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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 541 - 570 of 751 in total
Thu, 02 Mar 2017 #541
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 143 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 #542
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 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'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 02 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Mar 2017 #543
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 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 #544
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline



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 #545
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline

3rd (and last) K Discussion With Buddhists Varanasi 11th November 1985


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 #546
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 9 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 #547
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 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 #548
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 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 ( 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 #549
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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 #550
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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 #551
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline


'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 #552
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline

A K Dialogue in RISHI VALLEY 1971


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

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

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

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

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 #553
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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 #554
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 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

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 #555
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 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

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
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 #556
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline



Questioner P: We have not dealt so far with what seems to be the
essence of your teaching and that is the problem of (thought creating its own sense of ?) time, the silencing of the brain cells and (only optionally ?) what happened to the (mutational ?) 'processes' that operated in (the young) Krishnamurti - a boy born with his tradition of (orthodox) Brahminism, going through a certain preparation in the Theosophical Society, being 'initiated', writing books like The Search and The Path in which enlightenment is looked upon as an end, as a fixed point. In all these earlier books there is presumed to be a state which has to be reached and there is a great struggle through
centuries towards it. Suddenly a change takes place in K; he
negates salvation, eternity as a fixed point and so destroys the
horizontal movement of time as such. Now what exactly took
place? If we could understand and see as if through a microscope
what happened to Krishnamurti, if we could examine what
happened to his brain cells which contained this horizontal
movement of time, it might be possible for us to understand time
and mutation in relation to the brain cells.

Krishnamurti: I wonder if that so-called 'horizontal' movement
was not a very conditioned and superficial movement? The young
man, repeated what he was taught and at a given moment, there
was a break.

P: What is meant by 'superficial movement' of conditioning?

Krishnamurti: That is, the boy accepted, repeated, walked along
the path laid down traditionally and theosophically. He accepted it.

P: All of us do just that, but the question is what was it that triggered that which suddenly made him say that there is no fixed point?

Krishnamurti: If I were not here how would you find
out now? How would you find out if you were faced with this
problem that there was a young man who followed the traditional
path, the idea of a fixed point, the fixed goal, using time, evolution,
and at a given point he 'broke away'. How would you unravel it?

D: It is like this. We boil water under heat. Up to a hundred
degrees it is uniform and then there is complete transformation.
Tradition only helps to take you up to the 'boiling point'. You can later negate tradition but the necessity of tradition up to a point is there.

P: If the historical data were not available and one were just given the fact of this (freak ?) phenomenon of "K", the only way to investigate would be through self-knowing.

F: You seem to be creating a (causal) relationship between the former
state of development and the present state of being. Is there a
(linear ?) relationship between the two? You say one leads to another, one before another and you are arranging it in time.

P: The phenomenon of "K" is that he was born of Brahmin
parents...the whole history we know. I look at his background, I
notice that up to a point K talked of salvation as a final
point and suddenly the whole thing was negated.

Krishnamurti: Why do you relate the horizontal movement to the vertical movement (of enlightening )? There is no causal
relationship between the two. Therefore keep the two separate.

P: If what you say has to be meaningful , it is
essential for us to understand how the brain cells of "K" which were (thinking in terms of ?) time, underwent this kind of mutation.

Krishnamurti: I will show you very simply. The cultivation of a
brain, of any brain takes time. Experience, knowledge and
memories are stored up in the brain cells. This is a biological fact.
The brain is the result of time. Now this man at a point breaks the
movement. A totally different movement takes place, which
means, the brain cells themselves undergo mutation. And "P" says
you must answer and say what took place; otherwise what
happened was merely chance.

B: An answer by Krishnaji may help us to bring about a mutation in ourselves.

S: Two explanations are possible. One is the theosophical
explanation that the Masters were looking after "K" and so he was
untouched by experience. Another explanation is that of (his good karma acquired through ?) reincarnation.

Krishnamurti: How did it happen? What is your answer? Given these facts, faced with them, how do you answer this?

B: Sir, how can we answer the change in you which took place
in 1927? Mrs Besant has said that the two consciousnesses would
not be merged. You alone can say what took place. We have no personal knowledge nor the capacity to know.

Krishnamurti: Let us investigate it together. First of all, is time involved at all? Is (the direct) seeing involved with time?

P: What happens to the brain cells in the process of seeing?

Krishnamurti: The brain cells in the process of seeing, either
respond in old terms or they 'hold themselves back' in abeyance without the past.

P: You say that in the perception which is instantaneous, the brain
cells hold back ?

Krishnamurti: The brain cells, we all agree, are the storehouse of
memories, experience, knowledge which is the past. That is the old
brain. In perception, the (thinking structure of the ?) 'old brain' does not respond.

P: Where is it?

Krishnamurti: It is there (on stand-by ?) because I have to use knowledge to think. The brain cells have to be used.

P: What operates then? If these memory brain cells are not operating, what is operating?

Krishnamurti: A totally 'new brain'. The old brain is full of
images, memories, responses and we are used to responding with
the old brain. You say perception is not related to the old brain.
Perception is (occuring in ?) the interval between the old response and the response which is new, which the old does not yet know. In that
(silent ?) interval there is no time.

F: In psychology, sensation is itself direct. In the interval between sensation and (mental) perception, memories jump in and distort. So sensation is timeless but the interval is time.

Krishnamurti: Let us get this (experientially ?) clear. You ask me a question. The 'old brain' responds according to its (available) information, or according to its (previously acquired) knowledge; but if the old brain has no knowledge, no information, there is a (silent ?) interval between the question and answer. In that silent interval of 'not-knowing', there is a state in which time does not exist. But the moment I know, the 'knowing' is time.

P: The question is what has happened to the old brain?

Krishnamurti: The old brain is quiet.

P: When the new exists, the old brain does not (interfere ?) .

Krishnamurti: Perfectly right. Let us call them for convenience sake, the 'old' and the 'new' brain. The 'old' brain has, through centuries, collected all kinds of memories, registered every experience and it will function on that level all the time. It has its (self-created ?) continuity in time. If it has no (the sense of its safe) continuity, then it becomes
neurotic, schizophrenic, imbalanced. It must have sane, rational
continuity. (However, living in ?) such continuity can never find anything new because (psychologically-wise ?) it is only when something ends, that there is something new.

F: When you say continuity, it's the continuity of what ?

Krishnamurti: It is adding, taking away, adjusting; it is not static.

D: There is a circular (cyclic ?) movement; it is a continuity.

Krishnamurti: First let me see this continuity, the (constantly refreshed ?) repetition of the old. At a given point of time I call
it the new, but it is still the old. I hanker for the new and invent the
new within the circle.

P: There is the new which is a rearrangement of the old and
there is the "new", which is not a rearrangement of the old. What is
the "new" which is not the invention of the old? Is it recognizable, is it perceivable?

Krishnamurti: It is perceivable but not recognizable.

P: So it is not a (personal ?) 'experience'?

Krishnamurti: It is a perception without the 'observer'.
(To recap:) The mind which has become mechanical (trapped in its survivalistic routines ?) craves for something new. But this 'new' is always sought within the field of the (what was already ?) known. I want the new in terms of the old.
Now, Pupul's question was about the what happens to the old brain, which is the result of (our cognitive evolution in ?) time when there is a perception which is new, in which there is no 'experiencer', no 'observer' ?

F: As you said previously, the 'old' brain does not respond.

Krishnamurti: What makes it not respond? How does this happen?

P: We should remain a little longer here, because something of vital significance may be happening . I am listening to you. I am attentive. In that state of attention there is nothing else but sound and movement.
Can I understand in that state what has happened to the whole
weight of the past?

Krishnamurti: It is fairly simple. The (temporal mechanism of the ?) past is in continuous operation; it is registering every incident,
every experience, the conscious and the unconscious: Everything that is
pouring in, the sound, the seeing.

P: So, the 'recording' brain cells are acting independent of whether I am conscious or unconscious.

Krishnamurti: Yes. Now when that brain is in operation, it is
always acting from the (fail-safe memory of the ?) past. First of all, what is wrong with it?

D: When I see the fact that my brain is registering everything
and I suddenly realize that this is going on without the 'observer', then I am finished.

Krishnamurti: It is like a recording machine that is registering
everything. You have all heard that noise of that horn blowing.
The brain cells have registered it. You come and challenge this brain, it will respond in terms of like, of dislike, you are a danger and she is not a danger. In that instant is born the (subliminal identification with the ?) "me". But it is the function of the brain to register every experience, whether conscious or unconscious, every sound, word, every nuance, is going on, irrespective of the 'thinker' as a separate entity. Resisting that noise which is unpleasant, listening to some flattery, to some insult,
wanting more or less - out of this registration emerges the "me".

P: But even as the registration takes place, I am conscious of the

Krishnamurti: Which is what? That it is pleasant or unpleasant.
Now comes the new (brain's ?) action. I register that noise -
the hideous noise, the ugly noise - there is no (personal) response to it. The moment there is response, that response is the "I". That response
increases or decreases according to pleasure, pain, suffering.
Now, "P"s question was how is that brain which is doing all this
automatically, mechanically, all the time, how is that old brain
whether it is running horizontally or in circles, how is that brain
ever to see without the 'registerer' or registration?

P: I want to take it further from there. We listen. Sound passes through us. There is attention. In that state, for a second, the horizontal (time) movement has come to an end. What has happened to the old brain?

Krishnamurti: But it is still there.

P: What do you mean 'it is still there'?

Krishnamurti: Look at it. There is that child crying. The sound is being registered, the child's cry, why the mother does not look after it, all the rest of it.

P: Do you record all that?

Krishnamurti. No. I am purely listening. There is complete
listening. Now what happens in that listening? What has happened
to the old brain in that listening?

Let me put it differently. What is the essential need of a brain?
Must it not feel safe, secure, in order to function properly ?
One sees the brain it needs great sense of protection, both physical and psychological. That is the essential point: the brain cells need security,
protection, safety to survive. They have survived for millions of
years. Now what takes place? In order to (optimise their survival ?) , the brain cells say I must have (familial, tribal & ?) national divisions, which (cyclically) brings disaster. So in this constant endeavour ( for optimising its ?) security, the mind is always experimenting and gets stuck - the guru, nationalism, socialism - it gets stuck and (eventually ?) has to be rooted out.
(Moreover ?) because the basic thing is that it wants is safety and survival, it has invented a 'time sequence' of survival - horizontal or circular (cyclically-repetitive ?) . But when the basic necessities are granted (on an instant by instant basis ?) what happens? Isn't our brain's perception in terms of security not entirely different?

D: It is our demand for (longer term) security that resists the question you are asking.

Krishnamurti. No, I have got my security. So far for seventy
years it has not been damaged because it says survival, but not at the
price of illusion. It says do not invent beliefs or ideas for in them
there is no security at all. Wipe them out because they are illusory.
Therefore it is completely secure; not in anything, but in itself it is
secure. Before it sought security through something - through (getting commited to ?) family, through god, egotism, competition, through seeking.
Seeking security "through something" is the greatest insecurity. So, it discards that. Therefore because it has no illusions, (hidden ?) motives,
formulas, it can perceive. Because it does not seek any (psychological?) security, it is completely secure. The mind is then free of illusions; the illusion that I will find (an extra ?) security in family, in God, or in knowledge which is the past.
Now what is there to perceive? "It" is perceiving.

F: Unfortunately, we are at the mercy of the psychosomatic body and there we are very insecure. So there has to be a different approach to this. It is something very vulnerable because our bodies are so fragile.

Krishnamurti: So I will protect the body. There is no egotism
involved in it.

F: Vulnerability is connected with ego.

Krishnamurti: I will protect the body without the ego. I will
wash it, look after it. We think we protect the body through the "I".
Once we grant deeply the necessity for complete survival, for
protection, for safety for the brain, we will solve all the other
problems. Let us put it in this way: Is perception related to the
brain cells which demand security, survival at any price?

P: My mind does not function in this way. Therefore I find it
very difficult to listen. I am trying to work at a microscopic
examination of the mind to see whether it is possible to arrive at a
point when actually the brain cells cease functioning (in the linear logic of time ?) . Here I am before you and I want to
understand this movement of time which is horizontal, to see
whether there can be a state of the brain cells ceasing to function.
Any queries, questions, answers, away from this will only lead to

Krishnamurti: Are you saying, having finished with what we
have said, my brain cells are still in perpetual movement in one form or another?

P: Now when I am listening to you there is no movement in my

Krishnamurti: Why? Because you are listening with attention,
an attention in which there is no centre to attend, a state in which you
are just attending?

P: Now, being in that state I ask, where is gone the weight of the past?

Krishnamurti: When you say I am attending, giving complete
attention, is there time in that?

P: How do I know this ?

Krishnamurti: When there is attention, there is no time, because
there is no (mental) movement at all. Movement means measurement,
comparison; from here to there and so on. In this attention there is no
ripple, there is no centre, there is no measurement. The next
question is, what has happened to the old brain? I have got it: this attention is not disassociated from the brain. The whole psychosomatic organism is attentive, which is also including the brain cells. Therefore, these (psycho-somatically integrated ?) brain cells are exceedingly quiet, alive, not responding with their (knowledge of the ?) old. Otherwise you could not be attentive.

There is the (experiential ?) answer. And in this (quality of integrated ?) attention the brain can function (pretty safely) . That attention is silence, is emptiness; call it what you like. And out of that (time-free ) silence, innocence, emptiness, the brain can operate; but not as a 'thinker' constantly seeking security in something or other .

P: Does it mean the whole brain has undergone a 'transformation'?

Krishnamurti: No. What has taken place is a (psychological ?) mutation. The 'observer' (self-divisive mental entity) is not.

P: But aren't the brain cells the same ?

Krishnamurti: Watch it. This (integrated ?) attention means complete attention - body,the psyche, the brain cells; everything is there alive. In that state, there is no centre, there is no time, there is no observer as the
"me". There is no time in terms of the past (projecting itself in the future ?) but yet the (objective memory of the ?) past exists because I can still speak the (English) language, I have to go to my room. Right?
Then what happens to the brain cells? They are still (doing their job of ?) registering but there is no "me". Therefore the "me" which is part of the (old order of the ?) brain cells is 'wiped out'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 #557
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 143 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Suddenly a change takes place in K; he
negates salvation, eternity as a fixed point and so destroys the
horizontal movement of time as such. Now what exactly took
place? If we could understand and see as if through a microscope
what happened to Krishnamurti, if we could examine what
happened to his brain cells which contained this horizontal
movement of time, it might be possible for us to understand time
and mutation in relation to the brain cells.

What an incredible passage. Almost very word an unsupported assumption. How would P know that a "sudden change" took place in K. Where is there any evidence at all of that? She has taken it on faith.

Did he negate salvation? Had he believed in salvation and then suddenly negated that belief? Where is there any evidence that K ever believed in salvation. He himself said he didn't, that everything taught in theosophy had no effect on him. Yet he said in his famous speech that his aim was to set everyone free of all conditions. That sounds like salvation to me, though I wasn't there.

Do the brain cells contain the "horizontal movement of time? How does she know that? All the conclusions that follow about what "might be possible" rest on that unsupported claim.

What I am interested in is looking at what in me is acceptance of things other people have said but which I have not found out or affirmed independently. I think that was K's concern too. Personally, rather than negate 'salvation,' which I have never believed in and do not have to negate, I would prefer to negate the 'salivation' that occurs when I, you or anyone hears what they want to hear and thinks no further about it. Those who bring us juicy morsels to confirm our own prejudices do us a disservice. The servile attitude of P in that piece should be understood for what it is, fawning.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 #558
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline


Questioner P: Krishnaji, at one level, your teaching is (sounding) very materialistic because it refuses to accept anything which does not have a (perceivable) referent. It is based on "what is". You have even gone so far as to say that ( self-) consciousness is the (content of the ?) brain cells and that thought is matter, and nothing else exists.
Now in terms of this, what is your attitude to God? Is God matter?

Krishnamurti: Do you understand clearly the word "material"?

P: 'Material' is that which is measurable.

F: No, everything is energy but that energy is not
observable. You can only see the effects of energy which you call
matter. The effects of energy appear as matter.

D: When she says matter, she probably means energy. Energy
and matter are convertible, but still measurable.

Krishnamurti: That is, matter is energy and energy is matter. You cannot divide them to say this is pure energy and this is pure matter.

P: You see Krishnaji, if we go into any aspect of your teaching,
it is based on that which is observable. The instruments of hearing,
of seeing, are within the field of sensory apprehension. Even
though you may talk of not naming, that which is observable is received
through the instruments of seeing, listening. The instruments of the
senses are the only instruments we have with which to observe.

Krishnamurti: We know sensory seeing, sensory hearing, sensory
touching and the intellect which is part of the whole structure. Now
what is the question?

P: In that sense, the K Teaching is materialistic as opposed to the
metaphysical. Your position is a materialistic position.

F: If you want to stick to facts, the only instrument we have is
the brain. Now, is the brain everything or is it an instrument in the
hands of something else? If you say there is only brain, it will be a
materialistic position. If you say the instrument is materialistic then
the teaching is not materialistic.

P: Seeing all this I now ask, "what is your view of God". I feel it is a very legitimate question.

Krishnamurti: I never use the word "God" to indicate something which is not God. What thought has invented is not God. If it is invented by thought, it is still within the field of time, within the field of the material.
Knowing its limitations thought tries to invent the limitless which it calls God. That is the position.

P: When thought sees its limitations, it is still aware of an
existence beyond itself.

Krishnamurti: Thought can only 'go beyond'... when it comes to an end.
So we must ( take a detour and ?) go into the knowing of thought and
not (into knowing what is ?) God. Does thought realize it
is limited or does the 'thinker' who is the product of thought realize it?

P: Why do you draw this distinction?

Krishnamurti: Thought has created the thinker. If thought did
not exist, there would be no ( self-conscious ?) 'thinker'. Let us be clear in all this: the thinker, observing its thought, sees through reasoning that (its) energy is limited. In the realm of thought, the 'thinker' thinks this.

D: When the thinker says thought is limited, both the thought
and the thinker become question-marks.

Krishnamurti: Not yet...Thought is (the verbally processed response of ?) memory, thought is the response of knowledge. Thought has brought about this thing called the 'thinker' which then thinks it is
separate from thought. This thinker, looking at (its powers of ?) reasoning, at its capacity to rationalize, sees that it is very very
limited. Therefore, the thinker condemns reason; the thinker says
thought is very limited, which is condemnation. Then he says there
must be something more than thought, something beyond this
limited field. So, does the thinker think that thought is limited or does
thought (the thinking brain ?) itself realize it is limited? I do not know if you see the difference...

P: Thought can end. But how does thought feel it is limited?

Krishnamurti: That is my point. Does thought (the thinking brain ?) say, I cannot go any further? You see the point?

F: Why do you need to separate the thinker from the thought? There are
many thoughts out of which the 'thinker' is also another thought.
The thinker is the guide, helper, censor; he is the most dominant

Krishnamurti: Thought established a ( control ?) centre from which the observer looking at thought says thought is limited.

D: In fact, it can only say "I do not know".

Krishnamurti: It does not say that. First of all, thought has not yet realized that it is very limited. What it has done
in order to have ( a temporal) security, is to put together various thoughts which have become the 'thinker', the 'experiencer'. So, we
are asking the question: Does the thinker realize that it is limited,
or thought itself realizes it is limited? The two are entirely

F: We know only a state of a "thinker thinking" thought.

Krishnamurti: That is all we know. Therefore, the thinker
invariably says we must go beyond thought; therefore it questions:
Does God exist?

F: You are giving existence to the 'thinker' instead of thought ?

Krishnamurti: The thinker is not a permanent entity as thought is not permanent, but the 'thinker' (as an identitary interface ?) is adjusting, modifying. Now, if the thinker says its thinking is limited, then the thinker says there must be a God, there must be something beyond (my limited ) thinking. Right? But if thought (the 'thinking brain' ?) itself realizes it cannot go beyond its own 'tether', beyond its memory rooted brain cells, the brain cells as the material, if thought realizes that, then what takes place?

P: You see, Sir, if you were to leave it at this point, that thought itself sees this, the brain cells themselves see it and leave it, then there is a total consistency and logic; but you are always moving, going beyond this and you cannot use any words. Thereafter call it what you like, but a feeling of God is introduced.

Krishnamurti: I won't accept the (traditional use of the ?) word "God".

P: You take us by reason, by logic to a point. You do not leave
it there. You push it further...into an abstraction. I agree that thought and the thinker are essentially one, man has separated them for his own safety, permanency, security.

Krishnamurti: I realize that thought and the thinker are very
very limited and I do not stop there. To do so would be a purely
materialistic philosophy. That is what many intellectuals in the east
and west have come to. But they are always (psychologically ?) tethered, and being tethered, they expand but remain tied to the pole of their (personal ?) experience and beliefs.

Now, if thought itself realize the limitations of itself, then what takes place? It realizes that any movement of thought is (activating ?) the content of consciousness, and without the content there is no self- consciousness. Now what takes place? Is that observable or not? I do not invent God.

P: Up to this point your position is rational, logical; but suddenly you (seem to ?) introduce another element (such as Love, Intelligence & Compassion ?) .

Krishnamurti: No. Look at it. Thought (or the thinking brain ?) itself realizes that any movement it makes is within the field of (matter & )
time. Then what happens? Then thought becomes completely silent
- this is also an observable, testable fact (in the context of a "thinker free" meditation ?) . This (inner) silence is not the result of ( a self-imposed ?) discipline. Then what happens? Life goes on but without the "me" as the observer. Life goes on, the registration goes on, memory goes on, but the "me" which thought has brought about, which is the (central ?) content of our consciousness, that "me" disappears; obviously because that "me" is the limited. It does not mean the body does not go on, but the centre (of self-interest ?) as the "me", is not. Again that is
logical because thought says "I am limited and I will not create the
"me" which is further limitation". It realizes it and drops (it) away.
Therefore the ( self-conscious ?) "me" is not (around anymore ?) .
This "me" is made up of various additions of thought which
have created the "me", which is the (active memory of the ?) past. The "me" is the past and it projects its own future. Now this whole phenomenon ( of self-centred consciousness ?) is (seen as ?) a very small affair. Now what is the next question?

F: What has this state of nothingness to do with God? The realization of thought's limitations is a state of despair.

Krishnamurti: No, you are introducing the 'despair' - which is part of thought. So, ( in the wider meditational context ?) thought now realises that any movement I make, whether it is despair, pleasure, fear, attachment, detachment, is a movement of time. When thought
realizes all this is a movement of (giving a temporal continuity to ) itself in different forms, it stops. Now let us proceed further.

P: You said existence goes on without the "me". Then...what or who 'proceeds further'? If ( my self-centred ?) thought as the "me" has ended, what is the instrument of investigation?

Krishnamurti: We have come to a ( critical ?) point ( in our meditation ?) where there is no movement of thought. Investigating into itself so profoundly ( the time- binding continuity of ?) thought has ended. We are now asking what is the new factor that comes into being which is going to investigate or what is the new instrument of investigation. It is not the old instrument. Right? The
intellect, its sharpness of thought, the quality of thought, the
objectivity, thought that has created tremendous confusion; all that
has been denied (wisely negated ?) .

P: There is something else operating. What is this?

Krishnamurti: If you see clearly the limitations of thought , then
what is happening?

P: After what we have said, there is only a 'seeing' which operates.
When we use this word 'seeing', is it a state where all the sensory
instruments are functioning (as a whole ?)

Krishnamurti: Absolutely.

P: So, if there is one sensory instrument functioning at a time, then it is
tethered to thought. But when all the sensory instruments are
functioning harmoniously together then there is nothing to be tethered to. That is (pure ?) existence.

Krishnamurti. We agree, then what is the next question? What
is perception then? What is investigation there?

P: When thought has come to an end there is nothing more left to

Krishnamurti: Then what is the new instrument that investigates?

P: One has always regarded investigation as moving towards a
point. We were trying to investigate God or Truth, but as thought has
ended, there is no point towards which there can be movement.

Krishnamurti: Do not say anything categorically. All
that you can say is that there is no forward movement. Forward movement implies thought and time. When you really deny that (mental ?) movement, outward or inward, then what takes place?

The brain realizes that any movement away from itself is within the
field of time and therefore, within the field of thought; then is there a totally different kind of movement, qualitatively different, which is not related to time, to process, to the forward or backward movements?
Is there something which is not related to thought & time?
This question is put by the brain itself : the brain realizes that any movement in time is (eventually resulting in ?) sorrow. So it abstains from any movement, naturally. Then it is asking itself if there is any
other movement which it has never tasted?

In order to answer this, one has to go back to the question of energy. There is human energy and cosmic energy. I have always been looking at my human energy as being separate, limited, incomplete within its limited field. Now the 'battle (of the known' ?) is over. I have
always (implicitly) regarded the movement of my energy as being separate from Cosmic, Universal energy. Now, as thought has (humbly) realized its (experiential ?) limitations the human energy has become something entirely different. The division into the cosmic and
the human - is created by thought. This division ceases and another
factor has entered. To a mind which is not (self-) centred within itself,
there is no division.

Then what is there to investigate or what is the
instrument of investigation? There is investigation but not the
investigation to which I am used - the exercising of intellect, of
reason, and all the rest of it. And this investigation is not 'intuition'.
Now, the brain is not divided (fragmented ?) in itself as cosmic, human, sexual, scientific, business. (Its total ?) Energy has no division.
Then what takes place? Few have gone beyond...

What is the new instrument that is going to investigate, in which there is no separation, in which there is no investigator and the investigated?
What is this movement which is neither inward nor outward? Is
it death? Is it the total negation of everything? When ( the temporal continuity of ?) thought ends, we include everything in it; we include the meaning, consciousness, the content of consciousness, despair,
failure, success. When that ends, then what takes place? The brain exists, the registering goes on, but the whole of it is totally quiet.
Thought does not enter into that (Mind energy ) field at all. Thought enters into a very small field of the brain. The entire brain is
the new which has not been used. The entire quality of the brain is
new; thought which is limited, functions in a limited field. The old
brain is not active because the limited has ceased.

P: The rest of the brain, which is not used, becomes operable. Then this is again a totally materialist position.

Krishnamurti: Agreed. Carry on further.

F: I have an objection. Even if the entire brain is used fully, it
will be a tremendously enlarged consciousness.

Krishnamurti: Depending if there is a centre.

F: We have been operating only within the limited. Now if you
move into the other, how do you know that that consciousness has
not a focalizing tendency?

Krishnamurti: ( Self-) Focalizing takes place when thought operates as
pain, despair, success, when thought operates as the "me". When
the "me" is silent, where is (the self-) consciousness?

F: After that, it all becomes conjecture. You presume the only
factor that can project the centre is disappointment, hurt. Thought
is limited. And therefore, it projects itself. Why should focalization
depend upon limitation?

Krishnamurti: ( Self-) Focalization takes place when thought is functioning.

F: You are becoming very narrow. I am still legitimately questioning the point that one's frustration is the only point of (self-) focalization.

Krishnamurti: I included everything, not only frustration but
everything in the field of time. Now I see that the brain cells have
operated in a very small field and that small field with its limited
energy has created all the mischief. The 'old brain' becomes quiet.
What we have previously called 'quietness' is (our self-) limitation becoming quiet. The noise of that has ended, but that is the silence of limitation. But when thought realizes that, then the brain itself, the whole brain, becomes quiet.

P: Yet it still registers ?

Krishnamurti: Of course. Noise is going on.

P: One's existence continues.

Krishnamurti: Existence without any (temporal) continuance. Then what? The whole brain becomes quiet, not the limited part.

F: It is the same thing to us...

P: If the 'other' is not yet operable, what becomes quiet for us is only limitation.

Krishnamurti: Therefore, that quietness is not Quietness.

D: What makes you say we are not using the whole brain? I am saying my total brain is functioning but I am not (totally) conscious of it because I am enclosing myself within the limited field (of the known)

Krishnamurti: ( For homework ?) Please stop first the movement of thought, then see what happens.

P: You have said that the ending of the limitation of "me" as thought, is not silence.

Krishnamurti: That is the beauty of it. Silence is when the total quality of the brain is still; the total thing, not just part of it.

F: Why should the total brain become silent?

Krishnamurti: The total brain has always been quiet. What I
have called 'silence' is the ending of the (self-centred ?) thought which is rattling around. When this (mental) "chattering" comes to an
end, then there is a feeling of silence but that is not (the ) Silence. Silence is when the total mind, the brain, though registering, is completely quiet, because (its total ?) energy is quiet. It may explode but the basis of energy is quiet. (Pause)

Now, there is (the awakening of ?) passion when sorrow has no movement. Sorrow is (a polarised form of inner ?) energy. When there is no movement at all in sorrow there is an explosion into Passion.
Now ( reiterating ?) the same (transmutation ?) takes place when there is no movement in the silence which the limited "me" has created
for itself , when ( in meditation ?) there is an absolute silence, total silence there is a totally different kind of explosion which is......

P: Which is God ?

Krishnamurti: I refuse to use the word "God" but this ( universally integrated ?) state is not an invention. It is not a thing put together by
cunning thought because thought is completely without movement.
That is why it is first important to explore (the limitations of ?) thought and not (start with ?) the "Other".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #559
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline


P: You have said, Krishnaji, that ( a Compassionate ?) Intelligence is the greatest security in the facing of fear. However, the ( practical ) problem is: In a ( major life-) crisis, when fear from the unconscious floods you, where is the place for this intelligence? How does one deal
with the primeval fears which lie at the very base of the human psyche -like for instance the fear of not being.

K: Let us find out. There are conscious and unconscious
fears and when the unconscious fears become extraordinarily strong at
moments, at those moments Intelligence is not in operation.
How can one deal (intelligently ?) with those waves of uncontrollable fear. Let us explore (it first analitically) : fear exists, consciously or at depths, when there is a sense of (one's own ) loneliness, a sense of complete isolation, a feeling of utter helplessness. And at those moments, when this deep fear arises, Intelligence is not ( anywhere in sight ?) and there is an uninvited ( visitation of ?) fear.

K: Let's discuss it: one can deal with the physical, conscious fears. The outskirts of intelligence can deal with them.

P: You can even allow those fears to 'flower'.

K: And then in that very flowering there is intelligence. Now
how do you deal with the 'unconscious' fears ? Do they exist in the traditional depths of our unconscious mind; or it gathers them from the environment? Are they all an inherent part of the racial, traditional history of mankind ? Are they in the inherited genes? How do you deal with this problem?

P: Can we discuss the second one, which is the gathering of fear
from the environment?

K: First of all, are they imposed by the culture in which we live, and the conscious mind, not being able to deal with these (collective ?) fears, has pushed them down at the level of the unconscious? Or is it
that the ( self-centred ?) mind with all its ( accumulated) content has not resolved its problems and is frightened of ( what will happen if it will ) not be able to resolve them? You said these waves of fear come (from the 'unconscious') ; I would say they are always there, but it is only in a major existenial crisis, that you become aware of them.

S: They exist in our consciousness. Why do you say they are in the

K: First of all our consciousness is made up of its ( active) content. One of its ( un-conscious ?) contents is this basic fear ( of not-being ?) and the conscious mind never tackles it; it is (dormant down ?) there, but it
never says, 'I must deal with it'. In moments of crisis that part of
consciousness is awakened and is frightened. But ( a subliminal) fear ( of what might happen ?) is always there.

P: I don't think it is so simple. Is fear not a part of man's cultural

K: Fear is always there. Is it part of our collective cultural inheritance or it is inherent in every living thing; the fear of being destroyed.

P: Then the root cause would be the 'self-preservation' instinct which takes the (explicit ) form of fear ?

K: Is it that the whole structure of the living cells is frightened of not
being? Even the little ant is afraid of not being. So, we see this fear ( of being physically destroyed ?) is there, part of human existence, and one
becomes (personally ?) aware of it in an (existential) crisis. How does one deal with it at that moment when the surge of fear comes about? Why do we wait for a major crisis (to reveal it ?) ? I am just asking.

P: ( Because then) you can't avoid it ?

K: Why should I have a crisis to deal with fear?

P: Because, (as you just said) otherwise it is (dormant or ?) non-existent. Now, I can face some fears intelligently. Is it not possible to face the other fears intelligently?

K: You say you can face these fears intelligently. I question
whether you face them intelligently. I question whether you can
have ( a quality of compassionate ?) intelligence before you have resolved fear. Intelligence is (or has its own ?) 'light' and you cannot deal with darkness when light is not. Light exists only when darkness is not (around ?) . So I am questioning whether you can deal with fear intelligently when fear exists. I say you cannot. You may 'rationalize' it (give it a 'rational' explanation ?), you may see the nature of it, avoid it or go beyond it, but that is not Intelligence.

N: I think that fear arises anyway . We just don't allow it to flower.

K: You see, I am questioning altogether the whole traditional response to a ( major life-) crisis. You say a crisis takes place and you wake up. But even word, a gesture, a look, a thought, those are challenges that you say bring it out. I am asking: Why do we wait for the ( major existential ?) crisis? A gesture, a thought, a word, a look, a whisper;
any of these are ( valid) challenges.

N: I don't look for the (awakening) crisis. The only thing I am aware of is, it arises and I am paralysed.

K: You get paralysed, therefore for you, a ( wake-up ?) challenge is
necessary. Why don't you contact ( the causes of ?) fear before the challenge? If fear is there (on stand-by ?) , is it 'dormant'? And if it is
dormant, is it because the ( self-) conscious mind has it put it to sleep and refused to look at it?

Is our ( safely 'settled in the known'?) conscious mind frightened of looking at fear and therefore it keeps fear quiet? Or fear is there, (lurking ?), but the conscious mind won't let it flower? Do you admit that fear is part of human existence?

P: Sir, fear has no independent existence without the stimuli of outer experience.

K: Wait, I question it, I don't accept it. You are saying without
the outer stimuli, it is not. If it is true to you, it must be so for me,
because I am a human being.

P: I include in that both the outer and the inner stimuli. Fear has no existence apart from these stimuli.

K: You are moving away, Pupul. Must I wait for a crisis for this fear to
awaken (or to be exposed ?) ? That's all my question. If it is there, who has put it to sleep? Is it because the conscious mind cannot (or neglected to ?) resolve it? So, when the conscious mind is shaken when a crisis takes place and fear arises. So I am saying to
myself, why should the conscious mind suppress ( or pretend to ignore the deeper aspects of ?) fear?

S: Sir, the instrument of the conscious mind is analysis (based on) the
capacity of recognition. With such instruments it is inadequate to
deal with fear.

K: It can't deal with it. But what is required is real simplicity: you cannot ( cover up or ?) put to sleep a thing that is part of our racial
inheritance. Therefore let's deal with it differently. That's all my point.
The basic fear of ' not being', (of not becoming ?) of uncertainty, of dying. Why doesn't the mind not bring that fear out and move with it? Why should it wait for a crisis? Is what I am saying irrational?

P: It is not irrational. I am trying to see if it is valid.

K: We say that every living thing is frightened of 'not being', of not
surviving. Fear is part of our blood cells. Our whole being is
frightened of not being, frightened of dying, frightened of being
killed. So this (subliminal) fear of 'not being' is part of our whole psychological, as well as biological structure, and I am asking myself why is a crisis necessary (to bring it to the surface ?). I want to be ahead of challenge, not behind the challenge.

P: One cannot participate (experientially) in what you are saying.

K: Why can't you? I am going to show it to you. I know I am (eventually) going to die, but I have intellectualized, rationalized death.

P: Let us take the actuality of it. One faces death and one feels one is a step ahead and one moves on and suddenly realizes that one is not
ahead of it. So the question is: With what instrument, with what energy,
from what dimension does one see; and what does one have to see?

K: I want to be clear. that fear is part of our (psycho-somatic) structure, our inheritance. Biologically, psychologically, the brain cells are
frightened of not being. And therefore thought says I am not going to look at this thing. And so when the actual challenge takes place, thought cannot face it.

P: What do you mean when you say, 'Thought says I don't want
to look at it'?

K: Thought cannot look ( or serenely contemplate ?) the ending of itself. It can only rationalize (or optimise the 'ending' scenarios) about it. I am asking you why does the mind wait for a ( major) challenge to look at it ?

P: I don't know. I only know that challenge arises and fear arises.

K: No, the challenge awakens fear and I say to you, why do you wait for a challenge for this to awaken? So, is the unconscious mind (put to ?) sleep and are there some parts of the mind that are awake?

N: Do you invite fear?

K: If you are awake, no challenge is necessary. If it is part of our (material) life that we should die, then one is awake all the time.

P: It is there all the time ( lurking) under the carpet. But you don't look at it.

K: I say it is under the carpet, lift it and look. It is there. That's
all my point. It is there and awake. So it does not need an (explicit) challenge to make it awake. I am frightened all the time of not being, of not achieving of dying . That is the (root) fear of our life, of our
blood and it is there, always (lurking ?) watching, guarding, but it is very much awake. It is never a moment asleep. It is like having a snake in the room, it is always there.

The next question is, when the conscious mind is ( becoming responsibly) awake to this fear, then what are we going to do next?

P: There lies (our) inadequacy...

K: You are missing the whole point. It is the 'conscious' mind
that is frightened of this, of not being. But when I meet with an accident,
an aeroplane crashes, there is no fear. At the moment of death I
say, 'Yes, I know now what it means to die'. But the conscious
mind with all its thoughts says, 'My god, I am going to die, I will
not die, I must not die, I will protect myself; that is the thing that is
frightened. Have you never watched an ant? It is never frightened:
if somebody kills it, it dies. Now you see something.

N: Sir, if you put a piece of paper in front of the ant, it dodges it.

K: It wants to survive, but it is not thinking about its surviving. So
we will come back to it. Our self-centred thinking creates fear: it is only thought that says, 'I will die, I am lonely. I have not fulfilled.'
See ( the truth of ?) this: that is timeless eternity, that is real eternity. Can the mind be completely motionless? Can the mind be completely
stable? Then 'that thing' comes. When 'that thing' is awake, what then
is the central root of fear?

P: Has it ever happened to you, sir?

K: Many times, when the mind is completely
stable, without any recoil, neither accepting not denying, nor
rationalizing nor escaping, there is no movement of any kind. We
have got at the root of it, have we not ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #560
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline


1ST (of 12) K PUBLIC TALK IN MADRAS 1952 (reader friendly edited)

K: What I propose to do during this (long) series of discussions is to 'think out' with each one of you this extraordinarily complex problem of living. We are confused; we do not know what to do, personal ambition, corruption are rampant throughout the world. I believe there is an answer to all these and I am completely convinced there is an answer. So what you and I have to do is to listen to each other to find out the right answer.

Listening is an extraordinarily difficult art and though we appear to be incapable of listening, it seems to me that it is one of the most necessary and essential things that you and I have to do. Please try during these discussions and ( for an extended homework ?) at home to really listen to each other without interpretation, just to listen without translating according to your prejudices.
Surely, if I want to know if there is God, if there is such a thing as Absolute Happiness, before I can seek it, I must understand desire. Otherwise, the (desire driven ?) mind will condition the object of my search. That is fairly obvious: If you seek ( long lasting psychological) comfort and security, you will find them; but that will not be 'real'; on the contrary, that will produce more and more confusion, contradiction and misery. So, before we begin to seek, we must understand the whole process of desire. In the very understanding (and the inner integration of ?) desire, you will find the answer.

Surely therefore, those of us who are really earnest, who are not carried away by emotional nonsense or by their own (ideological ?) prejudices, or by their own vanities, if they really want to find out a peaceful and lasting answer to this problem, have to search our and understand desire, which means that action is independent of thought, of ideas. The mistake we make is that we first have the idea and then act. But if we begin to understand desire, which is a very complex and intricate problem, then you will see that action follows the understanding of each desire.
What do I mean by understanding ( the self-centred activity of ?) desire? That you have to follow every movement of its intricate, conscious and unconscious whims and fancies. Do not begin to say immediately 'This is right desire or wrong desire'. Let us find out. It is like following a path on the map. If you would really follow it out, then you will see that you have a 'centre' (of self-interest ?) which is always the process of recognition. taking place. Our (experiential) difficulty is to understand desire without this process of recognition.

By (the process of verbal ?) 'recognition', I mean that when you meet or see somebody you have a subjective reaction, or an emotion, and you give it a name; and that recognition only strengthens each experience; and each experience limits, conditions, and narrows down the self. So, if you would understand what is Reality, what is God, that centre of recognition must completely end. If I want to know what Truth is, my mind must be in a (quiet inner ?) state in which no recognition can ever take place. Because that is after all God, that is the Truth, that is the Eternal and the moment you have a measure with which to measure (evaluate it ?) , that is not Truth. Our (man-made) gods are measurable; our scriptures, and our religious teachers have so conditioned us that we 'know' what everything is. All that we are doing is merely this process of recognition.
Is it possible to dissolve the (gut identification with that ?) centre of recognition? After all, it is the desire that gives strength to one's recognition. To say 'I know, I have had the experience, it is so', indicates the strengthening of one's self (-consciousness) . Now to find out if there is God, if there is truth, if there is such a thing as a state in which recognition is not possible, in which all measurement has ceased, surely, we must begin to understand desire and you can only follow it when the mind is (objectively) aware of itself, when you are not looking at desire as something outside of you, when you are following it.

Look here, sirs. ( EG:) I have a desire. What do I do? My instinctive reaction is to condemn it, to say how idiotic, how stupid it is; or to say how good, how noble it is. Then what happens? I have not really followed the desire; I have not gone into, I have not understood it; I have put a (momentary) end to it. Please think it out, and you will see the extraordinary importance of it. Then I assure you, you will have an inward psychological revolution, regeneration; and that can only take place when we follow and understand the whole process, the complex process of psychological desire, motives, urges - the conscious as well as unconscious. If we can understand how to pursue desire, how to be acquainted with it, how not to translate it, then we shall ( hopefully ?) solve all these problems.

Now how is it possible for an 'ordinary' person who has got so many other problems - economic, family, religious, the mess we are all in - to pursue desire to the end, to go with it, to understand it? Is that not the ( 10,000 Rs ?) question? How am I who is not intelligent, who has got so many formulations, prejudices, memories, how am I to follow desire? It would be easy if you had a companion who would stop you each time, and say: 'Look, what are you doing? You are interpreting, translating, condemning desire. You are not really following it. You are really putting a cap on it'. If somebody could force you every instant and make you observe what you are doing, then perhaps it will be helpful. But you have no such companion; you too do not want such a companion, be cause it is too difficult, too irritating, too disturbing. But, you will have such a 'companion' in your own mind if you are earnest and say 'I want to understand it'. Don't create any intellectual difficulty by asking 'When I say I want it, is that not a desire'? That is only a quibbling of words, that is clever argumentation and has no validity. Then you and I will not understand it, because we must use words in order to convey; but if you merely put a stop at a certain point, and refuse to go beyond and understand the words in their connotation, then all action ( of inner observation ?) ceases. Take any desire, desire to be powerful, the desire to dominate, anybody rich or poor has the desire to be powerful. Do not condemn it, do not say 'It is right; it is wrong', but go into it; you will then see where it will lead you. You do not have to read any book. All the subconscious accumulations of desire for power through various means will be open to the conscious. There you have the 'book of (self-) knowledge'; and if you do not know how to read it, you will lead very complex and contradictory lives not only individually but collectively.

So, that is what we are going to discuss and talk about for the next six weeks, that is, how to understand desire and how, if possible, to go beyond (the intellectual process of ?) recognition, that ( 'me- ?) 'centre' which recognizes, which cripples all creative action. I feel there is something that can be grasped and understood in that 'centre' because, as you know, life is something much greater than physical or superficial existence. I would like to convey this to the two or three who are really serious and can go into it. And that is where there is real transformation, to see something very clearly and to act upon it; and that requires enormous patience, observation and inward integrity.

Question: You have been in retreat for the past sixteen months and that, for the first time in your life. May we know if there is any significance in this?

Krishnamurti: Don't you also want to go away sometimes to quiet and take stock of things and not merely become a repetitive machine, a ( well rounded ?) talker, explainer and expounder? Don't you want to do that some time, don't you want to be quiet, don't you want to know more of yourself? Some of you wish to do it, but economically you cannot, the family responsibilities and so on crowd in your way. All the same, it is good to retreat to quiet and to take stock of every thing that you have done. When you do that, you acquire experiences that are not recognized, not translated. Therefore, my retreat has no significance to you. But your retreat, if you follow it rightly, will have significance to you. And I think it is essential sometimes to 'go to retreat', to stop everything that you have been doing, to stop your beliefs and experiences completely, and look at them anew, not keep on repeating like machines whether you believe or do not believe. You would then let in fresh air into your minds. Wouldn't you? That means you must be inwardly secure, must you not? If you can do so, you would be open to the mysteries of nature and to things that are whispering about us, which you would not otherwise reach; you would reach the God that is waiting to come, the ( living spirit of ?) Truth that cannot be invited but which comes itself.

Surely it is good to have a complete break with the past and see what happens. Try it sirs, those of you who have the 'opportunity'. Then perhaps you will know what is beyond 'recognition', what Truth is which is not measured. Then you will find that 'God' is something which comes to you without your (personal ?) invitation. That is, only when your mind and your heart are absolutely still, not seeking, not probing, and when you have no ambitions to acquire. God can be found only when the mind is no longer seeking ( its self-) advancement. If we take a 'retreat' from all that, then perhaps the whisperings of desire will cease to be heard, and 'That' thing that is (in) waiting will come directly and surely.


We were talking yesterday about the problem of 'desire' and how to understand it (experientially ?) . What I would like to experiment (together ) with each one of you here in all these public discussions and talks is to should see the issue directly, understand it directly, and not to grope about after you have gone from here. Then you will see that these meetings are worthwhile. I feel most ardently that I am not talking to a large audience or to a small audience, but that I am talking to each 'individual' (consciousness ?) ; and I mean it. It is only the 'individual'( integrated consciousness ?) that can see, understand and create a new world, that can bring about an inward revolution and therefore an external revolution also. So, may I suggest that, as you listen, you should see the whole thing directly without interpretation . The more 'cultured', the more 'spiritual' a person is, the less is his capacity to understand ( by direct insight ?) . That is because belief binds, belief isolates; you may believe there is God, or you may believe in the complete ( orwellian ?) State control of everything and of every individual, and I may believe in private enterprise and all the rest of it; you believe that there is only one Saviour and through him you can get your end, and I don't believe so.

So, you with your 'beliefs' (or cultural 'root assumptions' ?) and I with mine are asserting ourselves. We may talk of love, of peace, of unity of mankind - which means absolutely nothing; because actually these very beliefs (are part of ) a process of ( self-protective) isolation. You (may believe that you ?) are a 'Brahmin', a 'Christian', a 'Mussulman', and so on. But in actuality, we are (inwardly) separated, we are dividing ourselves. A man who would (really) want peace and would want to create a new world, a happy world, surely cannot isolate himself through any form of ( self-centred ?) belief. Is that clear? It may be clear verbally ; but if you see the truth of it, it will begin to act.

So, we see that where there is this (subliminal ?) process of desire at work, there must be a process of (self-) isolation through belief; because, obviously, you believe in order to be more secure economically, spiritually, and also inwardly. I am not talking of those people who, for economic convenience believe in certain things. Take the ( leading ?) people who 'believe strongly' in anything, economic, social or spiritual; the (subliminal) process behind it is the psychological desire to be secure. Is it not? And then there is also the desire to continue (in the after life ?) .
(In a nutshell:) A man of peace, a man who would really understand the whole process of human existence, cannot be bound by a 'belief'. Can he? It means, he sees his desire at work as a means to become secure. My (psychologcal ?) point is that as long as we do not understand the (subliminal ?) process of desire (hidden under ?) the form of belief, there must be contention, there must be conflict, there must be sorrow, and man will be against man, which is seen (in the ww media ?) every day. And if I am (becoming) aware that this process which takes the form of belief is an expression of the craving for inward security, then my problem is not that I should believe this or that but (how ?) I should free myself from the desire to be secure.

How a conscious mind be free from this desire to be secure? Can you as an individual be free from this (subliminal) urge, this 'craving' to be secure, which expresses itself (among other psychological stuff ?) in the desire to believe in something? If we are not free of all that we can have no love in our hearts. Belief destroys all that, and this is seen in our everyday life. So, can I see myself as I am (getting) caught in this process of desire, which expresses itself in clinging to a belief? Can the mind free itself from it?
You cannot answer ( right now ?) "yes or no" to this; but you can definitely give a (longer term ?) answer if your intention is to become free from belief. You will then inevitably come to the point when you are seeking the means to free yourself ( by negating the false ?) from the (ancestral ?) urge to be secure. Obviously, there is no ( temporal ?) security inwardly which, as you like to believe, would continue. You may like to believe there is a God who is carefully looking after your petty little things, the Great Father who is watching every one of us. That is a mere projection of your own personal liking. It is not obviously true. The (actual) truth must be something entirely different. To find out that Truth which is not a projection of our liking, is our purpose in all these discussions and talks.

So, if you are really earnest in your endeavour to find out what Truth is, our next problem is whether our (accumulated ?) knowledge is necessary to the understanding of Truth? Can a mind that says 'I know' be capable of investigation and search of what is ( the Ultimate ?) Reality? And besides, what is it we (really) know, of which we are so proud? Actually what is it we know?, We know (a lot of second hand ) information; we are full of information and experience based on our (cultural) conditioning . When you say 'I know', what do you mean? Either it is the recognition of a fact or a certain in formation, or it is an experience that you have had. The constant accumulation of information, the acquisition of various forms of knowledge, information, all that, constitutes the assertion 'I know; and you start translating what you have read, according to your (subliminal) background your desire . ( Behind ) your 'knowledge' the same process of desire is at work. Instead of 'belief' we substitute our 'knowledge'. "I know, my experience is that, and on it I completely rely"; these are indications of that knowledge. But when you go behind it, and look at it more intelligently and carefully, you will find that the very assertion 'I know' is (creating) another wall of separation beteen 'you' and 'me'. Behind that wall you take refuge, seeking comfort, security. Therefore, the more the knowledge a mind is burdened with, the less capable it is of (direct ?) understanding. Obviously!

Surely, Sirs, the man who would seek Truth, must be free from all (such ?) knowledge; the (mindful putting aside of ?) of all knowledge is essential to experience Reality. It is a very interesting thing to watch how in our life these two, ( subliminal attachments to ?) knowledge and belief, play an extraordinarily powerful part. Look how we worship those who have immense (scholarly ?) knowledge and erudition!
Sirs, if you would find something "new", experience something which is not a projection of your imagination, your mind must be free (of all this psychological stuff ?) . Must it not be? It must be capable of seeing some thing new. We are discussing about that 'knowledge' that is used as a means to security, psychological and inward security, to be something. What do you get through knowledge? The authority of knowledge, the weight of knowledge, the sense of importance, dignity, the sense of vitality and what not? A man who says 'I know there is God' or 'There is not such a thing', surely has stopped pursuing ( the inner ways of ?) this whole process of desire.

Our problem then, as I see it, is: "I am weighed down by belief and/or knowledge; and is it possible for a mind to be free from ( the psychological burden of ?) yesterday and the (hopes &) beliefs that have been acquired through the process of yesterday". Do you understand the (experiential aspect of this ?) question? Is it possible for the mind to be free of all that authority of knowledge, ? Obviously what you pursue you will find. But is it Reality?
And is it possible to realize that now - not tomorrow, but now - to 'see the truth of it', and let (that burden of the past ?) go, so that your mind is not 'crippled' by this process of imagination, of projection ?
Similarly, is the mind capable of becoming free from ( the attachments to its ?) beliefs? You can only be free from it when you understand not only the conscious but the 'unconscious' (subliminal) motives as well, that make you believe. After all, we are not merely the 'superficial entity' functioning on the conscious level. If you give the 'unconscious' mind a chance (because it is much quicker in response than the self-conscious mind ) you can find out the deeper conscious and unconscious activities.
If you 'listen' to what I am saying, your unconscious mind must be also responding. While your conscious mind is quiet, listening and watching, the unconscious mind is much more active, much more alert and much more receptive; it must, therefore, have an answer. Can the human mind (which has traditionally ?) compelled to 'believe', can such a mind be free to look anew and remove the process of isolation between you and me? (Please do not say belief brings people together: look at ourselves in this country. You are all believers, but are you all together? Are you all united? You are divided into so many petty little parties, castes; you know the innumerable divisions; similarly in the west. The process is the same right through the world . So, belief does not bind people. That is so clear. If that is clear and that is true, and if you see it, then it must be followed (up) .

But the (practical) difficulty is that most are not capable of facing that inward insecurity, that inward sense of being alone . But when we see the falseness of (the attachments created by desire ?) the mind is capable, it may be only for a second, of seeing the truth of it; and if you can see it for a fleeting second, it is (good) enough; because you will then see an extraordinary thing taking place. The unconscious is (getting ?) at work though the conscious mlind may reject. And that second (of direct perception ?) is the only thing and it will have its own results even in spite of the (self-) conscious mind struggling (for or ?) against it.
So (to recap:) our question was 'Is it possible for the mind to be free from knowledge and belief?' Is not the ( infrastructure of the self-conscious ?) mind made up of knowledge and belief? Belief and knowledge are part of the processes of recognition (taking place at ) the ('control-) centre' of the mind. The process is enclosing, the process is our (self-) consciousness .
So (the bottom line is:) can the mind be free of its own (psychological infra-) structure? You understand what I mean? The "mind" is not as we know the mind to be. Probably, I shall receive many questions by tomorrow such as 'How can the mind be like this or that?' Do not please (bother to ?) ask such questions. Think it out, feel it out, go into it, do not accept what I am saying, but see the problem with which you are confronted everyday in your life.

Can the (self-conscious ?) mind cease to be? That is the problem. The (self-conscious) mind, as we know it, has behind it belifs , desires, the urge to be secure, the knowledge accumulating strength. And if, with all its powers and superiority, one cannot think for oneself, there can be no peace in the world. because in the (self-centred) mind is the very basis which creates contradiction, which isolates and separates.

We will discuss this as we go along. Just leave it alone. You have heard it, let it simmer. If you have already discarded desire, finished with it, so much the better; if you have not, let (the truth of this ?) operate . And it will operate if you listen rightly because it is something vital, it is something that you have to solve. A man who is really earnest about this, who wants to discover, has to face the problem of knowledge and belief; he has to go behind it, to discover the whole (subliminal ?) process of desire at work, desire to be secure, desire to be certain.

Question: You have condemned (the role of self-?) discipline as a means of spiritual attainment. How can anything be accomplished in life without self-discipline?

Krishnamurti: First of all, there are many who say that discipline is necessary, or the whole social, economic, and political system would cease; that, in order to do this or that, in order to realize God, you must have discipline. You must follow a certain discipline; because without discipline, you cannot control the mind; without discipline, you will spill over.
But to know the (innermost ?) truth of the matter, I do not want to rely on authority to find it out. Would I 'discipline' a child, or will I help the child to understand why he is mischievous, why he is doing a certain thing ? Then the imposition of a discipline is not necessary. What is necessary is to awaken (his) intelligence, is it not? If that (quality of compassionate ?) intelligence can be awakened in me, then obviously I shall not do certain ( reprimable) things . Since we do not ( bother to ?) know how to awaken that intelligence, we build walls of control and resistance, and call that discipline. So (imposing an inner ?) discipline has nothing to do with intelligence; on the contrary, it destroys intelligence.

So how am I to awaken (this quality of compassionate ?) Intelligence? ( Elementary: by negating the false ?) If I understand that to think in a certain manner - for instance, to think in terms of nationalism - is (psychologically ?) a wrong process, if I see the whole implication of it, the isolation, the sense of identification with something larger, and so on, if I see the whole implication of desire, of the activity of the mind, if I really understand and see the whole content of it, if my intelligence awakens to it, the desire drops away; I do not have to say 'It is a very bad desire'. This requires watchfulness, attention, alertness and examination. Does it not? And because we are not capable of it, we say we must discipline ourselves ; it is a very (antique but...) immature way of thinking about a very complex problem. Even the 'modern' systems of education are discarding the whole idea of discipline. They are trying to find out the psychology of the child and why he is going in such and such a way; they are watching him, helping him.
Now, look at (what is behind ?) the process of 'discipline': surely it is a (violent) process of compulsion, of repression. If I say, 'that is bad, do I understand anything by condemning it? So, it is the sluggish ( indolent ?) mind that begins to 'discipline' itself , without understanding what it is all about; and I am sure all religious rules have been laid down for the (psychologically ?) lazy. It is so much easier to follow than to investigate, than to enquire, than to understand. ( And for a side effect ?) The more you are 'disciplined', the less your heart is open. Do you know all these things, Sirs? How can an empty heart understand something which is beyond the influence of the mind?

If you look at this process of discipline, you will observe that desire is at the back of it, the desire to achieve a result, the desire to become something, the desire to be powerful, to become more. This constant urge of desire is at work, this urge to conform, to discipline, to suppress, to isolate. You may suppress, you may 'discipline' , (but the drawback ?) is that the 'conscious' mind cannot control and shape the unconscious mind. The more you put the lid on your mind, the more the unconscious revolts till ultimately the mind either ends up neurotically or does a crazy thing (or ...goes back to sleep ?) .
So what is important in this question is to see how to awaken the integrated intelligence, not departmentalized intelligence, but an integrated intelligence, which brings its own understanding, and therefore avoids certain (bad ?) things naturally, automatically and freely. It is this (quality of compassionate ?) intelligence that will guide, not discipline.

Sirs, if we would really go into it, if we watch ourselves and understand the whole process of discipline, we will find that we are not really disciplined at all. Are you disciplined in your lives? Or are you merely suppressing the various cravings, resisting various forms of temptations? If you should resist through discipline, those temptations and those demands are still there (lurking ?) , waiting for an opening to burst out? Have you not noticed as you grow older, that those feelings that were suppressed, are coming out again? So you cannot play tricks with your 'unconscious'; it will (eventually ?) pay you back thousandfold.

I assert that (imposing oneself a ?) 'discipline' will lead you nowhere; on the contrary, it is a blind process, unintelligent and thoughtless. But to awaken intelligence is quite a different problem. You cannot cultivate this (compassionate) intelligence (either) but once 'awakened', it brings its own mode of operation; it observes the various forms of temptations, inclinations, reactions and goes into it; it understands them not superficially but in an integrated, comprehensive manner. To do that, the mind must be ( kept ?) constantly alert, watchful. Must it not? Surely to understand (oneself ) there must be (an climate inner of ?) freedom. Our (experiential ?) difficulty is to awaken an "integrated ( mind-heart & body ?) intelligence", and that can only come about when we are capable of understanding the whole.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 26 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 #561
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline



K: Is it possible (in the field of relationship ?) to have an action without (the biasing background of ?) 'ideas' ( free of images ?) Is it possible to have a action that is not broken up, that is comprehensive, that is integrated? It seems to me that such an action is the only redemption for us. All other actions are bound to leave further confusion all further conflict. So, how is one to find action which is not based on 'idea'?
We see how (the personal attachment to their ?) ideas separates people. As I have already explained, our when action is based on belief or an idea or an ideal, such an action must inevitably be isolated, fragmented.

Surely, it must have occurred to you as it has to me, whether action is at all possible without (a preconceived ?) idea. When I have (such) an idea and I base my action on that idea, it must create opposition; idea must meet idea and must inevitably create suppression, opposition. I do not know if I am making myself clear. To me this is really a very important point. If you can understand that, not by the mind or sentimentally but intimately, I feel we shall have transcended all our (relational ?) difficulties . Is action possible without the (interfering ) process of calculation, which is the result of self-protection, of memory, of relationship, personal, individual, collective and so on? I say it is possible, if we can follow without any condemnation the whole process of desire. That no doubt requires an extraordinary alertness of mind; because our whole (cultural) conditioning is to condemn, justify, to put into various categories - which are all a process of calculation, mentation.

Let us look at it differently. We know every form of greed is destructive. Envy leads to ambition - political, religious, collective or individual. Every form of ambition, if we are aware of it, is limited and destructive: where there is ambition, there must be exploitation, man against man, nation against nation; and the very people who are shouting "peace" have not got peace in their hearts. Such people obviously cannot bring to the world peace or happiness; they must only bring contention, war. Ambition is the result of the desire for power. It is all based on ( identifying oneself with ?) the idea to become something politically, religiously; 'I want to become a great (important ?) person and want to work for the future'. What does it reflect? We also know political ambition in the name of the country and so on. All this is based on ( the self- identification with ) an idea, with a concept, a formulation of what I shall be or what my party shall be. Having established this idea, then I pursue that idea in action. First of all, (morally speaking) , an ambitious person is a source of contention; and yet we all encourage ambition. So, when you look at it, you will see ambition is the pursuit of an idea in action, 'I am going to be something', in which is involved exploitation, ruthlessness, appalling brutality etc. After all the 'me' ( who is ambitious ?) is also an 'idea' (a self-image ?) which has no actuality. It is (the result of a process of memory, recognition, which are all essentially 'ideas' (mental projections ?) .

Now, can't ( the personal ?) ambition be completely put aside when I perceive that any action, if based on a (thought projected ?) idea, must ultimately breed hatred, envy? Can I abandon completely ambition, and therefore act without the process of 'idea' (image-making ?) ? Only then, I am a centre of peace. But to abandon completely ambition with all its brutality, with the whole desire for power and condemnation, is not so easy. I can only drop it integrally, wholly and completely when I no longer pursue the idea of the 'me'; then there is no problem of how I am not to be ambitious, or being ambitious, how I am to get rid of it. Is that not our problem? We are all greedy, we are envious; you have more and I have less; you have more power and I want that power, spiritually, secularly. Being caught in it, my problem then is how to get rid of it. How am I to abandon it? We then introduce the problem 'How?'. That is merely a postponement of action. If I see that ( any psychological ?) action based on a (preconcieved) idea must introduce postponement, then I realize the necessity for action without ideation. I wonder if I am making myself clear. Is not ambition destructive? Ambitious nations, individuals after power, or persons immensely gloated with their self-importance are all dangers; you know what misery they cause to themselves and to those around them. How are they to be got rid of - not superficially but profoundly, both in the conscious as well as in the unconscious?
Idea introduced into action creates (an inner state of ?) non-action. The action which is not based on (a preconceived ?) idea will be immediate, not tomorrow. If I am able to see directly, without 'ideation', the brutality, the implications of ambition, then there is an immediate (clarity of ?) action.

So, a man who is earnest, who is really peaceful, not just 'politically (correct' ?) 'peaceful', cannot prejudice this problem through idea; because idea is postponement, idea is fragmentary, and it is not integrated intelligence. Thought must always be limited by ( its subliminal identification with ?) the 'thinker' who is conditioned; the thinker is always conditioned and is never free; if thought occurs, immediately idea follows. Idea in order to act is bound to create more confusion.

Knowing all this, is it possible to act ( in the area of relationship ?) without 'ideas' (or 'images' ?) ? Yes, it is the way of love. Love is not an idea; it is not a sensation; it is not a memory; it is not a self protective device. We can only be aware of the way of love when we understand the whole ( mental) process of idea (image-making ?) . Now, is it possible to abandon the other ways and know the "way of love" which is the only redemption? No other way, political or religious, will solve the problem. This is not a theory which you will have to think over and adopt in your life; it must be actual; and it can only be actual when you see and realize that ambition is destructive and therefore should be pushed away from you.

We have never tried that "way of love". Your immediate reaction is 'What is this "way of love" which is apart from the process of thinking and 'ideas' (image making ?) ? We can only know the "way of love" if we know the way of 'idea' (of 'image making' ?) and abandon it, which is to 'act' (spontaneously ?) . It may sound absurd but if you go into it deeply with earnestness, you will see (that in the sphere of relationship ?) ideas can never take the place of action. ( The directly perceptive ?) action is always immediate: You see something like ambition or greed; there is no 'How to get rid of that?' Please think it out (for homework ?) . You will see that "love" is the only remedy; that is our only redemption in which man can live with man peacefully, happily, without exploiting, without dominating. We do not know that "way of Love". Let us become aware of all this. When we have fully recognized the whole significance of action based on idea, the very recognition of it is to "act away" from it . A man who sees corruption and is aware of it without the (mental) screen of ideas, will act; and such a man knows the "way of Love".

Question: When the mind ceases to 'recognize', does it not come to a state of inactivity? What functions then?

Krishnamurti: The process of (the thinking) mind is ( based on a process of ?) recognition. Without recognition, without 'knowing', there is no thought process. If I have an experience, I must be able to recognize it as pleasurable, painful and so on. I must give it a name. There is the centre of recognition, which is the me, the self -(conscious mind ?) ; and without recognition, can this centre, the 'me', exist? Obviously, not.

The questioner asks: if that ( self-centred process of ?) recognition is not, what is the activity of the mind there?
Your very asking of this question is a continuation of the process of the self: "Is my experience the same as yours?" So, what you are interested is not what happens when the process of recognition is not (active) ; but, you want an assurance from me that your experience is the same as mine; which is, you want to recognize (certify ?) your experience in relation with mine. So your question has no answer. It is a 'wrong' question.
Let us put it differently. We only know (that we had an ) experience through recognition. And each 'recognition' strengthens the (self-confidence of the ?) self. Each experience is recognized and you cannot have experience without saying 'Yes, I know what it is'. I want to see the 'Master' and I see him, and I experience; but it has nothing to do with Reality. So, if I rely on my (previous ?) experience to see what truth is, then it is my projection of what truth should be. And is it possible for the centre, for the me, to have no recognition, not to aid (or optimise the ?) experience through recognition?

You can try it (as a 'meditative' homework ?) : try to see if your mind can be completely still without 'recognizing' things; when this happens, the mind is in a state of ( authentic) stillness. Soon afterwards, it wants to prolong (give continuity to ?) that ( exquisite ?) state by bringing that experience into the realm of memory and strengthening the process of ( self-centred ?) thought, of recognition, which is the centre of the 'self' (consciousness) .
Can't the mind be still, without any of all this? Which means, can't the mind be still without 'verbalization' ? If the mind is still in that manner, the activities that follow cannot be measured, cannot be verbalized, cannot be recognized (in terms of what was previously known ?) .
God, Truth, is not recognizable. Therefore, to know Truth, there must be the understanding and putting away of all knowledge, of all beliefs; when recognition has ceased, ( the living spirit of ) Truth can come into it and be there.

Question: If I am myself unable to find Truth, how can I prevent my child from being the victim of my conditioning?

Krishnamurti: Knowing that a parent is conditioned, that he has prejudices, has ambitions, has opinions about what society will say and will not say; knowing all that, how will you help the child to grow to be a free and integrated human being? That is the problem: being conditioned, I cannot help another if I am unaware of my own conditioning. But if I am (becoming) aware of it, then I cannot but act and help the child. It is really very important to understand this question, not the question of conducting the child, how to help him.

( To recap:) We have to understand the whole problem of ( the preconceived ?) 'idea' and action. We have always placed the (noble ?) 'ideas' first and the action afterwards. All our literature - religious, political, economic - are based on ( great ?) ideas. A mind that is full of (second-hand) knowledge and 'ideas' can never (see &) act (directly) . When you have a ( relationship ) problem as that of (personal) ambition, you cannot have an idea about it; you can only act about it. Similarly, when I know I am conditioned, the mere thought process regarding it is postponement of the mind from (looking directly at ?) that conditioning. I assure you, it ceases to be a problem only to a man who is earnest, who is intent on finding the way of love, because he is not concerned with ideas, but is concerned with a (way of ?) action which is not isolated (self-isolating ?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Apr 2017 #562
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline

4TH K PUBLIC TALK MADRAS 1952 (experientially 'dusted' text)


K: In trying to find out the solution of the problem of ( freeing the self-enclosed ?) consciousness, it is very important to understand the whole question of 'individuality'.
What is the 'individual' (consciousness ?) ? As it is a difficult question we should be able to talk it over like two friends, to look at it together , then perhaps we should be able to understand the significance of the problems involved in individuality, and perhaps we should be able to go beyond that which we call the 'individual' . That is to understand the whole question of the conscious and the unconscious, not only the barren uppermost consciousness of the mind, of the active mind, but also of the unconscious, the hidden.
So, what is the 'individual' (consciousness ) ?

What 'are' you, actually? Obviously, certain psycho-somatic responses of (our past) memory, of 'time', frustrated hopes, depressions and occasional joys. We are a repository of tradition, of knowledge, of belief, of what we would like to be, and of the desire for our own continuity (in time) with a name and a ( physical) form. That is what actually we are. We are the ( compounded ?) result of our father and mother, of environmental influences, climatically and psychologically. That is 'what is'. What is beyond this ( spatio-temporal consciousness ?) we do not know. We can only speculate; we can only assert; we can only say that we are the soul, immortal, imperishable; but, actually, that has no ( factual) existence. That is merely a prjection of 'what is' translated into terms of ( long term ?) security.

So, our consciousness, as we know it, is a process of time. When are you self-conscious? When there is ( challenge and a ) response, pleasant or unpleasant. Otherwise you are not self-conscious. When there is (an imminent ?) fear, you are (self-) conscious. When there is a frustration, you are aware of yourself being frustrated. When there is joy, you are also aware of it. When desire is thwarted, frustrated or when desire finds fulfilment, you are equally aware. So our consciousness is a process of time, confined, limited, narrowed down to the ( the time-line of the ?) thought process.
( In a nutshell:) Our consciousness is a process of 'time' in action. The 'individual' is the product of time, and it is memory, a consciousness narrowed down to a particular form and name. It refers to both the conscious mind functioning as well as the unconscious. We all have fear of death, various levels of frustrations and hopes, according to education, according to the environmental influences, and dependent on our physiological condition, as well as psychological condition. So, we 'are' all that : the (dynamic) bundle of all that. We are becoming (self-) conscious only when the ( temporal continuity of the ) movement of our consciousness is hindered, or you are aware of yourself in achieving, in arriving, in becoming. Otherwise, you are not (self-) conscious. are you?

Now, as long as there is this (active) process of ( continuity in ?) time, there must be some ( associated ?) fear. The fear of death, of 'not being', of not arriving, of not being secure economically, or mentally. As long as there is fear, there must be constant (state of) conflict between being and not being, not only on the conscious level but also on the hidden levels. And being (openly or just subliminally ?) afraid, we are trying to escape from it; and the (available) escapes are many: I like to be with my wife or husband, with my Society, with God, and so on. There are innumerable forms of ( fear motivated ?) desires. But we have not solved the problem of fear. What we do is to (conveniently) escape from it through various forms.

Now, how is possible to 'go beyond' ( this ) fear? You may not be afraid of anything outwardly; but, you are afraid inwardly. Fear finds various escapes. The common variety is identification (with something or other ) with the country, with the society, with an idea. Haven't you noticed how you respond when you see a military procession or a religious procession, or when the country is in danger of being invaded? You then identify yourself with the country, with a belief, with an ideology. There are other times when you identify with your child, with your wife, with a particular form of action or inaction. So, identification is a process of self forgetfulness. As long as I am self-conscious of the 'me', there is pain, there is struggle, there is constant fear. But if I can identify myself with something greater, with something worthwhile, with beauty, with life, with truth, with belief, with knowledge, at least temporarily, there is an escape from the 'me' (and of its problems) . Is there not? If I talk about my country I forget myself temporarily. Do I not? If I can say something about God, I forget myself. If I can identify my family with a group, with a particular party, with certain ideology, then there is a temporary escape.
Therefore, 'identification' is a form of escape from the self in as much as virtue is a form of escape from the ( actual problems of one's ?) self. The more you are identifying with a substitution, the greater the strength to hold on to that for which you are prepared to die, to struggle; because fear is at the back.
Do we now know what fear is? Is it not ( deriving from ?) the non-acceptance of 'what is'? When I don't see clearly the 'what is' (of my psyche ) , then fear is (resulting from ) the non-acceptance of what is (a dynamic bundle of reactions, responses, memories, hopes, depressions, frustrations).

Now, can the mind without these blockings and hindrances, be (naturally aware and ?) conscious? Don't you know when the (psychosomatic) body is perfectly healthy, there is a certain joy, well being; and don't you know when the mind is completely free without any block, when the centre of ( control & ) recognition as the 'me' is not there, you experience a certain joy? Haven't you experienced this state when the 'self (consciousness' ?) is absent? Surely we all have. Having experienced (that state of inner harmony) we want to go back and recapture it. This is again (a projection in ?) 'time' process : having experienced something (excellent) , we want it again - therefore we create another block.

Surely to find out (a way of) action which is not the result of isolation, there must be action without the 'self'. That is what you are all seeking in one form or other in society, through meditation, through identification, through belief, through knowledge, through activities of innumerable kinds. That is what each one of us is seeking, to escape from the narrow ( enclosed ?) area called 'self' (consciousness) , to 'get away' from it. (But how) can you 'get away' from it without understanding the whole process of 'what is'? If I do not know the whole content of what is - the 'me'- how can I avoid it and run away?

There is understanding and freedom from one's 'self (-centred' consciousness ?) , only when one can look at it as a whole; and one can do that only when one understands the whole (subliminal) process of desire which is the very expression of thought - for thought is not different from desire - without justifying it, without condemning it, without suppressing it; if I can understand that, then I will know there is the possibility of 'going beyond' the (perceptive limitations of ?) the self. And then there can be action which is not isolated, action which is not based on idea. But so long as the mind is (safely ?) confined to the area called the 'self' ( or 'self - consciousness' ?) , there must be conflict between man and man; and a man who seeks truth or peace, must understand desire. Understanding comes when ( the open or hidden activities of ?) desire are not blocked (mentally ?) , through fear, through condemnation - which does not mean you must give fulfillment to desire; you must 'follow it', there must be ( a free learning ?) movement without contradiction, without condemnation. Then you will see that the conscious mind , however active it may be, becomes the field in which the unconscious can flower.
This inner freedom (to learn) which is really (a higher form of ?) virtue, is necessary to discover what is Truth; and the discovery of truth is not by the process of time. The process of time is the ( spatio-temporal) mind and this mind can never discover what is truth. Therefore it is necessary to understand the process of one's consciousness as limited (by self-interest ?) to the 'me'.

Question: What do you feel to be the cause of the great prevalence of mental derangement in the world today? Is it ( the material) insecurity? If so, what can we do to keep the millions who feel physically insecure from becoming unbalanced, neurotic and psychotic?

Krishnamurti: First of all, is there such a thing as an 'inward' (temporal) security? Can there ever be security inwardly, psychologically? If you can find an answer to that, then ( a time-free ?) physical security is possible; because that is what millions want, physical security, the next meal, shelter and clothing. Millions go to bed half-starved. To solve the problem of food, cloth and shelter for the many, not just for the few, we must enquire why man seeks this 'psychological' security; because the (ultimate ?) answer is not economic but psychological. Because each one of us is using the physical substance as a means of psychological security. Are you not doing that? If you and I, if the world, were concerned in feeding man, clothing him and sheltering him, surely we will have to find ways. Is it not?

So our problem is not wholly economic, as economists would like to think, but rather psychological; which is, that each one of us wants to be secure through ( getting attached to ?) beliefs, or to superstitions.
Now, ( the experiential paradox is that ?) the more I believe in the future life, in God, the more I think of it, because it gives comfort and security, I am staying fairly balanced. But if I am enquiring, searching, doubting, skeptic, then I begin to 'lose my mooring' and I lose my (temporal) security, and mentally I cannot stand this. So there is ( resulting a ) 'psychotic' state of mind. Have you not noticed it in yourselves? The moment you have something to which you can cling, you feel peaceful, be it a person, or idea or party - does not matter what it is. As long as you can cling to something, you feel safe, and feel more or less balanced. But question that belief and enquire into it, you invite ( a psychological sense of ?) insecurity. That is why all clever intellectual people end up in some form of belief; because they push their intellects as far as they can and they see nothing; and then, they say 'Let us believe' (or enjoy the life we've got ?) .

Surely our ( 1000 $ ?) question is, is there a 'psychological' or inward (temporal) security? Obviously there is not. I can find ( a temporary ) security in a belief; but that is merely a projection of my uncertainty in the form of belief, which becomes certain.
Can I find the truth (regarding) security and insecurity? Then only I am a sane being; I can find it out then I am an integrated, intelligent being.
So, is there (any temporal) 'psychological' security, inward security? Obviously, there is not. We only like it to be; but there is not. Can you depend on anything? When you do, what happens? The very dependence is an invitation to fear which breeds in dependence away from it, which is another form of fear. So until you find the truth of insecurity which means (of our temporal) continuity, you are bound to have some blockages in the mind which in action creates a neurotic state. There is no ( spatio-temporal ?) permanency, there is no certainty, but there is ( the timeless stability of ?) truth which can only take place if you understand the whole process of desire and insecurity.

Question: Have I understood you right- that the solution for all our ills is to put a stop to all recognition and to the vagaries of desire and go beyond it? I have experienced moments of ecstasy but they drop away soon afterwards, and desires rush in breaking from the past into the future. Is it possible to annihilate desire once and for all?

Krishnamurti: See, you want a (ultimate ) result: you want to get rid of desire altogether, in order to achieve that 'ecstatic' state. That is, I would like to be (permanently) 'happy' and 'ecstatic' and therefore I want to get rid of desire. So I am enquiring how to get rid of desire in order to achieve that (excellent ) state. Please see the impossibility of this. I (strongly desire) that 'experience' to continue; but I cannot continue that experience as long as desire exists; therefore, I must get rid of desire. You are not interested in understanding desire, but in 'modifying' (optimising ?) it . You have transformed your (lower activity of ?) desire from secular, narrow walls to something (of a transcendental nature ?) which you have experienced. So what are you concerned with? With ( bringing back) an experience which is past. Please follow ( the intricacy of ) this whole process you are confronted with, the problem of recapturing a past experience like a boy who has had a moment of ecstasy, and who, when he has grown old, would want to return to that because he is incapable of (directly) experiencing anything new.

What do you mean by ( a transcendental ?) experience? The 'me' recognizes something as "ecstasy" and wants to capture it. The very wanting is a process of desire. At the very moment of that 'experiencing', there is no (mental evaluation or ?) naming. When something happens to you unexpected, a state of ecstasy develops; in that second, there is no recognition. Immediately after say "I have had a great experience", you give it a name. This is all the process of (the temporal) mind trying to give it a name so that it can remember the experience , through that it can continue ( give continuity to ?) that experience.

But to understand ( and transcend ?) desire needs an alert mind and constant watching without condemnation, without justification, constant observation, constant following, because it (the inner movement of desire) is never still.
When you have an experience which is never recognized, you will see that the 'experience' which you can name, is only a continuance of your own (movement of ) desire in a different form.
So, when you understand desire, when you have really followed it, you have a state of being in which ( the process of mental ?) recognition is not present, in which there is no naming. That comes only when the mind ( is not expecting anything and ?) is really silent, not made silent. The mind is (naturally) silent because it becomes aware of the whole process of desire. When the mind is silent, no longer 'imaginative', no longer 'verbalizing'; that very silence of the mind leads to a state (to a time-free dimension ?) of being which cannot be measured by the ( ordinary ?) mind.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 28 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Apr 2017 #563
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline


THE DIRECT APPROACH TO DISSOLVING THE 'SELF' ( experientially friendly edited)

K: What we have been discussing previously is this: how are we to recognize the various activities of the 'self' and its subtle forms behind which the (conscious ?) mind takes shelter. The actions based on ideas becomes the means of continuing the self. If the (mental screen of ?) ideas was not there, action has a different meaning altogether, an action which is not born of self (interest) . The search for power, position, authority, ambition and all the rest are the forms of the self in all its different ways. But what is important is to understand the 'self' and I am sure you and I are convinced of it.

You know what I mean by the 'self' ? By that, I mean the (subliminal identification with one's ?) ideas, memory, experience, the various forms of nameable and unnameable intentions, the conscious endeavour 'to be' or 'not to be', (plus ?) the memory of the ( collective & personal ?) unconscious, the racial, the group, the individual, the clan, and the whole of it all, whether it is projected outwardly in action, or projected spiritually as 'virtue'; the striving after all this, is the "self". In it, is included the competition, & the desire to 'be' ( someone or something ?)
The whole process of that, is the "self " ( aka: the 'ego' ?) ; and we know actually when we are faced with it, that it is an 'evil' thing, because its activities are separative and isolating. We also know some extra-ordinary moments when the "self" is not there, in which there is no sense of endeavour, of effort, and which happens when there is "love".

It seems to me that it is important to understand how our daily experience strengthens the "self" . We have (sensory, emotional and intellectual ?) experiences all the time, impressions; and we translate those impressions (in personal terms ?) , and we are acting according to those impressions; we are (becoming) calculated, cunning, and so on. There is the constant interplay between what is seen objectively and our (subjective ?) reaction to it, and the interplay between the conscious and the memories of the unconscious.
According to my ( personal bank of ?) memories, I react to whatever I see, to whatever I feel. In this process of reacting to what I see, what I feel, what I know, ( the personal ?) experience is taking place. Is it not? When I see you, I react; the (recognition & ) naming of that reaction is my experience.
If I do not name that reaction it is not (processed & stored as a personal ?) experience. Please do watch it: There is no (recording as personal) experience unless there is a naming process going on at the same time. If I do not 'recognize' you, how can I have ( a personal memory of that ?) experience? That is, if I do not react to (seeing ) you according to my past memories, according to my (cultural) conditioning , according to my prejudices, how can I know that I have had an experience? That is one aspect of (the personal) 'experience'
Then there is the projection of various desires. I desire to be ( heavenly ?) protected, or I desire to have a Guru, a Teacher, a God; and I have projected (outwardly) that desire which has taken a 'form' (an image ?) , to which I have given a name. That desire makes me say: 'I have met the Master''. You know the whole process of (recognising & ) naming a (subjective) experience.
For instance, when I desire the "silence of the mind", what is taking place? What happens? The very desire to have a silent mind is (subliminally translated into the ?) "experiencing of silence". Therefore the 'self', the 'me', has established itself as the "experiencer" of silence.

( Another example:) I want to understand what is Truth; that is my desire, my (spiritual ?) longing; then there is my (mental) projection of what I consider to be 'the' truth, because I have read lots about it, the religious scriptures have described it. And I "want" all that. What happens? That very (strong) desire is projected ( as a virtual 'image' of Truth ?) and ...I experience (that image of Truth) because I 'recognize' that (self-projected ?) state . If I do not 'recognize' that state, I would not call it Truth. But as I do recognize it , I ( think I have ?) experienced it. ( Implicitly ?) that ( self-projected ?) experience gives more strength to the self, to the 'me'. So, eventually, the "self" becomes entrenched in its own "(spiritual) experience". Then you say : 'I know that the Master exists', or that 'there is God', or ...'there is no God; or you want a particular political system to come, because that is right and all others are not.
So ( the desire for the 'ultimate' ?) experience is always strengthening the 'me'. The more entrenched you are in "your" experience and the more does the self (-consciousness ?) get strengthened. As a result of this, you have a certain "strength of character", "strength of belief", which you (may ?) put over across to other people who are not so clever as you are and because you have the 'gift of the pen' and you are cunning. And because this 'self' (-sustained image ?) is constantly acting, your beliefs, your Masters, your castes, your economic system are all a process of isolation, and they therefore bring contention.

We see all 'experiences' of the self are a negation, a destruction; and yet, that is what we call the 'positive' way of life. There is nothing (truly ) 'positive' in it. Can we, you and I as (integrated ?) individuals, go to the root of it and understand the process of the self? Now what is the element that dissolves it? What brings about dissolution of the 'self'?
Religious and other groups have (recommended ?) the identification with something Higher : Identify yourself with a larger ( Consciousness ?) , and the 'self' disappears; that is what they say. (However ?) we are saying here that such 'identification' is still a process of the self; the 'larger' ( Consciousness) is simply the projection of the 'me', which I then 'experience' and which therefore strengthens the 'me'. All the various forms of (spiritual) disciplines, beliefs and knowledge only strengthen the self.

Can we find an 'element' which would dissolve the 'self'? One can see that it always bringing anxiety, fear, frustration, despair, misery, not only to myself but to all around me. Is it possible for that 'self' (-centredness ?) to be dissolved, not partially but completely?
Can we go to the root of it and destroy it? That is the only way of functioning intelligently in an integrated manner. Most of us are 'intelligent' in layers, some of you are intelligent in your business work, some others in your office work and so on; people are intelligent in different ways; but, we are not integrally intelligent. To be integrally intelligent means to be without the "self". Now, is it possible for the "self" to be completely absent? What are the necessary ingredients, requirements? The (holistic ?) understanding of the self requires a great deal of intelligence, great deal of watchfulness, alertness, watching ceaselessly, so that it does not 'slip away'. ( The dualistic difficulty is that ?) the moment I say 'I want to dissolve this', and I (take steps towards ?) the dissolution of it , there is a ( 'recognition' & ?) 'experiencing' of the self; and so.... the 'self'(consciousness ) is getting strengthened . So, how is it possible for the 'self' (to 'stay put' and ?) not to 'experience'?

One can see that the Creation ( a totally new perception ?) is not at all in the (area of) 'experience' of the self. ( The new-ness of ?) Creation is when the 'self' is not there; because Creation is something beyond all (ego-centric ?) experiencing, as we know it. Therefore, is it possible for the mind to be quite (perfectly ) 'still' and in a state of 'non-recognition' (or 'innocence' ?) , which is, non-experiencing, to be in a state in which (the newness of ?) Creation can take place, which means, when the 'self (-consciousness '?) is absent? Look, Sirs, the (experiential) problem is this: any 'movement' of the mind, positive or negative, is (resulting in ?) an 'experience' which actually strengthens the 'me'. Is it possible for the (perfectly still ?) mind not to recognize? That can only take place when there is complete (inner) silence, but not the ( self-induced ) 'silence' which is an experience of the self and which therefore strengthens the self.

Is there a 'spiritual' entity apart from the 'self' ( the Higher Self ?) , which looks at the self and dissolves the self? Are you following all this? Is there a spiritual entity (essence ?) which supersedes the self and puts it aside? We (like to ?) think there is. Don't we? Most 'religious' people think there is such a (transcendental ?) element , while the 'materialists' says 'It is impossible for the self to be destroyed; it can only be (re-) conditioned and/or restrained - politically, economically and socially; we can 'break it' and (re-program ?) it to follow the desired social pattern, and to function merely as a (highly productive ?) machine. That, we know (only too well ?) There are other people, the so-called 'religious' ones who say 'Fundamentally, there is such an (transcending?) element. If we can get into touch with it, it will dissolve the self'.

( Please see what we are doing : (gently ?) pushing the 'self' into a corner. If (in the context of a silent meditation ?) you 'allow yourself' to be forced into the corner, you will see what is going to happen.)

Now, is there such a (transcending ?) 'element' to dissolve the 'self'? We would like that there should be an element which is timeless and which, we hope, will come and dissolve it, which we call ( The Grace of ?) 'God'. Now is there ( down there?) such a thing which the (spatio- temporal ?) mind can't conceive? There may be or there may not be; (but for the time being ?) that is not the point. But when you 'believe' that there is truth, God, timeless state, immortality, is that not (becoming part of ?) the process of strengthening the 'self'?

The self has projected this idea of (its own ?) continuance in a timeless state as a 'spiritual entity', and all such 'experience' will only strengthen the self; and therefore what have you done? You have not really dissolved the self but only given it a different name, a different quality; the self is still there, because you have (recognised, named and ?) 'experienced' it. So, if you observe inwardly, it is the same (self-centred ?) action going on, the same 'me' functioning at different levels with different names.
When you see the whole process, the 'cunning intelligence' of the self, how it covers itself up through identification, through virtue, through experience, through belief, through knowledge; when you see that you are moving in a (mental) cage of its own make, what happens? When you are ( becoming fully ?) aware of it, is not your mind extraordinarily ( naturally ?) quiet ? When you realise that every 'movement' of the (ego-centric ?) mind is resulting in the strengthening the self, when see it, when you are completely aware of it in action, when you come to that point you will see that the mind being utterly still, has no power of creating (illusions ?) . Whatever the mind creates, is within the field of the self. When the mind is 'non-creating' (not refreshing its self-image ?) , there is Creation, which is not a recognizable process.

Reality, Truth, is not to (material to ?) be 'recognized'. For Truth to come all these must go : belief, knowledge & experiencing . To the 'man of truth', Truth has come into being. A (self-) righteous man can never understand what is Truth; because 'virtue' to him is the cover-up of the self, the strengthening of the self.
That is why it is so important to be (inwardly ?) 'poor', not only in the things of the world, but also in (terms of ?) beliefs and in knowledge. A 'rich' man (either) with worldly riches, or 'rich' in (the area of psychological ?) knowledge and belief, will never know anything but ( spiritual ?) darkness, and will be at the centre of all mischief and misery.

But if you and I, as ( integrated ?) 'individuals', can see (through ?) this whole working of the 'self', then we shall know what Love is. I assure you that is the only (spiritual ?) reformation which can possibly change the world. Love is not (within) the 'self' (-centred consciousness ?) . The 'self' cannot recognize Love. You may say 'I love', but in the very saying of it, in the (self-conscious ?) 'experiencing' of it, Love is not. But, when you 'know' Love, the 'self' (consciousness ?) is not (around ? ) . When there is Love, the 'self' is not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 May 2017 #564
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline



K: How is (an integrated ?) collective action to be brought about? Does not such cooperation come when there is an "intelligence" which is neither collective nor individual? That is what I would like to talk over together this evening.
To discuss that problem profitably, you must find out what is the function of the mind. When you observe your own mind, you are observing not only the so called 'upper levels' of the mind but also watching the 'unconscious', you are seeing what the mind actually does. That is the only (experiential) way you can investigate: by not superimposing what it should do, how it should think or how it should act or, if you quote some 'higher authority', then you equally stop thinking. If you quote Sankara, Buddha, Christ or X, Y, Z, there is an end to all (inner) investigation.

So, what is the function of the mind? To find that out, you must know what the self-conscious mind is actually doing: it is all (engaged in ?) a process of thinking. Is it not? Otherwise, if the mind is not 'thinking' consciously or unconsciously, without verbalizing, there is no (self-) consciousness.
Now when you observe your (everyday) thinking, you will see it is a (self-isolating ?), fragmentary process. You are thinking according to your (mental) reactions, the reactions of your memory, of your experience, of your knowledge, of your belief. (Eg:) If I say that there must be a fundamental revolution, you immediately object to that word 'revolution', (especially) if you have got good investments, spiritual or other wise. So, your (mental) reactions are dependent on your knowledge, on your belief, on your experience. Your action, beliefs, knowledge, experience, give strength to the process of ( self-centred ) thinking. If you go deeper into the 'unconscious' (zones of consciousness ) , there too, it is the same process that is at work. There, we are the 'collective' (consciousness ?) influenced by the environment, by the climate, by the society, by the father, the mother, the grandfather; you know all that. There again, is the desire to assert oneself , to dominate as the 'me'.

So, is not the function of our ( self-centred ?) mind, as we know it and as we function daily, a process of isolation? Aren't you seeking your 'individual' salvation, or to be 'somebody' (sometimes ?) in the future - a great man, a great writer. Our whole tendency is to be (think in terms of being ) separated. Can the ( self-centred ?) mind do anything else but that? Is it possible for the mind not to think separatively, in a self-enclosed manner, fragmentarily? That is impossible. Because of this, we worship those who are intellectually superior, the lawyers, the 'professors', the orators, the great writers, the explainers and the expounders who have (intensively) cultivated the intellect and the mind.

And having cultivated this process for centuries, we find we cannot cooperate (freely and creatively ?) ; only we are urged, compelled, driven by authority, fear, either economic or religious. If that is the actual state, how can there be an intelligent 'coming together' to do something? As that (kind ofaction) is almost impossible, the religions and organized social parties force the individual to certain forms of discipline. So, until we understand how to transcend this separative thinking, this process (tendency ?) of giving emphasis to the 'me' and the ( 'all-knowing' ?) mind whether in the collective form or in individual form, we shall not have peace; we shall have constant conflict and wars.

Now, our problem is how to dissolve this, how to bring about an end to this separative process of thought? Can thought ever destroy the 'self', thought being the (intellectual) process of verbalization and of certain reactions? Can such thought put an end to itself? Thought is compelling itself, urging itself, disciplining itself, to be something or not to be something. Is that not a process of isolation? Therefore, it is not the "integrated intelligence" which can function as a whole, from which alone there can be (an authentic) cooperation.

So, how are you to come to the end of thought; or rather, how is thought to come to an end? I mean the ( self-centred process of ?) thought which is isolated, fragmentary and partial. How do you set about it? Will your so-called 'discipline' destroy it? Obviously, you have not succeeded all these long years; otherwise, you would not be here. The ('self-) disciplining' process is solely a (compulsory ?) thought process, in which there is repression, control, domination - all affecting the unconscious. It asserts itself later as you grow older. Having tried discipline for such a long time to no purpose, you must have found that obviously that 'self'(-centredness ?) cannot be destroyed through discipline, because discipline is a process of strengthening the self. Will ( a scholarly ?) knowledge destroy it? Will belief destroy it? In other words, will every thing that we are at present doing, all the activities in which we are at present engaged in order to get at the root of our self(ishness) , will all that succeed? Is not all this a fundamental waste ( of intelligent energy invested ?) in a thought process which is a process of isolation, a process of reaction?

What do you do when you realize deeply that the ( self-centred ?) thought cannot end itself? When (and if ?) you are fully aware of this fact, what happens? You then understand that any (mental) reaction is conditioned, and therefore giving continuity to the 'self ' in different ways, what actually takes place? What is the state of the mind which says 'It is so. That is exactly where I am , I see what knowledge and discipline can do, what ambition does'? Surely, there is (already ) a different process at work.
We see the (intricate ?) ways of the intellect, but we do not see the (simple ?) way of love; and this "way of love" is not to be found through the intellect. The (self-centred activity of the ?) intellect with all its desires, ambitions, pursuits, must come to an end for real love to come into existence. Don't you know that when you "love" you are not thinking of yourself? That is the highest form of intelligence . So, (this 'intelligence of ?) love' can come into being only when the (self-conscious ?) mind is not there. Therefore, you must understand the whole process of the (self-centred ?) mind and only then a deep ('inner) revolution' will take place.

This ( ages old self-centred ?) process of the human mind is not (to be fully ) understood just by listening to one or two talks. It can only be understood when there is a big ('psychological' ?) revolution in you, a deep interest to find out (the roots of our inner ) discontent, this ( existential ?) despair. But you (instinctively ?) prevent yourself to come to that state in which you are 'in despair'. You have always something or someone to lean on, you can always read books, listen to a talk, run away. It is only a man who has discarded completely all these (diverting ?) things, who 'stands naked', who will find what ( the true value of ?) Love is; and without that, there is no transformation, there is no (spiritual ?) renewal. There is nothing but imitation and ashes; and that is what our (artizanal ?) culture is at present. It is only when we know how to love each other, there can be cooperation, there can be intelligent functioning, coming together over any question. It is only then possible to find out what God is, what Truth is. Now, we are trying to find truth through intellect, through 'imitation' - which is ( a subtle form of ?) idolatry, whether it is made by hand or by mind. Only when you discard completely, through understanding, the whole structure of self (-ishness ?) , That which is Eternal, Timeless, Immeasurable, comes; 'you' cannot go to It; (but ?) It (may ?) come to you.

Question: Can the roots of (a deep psychological) problem like 'greed' be completely eradicated by (plain ?) 'awareness'? Aren't there various levels of awareness?

Krishnamurti: That is a problem to the questioner: 'greed' cannot be chipped away little by little. That which you chip away grows into ( a still subtler ?) greed in another form; and you know what greed does in society, or in the relationship between two individuals ; you know the whole process of the economic or spiritual, greed to be (or become something) . The questioner asks how this greed can fundamentally be eradicated. Let us find out.

First of all, 'why' do you want to get rid of greed? Is it not in order to get something else (in exchange) , because the sacred books say so or because you see its results in society? What is the urge that makes you say 'I must do away with it?' That is very important to find out, because 'you' , the (identification with ?) ' the want to be' (something) , positive or negative, may be the root. Is not thgis desire to be something the very nature of greed?
Can you live (or even ...survive ?) in this world without 'being something'? Can you live without 'being anything', without 'titles', 'degrees', 'positions', 'capacities'? Until you are prepared to "be (inwardly as ?) nothing", you must (naturally ?) be greedy in different forms.

Have you a true awareness of this function of greed and its destructive pursuits? Can the mind - after all, (the self-conscious ?) mind 'is' (identified with this ?) greed - can the mind be nothing, not seeking, not desiring to be, to become? Obviously ( in meditation ?) it can. It is only then, you are full; only then, you do not ask, you do not demand to be fulfilled. But you do not want to be (inwardly "as ?) nothing". All your struggle is to be something; is it not? If you are a clerk, you want to be something higher, to have better pay, more position, with a promise of reward in the future. You don't throw away all that, be (inardly) simple, be (as ?) nothing, be really naked. Surely, till you come to that state, there must be ( an open or subtle ?) greed in different forms. You cannot come to that ( non-greed ?) state, without 'being nothing'. Your experiencing of ( being inwardly ?) 'nothing' is another projection of the self and therefore a (subliminal) strengthening of the self. So, you cannot experience the "state of no-thingness" any more than you can experience the state of "love". When 'you' experience anything, love is not; because, as I explained yesterday, that which you call experience is only a projection of your own desire and therefore a strengthening of the self. So if you see all this, if you are aware of all this - not only at the superficial level, which is to have little, to possess only one or two (elegant ?) suits - , if you are aware of the whole significance of the (illusory ?) desire to transform yourself from this to that, when you are fully cognizant of the whole process of greed, then greed will drop away.
Obviously, there are many levels of awareness. The spirit of marvel of all what is taking place, of the trees, the moonlight, the poor unfed child, the half-starved - they are all superficial awareness, observations. But if you can go a little deeper, there is the awareness of how we are conditioned, not only at the conscious level but at a deeper level, an awareness which comes through dreams, or when there is a little space between two thoughts, a certain un-premeditated observation. And when you can go still deeper, that is, when the mind is absolutely without any (mental ?) reflection, recognition, when the mind is still, not (involved in ?) experiencing, in that stillness, there is Intelligence.
( In a nutshell:) ( The self-centred ?) mind is always verbalizing ( & processing & storing ?) its experiences and therefore giving strength to it self . Surely, the more we are becoming conscious of all the ways of the self, the more we are aware of all our feelings; we understand every sorrow, every movement of thought and live with it without brushing it aside, that gives ( the spiritual) maturity; not age, not knowledge, not belief. That brings about an ( universally ?) integrated Intelligence which is not separative.

Question: We are all Theosophists interested fundamentally in Truth and Love, as you are. Could you not have remained in our society and helped us rather than separate yourself from us and 'denounce' us? What have you achieved by this?

Krishnamurti: Can you belong to any organization, spiritual group, and seek Truth? Is Truth to be found collectively? When you believe in certain hierarchical (spiritual) principles and authorities, and I do not, do you think there is communion between us? When the whole process of your thinking is based on authority and hierarchical principles, do you think there is love between us? You may use me for (your) convenience, and I may use you for my convenience. But that is not love. Let us be clear.
To find out whether you are really seeking truth and love, you must investigate, must you not? If you do investigate, if you find out inwardly and therefore act outwardly, what would happen? You will be an outsider, wouldn't you? As long as there are societies and so called spiritual organizations who have vested interests in property, in belief, in knowledge - obviously, the people there are not seeking Truth. They may say so. So, you must find out if we are fundamentally seeking the same thing.
Can you seek Truth through a Master, through a Guru? Can you find Truth through the process of (psychological ?) time, in (terms of) becoming something? Can you find truth through the Master, through (being their ) pupil, through Gurus; and what can they tell you fundamentally? They can only tell you to dissolve the 'me'. If you are saying 'I am going to be somebody', if you occupy a position of spiritual authority, you can not be seeking Truth. I am very clear about these matters, and I am not trying to persuade you to accept or to denounce, which will be stupid. I cannot denounce you, as the questioner says.
Even though you have heard me for twenty years, you go on with your beliefs; because, it is very comforting to believe that you are being looked after, that you have special 'messengers' for the future, that you are going to be something beautiful, now or eventually. You will go on because your vested interests are there, in property, in job, in belief, in knowledge. You do not question them. It is the same all the world over.

The man who is inwardly seeing the truth of all these things, will find Truth. He will know what love is, not in some future date which is of no (experiential) value. You all talk about love & universal brotherhood; and everything you do, is contrary to that. It is obvious, sirs, that the moment you have an 'organization', there must be intrigues for (the best ?) position, for authority; you know the whole game of it.
So, if you really want to find truth and love, there must be singleness of purpose, complete abandonment of all vested interests; which means, you must be inwardly empty, poor, not seeking, not acquiring positions of authority as displayers or bringers of messages from the Masters. You must be completely naked. Since you do not wish that, naturally, you acquire labels, beliefs and various forms of security.

Sirs, find out whether you are really, as you say, fundamentally seeking Truth. I really question this , because your search is a projection of an experience which 'you' want (to achieve) . But when 'you' do not seek, when the mind is (meditatively ?) quiet and tranquil without any want, without any motive, without any compulsion, then you will find that an "ecstasy" comes. For that ecstasy to come, you must be completely naked, empty, alone. Most people join these societies because they are gregarious, because it is very convenient socially. Do you think you are going to find Truth when you are seeking comfort, satisfaction & social security? No, sirs; you must (inwardly ?) 'stand alone' without any support, completely and inwardly naked and empty. Then only, as the cup which is empty can be filled up, so the 'emptiness' within can be filled up with That Which Is Everlasting.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 May 2017 #565
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline


An integrative approach to Sorrow ( Experientially -Friendly Edited - EFE)

K: Perhaps this evening we can discuss the problem and the full implication of what is suffering and what is sorrow. And can the ( knowledgeable ?) mind which is itself a process of (ego-continuity in ?) time be the instrument of this understanding? If we dissociate the process of understanding from reasoning, from deduction, from 'analysis' which are a process of time, then we can probably comprehend fully a problem at one glance. If we are to understand (and transcend ?) sorrow, we must eliminate this 'time' process altogether. Time will not resolve (or undo ?) the process of building up of sorrow nor will it help in the resolution of sorrow. It can only help you to forget it, or evade it but still the sense of sorrow is there.

The possibility of its dissolution does not lie through the process of what we call the thought. If I would (holistically ?) understand something, first I must 'love' ( or have a compassionate understanding for?) it. If I would (want to really ?) understand you, I must (have affection for ?) you, I must have no prejudice. You may say 'I have no prejudice'. But ( deeper down ?) all of us are a bundle of ( cultural ?) prejudices, antagonisms; and we just put on ( 'politically correct' ?) verbal screens. Let us remove these 'screens' and see what the significance of sorrow is. I feel that only through that way, we shall resolve this enormously complex problem of human sorrow. When we 'love' (or have a authentic sense of affection for ?) somebody, our understanding) is a process of timeless quality: no (cautious ?) barriers of fear, of reward, of condemnation; nor is there an identification with something else - which is a mental process. If we can really see the significance of that (quality of total communion ?) , only then, we can approach, you and I as (integrated ?) individuals, this thing that is consuming most of us, sorrow.

( For starters:) (a) All our energy involved in movement, in action, is (manifested as ?) desire. This ( movement of ?) desire - when thwarted is ( resented as frustration and ?) pain, and when it is fulfiled, as ( a rewarding ?) pleasure. For most of us, (our daily ) action is a ( multi-level, departmentalised ?) process of fulfilment of desire. The "I want this " and "I don't want that " govern our attitude.

(b) This energy which is identifying itself as the 'me' is ever seeking a ( personal ?) 'fulfilment'. There are various forms of fulfilment and various forms of denial of our desire, each (time ?) binding, each bringing about its different kind of "sorrow" : physical sorrow, the sorrow of death, the sorrow that comes when there is no (hope of any personal ?) fulfilment, the sorrow resulting from a state of ( inner desolation and ?) emptiness, sorrow that comes when our ambition is not fulfilled, sorrow in not coming up to the social standards or the 'good example', sorrow of ( blindly following ?) the 'ideal' and finally the sorrow of ( self-) identification. We know various forms of sorrow at different psychological and physiological levels; and also we know the various (well-established ?) forms of (avoiding them through ?) 'escapes' - drink, rituals, repetition of words, the turning to tradition, looking to the future, looking for better times, better hopes, better circumstances; we know all these forms of (temporal) "escapes" - religious, psychological, physical and material. The more we escape, the greater and more complex the problems become. Our whole (psychological) structure is a series of 'escapes'.

(c) So (experientially -wise ?) there is not direct and vital communion with the ( 'fact' ?) of sorrow. You are ( pretending to be ?) a different entity looking at sorrow, trying to dissolve it or ('psych-)analyze' the problem of sorrow. In this process of analysis, condemnation and justification, you ( are feeling that you) are different; and something else (within your consciousness ) is suffering (for obvious or obscure reasons ?).
( In a nutshell?) sorrow is not different from the 'thinker'; the ( self-conscious ?) entity that desires (to get rid of it ?) , 'is' (in ?) itself sorrow. The very process of ( self-identified ?) desire which is (in itself) a process (generating) frustration and suffering. 'You' (the self-conscious entity ?) are not different from sorrow.

That is (less or more ?) the whole picture. We can enlarge it more, verbally paint it in more detail; but that is the problem. Is it not? You are not different from sorrow and therefore 'you' cannot resolve sorrow. You can't ( objectively ?) analyze 'yourself' as a separate 'observer' looking at sorrow; nor can you 'escape' (facing this ) sorrow by the energy spent in social activities.
So, you are ( both) the creator (and the beneficiary ?) of sorrow; 'you', the entity that suffers are not separate from your sorrow or pain. As long as there is a division between 'you' and 'suffering', there is only a partial comprehension, partial view of the thing. Which means really, that (experientially wise ?) you are ( finally ?) face to face with the thing that you call 'sorrow'.

Now, when you really 'love'( have affection for someone or something ?) there is no (mental) barriers; then there is (a state of direct ?) communion. Can you look ( with a similar 'love' ?) at this problem of a human sorrow that is so enveloping, so deep, so profound that no verbal description can cover it? Can you and I be in full communion with it? And what is this "sorrow" ? When your son dies, there is one kind of sorrow; when you see the poor unfed children, that is another kind of sorrow; when you are struggling to reach the top of the ladder and you don't succeed, that is a third kind of sorrow; when you are not fulfilling the ideal, you have sorrow. Surely, sorrow is ( the cummulative result of ?) a process of ( frustrated ?) desire ever increasing, ever multiplying, self-enclosing. Can I ( compassionately ?) understand this whole process of energy in movement as desire and put an end to ( the subliminal activity of ?) desire, not to (its life ?) energy? Can one understand this whole problem of "sorrow and desire" and thereby put an end to desire as a ( self-identified ?) movement of the 'me', and be in that state of (an original ?) energy which is pure intelligence?

This is not a ( scholastic ?) question to be answered by 'Yes (We Can' ?) or 'no (we can' ?) . This needs a great deal of meditation, a great deal of insight ( inner clarity ?) , and you can't have (such) insight if there is any sort of distortion of desire.
( This 'original' ?) Energy is pure intelligence; and when once we let it come into (our) being, then you will see that desire has very little significance (and put it in its right place ?) . But as long as desire is not fully comprehended, fully understood, there must be sorrow; because we cannot have the pure intelligence that is necessary for (ending) it. Reason can't dissolve sorrow, as it can't dissolve desire either. Therefore it is necessary to understand the whole problem by seeing the "whole picture", which means, to really to really 'love' ( have a 'loving' attitude regarding ?) sorrow. You understand? There are people who 'love' ( the redeeming virtues of ?) sorrow; but their hearts are empty; instead of loving man, they love 'sorrow', which is an ideal. Haven't you seen people who love this 'virtue'? They love sorrow because they feel a certain enthusiastic response, a certain well-being. I do not mean that kind of 'love' at all. When you love, there is no identification but there is communion; there is open receptivity between that and you. That is essential to understand (and transcend ?) this whole problem. And as I said, such an understanding is not of time. (An insightful ?) understanding has nothing to do with time or with (thinking in terms of ) time.

So (the self-centred ?) mind cannot solve the problem of sorrow. The mind that can understand this problem fully, is the mind that is not in a state of agitation, that is not seeking a ( personal ?) result, that it does not say 'I must be free from sorrow in order to 'experience' something more'. So if you can look at it 'completely' (non-personally ?) , not as a 'me' looking, but with an (inwardly integrated ?) mind to which the 'observer' and the 'observed' are the same, then you will find there comes a 'Love' that is not ( brought by ?) sensation, an Intelligence that is not of time or of ( temporal) thought process; and it is only That, that can resolve this immense and complex problem of human sorrow.

Question: What is meant by 'accepting what is'? How does it differ from resignation?

Krishnamurti: What is the (psychological ) process of 'acceptance'? I accept sorrow, I resign myself to the circumstance, to the (disturbing ?) incident.
(For starters ?) I accept them because they pacify me, they put me out (momentarily ?) of the state of ( an acute ) conflict. There is also an ulterior motive in 'resignation' : deep down, unconsciously, I do not want to be disturbed. But (any personal ) loss causes disturbance which we call suffering. And in order to escape from suffering, I explain, I justify and then say 'I am resigned to the inevitable, to my Karma', but that will not bring about understanding, will it?

However, if I am capable of looking at 'what is' - that is, at what has taken place, the death of someone, an incident - without any mental process(ing) , if I can observe it, be aware of it, follow it, be in communion with it, love it, there is no (need for any psychological ?) resignation, nor acceptance. I shall have to accept the fact. Fact is fact. But, if you can prevent yourself from translating it, giving it justification, then it begins to unfold itself , it begins superficially, but as it begins to unfold, it is like reading a (living ?) Book.
Understanding of 'what is' can not come about through any justification, condemnation, or identifying yourself with 'what is'. We have lost the "way of love" . That is why all this superficial process exists. Don't ask what this 'love' is. You can only find out what love is, by negation. As our life is mostly destructive, the way of our communion is self-enclosing. That which is all embracing can be understood only when there is a complete communion with 'That which Is'.

Question: For Truth to come, you advocate action without idea. Is it possible to act at all times without idea, that is, without a clear purpose in view ?

Krishnamurti: If you as an individual want to find out what 'idea' and 'action' are, you have to enquire into it, and not accept my experience which (for yourself ?) may be utterly false. Let us therefore find out together what we mean by (the psychological ?) action without idea. Please give your (mindful?) thinking to it. Let us find out together. It may be difficult, but let us go into it.

What do you mean by action? Doing something, to be, to do; our action is based on an ideal, various 'formulas' (mental images ?) about what you are and what you are not. That is the basis of our action, expecting a reward in future, or fear of punishment, or seeking self-enclosing ideas upon which we can base our action. You have an idea of virtue and according to that idea you live, you act in your relationship. That is, to you, relationship is action which is towards ideal, towards virtue, towards an achievement, collective or individual.
When my action is based on ideal, between action and idea, there is a gulf, there is a division of time: I am not (really) charitable now, , I am not loving, there is no forgiveness in my heart; but I (definitely ?) must be more charitable. There is (an interval of ?) time between 'what I am now' and 'what I should be', and we are trying to bridge it .

Now what would happen if the (self-projected ?) 'ideal' did not exist? At one stroke, you would have removed the (time) gap, would you not? You would be (left to deal with ?) what you 'are'. Have I frightened you all? The 'stupid' man always says he is going to become clever. He sits working, struggling to become; he never stops, he never (acknowledges the fact that ?) 'I am stupid'. So his action which is based on idea, is not ( a transforming ?) action at all.

Action means doing now, moving. And if there is no (self-projected ?) ideal, what would happen? You are 'that which is'. You are uncharitable, you are unforgiving, you are cruel, stupid, thoughtless. Can you (mindfully ?) remain with that? When I recognize I am uncharitable, and/or stupid, what happens, when I am aware it is so? Is there not ( an awakening of a deeper ?) intelligence, when I realize I am uncharitable ? In that very seeing of 'what is', is there not ( a transforming effect of ?) love?
So ( the psychological) action based on a (preconceived) idea is merely ( remaining in the realm of) ideation, but the (actual ) action which transforms human beings, which brings ( an authentic) regeneration, redemption, transformation such action is not based on ( a premeditated ?) idea. It is action irrespective of reward or punishment. Then you will see such action is timeless , because (temporal) mind does not enter into it; as (the thinking ) mind is a calculating process, dividing process, (a self-) isolating process.

( Still,) this question is not so easily solved (experientially ?) . Most of you put (intellectual ?) questions and expect an answer 'yes or no'. It is easy to ask questions like 'What do you mean?', and then sit back and let me explain; but it is much more arduous to find out the answer for yourselves, go into the problem so profoundly, so clearly and without any corruption, that the problem ceases to be. And that can only happen when the mind is really 'silent' in the face of the problem.
(A total insight into the ?) problem is (could be ?) as beautiful as a sunset, if you 'love' the problem. However if you are 'antagonistic' to the problem, you will never understand it. And most of us are antagonistic because we are frightened of the (uncertainty of the ?) result, of what may happen if we proceed; so we lose (from sight ?) the deeper significance of the problem.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 04 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 May 2017 #566
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline



K: Why is it that something that has been started by a few people with good intentions, with right motives, is soon usurped (or exploited ?) by 'bad' people and (eventually ?) destroyed?
What is this process of withering, this decay? If we can find out the truth of the matter, then perhaps we as individuals can set about an action which will not wither away. I think there is a deeper and more fundamental reason why this deterioration takes place so rapidly, and I hope that is one of your problems too: what exactly is behind this process of (our inner & outer ?) deterioration.
In our everyday life, we make effort to be or to become something- positively or negatively. We see that there is a sociological conflict (of interests ?) in the individual becoming more and more (rich, powerful, influential ) ; and to control it there are social laws or religious sanctions; but in spite of these sanctions, deterioration exist in our effort to be good, to be noble, to be beautiful, to seek truth. Until we really discover for ourselves which is behind this process of decay and deterioration, which is apart from our being, there is no end to the world's turmoil.

Now to go into this matter fully, you must enquire into the (dualistic) process of the 'experiencer' and the 'experience', because whatever we do contains this dualistic process. The will to experience, to acquire, 'to be' or 'not to be', is always there. And this 'will' is the ('time' ?) factor of our deterioration. In this 'will', there are (included both) the 'actor' and the 'thing he acts upon' : I am greedy, and I exert my will not to be (so ?) greedy; I use my (good ?) will to transform that which I consider evil, or I try to become or keep that which is good. So, the root of our (inner) deterioration is this (subliminally ?) dualistic action in will between the 'experiencer' and the 'experience' - two separate processes at work. As long (our inner energy ?) is divided into the 'experiencer' and the' experience' we are pursuing a false process which is destructive and I think therein lies the fundamental factor of (our inner) deterioration.
Is it possible to experience that state when there is only one (integrated mind ?) and not two separate processes, the (desiring ?) 'experiencer' and the (desired ?) 'experience'? Then perhaps we shall find out what it is to be Creative, and what the state is in which there is no deterioration at any time, in whatever relationship we may be.That (integrated consciousness ? ) can come about only when one is ( becoming) aware of the false process and see (the truth ?) that there is only one state in which the thinker "is" the thought.

( Eg: I am becoming aware of the fact that ) I am greedy. ( The holistic approach is that ?) 'I' and 'my greed' are not two different (conflicting) states; there is only one thing and that is "greed". If 'I' am aware that 'I am greedy', what happens? Then, I (either enjoy indulging in the rewarding aspects of it or I ?) make an effort in order 'not to be greedy', either for sociological reasons or for religious reasons; that effort will always be (operative) in a small limited circle; I may extend this 'circle', but it is always limited .
Therefore the deteriorating factor is (right ) there. When I look a little more deeply and closely, I can see that the "maker of the effort" is (not separated from ?) the cause of greed - he 'is' ( the impersonation of ?) greed itself; and I also see that there is no 'me' and 'greed', existing separately, but that there is only ( a multi-level activity of ?) greed. If I realize that I am myself (one with) greed, then ( the quality of ?) our response to 'greed' is entirely different; then our ( noble ?) effort is not destructive.

What will you do when (realising that) your whole (psychological) being is greed, when whatever action you do is greed? Surely then, there is a different (integrative) process at work altogether: in that state, there is no 'maker of effort' entity . What is important is to see that the 'maker of effort' and the 'object' towards which he is making the effort are the same. That requires a great understanding and watchfulness, to see how the mind divides itself into the 'higher' and the 'lower '- the 'high' being the permanent entity - but still remaining a (safety based) process of thought and therefore of time. If we can understand this as directly experiencing, then you will see that quite a different factor comes into being.
The Unknown can't be understood by the (egocentric?) 'maker of effort'. To understand It, the mind must be completely silent, which ultimately means an act of complete 'self- abnegation' ; the 'self' (conscious entity ?), the maker of the effort to 'become' positively or negatively, is not there.

Question: How can this 'individual' regeneration be brought about in the 'collective' well-being of the greatest number, which is the need everywhere?

Krishnamurti: We think that individual regeneration is opposed to collective regeneration. The regeneration (of human consciousness ?) is anonymous. It is not 'I have redeemed myself'. If you are concerned with 'regeneration' - not of the 'individual' but (with a global consciousness ?) regeneration - then you will see there is quite a different Intelligence at work; because after all, what are we concerned with? What is the question with which we are concerned, profoundly and deeply? One might see the necessity for united action of man to save man. He sees that collective action is necessary in order to produce food, clothing and shelter. That requires intelligence; and intelligence is not individual. If the individual seeks intelligence it will be collective - then we are concerned with Intelligence that will solve the problem.

If both of us are concerned with the intelligent solution of the whole problem, because that problem is our main concern, then our concern is not how I look at it or you look at it, not my path or your path; we are not concerned with frontiers or economic bias, with vested interests and stupidity which come into being with those vested interests. Then you and I are not 'collective', nor 'individual'; this brings about collective integration which is anonymous.
But the questioner wants to know how to act immediately, what to do the next moment, so that man's needs can be solved. I am afraid there is no such answer. There is no immediate moral remedy, whatever politicians may promise. The immediate solution is the regeneration of the individual, not for himself but regeneration which is the awakening of intelligence. Intelligence is not yours or mine, it is intelligence. I think it is important to see this deeply. Then our political and individual action, collective or otherwise, will be quite different. We shall lose our (self-centred ?) 'identity'; we shall not identify our selves with something - our country, our race, our group, our collective traditions, our prejudices. We shall lose all those things because the problem demands that we shall lose our identity in order to solve it. But that requires great, comprehensive understanding of the whole problem.

Our problem is not just one of feeding, clothing and shelter (the people?) , but it is more profound than that. It is a psychological problem, why man 'identifies' himself (for psychological safety ?) - this identification with a party, with a religion, with knowledge, that is dividing us. And that 'identity' (issue ?) can be resolved only when, psychologically, the whole process of identifying, the desire, the motive, is clearly understood.
So, if you and I are both vitally interested in the solution of the human problem, we shall not identify ourselves with something else. But as we are not vitally interested (in Truth ?) , we have identified ourselves, and it is that identity (territoriality ?) that is preventing us from resolving this complex and vast problem.

Question: Although you have used the word 'Truth' quite often, I do not recall that you have ever defined it. What do you mean by it?

Krishnamurti: Truth is 'something that is timeless', that is not measurable by words. Since truth is measureless, timeless, ( the knowledgeable ?) mind cannot recognize it. Therefore, for ( the living dimension of ?) Truth to be, it is imperative that this mind should be in a state of 'non-experiencing'. Truth must come to you, the mind, you cannot go to it. If you go to it, 'you' will experience it. You cannot invite Truth. When you invite when you experience, you are in the position of recognizing it; when you recognize it, it is not (the living spirit of ?) Truth. Therefore, knowledge is not the way to Truth. Knowledge must be understood and put away for Truth to be. If your mind is quiet, not asleep, not drugged by words, but actually pursuing, observing the process of the mind, then you will see that quietness comes into being darkly, mysteriously; and in that state of stillness, you will see that which is eternal, immeasurable.

Question: There is an urge in every one of us to see God, Reality, Truth. Is not the search for beauty the same as the search for Reality?

Krishnamurti: Sirs, do realize 'you' (the self-centred entity ?) cannot seek God. You cannot seek Truth. Because, if you 'seek', your search is (conditioned by ?) the desire to find that which you want. How can you seek something of which you do not know? You seek something of which you have read, which you call Truth; or you are seeking something which inwardly you have a feeling for. Therefore, you must understand the motive of your search, which is far more important than the search for Truth.
Why are you seeking, and what are you seeking? You would not seek if there was joy in your heart. Because we are (inwardly) empty we are seeking. We are frustrated, miserable, violent, full of antagonism; that is why we want to go away from that and seek some thing which would be 'more'. In order to escape from your present conflicts, miseries, antagonisms, you say 'I am seeking Truth'. You will not find Truth because (the inner light of ?) Truth does not come when you are escaping from reality, from "that which is". You have to understand that and you must not go to seek the ( experiential) answer outside (yourself) . So you cannot seek Truth. It must come to you. You cannot beckon God, you cannot go to Him. Your worship, devotion, is utterly valueless because you want something, you put up the begging bowl for Him to fill. So, you are seeking someone to fill your emptiness. And you are interested more in the word than in the thing. But if you are content with that extraordinary state of loneliness without any deviation or distraction, then only 'That' which is eternal comes into being.

Most of us are so conditioned that we want to 'escape' (into something different ?) ; and the thing to which we escape, we call 'beauty'. We are seeking beauty through something - through dance, through rituals, through prayer, through discipline, through various forms of formulations, through painting, through sensation. Are we not? So as long as we are seeking beauty 'through something' we shall never have (any inner ?) beauty because the thing through which we seek, becomes all important. ( The inner sense of ?) Beauty is not found through something; that would be merely a sensation which is exploited by the cunning mind. Beauty comes into being through inward regeneration, when there is complete, radical transformation of the mind. For that, you require an extraordinary state of sensitivity. The man that is sensitive to both the ugly and the beautiful, goes beyond, far away from the things through which he seeks Truth. But, we are not sensitive to either beauty or ugliness; we are so (self) enclosed by our own thoughts, by our own prejudices, by our own ambitions, greed's, envies. How can a mind be sensitive, that is ambitious spiritually or in any other direction? There can be sensitivity only when the whole process of desire is completely understood; for, desire is a self-enclosing process, and through enclosing, you cannot see the horizon. The mind then is stifled by its own 'becoming'. Such a mind can only appreciate beauty through something. Such a mind is not a beautiful mind. Such a mind is not a good mind, it is an ugly mind which is enclosed and is seeking its own perpetuation. Such a mind can never find beauty. Only when the mind ceases to enclose itself by its own 'ideals' , 'pursuits' and 'ambitions', such a mind is (in itself ?) beautiful.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 05 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 May 2017 #567
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline


The 'impossible' question: how can our mind not be mechanical?

K: What I would like this evening, if we can experiment together , is to that of (going beyond the routinely functioning of the ?) mind as a repetitive machine, as a storehouse of memory, guiding, shaping controlling and therefore producing no creative action, a process of consciousness which when thwarted becomes the 'I', the 'me'. The self-conscious individual mind seeks fulfilment and therefore, in the very desire for fulfilment, there is frustration, from which arises sorrow.
One of the major factors of (inner) deterioration is the process of ( our self-centred ?) thought which is repetitive, imitative, conforming; because, we know what happens when we are repetitive, conforming and imitative; the mind becomes merely a machine automatically responding, functioning, reacting according to circumstances, according to memory like a physical machine put together. And... we do not know any other process.

Here arises the (very intimate ?) problem of "how you listen". Are you listening only at the verbal level or are you watching what is actually happening in your mental process? If you are watching your own mind using what I am saying, as a 'mirror' and therefore observing your own thinking in relation to what I am (pointing out ?) then you will discover whether your mind is something beyond the mechanical quality of a ( thinking ?) machine.
We are discussing the deteriorating factor of the mind, whether in the old or in the young. This deteriorating factor is observed as we grow older; old age is to most of us a problem, because we see the mind obviously deteriorating. You may not be conscious of it; but others may be conscious of the deterioration in you.

So, the problem is: Is our mind merely a (thinking ?) machine incapable of going beyond its mechanical quality, or can the mind be made to be non-mechanical?' That is, we have so far used the mind as a machine to achieve a result, to be something, to gain something, in which process conformity or repetition is essential. If I want to be successful, I must conform, I must repeat, I must imitate. So, we have used the machinery of the mind, the thought process, as a way of bringing about the desired end. ( Once caught ?) in this (time -binding) process, the mind becomes merely repetitive.
Is not repetition, imitation, a sign of ( a subtler process of inner) disintegration ? You can see how old people talk, the same thing over and over again, the same beliefs, the continuity, crystallized, stabilized and held firmly. All these are signs of ( brain's ) deterioration.
(Don't ask what would happen to society or what would happen to our relationship if there was no repetition or conformity. A mind that thinks about 'what will happen if' one is not mechanical, is obviously a mind already (comfortably settled in ) in the process of deterioration)

Is the (thinking) mind which is the only instrument we have, merely to be used as a machine, routine-ridden, repeating and conforming? How is the mind to be made non-mechanical? That is, how to remove the factor or factors that bring about deterioration? Surely, this is an important question. Is it not? This seems to me to be one of the gravest issues in the present crisis of the world culture because every sensation, every experience, every problem becomes repetitive.
Is it possible for (an integrated ?) mind to free itself from this mechanical process? What do we mean by 'mechanical process'? Is not ( our everyday thinking ?) the verbalizing process of memory in conjunction with the ( immediate challenges of the ?) present? That is the only instrument we have, or ( rather ?) that is the only (all-purpose ?) instrument which we are using (on a regular basis ?)
As I was saying, what is our thinking? It is memory in action. And our ( psychological ?) problem is that this thought process - which is the result of continued series of responses according to a certain background - can only produce mechanical results; and therefore it is merely a process of repetition.

The whole (active ?) content of our consciousness as we function now, whether we are conscious of it or not, is a mechanical process. I mean by 'mechanical' process a (culturally conditioned ) response of the past conditioned by the present, which is nothing but repetitive.
Let's take a very simple example. You are experiencing ( with all the senses functioning as an integrated whole ?) the beauty of a flower, or of the sunset, or of the shade of a tree. At the moment of experiencing, there is no (verbal process of ?) recognition; there is only a ( harmonious ?) state of being. As ( the timeless beauty of ?) that moment slips away, you (the 'experiencer'?) begin to give it a name; you say 'How beautiful that was!' That is, a process of ( verbal) recognition comes into being, and there is the desire for repetition of that sensation. So, next evening when look at the tree in the evening light, there is a certain vague sensation that I want ( to recapture the beauty of ?) it. So, I have set the repetitive machinery ( of personal experiencing ?) going.

Or you may have a beautiful statue in your room, or a fine picture. The first moment, it gives a great delight; you see something extraordinary and the mind captures it. You then sit down in front of the ( TV ? ) image, and hope to repeat that sensation. You have therefore set going the "mechanical process" of (experiencing ) which it is not only (running ) at the conscious level, but also more profoundly; ( and as a result ?) it brings about ( an inner ?) conflict, a 'struggle' (to recapture that magic moment ?) .
Our mind is used to ( all kind of ?) routines, repetitions, imitations, conformity; and if it perceives something (new & attractive ?) , it immediately wants to make it a "daily affair". That is clear, is it not? This is an observable 'psychological fact' of our daily existence.

Now, how can our mind not be mechanical? Now that I put this question in front of you and that you are becoming aware of it, what is your response? Do I actu ally know anything else? If I said there was something else, it would still be a projection of the past (personal & collective experience) into the present. This is a very complex problem because in this is involved the whole process of naming, and giving importance of words, not only neurologically but psychologically, not only at the conscious level but at the deeper level. That is also a deteriorating factor.
Therefore, can the (all-knowing ?) mind which is so much used to function mechanically, stop? This ( mental) machinery has to be stopped before you can find an answer. Can this machinery which is so (intellectually capable & ) cunning, so urgently demanding, can it 'come to an end'?
And how will this ( hyper-active ?) mind come to an end? That is an important ( experiential ?) question: the ( mechanical continuity of the thinking ?) mind must be stopped so that it can 'jump' to the other state. You cannot let it continue to function mechanically and ( still be free to ?) 'jump' (into the unknown ?) .
( In a nutshell:) A mind that is mechanical, can never find anything new (inwardly) . It's ( self-projected 'continuity' ?) must come to an end. Now how is this to be done? Is this the right ( experiential ?) question? In putting this question, the mind has again become mechanical: I want a result, the (instructions ?) are given and I follow them . What has happened? The practicing of the 'how' is (sustaining) the continuation of the ( old thinking ?) machine. See how false our thinking has become ?
There are two different states (options for ?) the mind (desiring to transcend its conditioning ?) , one pursuing the (methodology of the ?) 'how' and the other "enquiring without seeking a (personal reward or ?) result".

( At this point only the free ? ) mind which enquires, which pursues in research, will only help us. Now which is the state of your mind, the 'one that seeks a result' or the 'one that is enquiring'? If you seek a ( self-rewarding ?) result, you are merely pursuing mechanically; then, there is no end (and in time ?) that leads to deterioration and destruction. That is obvious.

Is your mind (meditatively ?) enquiring to find out the answer whether the mind 'can' come to an end, not 'how' to make it come to an end? The 'how' is entirely different from the 'can'. Can it? You have to be extraordinarily alert and extremely subtle to answer that question - and if you enquire into it , you will find that your mind is not (anymore enmeshed in ?) seeking a result, it is waiting for an answer; it is not desiring for an answer; it is not hoping for an answer . If you want to find out the (true ?) answer to a question, any response is mechanical, other than 'wait (& see' ?); since the experiential answer must be something which you don't know; the answers which you already know are mechanical (responses from the past experience of mankind) . But if you are faced with the question and you (meditatively ?) wait for the answer, then you will see that your mind is entirely in a different state. This (attitude of) waiting (& seeing ?) is more important than the answer. You understand ? Then, your mind is no longer (entangled in acting ) mechanically but a quite different thing comes into (one's) being without being invited .

Question: How can the 'thinker' and the 'thought' be united?

Krishnamurti: We are going to find out if it is possible to bring together the two separating processes of things at work. First, we 'know' that the 'thinker' (entity) and the 'thought process' are separate. But...are we aware how the thinker is always dominating (its) thoughts and is it possible for these two (mental processes ?) to be together so that there is no division, no battle?
It is only when there is no (such internal ?) struggle that there is ( a possibility to see ?) something new.

We know ( traditionally we 'know' ) that the thinker and the thought are separate, but most of us have never even thought about it, we take it for granted. It is only when somebody outside of you asks the question, then you are enquiring. So, why are the thought and the thinker separate? We have just accepted this ( inner duality ?) therefore, it has become a 'thinking habit' for us. What would happen to my mind if this (mental) habit stops? The mind would feel lost, would it not? It would be puzzled, bewildered by anything unexpected, by anything new; so the mind prefers to live (safely ) in this habit; 'I don't know what would happen if these two would come together (in my everyday life ?) , and I shall prefer the old things to continue'. So we want the old (dualistic mentality ? ) to continue for the obvious reason that we want security, certainty, to hold on to the things we know. (Our desire for mental ?) certainty makes us hold on to the old. That is a psychological fact, an observable fact.

Therefore our (prioritary ?) problem then is not how to bring the 'thinker' and the 'thought' together, but why the mind is seeking security, certainty. Can the human mind exist without seeking something to which it can hold on - knowledge, belief, what you will? The mind that we know is (safely installed in the 'known' ?) ; it is not interested in finding out; it is (prioritarily ) interested in being completely safe, completely secure, because we realize that our thinking could suddenly changes any moment; there is no actual (safety) in our thoughts; so it (the thinking brain ?) creates the 'thinker' as a permanent entity which will go on indefinitely, so, the mind has found (its temporal ?) security in the 'thinker' which (means that ?) the mind has the power to create the illusion of security and clings to it; therefore, so long as it is (instinctively ?) seeking this ( perfect illusion of ?) security, the mind is not interested in discovering what will happen if the thinker and the thought come together, it would rather 'hold on' to something it is already sure of.

So the problem is whether there is such a 'permanent thinking certainty'. Is there? Obviously not - neither in God, nor in wife nor in property which you would want to have (forever) . There is no (such) security.
(However ?) there is an (inner state of ?) complete 'aloneness' (all-oneness ?) without any dependability, without anything on which the mind can cling to.
But because the mind is afraid to 'be alone' ( to face its 'aloneness' ?) , it invents ( & projects ?) the 'thinker' as a permanent entity that will continue (forever). Or it would invent (and project its own desire for continuity in ?) property, wife, God, or a carved image.

( To recap:) The (traditional human) mind in its (instinctive ?) desire for security, has created (its own identification with the ?) 'thinker' as ( a controlling entity ?) apart from the ( impermanency of its own ?) thoughts, and it has 'accustomed' ( conditioned ?) itself to this division by mere habit; where there is ( an existence based on ?) 'habits' there is ( an inner sense of ?) permanency, and therefore the mind becomes mechanical.

When in your (inner ?) experience you realize that this 'thinker' is just the ( compensating ) result for ( the impermanent process of ?) thought, then you will see there is no (need for any ) effort to 'bring the two together'. Then there is only a state of (integrated all-oneness?) and an understanding without any words. But for (getting to ?) that, you must have an extraordinary insight into the whole of your consciousness, which is a process of meditation. That meditation is only possible when the mind understands (non-dualistically ?) the whole 'content' of your consciousness, which is 'yourself'.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 07 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 May 2017 #568
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline


Beyond the 'observer-observed' duality

As I was saying yesterday, one of the fundamental causes of (our inner) deterioration is the ( egotistic ?) will in action. I also said that imitation, repetition, the mechanical response of the mind, of memory, is another factor of deterioration of the mind. And is not ( our unconscious drive for ?) self-perpetuation one of the major factors that bring about (a certain qualitative ?) deterioration of the mind?
The only ( available ?) instrument we have is the (thinking ?) mind, but we have used it hitherto, wrongly. Is it possible now to bring to an end this whole process of 'self' (-centred thinking ?) with all its deteriorating factors, with all its destructive elements? I think most of us realize that the 'self' (-centred enrity ?) is separative, destructive, antisocial; outwardly and inwardly, it is an isolating process in which no (authentic) relationship is possible, in which love cannot exist. We more or less feel this actually or superficially, but most of us are not (responsibly ?) aware of it.

Is it possible to really bring this ( egotistic ?) process to an end, not substitute it for something else, or postpone, or explain it away? When we do put that question to ourselves, the natural response is : 'How ?'. The practical way, the manner, matters to us. If we can examine a little more closely perhaps we shall understand that the 'how', the 'practical' way of achieving a result, will not end this 'self' (centredness ?) . You may have a very rigorous self- disciplining method, or a method that will gradually ease you out of the conflict of self, a method that will give you solace; but essentially, the desire for a method only indicates really the (subliminal desire for ?) strengthening of the self.

Please follow this closely and you will see whether or not the 'how' indicates an imitative process through which the self-centred mind can gather strength and have greater capacity and not end at all.
Take the ('self'-related ?) question of envy: you envy the rich, envy the learned, envy of the man who achieves (fame & fortune ?) . Envy is clothed sometimes in a religious form but essentially it is the same; it is -( based on the same ?) desire to 'be' something, spiritually, economically. That is one of our major ( ego-centric ?) drives. Our instinctive response, if we are at all (inwardly responsible & ?) thoughtful, is to find a way to bring it to an end.
But can this envy be brought to an end by a method, by a technique? Envy implies the ( sublimated) desire to be something here or hereafter. So ( by following the 'how' ?) you have not tackled the ( ages old movement of ?) desire which makes you envious; but you have learned a way to cover up that desire by expressing (or redirecting ?) it in another way; but essentially, it is still envy. And we can then see that essentially it is ( amounting to ?) the strengthening of ( self-centred) thought. ( This process of ?) thought is one of the major factors that bring about deterioration, because thought is a process of (recycling & updating our past) memory, which is verbalization of memory and is a conditioning influence. The (self-centred ?) mind that is seeking a way out of this confusion is only strengthening that thought process. So, what is ( experientially ?) important is, not to find (the bestest ?) way or method - because we have seen what the implications in it are - but to become (responsably ?) aware of the whole process of the mind.

For most of us, (in terms of inner life ?) creation is non-existent; we do not know what it means to create. Without that creativeness which is not of time, which is not of thought, we cannot bring about a vitally different culture, a different state of human relationship? Is it possible for the mind to be in that receptive state in which creativeness can take place? Thought is not creative; the man who pursues the idea can never be creative; the pursuit of an ideal is thought process and is conditioned after the mind. So, how can the mind which is thought process, which is the result of time, which is the result of education, of influence, of pressure, of fear, of the search for reward, of the avoidance of punishment, how can such a mind be ever free so that creativeness can take place? We see that only when the ( time-bound ?) mind with its thought process comes to an end, is there creation.

Surely, in the present crisis of the world ( 1952 !) such creation is the most difficult thing to achieve. The only minds that are creative are those of human beings that are (inwardly) integrated. And...what is that creative state? Surely it cannot be stated positively. To describe it (positively) is to limit it. The description will be a process of measuring; and to measure it is to use a thought process. Therefore thought can never capture it. It is of no value to describe it. What we can do is to find out what are the barriers, by negatively approaching it, obliquely coming upon it by discovering for yourself the impediments that prevent that creative state, that extraordinary state in which the ( all-knowing ?) mind, the 'observer', is non-existent.
What is the first thing that stands in the way? Surely, the whole (egotistic ?) desire to be powerful, to dominate, stands in the way. Do watch in your own lives and you will see the separative, the destructive desire in action. That will obviously defeat ( the intelligence of ?) love. It is only love that is our redemption. But we are caught in the Stream of becoming, in the stream of desire for power; and we are incapable of stopping it and stepping out. To step out, there is no 'how'. You see the full implications of power; and when you realize it fully, you step out; there is no 'how'.
One other hindrances that prevents creativeness is authority, authority of the example, the authority of the past, authority of experience, authority of knowledge, authority of belief. And obviously, another factor that prevents the state (of inner creativeness ?) is repetition, imitation, perpetuation of an idea. Repetition is not only of sensation but of rituals, vain repetition of the pursuit of knowledge, repetition of experience, which have no (spiritual) significance at all. Another factor that divides us from that creative state is this desire for a method, the 'how', the way, practicing something so that our mind can achieve a result; this is a process of continuity, repetition; and the mind which is caught in repetition, can never be creative.

So, if you can see ( what is wrong with ?) all that, then you will find that it is the mind actually that is preventing the creative state from coming into being.
So when the mind is aware of its own movement, mind comes to an end. It is only then that the creative state can be; it is the only salvation because that creative state is "love". The mind can only create images, images of sensation, of experience; but the mind can never know love; and yet we have cultivated the ( intellectual ?) mind for centuries.
( To recap: ) it is extremely arduous for the mind to see all this process so that the experiencer is never apart from the experienced. It is this division between the observer and the observed that is ( behind) the (self-centred ?) process of thought. In Love, there is no 'experiencer' or the 'experienced'. Now, and as we do not know it and as that is the only redemption, surely an earnest man must ( spend some quality time and ?) watch the whole process of the mind, the hidden and the open. And it is only through a "meditative search", that we can have awareness of the mind and its content; then, the ( all knowing ?) mind comes to an end and ( the creative intelligence of ?) Love can be.

Question: How is man to 'fulfil' himself if he has no ideals?

Krishnamurti: We usually try to fulfil ourselves through family, through son, through brother, through wife, through property, through identification with a country or a group, or through pursuit of an ideal, or through the desire for continuity of the 'me' (in the after life ?) . There are various, different forms of (our attempts for 'self-) fulfilment' at different levels of consciousness.
Now, when are you conscious of this urge to be, to become, to fulfil? Are you not becoming aware of it when you feel your own loneliness, a sense of inexhaustible no-thingness, of yourself not being something ? And then, you ( try to fill it by ?) pursue (self-) fulfilment through innumerable forms, at different layers of consciousness. ( In a nutshell ?) The desire to 'fulfil oneself' is an escape from that ( uneasy feeling ?) which we call loneliness.
So our problem is not how to fulfil, or what is ( the bestest way of ?) fulfilment; because there is no such thing as fulfilment. The ( self-conscious?) 'me' can never fulfil; it is always empty; you may have a few (gratifying ) sensations when you are achieving a result (like...becoming a 'president' ?) ; but the moment these sensations have gone you are back again ( 'tweeting' from ?) that empty state. So you begin to pursue the same process as before.
So the 'me' is the creator of that (inner) emptiness. The 'me' is the empty; the 'me' is a self-enclosing process in which we are (eventually becoming ?) aware of that extraordinary sense of loneliness. So being aware of that, we are trying to run away through various forms of ( temporal ?) identification. These identifications we call 'fulfillments'. But actually, there is no fulfilment because mind, the 'me', can never fulfil; it is the very nature of the 'me' to be self-enclosing.

Now, what is a mind which is (becoming ?) aware of that emptiness, to do? That is your problem, is it not? For most of us, this ache of emptiness is extraordinarily strong. We do anything to escape from it. Any 'illusion' is sufficient (for the time being ?) , and that is the very source of illusion. Mind has the power to create illusions. And as long as we do not understand that 'aloneness', that state of self-enclosing emptiness - do what you will, seek whatever fulfilment you will - there is always that (invisible ?) 'barrier' which divides, which knows no completeness.
So our difficulty is to become (responsibly aware ?) of this (inner) emptiness, of this "loneliness". We are never getting face to face with it because we are always running away from it, withdrawing, isolating, identifying. We are never face to face, directly, in communion with it. We then are ( living the duality between ?) the 'observer' and the 'observed'. That is, the (self-conscious) mind, the 'I', observes that 'emptiness'; and then it either proceeds to free itself from that emptiness or ( still simpler ?) to run away.
Now, is that emptiness, loneliness different from the 'observer'? Is not the 'observer' himself (the creator of that ) emptiness ? (Clue:) if the 'observer' was not capable of (naming & ) recognizing that state which he calls 'loneliness', there would be no ( personal ?) experience. (If the 'fact' is seen non-dualistically :) he 'is' empty and he can do nothing about it. Because, if he does anything whatsoever, he becomes the 'observer' acting upon the (emptiness ?) 'observed', which is a false (dualistic) relationship.
So when the mind realizes that it 'is' empty and that it cannot act upon it, then, that (state of inner) emptiness of which we were aware 'from outside', has now a different meaning. So far, we have approached it as the observer. Now the observer himself is empty, alone, is lonely. Can he do anything about it? Obviously, he cannot. Then his relationship to it is entirely different from that of the relationship of the observer. He is that aloneness. He is (abiding ?) in that state in which there is no verbalization that 'I am empty'. So when the verbalization ceases, when the 'experiencer' ceases experiencing (his?) 'loneliness', or when he ceases to 'run away', then he is "entirely lonely", he is himself that; and ( if and ???) when he realizes that fully, surely, that emptiness, loneliness, ceases to be.

( The experiential clue is :) 'loneliness' is entirely different from 'all-oneness'. That (aching ?) 'loneliness' must be passed (transcended ?) to be "all-one". 'Loneliness' is not comparable with 'all-oneness'. The man who knows loneliness can never know That which is "all-one". Are you in that state of all-oneness? Our minds are not integrated to be all-one. The very ( dualistic) process of the mind is separative. And that which separates (itself) knows ( only the ) loneliness. But 'all-oneness' is not separative. It is something which is not the many, which is not influenced by the many, which is not the result of the many, which is not put together as the mind is; the (lonely ) mind is of the many. ( Our inherited) mind is not an (integrated consciousness ) that is "all-one" - it has being put together through centuries. This mind can never know all-oneness. But being (compregensively ?) aware of the loneliness, when 'going through it', there comes into being that (state of integrated) "all-oneness". Then only can there be ( an opening to ?) That Which is Immeasurable.
Unfortunately most of us seek ( to compensate that gnawing sense of loneliness by ?) dependence. We want companions, we want friends (while inwardly living ?) in a state which brings about conflict. That which is "all-one" can never be in a state of conflict. But ( the self-centred ?) mind can never understand that, it can only know 'loneliness'.

Question: You said that Truth can come only when one can be alone and can 'love' sorrow. This is not clear. Kindly explain what you mean by 'being alone' and by 'loving sorrow'?

Krishnamurti: Most of us are not "in communion" with anything. We are not directly in communion with our friends, with our wives, with our children. We are not in communion with anything directly. There are always barriers - mental, imaginary, and actual. And this (sense of our ?) separativeness is the cause, obviously, of sorrow. If you are capable of experiencing it directly, you will see that sorrow cannot come to an end by any mental process. You can explain sorrow away, which is a mental (intellectual) process; but sorrow is still there, though you may cover it up
So to understand sorrow, surely you must 'love it', you must be in direct communion with it. If you would understand something - your neighbour, your wife, or any relationship - , if you would understand something completely, you must come to it without any (personal) objection, prejudice, condemnation or repulsion; you must look at it, must you not? If I would understand you, I must be capable (and willing ?) of looking at you, not through barriers, screens of my prejudices and conditioning's; I must be in communion with you, which means, I must 'love you' (have an open affection for you ?) . Similarly, if I would understand sorrow, I must 'love it', I must be in communion with it. I can not do so if I am running away from it through verbal explanations or through ( convenient ?) postponements. So the words prevent me - words of explanations, rationalizations, which are still words, which are the mental process - , from coming directly in communion with sorrow. It is only when I am (getting ) in communion with sorrow.
The next ( experiential) step is: Am 'I', the 'observer' of sorrow, different from my 'sorrow' ? Obviously ( verbally ?) not...(but subliminally...'yes' ?) . So if I 'am' ( assuming the full responsability for my?) sorrow, then only is there a possibility of ending ( the cause of this ?) sorrow.
As long as 'I' am ( identifying myself as an objective ?) 'observer' of sorrow, there is no ending of sorrow. But when there is the realization that sorrow 'is' the 'me', the observer himself 'is' the (cause of its own ?) sorrow - which is an 'extraordinarily difficult' thing to experience (outside a 'meditator-free' meditation ?) because for centuries we have divided this thing - ,when the mind realizes it is itself both the 'creator of sorrow' and the 'feeler of sorrow', ( in short, that ) it 'is' sorrow, then there is the ending of ( the subliminal continuity of ?) sorrow. This requires a very alert, watchful, intelligent awareness. That intelligent integrated state is "all-oneness". When the observer 'is' the observed, then it 'is' the integrated state. And in that all-oneness, in that state of being completely 'all-one', full (whole ?) , when the mind is not seeking anything, neither seeking reward nor avoiding punishment, when the mind is truly still, not seeking, not groping, only then, That which is not ( to be described or ?) 'measured' by the (man-made ?) mind, comes into ( one's ) being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 May 2017 #569
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 6 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica quotes K:
sorrow - which is an 'extraordinarily difficult' thing to experience,

when the mind realizes it is itself both the 'creator of sorrow' and the 'feeler of sorrow...

John, Jan,

There is a very important link to understand between these two quotes. .

Jan Kasol quotes K:
the coming into being of consciousness through sensation

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 May 2017 #570
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 694 posts in this forum Offline



K: Those who have seriously followed these talks will have observed that ( the self-centred ?) thinking we are now indulging in , is one of the major factors that divide man from man; it is one of the factors that bring about no action that postpone ( the inner ?) action; because our 'ideas' are the result of (this self-centred ?) thought and they can never produce action. There is a gap between idea and thought, and our difficulty is to bridge the gap (psychological trap ?) into which we have fallen.
I would like to discuss this evening this question of 'self-deception', the delusions that the ( self-centred ?) mind indulges in and imposes upon itself and upon others; that is a very serious matter, especially in a ( consciousness ?) crisis of this kind which the world is facing.
But before we can answer the ( academical ?) question 'What is self-deception and how does it arise?', must we not be(come) aware that we are deceiving ourselves? Do we actually realise that we are deceiving ourselves? What do we mean by (self-) deception? I think it is a very important (subject) because the more we deceive ourselves, this gives us a certain vitality, a certain energy, a certain capacity which entails the imposing of our deception on others. So, gradually I am not only imposing deception on myself but on others. It is an interacting process of self deception. Are we aware that in this process of ( self-centred ) thinking, there is ( a vast potential for ?) self-deception?
Is not ( behind our everyday ?) thinking a (subliminal ?) desire to be well thought of, a desire to have position, prestige and power? And is not this desire to be (recognised & appreciated ?) politically or sociologically, the very cause of self-deception? The moment I want (recognition & respectability ?) do I not bring about a state which easily coforms and accepts?
(In a nutshell ?) the fundamental factor of self-deception is this constant desire to 'be ( or 'become' ?) something' in this world and/or in the world hereafter. We know the result of wanting to 'be something' in this world; each is competing with the other, each is destroying the other in the name of (global) peace (and stability ?) ; you know the whole game we play with each other, which is an extraordinary form of self-deception. Similarly, we may want (personal ?) security in the 'other world', a position. So, we begin to deceive ourselves the moment there is this urge to be, to become or to achieve. That is (apparently ?) very difficult for the (self-centred ?) mind to be free from. That is one of the basic ( existential ?) problems of our life.

Is it possible to live in this world and be ( as ?) 'nothing'? Then only there is freedom from all (self-) deception, because then this ('psychologically transparent' ?) mind is not seeking a personal result and is not seeking ('psychological ) security' in any form, in any relationship. That ( inner transparency ?) takes place only when the mind realizes the subtleties of self-deception, and therefore abandons every form of (psychological ?) security - which means, the mind is capable then of being completely ('as ?) nothing'. Is that possible?
Surely as long as we ( are subliminally ? ) deceiving ourselves in any form, there can be no ( authentic affection or ?) 'love'. As the mind is (busy with) creating and imposing upon itself a delusion, it obviously separates itself from an integrated understanding. What is important to realize is that ( the authentic spirit of ?) cooperation is possible only when you and I do not desire to 'be(come)' anything. When you and I desire to be something, then a projected Utopia is necessary; but if you and I are 'anonymously (working ) creatively' without any self-deception, without any (psycho-) barriers of belief and knowledge, then there is true cooperation.
Is it possible for us to cooperate without ( expecting a personal ?) result, which you and I are (subliminally ?) seeking? Surely that is ( the spirit of ?) true cooperation. Is it not?
So, is it not important to find out whether you and I can live together in a world where you and I are (psychologically 'as ?) nothing'; not just at the 'superficial' (verbal) level but fundamentally? That is one of our greatest (socio-politic ?) problems, perhaps the greatest.
(I may identify myself with an object(ive) and you identify yourself with the same object(ive) ; both of us are intending to bring it about. Surely, this process of ( collective ?) thinking is very superficial, because through (this personal ) identification, we bring about ( a subliminal sense of ) separation - which is so obvious in our every day life. You are a 'Hindu' and I a 'Catholic'; we both preach 'brotherhood' but ( ideologically ?) we are at each other's throats. Why? Because "un-consciously" , deeply, you have ( identified yourself with ?) your beliefs and I have mine. By talking about 'brotherhood', we have not solved the whole problem of (our self- identification with ?) beliefs, but we have only intellectually agreed that this should be so; inwardly and deeply, we are against each other.
Until we dissolve those ('psycho-) barriers' which are a (major cause for ?) self-deception, which give us a certain sense of inner vitality, there can be no cooperation between you and me. Through identification with a group with a particular idea, with a particular country, we can never bring about (the free spirit of ?) cooperation.

Our difficulty is that each of us is so (subliminally ?) identified with a particular belief, with a particular (fool-proof ?) method in bringing about happiness & economic (welfare for all ?) , that we are incapable (or...unwilling ?) of going deeper into the problem; therefore, we desire to remain aloof individually in our particular ways, beliefs and experiences.
Until we understand and dissolve them at the deeper levels (of our being) , there can be no Peace in the world. Love cannot come to those who have a desire to hold on to it or who like to become identified with it. Surely such things come when the mind does not seek, when the mind is completely quiet, when the mind is no longer creating movements and beliefs upon which it can depend or from which it derives a certain strength, which is an indication of self-deception. it is only when the mind understands this whole process of desire, can the mind be still. Only then, the mind is not in movement to be or not to be; then only is there the possibility of a state in which no deception of any kind is possible.

Question: One starts with good will and the sincere desire to help; but unfortunately, to help constructively, one joins various ( established ) organizations, political or religious-sociological . And presently, one finds oneself cut off from all (authentic ) goodness and charity. How does this happen?

Krishnamurti: Most of us, especially if we are young and still sensitive and impressionable, want to do something about this world with its misery. So, you look around. Then what happens? You go to various meetings of the extreme left, middle or of the right, or pick up a religious book and try to solve the problem. You start out wanting to do good with a certain compassionate desire to bring about a (concrete ?) result, and you end up in an 'organization' which promises a future utopia. When you join the organization; your eagerness has gone into political activity, into an ideal, rather than than being concerned with how you should act 'now' to produce a change. Have we not introduced a postponement, a forgetfulness, a deception of the opposing (individuals or ?) parties which prevents us from doing anything? The result is that we are cut off from the (original) source of compassion and love. We call this immediate action. That is the case with most of us.

The difficulty with most of us is that once we are committing ourselves we are becoming (consenting ?) 'prisoners' of the groups who have the power, economic and psychological power, and we are at their mercy (of their group interests ?) ; and it requires a great deal of understanding to break away from all this. No one will help us because everybody else believes in something . Being caught in all this one grows old; then there is despair and tragedy, and one accepts it as the inevitable.
Is it possible to see this whole ( decaying) process of how goodness, charity, love, are destroyed by our stupidity because we are all so eager to do something? We have not the patience to look, to observe, to know more deeply. The very desire to be active in 'doing good' is a deception because the (omnipresent ) 'clever man' is waiting there to use your desire to help; we give ourselves over to him, to be exploited, to be used.

Is it not possible to become aware of the whole content of this problem, and to 'break away', and actually, face the problem so as to revive again that pristine goodness, that sense of being in a state of (intelligent ?) love? That is the only way to act. When there is love, that will bring about an extraordinary (crealive ?) state, an extraordinary result, which you and I cannot plan to produce, cannot (premeditate ?) . Seeing (the truth regarding ?) this whole problem of ('psychological' committment ?) , those who are serious have obviously to break away. In the very breaking away is the renewal; in the very seeing is the action ( not idea first and action afterwards).

Question: Why do you say that knowledge and belief must be suppressed for truth to be?

Krishnamurti: What is your know ledge and what is your belief? Actually when you examine your knowledge or your belief, what is it? ( Cultivated ?) memories, are they not? What have you knowledge of? Of other peoples' experiences written down in a book! You meet an incident and you translate that incident according to your ( cultivated ?) memory which you call (your) experience. Your knowledge is a process of ( mental) recognition. So, how can a mind crippled with knowledge which is the accumulation of the past translating the present in terms of its own convenience, how can such a mind burdened with such knowledge, understand what Truth is? Truth must be something beyond time. It cannot be projected by my mind; it cannot be carved out of my experience; it must be something unknowable from my past experience. If I know it is from the past, I recognize it. therefore it is not ( a living ?) truth. If it is merely a belief, then it is a projection of my own desires.
Why are we so proud of our knowledge? We are (getting safely ) enclosed in our beliefs or knowledge because we are afraid to be nothing. That is why you put so many titles; you give yourselves names, ideas, reputation, a vulgar show. So, when you examine this whole thing, what have you? Nothing but words, nothing but ( a carefully cultivated ?) memory. Truth is something that must be beyond the imagination, beyond the process of the ( all-knowing ?) mind. It must be eternally new, a thing that cannot be 'recognized', that cannot be described. When you quote what the Buddha has said, you have already begun to (evaluate & ) compare - which shows you have stopped thinking & feeling for yourself . ( The illusory safety of ?) your knowledge is destroying the immediate perception of what is truth.

That is why it is important to be (inwardly) simple, see these things simply, not with a cunning mind. Then you will see the mind is becoming new, it is in a state of constant experiencing, not in relation to the past; there is a new movement which is not repeatable. You can't suppress knowledge; you have to understand its (right place ?) but to find the Truth there is no "guru", there is no "example" to follow , there is no path. The (meditating ?) mind must be completely 'empty' ( of its 'psychological' content ?) , it is only when the mind is utterly still, that there is possibility of (having an insight into ?) That which is Immeasurable.

Question: What is the relationship between what the psychologists call 'intuition' and what you call (insightful ?) 'understanding'?

Krishnamurti: What do we mean by 'intuition'? What is an intuitive feeling? Whether it is right or wrong, you have 'a feeling that it must be so' or 'it must not be so', a ( 'gut' ?) feeling that is not logically thought out, a feeling which you call a 'flash' from a higher consciousness.
So, we want to find out the truth of it. First of all, it is very easy to deceive oneself. I have an intuitive feeling that reincarnation is true. Now, what is (psychologically) involved in this intuitive feeling? Your hope, your desire for (an after-life) continuity, a ( subliminal ?) feeling of emptiness, loneliness, all these are driving you; all these urge you to hold on to the idea of reincarnation. So, your own desire 'unconsciously' projects ( interferes in ?) that intuitive feeling. Without understanding the whole process of desire, you cannot depend on intuition which in some cases is deceptive.
Don't talk about scientists having an (insighful) perception of a problem; even the scientists work impersonally about a problem; and as they work at it they (may ?) suddenly see the answer; and that is their 'intuition'. But we don't tackle our (psychological) problems in that ( impersonal) way. We are we are confined, limited by our own desires; and our own desires dictate, consciously or unconsciously, the attitude, the response, the reaction.

( A holistic ?) understanding is (resulting from ?) the whole perception of the problem; which is (including the ?) understanding the desire and the ways it acts. When you "understand", you will see there is no (self-conscious ) entity as the 'examiner' who is looking at the examined problem. This (insightful ?) understanding is not intuition. This understanding (involves) the seeing of the process of how the desire works, entirely, not just at the superficial level; it is going completely into the thing, in which every possibility of deception is revealed.
( To sum it up:) ( A totally insightful ?) understanding is an integrated process, whereas 'intuition', as we generally use it, is departmental. The latter operates occasionally; the rest of the time, we are all (inwardly dull or ?) 'stupid' . What is the good of having such intuition? One moment, you see things clearly; and for the rest of the time, you are just the old stupid entity that you were before . ( The insightful self-) understanding is an integrated process, functioning 'all the time'; and that comes into being when we are aware of the total process of desire.

Question: You say that life, as we live, is 'negation' and so there cannot be love. Will you please explain?

Krishnamurti: Why do you want my explanation? Are our lives very creative, very positive? We are very 'positive' in (manifesting ?) our greed, in our personal ambitions (resulting in ) every form of destruction, separation, isolation - all these are there.
Our life, though it appears 'positive', is actually (creation-wise ?) a (form of ) 'negation' because it leads to death, destruction, misery. You will not accept that because you will say 'We are doing everything positive in this world; we can't live in a state of negation'. But if you are ambitious, you are destructive, corrupting, corroding in your relationships; Every act of yours is a negative act. Imitation is ( creatively speaking a form of ?) death; yet, we have 'examples' which we want to follow, we have gurus; we follow the process of repetition, imitation, routine - which is what? Death, negation! Is it not? How can such a ( mind ?) comprehend anything? Such an entity can't know love. The only thing that is 'positive' is Love. That comes into being only when the 'negative' state is not ( psycho-active ?) , when you are not ambitious, when you are not corrupt, when you are not envious. First you must recognize ( acknowledge ?) "that which is", and in understanding "that which is", the other ( 'positive' attitude ?) comes into being.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 08 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 541 - 570 of 751 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.)