image-making.

A: I think we are using here the word "image-making" where there
is some (personal ?) emotional content. In the other it is not so. As an escape out of this, the projection of freedom comes.

Krishnamurti: It knows in this there is no freedom and therefore
it has to invent a (perfect ?) "freedom" outside the prison. So, when you see this (dual) structure of knowledge, then it is all understood.
Psychological and biological knowledge is included in the word "knowledge". This knowledge both is divisive and unifying. In this is the bondage of time. But, the brain cells also know that
in this there is no freedom, and they want freedom. In freedom may
be a "super-security". And that is why man has from immemorial
times talked of freedom. But as this freedom is not within the prison,
man has always thought of freedom outside. And we are saying this
freedom is ( to be found in ?) here, not 'outside' (ourselves), right?
So, is there freedom in all the things which (the ego-centric human ?) thought has built including the thought of freedom? Look at it. In
this it cannot find freedom. So it says because thought has
constructed this freedom within the prison, therefore freedom must
be 'outside'.

SW: In other words is there freedom in (the field of ?) knowledge?

Krishnamurti: Knowledge is the accumulation of a million years of (physical) experience. Does this experience give freedom? Obviously not. So is there such a thing as freedom?

SW: I can see that freedom is not outside, but yet there is no freedom inside myself either...

Krishnamurti: We have always thought of freedom outside. All the religious books, practices, have thought of it 'over
there'. There may be absolute freedom (in)here.

I have got it: the 'thinking brain' is aware that in demanding
security, it has created the (inner) prison (of the 'known' ?) . And it must have ( a deep sense of order & ) security, otherwise it cannot function. So thought enquires what is freedom? Is there such a thing at all?

A: We only see that whatever thought produces is not freedom.

Krishnamurti: Thought has created all this. Is there security in the very thinking itself?

SW: It is thinking which has done all this.

Krishnamurti: I have said I must have (lots of ?) knowledge, but (inwardly ?) is that (providing an authentic sense of ?) security? I
see the (countless) divisions, the 'yours' and the 'mine', the 'we' and the 'they', my family, your family - is there security in all this?
See what I have found? In knowledge there is security, but not
in this ('psychological' stuff ?) which is the result of knowledge. So thought says to itself, is there security in the (self-centred ?) structure of thinking itself? Is there security in knowledge? The brain cells have sought security in that, but is there (an authentic) security? The brain cells have to see for themselves that there is no security there. So (finally ?) I see there is no security there. It is a tremendous
discovery for me. So thought says, what next? Is there an ending of "myself" ( of the 'thinker' entity ?) without effort? To come through all this and to come to the point requires tremendous subtlety, which is
sensitivity. So can ( the self-centred process of ?) thought end by itself?

All this (inner inquiry) has needed great attention, great awareness; the moving step by step, never missing a thing, that has its own discipline, its own order. The brain now is completely orderly, and it sees that in division there is no security, therefore, every step is a step in order and that (living ?) order is (generating ?) its own security.
So, order is perception of things as they are. Perception of what
you are, not my conclusion of what you are.
I say perception is seeing things as they are and I cannot see
things as they are if I have a conclusion. In conclusion, therefore,
there is disorder. Thought has sought security in 'conclusions' which
has spread disorder. Therefore it (the thoughtful brain ?) rejects conclusion immediately, because, it wants security. Therefore, thought functions in (the field of ?) knowledge only (when & ) where it is necessary but nowhere else because everywhere else the function ( ther natural tendency of?) thought is to create conclusions,
images. Therefore, thought comes to an end.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Mar 2017 #570
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 532 posts in this forum Offline

A K Dialogue on INNER STABILITY AND THE FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN ( RISHI VALLEY, 1971) ("experientially -friendly" edited)

Questioner SW: I perceive a tree. Then an 'idea' arises from memory
which says this is a mango tree. This idea comes in the way of my
looking at the tree and so I am not able to see the fact of the tree.
This screen of ideas interferes with the present and there is no real
perception.

Krishnamurti: Are you asking, Sir, what is the relationship between the 'observer' and the (thing) observed? What does it mean to be (truly) related, to be in (direct) contact with something ?
Relationship implies (not only ?) the relationship between two people; (but also inwardly) the relationship between one thought and another thought and with the (silent ?) interval between thoughts; the relationship between the present and the future as death; the relationship between the world and myself; all that is involved in relationship, is it not? I may renounce the world, but I am still (subliminally ?) related to my whole (cultural) background and this background is "me"...

A: We always think of relationship in (terms of our own psychological ?) isolation, not as ( ourselves being ?) an (integral) part of the whole.

Krishnamurti: Can there be an (authentic ) relationship if there is a 'centre' to which you are ( attached ?) ? When this (self-conscious ?) centre feels it is related to something, is that relationship?
When you look at me, at her, in what way are you related to me, to her? Are you related?

A: I think so.

Krishnamurti: Let us examine it. I look at you, you look at me.
Can there be relationship if I have built a (self-protective) wall around myself, consciously or unconsciously, in order to feel secure, in order not to get hurt, to be safe, is there any (authentic ?) relationship at all? Do look at this: because I have been hurt physically as well as psychologically and my whole being is wounded, I do not want to be hurt any more. I build a wall around myself, of resistance, of defence, of "I know, you do not know", to feel completely safe from being further hurt. In that is there any relationship?

A: What do you mean by 'relationship' in our daily normal life?

Krishnamurti: Why do you ask me? In your normal, daily life, what takes place? There is the going to the office, being bullied, insulted by someone at the top. With your wounded pride you come home and your
wife says you are this, you are that, and you further withdraw and (even if ?) you sleep with her - have you any relationship?

A: (According to you ?) that means when the 'centre' is there, there is no relationship at all...

R: But there is ordinary 'goodwill'.

Krishnamurti: What is my 'goodwill' towards you? I am polite. I keep a distance. I am always inside the wall.

SW: Even in the life of an ordinary man, there are some
relationships which are not always from 'behind a wall'.

A: You say there is no (authentic) relationship, but the fact is I am related in this way because of a feeling of commitment. There is commitment to one another. I am not acting in self-interest, but only in the interest of the other.

Krishnamurti: Is that so? I commit myself to a course of action, which both the leader and I have agreed as necessary. Is there an (authentic ?) relationship between me and the leader who is working for the same end?

A: The crux of our practical relationship is utility.

Krishnamurti: Our relationship is based on a utilitarian relationship.

R: If you apply this test, that there is no (authentic) relationship...

Krishnamurti: You are not answering the deeper issue, which is,
as long as there is the 'observer' who has committed himself to a
course of action, is there an ( authentic ?) relationship between you and me?

A: Is there no relationship between two people?

Krishnamurti: Relationship ( with All That Is ?) is really an enormous problem. As I said, what is relationship between one thought and another, one action and another? Or is our action a continuous (time binding ?) movement, and therefore in action there is no (colateral ?) linking ? Look, Sir, when I look at that tree, my relationship is (in terms of ?) a distance between 'me' as the observer and the tree (which is being observed ?) and where there is this (psychological ) 'distance' between the observer and the observed, is there any
possibility of a (directly perceptive) relationship? I am married and I have (subliminally ?) built an image of my wife and she has built an image of me. The 'image' is the factor (creating the psychological ?) distance. We co-operate in order to do something together but I have my own worries, she has her own agonies - we are 'working together' in that but are we (truly) related, though we are working together for an idea?

A: Sir, this point of ( our relationship in terms of ?) 'working together' has been understood but not the other.

Krishnamurti: It took three hundred thousand people to build the (Apollo ?) rocket, each man technologically working to create the perfect mechanism, and each man put aside his idiosyncracies and there was what is called 'co-operation'. Is that ( also implying a deeper human ?) co-operation? We both may have a (strong) common motivation, but (inwardly) you and I are separate human beings. Is that co-operation? (Even ?) when I look
at a tree, there is a 'distance' (a 'sense of separation' ?) between 'me' and the tree and I am not in (a direct ?) relationship with the tree. This (sense of ?) 'distance' is not created by physical space, but by my knowledge.
Therefore, (a) what is relationship, (b) what is co-operation, (c) what is the factor of division?

SW: ( The mental ) 'images' in one form or another divide.

Krishnamurti: Go slow. There is that tree. I look at it. The
physical distance between me and that tree may be a few yards, but
the actual distance between me and that tree is vast. Though I look
at it, my eyes, my mind & heart is far away. That 'distance' is incalculable. In the same way, I look at my wife and I am very far away. In the same way I am 'very far away' in co-operative action.

SW: Is the word, the image, interfering in all this?

Krishnamurti: What is dividing you and me is the (self-projected image of the ?) goal. We think working together for a common goal has brought us in contact. In fact the goal is separating us.

A: No. How can you say the goal is dividing us?

Krishnamurti: Do look at it. Your (expectations for reaching the ?) goal and my ( personal) expectations are separate; they have divided us. The ( very projection of the ?) goal itself has divided us, not co-operation, which is irrelevant to the goal.

SW: I see one thing, where two people come together for the
joy of something, that is different.

Krishnamurti: When two people come together out of
affection, love, joy, then that is an action which does not divide. I love you, you love me and what is the action between two people
who love (what they are doing ?) ?

A: OK, so, when two people come together in affection it may produce
a result but they are not coming together for the result. Therefore,
in any such coming together there is no (sense of ?) division. Whereas if two people come together with a goal (in mind ?) , that is a divisive factor.

Krishnamurti: We have discovered something: when people come together with affection, when there is no goal, no purpose, no utopia - then there is no division. Then all (sense of one's ?) 'status' disappears and there is only function - I will sweep the garden if it is part of the needs of the place. I see that relationship means to be in close contact so that there is no ( sense of psychological ?) distance between the two.
All the ( standardised ?) 'intellectuals' say the goal is more important than you, the whole is greater than you, so give yourself over, be completely involved with your wife, with the tree, with the world.
So, I commit myself to the world of (ecology &) nature, to the family and to the idea that we must all work together for an end. What is happening, what am I doing in all this?

A: The fact is I am not related. I struggle to build a relationship,
to bridge the gap between my thought and your thought. I have got to build this bridge between thought and thought because unless I do this, I
feel absolutely isolated. I feel lost.

Krishnamurti: That is only a part of it. Go into it a little more.
What is happening to my mind, when my mind is struggling to
commit itself to family, to nature, to beauty, to 'working together'?

SW: There is a lot of conflict there, Sir.

Krishnamurti: I involve myself in that 'common' action and yet the isolation goes on. So, what is going on in my mind?

SW: Death ?

R: There is a constant struggle ?

Krishnamurti: I (feel that I ) am not related and I try to be related. I try to identify myself (to find my identity ?) through action. Now what is taking place in the mind? I am moving ( and/or getting entangled ?) into peripheral commitment. What happens to my mind when it moves on the outside all the time?

A: I am escaping from myself ?

Krishnamurti: Which means what? Nature becomes very important, the family becomes very important, the action to which I have completely given myself over becomes all important, but... what has happened to (my mind & heart )? It has completely externalized everything. Now, what has happened to the mind that has externalized the whole movement of relationship? What happens to your mind when it is occupied with the external, with the periphery?

SW: It has lost all (its inner ?) sensitivity ?

Krishnamurti: Or, in reaction to this externalization, you withdraw, you become a (wandering sannyasi or a ?) monk. What happens to the mind when it withdraws?

SW: I am incapable of spontaneity ?

Krishnamurti: Look in there. (Pause) What happens when you withdraw into your own conclusions? Instead of one ( wordly ?) world, you create another world which you call the 'inner' world.

SW: But even so, the mind is not free ...

Krishnamurti: The 'inward' commitment is the reaction of your own
world of imagination, of mystical experience. What happens to the
mind that is doing this?

R: It is occupied ?
Krishnamurti: Is that all? What happens to the brain which is either 'withdrawing' or 'externalizing'? It is the same (self-centred ?) movement - the outer and inner. It is like a tide going out and
coming in. What happens to the mind going out, coming in?

A: It becomes "mechanical" ?

Krishnamurti: It is a mind that is completely without any
bearing, completely unstable, a mind that has no (deep sense of ?) order. It becomes neurotic, unbalanced, inharmonious, destructive,
because there is no stability in the whole movement.

A: It is restless...

Krishnamurti: Therefore, there is no (timeless ?) stability. And the
brain needs order, order means stability. It tries to find order out
there in relationship and does not find it; so it withdraws and tries
to find order within and again is caught in the same process. Is this
a fact? (Pause)

The mind tries to find stability in a co-operative action about
something. The mind tries to find stability in the family, in
commitment and does not find it and so translates, seeks
relationship with nature, becomes imaginative, romantic which
again breeds more instability. ( Or ?) it withdraws into a world of infinite
conclusions, utopias, hopes and it invents an order in that. This "mind & heart" being unstable, not rooted in anything, gets lost ( is losing its 'soul' ?) . Is that what is happening to your mind? Be there. Do not accept what I am saying.

So, a mind that is not stable, in the sense of deeply rooted
in order, not an invented order - for an invented order must be
death; such a mind is the most destructive mind. It goes from
communism to the guru, to Yoga Vashista, to Ramana Maharishi
and back again. It is (getting) caught in the cult of the beautiful, the cult of devotion, of meditation and so on.

( So, the 1000 $ question is: ?) "How is this mind to be completely still?" From that (sense of inner peace & ?) stillness, its action is entirely different. How is this mind to be(come) completely still? A mind that is completely stable, firm, deep, has its roots in infinity. How is that possible? Then what is the relationship with the tree, with the family, with the ( K ?) committee(s)?

(To recap:) I realize my (self-centred ?) mind is (inwardly) unstable and I have understood for myself that all this (superficial) movement is born of instability. I know that and so I "negate" that. And when I put that away completely, what is ( the true inner ?) stability? I sought stability in family, in work, and now I see I do not (really) know what ( true ?) stability is. The (inner realisation of the truth of ?) "not knowing" is the stable.
The man who said "I know", those people who say "we are the chosen ones", the vast number of (false ?) teachers & gurus who have said "I know"....

So, rejecting all that, rely on yourself. Have confidence in yourself.
And when the mind puts away all this, when it has understood
what is not stable and that it cannot (assume that it ?) "knows" what is the true stability, then there is ( the inner awakening of ?) a movement of flexibility, of harmony, because the mind does not know (does not rely on the known ?) .

( In a nutshell:) This (noble ?) Truth of "not-knowing" is the only factor from which one can move. The truth of that is the stable. A mind that does not know is in a state of learning. The moment I say "I have learnt", I have stopped (the dynamic of ?) learning and that stopping is the (static ?) stability of division.

So, the ( ultimate inner ?) truth is "I do not know". That is all.
And that gives you a quality of ( free?) learning and in this learning there is ( a dynamic) stability. Stability is in the "I am learning", not in the "I have learnt". See what this (inner realisation ?) does to the mind ? It completely "unburdens" the mind ( of the 'known') and
that is the freedom of "not-knowing". See the beauty of it ?

The "not-knowing", therefore, freedom. Now what happens to the
brain which (traditionally ?) functions in (the field of ?) knowledge? In ( constantly accumulating and optimising its material ?) knowledge the mind has found tremendous security and "biologically" (speaking) that security is obviously necessary. Otherwise it cannot survive.
Now, what happens to the brain that realises I really do not (need to ?) 'know' anything (psychologically ) except the knowledge (necessary for ?) my (techno &) biological survival? What happens to the ( 90 % +) rest of the brain? The (90% +) rest of the brain before was 'tethered' ( psycho-somatically stuck ?) . Now it is not occupied. It will act (or not ?) but it is not "occupied" (or getting entangled in the field of the known ?) . That (innocent part of the ?) brain has never been touched ( by self-interest ?) and it is no longer capable of being hurt. Therefore a "new brain" is born and/or the "old brain" is purged of its (egotistic?) occupations .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 541 - 570 of 574 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)