|Fri, 13 Jan 2017||#541|
|John Raica Canada 496 posts in this forum Offline||
A K CONVERSATION WITH HUSTON SMITH (1968)
Is it possible to live with total lucidity?
Huston Smith: Mr Krishnamurti, this morning I will have only one question to which in one way or another I will be coming back to in various ways: In your writings, in your speaking, time and again you come back to this word, 'lucidity' (aka: 'choiceless awareness' ?) , but is it possible living as we are in this confused and confusing world, torn by conflicting voices without and conflicting tensions within, is it possible in such a world, to live with total lucidity? And if so, how?
Krishnamurti: I wonder, sir, what you mean by that word 'lucid'. Do you mean (inner ?) 'clarity' ?
HS: That's what first (synonime) that comes to mind, yes.
K: Is this (inner) clarity a matter of intellectual perception, or is it a (clarity of a ?) perception with the totality of one's whole being?
HS: The latter.
K: It is not a fragmentary (awareness) , therefore it is not intellectual or emotional, or sentimental. And so is it possible in this confused world, with so many contradictions (conflicting interests ?) , and such misery, and also inwardly, such insufficiency psychologically - is it at all possible for a human being living in this world to find within himself a clarity that is constant, that is "true" in the sense of not contradictory, is it a possible for a human being to find it?
HS: That's (exactly) my question.
K: (For a quick answer ?) I don't see why it shouldn't be found by anybody who is really quite serious, if we could discard completely all the authority of psychological specialists, as well as the specialists in religion, if one could really deeply negate all authority of that kind, then one would be relying totally on oneself.
HS: Well, my impulse after you have said that it is possible to achieve this lucidity, my impulse is to ask you immediately, 'how ?'
K: Wait, sir. What is necessary (for starters ?) is the freedom from the (subliminal ?) authority of someone to tell you, 'do this and you will find it'.
HS: So, are you saying that it is an inappropriate question to ask you how this lucidity is to be achieved?
K: No, not at all, sir. But to have this inner clarity, the first essential thing is freedom. (More specifically the ?) freedom from (accepting any spiritual ?) authority.
HS: I feel in a bind, because this freedom is attractive too and I want to go towards that, but I also want to 'pick your mind' and ask you how to proceed? Am I moving away from my freedom if I ask you how to proceed?
K: I should think that 'how ?' is a wrong (a falsely 'positive'?) question. But if you say, (negatively ?) what are the obstructions that prevent this (inner) clarity, then we can go into it.
HS: So that the 'how' must always be (asked in terms of the ?) immediate (action) , from where one stands, the particular individual.
K: I would never put the 'how ?' at all. The 'how' should never enter into the mind.
HS: Well, then this is a hard teaching. It may be true but I don't feel that it's possible completely to relinquish the question 'how' and everything.
K: Sir, I think we shall be able to better understand each other if we could go into (negating ?) the things that prevent clarity.
HS: All right, fine.
K: Through negation (of the false ?) come to clarity, not through the 'positive' method of following a system.
HS: Fine, the 'negative' approach sounds good.
K: I think that is the only ( experientially friendly ?) way.
HS: Well, we'll see.
K: So what is important is to find out what are the obstructions, the hindrances, the 'blocks' that prevent clear perception of our anxiety, fear, sorrow, and the ache of loneliness, the utter lack of love and all that.
HS: Let's explore the virtues of the 'negative' (approach) . What are these?
K: First of all there must be freedom from ( any spiritual ?) 'authority'.
HS: It seems to me that this goal of 'total freedom' and 'self reliance' is a valid one, and yet along the way it seems to me that we rely, and should rely, on all kinds of authorities in certain practical spheres. When I go to a new territory and I stop to ask the filling station attendant which way to go, I accept his 'authority' as he (presumably) knows more about that than I do. Isn't this...
K: Obviously, sir, but we are considering not authority along any particular line, but the whole problem of (inwardly following ) the authority of the man who says, "I know, you don't".
HS: I see. So one should never turn over one's life to anyone else.
K: Because the churches throughout the world, the different religions, have said, give your life to us, we will direct, we'lll shape it, we will tell you what to do. Do this, follow the Saviour, follow the church and you will find (inner) peace.
HS: All right. I think I see that and one should never abdicate one's own conscience.
K: We started out asking the question, why is it man who has lived (or...survived ?) for two million years and more, why is man not capable of a clear (inward ?) perception and action? That is the question involved.
HS: Right. And your point is that it is because he doesn't accept the full responsibility ?
K: No, I haven't come to that ( responsability ?) point yet. I am saying that we must approach this problem 'negatively' ( by negating the false stuff ?) . Which means (experientially that ?) I must find out what are the obstacles which prevent a clear perception.
K: Now one of the major ( self-created ?) hindrances, is this (blind ?) acceptance of (spiritual ?) authority.
HS: All right. So "be ye lamps unto yourself".
K: That's right - you must be (or become ?) a "light to yourself".
HS: Very good.
K: To "be a light to yourself" you must deny every (dependence of ?) another's light, however 'great' that light be, whether it be the light of the Buddha, or X Y Z.
HS: But nevertheless you may retain what you find it might be valid.
K: No, no sir. When I reject the authority of the outer I accept the authority of the inner. And my authority of the inner is the result of the cultural conditioning in which I have been brought up.
HS: All right. The only point that I am not quite sure about affirming and maintaining one's own freedom...
K: Ah, you can't. Sir, how can a prisoner affirm that he is free? ( Inwardly speaking ?) he is in a ( self-created ?) prison, and that is the fact from which we must move. What exists is that man has bowed to this total authority.
HS: All right. And this is the first thing we must see and remove ?
K: Absolutely, that must go, for a man that is serious, and wants to find out the truth, or see things very clearly. That is one of the major points. And the freedom from ( the subliminal 'herd ?) fear', which makes him accept the authority (of psychological propaganda ?) .
HS: Right. That seems true also. And so beneath the craving for authority is...
K:... is fear.
HS: The very fear which we look to authority to be free from.
K: That's right. So the fear (of anything unknown ?) makes man violent, not only territorial violence, but sexual violence and different forms of violence.
HS: All right.
K: So the freedom from authority implies the freedom from ( a still deeper ?) fear. And ( going still deeper ?) the freedom from fear implies the cessation of every form of ( self-centred ?) 'violence'.
HS: So, if we stop ( the mentality of self-centred ?) 'violence' then our fear recedes ?
K: Let's put it round the other way, sir. Man 'is' (subliminally or openly ?) violent, linguistically, psychologically, in daily life he is violent, which ultimately leads to war.
HS: There's a lot of it around.
K: And man has accepted ( the mentality of ?) war as the way of life, whether in the office, or at home, or in the playing field, or anywhere war he has accepted as a way of life, which is the very essence of violence and aggression and all that . So as long as man lives a way of life which is ( openly or subliminally ?) violent, he perpetuates fear and therefore violence and also accepts authority.
HS: So these three are a kind of vicious circle, each playing into the other.
K: And the churches say, live peacefully, be kind, love your neighbour, which they don't (really ?) mean it. It is merely a ( smoke screen of ?) verbal assertions that has no (true) meaning at all.
HS: (To recap: ) in trying to see the things that stand between us and lucidity and freedom, we find that ( the traditional acceptance of ?) authority and fear and violence are working together to obstruct us. So, where do we go from there?
K: It's not a matter of 'going to some place', sir, but of understanding this fact that most of us live a life in this (inner & outer) 'ambience' of authority, fear and violence. We can't 'go beyond' it (transcend this condition ?) , unless one is free from it (experientially ?) from the feeling of dependence on authority.
HS: All right.
K: Then, is it possible for a human being to be free completely of fear? Not only at the superficial level of one's consciousness, but also at the deeper level, what is called the 'unconscious'.
HS: Is it possible?
K: That's the question, whether the human being can really be free from ( his unconscious ?) fear.
HS: That's what I wait to hear.
K: I say it is possible, not in abstraction, but actually it is possible.
HS: All right. My (natural) impulse again is to ask: 'how ?'.
K: You see when you (ask someone else ?) "how", you cease to learn.
HS: All right...
K: So the moment you bring in the 'how' you move away ( experientially ?) from the central fact of learning.
HS: All right, that's fine. Let's continue on the path of learning about this.
K: Learning. So, what does it mean to learn?
HS: It means to perceive how one should proceed in a given domain.
K: No, sir, surely. Here is a problem of ( our unconscious ?) fear. I want to learn about it. First of all I mustn't run away from it.
HS: Well, are we again going at this through the 'negative' route ?
K: Which is what I am doing.
HS: And fear is an 'obstacle' ...
K:... about which I am going to learn. The moment (my inner atitude is one of ?) learning I am free to ( observe ?) it. So the right learning (attitude ?) matters. What is implied in it? First of all there must be complete cessation of condemnation, or justification.
HS: All right. I can see that. If we are going to understand something we keep our (personal) emotions out of it, and try to dispassionately ...
K: ... learn. So to learn there must be no ( mental ?) condemnation, or justification of fear, and therefore no to escape verbally (intellectually ?) from directly facing the 'fact of fear'. So, it is really a very important question: whether the human mind can ever be free of fear.
HS: It certainly is.
K: Which means, whether the mind is capable of actually looking at fear as it occurs.
HS: Facing fear ?
K: Facing fear.
HS: All right, why don't we do just this ?
K: What is ( this reaction of ?) 'fear'? There is every kind of fear: fear of darkness, fear of war, fear of a thunderstorm, so many 'psychological' fears. And you cannot possibly have the time to analyze all the fears, that would take the whole life time, by then you have not understood any fears.
HS: So it is the 'phenomenon of fear' itself rather than any...
K: ...than any particular fear.
HS: Right. Now what should we learn about it ?
K: To learn about something ( of this nature ?) you must be in complete contact with it. Therefore I must look at it, I must face it. Now to ( objectively ?) face something implies a mind that does not want to solve the problem of fear. ( this is very important to understand because if I want to 'solve the problem fear ' I am beyond it already, I am not looking).
HS: You say that if we are trying to solve the problem of fear we are not truly facing it. Is that right?
K: Quite right, sir. The mind must give its complete attention to fear, and if you give partial attention which is to say, I want to solve it and go beyond it, you are not giving it ( all your ?) attention.
HS: I am not sure. When I 'am afraid', I feel it very much in here.
K: In here, but when you (try to ?) observe it, it is different. Then you (subliminally ?) put it outside.
HS: No, that doesn't seem quite right...
K: All right, at the moment of ( the surge of ?) fear there is neither the observer nor the observed.
HS: That is very true.
K: At the moment of a major crisis, at the moment of the actual fear there is no observer.
HS: It fills the horizon.
K: Now, the moment you ( try to get back in control and?) begin to face it, there is this ( subliminal ?) division.
HS: Between the fearful self and the...
K: The non-fearful (rational part of one-) self. So in trying to learn about fear, there is this ( subliminal tendency of ?) division between the observer and the ( fear to be ?) 'observed' (and controlled ?) . Now is it possible to look at fear without the 'observer' ( self-controlling attitude ?) ?
HS: That's true. We are not in full contact with it.
K: Therefore in that division is the conflict of trying to get rid of fear, or justify fear. So, is it possible to look at fear without the 'observer' - so that you are completely in contact with it all the time ?
HS: Well, then you are directly 'experiencing' fear. It seems better than, 'looking at it', because looking at does seem to imply a division between an observer and the observed.
K: Therefore we are using the word 'observing'. Being aware of fear without choice, ( the 'choice' implies the observer, choosing whether I don't like this, or that). Therefore when the 'observer' is absent (on leave ?) there is a 'choiceless awareness' of fear.
HS: All right.
K: Then what takes place? That's the whole question. The observer creates the linguistic difference between himself and the (naming of the ?) thing observed. Therefore the word prevents being completely in contact with fear.
HS: Yes. Words can be a (smoke ?) screen.
K: Yes. That's all that we are saying: the 'word' (the naming and the verbal processing ?) mustn't interfere.
HS: True. We have to go beyond that.
K: Beyond the word. But is that possible, to be (able to observe ?) beyond the word? Theoretically we may say, yes, but we are a slave to words.
HS: Far too much so.
K: So the ( earnest?) mind has to become aware of its own slavery to words, realizing that the word is never the thing.
K: So the mind is free of words to look. The authentic relationship between the observer and the observed takes place when the word (and its associated images) is not. So he is directly in contact with fear.
HS: Surely it's possible.
K: But is it? There is this whole reservoir of fear - the racial fears, you follow, the whole content of the unconscious. Now, to be aware of all that, which means not through dreams, again that takes too long.
HS: Are you talking about whether we can be explicitly aware of the full reach of mind?
K: Yes. To reach the full content, to reach of the mind which is both the conscious as well as the deeper layers. The totality of consciousness.
HS: Yes. And can we be 'explicitly' aware of all of that? I am not sure.
K: I say it is possible when you are aware during the day of what you say, the words you use, the gestures, the way you talk, the way you walk, what your thoughts are, to be completely and totally aware of all that.
HS: Do you think 'all of that' can be (unfolded ?) before you in this total awareness?
K: Yes, sir. When you are directly in contact with it.
HS: It seems to me that the mind is sort of like an iceberg with region of it...
K: An iceberg is one-tenth below and nine-tenths above. It is possible to see the whole of it, during the day. During the day if you are aware of your thoughts, of your feelings, aware of the motives, which demands a mind that is highly sensitive.
HS: We can certainly be aware of much, much more than we usually are. But when you say we can be aware of all the psychological factors...
K: If you say, "it is not possible", then... it is not possible.
HS: No, I'd like to believe that.
K: No, it's not a question of belief. I don't have to believe in what I see.
HS: For me it is still a matter of belief, but maybe not for you - like so many times when I listen to you speak it seems to me like a 'half truth' is stated as a 'full truth', and I wonder whether that is for the sake of emphasis, or whether it really is, you really mean to carry it all the way.
K: No, sir. To me it really 'is'.
HS: We have been speaking of the elements that block us, the things that block us from a life of lucidity and freedom, authority, violence, fear. Our time is short and I wouldn't like to spend all the time on these obstacles. Is there anything 'affirmative' we can say of this condition ?
K: Sir, anything 'affirmative' indicates authority. ..
HS: Well now when I ask you for an affirmative statement it doesn't seem to me that I am turning over a decision to use ant authority. I just want to hear if you have something interesting to say which I will then stand a judgement upon.
K: With regard to what?
HS: As to whether it speaks to my condition, about the (holistic) state of life that it seems to me we are groping for in our words to describe.
K: Is this what you are asking: is life to be divided into the past, present and future, which becomes fragmentary, and not a total perception of living?
HS: Well again as so often it seems to me that the answer is both, and. In one sense it is a unity and it is present and the present is all we have, but man is a 'time-binding' animal, as they say, who looks before and aft.
K: So man is the result of time, not only evolutionary but chronological as well as psychological ?
K: So he is the result of time: the past, the present and the future ?
K: Now, he lives mostly (immersed ?) in the past.
HS: All right, mostly.
K: He is the past.
HS: All right....
K: No, no, he 'is' the past because he lives in memory.
HS: Not totally.
K: Wait, sir. Follow it step by step. He lives in the past and therefore he thinks and examines and looks from the background of the past.
HS: Which is both good and bad.
HS: All right. It seems to me that most of the time that is true but there are new perceptions that break through, new experiences that break through the whole momentum of the past.
K: New experiences break through only when there is an absence of the past.
HS: Well it seems to me it is like it is a merging of things that we perforce bring with us from the past, but bring to play upon the novelty, the newness of the present. And it is a fusion of those two.
K: Look, sir, if I want to understand something new I must look at it with clear eyes. I can't bring the past with all the recognition process, with all the memories, and then translate what I see as new. Surely, surely, now just a minute: the man who invented the jet, must have forgotten, or be completely familiar with the propeller, and then there was an 'absence' of ( his past ?) knowledge in which he discovered the new.
HS: That's fine.
K: Wait, wait. That is the only way to operate (creatively ?) in life. That is there must be complete an absence of (what one knew in ?) the past, to see the new, or to come upon something new.
HS: All right....
HS: I am conceding reluctantly because I agree with the point that you are making, but it is also true that one operates in terms of the ( available) symbols that one has. And it is not as though we begin 'de novo'.
K: But (inwardly ) we have to begin 'de novo' because life demands it, because we have lived ( for ages) in this way, accepting war, brutality, competition, and anxiety, guilt, all that we have accepted that, we live that way.
HS: We must be open to the new.
K: Yes. Therefore the ( psychological knowledge of the ?) past must have no meaning.
HS: That I can't go along with.
K: That is what is the whole world is objecting to. The established order says, I can't let go for the new to be. And the young people throughout the world say, let's revolt against the old. But they don't understand the whole complexity of it. So they say, what have you given us, except examinations, ( the prospective of a?) job, and repetition of the old (or updated ?) patterns.
HS: Well you are pointing out, it seems to me, the importance of not being slaves to the past. And that's so true and I don't want to object to it in any way. But at the same time there is only one generation, namely ourselves, that separates the future generation from the 'cave man'. If this (industrious ?) 'cave man' were to be totally rescinded we would have to start right now.
K: Oh, no, no. To break (free from ?) the past, sir, demands a great deal of (self inquiry and ?) intelligence, a great deal of sensitivity to the (subliminal influences of this ?) past. You can't just 'break away' from it (and walk ?) .
HS: OK, I am convinced.
K: So the (existential ?) problem really is: Can we live a different way
HS: But in some sense everybody wants that.
K: But they won't go after it. They are distracted (amused ?) by so many other things, they are so heavily conditioned by their past, they hold on to it.
HS: But I think there are some who will go after it.
K: Very few.
HS: The numbers don't matter (but... the 'law' of large numbers does ?) .
K: The minority is always the most important thing.
HS: Mr Krishnamurti, as I try to 'listen through' the words to what you are saying, it seems to me that (first) each of us should work out his own salvation, not leaning on any authority outside; (second), not to allow words to form a ( separating screen) 'film' between us and actual experience, not to mistake the menu for the meal; and (third), not to let the past swallow up the present, take possession, to responding to a conditioning of the past, but rather to be always open to the new, the novel, the fresh. And finally (fourth) , it seems to me you are saying that the key to doing this is a radical reversal in our point of view. It is as though we were prisoners straining at the bars for the light, and looking for the glimpse of light that we see 'out there' and wondering how we can get out towards it, while actually the door of the cell is open behind us if only we would turn around, we could walk out into freedom. This is what is sounds to me like you are saying. Is this it?
K: A little bit, sir, a little bit.
HS: All right. What else? What other than that? Or if you want to amplify.
K: Sir, surely sir, in this is involved the everlasting conflict, man caught in ( the illusory safety of ?) his own conditioning, and straining, struggling, beating his head to be free. And again that such 'effort' is necessary. That's part of life. To me that is the highest form of ( spiritual ?) blindness, of limiting man to say, you must everlastingly live in effort.
HS: And you're saying...
K: That living without ( this self-becoming ?) effort requires the greatest sensitivity and the highest form of intelligence. One has to understand how ( this inner) conflict arises, the duality between the fact of 'what is', and ( the mental projection of ?) 'what should be', there is the conflict. If there is no ( wishful thinking about ?) 'what should be', and face the 'what is', it, live with it then there is no conflict at all. It's only when you compare, evaluate with 'what should be', and then look with 'what should be' at the 'what is', then conflict arises.
HS: There should be no tension between the ideal and the actual.
K: No ( psychological ?) ideal at all. The fact is 'burning' there, why should I have an ideal about anything?
HS: Well, when you speak like that it seems to me that you break it into an "either/or", while it seems to me the truth is somehow both of these.
K: Ah, no. Truth is not a mixture of the 'ideal' and the 'what is', then you produce some 'melange' . There is only 'what is' - take a very simple example: we human beings are violent. Why should I have an ideal of non-violence? Why can't I deal directly with the fact?
HS: Of violence?
K: Of 'violence' without (projecting) the ideal non-violence (which, experientially-wise ?) is a distraction. The fact is I am violent, man is violent. Let's tackle that, let's come to grips with that and see if we can't live without violence. There is no dualistic process in this. There is only the fact that I am violent, man is violent, and is it possible to be free of that ? Why should I introduce the 'idealistic' nonsense?
HS: No dualism, you say, no separation, and in your view is it the case that there is no separation?
HS: Isn't there any separation, as 'you' and 'me'?
K: Physically there is.
HS: But you don't feel 'dualistic' (or antagonistic ?)
K: If I felt dualistic I wouldn't even sit down to discuss with you, then intellectually we play ( mind games ?) with each other.
HS: Right. Now perhaps we are saying the same thing, but always it comes out in my mind that we are both separate and united.
K: Sir, when you love somebody with your heart, not with your 'mind', do you feel separate?
HS: I feel both. I feel both separate and together.
K: Then it is not "love".
HS: I wonder, because part of the joy of love is the relationship which involves in some sense, like Ramakrishna said, 'I don't want to be sugar, I want to eat sugar'.
K: I don't know Ramakrishna, I don't want any authority, I don't want to quote any bird.
HS: Don't get 'hung up' on this.
K: Sir, we are dealing with facts, not with what somebody said. The fact is...
HS:... that in love, part of the beauty and the glory of it, is the sense of unity embracing what in certain respects is separate.
K: Sir, let's be a little more 'un-romantic' about it. The fact is when there is love between man and woman, in that is (also) involved possession, domination, authority, jealousy, all that is involved in it. Of course there is. And comfort, sexual pleasure, and the remembrance. A bundle of all that.
HS: And there are some other 'positive' things you have left out...
K: Is love jealousy? Is love (based on ?) pleasure? If it is ( based on ?) pleasure it is merely the activity of ( the self-centred ?) thought, saying, 'Well, I slept with that woman, therefore she is mine' and the remembrance of all that. That's not love. Thought is not love. Thought breeds fear, thought breeds pain, thought breed pleasure, and pleasure is not love.
HS: Thought breeds only the 'negative' (stuff ?) ?
K: What is the 'positive' thing that thought produces, except mechanical things?
HS: A love poem ?
K: The man feels something and puts it down. The putting down is merely a form of communication (skill) . But to 'feel it' has nothing to do with thought. To translate (it artistically ?) then thought is necessary. But to love...
HS: But thought and words can also give form to our feelings which would bring them to satisfying resolutions.
K: Is ( direct ?) relationship a matter of thought?
HS: Not only, but thought can contribute to a relationship.
K: Thought is always the old, relationship is something new.
HS: Yes, but there are 'new thoughts'.
K: Ah! There is no such thing as 'new thoughts'. Forgive me to be so emphatic.
HS: No, I like it.
K: I don't think there is a new thought. Thought can never be free because thought is the response of memory, thought is the response of the past.
HS: When a great poet comes through with the right words to articulate a new perception, nobody has before thought of those particular words.
K: That's a mere matter of a cunning gift of putting words together.
HS: A noble trade...
K: No, sir, ( experientially-wise) that's a minor thing; the major thing is to see the beauty of life and see the immensity of it, and to (have this sense of ?) Love.
(voice from off:) There it ended this conversation with Krishnamurti. But what ended was only the words, not the substance. For Krishnamurti was speaking, as always, of that Life that has no end, and no beginning.
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 14 Jan 2017||#542|
|John Raica Canada 496 posts in this forum Offline||
A K small group dialogue in Rishi Valley, 1971 (experientially friendly edited)
FREEDOM AND THE FIELD OF THE KNOWN
Questioner A: You were saying the brain cells themselves are conditioned by the (memory of their own ) past, the biological and historical past, and you said the structure of the brain cells could change. Could we go into that?
Krishnamurti: The brain cells are receiving (sensory and mental inputs ?) all the time; they are recording all the time, in the state of sleeping and in the state of waking. This (background) recording is an independent (non-personal ?) movement. That independent movement creates the mental capacity to think, to rationalize. The intellect can then observe (and control ?) the operation of thought. And that ( controlling activity ?) is again becoming part of the whole structure of the brain cells. Is the capacity to rationalize independent of the brain cells or being a part of them can it ever be independent? You cannot rationalize independently, because the brain cells and the intellect are part of cause-effect; and if the intellect is the product of the brain, the intellect must always be conditioned by memory, by knowledge. It can project very far but it is still tethered. The intellect can seek freedom, it can never find it. It can be free only within the radius of its own tether; in itself it is limited. So freedom must be beyond this intellectual capacity, must be something outside the field (of the 'known'?) .
A: Buddhism maintains that this process which has come into existence with a cause, has an end and the perception of it is to see, that in this there is no permanency, and that rebirth is the rebirth of the ignorance of this process. So when you observe this process as impermanent, then it must create absolutely no attachment to this process. All that is given to you is to see the impermanence, and seeing ( the truth of ?) this, there is no attachment to this - in that direct perception , there is no effort at all.
Krishnamurti: Then how are these 'recording instruments' with their own capacity, their own movements, how are they to switch off and enter a different dimension, even for a short period?
A: We come to the point where the intellect realizes that whatever it does is within the field of the known, but then, what?
Krishnamurti: The intellect itself says, this movement is within this field (of the past experience and knowledge). Is there another (inner) movement other than this movement?
A: When you ask 'is there another movement', I cannot 'know' it.
Krishnamurti: I know this ( endless movement within the field of the known ?) is a ( a very intricate ?) prison. And my ( 'wake-up' ?) question is, is there freedom at all? Tradition would say yes, there is Moksha. ( But to postulate this while living in the field of the known ?) is rather immature.
A: Faced with this ('impossible' ?) question, I have absolutely no instrument now to deal with this.
Krishnamurti: I am asking, if there is no freedom within this field, then what is freedom?
A: The intellect can never know.
Krishnamurti: The intellect can only know ( a relative ?) freedom within the field (of the known) , like a man knowing freedom within a prison. It then asks what is freedom? If this is not "it", then what is freedom? Is the human mind everlastingly condemned to live within this field?
The ( Hindu ?) traditionalists went wrong when they said 'do not be attached'. You see, they denied all relationships. They could not solve the (intricate ?) problems of wordly relationship, but they said do not be attached and so broke away from all relationships. They said "Be detached", therefore they withdrew into isolation.
Can the ( meditative ?) mind (honestly ?) say "I do not know", which means the (time-binding continuity of ?) 'yesterday' has ended?
A: To pursue this (path ?) requires ruthlessness.
Krishnamurti: It requires tremendous delicacy (and integrity:) . When I said I really do not know, I really do not know. Full stop. See what it does. It means a real humility, a sense of austerity. Then, yesterday has ended. So the man who has ended yesterday is really beginning again. Therefore he has to be 'austere'. I really do not 'know'; what a marvellous thing that is. I do not know if I may die tomorrow. Therefore there is no possibility of having any conclusion at any time, which means, never to have any (psychological ?) burden. The burden is the 'knowing'.
A: Can one come to this point and stay there?
Krishnamurti: You do not have to 'stay there' !
A: The mind has a way of switching back (to what it 'knew' before ?) . Your (insightful ?) words can take us only up to a point...
Krishnamurti: When I say "I really do not know". It does not mean I have forgotten the past. In this (total insight that ?) "I do not know" there is no inclusion of the past nor a discarding of the past, nor a utilization of the past.
R: But the (organisational ?) structure of the brain cells remains the same.
Krishnamurti: They become extraordinarily 'flexible'. Being (functionally ?) 'flexible' they can reject, accept; there is a movement (in freedom ?) .
A: We see here something as ( the inner ?) action. So far we only knew ( time-bound ?) activity. We can never reject activity. It goes on. But in laying down bare the temporal activity, it ceases to be a barrier to (inner) action. The normal day to day living is a process which goes on.
Krishnamurti: Are you asking what is "action" to a man who does not know? The man who 'knows' ( assumes that he 'knows' ?) is acting from knowledge and his activity is always within the (inner) prison (of his choice ?) , projecting his (inner) 'prison' into the future. He is always (living) within the field of the known.
( For homework:) You are all missing something, which is, not to know whether "tomorrow" is there. Can you go (meditatively ?) into that? Apart from (the physical, intellectual daily activity ?) the action of a man who 'knows' is always (inwardly ?) mischievous. His everyday action is relationship in the field of the known involved in attachment, in dominance, in subservience. Have the 'professionals' ( of the traditional spirituality ?) talked about (the reality of the everyday ?) relationship?
Krishnamurti: To them ( the wordly ?) relationship meant attachment and (sorrow ?) therefore they talked of 'detachment'. But to live in this world, even in the Himalayas, I still need food. There is relationship. That may be the reason why the whole Indian movement of 'detachment' has made the mind so stupid, repetitive.
A: The Buddha in his first sermon said that both 'detachment' and 'attachment' are ignoble. The two represented the (traditional) Hindu idea of running away from the world.
Krishnamurti: Why did they not consider relationship? If you deny the (reality of ?) human relationship, action becomes meaningless. What is action without relationship? Is it doing something mechanical?
A: Action is relationship.
Krishnamurti: Relationship is the primary thing. Otherwise what exists? If my father did not sleep with my mother, I would not exist. So relationship is the basic movement of life. (However a ?) relationship (confined ?) within the field of 'known' is deadly, destructive, corrupt. That is the "worldly".
So, what is (a holistic ?) action? We have separated action from (the human dimension of our ?) relationships: as 'social' action, 'political' action, you but we have not solved this problem of ( direct ?) relationship. Now, if you accept that all living is relationship, then what is action? There is the practical action (in the field ?) of technology , but every other action is non-mechanical. Otherwise I reduce relationship into turning the wheel. That is why we have denied love.
A: Can we examine our relationship with Nature?
Krishnamurti: What is my relationship with nature - the birds, sky, trees, flowers, the moving waters? That is (part of ?) my life. It is not just relationship between man and woman, but all this is part of my life. I am talking of relationship to everything. How can I be attached to the forest, to the river? I can be attached to the (images and ?) words, but not to the waters. You see, we miss the whole thing because we confuse the word with the thing.
A: Is it a question of re-awakening sensitivity?
Krishnamurti: No. The question is what is ( a holistic ?) relationship? Being related to everything. Relationship means care; care means attention; attention means love. That is why relationship is the basis of everything. If you miss that, you miss the whole thing.
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 24 Jan 2017||#543|
|John Raica Canada 496 posts in this forum Offline||
A K CONVERSATION WITH PUPUL JAYAKAR AND ACHYUT PATWARDHAN ON
HOW TO READ THE BOOK OF ONESELF ? (experientially friendly edited)
Pupul Jayakar: Yesterday you were talking about reading the 'Book of Oneself', which is ( the pocket version of ?) the Book of Mankind. And you asked a question: with what 'instrument' will I look? So, there are one or two questions which will have to be clarified: What is this instrument what is the nature of what is seen? You have talked about 'what is' from the first time we met you, but what is the nature of this 'what is'?
J Krishnamurti: If I may begin with this, I think the whole history of man from two million years, is part of our consciousness, is part of our story. As human being, we are (encapsulating ?) the whole history of man. If you grant this then the instrument with which I can read this vast complex (psychological ?) history (of mankind) , the only instrument I have is my (objective capacity of ?) thinking . Thought is the only ( available ?) instrument I have. ( However, working in 'darkness' ?) thought has built all the past accumulations, (self-centred ) experience, superstitions, beliefs, the wars, and the human consciousness is the storehouse of all that - the whole ( survivalistic ?) movement of mankind in time is (imbedded in ?) in the ( psychological) background of every human being. So, we can start from there.
PJ: Obviously, Krishnaji, human heritage is my heritage.
K: Yes, but very few are willing to accept (the full implications of ?) that. Most people have never thought (seriously) about this. And if (and when ?) they begin to think about it I am not sure they would see the 'fact' of it. So, if you and Achyutji and a few of us see the truth of it, not the intellectual concept that we we carry with us all the time the vast human heritage, then we can proceed.
A. Patwardhan: Sir, but would you not concede that though all this may have been accumulated through thought...
K: Through time and thought...
AP: ...when I say that I 'am' the inheritor of the entire past of man, it is not a thought process or anything like that, it is not in that way. The way in which I am the inheritor of it all is not (on the level of my ?) verbalized thought, or...
K: Do you as a human being, having studied history of the world and so on, do you see the (inner ?) truth that (consciousness-wise ?) you are the result, and that you hold the whole human heritage and that vast complex Book of the Story of Man?
AP: Yes sir, it is a fact.
K: Now, that fact can be an argumentive fact, argumentive, a conclusion, a concept, or it is so in my blood, in my thoughts, in my life.
AP: It is a totality.
K: Yes. Don't (yet) use the word 'totality' - it 'is so'.
AP: It is so.
PJ: It is as much a truth as the fact that the human body has evolved - let me put it this way, is a universal phenomena. It is in that context that I say I accept I 'am' the human heritage.
K: Now from there proceed: I in me abides the whole (psychological) history of man: his sorrows, his anxieties, his loneliness, his miseries, his happiness, his experiences, and so on. Then the question you raised just now is: what is the instrument with which I read that book?
PJ: But even before I go to examine what is the instrument, what is it that I read?
K: As you are reading it (the content of this 'Book' ?) is moving, living.
PJ: Yes, as I am reading it, its 'future' (updated content ?) is also being projected.
K: (In a nutshell ?) the past, meeting the present modifying itself becomes the future.
PJ: And the very thought that arises now contains in it the germ of the future.
K: Pupulji, forgive me if I point out something. I may not know the nature of it, the content of it, but I want to learn, if it is possible, about the nature of consciousness, not as mine, the consciousness of man which is the past.
PJ: You see the moment you say that I am (supposed to be ?) reading the 'consciousness of man' and not 'my' consciousness, the attitude to that reading has undergone a total change.
K: A total change. That's right. But if one is under the (wide spread ?) illusion that this consciousness is 'mine', separate from every other consciousness, then we are moving in two different directions.
PJ: But there seems a 'trap' there: we say we are the history of mankind in twelve encyclopaedias you would read it one way. But the moment you see it as something which (constantly ?) sprouts within my consciousness, immediately my response to it is of a totally different nature.
K: That's is what I was coming to naturally - if one sees one's consciousness as universal - that is, the ( self-centred ?) consciousness which exists in me is the ( self-centred ?) consciousness of all human beings, then our whole activity of inner perception changes. Right?
K: Now, do I regard this consciousness as 'mine' , as my private ground, my private property ?
PJ: I would say that the consciousness of mankind is revealed on my private ground.
K: You are saying, by understanding my consciousness I recognize that it is the consciousness of man, of all human beings. All right then, I go along with that. But I mustn't insist that it's 'mine'.
PJ: I can come with you so far as to say that whatever is revealed is not 'unique' to me. It is part of the total consciousness of man.
K: But... ?
PJ: ...But it is revealed within my ground.
K: I understand what you are saying: that in the observation, investigation of my consciousness, which I had thought to be separate from everybody else, in that investigation there is the discovery that what I have called my (personal) consciousness, is not my private ground, but it is the consciousness which is the rest of man.
PJ: But you see, sir...the observing of that which arises, (like) the observing of (one's personal) loneliness doesn't bring into it the (generalising ?) factor that it is the loneliness of mankind. It is 'loneliness'.
K: In investigating my sorrow, my loneliness, which I have been scrupulously (considered to be ?) in my private ground, there is the discovery that it is (shared by ?) the rest of mankind. All men are lonely, all people suffer (although they may not acknowledge it ?) . The discovery that it is the ( sorrow of loneliness shared by the ?) whole of mankind is an enormous ( breakthrough ?) perception.
PJ: What brings that (global ?) perception about? Let us take it minutely through a microscope. This feeling of sorrow arises: there is an observing of that thing we call sorrow. What brings in the insight that I am observing not my petty sorrow, but the the sorrow of all mankind ?
K: Wherever you go, loneliness and sorrow are linked together. Go to America, it is there, in Europe it is there, in China, Russia, India, anywhere you go this factor is shared by all of us. Even to admit to oneself how extraordinary : this thing is shared by all of us, a change (in our mentality ?) has already taken place.
PJ: Yes. Can we go back to these two things. One is with what instrument and the second what is it that has to be observed?
K: I observe sorrow, loneliness,( or sorrow of loneliness ?) , they are synonymous those two.
PJ: Which are emotional responses to a situation.
K: To a crisis.
PJ: To a crisis situation. I suddenly have a feeling of shrinking, a feeling...
K: Yes. A feeling of some great loss.
PJ: And I look.
K: No, no. Not 'you'- 'you' don't look.
PJ: That's what I wanted to clear up.
K: Suppose one has lost a great friend, or a person whom you loved, and there is the (physical) ending of that person: what has actually taken place there? The ending of all your relationship with that person. And suddenly realizing how utterly lonely you are because that has been the only relationship that has meant something ( you were relying upon ?) . And suddenly that has gone. And there is the sense of loss. Now: (a) either I remain with it, that is, not let thought or any other ( self-centred ?) feeling interfere with that state. (in short ?) I don't want to escape from (facing the actuality of ?) it. And (furthermore ?) can this mind remain (non-dualistically ?) with that fact?- not as an 'observer' observing the fact, the observer is that state, there is no division between the observer and the thing he is observing. Right? He is the suffering, he is that ending. ( If this be the case ?) it's like a (potential ?) 'jewel' that you are looking, holding. Or more commonly (the option b: ) the moment you want to ( to inwardly distance yourself from ?) it you have entered into a very different ( quality of dualistic ?) consciousness.
PJ: I understand.
K: Now ( supposing I see that ?) the (psychological ?) history of mankind is (enfolded in my own psychological ) history. I want to read that (hidden ?) Book because it is a most extraordinary 'Book' ( which actually ?) is a tremendous ( self-sustained inner ?) 'movement'.
PJ: Can the (average human ?) mind contain the enormity of it?
K: Now wait a minute, we must begin ( to differentiate ) here between what is the Mind and what is the brain? The human 'brain' has infinite capacity. Look what it has done in the technological world, something incredible. Right? But psychologically it has been 'conditioned' through (its evolution in ?) time. So, in the psychological realm, it hasn't moved at all, it has not flowered, so (inwardly ?) it is limited (by its own survivalistic responses ?) . But the 'Mind' is not limited.
PJ: When you talk of the 'Mind' , you speak of what?
K: The whole (field of Intelligent ?) energy , the Mind of the universe, the mind of nature, you follow, everything that has been created 'is' (part of ?) the movement of the Mind.
PJ: Everything that has been created.
K: And is creating. Therefore there is no limit to Creation.
AP: Are you suggesting, sir, that when we say that "I am the entire heritage of man", it is not the brain that can take in this fact?
AP: I am trying to pin myself down to this 'fact' that at present whatever I understand I understand through the brain.
PJ: I asked a question: this "reading" of the Book of Mankind - can a single brain contain it, and you came to differentiate between the brain and the mind. It is pretty clear that the human brain is inwardly limited and that it can only move within its own circle (of its existing knowledge ?) . And you're saying that this (Universal ?) Mind, being the very source of creation has no limits.
K: That's right. Pupul, let's be clear on this point. Thought (the self-centred activity of our brain ?) has created in the physical world, the churches, thought has created wars; thought has created the conflict between man and man. Right? Thought is responsible for all this. And because thought in itself is limited it cannot perceive a Mind that is immeasurable. But it still tries to understand it (conceptually ) because that is its mechanical function of reducing everything to its limited fragmentary activity. Right? And we are saying that as long as that brain is conditioned it can never understand the immensity of the nature of the Mind. Right?
K: If you see it, then our (holistic ?) "responsibility" is to uncondition the brain, uncondition the limitation which thought has imposed upon it.
PJ: Sir, here is something I would like to ask. Is it to 'uncondition' the brain which is conditioned and cannot move out of its (known) grooves, or to end the (inner ?) 'movement' of the brain?
K: It comes to the same thing.
PJ: No, sir. The (insightful ?) perception (originating ?) is in the Mind itself. So, is it that the brain finds itself unable to decondition itself ? Or is it to hold the brain in abeyance so that the perception which is the Mind can operate?
K: You are putting in modern language what the old traditions say, 'there is in me God. There is in me some element which is not contaminated, which then operates on that (conditioning)
PJ: But...you have drawn the difference between brain and Mind, between the conditioned and the and the non-conditioned.
K: I said we must differentiate the meaning of these two words. And I say that the brain which is limited cannot (experientially ?) understand what the Mind is. It can only become aware of it, when there is no conditioning.
PJ: May I ask a question? What is the distinction between thought and the brain?
K: Thought is the (self-centred ?) activity of the brain.
PJ: Is there anything in the brain apart from (this self-centred ?) thinking?
K: I won't fall into that trap! You are now going back to the old...
PJ: No, I am not, sir. But if you accept that the brain has this tremendous potential...
K: And we are only using a very, very small part.
PJ: Obviously. So, it could deal with the ( conditioning of the ?) psyche what it have done with technology...
K: That's all I am saying. I mean then the (Mind of the ?) Universe is open to you. That's all I am saying. If the (thinking ?) brain can free itself from the limitations of the (self-centred ?) 'psyche', then the brain 'is' the Mind when it is totally free. Then there is no inner sense of its own division, but the sense of whole, completeness, wholeness. That's all.
PJ: I understand. Now if I may go further. If the human brain has the energy to pursue (the developpments of modern ?) technology, they go up into space and are (even ) prepared to die (if anything is going wrong) ...
K: No, there is a great deal behind it: national praise by their country. They have been propagandized to die in the name of your country, or in the name of God...
PJ: You are not answering what I am saying. What is that element which enabled man, gave him the curiosity, curiosity to drive in the other direction?
K: I think our (standardised ?) 'education' is responsible for it. Because every culture has emphasized, except perhaps a few dead cultures, that you must earn a livelihood, work, work, work. And to do that study, you know, memorize, repeat, repeat, repeat. That's all we do. This morning I met some of the (local K School ?) students - they haven't thought about anything except (learning ?) mathematics, history, geography, and if you ask them to move a little away from the (field of the known ?) they are feeling (psychologically destabilised and/or ? ) lost.
AP: Even among the (top) scientists, there are only a few who go to the "impossible" questions.
K: But, sir, even those are...
AP: Very few. I say similarly today in the present crisis of the survival of humanity there is sufficient 'motivation', there is sufficient ground for man to say that this is the most intolerable predicament for man, and the brain must be explored.
K: What we are saying is very simple, sir. The brain has extraordinary capacity, and (inwardly) there is (the possibility to awaken ?) a different kind of 'movement' which is not based on ( our past survivalistic ?) experience, knowledge. So, if there is a breakthrough of that 'cycle' (of moving exclusively within the known ?) then I am saying there is no division between the Mind and the (intelligent ?) energy of the brain - this (same intelligent ?) energy of the brain has done the (marvels of the ?) technological world.
PJ: Yes, but it has never been released for this (moving inwardly) .
K: For the 'other'.
AP: I think the word (intelligent ?) energy is much better than the word motivation because it is really the energy of attention.
K: Just 'energy' for the moment. Psychologically my ( perceptive ?) energy is practically nil. And I am saying that when that (subliminal ego-centric ?) limitation has been broken down, or broken through, then there is a ( qualitative mutation into a ?) totally different energy, which now is channelled through technology and therefore that energy is limited. Right?
AP: I'm saying say that man has within him a ( vast potential of intelligent ?) energy which can transcend the limit of thought, and that is the energy of "attention". We must feel that we have a faculty other than thought to pursue the Mind.
K: No, I won't accept that. You see he is introducing again the same old pattern, which is there is an (inner) faculty which is hidden (dormant ?) , which is the energy of God, whatever you like to call it.
AP: I am saying that when I am looking at the real, it is just plain attention.
K: No, it is 'energy'. Keep to that word. Man has used the energy of thought in technology. Right? Right? It is the energy of thought, therefore limited.
AP: Right, quite right.
K: Now the breaking down of the ( survivalstic infrastructure of the ?) 'psyche' is not being done by this energy of thought.
AP: That's obvious.
K: Ah, no, sir, ( experientially ?) it is not 'obvious'.
AP: It is, sir.
PJ: Let me probe a little more. Let us examine those instruments man has readily available now: one is thought, the other are the senses...
K: The sensitivity of the senses ?
K: The sensitivity of the senses and thought are both the same.
AP: How, sir?
K: I'll show it to you in a minute. Our senses are controlled by ( the self-centred process of ?) thought. Right? The (activities of our) senses are now shaped, controlled by thought. That is, my sense of taste, if 'I like it' thought comes in. Or if I 'feel' something or other thought comes in and says, 'Look, be careful, that is painful, don't go through there'. So is there - I am just asking - is there an (integrated activity or ?) 'movement of all the senses', without the interference of ( the self-centred ?) thought? (Eg:) Have you ever looked at the movement of the sea, the vast movement of the tides, the beauty of the waves, the enormous power of the waves, with all your senses 'looking'? In that there is no interference of thought. Now when (the self-centred ?) thought interferes, it must inevitably limit it or (try to optimise the sensation or to ?) control it.
PJ: I'm not wanting to argue with what you have said just now. There is a challenge, and my senses respond according to the conditioning of the mind, but there is a response of the senses...
K: Partial, always partial because ( from the background the self-centred ?) thought is always watching, controlling it, trying to say, 'I must', 'I must not', 'This is wrong', 'That is right'.
PJ: Forgive me, there can be a state of sensitivity when there is nothing contained in those senses. When you think of your brain, you think of it as being located s somewhere in the head. But when the senses do not operate from thought, do not contain thought, the place of operation changes (to the zone of the heart ?) .
K: Of course, when the senses are observing completely, heightened senses, and when you look at the movement of the sea completely that way there is no centre, there is no (interference of the self-centred ?) thought. Right? The moment ( the thinker and its ? ) thought comes in there is also a centre in the (activity of the ?) senses. Right?
PJ: We are part of thought, we are part of the senses.
PJ: Is there a third movement?
K: Yes, that's the whole point. Is there an (integrated perceptive ?) instrument, or is there an inner state which is not ( controlled by ?) the movement of thought? That is what you are asking, right?
PJ: Not a movement of thought, not a movement of the senses.
K: Let's look at it carefully: when you observe the movement of the sea with all your senses there is no ( self consciousness of this ?) sensory movement. Right? The senses are not aware that they are heightened. Right? Anything that is 'excellent' is not aware of its own excellency. Goodness in the highest sense has no ( self-consciousness ?) of 'being good'.
PJ: So, you were once talking of the 'essence' of all thought, the 'essence' of all senses, so it is this 'essence' itself then is the (new perceptive ?) instrument.
K: I understand what you are saying. But first of all I would like to get this clear between ourselves: when there is the 'heightened excellency' of the senses, the senses are not (self-consciously ?) aware that 'they' are aware. ( Their self-) awareness takes place when ( the 'thinker' and its ?) thought comes in.
PJ: (So, the excellency of your choiceless awarenness ?) is already gone.
K: Now when (the thinking brain ?) is (becoming 'choicelessly ) aware' of its own tremendous limitation, then it has broken through (broken free of its self-limitation ?) . But to realize that, to see that thought has no place in the (directly perceptive ?) movement...see how far we have got ?
PJ: So, what is the (new) instrument with which we read (the Book ) ?
K: I will tell you. This (living 'Story Book' of Mankind ?) is an endless (flowing ) movement. It had no beginning and no end. Right? It (the universal movement of Life ?) has no ending. But (the mentality of ?) my brain being ( space & time) limited, is looking for its ending. Right? I am approaching the book with 'where is the end ( or the meaning ?) of all this?'
So ( to wrap it up your question was : ?) How do I 'read' this (living ) Book (of Mankind ?) ? If you have come to that point, there is no ('reader' nor a ?) 'Book' to read. When you have come to this really deep point that this Book ( of Life ?) has no end and no beginning, you 'are' that Book. (Your) life as ( part of ?) this (timeless ?) movement has no end, it is then (integrated in ?) the (Intelligent Mind of the ?) Universe. Then the Cosmos is this whole thing. (Have we been talking nonsense?)
PJ: No, sir.
K: Pupulji, if ysomebody who is serious heard all this, it is all (sounding) so extraordinarily wild - but it is not. ( In the area of Meditation ?) it is very logical, very clear - at least to me - clear and (if it will be ever ?) stated (in an experientially coherent way ?) in Sorbonne (Paris IV) , or Harvard (USA) , or in New Delhi (India) , it will ( perhaps ?) stand water.
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 09 Feb 2017||#544|
|John Raica Canada 496 posts in this forum Offline||
Revisiting a few K dialogues from "TRADITION & REVOLUTION"
Published in the early 70's this collection of K dialogues in India (1970-71) had for me personally a major impact. Firstly because it is a book that sounded as (experientially) true then as it does now. And secondly, because of a strange feeling of coming from 'the Other Shore'. K does not feel obliged to 'justify' his perceptions in the psychologically correct form that was acceptable to the cultural formatting of the 'western' minds (his most ubiquitous companion was Mrs Pupul Jayakar (P)
So, here are a few of these 'revisited' texts that both inspired and...confused my 'inexperienced' mind
'THE FLAME OF SORROW'
Questioner P: Sorrow is ( being totally surrounded by pain ?) - the pain of someone dying, the pain of separation. How is it possible to meet this pain holistically?
Krishnamurti: The traditional escapes with which we are
P: What is the nature of sorrow?
Krishnamurti: The personal sorrow comes with the loss of ( something or ?) someone you loved, the loneliness, the separation, the anxiety for the other. With death there is also the feeling that
P: There is no immediate cause for this sorrow but it seems to follow man like a shadow. He lives, he loves, he forms attachments and everything ends. In this there is such an infinitude of sorrow.
Krishnamurti:We know the sorrow which is (the result of the chain of ?) cause and effect: (like when someone close ) dies and I
P: Then what does one do?
Krishnamurti: You have to (tackle) the question, "Is there, a
P: Is there such a sorrow free of cause and effect ?
Krishnamurti: Man has lived with sorrow from immemorial
P: They are both (emotional ?) movements of the heart - one is identified as joy and the other as pain.
Krishnamurti: Is love (related to ?) pleasure? Without understanding the nature of pleasure, there is no depth to joy. Joy happens (spontaneously) but (more often than not ) this 'happening' is turned into (a personal pursuit of ?) pleasure. And when that pleasure is denied, there is the beginning of (frustration and ?) sorrow.
P: We know (the pursuit of sensory ?) pleasure is not love. But sorrow and love seem to emerge from the same source.
Krishnamurti: Can there be love if there is sorrow - sorrow being all the
P: But how about passion ?
Krishnamurti: When there is no (mental ?) movement of escape from
P: In that sense, is that state of sorrow (qualitatively ?) different from the state of love? You say that when in that pain (of sorrow) there is no
Krishnamurti: You see, that is just it. What is the relationship of
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 10 Feb 2017||#545|
|John Raica Canada 496 posts in this forum Offline||
A SMALL GROUP K DIALOGUE OJAI CALIFORNIA 1977 ( Experientially friendly edited)
ALL ABOUT THE NATURE OF INSIGHT
KRISHNAMURTI: (...) A man came up to me and said, "You are getting old, you are stuck in a groove." And I listened to it. For a couple of days I looked at it and said to myself, "He may be right."
Q: I was going to ask you: to be caught in habit after an (insightful ) perception, could that not ever happen to anybody ?
K: There is partial perception and total perception - let's divide it into those two. When there is a 'total' perception there is no further confusion.
Q: So, you don't get caught in habits anymore ?
K: There is no further confusion.
Q: What if something happens to the brain physically?
K: Then of course it is gone.
Q: So there seems to be a limitation to (the psychological validity of ?) what you say: one assumes that the brain remains healthy.
K: Of course, assuming that the whole organism is healthy. If there is an accident, your brain suffers concussion and something is injured, then it is finished.
Q: (But if this is not the case ) the major danger is that we would mistake a partial perception for the total ?
K: We have to go into this question of what is (an insightful ?) perception. How do you come to it? You cannot have perception if your daily life is in disorder, confused, contradictory. Can I have ( a truly insightful ?) perception if I am attached to my position, to my wife, to my property?
Q: It colours the act of perceiving.
K: So we are saying that a totally (insightful ?) perception can only take place when in your daily life there is no confusion.
Q: Couldn't it be that a total perception can take place in spite of that and wipe the confusion away?
K: If the windows are not clean my view is confused. If I am in fear my perception will be very partial. That is a fact.
Q: But don't you need such a (clear) perception to end fear?
K: Ah, but in investigating fear I have a total perception of fear.
Q: Are you implying that there are certain things you can do which will make for these perceptions?
K: I realize I am distorting perception through fear...
Q:... then I begin to look at fear...
K: Investigate it, look into it.
Q: But I cannot clearly observe fear if I am afraid.
K: Take a fact: you become aware of the fact that there is fear. And you observe also what that fear has done. And you look more and more into it. In looking very deeply into it you have an insight.
Q: I 'may' have an insight...
K: No, you will have insight, which is quite different.
Q: What you are saying is that this confusion due to fear is not complete, that it is always open to mankind to have insight.
K: To anyone who is observing. One suffers and you see what it does. In observing it, in opening it up, you have a certain (clarity of ?) insight. That is all we are saying. That insight may be partial. Therefore one has to be aware that it is partial. Its action is partial and it may appear complete, so watch it.
Q: Could one say that the fear can look at itself?
K: No, no. One is afraid: in looking at that fear without any choosing, you see what fear does. In looking at it more extensively, deeply, widely, suddenly you have an insight into the whole structure of fear.
Q: To simplify it perhaps too much: when we said one can't see through the window because it is dirty, it distorts, the action of examining the fear - the distorting factor - is the cleansing of the window.
K: How you observe is the real thing. That is, (an insightful ?) perception can only take place when there is no division between the 'observer' and the (inner thing) 'observed'. To explore implies there is no division between the observer and the observed. Therefore you are watching the movement of fear and in the very watching of it there is an insight. And yet you see, Krishnamurti says: "I have never done this."
Q: Then how do you know that somebody else can?
K: Suppose you have not gone through all this, but you see it instantly. Because you see it instantly your capacity to reason explains all this. Another listens and says, "I'd like to get that, I don't have to go through that whole process."
Q: Are you saying that all we have been discussing just now is merely a pointer to something else? We don't have to go through all that ?
K: Yes. I want to get at that.
Q: In other words, that ( diligent perception ) helps to clear the ground in some way?
Q: But it is not really the main point. Are you saying there is a short cut?
K: Must you go through fear, jealousy, anxiety, attachment? Or can you clear the whole thing instantly? Must one go through all this process?
Q: Couldn't we remove from the problem the personal aspect? We are discussing what is open to man rather than to any individual.
K: Yes. Is it open to any human being without going through all this process?
Q: This is what you mean when you say "the first step is the last" ?
K: Yes, a total perception.
Q: Then what would one's responsibility be towards someone who is in sorrow?
K: The response to that human being is the response of (an intelligent ?) compassion. Nothing else.
Q: If you see an injured bird it is very easy to deal with that because it really doesn't require very much of you. But when you come in contact with a human being, he has a much more complex set of needs.
K: What can you do actually? Somebody comes to you and says, "I am in deep sorrow". Do you talk to him out of compassion, or from a conclusion, or out of your own particular experience of sorrow which has conditioned you, and you answer him according to your conditioning? A Hindu, who is conditioned in a certain way says: "My dear friend, I am so sorry, but in the next life you will live better. You suffered because you did this and that" - and so on. Or a Christian would respond from some other conclusion. And he takes comfort in it. Because a man who is suffering wants some sort of solace, someone on whose lap he can put his head. So what he is seeking is comfort and avoidance of this terrible pain. Will you offer him any of those escapes? Whatever comes out of an intelligent Compassion will help him.
Q: Are you saying that as far as sorrow is concerned you can't directly help anyone, but the (intelligent ?) energy of compassion itself may be of help?
K: That's right; that's all.
Q: But many such wounded spirits will come to the K Centre here and I think it is going to be a problem to know how to deal with them.
K: There is no problem if you are compassionate. Compassion doesn't create problems. It has no problems, therefore it is compassionate.
Q: You are saying that total compassion is the highest intelligence?
K: Of course. Compassion has its own intelligence and that intelligence acts. But if you have no compassion and no intelligence, then your (personal) conditioning makes you reply whatever he wants. I think that is fairly simple. To go back to the other question: Must a human being go through the whole process? Has no human being said, "I won't go through all this. I absolutely refuse to go through all this (diligent self-investigation ?) "?
Q: But isn't the key to this somewhere in the very nature of desire? There is some sort of (instinctive) desire for continuity, for security.
K: That's right. ( Being 'psychologically a ' ?) 'bourgeois' implies continuity, security, it implies belonging to something, a lack of taste, vulgarity - all that.
Q: But Krishnaji, if you are saying that Krishnamurti never had the need to say it, we can only conclude that you are some kind of (psychological) "freak".
K: You can, but it doesn't answer the question. Don't you ask: "How does it happen, must I go through all this?"
Q: Krishnaji, you are taking two widely separate things. One is the uncontaminated person, who never had to go through the process because he was never "in the soup", while most other people, apparently, are in a form or other of conditioning: it may be fear, or something else. Therefore the person who has already got this 'sickness' says "This man has never been sick for a day in his life." What good is it to examine that, because one is already sick in some form.
K: Can we put the whole thing ( holistically ?) differently? Do you seek the essence of excellence? Then everything falls away, doesn't it? Or do you seek excellence in certain directions and never the essence of excellence (the excellence of being ?) ? As an an ordinary human being who is fairly intelligent and decent, if he sought the (inner) essence of excellence, would this happen? The essence would meet all this. I wonder if I am conveying something?
Q: Does it exist apart from this ( K-person ?) manifestation?
K: Listen carefully first. The very demand for excellence - and how you demand it - brings the essence of it. You demand it passionately. You demand the highest intelligence, the highest excellence, the essence of it, and when fear arises, then you...
Q: Where does the demand come from?
K: Demand it! Don't say: "Where does it come from?" There may be a (personal) motive, but the very demand washes it all away.
Q: You are saying: Demand this excellence - of which we don't know anything.
K: I don't know what is beyond it, but I want to be morally excellent.
Q: Does that mean "goodness"?
K: I demand the excellence of goodness, I demand the excellent flower of goodness. In that very demand there is a demand for the essence.
Q: Does ( the insightful ?) perception come from this demand?
K: Yes, that's right.
Q: Could you go into what is this 'demand'?
K: It is not a demand which means asking, imploring, wanting - cut out all those.
Q: But then aren't back to prayer ?
K: Oh, no. Leave out all that.
Q: So, are really saying that the impossible is suddenly becoming possible to the average (good listener &) intelligent human being?
K: We are saying that it is possible for the average human being who is fairly decent, fairly kind, who is not a ( psychological ?) 'bourgeois'.
Q: Traditionally we are conditioned to believe that there are special people with no (egotistic ) content of consciousness, so it is very difficult for someone like me to feel that one could really be completely free of it.
K: You see, you have not listened (to the statement) that "what is important in life is (to demand from oneself that ?) supreme excellence which has its own essence." That's all. And to "demand" (such a thing) does not mean praying or getting something from somebody.
Q: The point is, we confuse (this holistic ?) demand with desire.
K: Of course.
Q: So, when people feel that they want to give up desire then there is a danger of giving up this demand as well.
K: Let's find a better word for it. Would it be a " passion for excellence" ?
Q: Many (religious) people have had some great vision, or a dream of something and that has developed a great energy. But you are saying it is not a dream, it is not a vision; but it is nevertheless some perception of this excellence.
K: All those passions feed the ego, feed the me, make me important, consciously or unconsciously. We are cutting out all that. There is this young boy (K) who has a passion to grow up into an extraordinary human being, into something "original".
Q: He sees that it is possible.
Q: And therefore he has the passion.
K: Yes, that's right. It is possible. Is that what is missing in most human beings? This (existential) passion in a human being who demands the supreme excellence, not in what he writes in his books, but the feeling of it. You know this, don't you? - that may shatter everything else.
Q: Perhaps that is due to our being conditioned to mediocrity, not to make this demand. That is what you mean by 'mediocrity' ?
K: Yes, of course. Mediocrity is lack of great passion.
Q: We are not only conditioned to mediocrity, so our (existential) demand is always along some direction. Now, to have a demand without any direction...
K: That's right. I like the word "demand", because it is a challenge.
Q: Doesn't a demand without direction imply that it is not in time?
K: Of course. It demands no direction, no time, no person. So does total insight bring this passion? Total insight "is" the ( flame of that?) passion which wipes away all confusion. It burns away everything else. Don't you then act as a magnet? The bees go towards the nectar. In the same way don't you act as a magnet when you are passionate to create? Is this lack of (inner) fire the thing that is missing ? If there is something (of this kind ?) missing I would ask for it.
Q: But logically one could ask: Is there an essential difference between the unconditioned and the conditioned human mind ?
K: I see what you mean. Essentially, deeply, is there a difference?
Q: Or... is our conditioning only superficial? When you say, "You are the world, the world is you" - does that statement include the conditioned as well as the unconditioned?
K: It is an obvious fact: "The world is 'me' and 'me' is the world" ?
Q: But only the unconditioned can perceive that?
K: It isn't quite like that...
Q: I may say, "I am the world, the world is me", but then I revert to an action which is a contradiction to that. Therefore it is not an absolute fact for me. There may be moments when the fact of it is seen by me.
K: A person can say this merely as a (convenient ?) intellectual conclusion, or as a momentary feeling. But when one (honestly ) says, "I am the world and the world is me" there is no ( self-conscious) 'me' (involved) . To a man who feels, "The world is me and I am the world", to him there is no 'me'. That human being lives in this world, he must have food, clothes and shelter, a job, transportation, all that, yet there is no me.
Q: Therefore the 'other person' also is not there, there is no 'you'.
K: There is no 'me', there is no 'you'.
Q: There is no 'me' and no 'you'. But this also means "there is everything".
K: The whole world of living - everything. There is no you, there is no I in that state. Is this too abstract?
Q: Why do you have to say, "I am the world" first, and then deny this?
K: Because it is (seen as ?) an actual fact that I 'am 'the world.
Q: So, there is just everything ?
K: No, this is very dangerous. If you say, "I am everything", then the murderer, the assassin is part of me.
Q: Suppose I say, "I am the world" instead, does that change it?
K: (laughing) All right. I see the actual fact that I "am" (psychologically ?) the result of the world. The world means wars, the whole of society - I am the result of that.
Q: And I see that everybody is the result of that.
K: Yes. The result is 'I' and 'you'.
Q: And that separation.
K: When I say "I am the world", I am saying all that.
Q: You mean to say that I am generated by the world, I am identified with everything ?
K: Yes. I am the product of the world.
Q: And the world is the essence of what I am.
K: Yes. I am the essence of the world. When there is a deep perception of that there is no 'you' or 'me'. I think that holds logically. But there is a (potential) danger in saying that 'I am everything'- I'll accept everything.
Q: You are really saying that (psychologically) one is the product of the whole of society.
K: Yes. I am really the essential result of all this.
Q: Does it help to use the word "Ego"?
K: You see, when you say 'ego', there is a possibility of deception: that 'I' ( my higher self ?) is the very essence of God. You know about that superstition.
Q: But there is still another question. Is the unconditioned mind also a product of all this? Then we come to a contradiction.
K: No, there is no contradiction. The result of the world is this. The result of the world is that also. We are two human beings, which means the result has created the I and the you. When there is an insight into the result there is no "result".
Q: The (conditioned ?) result changes and vanishes when we see it.
K: You see what it means? There is no (personalised ?) causation in the mind and therefore there is no effect. Therefore the mind is whole, and any action born of it is causeless and without effect.
Q: You have to make that more clear, in the sense that you still use the causes and effects concerning ordinary, mechanical things.
K: Quite. This human being, X, is a result. And Y is a result. X says I, and Y says I? Now, if X says I see this and investigates, goes into it and (eventually ?) has a (non-dualistic ?) insight. In ( the timeless light of ?) that "insight" the two results (the division between the 'me' and the 'non-me' ?) ceases. Therefore in that (integrated ?) state ( of mind) there is no cause. That mind acts out of Compassion. Therefore there is no ( promise or expectation of a ?) result. (Eg:) A is suffering, and he says to X, "Please help me to get out of my suffering." If X really has ( the Intelligence of Universal ?) compassion his words have no ( materially measurable ?) "result".
Q: Something 'happens', but there is no (necessarily an expected ?) result.
K: That's it.
Q: But I think people generally are (offering or expecting ?) a result.
K: Yes. Let's put it another (metaphysical ?) way. Does Compassion have a result? When there is (measurable) result there is (a measurable ?) cause. So, when compassion has a cause then you are no longer "compassionate".
Q: It is an extremely subtle thing, because ( in the context of insight) something happens which seems final and yet is not... But doesn't compassion also acts.
K: Compassion is compassion ( a light in itself ?) , it doesn't 'act'. If it acts "because" there is a cause and an effect, then it is not Compassion: it wants a result.
Q: So, it acts "purely". What makes us want a result is our idea of separation. " There is this person suffering and I would like to produce the result that he is not suffering. " But that is based on the idea that there is a 'me' and a '(s)he'.
K: That's it. (To recap:) "The world is me and I am the world". When I say "me", the "you" (implicitly) exist: both of us are there (as self-isolated entities) . The ( worldly) "you" and the ( worldly) 'I' are the results of man's ( self-centred ?) misery, of selfishness, and so on - they are a result.
Q: But does that (intelligent energy of ?) compassion affect the total consciousness of man?
K: Yes. It affects the deep layers of ( the human) consciousness.
Q: Does that mean there is no time either?
K: No cause, no result, no time.
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 11 Feb 2017||#546|
|John Raica Canada 496 posts in this forum Offline||
SKIMMING K's INDIAN SEMINARS
FIRST (1/3) K SEMINAR IN MADRAS 1981
THE SOURCE OF INNER DEGENERATION (experientially friendly edited)
Achyut Patwardhan: Reflective minds have come to realize that there is a certain degeneration at the very source of the human brain. Would it be possible for us to explore the source of this degeneration?
K.: I think all of us agree that there is degeneration, that there is corruption - moral, intellectual and also physical. There is chaos, confusion, misery, despair. To think (within the mental space of the 'known' ?) is to be full of sorrow. Now, how do we approach this present condition? If it is clear that I have no answer to this problem of degeneration within me, therefore, I don't want to say anything beyond what is based on observable facts.
P.J.: Krishnaji has brought an (often ignored ?) element into this enquiry which demands a great deal of examination, which is that ( functioning predominantly in the field of ?) 'knowledge' is itself the source of degeneration. First, I must see (the actuality of ?) that challenge. And if I do see the challenge, how do I respond to it?
B.K.: I'll say that perhaps we do not have yet the appropriate tools. What I am enquiring is, is there a root cause for all this (psycho-addiction to knowledge ?) ?
K: What is the root cause? Can we find out through a 'sceptical' investigation what is the effect of knowledge on our minds, on our brains? This has to be examined, and ( if lucky ?) then the root cause will be uncovered.
P.J.: You are saying that the brain is 'programmed', but where do we go from there? You have been saying that self-centred activity of this 'individualistic (mind) ' has to be negated at every point. But when we observe it , whether it is the outer or the inner - sometimes the outer predominates, sometimes the inner - the interaction between the two is always evident. You can call it individual and society, or anything else, but there are always the two.
K: I question that (duality) . I am saying there is only relationship.
P.J.: Are you taking relationship out of the context of the two?
K: Yes. The brain is relating itself to the (knowledge personal and collective ?) past. The brain 'is' ( constantly recycling & optimising the knowledge and experience of the ?) the past.
P.J.: Then...who is relating to whom?
K: It is not (truly) relating to anybody. It is functioning within ( the safe zone of ?) of being only concerned with itself, its own security, its own problems, its own sorrows, and the 'other person' is the image created by the brain. You do exist, but my relationship with you is based on the image I have created of you. Therefore, my relationship with you is with the 'image' (of you) which I have ( created ). Therefore, there is no (authentic ?) relationship.
A.P.: I question this.
K: I am examining this. My brain is the common (evolutionary ?) brain of humanity, which has existed for five to ten million years, and has through experience, knowledge, etc., established for itself an 'image' of the world - and also of 'my wife'. My wife exists (in my psyche) as an image which thought has created. Therefore, there is no relationship. But if I actually see that and change the whole (imaginary ?) movement, then perhaps we may know what love (true affection ?) is. Then relationship is totally different.
A.P.: Is this a description or a fact?
K: It is a description to communicate a fact. Question the (validity of the ?) fact, not the ( intellectual) description.
A.P.: I am questioning the fact. I say the fact is that the world is full of people. They are divided into nationalities, etc, and I cannot (indulge in a psychological ) oversimplification of everything to what is happening in my brain - because something is happening outside, something is happening within me and there is an interaction, and that is the problem.
K: You are saying that there is an interaction between my psychological world and the world. I am saying ( that consciousness-wise ?) there is only one world - my psychological world. It is not an oversimplification; on the contrary.
P.J.: We were talking of degeneration. Anyone who has observed the mind in operation sees the validity of what Krishnaji says, that you may be physically a human being but in my mind you exist in terms of an 'image' and my actual relation is ( not to the 'real' you but ?) to that image in my mind.
K: Therefore, there is no ( real) 'you' for the 'I' to interact with.
A.P.: Is the movement of our relationship arising from the 'image' sui generis, or is ( it created by ) the brain a (safe) response to a challenge from outside? I say it is a response to a challenge from outside.
K: The brain is the (recording & processing ?) centre of all our sensory reactions. I see a woman and all the sensory responses awaken. Then the brain projects the ( personally biased ?) 'image' - sex, all that business. The (processed ?) sensory response is stored in the brain. Then this (previously recorded ) sensation meets a woman and all the responses, the biological responses, take place. Then the 'image' is created.
A.P.: Is this a process of refined self-centredness?
K: It is.
B.K.: Can we take one more step? Can there be a mental ( known area of ?) relationship where these images can be refined, modified, manipulated.
K: Of course, the brain is doing that all the time.
P.J.: The real question then arises, what is the action or challenge or that which triggers the ending of this image-making machinery so that a more authentic (human) contact is possible? The trap we are caught in is, we see it is so but we continue ( to function safely ?) in the same pattern.
K: This is so. Why is the brain functioning so mechanically?
P.J.: What is the (existential ) challenge, or what is the action which will break this mechanical functioning so that there is direct contact with 'what is' ?
K: Let us get this clear. The brain has been accustomed to (instinctively function within ?) this sensory, imaginary, movement. What will break this chain? That is the basic question.
S.: Are you saying that ( psychologically-wise ?) there is no 'outer' and 'inner', but only the brain (and its 'imaginary' activity ?)
P.J.: Is not that statement a challenge to this very brain?
K: It is an actual challenge to you only when you can respond to it. Otherwise it is not a challenge.
P.J.: I don't understand that.
A.P.: You see, someone walking on the road makes no impression on me; there is no record and, therefore, there is no response. There is a possibility of something happening and of my not responding in any way; and there is another, that he says something and immediately it evokes a reaction.
K: Now, if this is an (existential) challenge, either you respond at the same intensity as the challenge or you don't respond at all. To meet a challenge you and I must face each other, not bodily, but face each other.
J.U.: If you are a challenge, then why are you denying there can be a challenge from the outer?
K: That is entirely different. The outside challenge is a challenge which thought has created. The 'communist' challenges the 'believer'. The communist is also a believer therefore, he is challenging another belief; so, it becomes a reaction against belief. That is not an (authentic) challenge. The speaker has no belief. From that point he challenges, which is different from the challenge from the outside.
P.J.: What is the challenge of the 'no-centre'?
K: If you challenge my reputation or question my belief, then I react to it because I am protecting myself and you are challenging from your image. It is a challenge between two (self-identified ?) images which thought has created. But with the 'challenge of absoluteness', that is entirely different.
S: My brain which is (subliminally identified with ?) the image-making machinery responds to the other in the same way as the challenge created by a person like you (K) . Does it not respond in the same way?
P.J.: It is so. But the question is, how is this (image making) movement to end?
K: How is this (mechanistic ?) cycle of experience, knowledge, memory, thought, action - action again going back to knowledge, the (instant karma ?) circle in which you are caught - to end?
G.N.: You are saying this (karmic) "programme" works this way - experience, knowledge, memory, action. Action further strengthens experience and this is repeated.
K: (In a nutshell ?) all that I am saying is: (the mechanical recycling of our ?) 'psychological' knowledge as it exists now is the corruption of the brain. You ask, how is that ( karmic ?) chain to be broken?
Satyendra: It is a central question and people keep on asking, 'How do I break the (image making) chain?' But the question I ask is, given the brain that I have, is it possible to end the chain? Is it a matter of reason, logic?
K: No, it is not a matter of analysis, but of plain observation of what is going on: the brain is the centre of (recording & processing) all our sensory responses. The ( survival oriented processing of these ?) sensory responses has created ( a vast accumulation of ?) experience, thought and action, and the brain being caught in ( constantly organising & optimising ?) that is never (feeling) complete. Therefore, it (its self-centred thinking ?) is polluting everything it does. Once you see this as a fact, then that circle is broken.
P.J.: Practically every teaching concerned with meditation has regarded the ( self-centred activity of the ?) senses as an obstruction to the very ending of this (time-binding) process. What role do you give to the senses in freeing the mind?
R.B.: I think what you are saying is not correct. Not all of them have regarded the senses as an obstruction because when they said 'senses' they included the mind. They never separated the mind from the senses.
P.J.: After all, all austerities, all tapas, all yogic practices, were meant, as I have understood them, to see that the movement of the senses towards the object was destroyed.
K: I don't know what the ancients have said.
Kapila Vatsyayan: I think that in what is broadly called ancient Hindu thought, the senses are not to be denied. In the Katha Upanishad, the (metaphorical) image they have is that of 'the chariot and horses'. The horses are primary; the senses are primary and they are not to be destroyed. They are to be understood, controlled. They are the factors of the outer reality.
P.J.: I am asking K: what is the role of the senses?
K: The senses as (processed by ?) thought, create (the time-binding ?) desire. But without the interference of thought they have very little importance.
P.J.: Senses have no importance?
K: The senses have their place. If I see a beautiful tree, the (sense of ?) beauty of a tree is astonishing. The whole point is : where does desire interfere with the senses? - where does (the thought sustained ?) desire begins. If one understands that, then why give such colossal importance to it?
R.B.: It sounds as if you are contradicting yourself. You have said, not just now but earlier, 'if you can observe with all your senses'... Therefore, you cannot deny the importance of the senses.
K: I did not deny the senses. I said if you (fully) respond to that tree, look at that tree with the sunlight on it after the rain, it is full of beauty, there is a total response, there is no 'me', there is no thought, there is no centre which is responding. That is beauty in the total response of all your senses to that. But we don't so respond because thought (instinctively) creates a (potentially rewarding ?) image from which a desire arises. There is no contradiction in what I have said.
P.J.: If I may ask ( the scholar Mr) Upadhyaya, how would the Vedantin regard the senses?
J.U.: According to Vedanta, without the observer there can be no observation.
P.J.: What about the Buddhist?
S: There is seeing only when the 'seer' is not. There is no difference between the seer and the seeing.
K: The observer is the observed. But, let us come back: the brain is caught in this constant image making movement. And you are asking, how is this (time-binding) chain which is built by thought to be broken? Who is asking this question?
S: That incomplete (consciousness ?) is asking itself.
K: Is the (totality of the ?) brain asking the question, or is desire asking, 'How am I to get out of it?' Do you see the difference? I don't (even) ask that question.
A.P.: This I don't understand. When you say, is the brain asking that question, or is desire asking it, I am bogged.
P.J.: Don't we ask the question?
K: There is only this (image-making ) chain. That is all. So, don't (bother to ?) ask the question, because the moment you ask the question, you are ( getting busy in) trying to find an answer, and... you are not looking at the chain. But if you 'are' that, you can't ask any question. The next (experiential ?) point is, what happens when you do that? When "you are that", there is no (dualistic) movement. The (self-centred mental ) movement has created this, and when there is no movement, that ends. There is a totally different dimension (of being ?). So, I have to begin by not asking questions.
B.K.: How can one be more 'in touch' with that (time-free ?) observation?
K: Look, I have physical pain; I immediately take a pill, go to a doctor and so on. That same movement (dualistic mentality ?) is taken over by the psyche; the psyche says: 'What am I do? Give me a pill, a way out.' The moment you want to get out, there is the (time-binding ?) problem. Physical pain I can deal with, but with the psychological pain, can the brain say that it is so, I won't move from that? Then see what happens. Such kind of 'sceptical' investigation is the true spiritual process. This is true religion.
Second (2/3), MADRAS SEMINAR:
THE HOLISTIC WAY OF DEALING WITH SORROW
J.U.: In Varanasi, you have been speaking over the years. Two types of people have been listening to you. One group is committed to total revolution at all levels and the other to the status quo, that is to the whole stream of tradition as it flows. Both go away, after listening to you (less or more ?) satisfied. Both feel that they have received an answer to their queries. I see a contradiction when you posit a 'state beyond', which is bliss, etc. I say that dealing with the stream of sorrow and the compassion which arises upon direct contact with that stream is the only reality .
K: One thing is very clear, that ( in the collective consciousness of mankind ?) there is this enormous River of Sorrow. Can that sorrow be ended and, if it ends, what is the result on society? That is the real issue. Is that right?
J.U.: There is indeed this vast stream of sorrow, but no one can posit when this sorrow will totally end.
K: I am positing it.
J.U.: There can be a movement for the ending of sorrow but no one can posit when that sorrow of mankind can end.
A.P.: Sorrow is the very fabric of our existence, but you have said that the ending of sorrow can be attained.
K: Yes, there is an ending to sorrow.
A.P.: It can end, but only for this instant.
K: We all agree that humanity is living in this stream of sorrow and that the (consciousness of ?) humanity is ( present in ?) each one of us because man suffers, he is proud, cruel, anxious, unkind, this is the common ground of man. The stream of sorrow is humanity; it is not something out there.
J.U.: Krishnaji has said something which is of utmost importance. That is, there is no such thing as 'individual' sorrow, that individual sorrow is the sorrow of mankind. Now, this stream which is flowing may appear as a (unitary) stream, but it is made up of individual drops, and when the energy of the sun falls on that stream, it draws up individual drops, not the whole stream.
P.J.: This is a very interesting question. Does it mean that when there is the ending of sorrow, does it arise in the individual drop or in the whole stream? Upadhyayaji says that when the light of the sun falls on the stream of water which is flowing, it draws up drop by drop.
K: The source is (caught in ?) sorrow, not the drops of water. Has our sorrow a source, not the source of individual drops that make up the stream but is the very stream the source of our sorrow?
P.J.: You say there is this stream of sorrow. I am questioning it.
K: I observe what is happening around me. I observe what is happening inside me. I observe that the 'me' is that. I am the result of all the past human experience, knowledge stored up in memory, that is, I am the result of thousands of generations. That is a fact. I am the worries, the anxieties, the misery, the confusion, the uncertainty, the desire for security, the psychological world which thought has built.
P.J.: How is it important?
K. It is important because if you are only concerned with your personal sorrow, you are weak. You lose the tremendous energy that comes from the perception of the whole of sorrow. This sorrow of the individual is a fragmentary sorrow, it has not the tremendous energy of the whole. A fragment is a fragment and whatever it does, it is still within a small radius and, therefore, trivial. If I suffer because my brother is dead I lose contact with the fact that I am ( a responsible ?) part of this enormous Stream of human consciousness.
P.J.: When my brother is dead and I observe my mind, I see the movement of sorrow; but of that stream of mankind's sorrow, I know nothing.
K: My brother dies and I am (engulfed ) in sorrow; but ( if I look around ) I see this happening right through the world. They are going through the same agony, though not at the moment I go through it. So, I discover something, that it is not only me that suffers but ( the collective consciousness of ?) mankind. What is the difficulty?
P.J.: I don't weep at the world's sorrow.
K: Because I have reduced all this life to a little corner, which I call myself. And my neighbour does the same; everybody is doing the same. That is a fact. Then I discover that this sorrow is a "stream" that has been going on for many generations. So, what happens? Either I remain caught in my little sorrow or I perceive (the global responsability for ?) this enormous sorrow of man.
J.U.: When Krishnaji talks of a thousand miles away, seeing people dying and the sense of sorrow which he sees as sorrow, it is not individual. He can do it because he has negated the self totally; K has negated time totally. There is no movement which is fragmentary in him. But when my own brother dies, I can't see with the same eyes. K is standing on the bank of the river and watching and I am floating (or drifting ?) in that river.
K: Go through the actuality of it: my brother dies and I am shocked. It takes a week or two to get over it. When that shock is over, I am observing. I see this thing going on around me. It is a fact.
P.J.: You still have to tell me with what eyes I must see.
Mary Zimbalist: One can perceive it in some extraordinary way, transforming it. One can see the enormity of it and not enclose ourselves.
K: Am I so (safely 'self-) enclosed' that I don't see anything except 'me' and something (out there ?) outside of me? That is the first thing to be established. Why can't I see it as a fact, that as I am suffering the (whole consciousness of world is also ) suffering?
K: All right. When my brother dies, everything is shut out and that is the whole point. And if the brain says, 'Yes, I won't move from that, I won't seek comfort,' there is no movement. That is my point. If you remain with sorrow, you have denied everything (any personal aspect ?) .
J.U.: That is so only for Krishnaji.
K: Panditji, this is a fact: We never remain with anything completely. If the brain remains completely with fear, everything is gone. But we don't, we are always searching, moving, asking, questioning. Sir, my brother dies, I shed tears, do all kinds of things, and suddenly realize that there is no answer in reincarnation, going to the gods, doing this, doing that, nothing remains except the one thing. What happens then to the brain that has been chattering, making noises about sorrow, chasing its own tail?
J.U.: Sorry for going back to my original question. You have said when all my duality has ended, when sorrow has ended, happiness will be there ?
K: I said the ending of sorrow is the beginning of compassion, not bliss.
P.J.: You must take the question as Upadhyayaji stated it in the beginning. He said people come to hear your talks, and at the end of the talk you say, 'Then there is a benediction, then there is a state of timelessness.' He says that makes them go away thinking that this is the final state (to be ultimately reached?) .
K: To them 'that' is a theory which they have accepted (from selectively listening to K's talks) . So, I would like to ask something: Are we discussing this as a theory, as something to be learnt, studied, informed about, or is it a fact in our lives? At what level are we discussing all this? If we are not clear on this, we will mess it up.
This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 12 Feb 2017.
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 14 Feb 2017||#547|
|John Raica Canada 496 posts in this forum Offline||
3RD K SEMINAR MADRAS 1981
'IN LISTENING IS ( THE INNER) TRANSFORMATION'( experientially friendly edited)
P.J.: Rimpocheji has asked (me to ask you ?) a most intimate question: In listening to you over the years, one feels that an (inner) 'door' is about to open but it does not. Many of us have had this feeling that we are left at the threshold. Is there something inhibiting us?
K: What is it that blocks us all? That is the question, isn't it?
P.J.: I would say there has been diligence, seriousness, and we have discussed this over the years.
K: But yet something does not 'click'. Are you like the bud which has moved through the earth; the sun has shone on it but the bud never opens to become a flower? Let us talk about it.
P.J.: I have gone into the process of (thought &) time - psychological time. I have seen its movement. But there seems to be a point at which some leap is necessary.
K: In Christian terminology, you are waiting for Grace to descend on you ?
K: Did you ever come to the point where your brain is no longer seeking, searching, asking, but is absolutely in a state of 'not-knowing'? Did you ever come to that point?
P.J.: I do know a state in which the brain ceases to function. It is not that it says, 'I don't know,' but all (mental) movement ends.
K: You are missing my point. A state of 'not-knowing' - I think that is one of the first things that is demanded. We never (seem to ) come to this point of utter (inner) emptiness, of 'not-knowing'. Do we ever come to that (experiential point ?) , so that the brain is really at a standstill? The brain is always active, searching, asking, arguing, occupied. I am asking, is there a state of the brain when it is not occupied with (thinking of ?) itself? Is that the blockage? Is there a moment when the brain is totally unoccupied?
J.U.: All our action is bound within a 'time-space' framework. Are you trying to bring us to the point where we see that all action as we know it is bound by time and space, is illusion, and so has to be 'negated'?
K: Yes, negated. I am trying to ask the fundamental question which you raised at the beginning: What is keeping us from flowering? Is it basically thought & time, or that I have not really, deeply, read the (living ?) 'book' which is myself? I have read certain pages of the (first ?) chapter but I have not totally finished with the book ?
P.J.: Can one ever say: I have read the whole 'Book of my life'?
K: If you have "read the book" at all, you will find that there is nothing to read.
J.U.: (In other words ?) you are saying that if there is a "perception of the Now instant" in its totality, then (only) this instant is ?
K: But that is just a theory. Pupulji said I have listened to K. I have also met various gurus, I have meditated. At the end of it, there is just 'ashes in my hand '.
P.J.: I won't say there are ashes in my hand. We have come to a certain point. We have explored.
K: Yes, I admit it. You have come to a certain point and you are stuck there. Is that it?
P.J.: I have come to a certain point and I do not know what to do, where to go, how to turn...
R.B.: You mean that the 'breakthrough' does not come?
K: Why don't you be simple? I have reached a point and that point is all that we have said, and from there I will start (a new kind of inquiry ?)
A.P.: Just to take it out of the personal context - when you speak to us there is something within us which responds and says this is the true, right note, but we are not able to catch it (on the long term) .
K: If I would come to you and ask you this same question what would you tell me? How would you answer?
P.J.: The (traditional ?) answer is 'tapas'. It means, burn the impurities which are clouding your sight.
K: '( The self-centred process of ?) thought is impure - impure in the sense that it is not whole...
R.B.: Yes, that it corrupts...
K: Thought is not 'whole'. It is fragmented, therefore, it is corrupt, therefore it is impure or whatever word you would like to use. That which is whole is beyond the impure and pure, shame and fear. Why isn't the brain capable to 'perceive the whole' ( an integrated 'mind-in-the- heart' perception ?) and from that wholeness, of acting? Is this root of the 'not flowering' - that ( the mental activity of ?) thought is incapable of perceiving the whole? Thought is going round and round in circles And, therefore, whatever (the self-centred ?) thought does is impure, corrupt, not beautiful. So, why is the human brain incapable of perceiving the whole? If you can answer that question, perhaps you will be able to answer the other question.
RMP.: You have correctly interpreted our question.
K: So, could we move from there ? We have exercised our (self-centred ) thought all our life. Thought has become the most important thing in our life, and I feel that is the very reason there is corruption. Is that the block, the factor, that prevents this marvellous flowering of the human being? If that is the factor, then is there the possibility of a ( thought- free ?) perception which has nothing to do with time, with thought? Since thought is fragmented, broken up, limited, is there a perception which is whole? Is that the block?
J.U.: I agree that thought is not complete...
K: The moment you agree that thought is incomplete ( loveless ?) , whatever thought does is incomplete. Whatever thought does must create sorrow, mischief, agony, conflict.
J.U.: Supposing we have a disease, we ourselves have to be free of the disease. So, we have to discover an instrument which can open the door from disease to good health. That door is only thought which, in one instant, breaks the grip of the false, and in the very breaking, another illusion or the unreal comes into being. Thought again breaks that, and in this fashion, is negating the false again and again. There is a process of the dissolution of thought and thought itself accepts this and goes on negating. Thus the nature of thought itself is to perceive that it can dissolve itself.
K: You are saying that (the instrument of inner ?) perception is still thought. We are saying something different - that there is a perception which is not of time, not of thought.
RMP.: We would want to know your position more clearly. Please elaborate.
K: First of all, we know the ordinary (self-centred ?) perception of thought: discriminating, balancing, constructing and destroying, moving in all the human activities of choice, freedom, obedience, authority, and all that. That is the movement of thought which perceives. We are asking is there a perception which is not thought?
P.J.: I often wonder what is the (experiential ) value of a question like that. You see, you pose a question (and then ) you say no answer is possible.
P.J.: Is an answer possible?
K: Yes. The (materialistic ?) nature of ( our self-centred ?) thought is time-binding. Now, do we remain there, which means, do we remain in perpetual conflict? Or is there a (non-dualistic ?) enquiry which will lead us to a state of non-conflict? Is there a perception which is totally denuded of the past? Would you enquire with me that way?
J.U.: So whatever (was the thinking ?) instrument we had, you have broken that. Before an ailment afflicts us, you have removed it, which means, before a disease grips you, its very cause is removed. However, for the already sick man if he wants to be free himself from disease, it is necessary to point out to him some process by which he achieves this. I accept it is difficult to do this, but the question is: Can the patient be allowed to die before the ailment is cured? Shouldn't the patient be restored to health and not be allowed to die ? The disease will have to be cured without killing the patient.
K: You are making a case which is untenable.
P.J.: He may put it in a different way. Don't also forget that conflict is the 'I'. Ultimately society and all can go down the drain. Ultimately it is 'I'. All experience, all search, centres round that which is thought, caught in time as conflict.
K: So the 'I' is ( the creator and the 'sufferer' of its own ?) conflict...
P.J.: I see it is so in an abstract way...
K: No, not in an abstract way. It is so.
P.J.: Maybe this is the ultimate thing which is stopping us ?
K: Let us be very simple. I recognise my life is ( one of ?) conflict. Conflict is 'me'. When your (inner) conflict ends, the 'me' ends, there is the block.
J.U.: If you accept that the (karmic) chain of causality includes the impact of time, space and circumstance, we must recognise that this is a major problem. This is like a wheel, and any movement (originating) of this wheel is not going to dissolve the problem. What I was seeking to explain by the simile is that still some life principle must be left.
A.P.: When you are faced with (such ?) a challenge, there must be listening without any reaction. Only in such a state can there be no relationship whatsoever with that which is the past.
K: Therefore there is no reaction, which means what? You are already seeing. You get it?
J.U.: That means one observes 'what is' as (it) is.
K: Sir, you are a great Buddhist scholar. You know all what the Buddha has said, all the intricacies of Buddhist analysis, exploration, the extraordinary structures. Now, if the Buddha comes to you today, now, sitting there in front of you, and says, 'Please sir, listen,' would you listen? And he says to you, 'If you listen to me, that is your transformation.' That 'listening' is the listening to the truth.
J.U.: The words of the Buddha is not the truth. The Buddha is not a person. This attention itself is the Buddha. In this attention, there is pure perception. This is prajna, intelligence; this is knowledge. That moment which was surrounded by the past, that moment itself, under the beam of attention, becomes the moment of perception.
K: Now, just listen to me. There is conflict. A man like me comes along. He says, there is a way of living without (the controlling interference of all our past ?) knowledge. Just to listen without the (mental) operation of thought.
And the next question is, as the brain is full of knowledge, how can such a brain understand this statement? I say that the (thinking) brain cannot answer this question. The brain is used to conflict, habituated to it, and you are putting a new question to it. So the brain is in revolt; it cannot answer it.
J.U.: The question that you have put is my question. You have posed it with clarity.
K: The speaker says, don't be in revolt, but try to listen without the (interfering) movement of thought, which means, to see something without naming. Naming is (triggering ?) the whole movement of thought. Then find out what is (inner) the state of the brain when it has not used the word in seeing. Do it ! ( now or...for the homework meditation ?) .
R.M.P.: That is very important.
K: My whole (inner) life has changed. Therefore there is a totally different learning process going on now, which is Creation.
P.J.: If this is itself the learning process, this is creativity.
K.: (Recap;) I realize my (inner) life is (becoming all ?) wrong. That is a ( directly perceivable ?) fact and you come along and tell me this whole struggle, this monstrous way of living, can be ended immediately. My brain says, sorry, but I don't believe you. And K tells you, listen, take time, have patience (to listen & learn ?) . ( This ?) patience has no (residues of psychological ?) time.
S.P.: What is this "patience" which is not time?
K: I come along and tell you there is an ending to (your state of inner) conflict and the brain resists. I say let it resist, but keep on 'listening' , don't bring in more and more resistance. Just listen and move. Don't remain (stuck ?) with resistance. To watch your resistance and keep moving - that is patience. To know the resistance and to move along, that is patience. So he says, don't react but listen to the (truth of the ?) fact that your (thinking ?) brain is ( caught in ?) a network of words and you cannot see anything new if you are all the time using words, words, words. So, can you look at something, your wife, the tree, the sky, the cloud, without a single word? Don't say "it is a cloud". Just look. When you so look, what has happened to the (inner quality of the ?) brain?
A.P.: Our common way of understanding anything is verbal. ( If and ?) when I see this, then I put aside the word. That which I see now is non-verbal. What then happens to the accumulated knowledge?
K: What actually happens when you are looking without the word?
A.P.: When I am observing something, keeping aside my verbal knowledge and watching that which is non-verbal, what reaction does the mind have? It feels the whole (continuity of its temporal ?) existence is threatened.
K: Watch it in yourself. It is in a state of (psychological) shock, it is staggering. So have patience. To watch it staggering, that is patience. See the brain in this staggering state (of not-knowing ?) and be with it. As you are watching it, the brain quietens down. Then look with that quiet brain at things, observe. That is learning.
So, there is a ( non-verbal ?) listening, there is a (non-verbal ) seeing and there is a ( non-accumulative ?) learning, without (the interference of our past ?) knowledge. Then is there anything (any psychological content left ?) to learn at all? Which means you have wiped away the whole 'self'.
J.U.: What will come out of this (non-verbal ) observing, listening? Will something come out of it which will transform the consciousness of the world?
K: The world is 'me', the ( consciousness of the ?) world is (fragmented into a lot of ?) different selves. That (global) 'self'(-ishness?) 'is' me (I 'am' it ?) . Now what happens when this (total insight ?) actually takes place ? First of all, there is tremendous energy, boundless energy, there is (the awakening of ?) a totally different kind of (intelligent & compassionate ?) energy, which then acts. That energy is compassion, love. Then that love and compassion are (generating a global) intelligence and that intelligence acts in (our daily ?) life. When the 'self' is not, the 'other' is. The 'other' is compassion, love and this enormous, boundless energy. That intelligence acts. And that (Universal ?) Intelligence is naturally not (to be considered as being ?) 'yours' or 'mine'
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 16 Feb 2017||#548|
|Butiam Noone Australia 1 post in this forum Offline||
I take very seriously the statement that K made on almost every occasion that he spoke, which was "I am not your Guru" "This is not a lecture" "the Speaker is not important".
However, there is a natural tendency (by conditioning) to secretly place him in that role anyway.
"The word is not the thing".
It is so tempting, to delve into his writings, his speeches and other media to find, in essence, aphorisms or mantras that deliver freedom. But, in reality the words are meaningless.
For some reason, since I was about 24 I suddenly looked at trees in a strange way. Each tree, no matter how small, immature, scraggly or out of shape started to take on an extraordinary beauty, a freshness and newness that just took my breath away. Though never an artist and in fact quite poor at art in school I took up drawing and painting trees. I had little understanding of what was happening or what it meant or where it fit into the framework of my life, my psychology. Then about 6 years later, I was staying with a friend in a remote forest are in Western Australia when I read a dialogue of K and David Bohm. After reading for about 40 minutes I went for a walk down the long driveway of the property. I remember feeling that everything was just new, fresh, known for the first time, as if I were a baby and knew nothing about any of the things I looked at and just feeling an extraordinary beauty and love for everything, a connection with everything.
I had trained in law and philosophy, specifically logic. Both of these disciplines are highly organised branches of thought, both strive to take concepts and arguments that do not lend themselves to mathematical quantification and organise them. This conditioning derailed me frankly. I took to undertaking an exercise in analysis of K, trying to organise it into a cohesive, comprehensible framework of ideas. Put simply I tried to see it as a method - do x, think y, don't think z, don't do w and "whammo" = enlightenment. The desire to recapture that feeling, that being, that I had experienced was so overwhelming that I became completely lost. This was in or about 2000. At that time, there was not near the volume of K material freely available that there is today. I had only one dialogue which I'd read and one tape of one partial series of a talk.
The benefits despite the trap
Notwithstanding that I was lost, there was a particular benefit that flowed. It related to the physical rather than the purely mental (as if there's a real difference :-) ). When I drink too much, I get quite ill, pretty much alcohol poisoning really (irish heritage). I know that if I go over the precipice and throw up, it goes on for hours without let up. On one occasion this began, I was lying down, my head spinning, my stomach churning and of course "I" am feeling sorry for myself and wishing this would stop happening to me. I then kind of gave up on it, on everything and instantaneously fell into this sense that all of this, all these bad feelings and sickness was not "happening to me" but in fact "was me". What ensued was a wild psychic ride downward into what was happening in my body and then I was ok. It's impossible to explain, but it was just ok and none of the usual repercussions followed.
For a long time, I took the view that this was the sole benefit deriving from K for me, I used it in pain situations, even extreme pain (gall bladder pain that morphine did not assist), dental pain etc and used it to great effect. I even experimented with a deriviation of it with other people in pain - I can't explain it, but just being with them and using my hand to somehow, without intention merging with their pain somehow brought them relief. I didn't even believe in it, probably still don't believe in it, but occasionally inexplicably have been moved to try it on occasion.
The next phase
I had thought about K sometimes over the 16 years or so since first reading the K dialogue with Bohm but lifes current swept me along as it can do.
Then in the past 2 years, through life's circumstances I can only say that I became more and more depressed and the world became a dark place. This prompted me to revisit K. I was pleasantly surprised to find such a huge range of his material freely available.
So, of course I began listening to his speeches on YouTube. I tried reading a few texts, but it left me a little cold really, but hearing him speak did not. I guess this time I was more aware of the Trap that I'd fallen into the last time, and whilst I kept falling into it, I was aware of it and thus it was entirely different.
The lightning bolt
The turning point came when I suddenly realised that whatever I experienced from exposure to K speaking could not and should not be sought to be repeated. The memory of it was a shackle, the desire to repeat it just a re-visitation of the trap. After all, why should it be the same on any two occasions - who ever said it would be a constant unchanging "sense" or "experience". Since this lightning bolt, the experiences have been wide ranging and everyoine different, sometimes with and sometimes without physical effects such as a feeling of great pressure in the head, a kind of shivering feeling throughout the body (like that experience we all say is "someone walking over your grave", but one that is more long lasting less intense, gentle even). The falling away of desire to hold onto or repeat any given experience has counter-intuitively led to the very thing such a desire wants - which I love, its the irony of life, the irony of desire, the irony of humanity.
Freedom from the teacher
A strong urge arose for a time to "know" whether K was enlightened, was he Buddha(like), did he transcend etc etc "so on and so on and all that" as he quaintly says. This led to an intellectual investigation of K, the biographies, the journal, the sex scandal, the lawsuits with Raja(whatshisname) and some reading on the other forum here of the criticisms by "anti-K" people.
It was a tumultuous experience really, because it interrupted whatever else it was that was going on. At times I thought I should give up on it, to stop it as it was destroying the other thing. But eventually, I guess it brought me right back to the start, the one thing he wanted everyone to know and to accept at the beginning of his speaking "I am not your guru" "the speaker is unimportant".
Its a conditioning really, isn't it, to want him to be perfect, to have been Buddha(like), to be our saviour - oh we want it so much, to have someone else do it for us, be it for us, give it to us, stand as a righteous and virtuous, totally innocent and impeccable pinnacle of achievement, an example we can strive for... (hahahahaha) the very non-essence of whatever it is he was saying.
He was a man, what he experienced was what he experienced and his putting it into words was perhaps unhelpful and counterproductive to what he thought he was doing. It may even be that the publication of works is counterproductive in many instances.. who can know where it all ends. Perhaps in 1000 years (if humanity survives) his image and memory will be as corrupted as Buddha.
What actually are K's Teachings?
Nothing, not a thing - there's nothing to grasp onto, nothing to learn from - no concept to apply, no activity to undertake, no method, no pattern, no logic and no teaching.
There is a spark and it can catch fire if you only hear beyond the words, read between the lines and see a tree for the first time (or a lake or a mountain or a stone or a hand or anything for that matter) and then let the fire burn rather than (as my friends annoyingly do when a camp fire is going) poking it, blowing it and trying to control it.
Tone (aka Butiam Noone)
This post was last updated by Butiam Noone Thu, 16 Feb 2017.
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 17 Feb 2017||#549|
|John Raica Canada 496 posts in this forum Offline||
A K SEMINAR MADRAS 1979 on:
THE NATURE OF A RELIGIOUS (optional: HOLISTIC ?) LIFE (experientially -friendly edited)
K: We are enquiring into this (perrenial) question of what is a 'religious' (holistic) mind and what we would consider a religious (a 'holistic way of ?) life.
D.S.: You have often said that thought is not the movement of a religious mind. But certainly even a 'religious mind' thinks.
K: Let me explain that (more explicitly ?) . I said, "thought cannot contain the religious mind". Thought in itself being a fragment, whatever it does will bring about fragmentation, and a religious ( or holistic) mind is not fragmentary.
P.K. Sundaram: Thought always dwells on dualities without which it cannot even live. So, the religious mind must transcend the (observer-observed) duality.
K: I am questioning whether there is duality at all.
P.J.: Sir, what do you mean when you question the fact of duality?
K: I question whether duality exists.
S.P.: But we are living in this duality. The thinking process itself functions in duality.
K: Let me expand it a little more. Has the fact an opposite?
S.P.: Will you say thought is a fact?
K: Thought is a fact. But what it has invented, (in terms of a ?) religious mind - is an illusion, 'illusion' being a perception (tainted) with a certain direction, a prejudice, a fixation. We are saying that a fact, that is, greed, anger or envy, has no opposite.
P.J.: Why introduce the word 'illusion' ?
K: I use the word 'illusion' in the sense - sensory perception of external objects which is 'coloured' ( 'biased' ?) by our beliefs, by prejudices, by opinions, by (our collective & personal ?) conclusions. I would call that an "illusion". Now, if the observation is "pure" - in the sense, without any kind of motive, distortion, prejudice, so that there is nothing between your perception and the object which you perceive - then that very perception denies duality.
R.R.: I don't think we have that 'pure' perception...
K: That's the (hidden ?) problem. To me there is only the fact. A fact has no opposite. But we accept (to think in terms of ?) duality: I am angry; I must not be angry.
R.R.: But in my perception I see Mr Achyutji as separate.
K: Which means what? Your perception is conditioned. Can you observe putting aside that conditioning?
S.P.: Would you say that so long as there is conditioning, there is duality?
K: I would.
S.P.: Then is not duality a fact?
K: No. It is the conditioning that says there is duality.
P.J.: You used the phrase: "Can you observe putting aside that conditioning ". What is implied in it?
K: Can the observation be so complete that there is no 'observer' and 'thing observed', only observation? It means to be aware of this (mental) "moving away" from the fact, which creates duality. Then there is pure observation in which there is no duality.
D.S.: Krishnaji, are you saying that in the act of seeing Mr Achyutji, there is also an awareness of this whole (dualistic) movement?
R.R.: What you have just said is a theoretical idea to me.
K: How would you get to that non-movement of perception ?
R.R.: You mean a perception that does not move (in any direction ?) ? Please explain that.
K. We are saying that when there is perception without the 'observer', then there is no duality. Duality occurs when there is the observer and the observed. The observer is the past. So, through the (knowledgeable ?) 'eyes of the past' the observation creates a duality.
P.J.: The only ( questionable ?) point when you said 'When there is perception without the observer,' you used the word 'when'...
K: Yes, because he says that it is a theory to him.
P.J.: That's why I ask: How is a person to come to a state in which the (conditional) 'when' has ceased?
Uma: I am observing, I find my observation is interrupted and I also know that it is interrupted because I don't have the energy to be in that state of observation.
K: Why don't you have that energy? Perception does not need energy. You just perceive.
D.S.: There is validity when she says you lose energy. In most cases the perception is a commitment to duality.
K: It is your tradition or conditioning. Your whole outlook is that.
A.P.: I see that mankind can survive only as an indivisible whole, but the weight of my knowledge and the requirements of my daily living are stressing separateness, and separateness is so overpowering that it seems to eclipse the perception that man's well-being is indivisible. Do you think I am creating a problem because I am stating it? The problem is implicit in the human situation.
K: What is the meaning of the word 'problem' ? Something not resolved, something which is worrying you, that goes on day after day, for many years. Why don't we resolve something that arises as a problem immediately and not carry on and on?
P.J.: Sir, wthere are many other issues involved here. The issues are that it does not need Krishnaji to tell me that there is a source of energy, perception,(within myself) which I have not touched. Without touching "that", this partial solution of the problem keeps on existing, keeps me within the framework of time, for eternity. I know that the very imperatives of the human situation demand that there must be a source of energy which, once touched, will physically transform our ways of thinking.
K: We started out discussing the place of knowledge in religious life. Let us start from here again and move around. We said knowledge is destroying the world without this (holistic quality of a ?) religious mind. Then we started asking what is a religious mind. Now, what is a religious mind? (For starters it is ?) (an inner) sanity without any illusion, without a belief dictating my enquiry. That means a mind that is free to look.
P.J.: In your very statement you have annihilated the whole premise.
K: Which is what?
P.J.: Which is the 'real' structure of human consciousness: (self-centred) thought, belief, movement, becoming, identity.
K: And dogma. So, our (self-centred) consciousness is the whole movement of thought with its content. I am a Hindu, I believe in puja, I worship, I pray, I am anxious, I am afraid - all that is this whole spectrum of (mental) movement.
P.J.: What place has the word 'sanity' which you use in this context ?
K: One's ( ego-centric) consciousness is an 'insane' consciousness.
G.N.: Do you imply that 'sanity' implies not being caught in make-believe?
K: Sanity means a healthy mind, a healthy body, a healthy inwardness.
G.N.: If one is not sane, can one enquire?
K: How can I be sane when my consciousness is a bundle of contradictions, a bundle of hopes, illusions, fears, pleasures, anxiety, sorrow and all that. Can that consciousness find a religious way of life? Obviously it cannot.
P.J.: In all the (serious) traditional ways of approaching this whole (mixed bag) content of human consciousness, it is symbolized by one word 'I', and the enquiry is into the nature and the dissolution of the 'I'.
K: All right. Let us work at it (along this line ?) . We say in a (holistic) life there is a total absence of the 'self'. Then my enquiry is whether the 'self-(centred' consciousness ?) can be dissolved. So I begin from there and see if it is possible to empty totally that consciousness.
P.J.: What is the nature of that emptying?
K: Can I be free from my attachments? Can I be free from following someone's (spiritual) authority? I go on (untying all these knots ?) and my consciousness is totally stripped of all its contradictions.
P.K.S.: Will you not be 'intellectual' in your enquiry?
K: No. Because I am enquiring with my whole being. My heart, my affection, my nerves, my senses, my intellect, my thought, everything is involved in this enquiry.
R.R.: Sir, will you state the conditions of this enquiry?
K: As you observe (in this way) that very observation changes that which is being observed. Why can't you do this ?
R.R.: Because my attention wanders.
K: Which means that when you are looking, in spite of your (instinctual desire for ?) acquiring knowledge, you'll have to put that aside when you are watching. This watching (free of the known ?) is (essential in) the transformation of 'that which is being observed'.
R.R.: Sir, maybe I am not expressing it rightly. If I observe myself, I think it is a fact for me that my attention wanders.
K: Let us begin step by step (for this 'in class assignment'):
R.R.: ( Sounds easy but...) it does not seem to work like that.
K: Is it because of your ( whole existence is safely organised in such ?) habits?
K: So go into (examining) your habits. Why do you have a mind functioning in a (safe sequence of ?) habits which means a 'mechanical' mind? Is it because it is a very safe mechanical way of life , to feel secure (in a seriously disturbed environment ?) ? And is this (cyclic) repetition of habits giving any real security, or you just invested ( an instinctual desire for ?) security in it?
R.R.: I give it security.
K: Therefore.... wipe it away.
R.R.: This is where the difficulty is. I can see my mind is mechanical or caught in habits, but my understanding does not seem to lead to be 'cutting away' anything.
K: Because your mind is still ( deeply conditioned to ?) function in habits. Are there good habits or bad habits, or are there only habits? And why are you caught in them?
S.P.: I can easily see the truth regarding the mechanical action of puja, and it is out of my system. (And further down the line) the truth regarding many other fragments can be seen and they can be negated. But even then, the (central) problem remains, which is the ending of the total content of the self-centred consciousness. There can be an ending of a fragment but the problem is that of ending the totality of (the active content of this?) consciousness.
K: Are you saying that 'you' (the controlling observer ?) see them sequentially fragment by fragment? Then you can never come to the end of the fragmentation.
S.P.: Unfortunately this is what we see after ten, fifteen years of (diligent) self-observing.
K.: You can't. Therefore, you must ask yourself: is there an observation which is total? (for starters ?) have I understood deeply in my heart, in my whole being, that the sequential examining of my fragmentation will never solve it? If I have understood that;, therefore, I won't touch it. I won't go near a (wiser ?) guru, because they all deal with fragments.
S.P.: Do I have to see all the implications at this point or have I to work it out?
K: I can't see the whole because my whole being, thinking, living, is (ego-centrically ?) fragmented. What is the root of this (inner) fragmentation?
S.P.: This sense of 'I-ness' which acts (spontaneously) ?
K: No, that is intellectual. I said to you, "listen". How do you listen to that statement? Listening with the intellect is fragmentation. Hearing with the ear is fragmentation. Do you listen with your whole, entire being, or do you just say 'Yes, it is a good idea'?
George Sudarshan: Let me go back to our initial question: What is a religious (holistic ?) life? It is the cessation (removal) of the contradiction between causality and spontaneity. Most of the world around us is causal: That is, this being so this happens, if this has happened, it must have been because of such and so. All this is based on comparison, copying. On the other hand, fortunately, we are also subject to the experience of spontaneity, experiences of movement with no cause, without time, in which there is only functioning. Much of the (existential) problem of life is, in fact, reconciling these two things because, somehow or the other, one feels these two are both real experiences and one would like to resolve the contradiction. As far as I have observed, it appears to me that when you are in the "spontaneous" mode of functioning, there is in fact no possibility of it being broken down. When you are happy, you are happy; then there is no question of anxiety about it. However, if you feel that you would like to continue this mode, then, of course, the (spontaneous) mode has already ceased. When you want to maintain an experience which you already have in time, corruption has set in, and it is only a matter of time before it will come to an end. Therefore, the whole question of "how to end fragmentation" is wrong. We cannot logically conceive it, we cannot dictate the rules, we cannot legislate it, we cannot write a manual about it. Therefore, in a certain sense, when it comes, it comes by itself. That is, in fact, the only true mode of existence.
K: So, what do we do? Say I am fragmented and carry on?
G.S.: Would you tell me how to end the process of fragmentation?
K: I will tell you, sir. Thought is always fragmentary. So, if that is the root of fragmentation, can thought stop?
G.S.: Just stop?
K: Not occasionally or spontaneously. To me all that implies a movement in time.
G.S.: As long as you are thinking, that is the (time-creating ?) movement.
K: I said so. Thought is a movement and so (the) time (it is projecting) is a movement. So, can (this thought-generated continuity in ) time stop?
G.S.: Where did that thought arise - in the unfragmented state or the fragmented?
K: In the fragmented state. We answer always from a fragmented mind.
G.S.: Not 'always'....
K: I said it generally. And is there a (thinking ?) which comes of a non-fragmented mind?
G.S.: I am not sure I am following your terminology.
K: We said thought is fragmented, that it is the cause of fragmentation.
G.S.: What I am saying is that fragmentation and thought go together. To say that one is the cause of the other is not true.
K: Cause and effect are the same.
G.S.: So, are they aspects of the same entity?
K: Thought and fragmentation are (manifestations of ?) the same movement, which is part of time. It is the same thing, whether it is one or the other. So, I can ask, can this 'psychological' time, inward time, stop? Can the whole movement stop completely? When I don't become (anything) in time , or when my being is not (entangled ?) in time, there is a "no-thing(ness)" , which means, love is not of time
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 18 Feb 2017||#550|
|John Raica Canada 496 posts in this forum Offline||
NEXT K SEMINAR MADRAS (1979)
EXPLORING THE NATURE OF A HOLISTIC WAY OF LIFE ( experientially friendly edited -
N. Vasudevan Nair: What are the (available existential) choices before mankind, sir? In the enormity of his grief, man faces the world, which is a very devastating experience. He crawls on all fours to catch a blade of grass, he suffers, he is lost. Can there be a complete rebirth or has he to undergo the pain of one birth after another?
K: Would you say that the real question is : What is the challenge for mankind in the present crisis? We can all see the deterioration of (the global consciousness of ?) mankind not only in this country but in every country, and we have not only to stop it but also to bring about a re-birth - a totally different way of life. And we are asking: Is there a way of living which is totally holistic in the sense that we are using the word? And we are trying to investigate what is the nature of this 'holistic' life. Is it possible to find a holistic way of living in this 'modern' world with all the technological advancement, with the crumbling of all (authentic) human relationships?
G.N.: We have acquired a lot of knowledge, and from that knowledge there is one way of functioning. Now, what is the difference between acting from knowledge and acting from 'insight'? What is the nature of this 'insight'? Is it possible to communicate this distinction?
K: Are we trying now to explore what is insight?
D.S.: We should also discuss the question of how a fragmented mind can investigate.
K: First, let us see that the movement of (the ego-centric) thought must inevitably be a broken up process. The (next experiential ?) question is, can this fragmentary movement end? Watching one's own life, one discovers that there is conflict, that there is ( confusion and ?) fragmentation. So, the essential point here is the seeing of this whole movement of thought. Is that what you are trying to say? Could we then discuss what (an insightful ?) perception is, not theoretically but actually? Could we go into that and move from there?
P.J.: Sir, could we start with the query: how can thought end?
San: I would happily accept you suggestion that the solution to all the problems would be the cessation of ( this ego-centric) thought, but...how does one achieve that?
K: If ( for starters ?) we all see that ( our self-centred ?) thinking , is in itself limited, broken up, then the next question would be, is it possible to stop (this process of ?) thought, and if it is stopped, then what is my activity in my daily life? Can this self-centred thought realize itself as limited, and, therefore, being limited, limit itself to a certain (mechanical sequence of specialised ?) activities in daily life?
R.D.: Thought can certainly realise that it is limited, but... intellectually.
K: Let us move out of that ( experiential impasse ?) for a while. Can your consciousness become (fully) aware of itself?
P.J.: Has our consciousness a (superior ?) capacity to reflect on itself?
K: Has consciousness the capacity to observe itself ? Is there in consciousness a (non-personal) element that can observes it "as is"? Is there an 'observer' observing, or there is only pure observation ?
P.K.S.: Are we not introducing a (subliminal ) duality within our consciousness by asking " Can our consciousness observe itself ?".
K: Sir, our consciousness is ( a vast field ?) full of duality. I do, I don't, I must not, fear, courage - the whole of that is consciousness.
S.P.: Is ( a choiceless ?) awareness of consciousness part of consciousness?
K: I would like to discuss it. Is there an observation without the observer? If there is, then that ( quality of pure ?) observation can operate on the whole of consciousness. We are missing a very important thing, which is, there is only observation, not the observer.
D.S.: If I (assume to ?) know that there is observation without the observer, I have already introduced a (super-?) 'observer'.
K: As most of us observe with the 'observer' ( instinctively functioning in a 'fool-proof' observer mode ?) , we'll have to examine what this 'observer' (mental platform) is. Who is this ( all knowing ?) 'observer' to whom you give so much importance? That is, this whole (mentality ?) build-up through generations, that the 'observer' is different from that which he is observing.
S.P.: The whole collection of ( our past ) experience (through a subliminal process of ?) identification is (creating) the 'observer'. This 'observer' (self-identified entity ) has many (psychic ?) depths.
K: That is, knowledge, the past; the past being accumulation of knowledge, experience of mankind - racial, non-racial. The observer is the ( controlling action of all our inner experience of the ?) past.
A.P.: With one (important ) addition - the observer is the past plus the sense of (its temporal) continuity.
K: The (temporal) continuity is the observer who is the ( active memory of the ?) past meeting the present, modifying itself and continuing itself into the future .
San: The 'observer' (aka: the 'ego', 'thinker', 'experiencer', 'censor'...) has ( a whole kit of survival skills at ?) depths which are very difficult to fathom.
K: I know the observer has 'depth', the depth being the ( psychic ?) knowledge of centuries...
P.J.: The nature of the 'observer' is the ('psyche' functioning safely in the ?) field of (the known) .
K: Now, when you say there are depths to the 'observer', I would say the observer himself "is" the field of consciousness. You can keep on expanding the (self-consciousness of the ?) observer endlessly.
P.J.: I may say: 'yes'.
K: That would just be agreeing. We are not meeting the (experientially active) point. Can I observe my wife or husband with whom I have lived, and about whom, during the course of those twenty years, I have accumulated knowledge, as she has about me? Can I observe her without the accumulated knowledge?
San: (On a permanent base ?) it is not possible.
K: The 'observer' is the (active interference of the ?) past. Can you observe ( in a leisurely glimpse ?) your wife, husband, as though you are seeing a human being for the first time? Then your whole relationship changes.
S.P.: There have been occasions when one can see a husband or a friend without any (interfering ?) movement of the past. So, one sees it is possible to see that way. But when you say that the entire relationship is changed 'for ever', then the major experiential difficulty arises.
K: All right. Have we communicated to each other that the observer who is the past and, therefore, time-bound creates the distinction between himself and his wife - dominating her, pushing her? So, the (active memory of our ?) past is always operating. And, therefore, his relationship with her is based not on affection, not on love, but on the past.
S.P.: We can still have affection.
K: I question (the authenticity of ?) it. Can we have affection if there is the operation of the past?
P.K.S.: Then, to come back to our initial question: Is it possible for an observation to be there without the observer?
K: Sir, this is the problem with all of us. Can I observe a thing without all the burden of the past? Because, if it is possible to observe totally, then that observation is not time-bound, it is not a continuity. The moment you do it, don't you fall into a new mode of existence; something totally irrevocable?
P.J.: How is it possible (to be 'totally irrevocable') ?
K: Can (the observing mind ?) see the movement of the past as it operates? Is there an observation of the (chain-reaction of the ?) past - of the whole cycle of hurt, psychologically, physically, which involves resistance, agony, pain, all that? Can there be a (non-personal ?) observation of that hurt, that observation telling the story of the hurt, revealing itself? Is it impractical?
D.S.: Everything we see ( we become aware of ?) in some way is the action of the observer. So, every question arises in the condition of the observer.
K: ( Leaving all futher study of the 'observer' for homework ?)
Now, what is a religious (or holistic ?) life? Obviously, all things that go on in the name of religion are not religion - all the rituals, the puja, the gods, all that is out. Then what will it be? All that (psycho-cultural tradition) is thrown out, which means you are throwing out the 'me'.
San: What is it you mean by 'self'? Is it the ego?
K: Ego, which means my (psychical ?) characteristics, my desires, my fears.
A.P.: Would you accept it if I say that the 'self' is only an (all-purpose psychological ?) adhesive, it has the quality of making things stick to it ?
K: You (still) have to see that you 'are' selfish. The 'self 'is ( a psychic bundle of ?) greed, envy, jealousy, desire for power, position, domination and attachment. End it. And can you live without the 'self' and live in this world?
D.S.: The fact is that in the very nature of the observer arise the questions: How can I be religious, how can I be unselfish, how can I be this, how can I be that? Everybody wants to get another (miracle) drug; everybody is trying to get there.
K: Yes sir, everybody wants to be something else. Everybody is doing something. So, all I say is: Start where 'you' are.
D.S.: You stick to that?
K: I do.
D.S.: But you talked of being 'unselfish'...
M.Z.: Envy, greed jealousy is exactly where you are now.
K: I am saying: Start near. Because, if you know this whole history of man which is 'you', it is finished.
D.S.: You don't have to change that ?
K: It is a book, a vast book, and I read it. I am not trying to change it. I want to 'read' this whole history instantly.
S.P.: Without movement in time, how can you read?
K: I just want to know (as it is now ?) the whole content of myself. My whole consciousness 'is' its content. But you can investigate something when you are free of (cultural & personal ?) prejudice, belief, conclusion.
R.D.: Then the ( living expression of this ?) history is the 'prejudice', and you are saying, 'Read it.'
K: Then it is finished. I have come to the end of the ( history ?) chapter.
S.P.: Then you are not really interested in investigating the content but in stopping?
Rajesh Dalal: I can see intellectually that a system will not end the problem at all. So, I don't seek. Now the question is, what do I do? I have denied systems, denied practice. Now, where am I?
K: If you have put away systems, practices, what is the state of your mind ? You have seen something as being false, and you have dropped it. Your mind has become sharper, more intelligent. ( Once awakened and put to good work ?) that ( quality of compassionate ?) intelligence is going to observe, put away everything that is false. When you put away something false, your mind is lighter. It is like climbing a mountain and throwing away that which you don't need. ( Eventually ?) your mind becomes very, very clear. So your mind has the capacity of perceiving that which is true and that which is false. Discard everything that is false, everything that (the self-centred human ) thought has put together. Then the mind has no illusions.
Sirs (in a nutshell?) this is the whole (Beginner's First Experiential ?) Book: I began with the 'first' chapter which says: 'Become aware of your senses'. And the 'second' chapter says: Human beings have (used) partiallly the senses, exaggerating one sense and denying the others. The 'third' chapter says: See that all the senses can operate (in harmony) ; that means there is no (time-binding identification with a) particular sensory operation. And the 'fourth' chapter.... and so on. I am not going to read the book for you.
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 18 Feb 2017||#551|
|John Raica Canada 496 posts in this forum Offline||
Hi, Tone and -better late than never- welcome to this forum dedicated to the experiential implications of the K Teachings. I quite agree with your statement quoted above, there is some 'Spirit of the Teachings' that permeated both his life & his Teachings. What we're doing here - for better or...for worse- is trying to interact with their living Truth. Please do feel free to post your own topics of interests or quotes and certainly someone will read them and eventually ....respond
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 19 Feb 2017||#552|
|John Raica Canada 496 posts in this forum Offline||
1ST K SEMINAR MADRAS 1978 ON:
INSIGHTS INTO 'PSYCHOLOGICAL' REGENERATION (experientially friendly edited)
A.P.: Modern society developed during the last two hundred years. It has certain clearly (materialistic ?) postulates - that the problems that affect human society arise from a lack of material resources, from poverty, disease, squalor; and that these can be remedied by control over the material environment. This view persists in men's minds, particularly in countries like India where there is so much poverty. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that these postulates are a facile oversimplification. The abuse of natural resources are a peril to human survival. The criminal misdirection of scientific and technological skill for the production of lethal weapons, atomic and others, and pollution are grave risks to human survival. Science and technology by themselves have no defence against their own misuse.
K: I think most thoughtful people, have rejected every form of system, institution; no longer are they trustful of communism, socialism, liberalism, the left, right, politically or religiously. I think man has come to a point where he feels that one must have a new quality of mind. I mean by 'mind' the activities of the brain's consciousness, sensory perception and intelligence. One requires an inner revolution with clarity and compassion. Is it possible for human beings to bring about a totally different dimension of the mind?
It seems to me that our consciousness is the consciousness of all mankind because every human being goes through fear, anxiety and so on. Can this consciousness be transformed? That is the real question.
P.J.: Speaking of the actual state of human consciousness as it is, each one of us sees within us an 'individual' consciousness separate from the consciousness of another. So, how does one proceed?
K: One has to ask what is this consciousness made up of, what is its 'content'?
N. T.: Isn't this (self-) consciousness the result of our past experience?
N. T.: If so, is it not individualistic?
K: The semantic meaning of the word 'experience' is 'to go through'. But we go through (a lot of rewarding and or painful experiences ) and make what we have gone through into ( personal) knowledge.
N.T.: But this 'going through' is individualistic, is it not?
K: If I am (culturally conditioned as ?) a Hindu or Buddhist or Christian, I experience ( along the line of ?) what I have been told. As a devout Catholic, I may experience ( a vision of ?) Virgin Mary and I think it is my personal (mystical) experience. It is not; it is the result of two thousand years of ( collectively processed ?) propaganda.
S.P.: So, the multiplicity of (all human) experiences put together create the (subjective ?) feeling of the 'individual' in each human being ?
K: Of course.
A.P.: But do we know (who we really are ) ? That is the ultimate question.
K: That's it, sir. Do we know ourselves, and what is the (right) manner of knowing oneself?
A.P.: The problem here is our incapacity to know ourselves directly, to deal with ourselves with an (intelligent and ?) compassionate response. When I see a cyclone in Andhra Pradesh, I feel personally involved because it is happening in the state in which I am living. When I read about a cyclone in Bangladesh, it is just an item of news for me. Now, when we say "one world", it does not actually become experiential for us. Because we do not know ourselves, our relationship with the world is a distant relationship.
K: (For starters ?) would you agree that instead of using the term 'consciousness' as a noun, we use it to describe a "movement of time"?
P.J.: Is not also thought the (personal) reaction to a challenge?
K: Yes, if I am aware of the challenge.
P.J.: What is reacting to this challenge?
K: Memory reacts.
R.B.: But for thought to be aware of itself as a (time-binding ?) trap, is it necessary to see the origin of thought?
K: Yes. Then you only register (and retrieve only ) that which is absolutely necessary and not the 'psychological' (residual ?) structures. Why should I register your flattery or your insult? That registration emphasizes the ego.
R.B.: Brain's habit of 'registering' is so instantaneous. How can we learn to 'slow down' the whole (recording & responding?) process?
K: Have you ever tried 'writing down' (or making a 'mental note' ?) objectively of every thought, not just those which are pleasant or unpleasant ? Then you will find that you can 'slow down' (the machinery of ?) thought tremendously. But (the deeper) question is, why do we register psychologically at all? Is it possible to register only that which is absolutely, physically, necessary and not build up the psyche through registration?
I.I.: By becoming older and working at it, one can cut down on this redundant registration.
K: But that has nothing to do with age...
I.I.: It has to do with 'living'.
K: That means it is a slow 'process'. I object to that.
I.I.: That's all I know. Sometimes one has the experience of a flash, lifting you to another level, being transformed, even like a "Phoenix is rising from the ashes".
K: Is it possible to 'accelerate' (optimise ?) this 'non-registering' process that does not depend upon age, circumstances, cultural environment?
I.I.: It seems to me that there are several very great and very small schools of meditation, each suggesting a certain way. I would imagine that these offer us a ladder and for some people it may be rather useful in the beginning. I can even imagine that they are useful in many instances - along with the practical wisdom to take the one which does the job which luckily I have at my disposal.
K: If one sees the real necessity of the 'physical' registration and also has an (some ?) insight into the 'psychological' futility of registration, it is finished. It is as when you (really) see an actual danger, a ( psychological ?) precipice, it is over. In the same way, if one profoundly sees the danger of psychological registration, then the thing is finished.
I.I.: Is it not possible that for some people (this kind of ?) 'enlightenment' comes in several ways? The Arabs have seven words for seven (intermediary) states, and for others (like you ?) it comes like sunrise, the sun comes out and there it is.
K: I don't think it is a matter (of availability ?) for the few or for the many, but rather one of how do you "listen". If I do 'listen' (with the 'mind in the heart' ?) in the very act of listening frees me from (being influenced by ?) both .
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 22 Feb 2017||#553|
|John Raica Canada 496 posts in this forum Offline||
2ND K SEMINAR MADRAS (1978) : MORE INSIGHTS INTO REGENERATION (Experientially Friendly Edited- 'EFE' )
P.J.: Could we discuss the (perrenial) problem of (ending ?) the sorrow of man, the nature of compassion and meditation? I feel we are in a trap: being in sorrow and not understanding the nature of compassion.
K: May I ask, what are your ideas or concepts about sorrow ?
A.P.: Sorrow is an inescapable part of life. We are helpless victims when a part of humanity is forced to live a subhuman life, with no hope of change in their way of life. Unless one sees some affirmative process, one feels completely lost.
P.J.: Sorrow is something integral to one.
A.P.: I am talking about sorrow. It is integral. Nothing can be more integral than the fact that there is no compassion in me as an authentic response. When I witness the sorrow of another, I am part of that sorrow.
K: I wonder what we mean by the words 'sorrow', 'grief', 'pain'? Every human being goes ( sooner or later ?) through this ugly business of sorrow. Some people think that it is a cleansing process, a process (necessary for reaching ?) enlightening. Some give (karmic) explanations which appear to satisfy them - we did something (wrong) in the past, you are paying for it now.
P.J.: It is (a very personal form of ?) sorrow.
K: In that is involved ( a 'personal' component of subliminal ?) self-pity, loneliness, a sudden realization that I have lost somebody (on whom I was relying) and I am left alone. I may also suffer for him because he has not lived as long as I have lived and so on. But the root of this enormous sorrow is something what man has carried through timeless centuries.
P.K.S.: What is actually felt when you are in sorrow? I think there is some sense of privation, a want, and this produces a state of mind, a pang which is called sorrow. In it is a sense of your limitation, finitude, helplessness.
K: Sir, hen you meet the poor people next door, perhaps you may feel guilty because you got used to their poverty, their endless degradation. Perhaps you may have great affection for them. Would you call the (existential ?) fact of man living in this appalling way, 'sorrow'?
I.I.: There are different kinds of sorrow in my life. One of them is that sorrow of which we speak, the sorrow when I do something which takes away from somebody else. I live in society. So many things I cannot undertake without taking away big chunks from others. For instance, tomorrow morning I take the jet plane from Madras to Delhi and on this plane which I take for my benefit, I will be co-responsible for an exploitation of many thousands of Indians, each one who in a sensible way pays his taxes and lives in a world dominated by those of us can have that sense of importance of flying in a jet today. I do something which if I didn't, I would have to radically, totally change the way I live. I have not yet decided to make that change. In fact, I create for myself legitimate reasons by word-constructions for taking that plane, and in this sense I feel a very particular kind of sorrow which is the one about which I would want you to enlighten me most.
K: As you said, there are different kinds of sorrow. There is the ( sorrow of a guilty consciousness ?) kind that you described; then there is somebody losing a son, a father and mother; seeing appalling ignorance, and seeing that there is no (true) hope for man in a country like this. And there is the (inner) sorrow of realizing you are nothing. There is also the sorrow of how man treats man and so on. Now, is there an ending to all this (protracted ?) sorrow or is it an everlasting thing? Is there an end to any sorrow at all?
I.I.: Certainly there is no end to this sorrow as long as I am willing to participate in violence.
K: I can see from what you say, that (consciously or not ?) we do exploit other people. But before we can (analytically) discuss that question, could we ask what is 'love'? Perhaps it may (holistically) answer this question, so can we can have a dialogue about this feeling of love ?
K.S.: Yes, it begins like that and then we begin to verbalize it, romanticize it.
K: Yes, it begins there and then you build up the picture, the image. Is that it?
K.S.: Yes, I think this is the common case.
K: Love implies much more than the word. It implies a great deal of (inner) beauty. It implies an authentic relationship with nature, love of stars, the earth, stones, the stray dog, all that, and also the love of my wife. If you reduce it to desire and sensation then it becomes a tawdry affair. Your wife treats you, and you treat her, as a biological necessity. Is that love? So I am asking, is desire, pleasure, love? Is sexual comfort love?
I.I.: Is love communion?
K: How can I commune with another if I have an (utilitarian ?) 'image' of her?
I.I.: A (mental) image may be a real obstacle to communion?
K: Sir, ( an authentic) relationship means to be in contact at all levels, not just the physical level which is desire, pleasure. Doesn't ( a compassionate & intelligent ?) 'love' imply that you and I meet at the same level, meet with the same intensity, at the same moment?
K: Now, that commonly happens only sexually, at the biological level. I question this whole ( hedonistic ?) approach to life, life in which there is this immense thing called Love. Now, does not your heart, mind, say that you have to find it out? Or, is everything reduced to a verbal level?
N. T.: If love is (based on ) sensual pleasure and on the pursuit of desire, it is not love; Love has to be based on compassion.
K: But I want to find it out, I want to have this sense of love. As a human being it is like breathing; I must have it.
N.T.: Love in the absolute sense is (potentially) present in all human beings.
K: If there were (intelligence, comassion and ?) love in every human being, do you think India would be like this - held in poverty, degradation, dishonesty, corruption? What are you all talking about?
Prof. Subramaniam: Sir, if ( according to what you just said ) "love" means being related to another person at all levels, then if I don't understand myself, or if I am not relating at all levels to myself, how can I be related at all levels to another person, whether it is my wife or another ?
K: So, don't you want to come upon this, don't you want to find out? Don't you want to have a sense of this great thing? Unless you have it, I don't see the point of all these (endless seminars &) discussions, pujas, and all that is going on in this country.
R.B.: I think his point was that when there is no 'relatedness' inside oneself, when there are warring elements within oneself, there can't be Love.
K: I would rather put the question this way: don't you want to find out (within yourself ?) this Love, this state of passion (for all ?) ; don't you want to drink at that extraordinary fountain?
R.B.: Sir, we started with the question of "what is sorrow" and you followed it up ( out of the blue ?) with the question of "what is love". Could you say what is the relationship between the two questions?
K: Is love ( to be found in the field of ?) this constant battle, words, theories and living at that level? I personally can't imagine any human being not having this love. If he does not have it, he is (inwardly as good as ?) 'dead'.
A.P.: Is that not the crux of the problem of ( our inner) regeneration?
K: Yes, sir. If you haven't got (access to that universal source of ?) Love, how can you regenerate anything? If you don't look after the plant that you have just put in the earth, if you don't give it water, air, proper nourishment, affection, see that there is plenty of light, the plant won't grow.
P.J.: Without comprehending sorrow and love, how we can we know what is meditation ?
I.I.: But somewhere at the very deepest level, the marvellous, glorious thing which I believe makes for "love" is that, your life and my life at that moment are both made sacred, the forms of renewal of mutual presence.
K: Forgive me, I would rather say that when there is ( this Presence of ?) Love, there is no (personal sense of) 'you' or 'me'.
I.I.: That could be easily understood, but love is also a symbiosis - there is in it more of you and more of me.
K: Sir, when there is (the sense of a ?) great Beauty like that of a Mountain, the majesty of it, the beauty of it, the shade, the light, 'you' don't exist. The beauty of that thing drives away the (self-conscious ?) 'you'. So, I say: Beauty is when 'I' with my problems, with my 'biological love' (bio-love ?), am not ( there ) . ( In short ?) "When 'I' am not, the 'Other' is".
I.I.: And at that moment the transparent flame (of our life) is burning higher and the stream of life is clearer, fresher, and the renewal of this ( whole consciousness of the ?) world goes on.
K: At that moment there is a new rejuvenation taking place, if you like to put it that way. But I am putting it in this (experientially friendly ?) way : there is a sense of an 'Otherness than me'.
I.I.: Yes. That 'Otherness' implies...
K: The 'Otherness' is not the opposite (of our self-consciousness ?) .
P.J.: May I then ask, what is it that makes that Spring (of Otherness ?) flow?
K: I have seen the birth of the great (Ganges) right up in the hills. It starts with a few drops and then collects, and there is a roaring stream at the end of it. Is that (similar with the Stream of Compassionate Intelligence &?) Love?
P.J.: But what is it that makes the Stream flow fully (within one ?)
K: ( Suppose that someone comes ?) to you and say, 'Look, I really don't know what this Love is, please teach me, let me learn what Love is.'
P.J.: What is the relationship of sorrow to this "love"?
K: You must relate sorrow, love and death. If you end attachment, end it completely and also jealousy, greed. Do not argue, but end it, which is ( the psychological aspect of ?) death. Both biologically and psychologically 'ending' ( the temporal continuity ?) of something is death. So, will you give up, or 'renounce' - to use a traditional term - ( your psycho-dependency on ?) your status, position, attachments, beliefs, gods? Can you 'throw them into the river' and see what happens? Will (this psychological ?) 'renunciation' help you to understand the (inner) beauty of this Love? Please, sir, you are ( Buddhist ?) monks, you have studied, please tell me.
P.K.S.: Renunciation, sir, can be of many kinds. The renunciation coming out of selfishness certainly won't bring that love.
K: Will my becoming a monk, giving up the world, taking a vow of celibacy, give me this love?
P.K.S.: No. One can be a monk, take vows and yet not have love...
K: So what am I to do?
P.K.S.: From your (insightful) observations we obtained certain (experiential) description of love.
K: I don't want descriptions of love. I want 'food'.
P.K.S.: We have got certain characteristics of love. One of these is unselfishness, the other is non-possessiveness. These are all positive aspects. Certain characteristics that you mention are positive, but in the very nature of ourselves is there is ( a residual ?) jealousy and greed.
K: Right, sir, but I am fighting for a breath of this. I am drowning. Now, I can (experientially) find out something (of this universal quality only ?) through negation: if I start with (not-knowing or ) uncertainty, then something positive occurs. So, (along this 'negative' line ?) what am I to do?
I.I.: Is it also the end of sorrow?
K: Yes. Sir, do you know the Latin word for sorrow? It is passion. I know most human beings know what lust, biological pleasure and all the rest of it is, but are they actually aware of what sorrow is? Or is it something that you know, recognise, experience after it is over? Do I know ( the full impact of ?) sorrow at the moment my brother, my son, my wife, dies? Or is it always (dealt with the memory of ?) sorrow in the past?
I.I.: Would it not be (an act of ) wisdom to keep sorrow also in its place? If I have the courage to act with the sorrow which I understand, then at the very same time, I will progressively eliminate from my life all those things which cast a very long shadow of sorrow.
K: Sir, why should I carry ( this burden of personal & collective ?) sorrow?
I.I.: Because (willingly or not ?) I do some injustice; otherwise how can I justify that which cannot be justified?
K: I want to find out what is the 'right' action under all circumstances. Right action in the sense of correct, true, non-contradictory, not the action of self-interest. Right action will come about when the mind is not concerned with the 'me'.
P.K.S.: Can I also ask for your definition of 'meditation'? Is it constant awareness?
K: The word 'meditation' implies, (even) according to the (Webster's ?) dictionary, to think over, ponder, to reflect upon, to enquire into something mysterious; not what we have made of it...
P.K.S.: But could it not be applied to cases where something has been known to be true and ascertained to be true, for example, the practice of love.
K: Love is not something to be 'practised'. I said that ( love comes with the psychological ?) ending of something. I end my jealousy. I want to find out what love is. Obviously love is not jealousy. So end it without argument.
P.K.S.: But still, control is an important element in meditation.
K: So you are saying control is part of meditation. Then who is the 'controller' which is put together by thought? So, can I live a (meditating) life without control?
I.I.: Sir, just for the purpose of this conversation, could we not say that "meditation is the rehearsal of the act of dying"?
K: Forgive me, why should I have a 'rehearsal'?
I.I.: Simply because one day I will be called upon for a last time, and before I could really engage in that supreme activity which is to die (for good ?) ...
K: So why not die now?
I.I.: So, meditation 'is' (essentially an ?) act of dying - I will be happy to put it that way. Only if I say to somebody that meditation means dying, and if I say that tomorrow morning I will have breakfast with you, people won't understand me; that is the reason I suggested the ('rehearsal') term.
K: Is not (the true purpose of ?) "meditation" to come upon something 'sacred', not contaminated by time, something that is Original. Isn't meditation (essentially) an enquiry into that? My enquiry then must be completely undirected, unbiased. Otherwise, I will go off at a tangent. If I have a motive for practising meditation because I am unhappy and, therefore, I want to find that, then my motive dictates. Then I go off into illusions.
I.I.: If I said "Meditation is the readiness for a radical Surprise", will you accept it?
K: Yes, I accept it. So my concern in meditation is - have I a motive? Do I expect a reward? I must be very clear that there is no search for reward or punishment, which means there is no (pre-set mental ?) direction. And also I must be very clear that no element creates an illusion. Illusion comes into being when there is desire, when I want something.
Therefore, can I live a (meditative ?) daily life in which there is absolutely no (thought) control, no censor saying 'do this, do that' ? That is the (right ?) beginning of meditation.
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 23 Feb 2017||#554|
|John Raica Canada 496 posts in this forum Offline||
A SMALL K GROUP DISCUSSION, BOMBAY1973
A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO SILENCE AND DISORDER(experientially -friendly edited )
Questioner: I wonder whether we can talk about what is 'silence' : how it is reached, or whether silence has many facets and forms. Whether there is only one silence which is absence of thought; or whether silence which arises through different experiences or different situations is different in nature, dimension and direction.
Krishnamurti: Where shall we start this? Is there a 'right' approach to silence? And if there is, what is that ? And whether there are different varieties of silence, which means different methods by which to arrive at silence, and what is the nature of silence.
Q: The ('bestest' ?) one against hundreds of other approaches .
K: Yes, therefore what is the true, natural, reasonable, logical, and beyond the logic, what is that approach?
Q: Can we define silence as the absence of thought ?
K: I can 'go blank', you know, just looking at something beautiful and go blank. Is that silence?
Q: You seem to be taking us to the true approach rather than explain the nature of true silence ?
K: I think so. Because there are those people who 'mesmerized' themselves into (mental) silence, and/or controled their chattering mind to such an extent that the mind becomes absolutely dull, stupid - but... 'silent'. So it seems more sane to find out is there a natural, sane, healthy approach to silence? Right? Could we proceed from that? What is the necessity of silence?
Q: The (practical) necessity for silence is very easy to understand. People, in ordinary day living, have constantly chattering minds, constantly irritated minds, when it comes to a rest there is a feeling of being refreshed, the mind is refreshed, quite apart from anything else. And there is a whole (spiritual) tradition stating that silence is important, is necessary, and therefore in all these systems there is the watching of the "thought & time" process ...
K: Suppose you don't know a thing about what other people have said, why you should be silent. Would you ask the question?
Q: Even at the level of the (mental) tranquillizer, I would ask the question.
K: So, you asked the question in order to tranquilize the mind, because the mind is chattering and it's wearisome and exhausting, so you say, is there a way of tranquilizing the mind without the drugs? How would I, being inwardly exhausted by the 'chattering' (constant worrying ?) of my mind, ask myself: how can I, quieten the mind? That's natural, I would ask that.
Q: There are many ways of doing it.
K: You all say there are many ways. But I come from an land where we don't know any of these things 'first hand'. So, is it possible to bring about tranquillity to the mind without (causing a new inner ) conflict? I would put that question.
Q: Sir, when I practice Pranayama there's no conflict in it, but there is silence; it doesn't exhaust you. What is the nature of that silence?
K: There, you are breathing, getting more oxygen into your system, and the oxygen naturally helps you to be (more) relaxed. But I am not talking of that. I want to find out whether the mind can become 'tranquil' without any kind of effort, breathing, without any enforcement of any kind. I start from a point where the mind is agitated, chattering, exhausting itself by incessant friction of thought, and it says, is it possible to be really quiet, without any artificial means? Right? To me that is a central issue. That's how I would approach it if I went into this. I would discard any artificial control, drugs, breathing, mantras.
K: All these are artificial, (although they do ) induce a peculiar kind of silence.
Q: Would you include in your (no-no ?) list the silence induced by nature ?
K: Ah, when you look at a mountain what takes place? The beauty the 'grandeur' of the mountain absorbs you and makes you silent. That is still artificial. Like a child, given a good toy, is absorbed by the toy and for the time being he is getting very quiet. I would consider any form of (self-conscious ?) inducement to silence as artificial - ( speaking just ?) for K.
Q: Looking at a (Swiss ?) mountain - a 'non-duality' experience, you would say it is not silence?
K: I wouldn't call it "silence". You see a marvellous picture, a marvellous sunset, an enormous chain of mountains, and it's like the toy with the child. That greatness knocks out the (self-consciousness of the ?) 'me' for the moment and the mind becomes (temporarily ?) silent. Experiment with it.
Q: Yes, so you say that is not (the ?) 'silence' ?
K: I wouldn't call that silence, because the moment (of enchantment) is gone, I'm back to my chattering ( worrying ?) or whatever it is. So, if my mind has no motive (to use silence for a specific purpose ?) , how does one come upon it naturally?
Q: In that is all poise, is all sanity.
K: So I would say, the basis for the depth of silence is poise, harmony, between the mind, the body and the heart - a great (sense of inner) harmony. I would say the real basis is this (inwardly integrated ?) harmony.
Q: It doesn't solve anything. I know conflict, I don't know this 'harmony' .
K: All right. Therefore if there is disharmony between the mind, heart and body, deal with that (inner fragmentation ?) and not with silence. If you deal with silence being disharmonious, then it is (bound to be an) artificial (attempt). This is so. Now I am (finally ?) getting at it: be concerned with the agitated mind, not with silence. Deal with 'what is', and not with 'what might be'. That comes logically, right. I'll stick to this.
Q: But, Sir, how can an agitated mind deal with its own agitation?
K: That's a different question.
Q: But doesn't the agitated mind ask itself the question, 'Can there be silence?'
K: Ah! That is then an 'opposite', a conflict (of interests ?) , this opposite has its roots within its own opposite and so on.
Q: Yes, so that concept of silence is part of the ( ongoing mental) agitation.
K: So (in a nutshell ?) I would say that a (sense of ?) complete (inner) harmony is the (right) foundation for the purity of silence. So what is this harmony between the mind, the body and the heart ? A total sense of being whole, without fragmentation, without the over-development of the intellect, but the intellect operating clearly, objectively, sanely, and the heart, not sentimentally, with outbreaks of hysteria, but has a quality in it of affection, care, love, compassion, vitality, and the body has its own intelligence and unintefered by the intellect or by (personal ?) taste - all that. The feeling of everything is operating, functioning beautifully, like a marvellous machinery (like a Pathek Phillipe watch ?) . Even though it's not (always) physically well. Now.... is this possible? Can the mind, the brain, function efficiently without any friction, distortion, and so the mind is sharp & clear? When the 'centre' ( the subliminal superviser ?) is there it's not possible, obviously, because then the centre is translating everything according to ( suit) its (safety settings & ?) limitations.
Q: So, why does this division between the mind, body & heart arise ?
K: It arises, because through our (fragmentary ?) education, where emphasis is made on the (outward) cultivation of the intellect as memory and reason, (neglecting the intrinsical quality of our everyday ?) living.
Q: That is the over-emphasis on the ('knowing') mind. But even without this (intellectually biased ?) education, there can be an over-emphasis of emotions ...
K: Of course, but (the modern) man worships the intellect much more than the emotions. And emotion is translated into devotion, into sentimentality, into all kinds of extravagance of (artistical ?) expansions of emotionalism and so on. No?
Q: : Why does the human brain give such importance to knowledge?
K: Technologically, psychologically , in their everyday relationships, why have human beings given such extraordinary (psychological) importance to knowledge? It's very simple: for (their outer & inner ?) security, obvioulsy. Knowledge gives you status. Don't you know bureaucrats who are fairly high up, all they want is 'status'.
Q: But that doesn't solve anything for us...
K: No, he asked that question. So, I must come back. Human beings have worshipped knowledge, knowledge is identified with the intellect, with erudition - the scholar, the philosopher, the inventor, the scientist, are all concerned with knowledge. No? And they have created in the world marvellous things; going to the moon (finding new exo-planets ?) , the most extraordinary things and the admiration, the sense of the marvel of knowledge, is overwhelming. . Knowledge is necessary. But when knowledge is misused by the (egotistic ?) centre as the 'me' who has got knowledge, and uses it as a status for itself. I (assume that ?) am more important than the poor chap who has no knowledge. So, we have developed an inordinate admiration, almost verging on worship, for the intellect. All the sacred books and their (scholarly) interpretations, all that. Correct me, if I'm wrong. And in contrast to that there is an (artistical) reaction which says, for goodness sake, let's be a bit more emotional about all this; let me have my feelings, sentimentality and extravagance in expression. All that arises from this. And ( the harmony of the ?) the body is neglected. You see this (incongruency) and practise Yoga to get the body well, and so this division takes place, unnaturally. And now we have to bring about a natural harmony where the intellect functions like a marvellous (Swiss ?) watch, where the emotions and affections, care, love, compassion, all those are healthily functioning, and the body which has been so spoiled, which has been so mis-used, comes into its own intelligence. Now, how do you do it?
Radhaji asked just now, why is there this (watertight) division between the mind, the heart and the body. Why? And how is this division to come into deep harmony, naturally? Now, how do you do it?
Q: Go ( to meditate ?) into silence ?
K: One is aware of this division, isn't one? Intellect, emotion, and the body, there is this tremendous division between all of them. A gap. How is the mind to remove all this gap, and be a whole mechanism functioning beautifully? What do the traditionalists say?
Q: Effort. Clench your teeth.
K: I say, let's deal with disharmony and not with silence, so when there is the (experiential) understanding of disharmony, from that may flow naturally silence. So let's deal with disorder, not with harmony, not with silence. With (the ongoing inner) disorder.
Q: According to our (daily) experience this (inner) disorder never yields. The disorder remains disorder.
K: We are going to find out, sir. Don't maintain it.
Q: No, I don't maintain it; I look at the disorder and the disorder looks at me.
K: Therefore there is a 'duality', a (hidden) contradiction in your observation as the 'observer',and the (disorder that is being ) 'observed'. A division. So let us put aside everything else and consider if it is possible to end this ( momentum of ?) disorder?
Q: Disorder expresses itself.
K: I don't know anything about it. I observe in myself disorder. Why do I call what I observe disorder?
Q: A disturbance is disorder.
K: I just want to go step by step. . Why do I call it disorder? Which means I already have an inkling about what order is.
Q: Of course.
K: So, I am comparing 'what is' (going on now) with what I have known as order and thereby I call it disorder. I say, don't do that; don't compare. Just see what disorder is. Can the mind become aware of disorder without comparing itself with order? Comparison itself may be the cause of disorder. Measurement may be disorder. And as long as I am comparing, there must be disorder. So I see that comparison is really important, not disorder. As long as my mind is comparing, measuring, there must be disorder. Right?
Q: Sir, I look at myself and I see there is disorder because every part of me is pulling in a different direction.
K: I've never felt I'm in disorder, except rarely, occasionally, when something (went really wrong ?) ... and I say to myself, why are all these people talking about disorder? Do they really know disorder? Or they only know it through comparison (with a 'psychological' memory of order) ?
Q: You bring in (holistically encripted ?) words which I find very difficult (to grasp) . There is no conscious comparison of the mind itself which says, this is disorder and I want order.
K: I'm only asking how do you know disorder?
Q: Is it a sense of confusion ? I don't anything else but I know confusion.
K: My mind is in a (generalised ?) state of confusion because it is contradicting itself all the time. All right. You see this disorder and then what?
Q: There must be a way of finding a way out of this.
K: Yes. Then what?
Q: Look, sir, there's (the opportunity of ?) an ending there. I say, what is the nature of this ending ? Is this silence? Or is there an undercurrent still operating? You see, the traditional outlook is the gap between two thoughts is silence.
K: But that's not "silence", silence between two noises is not silence. Listen to that noise outside and there's a gap and you call that silence? I say that absence of noise is not silence.
Q: We moved (in circles ?) from the natural need of silence, to harmony and we found that it was impossible to go into the nature of harmony without going into the nature of our inner disorder.
K: All right. I'm saying (that any ) conflict indicates disorder. So, from there, move.
Q: So, there must be a way of being free of this inner conflict.
K: That's all. Now, how am I to deal with (my inner state of ?) conflict non-artificially? You know nothing, you are listening for the first time, therefore you have to go into it with me. Somebody comes along and says, look, look at this marvellous (but conflicted mental ) machinery and you look.
Q: I see only this much: that I can't think of silence or harmony when I am ( entangled ?) in conflict. That much is clear, sir.
K: So, is the mind capable of freeing itself from conflict? Stick to this one thing, conflict, and see if the mind can be free of it. And don't go around saying, 'how'. Can the mind, knowing what conflict is, and what conflict does, end (the continuity of its inner ?) conflict? (This inner) conflict is (expressing itself in:) comparison, contradiction, imitation, and conformity, suppression, all that; put all that into that (all-in -one ?) word and we said: 'can the mind be free of conflict?'
Q: There is an ending of the state of inner conflict. For a while, at least. But the next question which arises is what do we mean by a "total ending"?
K: That's what we're going to find out.
Q: There is no ending of conflict in the universe ...
K: Don't include the Universe. In the universe apparently everything is moving in order. (See:) Hoyle, "The expanding universe"...
Q: I'm talking of our mental universe.
K: Then let's stick to our mind which seems to be endlessly in conflict. That's all. Don't bring in the Universe. Now, can the mind free itself from conflict. I think the mind can be completely, utterly without conflict.
Q: Forever ?
K: Don't use that word, 'forever', because then you are introducing a word of time, and (thinking in terms of ?) time is another factor of conflict.
Q: If some inner 'light' were not there, how could we be aware of anything?
K: I'm asking you this (holistic) question (because) when there is a fragmentation of the mind, that very fragmentation is conflict. Therefore, is the mind, ever aware that it is (immersed ?) in total conflict? And Pupul says, 'yes'.
Q: I refused to move away. But I don't know anything about 'total conflict'.
K: Therefore, you say partially I am in conflict, therefore you are never (completely immersed ?) with conflict.
Q: Total conflict cannot know itself, unless there is something else to know it.
K: We're going to go into that, a little bit. When the (inner) room is full of furniture there is no (free ) space to move. Is my mind so totally full of this confusion, so that it has no movement away from this, then what takes place? That's what I want to get at, not a partial this and a partial that and ... When the 'steam' is at full (pressure ?) it must do something - 'explode'. But I do not think we look at this confusion, at this inner conflict so totally.
Q: One peculiarity about your approach. When you draw a picture there is always a clear outline, the colours don't match. In reality there are no outlines, there are only colours merging into each other.
K: This, to me, is very clear: if the heart is full of Love, and there is no part of envy (selfishness ?) in it, the problem is finished. It is only when there is a part that is (surreptitiously ?) jealous then the whole problem arises.
Q: Common love is full of jealousies.
K: Ah. Therefore remain with it. Remain with that, be 'full' of envy, be envious. Feel it.
Q: Then its total nature undergoes ( a qualitative ) change ?
K: Tremendous change. It's when you say "I'm envious, but.... I must not be", somewhere in a dark corner, the educational (moral) restraint, then something ( splits and ?) goes wrong. But to say, yes, I am envious, and don't move away from that. 'Moving away' is rationalising, suppressing, so....just remain with that feeling.
Q: What is the difference between you being fully aware of the conflict and repenting the conflict?
K: Oh, oh, oh! Repentance means there is a 'repenter'. An entity who repents, who regrets.
Q: Feeling it fully ?
K: No, don't feel it. If you are jealous, then you are just jealous.
Q: When you are finding yourself in a mess, are you not sorry for yourself?
K: Good God, no. That is the after-thought; 'I wish I wasn't in a mess'. When you are in a mess, be in a mess; see it, don't move away from it. This is merciless. All the rest is playing tricks. When there is ( a surge of ?) sorrow, be completely with it. Took at the beggar there; I don't have to invent sorrow, there it is, right in front of my nose. I'm ( fully immersed ) in it. I won't move an inch from it.
Q: An action takes place.
K: Sir, when you are (completely abiding ) with something, action has taken place. I don't have to do something. A total action has taken place, which is the "ending" of that sorrow (and its transmutation into compassion ?) .
Q: How can we have ( that silence or ?) tranquillity when the beggar is out there?
K: ( This quality of compassionate inner ?) tranquillity is (coming with ) the ending of sorrow.
|Back to Top|