|Fri, 13 Jan 2017||#541|
|John Raica Canada 534 posts in this forum Online||
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 534 posts in this forum Online||
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|
|Sun, 15 Jan 2017||#543|
|John Raica Canada 534 posts in this forum Online||
EIGHT (UN)EASY K CONVERSATIONS
In the total negation of walking the 'old road' is the new beginning
Questioner: I left the world of professional writing, because I wanted to lead a spiritual life. I abandoned all my ambitions to be famous, although I had the necessary talent, and came to (follow ?) you hoping to realize the Ultimate Reality. I have been under this great banyan tree ( from the Rishi Valley compound) for five years now and I find myself all of a sudden dull, washed out, inwardly lonely and rather miserable. I wake up in the morning to find that I have not realized anything at all, that I was perhaps better off a couple of years ago when I still had some strong religious fervour. Now there is no fervour left and, having sacrificed the things of the world to find God, I am without either. What is to blame - your teachings, your environment - or is it that I have not found the 'crack in the wall' that will reveal the sky? What is wrong, and what am I to do now? Shall I leave all this? If so, for what?
Krishnamurti: Is this environment (of the K school) destroying you? If you leave this world and go back to what you did before - the world of writing and all the everyday things of life - will you not be also dulled and sucked dry there by the things of that life? You see this destructive process going on everywhere in people who pursue success (or simply struggling to make a living ?) , whatever they are doing and for whatever reason. You see it in the doctor, in the politician, in the scientist, in the artist. Does anyone anywhere ever escape this destruction?
Questioner: Yes, I see that everyone is 'sucked dry'. They may have fame and wealth, but if they look at themselves objectively they have to admit that they are actually nothing more than a showy facade of actions, words, formulas, concepts, attitudes, platitudes, hopes and fears. Underneath there is (a well covered inner ?) emptiness and confusion, (not to mention) the bitterness of failure.
Krishnamurti: Do you also see that the religious people who have supposedly abandoned the world are still in it because their conduct is (subliminally ?) governed by the same (ages old ?) drive to fulfil, to become, to realize, to attain and to keep? These 'religious' people also are caught in formulas, ideals, imagination, hopes, vague certainties, which are only beliefs - and they also become old, ugly and hollow. So ( inwardly-wise ?) the world A which they have left is exactly the same as the world B of 'spiritual life'. In this so-called 'spiritual world' you are destroyed just as you were destroyed in that other everyday world.
Questioner: I thought that this (inner) destruction was the result of my environment, but now I am beginning to see that is not (necessarily ?) the result of environment. It is I who am (primarily ?) responsible, and it has nothing to do with people or environment.
Krishnamurti: This is the most important point to realize. You are responsible for your own misery, your own loneliness, your own empty hollowness. When you realize this you either become insensitive to it all, or you become neurotic, vacillating between 'A' and 'B', thinking that there is some difference between them.
Questioner: I understand this now.
Krishnamurti: In that case you will drop all (false ?) hope of finding a solution by simply changing the outer environment of your life, for you will know that A and B are the same; in both of them is the ( subliminal self-centred ?) desire to achieve, to attain, to gain the 'ultimate pleasure', the 'enlightenment', or any other form of (psycho-) security.
Questioner: I see this, but what am I to do? I am still dying inwardly, still destroying myself. I have lost all (the illusions ?) I had but gained nothing in return.
Krishnamurti: Then you have not understood. That 'road' (of becoming ?) is the road of (self-) destruction, frustration, loneliness, immaturity. So the question now is, have you really turned your back on that road?
Questioner: How do I know whether I have turned my back on it or not?
Krishnamurti: If you see the (inner) danger of it then it is impossible for you to to walk on it. Seeing the ( truth about this ?) 'road' (of psycho-becoming ?) and its desolation is the ending (of walking along ?) that road, and this is the only (holistic) act. Just see that every movement of (self-) fulfilment, achievement or dependence in life is along that road. Seeing this is the abandonment of that road. All you have to do is simply to see this road, what it is, where it leads and how it feels - and already you will be going in a different direction. This is what we mean when we speak of (total) awareness. We mean to be aware of the road and all the significance of that road, to be aware of the thousand different movements in life which are on the same road.
Questioner: How can I be sure that I am seeing what to do?
Krishnamurti: (For starters ?) you can see only what 'not to do'. The total negation of ( the illusory significance of ?) that road is the 'new beginning'.
TRANSCENDING THE INNER CONFLICT
Questioner: I'd want to know how can I end this (inner) conflict which is going on within myself most of the time. I want to be finished with it. I want somehow to be free from all this strife. What am I to do? All the great teachers have maintained that one must strive, that the way to find truth, or God, is through discipline, control and (self-) sacrifice. Now, you say that this inner conflict is the very root of disorder. How am I to know the truth about conflict?
Krishnamurti: The (mental ?) division between 'what is' and 'what should be' is the origin of conflict. The (time-binding ?) interval between idea and ( putting it in ) action also breeds conflict. The 'fact' and the ('idea'-lised ?) 'image' ( about it ?) are two different things: the pursuit of the image leads to every form of conflict, illusion and hypocrisy whereas the (direct) understanding of 'what is' leads to quite a different state of mind.
Contradictory drives ( desires ?) bring about conflict; one (self-centred ?) will opposing other (lower ?) form of desire is (the very nature of inner ?) conflict. The (pleasant ?) memory of 'what has been', opposed to 'what is', is conflict; and this is ( a process generating its own continuity in ?) time. Self-becoming & achieving, 'is' conflict, and this conflict is (spreading itself in ?) time. Imitation, conformity, obedience, taking a vow, regretting, suppressing - all this brings more or less (acute forms of ?) conflict. The (ages old self-centred ) structure of the brain which demands security, safety, and which is aware of (its own impermanency ?) is at the source of (all inner ?) conflict.
(In a nutshell:) All (self-centred ?) activity of the mind and its (associated ?) feelings is (generating some open or hidden ?) conflict.
Questioner: If I want a highly active energetic and passionate mind must it be either drugged or in conflict?
Krishnamurti: You want it to be active, energetic, passionate, and yet you want to end conflict?
Questioner: Precisely, for when there is (inwardly caught in ) conflicts it is neither fully active nor passionate. When there is conflict it is as if the mind were wounded by its own activity and loses sensitivity.
Krishnamurti: So it becomes clear that conflict destroys passion, energy and sensitivity ?
Questioner: You don't have to convince me. I 'know' it, but this doesn't get me any further.
Krishnamurti: What do you mean by 'knowing' it ?
Questioner: I mean that the truth of what you have just said is apparent. But this gets one no further.
Krishnamurti: Do you see the truth of it, or do you see the verbal structure of it - the actual fact or the explanation? When you say l 'know it", it may be that you perceive only the (clarity of the verbal) description.
Krishnamurti: The (inner) fact described was this : (a lot of inner) passion, sensitivity and energy are lost (dissipated ?) when there is conflict. But (this inner) conflict is (consciously or not involved in ?) all (self-centred) thinking and feeling, which is all the mind. The mind is all (ridden by ?) like and dislike, value judgments, prejudices, condemnation, justification and so on. And one very important ( controlling ?) activity of the mind is (the verbal recognition and ) description, in which it gets caught. The mind sees ( the very realistic image ?) of its own verbal description and gets caught in it and thinks it 'sees the fact' whereas in reality it is caught up in its own (image making) movement. So where are we now, when there is only "what is" and not the description? The (next experiential ?) question becomes: how can the mind stop working against itself?
Krishnamurti: Is this question (surreptitiously ?) trying to get rid of conflict? If it is, it is ( generating a still deeper ?) conflict, and you are forever in this vicious circle. So the right question is not 'how to end conflict' but to see the truth that "In a mind where passion and sensitivity are (awaken ?) the conflict is absent. Do you see this?
Krishnamurti: So you can no longer be (obsessively ?) concerned with the ending of conflict; (eventually ?) it will wither away (when seen as unproductive ?) . But it will not wither so long as (the self-centred component of ?) thought is nourishing it. ( So, from the holistic perspective ?) what is important is (the awakening of ?) the passion and the sensitivity, not the ending of conflict.
Questioner: I see this, but that doesn't mean I've got the passion; it doesn't mean I've ended the conflict.
Krishnamurti: If you really see this, that very act of seeing (the truth of it generates its own ?) passion, sensitivity, (& intelligent ?) energy. And in this (total ?) "seeing" there is no conflict.
A NON - DUALISTIC APPROACH TO SILENCE
Questioner: All 'religious' people have something in common and I see this same thing in most of the people who come to hear you. They are all looking for something which they variously call nirvana, liberation, enlightenment, self-realization, eternity or God. Their (spiritual ) goal is defined and held before them in various teachings, and each of these teachings, these systems, has its set of sacred books, its disciplines, its teachers, its morality, its philosophy, its promises and threats - a straight and narrow path excluding the rest of the world and promising at its end some heaven or other. Most of these seekers move (periodically) from one system to another, substituting the latest teaching for the one they have recently dropped. They move from one emotional orgy to another, not thinking that the same process is at work in all this seeking. Some of them remain in one system with one group and refuse to budge. Others eventually believe that they have realized whatever it is they wanted to realize, and then they spend their days in some withdrawn beatitude attracting in their turn a group of disciples who start the whole cycle over again. One is surprised to find among them certain good writers who otherwise seem quite sane. Now I would like to ask you, is there in fact any such thing as " Enlightenment", and if so, what is it?
Krishnamurti: If it is an escape from everyday living the so-called 'enlightenment', is (a matter of ?) illusion and hypocrisy. Anything that denies love and the understanding of our life and action is bound to create a great deal of mischief. It distorts the mind, and life is made a horrible affair. So the real question is, can one become a light unto oneself in the everyday activities of life, or is it only for the few who are endowed with some extraordinary capacity to discover this beatitude? So we come back to this basic (experiential ?) question whether it is possible in daily life to live in a state which, for the moment, let us call enlightenment?
Questioner: I still don't know what you mean by 'enlightenment'?
Krishnamurti: A state of "negation". Negation is the most positive action since most of us so easily accept a 'positive' creed, because we want to be secure, to belong, to be attached, to depend. The 'positive' attitude divides and brings about duality (a dualistic mentality ?) . The conflict then begins between this attitude and others. But the (intelligent ?) 'negation' of all (the false ?) values and having no (ideological) frontiers, cannot be in opposition to anything. To negate everything that man has invented (in terms of inner experience ?) , to negate all his (conventional ?) values, and gods, is to be in a state of mind in which there is no duality, therefore no conflict between opposites.
Questioner: Then how do you know what is 'good' and what is 'bad'? If I have no (moral) standards what is to prevent me from God knows what aberrations?
Krishnamurti: To deny all this is to deny 'oneself' - the culturally conditioned (mental) entity who continually pursues (its self-centred version of ?) the 'good'. To most of us such 'negation' appears as a 'vacuum' because we know activity only in the prison of our 'known' conditioning, fear and misery. From that we look at this 'negation' and imagine it to be some terrible state of oblivion or emptiness; but for the man who has ('insightfully ?) negated' all the assertions of society, religion, culture and morality, the man who is still (functioning ) in the prison of social conformity is a "man of sorrow".
Questioner: That much is clear; but you say nothing about any intimation of the transcendental, of the Divine ?
Krishnamurti: The 'intimation' of That can be found ( as homework ?) only in the freedom (from the known ?) , and any ('positive') statement about it becomes a verbal communication without (experiential ?) meaning. It "is" there, but it cannot be 'ambushed' by any clever tricks of the mind. There is no 'path' to it, no 'system' (of meditation ?) that can reveal its beauty; its ecstasy comes only when there is Love. This is ( the the true nature of ?) Enlightenment.
Questioner: Does it bring any new understanding of the nature of the universe or of consciousness or being?
Krishnamurti: It is like asking questions about ( what is on ?) the 'other shore' while living and suffering on this shore. When you are on the other shore you are everything and no-thing, and you never (need to ?) ask such questions. Begin to 'live' (non-dualistically ?) and (if lucky ?) you will be there without asking, without seeking, without fear.
WHAT IS BEYOND THE 'WALL' ?
Questioner: I see the importance of ending fear, sorrow, anger and all the 'inner travail' of man. I see that one must lay the foundations of good behaviour, which is generally called righteousness, I see also that one must not be always (trapped) in the prison of one's own demands and desires. I see all this very clearly and I try to live in the light of this understanding and to some extent I have gone deeply into myself. I am not held by any of the things of this world, nor by any religion.
Krishnamurti: Are you asking what is there when the mind has stopped all its wanderings and has come to (inner peace and ?) quietness? Are you asking what there is on the 'other side' when the mind is really still?
Questioner: Yes. There must be something tremendously important to discover behind all (the limitations of our self-centred ?) thought. The Buddha and one or two others have talked about something so 'immense' that they can't put it into words. The Buddha said, ''Don't measure with words the immeasurable." Everyone has known moments when the mind was perfectly still, and there was really nothing so very great about it; it was just 'emptiness'. But yet one has a feeling that there is something just around the corner which, once discovered transforms the whole of our life. It would seem, from what people have said, that a still mind is necessary to discover this. But there must be something much more (universal ?) than an uncluttered, still mind - something much more than a fresh mind, an innocent mind, more even than a loving mind.
Questioner: Many ( truly religious ?) people have said in the most convincing way that there is a tremendous treasure which is the source of our consciousness. They all agree that it cannot be (verbally) described. Some say it is the very matter from which thought is made, and so on, but all agree that you are not really living unless you have discovered it. And apparently point more or less to the same thing by showing the triviality and the (self-) limitations of thought. We listen, we reflect, and we do come upon a new stillness. Conflict does end. But what then?
Krishnamurti: 'Why' are you asking this?
Questioner: Are you asking a blind man why he wants to see ?
Krishnamurti: The question wasn't asked in order to point out that a silent ( loving ?) mind doesn't need to ask anything at all, but to find out what is the (personal) motive behind that search - (intellectual ?) curiosity, an (authentic ?) urgency to discover, or the desire to see (experiment ?) such beauty as you have never seen before? Are you asking for the 'more', or are you trying to see exactly 'what is'? The two (inner attitudes ?) are incompatible. So, if you can put aside the (desire for experiencing something ?) 'more', then we are concerned only with 'what is' (in there ?) when the mind is silent. What actually takes place when the mind is really quiet? That is the real question, isn't it - not what is transcendental or what lies beyond?
Questioner: What lies 'beyond' is my question.
Krishnamurti: What lies beyond can be found (experientially ?) only if the mind is still. There may be something or there may be nothing at all. But if you are concerned with "what lies beyond" (the wall ?) , if this 'stillness' is only a door to that which lies beyond, then you are not concerned with ( the nature of ?) that 'door', whereas what is important is the (non-dualistic qualitty of that ?) stillness itself. Therefore the only (experientially important ?) thing is for the mind to be still. Then what takes place?
Questioner: You are right. That 'silence' had no importance to me except as a doorway.
Krishnamurti: How do you know it is a 'doorway' and not the thing itself? The means 'is' (not separate from ?) the end. Silence (the peace of 'heart & mind' ?) is the only fact, not what you discover through it. So, let us (meditatively abide or ?) remain with the 'fact' and see what that 'fact' is (revealing) . It is perhaps of the greatest importance, that this silence is not something induced through drugs, self-discipline or the repetition of (magic ?) words.
Questioner: The silence comes of its own, without a motive and without a cause. I have known (such moments of inner ?) silence, but see that nothing (more) happens.
Krishnamurti: Is there "an observation (a direct experiencing ?) of silence by silence in... silence"?
Questioner: That's a new question...
Krishnamurti: The whole brain, the mind, the feelings, the body, everything is quiet. Can this (intelligent & loving ?) quietness, look at itself (in silence ?) ? Can the totality of this silence (become aware of ?) its own 'totality'? When this (holistic quality of ?) silence becomes aware of itself, there is no more division between an 'observer' and an 'observed'. The silence does not use itself to discover something beyond itself. There is only that (universally open quality of ?) silence.
Uncovering the inner Self
(He was concerned with the uncovering of the (inner ?) Self that is hidden both in the subconscious as well as in the upper layers of consciousness)
Q: I see the necessity of exploring this whole field (of the known) and dying to it, so that a new thing can come into being, but I can't die to something I don't know - the subconscious, the deeper layers which lie so secretly hidden, which are a fathomless storehouse of things unknown or half-forgotten, which respond from a source which remains covered. Though you have said the subconscious is as trivial as the conscious, and that therefore it is of very little importance; though you have compared it to a computer and have pointed out that it is mechanical yet this 'subconscious' is responsible for all our behaviour, all our relationships. How can you call it 'trivial'? Do you (really ?) realize what you are saying?
K: To (holistically ?) understand all this it is important to look at the whole structure of ( our self-centred human ?) consciousness and not break it up into the 'conscious' and the 'hidden'. Is this division natural, or is it (due to ?) an observation from an ( all controlling ?) fragment? Isn't the (self-conscious ?) 'observer' also a fragment who can therefore only look fragmentarily?
Q: Are we ever the whole (of our consciousness ?) , or there are only fragments acting separately, in contradiction?"
K: Do you see the whole tree or only a branch of the tree? You can see the whole of the tree if you are at a certain distance - not too far and yet not too close. If you are too close, you see only the various separate branches. So to see the whole of anything there must be a 'space of (perceptive ?) freedom'. Only in (such) freedom can you see the whole. (Otherwise ) as you said, sir, we are always acting in fragmented (compartments ?) which are in opposition or in harmony with the other fragments.
Q: Our whole life is broken up into the family man, the business man, the citizen, the artist, the sensualist, the good man, and so on. We know only this fragmentary action with its terrible tensions and delights.
K: These 'fragments' (areas of specialised behaviour ?) have their own hidden motives opposed to other hidden motives which are different and contradictory, and the upper layers of consciousness respond according to these underground opposing elements of conditioning. So ( in a nutshell ?) we are a ( self-conscious ?) bundle of contradictory motives and drives which respond to the various environmental challenges.
Q: The everyday mind is these responses in their fragmentary action, and (generating a ?) conflict which is actually visible.
K: So then what is the problem? What do you want to resolve or understand?
Q: My problem is to see the totality of all these hidden motives and conditionings which are responsible for the visible conflict. In other words, I must see the so-called 'subconscious'. Even if I were not in conflict - although I am - I'd still have to know all this subconscious in order to know myself at all. And can I ever know myself?
K: Either you 'know' what has happened or you can know (in real time ?) what is actually taking place . Looking with the 'eyes of the past' at the living present means not seeing it. So the word "know" is a dangerous (psychologically tricky ?) word, as all words are dangerous and false.
Q: Are you asking if there is a part of me which can operate on this accumulation which is not of it?
K: You mean, am I positing some 'soul', (spark of ?) divinity, etc., within myself which is untouched?
Q: It looks like it.
K: Certainly nothing of the kind. We have to think this out anew, not (indulge in ?) repeating a time-worn superstition. Within this ( known ?) framework of the 'me' obviously there is no freedom, and therefore is it ever possible to be free from this?
Q: I agree with you, sir. We spend our time asking if we can be free to act, to change the social structure, to break down social disorder, poverty, inequality, and so on, and I not at all sure we want freedom at all.
K: Does freedom lie within the structure of this accumulated past or outside the structure? Freedom is necessary, and freedom cannot be within this structure. So you are asking, really, is it possible for man to go beyond this structure, to be free - that is, to act not from this structure? To be, to act and to live outside this framework? There is such a freedom and it comes into being only when there is the the total denial of 'what actually is'. The negation of 'what is', is freedom.
Q: But...Hhow do you deny it?
K: 'You' can't deny it! If you say,"l will deny it," you are back again within the ( self-centred ?) framework. But the very 'seeing' of (the truth regarding ?) what is, is the freedom from it, and this may be called "denial" (negation ?) or any other word you care to use. So the (non-dualistic action of direct ?) seeing becomes all-important, not all this rigmarole of words, cunning subtleties and devious explanations.
Q: But then, we are right back where we started! How can I see the totality of myself, and who is there to see it, since the observer is the observed?
K: As we said previously, sir, 'you' (as a self-conscious 'observer' ?) can't see. There is only 'seeing', not "you" seeing. The "what is" is before your eyes. This is 'seeing' - the (transpersonal seeing of the ?) truth.
Q: Is it important to see the (mental ?) structure which operates, or the (psychological ?) 'content' of that structure?"
K: What is important is to see the whole (thing) , to see that the structure 'is' the content and the content 'is' the structure, the one cannot exist without the other. So (in a nutshell ?) what is important is to "see" (holistically ?) .
Thought and the freedom from the known
Thought (the intellectual activity of the brain within the field of the 'known' ?) can never penetrate very deeply into any problem of human relationship. The (self-centred process of ?) thought is superficial and old and is the outcome of the ( material experience of the ?) past. The ( accumulated knowledge of the ?) past cannot enter into something that is totally new. It can (logically) explain the new, organize it, communicate it, but the "word" is not the new. Thought is (based on ?) the word, the symbol, the image. Without these (mental) symbols is it (possible to think ?) ? We have used ( the mental tools of ?) thought to reconstruct, to change the old social structures , but being (intrinsically the response of the ?) old, thought can only reform (upgrade ?) the old structures ( by reorganising them ?) into new patterns, based upon the old. But basically, thought is divisive (divides & conquers every problem ?) , whatever it does will be separative and contradictory.
Only 'meditation' opens the door to that which is everlastingly new. Meditation is (starting with ?) the seeing of the (inner inadequacy or ?) of thought and of the ways of the intellect. Intellect and thought are necessary in the operation of anything mechanical, but (when used inwardly) the intellect is (creating ?) a fragmentary (specialised ?) perception of the whole, while (the action of ?) meditation is the seeing of the whole. The intellect can operate only in the field of ( what is already ?) known and that is why our life becomes a monotonous routine from which we try to escape through (a vast network of entertainment ?) and/or (cultural ?) revolutions - merely to fall back once again into another field of the known.
The (Swiss Chalet ? ) living room was small, with uncomfortable chairs and a cheap carpet on the floor. He sat on the most comfortable chair, a big man and an important man, a high bureaucrat, very high indeed. And there were others, a student, the hostess and some of her guests. The official sat quietly, but he was tired. He had come a long way, many hours in the air, and was glad to sit in a more or less comfortable chair.
Q(1) : You (the older generation ) have made a terrible world of blood (sweat ?) and tears. You have had every chance to make a different world. You are highly educated, hold an important position - and you can't do anything. You really support the established order with its brutalities, inequalities, and all the ugly mess of the present social world. We, the younger generation are against all this, but we don't know what we want. We don't know where we're going, but we know very well that what you (can) offer us, we don't want. And the gap between you and us is very wide indeed; and probably it can never be bridged. We are new, and we are wary of falling into the trap of the old.
(Q2): You will fall into it, only it will be a new trap. You may not kill each other physically, but intellectually with (mean ?) words, cynicism and bitterness. Yours has been the age-old cry against the older generation, but now it is more articulate, more effective. You may call me a bourgeois, and I am. I have worked hard to bring about a better world, helped to allay antagonism and opposition, but it isn't easy: when two opposing beliefs, ideologies, meet, there is bound to be hatred, war and concentration camps. We're also against it, and we think we can do something but there really is very little we can do.
(Q1) : We're not accusing you. We have nothing to do with you; and that is the trouble. We want a different world, of love; we want matters of government decided by computers, not by personal interests and ambitions, not by power groups, religious or political. So there is this gulf. We have taken a stand, and some of us at least won't yield on this matter.
(Q2) I suppose, my mind has lost its elasticity, its flame, because I really have nothing to live for. I used to be religious but I've seen too many priests in high positions and they have dispelled all my hopes. I've studied hard, worked hard, and I'm trying to bring opposite elements together, but it's all part of a routine now, and I'm well aware that I'm fading away.
(Q1:) Yes, there are some of us who are very bright, sharp as needles, brilliantly articulate, but I can see the danger of their becoming successful leaders. There is the hero worship and gradually the brilliance of youth and brightness of perception fade. I, too, have often asked myself why it is that everything becomes dull, worn out, and meaningless - sex, love and the beauty of the morning.
K: This is one of the common factors (ignored by ?) both the old and the young - the slow (inner) contagion of time and sorrow, the anxieties, and the bitter pill of self-pity. What makes the mind dull? The human mind, which is so extraordinarily capable of inventing new things, of going to the moon, of building computers - of so many things that are really extraordinary, almost magical? Of course, it is the collective mind that has produced the computer or composed a sonata.
The collective mind is a common (streaming of ?) thought which is (manifested ?) both in the (collective behaviour of the ?) many and in the one. Therefore there is only (this collective stream of self-centred ?) thought. The individual fights the collective and the collective fights the individual, but what is common to both is (their self-centred ?) thought. And it is (this very ?) thought that makes the mind (inwardly) dull, whether the thought be in the interests of the one or of the many . Thought is always in search of the secure (spot ?) - the security that is in the house, in the family, in the belief, or the security that denies all this. Thought is ( constantly seeking and creating its own ?) security, and the security is not only in the past from which the future security is built, but also the security that it tries to establish beyond time.
(Q1 : )But we can't do anything without thinking. All our books, everything that's written, put down on paper, is the result of thought. And do you mean to say all this is unnecessary? There would be no (scholastic ?) education at all if you had your way. You appeared a few moments ago quite intelligent. Are you going back into primitivism?'
K: Not at all. But...what are you educated for, anyway? You may be a sociologist, an anthropologist or a scientist, with your specialized mind working (intensively ) at a fragment of the whole field of life. You are filled with knowledge and words, with capable explanations and rationalizations. But perhaps in the future the computer will be able to do all this infinitely better than you can. So the authentic education (of the future ?) may have a different meaning altogether - to open the (inner ?) Doors of Perception on to the vast movement of life, to learn how to live happily, freely, without hate and confusion, but in beatitude. Right education is surely (concerned with ?) finding a different way of life, setting the mind free from its own (ages old ?) conditioning. And perhaps then there can be 'love' which in its action will bring about true relationship between man and (his fellow ?) men.
What is 'time' ?
Q: What 'time' means to you. We know more or less what the scientists say about it, and the science fiction writers. It seems to me that man has always been caught in this problem of time - the endless yesterdays and tomorrows. From the most remote periods to the present day, time has occupied man's mind. Philosophers have speculated about it, and religions have their own explanations. Can we talk about it?"
K: Is there - apart from the (time measured by the ?) clock - time at all? Is there time at all, apart from the (lingering memory of the ?) many yesterdays? Is 'time' a continuity as yesterday, today and tomorrow, and is there time without (the meories of ?) yesterday? What gives to the thousand yesterdays a continuity?
Now, when (the ego-centric) Thought, caught in this process, asks the question: "What is time?", this very enquiry is of the machinery of time. So the enquiry has no meaning, for thought is time. The (personal memories of ?) yesterday has produced thought and so thought divides space as yesterday, today and tomorrow. Or it says: "There is only the present", forgetting that the present itself is the outcome of yesterday.
Our ( self-centred) consciousness is made up of this chain of time, and within its borders we are asking: "What is time? And, if there is no time, what happens to yesterday?" Such questions are within the field of time, and there is no answer to a question put by thought about time.
Is there actually a 'tomorrow'? Of course there is (a physical tomorrow ?) if I have to catch a train; but inwardly, is there the tomorrow of pain and pleasure, or of achievement? Or is there only the now, which is not related to yesterday? ( The inner continuity of psychological ?) time has a stop only when thought has a stop. It is at the moment of stopping that the 'Now' is. This (time free ?) Now is (perceived as ?) an actual fact only when the whole mechanism of thought has come to an end. The (inner) feeling of Now is entirely different from the word itself, which is of time. So do not let us be caught in the words yesterday, today and tomorrow. The realization of the (time free ?) 'now' exists only in freedom, and freedom is not the cultivation of thought.
This post was last updated by John Raica 23 hours ago.
|Back to Top|