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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 696 in total
Sun, 15 Nov 2015 #31
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

Meditating by the shores of the Ganges ( from the K Notebook, 1961)

It had been a cool day and the sky had been open and there was the light of a thousand ( Indian ?) winters; it was short, penetrating and expansive; like perfume, it was in the most unexpected places; it seemed to have entered into the most secret corners of one's being. It was as though you looked through everything, through the trees on the other side of the wall, through your own self. Your self was as (transparent ?) as the sky and as open. The light was intense and to be with it was to be passionate, not the passion of feeling or desire, but a passion that would never wither or die. It was a strange light, it exposed everything and made vulnerable, and what had no protection was (open to ?) love. You couldn't be what you were (before) , you were 'burnt out', without leaving any ashes and unexpectedly there was not-a-thing (nothing ?) but that light.

There was a little girl of ten or twelve leaning against a post in the garden; she had a long rag around her neck and she was looking at some ( wealthy ?) people who were having tea on the verandah; she looked with complete indifference, without any feeling, without any thought of what was going on; her eyes were on the group downstairs and every parrot that screeched by made no impression on her nor those soft earth-coloured doves that were so close to her. She was probably a daughter of one of the servants for she seemed familiar with the place and fairly well-fed. She held herself as though she was a grown-up young lady, full of ( self-) assurance and there was about her a strange aloofness. As you watched her against the river and the trees, you suddenly felt ( that) you were watching the tea party, without any emotion, without any thought, totally indifferent to everything and to whatever might happen. And when she walked away to that tree overlooking the river, it was you that was walking away, it was you that sat on the ground, dusty and rough; it was you who picked up the piece of stick and threw it over the bank, alone, unsmiling and never cared for. Presently you got up and wandered off around the house. And strangely, you were (one with ?) the doves, the squirrel that raced up the tree and that unwashed chauffeur and the river that went by, so quietly. Love is not sorrow but it is ( psychologically ?) 'dangerous' for it destroys everything that man has built ( inwardly) around himself. Love cannot build temples nor reform the rotting society; it can do nothing, but without it nothing can be done, do what you will. Computer and automation can alter the shape of things and give man 'leisure' which will (soon ?) become another 'problem'.

Love has no problem and that is why it is so 'dangerous' (psychologically) . Man lives by problems, those continuous 'things' (to be thought about ?) ; without them, he wouldn't know what to do; he would be lost and in the losing gain nothing. So our 'problems' multiply endlessly; in the resolving of the one there is another. Old age, disease and death are problems which no computer can solve. ( However, inwardly ? ) love, death and creation are inseparable; you cannot have one and deny the others; you cannot buy them on the market or in any church; these are the last places where you would find it. But if you don't ( purposely?) look ( for it) and if you have no (inner ?) 'problems', not one, then perhaps it might come when you are looking the other way. It is the Unknown, and everything you ( inwardly think that you ?) 'know' must burn itself away, without leaving ashes; the ( memory of the ?) past, rich or sordid, must be left ( behind) as casually as that girl throwing a stick over the river bank. This 'burning of the known' is the ( subliminal ?) action of the Unknown.
It was a beautiful morning and its 'beauty' would remain, ( but) not in (your) memory; memory can never hold beauty or love. ( The perception of ?) beauty is always (something) new and this new(ness) has no relationship with the old, which is of time.

The moon was quite young yet it gave enough light for shadows and long that narrow path, every shadow seemed to be alive, whispering amongst themselves, every shadowy leaf chattering to its neighbour. The shape of the leaf and the heavy trunk were clear on the ground and the river down below was of silver; it was wide, silent and there was a deep current which left no mark on the surface. Higher up in the sky, there was a solitary rose-coloured whisper of a cloud that remained motionless till it disappeared into the night. Every tamarind and mango tree was withdrawing for the night and all the birds were silent, taking shelter, deep among the leaves. A little owl was sitting on the telegraph wire and just when you were below it, it flew off on those extraordinary silent wings. After delivering milk, the cycles were coming back, the empty tins rattling; there were so many of them, single or in groups, but for all their chatter and noise that peculiar silence of the open country and immense sky remained. That evening nothing could disturb it, not even a goods train crossing the steel bridge. There is a little path to the right wandering among the green fields and as you walk on it, far away from everything, suddenly you are aware that something is taking place (inwardly) with insistency and immensity; that ( sense of ?) 'otherness' is there filling the sky and the earth and every little thing in it. You and that little villager who without a word, passes you by, are of it. At that timeless ( moment in ?) time there is only that immensity and the brain is utterly quiet. All 'meditative sensitivity' is over, only that incredible purity is there. It is the purity of a Strength, impenetrable and unapproachable but it was there. Everything 'stood still', there was no movement, no stir and even the sound of the whistle of the train was ( contained ?) in the stillness. It accompanied you as you walked back to your room and it was there, too, for it had never left you.

It was a dusty path, fine dry clay and the camel couldn't be coaxed to walk along any faster than it wanted to; it was carrying sacks of grain and it seemed so utterly indifferent to everything; it went past the ancient well and ruined temples and its driver his best to make it walk faster, slapping it with his bare hands. There was another path that turns off to the right, past the flowering yellow mustard, flowering peas and rich green wheat fields; this path is not used much and it is pleasant to walk along there. The mustard (flowers) had a slight smell but the pea was a little stronger, and the wheat, which was beginning to form its ear, had its own smell too and the combination of the three filled the evening air with a fragrance that was not too strong, pleasant but unobtrusive.

It was a beautiful evening, with the setting sun behind the trees; on that path you were 'far away' from anywhere and nothing could come near you. It was not in (terms of ?) space, time or distance; you were (inwardly ?) 'far away', a depth that had no height, and no circumference. You were 'far away', in some unknown world that had no dimension; even if you wanted to know, you couldn't know it. It was too far away from the known; it had no relationship with the 'known'. It wasn't a thing you (can) 'experience'; there was nothing to be experienced - all experiencing is always in the field of the known, recognized by that which has been (experienced before ?) . You were far away, immeasurably far, but the trees, the yellow flowers and the ear of the wheat were astonishingly close, closer than your thought and marvellously alive, with an intensity and beauty that could never wither. Death, Creation and Love were there and you didn't know which was which and you were part of it; they were inseparable, closely interrelated, not ( like ?) the relationship of word and expression. Thought or feeling cover not it, these are too mechanical, too slow, having their roots in the known. Love, death, creation was a fact, an actual reality, as the body they were burning on the river-bank under the tree. The tree, the fire and the tears were real, but they were the 'actualities' of the known; in that freedom from the known those three are inseparable. ( To get there ?) you have to go very far and yet be very near. And around the bend of the path was the river; it seemed to be lighted from within, with a thousand candles; the light was soft with silver and pale gold and utterly still, bewitched by the moon. Pleiades was overhead and Orion was well up in the sky and a train was puffing up the grade to cross the bridge. Time had stopped and beauty was there with love and death

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Nov 2015 #32
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

New Delhi winter meditations ( from the K Notebook 1962)

Attention is seeing. Seeing is an art, as listening. But one hardly ever 'listens' or 'sees'; everyone is so occupied with one’s joys, problems and tears. One has no time to ( look and ?) see. But 'time'- (the 'spatio-temporal' process of sensory ?) experiencing does not give you (in)sight; 'time' hinders seeing, listening. Time and experience only dulls the mind and heart. The ( inner space of the ?) mind is filled and the heart has turned away and so there is no ( direct) 'seeing'. To 'see' ( to have an insightful mind ?) knowledge must be kept in the books and not in the mind; ( your) knowledge only interprets, chooses, giving colour, opinion, weighing, criticising, choosing and then there is no seeing. When the mind is so crowded and the heart ( made ?) dull with( by ?) sorrow, what you see is ( distorted by ?) your own projections, your own desires, your own fears, but you don’t see the 'what is'. It goes by and you are lost with your own toys. But when you do 'see', do 'listen', then that ( pure perceptive ?) act is the miracle that transforms, that has emptied the mind and the heart of the ( psychological burden of the ?) past. 'You' don’t have to do anything, ( your) thought is incapable of this miracle; then that 'seeing' is ( an act of ?) love, as listening is. You cannot come by these through the dullness of discipline, through any 'bargaining' nor through the shock of unanswerable ( Zen ?) questions. There must be ( an inner ?) emptiness to see, to listen there must be a 'quietness'.

They were rather magnificent, strange shapes, moving across the sky with determined purpose; they were all going north-west; for a moment you had the impression that the earth was moving, for these clouds were the mountains, streams and rivers and the cities that man had built; they looked like towers, peaks and the blue waters. The sun came out through a mile-long blue patch and there was glory. Every leaf was washed clean, every leaf shone, with drops of sparkling water, every bird was out, chattering, singing, flying, a whole group of crows were settling down on the wires, thirty-seven of them, and parrots were screeching across the sky. It was a marvellous moment of light, clear and incredibly rich. There is no ( time and ?) 'space' in Light, no journey to be taken, nothing to be fulfilled and no pain of frustration; it was a marvellous moment and it is 'always there', not (some)thing to be remembered, to be pursued. It 'is' there but beyond ( the identification with ?) your property, your family, your work and responsibility. You have to be alone (all-one ?) without ( the self-isolating ?) loneliness.

Meditation is not a means to (reach) an 'end'; there is no 'end' to be gained; meditation is a constant ( inner ?) flowering, not away from life but in life and that morning, in that deep silence, there was a 'movement' which the meditative mind alone could understand. It was not a movement in ( terms of space and ?) 'time', thought could not follow it; thought can only trace its own patterns moulded in the past.
To dissolve the (inner momentum of the ?) past is the 'far away' beginning of meditation ( if 'you' begin to dissolve the past there is no 'ending' to the past). The 'fire' that burns away the 'past' -the structure of 'time'- is the act of seeing. Seeing is (the action of ?) complete attention.

A lovely morning it was after the rain, clear, crisp and in the air there was slight fragrance of woodsmoke, of grass and of that peculiar odour that freshly washed leaves have. There were sharp shadows of depth and lightness and the sky, so early in the morning was already intensely blue. There was peace in the air, a morning that took you into the 'heart of things' where beauty was untouched, where affection ('love' ?) was always young. It was a morning in which meditation expanded beyond the borders of time, in which goodness flowered and thought was silent. Every little thing was (looking ?) so intensely alive with that strange beauty the common things have. Your eyes were sharpened and you saw the skinny dark leaf of the rose and it was the leaf of every tree and bush; you listened to the birds and it was the voice of the earth. Meditation is not a fanciful flight into some illusory vision but the seeing of the fact and going beyond it into ( the inward ?) regions of 'death' and 'love'; for these two are inseparable. Death is destruction and so is Love. Love isn’t the 'domesticated' thing made respectable by thought and seasoned in tradition. It is new and 'dangerous', a flame that leaves no ashes of memory or self-pity. As you cannot argue with 'death', you cannot entice 'love' into the dark corners of the mind. They are always together, waiting, watching, welcoming. You will know them when meditation opens the door (the mental trap ?) of 'time'; with the burden of time you cannot come to it; the past must be wiped away. And it is 'wiped away' when you see without the screen of tradition, without knowledge. The eyes must be young, and far away (non attached ?) to see and then these two 'inseparable' are there. And something ( sacred ?) beyond and above them that includes them both. On a ( clear) morning like this, the yellow bamboo leaves and the dark leaves of a tall tree intimate the 'beauty' that is besides them.

( Recap:) The brain is made highly sensitive when it is utterly still. And it is only in freedom (from the 'thought controlling' entity ?) that it can be still to flower. Resistance (or choice ?) and desire can only breed a conflict which wears the brain away, giving it age and weight. But when the brain is utterly still, then ( a quality of total ?) attention, in which alone goodness can flower, is ( generating ?) that explosive energy that carries the mind to that which is beyond all measure

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 19 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Nov 2015 #33
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

More New Delhi Meditations

A little boy in red trousers and in a red coat was playing by himself under a large, spreading tree; there was no one near him, he was by himself, lost in his own world; he must have been five or six, with a happy round face; his eyes were almost closed and he was going round and round the tree in a widening circle, talking to himself, with an occasional gesture. He stopped all of a sudden, looked up the tree, came back to the large, rough trunk and touched it softly, almost caressing it and started running back to his house; he stopped, looked back at the tree, waved his hand and disappeared behind a gate. The tree and the little boy must have been great friends; he was completely at home with it, completely happy. The tree heavy with dark, bright leaves and the red suit were beautiful in the morning light. It was an enchanting morning and they were both part of the morning, like that flower and the sky; the sky was very blue, rain-washed, clear, without a cloud. ( The living memory of ?) that tree, that boy and the flower remained, past time and thought, and every blade of grass and leaf were of that timeless space. Only the mind that is completely empty in that freedom from the known could contain not the word but the fact and ( the truth ?) beyond the fact; the fact then is of no significance.

Meditation is the emptying the mind of the known, of knowledge and the 'fact' . It is the (direct seeing of the ?) fact, of the 'what is', that frees thought (from self-centredness ?) ; thought cannot free itself; thought is the word ( processing ?) of the known. Thought cannot (un)cover the fact but the ( insightful perception of the ?) fact does put an end to thought. Knowledge is the ( verbalised ?) experiencing of the ( psychological ?) 'facts', but the fact is not knowledge nor is it the word. Thought is ( the response of ?) of knowledge and knowledge cannot free the mind of the fact. Meditation is the choiceless (inner) awareness of this ( 'psychological ?) complex', which empties the mind of the known.

The thought (the self-centred thinking ?) that is 'disciplined' with resistance, fear and with the cunning ways of ambition is always a slave to the known. ( The self-imposed 'psychological' ?) discipline is conformity, a ( mental ?) substitution which prevents the ( direct ?) understanding of fear; it is suppression and so sustains ( an inner ?) conflict which ( eventually ?) makes the brain dull; a 'disciplined' thought is ( basically ?) subservient and ready to obey. Where there is ( an insightful ?) understanding, the destructive ( impact of self-?) discipline ceases. Meditation is the emptying the mind of the known, of knowledge and (of the psychological ?) fact. It is the (direct perception of the ?) "fact", of the "what is", that frees thought; thought cannot free itself; thought is the word ( the verbal processing ?) of the known. Thought cannot cover the fact but ( seeing the truth of ?) the fact does put an end to thought. Knowledge is the experiencing of the ( self-identification with the ?) 'fact', but the ( living actuality of the ?) 'fact' is not knowledge nor is it the word. Thought is ( the verbalised response of ?) of knowledge and (such ?) knowledge cannot free the mind of the fact (of the 'what is' ?) . Meditation is the choiceless awareness of this ( psychological) "complex", which empties the mind of the known.

( Recap:) The thought (process) that is disciplined with resistance, fear and with the cunning ways of ambition is always a slave to the known. ( The self-imposed ?) 'discipline' is conformity, a ( mental process of ?) substitution which prevents the understanding of fear; it is 'suppression' and so sustains ( a state of inner ?) conflict which ( eventually ?) makes the brain dull; a 'disciplined' thought is subservient and ready to obey. Where there is ( an insightful ?) understanding, this destructive (process of self-?) discipline ceases.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 02 Dec 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Nov 2015 #34
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

K back to work in sunny Italy ( from the Only Revolution (1969)

Innocency and ( inward ?) 'spaciousness' are the flowering of meditation. There is no innocency without ( this free inner) space. You may be mature physically, but the vast ( inner) space that comes with ( innocence and ?) love is not possible if the mind is not free from the many marks of experience. It is these 'scars' of ( our daily ?) experience that prevent innocency. Freeing the mind from the constant pressures ( created by the desire to ?) experience is meditation.

Just as the sun is setting there comes a strange quietness and a feeling that everything about you has come to an end, though the bus, the taxi and the noise go on. This sense of aloofness seems to penetrate the whole universe. You must have felt this too (sometimes ?) . Often it comes most unexpectedly; a strange stillness and peace seem to pour down from the heavens and cover the earth. It is a benediction, and the beauty of the evening is made boundless by it. The shiny road after the rain, the waiting cars, the empty park, seem to be part of it; and the laughter of the couple who pass by does not in any way disturb the peace of the evening.
The naked trees, black against the sky, with their delicate branches, were waiting for the spring, and it was just round the corner, hastening to meet them. There was already new grass, and the fruit trees were in bloom. The country was slowly becoming alive again, and from this hilltop you could see the city with many, many domes, and one more haughty and higher than the others. You could see the flat tops of the pine trees, and the evening light was upon the clouds. The whole horizon seemed to be filled with these clouds, range after range, piling up against the hills in the most fantastic shapes, castles such as man had never built. There were deep chasms and towering peaks. All these clouds were alight with a dark red glow and a few of them seemed to be afire, not by the sun, but within themselves.
These clouds seemed to stretch infinitely, from eternity to eternity. A blackbird was singing in a bush close by, and that was the everlasting blessing.


There were three or four who had brought their wives and we all sat on the floor. From this position the windows were too high for one to see the garden or the wall opposite. They were all professionals. One said he was a scientist, another a mathematician, another, an engineer; they were 'specialists', not overflowing beyond their boundaries - as the river does after heavy rain. It is the overflowing that enriches the soil.

Q: You have often talked about ( the inner) 'space' and we are all interested to know what you mean by it. There is space between us and the expanding universe. There is space between you and me. Is this what you mean?

K: There is the 'space' that divides and encloses, and the space that is unlimited. The ( self-separating ?) 'space' between man and man, in which grows mischief is the limited (inner ) space of division; there is a division (a cliveage ?) between what as you ( actually) are and the 'image' you have about yourself; there is division between 'you' and your 'wife'; and there is the beauty of ( an inner ?) space that is without the boundary of time and line.
Is there ( some free inner ?) space between one thought and another? Between two remembrances? Between two actions? Or is there no ( free ?) space at all between them ? If there were a 'break' between one thought and the next thought, then our thinking would be always new, but because there is no such ( silent ?) break, no ( free inner ?) space, all our thinking is old. You may not be conscious ( fully aware ?) of the ( subliminal ?) continuity of a ( certain line of ?) thought; you may pick it up a week later after dropping it, but ( in the meanwhile) it has been ( still active ?) within the old boundaries (of the 'known' ?) .

So the whole of our 'consciousness', both the 'conscious' and the 'unconscious' parts is ( engaged in a 'stream' of activities ?) within the limited, narrow space of our cultural tradition, ( personal anf collective habits ?) and remembrances. Modern science and technology may take you to the moon, or help bringing some 'order' within the limited space of society, but this again will breed ( other forms of ?) disorder.
( Physical) space exists not only beyond the four walls of this room, there is also the "space" which the room makes (occupies ?). (And inwardly ) there is also the ( self-) enclosing ( psychological) space which the 'observer' creates around himself and through which he sees the 'things observed'. When this "observer" ( self-conscious entity ?) looks at the stars of an evening, his space is limited (inwardly) . He may be able to see many thousands of light years away, but ( inwardly) he is the maker of ( its own self-limiting inner ) space and therefore it is finite. The measurement ( of the chasm ?) between the 'observer' and the 'observed' is ( creating its own ?) 'space' and also the 'time' (necessary ?) to cover that ( physical ?) space (and/or psychological 'distance ?) .
(Recap:) there is not only the 'physical' space but the (inner ?) 'psychological' ( time and ) space in which ( the self-centred process of ?) thought 'covers' (protects ?) itself (as a continuity of ?) 'yesterday', 'today' and 'tomorrow'. So, as long as there is a (self-centred ?) 'observer', the (inner) space (of our consciousness ?) is the narrow yard of the prison in which there is no freedom at all.

Q: Are you trying to convey the notion of a 'space' without the 'observer'? That might be a fancy of your own...

K: Freedom, sir, is not within the 'prison', however comfortable and ( artistically ?) decorated it may be. If one has a dialogue with ( the space of inner ?) freedom it cannot possibly exist within the boundaries of memory, of our (past ?) knownledge and experience. ( Inner ?) freedom demands that you break these (psychological ) prison walls, though you may ( temporarily ?) enjoy the ( benefits of that ?) disorder within this boundary.
( The inward ?) freedom is not 'relative'; either there is such freedom or there is not. If there is not (and this is an accepted condition ?) , then one must accept the narrow, limited life with its conflicts, sorrows and aches - merely bringing about a little change here and there. Freedom is ( having ?) infinite (inner?) space. When there is a lack of ( this free inward ?) 'space' there is violence - as the bird who claims its territory, for which it will fight. This violence may be 'relative' ( kept under control ?) under the law and the policeman just as the limited space the predators and the birds demand, for which they will fight, but because of this (self-) limited space, aggression (an aggressive attitude ?) must exist between man and man .

Q: Are you trying to tell us, sir, that man will always be in conflict within himself and with the world as long as he lives within the sphere of his own making?

K: Yes, sir. So we come to the central issue of ( the necessity of this inner space of ?) freedom. Within the narrow ( 'standardised' ?) culture of society there is no (such ?) freedom, and threfore there is (inner and outer ?) disorder. ( Getting accustomed to ?) living within this ( generalised ?) disorder man seeks 'freedom' (out there ?) in ideologies or in what he calls God. This escape is not ( leading to inner ?) freedom. It is the ( living within this inner ?) 'yard of the prison' which separates man from man. Can thought, which has brought this conditioning upon itself, break down this ( self-protecting ?) structure, and go beyond and above it? Obviously it cannot, and that is the first factor to see (namely ?) that the intellect cannot possibly build a bridge between itself and freedom. Thought, which is the response of ( all our past ?) memory, experience and knowledge, is always old, and the 'old' ( experience) cannot build a bridge to the New. Thought is essentially (self- identified as ?) the 'observer' with his prejudices, fears and anxieties, and this 'thinking-image' (thinking-illusion ?) - obviously makes a ( self-protecting ?) sphere around himself. Thus there is a ( separating ?) distance between the 'observer' and the 'thing observed'. The 'observer' tries to establish a relationship with the 'observed' (while subliminally ?) preserving this distance - and so there is conflict and violence.

(Re-recap:) Freedom is beyond thought (as a response of the 'known' ?) ; freedom means ( having a sense of ?) infinite space,( which is ?) not created by the 'observer'. Coming upon this freedom is ( the very purpose of ?) meditation. There is no (free inner ?) space without silence, and this 'silence' is not put together by (the process of ?) 'time- thought'. Time will never give ( the inward space of ?) freedom; ( the sense of inner ?) order is possible only when the ( openness of ?) heart is not covered over with 'words'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 29 Nov 2015 #35
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

Love and the 'reality' of psychological fragmentation

Meditation is a movement in attention; (but this holistic quality of ?) attention is not 'personal'. The 'personal' element comes in only when there is the ( identification with the?) "observer" which ( is trying to control ?) concentrate, or dominate; but all ( such meditative ?) achievement is ( bound to be ?) fragmentary and limited. ( The non-personal quality of ?) attention has no borders, no frontiers to cross; this attention is clarity, as is 'clear' of all thought. Thought can never make for clarity for it has its roots in the dead ( memories of the ?) past; such 'thinking' is an action in the dark. Awareness of this ("psychological" danger ?) is to be ( fully ?) attentive. The ( self-centred ?) attention ( working?) within the field of 'thought' (of the 'known' ?) can be controlled or modified; but being aware of this ( as being ?) 'inattention' is attention. Meditation is not an intellectual process - which is still within the area of thought. Meditation is the freedom from thought (as the conditioned response of the "known" ?) , and a movement in the ecstasy of truth.

It was snowing that morning. A bitter wind was blowing; and the movement upon the trees was a cry for spring. In that light, the trunks of the large beech and the elm had that peculiar quality of grey-green that one finds in old woods where the earth is soft and covered with autumn leaves. Walking among them you had the feeling of the wood - not of the separate individual trees with their particular shapes and forms - but rather of the entire quality of all the trees. Suddenly the sun came out, and there was a vast blue sky towards the east, and in that moment of bright sunlight, spring began. In the quiet stillness of the spring day you felt the beauty of the earth and the sense of unity of the earth and all things upon it. There was no separation between you and the tree and the astonishing colours of the sparkling light on the holly. You, the 'observer', had ceased, and so the ( sense of ?) division, as (my own?) 'space' and "time', had come to an end.


He said he was a religious man - not belonging to any particular organization or belief - but he just felt ( inwardly) 'religious'. Of course he had been through the drill of talking with all the 'religious leaders', yet he had not found the Bliss he sought. He had been a professor at a university, but had given it up to lead a life of meditation and enquiry.

Q: You know, I am always aware of the fragmentation of my ( inner) life, but endlessly struggling to become the whole, an integral part of this universe. I have tried to find my own (true spiritual ?) identity, for modern society is destroying all ( such) identity. So, I wonder if there is a way out of all this division into something that cannot be divided, separated?

K: We have divided (our existence ?) as the 'family life' and the community life, the 'political' and the 'religious' life, peace and war, the endless division of the opposites. Walking along this corridor (of 'opposites') we are trying to bring about a harmony between mind and heart, trying to keep a balance between 'love' and 'envy', trying to create some kind of ( inner) harmony. But what makes this division ( this divisive mentality ?) ? What is the source, the essence, of this fragmentation? What do you think is the root cause of this duality?

Q: Intellectually I can expose the reasons for this division, but it leads nowhere (inwardly ?) . I have played this ( mind) game often, with myself and with others. I have also tried, through meditation to feel the unity of things, to 'be one with everything' - but it was a barren attempt.

K: Of course the (intellectual ?) discovery of the causes of the separation does not necessarily dissolve it. One may know the ( immediate ?) cause of fear, but (deeper down ?) one is still afraid. The intellectual exploration loses its ( quality of ?) 'immediacy' (directness ?) of action when the ( pragmatical ?) 'sharpness' of thought is all that matters. The ( inner) fragmentation of the 'I' ( as the 'observer' or 'thinker' ?) and the 'not-I' (the things 'observed' or 'thought about' ?) is surely the basic cause of this division, though this 'I' tries to identify (to integrate ?) itself with the 'not-I' (such as ) the wife, the family, the community, or a concept of 'God' which thought has made. The 'I' is also striving to find (its true ?) identity, but what it identifies itself with is still a ( mental) concept, a (previously known ?) structure of thought .

But is there (inwardly ?) such a duality at all? Objectively (in the outer world) there is the duality of 'light' and 'darkness' man and woman, etc, but 'psychologically' is there? We accept the (inner reality of this ?) 'psychological' duality as we accept the objective (outer) duality; ( but this acceptance ?) it is part of our ( cultural ?) conditioning. We never question this (embedded cultural ?) conditioning. But is there, psychologically, an actual division? ( Inwardly) there is only 'what is', not 'what should be'. The ( wishful projection of ?) what 'should be' has been put together by thought in order to avoid or the overcome the ( brutal ?) reality of 'what is'. Hence the ( self-imposed ?) struggle between the 'actual' and the ( idealised) 'abstraction'.

( Now, inwardly speaking ? ) the 'actual' (fact) is the 'what is', and everything else is non-real (a non-fact ?) . It is the ( intellectual cultivation of the ?) 'non-real' that brings about the fragmentation (inward splitting ?) , not the actual.
( Eg:) Pain is actual; 'non-pain' is a ( wishful projection ?) of our thought, which brings about the ( inner ?) division between the pain and the state of non-pain. Thought (the automatic response of the 'known' ?) is always separative; it is creating the division between the 'observer' and the 'thing observed'. But actually there is only the 'what is' ( our human heritage ?) , and to see (the truth about ?) 'what is', without thought (splitting itself ?) as the 'observer', is ( leading to ?) the ending of ( our inner) fragmentation.

Thought is not (able to generate ?) 'love'; but thought, as (the obsessive pursuit of sensate ?) pleasure, 'encloses' (blocks out ?) love and ( eventually ?) brings pain within that enclosure. In the negation of what is not (love), what ( love truly ?) 'is' remains. In the negation of what is not love, (the universal significance of ?) 'love' emerges, in which the ( duality/conflict between ?) the 'I' and the 'non-I' ceases.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Nov 2015 #36
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

K Lesson du Jour: All about Sorrow

A meditative mind is silent, but this is not the silence which (the known activity of ?) thought can conceive of; it is not the silence of a still evening; it is that (inward quality of ?) silence when ( the self-centred process of ?) thought - with all its 'images', and (verbal) perceptions - has entirely ceased. This silence of the meditative mind is the explosion of love. It is this love that knows no separation. To it, far is near. It is not the ( love for ?) one or the many, but rather that state of love in which all division ceases. Like beauty, it is not to be measured by words. From this ( loving ?) silence the meditative mind acts.
It had rained the day before and in the evening the sky had been full of clouds. In the distance the hills were covered with clouds of delight, full of light, and as you watched them they were taking different shapes. The setting sun, with its golden light, was touching only one or two mountains of clouds, and they seemed as solid as the dark cypress. As you looked at them you naturally became silent. The vast space and the solitary tree on the hill, the distant dome, and the talking going on around one - were all part of this silence. You knew that the next morning it would be lovely, for the sunset was red. And it was indeed lovely; there wasn't a cloud in the sky and it was very blue. The yellow flowers and the white flowering tree against the dark hedge of cypress, and the smell of spring, filled the land. The dew was on the grass, and slowly spring was coming out of darkness.


He said he had just lost his son who had had a very good job and who would soon have become one of the directors of a large company. He was still under the shock of it, but he had great control over himself. He had been schooled all his life by hard work in some technical work and the complex, subtle, 'psychological' problems of life had hardly touched him. The recent death of his son was an unacknowledged blow.

Q: It is a terrible thing for his wife and children. But how can I explain to them the ending of sorrow, of which you have often talked? I myself have studied and perhaps can understand it, but what of the others who are involved in it?

K: ( The subliminal presence of ?) sorrow is in every house, round every corner. Every human being has this engulfing grief, caused by so many incidents and accidents. Sorrow seems like an endless tide that comes upon man, almost drowning him; and the ( self-) pity ( brought by this ?) sorrow breeds bitterness and cynicism. But is it the sorrow for ( what happened to ?) your son, or for yourself, or for the break in the ( illusory hope of ?) continuing yourself through your son? If it is the sorrow of self-pity, then this self-concern, this isolating factor in life - though (hidden by ?) the outward resemblance of your 'family relationship' - must inevitably cause misery. This ( self-) isolating process, this activity of self-concern in everyday life, this pursuit of one's own self-importance, this separative way of living, whether one is aware of it or not, must bring about a ( subliminal sense of ?) loneliness from which we try to escape in so many different ways. Self-pity is the ache of this loneliness, and this pain is ( generically ?) called 'sorrow'. Then (still deeper ?) there is also the sorrow of 'ignorance' - the 'ignorance' of having accepted ( inwardly the mentality of ?) 'time'- the evolution from 'what is' to 'what should be', the ignorance which makes us accept the ( psychological ) authority (of our cultural tradition ?) with all its violence, the ignorance of not knowing the whole ( inner) structure of oneself.

This is the ( implicit sense of ?) sorrow that man has spread wherever he has been. So you must be clear about which is it that you are caught in? Unless this is clear there is no ending to sorrow. You must be (inwardly) aware of what your sorrow is as clearly as you become aware, sensually, when you touch that flower. Without understanding this whole way of sorrow, how can you end it? You have to lay down the whole 'map of sorrow' and trace every path and road. If you take time to cover this map, then ( thinking about it in terms of ?) time will only strengthen the brutality of sorrow. You have to see this whole Map (of Sorrow) at a glance - seeing first the whole of it and then the details, not the details first and then the whole. In ending sorrow ( the mentality based on ?) 'time' must come to an end. When (thinking about your sorrow in terms of ?) time stops, ( the self-centred ?) process of thought as the 'way' of sorrow, ceases. It is this ( process of self-centred ?) 'thought' and ( a mentality based on ?) 'time' that divide and separate, and love is not thought or time.

(Recap:) To see the whole 'map of sorrow' ( but) not with the eyes of memory. Listen to the whole murmur of it; be of it, for you are both the 'observer' and the ( sorrow that is ?) 'observed'. Then only can sorrow end. There is no other way.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Dec 2015 #37
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The dark side of self-separation ( From 'The Only Revolution', 1969)

Meditation is never prayer. You pray when you are in difficulty, when there is sorrow; but when there is happiness, joy, there is no supplication. The (self-concern ?) so deeply embedded in man, is the root of ( our inner and outer sense of ?) separation. That ( self- 'image' ?) which thinks itself separate, ever seeking identification with (or joining ?) something (greater ?) which is not separate, brings only more pain of division . Out of this confusion one cries to heaven, or to one's husband, or to some deity of the mind. This 'cry' may find an answer, but the answer is the echo of self-pity, in its separation. The isolation of ( our self-centred ?) thought is always ( created ?) within the field of the known, and the ( eventual ?) answer to prayer is the response of the known. Meditation is far from this. In that ( time-free ?) field, ( the self-centred activity of ?) thought cannot enter; there is no separation, and so no 'identity' (no need to identify with anything ?) . Meditation is 'in the open'; secrecy has no place in it. Everything is exposed, clear; then the beauty of love 'is'.


It was an early spring morning with a few flaky clouds moving gently across the blue sky from the west. A cock began to crow, and it was strange to hear it in a crowded town. It began early, and for nearly two hours it kept announcing the "arrival of the day". The trees were still empty, but there were thin, delicate leaves against the clear morning sky. If you were very quiet, without any thought flashing across the mind, you could just hear the deep bell of some cathedral. It must have been far away, and in the short silences between the cock's crowing you could hear the waves of this sound coming towards you and going beyond you - you almost rode on them, going far away, disappearing into the immensities. You didn't hear it with your (sensory ?) ears, you 'heard' it with your heart, not with ( the verbal interference of ?) thought that knows (recognises ?) "the bell" and "the cock", and it was pure sound. It came out of silence and your heart picked it up and went with it from everlasting to everlasting. When you 'hear with your heart', the ( inner ?) world is filled with it and your eyes 'see clearly'.


She was quite a young lady, well turned out, her hair cut short, highly efficient and capable, with a certain a certain quality of seriousness. She talked simply, without any hesitation.

Q: I think I (have inwardly ?) 'committed suicide' a long time ago, when a certain event took place in my life; with that event my life ended. Of course I have carried on outwardly, with the children and all the rest of it, but I have stopped 'living'.

K: Don't you think that most people, knowingly or unknowingly, are always ( inwardly ?) committing (such acts of ?) 'suicide'? It begins, probably, when we build a ( self-protective ?) 'wall' around ourselves behind which we lead our own separate lives - though we may have husbands, wives and children. This ( self-) separative life is a life of ( spiritual ?) 'suicide', and that is (also embedded in ?) the accepted morality of religion and society. Such acts of ( self-) separation are ( part ?) of a ( shared collective ?) chain and ( eventually may ?) lead to war and to self-destruction. Separation is (a form of spiritual ?) 'suicide', whether of the individual or of the community or of the nation. Each one wants to ( 'play safe' by ?) living a life of 'self' identity, of self-centred activity, of the self-enclosing sorrow of conformity. It is 'suicide' when beliefs and dogmas hold you by the hand.

Before that (fateful ?) event, you invested your life and the whole movement of it in the (personal choice of ?) one against the many, and when the ( chosen ?) 'one' dies, 'your' life goes with it and you have nothing left to live for. You, madam - and this is not said in cruelty - ceased to 'exist' ( to stay alive inwardly ?) because you could not get what you wanted; or it was taken away from you; or because you wanted to go through a special 'door' (to happiness ?) which was tightly shut. ( In the same way ) as (personal) sorrow and pleasure are self-enclosing, so 'acceptance' and 'insistence' bring their own darkness of separation. We do not live (inwardly free ?) , we are always committing ( 'psychological' acts of ?) 'suicide'. Living begins when such ( psychological ?) 'acts of suicide' end.

Q: I understand what you mean. I see what I have done. But now what am I to do? How am I to 'come back to life' from these long years of (inner) 'death'?

K: You can't 'come back'; if you 'came back' you would ( probably ?) follow the old pattern, and sorrow would pursue you as a cloud is driven by the wind. The only ( wise ?) thing you can do is to see ( the truth ?) that to lead one's own life, separately, constantly demanding the continuity of pleasure, is to invite the separation of ( the spiritual counterpart of ?) death. In ( such self-centred ?) separation there is no Love. Love has no 'identity'.
( Recap:) The (instinctive drive to ?) seek pleasure (and/or inner safety is naturally leading to leads to ?) building the enclosing 'walls' of ( self-)separation. But there is no ( such inner ?) 'death' when all commitment ceases. Knowing oneself is the Open Door.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Dec 2015 #38
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

K Lesson du Jour: On Fragmentation

Meditation is the ending of the 'word' ( of 'verbalising' ?) . Silence is not induced by any word, the 'word' being ( the product of ?) thought. The action out of silence is entirely different from the 'action' born of the ( cultural background of ?) words; meditation is the freeing of the mind from all (psychological ? ) images and remembrances.

It was a spring morning and the hills were covered with flowering almonds, cherries and apples. The whole earth was tremendously alive. The cypresses were (looking ?) stately and aloof, but the flowering trees were touching branch to branch, and the rows of poplars were casting swaying shadows. There was scent in the air, and every hill was different from the others. On some of them stood houses surrounded by olives and rows of cypresses leading to the house. The road wound through all these soft hills. It was a sparkling morning, full of intense beauty, and there seemed to be an extraordinary order, but the whole chain of ( man's inner disorder and/or ?) misery was stretching unseen from house to house. Spring, summer, autumn and winter never broke this chain. But that morning ( in Nature ) there was a rebirth. Those tender leaves never knew the winter nor the coming autumn; they were vulnerable and therefore innocent.

He was an artist, a painter. He said he had a talent for it as another might have a talent for the building of bridges. He had long hair, delicate hands and was ( comfortably ?) enclosed within the (day dreaming ?) of his own gifts. He would come out of it - talk, explain - and then go back into his own 'den'. He said his paintings were selling and he had had several one-man exhibitions. He was rather proud of this, and his voice told of it.

K: There is the 'artist' and the 'museum-keeper', the 'orchestra conductor' (etc... ?), each ( safely ?) living within a fragment of life, each fragment becoming extraordinarily 'important', having its own honours, its own social dignity, its own 'prophets'. The 'religious' fragment is unrelated to the 'factory' (one) , and the 'factory' (fragment is unrelated ) to the 'artist'; society is made up of these 'fragments', with the 'reformer' trying to patch up the broken pieces. But through(out) these 'specialized' parts, the human being carries on with his ( personal) anxieties, guilt and apprehensions.

(However ?) in the ( 'psychological' area?) we are all 'related' in our common greed, (competitivity ?) and aggression, and this ( shared heritage of ?) violence builds the culture and the society in which we live. It is our ( dualistic mentality ?) that divides the 'mind' from the 'heart' , and in this ( self-induced ?) duality the whole culture of man expands and/or contracts. The unity of mankind is not (to be found ?) in any of the (fragmentary ) structures which the (human ?) 'mind' has invented. Between 'love' and 'hate' there can be no unity, and yet this is what the ( fragmentary?) mind is trying to find and establish. ( An authentic sense of ?) unity lies ( in stepping ?) outside this field (of dualistical experience ?) , but ( the self-centred ?) thought (process) cannot reach it. ( The fragmentary process of human ?) thought has constructed this culture of aggression , competition and war, and yet this same 'thought' is groping after order and peace. But thought will never find order and peace, do what it will. Thought ( the mechanical response of the 'known' ?) must be 'silent' for love to be.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Dec 2015 #39
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: On Silence ( From the Only Rev, 1969)

Meditation is always new. It has not the touch of the past for it has no "continuity". It is like the light of a candle which has been put out and relit. The new light is not the old, though the candle is the same. Meditation has a 'continuity' only when thought shapes it and gives it a 'purpose'. The 'purpose' and 'meaning' of meditation given by ( our self-centred thinking or ?) 'thought' becomes a 'time-binding' bondage ( or a lucrative endeavour ?) . But the ( authentic ?) meditation that is not touched by thought has its own ( vertical ?) 'movement', which is not of time. Time implies a ( "horizontal" ?) movement flowing from the roots of 'yesterday' to 'tomorrow'. But ( the time-free action of ?) meditation is a different flowering altogether. It is not the outcome of the experience of yesterday, and therefore it has no roots at all in time. It has a 'continuity' (a consistency ?) which is not that of time. The 'meditation of today' is a new awakening, a new flowering of the beauty of goodness.


It was a spring morning, and there were great patches of bluebells in the wood, and beside the wood was the yellow mustard field, stretching almost to the horizon; and then the green wheatfield that stretched as far as the eye could see. The road passed villages and towns, and a side road led to a lovely wood with new fresh spring leaves and the smell of damp earth; and there was that peculiar feeling of spring, and the newness of life. You were very close to nature then as you watched the trees, the new delicate leaf, and the stream that went by. It was not a romantic feeling or an imaginative sensation, but actually you 'were' (one with ?) all this - the blue sky and the expanding earth.

He was a big man with very large hands, and he filled that enormous chair. He had a kindly face and he was interested in that peculiar philosophy of the origin and acceptance of Silence - which probably he had never come upon.

K: You can't buy silence as you would buy a good cheese. The (sense of inner ?) silence that music produces as you listen to it is the (by-) product of that music, induced by it. Silence isn't a (personal ?) 'experience'; you know it only when it is over.
Do sit, sometime, on the bank of a river and look into the water. Don't get 'hypnotized' by the movement of the water, by the light, the clarity and the depth of the stream. Look at it without any ( interfering ?) movement of thought. The silence is all round you, in you, in the river, and in those trees that are utterly still. You can't 'hold it' in your mind and think you have achieved some extraordinary state. If you have, then it is not ( a living ?) silence; then it is merely a romantic escape from the daily noise of (your) life.

Because of ( the inner space of ?) Silence everything exists. The music you heard this morning came to you out of silence, and you heard it because you were silent, and it went beyond you in silence.
Only that we don't listen to this ( inward ?) 'silence' because our ears are full of the chatter of our mind. When you love, and there is no ( free inner space of ?) silence, thought makes of it a plaything of a society whose culture is (based on greed and/or ?) envy and whose 'gods' are put together by the mind and the hand. Silence is where you are, in yourself and beside yourself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Dec 2015 #40
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

Two K Lessons du Jour (from The Only Revolution, 1969) Intelligence and Relationship

Meditation is the summation of all (one's inner ressources of ?) energy. It is not to be gathered little by little, denying this and denying that, capturing this and holding on to that; but rather, it is the total denial, without any choice, of all wasteful (loops of ?) energy. ( Inwardly speaking ?) 'choice' is the outcome of confusion; and the essence of this wasteful energy is confusion and conflict. To see clearly what 'is' at any time needs the ( integrated ?) attention of all energy; and in this there is no contradiction or duality. This ( integration of our ?) 'total energy' does not come about through the action of 'will' because ( our self-centred ?) thought is involved in it, and ( such ?) thought is wasted energy: perception never is. There is no "I will see", but only 'seeing'. ( Direct ?) observation puts aside (by-passes ?) the 'observer', and in this there is no waste of energy. The ( all-controlling ?) 'thinker' who attempts to observe, spoils this energy. Love is not wasted energy, but when thought makes it into pleasure, then pain dissipates energy. The summation of energy in meditation is ever expanding, and one's action in everyday life becomes part of it.


The poplar this morning was being stirred by the breeze that came from the west. Every leaf was telling something to the breeze; every leaf was dancing, restless in its joy of the spring morning. The blackbird on the roof was singing. It was there every morning and evening, sometimes sitting quietly looking all around and at other times calling and waiting for a reply. It would be there for several minutes and then fly off. Now its yellow beak was bright in the early light. As it flew away the clouds were coming over the roof, the horizon was filled with them, one on top of another, as though someone had very carefully arranged them in neat order. They were moving, and it seemed as if the whole earth was being carried by them - the chimneys, the television antennae and the very tall building across the way. They presently passed, and there was the blue, spring sky, clear, with the light freshness that only spring can bring. It was extraordinarily blue and, at that time of the morning, the street outside was almost silent. You could hear the noise of feet on the pavement and in the distance a lorry went by. The day would soon begin. As you looked out of the window at the poplar you saw the ( living ?) universe, the beauty of it.


Q: What is to you 'intelligence'? You talk a great deal about it and I would like to know your opinion of it.

K: However good and reasonable, opinion is not the truth. Opinion is always biased, coloured by the culture, the education, the knowledge which one has. Why should the mind be burdened (loaded ?) with opinions at all, why shouldn't the mind be empty? Only when it is empty can it see clearly.

Q: My opinion of the present political leader has been formed by what he has said and done, and without that opinion I would not be able to vote for him. Opinions are necessary for action, aren't they?

K: Our opinions can be cultivated, sharpened and hardened, and most actions (resulting from these ?) are based on the principle of 'like and dislike' ( freedom of choice ?) . The 'hardening' ( crystalisation ?) of our experience and knowledge expresses itself in action, but such action (based on past experience ?) divides , separates and prevents the observation of what actually is. The seeing of 'what (actually) is' is part of that ( quality of ?) 'intelligence' which you are asking about. There is no ( holistic ?) Intelligence if there is no sensitivity of the body and of the mind - the sensitivity of feeling and the clarity of ( direct) observation. Being sensitive in one area and dull in another leads to ( an internal) contradiction and ( to an inner state of ?) conflict - which deny intelligence. The ( effort to ?) integrate the many broken parts ( of our psyche ?) into a whole does not bring about intelligence. (The total) sensitivity (of one's being ?) is attention, which is intelligence. This 'intelligence' has nothing to do with ( the amount of accumulated ?) knowledge or information. Knowledge is always the (result of the ?) past (human experience ?) ; it can be 'called upon' to act in the present but it also limits the present. ( The perceptive action of ?) intelligence is always in the present, and not of time.


Meditation is (an unique opportunity for ?) freeing of the mind from all dishonesty. ( The 'self'-centred process of ?) thought breeds dishonesty. Thought, in its attempts to be 'honest' , is comparative and therefore (is subliminally ?) dishonest. All ( outward ?) comparison is a process of ( self-?) evasion and hence breeds dishonesty. Honesty is not the ( intellectual ?) opposite of dishonesty, but rather it is the total perception of 'what is'. And meditation is the movement (the inward activity ?) of this ( perceptive ?) 'honesty' in silence.


The day began rather cloudy and dull, and the naked trees were silent in the wood. Through the wood you could see crocuses, daffodils and bright yellow forsythia. You looked at it all from a distance and it was a patch of yellow against a green lawn. As you came close to it you were blinded by the brightness of that yellow - which was 'God' (the expression of Divinity ?) . It was not that you identified yourself with the colour, or that you became the expanse that filled the universe with yellow - but there was no 'you' to look at it. Only 'it' (the colour ?) existed, and nothing else - not the voices around you, not the blackbird singing its melody of the morning, not the voices of the passers-by, not the noisy car that scraped by you on the road. 'It' existed, nothing else. And beauty and love were (included ?) in that 'existence'. You walked back into the wood. The ground was soft with winter's leaves, and here the earth seemed very old. There were few birds. The blackbird was calling, and the sky was clearing.
When you went back in the evening the sky was very clear and the light on these huge trees was strange and full of silent movement. Light is an extraordinary thing; the more you watch it the deeper and vaster it becomes; and in its 'movement' the trees were caught. It was startling; no canvas could have caught the beauty of that Light. It was more than the light of the setting sun; it was as though Love was on the land. You saw again that yellow patch of forsythia, and the earth rejoiced.


She came with her two daughters but left them to play outside. She was a young woman, rather nice-looking and quite well dressed; she seemed rather impatient and capable. She said her husband worked in some kind of office, and life went by. She had a peculiar sadness which was covered up with a swift smile.

Q: What is ( the truth about the human ?) 'relationship'? I have been married to my husband for some years now. I suppose we love each other - but there is something terribly lacking in it.

K: You really want to go into this deeply?

Q: Yes, I have come a long way to talk to you about it.

K: Your husband works in his office, and you work in your house, both of you with your ( personal) ambitions, frustrations, agonies and fears. He wants to be a big executive, enclosed in his search for ( professional) fulfilment, and you in yours. He comes home tired, irritable, with ( a sense of incertitude and ?) fear in his heart, and brings home that tension. You also are tired after your long day, with the children, and all the rest of it. You and he take a drink to ease your nerves, and fall into uneasy conversation. After some talk - food, and then the inevitable 'bed'. This is what is ( generally ?) called 'relationship' - each one having in his own self-centred activity and ( eventually ?) meeting in bed; this (whole ' family package' ?) is called 'love'. Of course, there is a little tenderness, a little consideration, a pat or two on the head for the children. Then there will follow old age and death. This is what is ( generally ) called 'living'. And you ( subliminally ?) accept this way of life.

Q: But what else can one do? We are brought up in it, educated for it. We want security, some of the good things of life. I don't see what else one can do.

K: Is it (our deeply embedded?) 'desire for security' that binds us? Or is it the ( implicit ?) acceptance of the pattern of society - the idea of 'having a family'? Surely in all this there is very little happiness?

Q: There is some happiness, but there is too much to do, too many things to see to. There is so much to read if one is to be well-informed. There isn't much time to think (it all over ?) . Obviously one is not really happy, but one just carries on.

K: So, all this is called 'living in relationship' - but obviously there is no ( true ?) relationship at a deeper and wider level. It is the fault of society, isn't it, of the ( superficial ?) culture in which we have been brought up and in which we so easily get caught? It is a corrupt and immoral society which human beings have created and it cannot be changed unless the human being who has built it changes himself.

Q: I may perhaps understand what you say, and maybe change, but what of him? It gives him great pleasure to strive, to achieve, to become somebody. He is not going to change, and so we are back again where we were - l, feebly attempting to break through my enclosure, and he more and more strengthening his narrow cell of life. What is the point of it all?

K: There is no point in this kind of existence at all. We have made this life, the everyday brutality and ugliness of it, with occasional flashes of delight; so we must (psychologically ?) 'die' to it all. You know, madam, ( inwardly speaking ?) there is no 'tomorrow'. 'Tomorrow' is the 'invention' (projection ?) of ( our self-centred ?) thought in order to achieve its shoddy (materialistic ?) ambitions and fulfilment. Thought builds the (collective illusion ?) of many ( possibly better ?) 'tomorrows', but actually there is no ( such ?) 'tomorrow'. To ( inwardly ?) 'die' to ( your personal expectations for a better ?) 'tomorrow' is to live completely 'today'. When you do this, the whole (significance ?) of our existence changes. For Love is not ( to be found ?) 'tomorrow', love has no 'past' or 'future'. When you live completely today there is a great intensity in it, and in its beauty - which is untouched by ambition, by jealousy or by time - there is relationship not only with man but with nature, with the flowers, the earth and the heavens. In that ( sense of unity with All that Is ?) there is the intensity of innocence; living, then, has a wholly different meaning.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Dec 2015 #41
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

A new K Lesson du Jour: Meditating from the Unknown ( From The Only Revolution - 1969)

You can never ( purposefully ?) 'set about' to meditate: it must 'happen' without your seeking it out. If you ask 'how' to meditate, then the ( adopted ?) 'method' will not only condition you further but also ( may ?) strengthen your own present conditioning. ( The essential action of an 'insight'- based ?) meditation is the denial of the whole structure of ( the 'self'-centred ?) thought. This process of thought can be reasonable or unreasonable, but when it tries to 'meditate', it will take its own ( ego-centric ?) structure as a 'serious' (given ?) reality. It is like a believer meditating upon his own belief; he strengthens and sanctifies that which he has created. The sound (induced by words ?) makes its own cage, and then the noise of thought is of the cage, and it is this (verbal process ?) and its 'sound' which divides the 'observer' and the 'observed'. ( Inwardly ?) the 'word' is not only a ( conventional ?) unit of language, but also a ( powerful ?) symbol, an (emotionally charged ?) recollection of any event which unleashes the movement of thought. Meditation is the complete absence of this 'word' ( of the 'psycho-verbal' process ?) . The root of fear is ( embedded within ?) this 'machinery of words'.

It was early spring and in the Bois (de Boulogne ) it was strangely gentle. There were few new leaves, and the sky was not yet that intense blue that comes with the delight of spring. The ( flowers of the ?) chestnuts were not yet out, but the early smell of spring was in the air. In that part of the Bois there was hardly anybody, and you could hear the cars going by in the distance. We were walking in the early morning and there was that gentle sharpness of the early spring. He had been discussing, questioning, and asking what he should do (inwardly ?) .

Q: It seems so endless, this constant self-analysis, introspective examination, this ( inner ?) 'vigilance'. I have tried several systems of meditation and it leaves one rather dry-mouthed and hollow.

K: Why don't you begin ( to meditate ?) from the 'other shore' which you cannot probably see from 'this shore' ? Begin with the 'unknown' (from 'not-knowing' ?) rather than with the 'known', for this constant self-examination, ( 'psycho'-) analysis, only strengthens and further conditions the ( anchoring in the ?) known. If the ( meditating ?) mind lives (inwardly) from the 'other end', then all these ( psychological ?) problems will not exist.

Q: But how am I to 'begin from the other end'? I don't know it, I can't see it.

K: When you ask: "How am I to begin from the other end?" you are still asking the question from this ( 'known' shore ?). So don't ( bother to ?) ask , but ( just ?) start from the other shore (of 'Not-knowing' ?), from that (inward ?) dimension which the cunning ( 'self'-centred?) thought cannot capture.

Q: I just can't see how I am going to 'begin from that end'. I don't really understand your vague (metaphorical ?) statement which to me is quite meaningless. I can 'go' only towards something that I know (or intuit ?) .

K: But ( inwardly ?) what do you ( actually ?) know? You 'know' only about something which is already finished, which is over. You know only the (things you experienced ?) 'yesterday', and we are saying: Begin from that (state of mind in ?) which you 'don't know', and live from there. If you say: "How am I to live from there?" then you are inviting the patterns of yesterday. But if you 'live with the unknown' you are ( inwardly ?) living in freedom, acting from freedom, and, after all, that is ( the holistic action of ?) love. Surely love is not a ( personal ?) memory, a remembrance of pleasure. Since it isn't, then live with that ( inner actuality ?) which you don't 'know'.

Q: I really don't know what you are talking about. You are making the problem worse (sound impossible ?) .

K; l'm asking you a very simple thing. I'm saying that the more you 'dig' (analitically ?) , the more there is. This very 'digging' is the (central activity of self-centred ?) conditioning, and each 'shovelful' creates ( still deeper ?) steps which lead nowhere (in terms of direct inward perception ?) . You want new steps made for you which will lead to a totally different ( inner ?) dimension. But if you actually don't know what that dimension is then whatever 'steps' you tread can lead only to something which is already known. So 'drop all this' (self-analytical approach ?) and start from the 'other end'. Just be ( inwardly ?) 'silent', and ( eventually ?) you will find it out.

Q: But I don't know how to be 'silent'!

K: There you are, back again in the ('self'-motivated attempt to "know- ?) how", and there is no end to this "how".
( In a nutshell: ) All 'knowing' is on the wrong side ( of Spirituality ?) . If you 'know', you are ( inwardly ?) already in your 'grave'. The (spiritual essence of ?) 'being' is not ( to be found in ?) the 'knowing'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 08 Dec 2015 #42
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lessons du Jour: On Meditation and Seeking

To meditate is to transcend ( the inner continuity of ?) time. ( This continuity of ) 'time' is the ( self-projected ?) distance that thought travels in its achievements. The travelling is always along the old path covered over with new sights, but always the same road, (inwardly ?) leading nowhere - except to (an accumulation of ?) pain and sorrow. It is only when the mind transcends (this illusory ?) 'time' that Truth ceases to be a (philosophical ?) abstraction. Then Bliss is an actuality that is not verbal. The emptying of the mind of ( these active 'psycho-residues' of ?) time is (opening the door to ?) the Silence of Truth, and the seeing of this (truth ?) is (simultaneous with ?) the doing- there is no (temporal ?) division between the seeing and the doing. In the interval ( time delay ?) between 'seeing' ( the inner 'facts' as true or false?) and the 'doing' is born conflict, misery and confusion. That ( inner state of mind ?) which has no 'time' is the Everlasting.

On every table there were daffodils, young, fresh, just out of the garden, with the bloom of spring on them and nobody seemed to care. They were there for decorative purposes but as you watched them their yellow brilliance filled the noisy (dining ) room. Colour has this strange effect upon the eye, it seemed to fill your being. You 'were' that colour, you were the anonymity which is innocence. Where there is no ( inner quality of ?) 'anonymity' there is ( the outward response of ?) violence, in all its different forms. But you forgot the ( real ?) world, the smoke-filled room and the ( 'civilised' ?) cruelty of man; those shapely daffodils seemed to take you beyond all time. Love is like that. In it there is no ( psychological ?) 'time', 'space' or 'identity'. It is the ( sense of ?) 'identity' that breeds pleasure and pain; it is this (self-centred ?) 'identity' that brings hate and wars and builds a ( separating ?) 'wall' around people, around each family and community.

Love isn't like that; it is like that wood across the way, always renewing itself because it is always 'dying' (to its own past ?) . There is no (sense of time- ?) 'permanency' in it; it is a movement (of the heart ?) which (the self-centred process of ?) 'thought' can never understand, touch or feel. The 'feelings' of (induced by our self-centred ?) thought and the 'feeling' of love are two ( qualitatively ?) different things; one leads to ( "psychological" ?) bondage and the other to the flowering of Goodness. This (inner ?) flowering is not ( to be found ) within the ( outward ?) area of any society, of any culture or of any religion, whereas the ( thought-time?) 'bondage' belongs to all societies, religious beliefs and faiths in 'otherness'. Love is ( essentially ?) 'anonymous' (non-personal ?) , therefore not violent. ( The instinctive human drive for ?) pleasure (however) 'is' violent, for desire and will are its moving factors. Love cannot be begotten by thought, or by good works. The denial of the (self- identification with the self-centred ?) process of thought becomes the beauty of action, which is love. Without this there is no bliss of truth.


Meditation is the (inward ?) awakening of Bliss; it is both of the ( inner flowering of the ?) senses and transcending them. It has no 'continuity', for it is not of ( the order of ?) time. The happiness and the joy of relationship, the sight of a cloud carrying the earth, and the light of spring on the leaves, are the delight of the eye and of the mind. This ( sense of ?) 'delight' can be cultivated (or recycled ?) by thought and given a duration in the ( mental) space of memory, but it is not the Bliss of Meditation in which is included the ( integrated ?) intensity of the senses. The 'freedom' ( flowering of ?) the senses is not ( synonimous with ?) the indulgence of them: the indulgence is ( brough by the ?) pleasure (drive) of thought. Thought is like the smoke of a fire, while Bliss is the ( inward ?) fire without the ( outward ?) 'cloud of smoke' that brings tears to the eyes.

( To recap:) Pleasure is the bondage of thought, and Bliss is beyond and above thought. The foundation of meditation is the understanding of ( the self-centred component of ?) thought and of ( its subliminal drive for ?) pleasure. The Bliss of Meditation is not of time or duration; it is beyond both and therefore not measurable. Its ( timeless ?) 'ecstasy' is not in the eye of the 'beholder', nor is it an experience of the 'thinker'. This Bliss comes out of complete silence.

It was a lovely morning with fleeting clouds and a clear blue sky. It had rained, and the air was clean. Every leaf was new and the dreary winter was over; each leaf knew, in the sparkling sunshine, that it had no relation to last year's spring. The dividing line between man and nature disappeared; but the man driving his car, and the woman returning from market, were unaware of this. They ( probably) were carrying their problems in their hearts, and the 'heart' never looked at the brightening spring day. The ( implicit ?) sadness of it was that they bred these children and these children would soon become the man driving his racing car and the woman returning from the market; and their world would be dark again. Therein lay the unending (time-bindingness of ?) sorrow. The love on that leaf would be blown away with the coming autumn.

He was a young man with a wife and children. He seemed highly educated, intellectual, and good at the use of words. He said he had always been seeking - not only philosophical truths but the Truth that was beyond the word and the system.

K: I suppose you are seeking because you are discontented?

Q: Not exactly . I can't say even what I'm seeking; it seems I was born with this, and though I am happily married, the search still goes on. I have talked it over with some clever philosophers and with 'religious missionaries' coming from the East, and they have all told me to continue in my search and never stop seeking. After all these years it is still a constant (inner) 'disturbance'.

K: But, should one 'seek' at all? Seeking is always for 'something over there' on the other bank, in the 'distance' ( supposed to be ?) covered by time and long strides. The seeking and the finding are ( both projected?) in the future - this is the essential meaning of 'seeking'. There is the (mediocre ?) present and the thing to be found in the future. ( Our awareness of ?) the 'present' is not fully active and alive and so, of course, that which is 'beyond the hill' is more alluring and demanding.

Q: Are you saying, sir, that it is vain to seek; that there is no hope in the future; that all time is in the present?

K: All life is ( unfolding itself ?) in the present, not in the shadows of yesterday or in the 'brightness' of tomorrow's hope. ( However ?) to (fully ?) 'live in the present' one has to be free of the 'past', and of 'tomorrow'. Nothing ( of spiritual significance ?) is found in the 'tomorrow', for this 'tomorrow' is the ( projection of what we are in the ?) present, while ( what we were ?) 'yesterday' is only an (constantly 'refreshed' ?) remembrance. So the ( psychological ?) 'distance' between 'that which is to be found' and 'that which is', is made ever wider by (our 'self'-projected ?) 'search' - however pleasant and comforting that search may be. To seek the "purpose of life' is one of the odd escapes of man. If he finds what he seeks it will not be worth that pebble on the path. To 'live in the present' the mind must not be 'divided' (split inwardly ?) by the remembrances of yesterday or the bright hopes of tomorrow. (In a nutshell:) it must ( psychologically ?) have no 'tomorrow' and no 'yesterday'. This is not a poetic statement but an actual fact. Love is that beauty ( of living ?) in the present which is not to be found in the ( intellectual process of ? ) 'seeking'.

Q: I think I'm beginning to see the futility of the years I have spent in this (dualistic ?) 'search', in the questions I have asked of myself and of others, and the futility of the 'answers'.

K: The ending ( of the 'known' ?) is the beginning (of something New ?); this beginning (anew ?) is the first step, and this 'first step' ( out of the 'known' ?) is the only ( necessary ?) step.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 Dec 2015 #43
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: The seeing is the doing ( From 'The Only Revolution' 1969)

He was rather an (intellectually ?) blunt man, but full of interest and drive. He had been to the East and knew a little about Indian philosophy, had read the so-called sacred books and had followed some guru or other. And here he was now, in this little room overlooking a verdant valley smiling in the morning sun. It was a quiet valley, especially at this time of the year, full of silence, and the sound of cow-bells, and the smell of pine and new mown grass. There was delight in the air and the beauty of the land lay upon one's senses. The eye saw the blue sky and the green earth, and there was rejoicing.

Q: I have listened to you for some years, in different parts of the world, and I have 'absorbed' a great deal of what you have said and it has almost become part of me. So I seem to lead a double life; there is the ordinary activity, family, work, and so on, and on the other hand there is the teaching that you have been giving, in which I am deeply interested. Now, if I just 'follow' your teachings then I'm the same as any Catholic who conforms to a dogma. So, from what ( ground ?) does one act in daily life if one lives the teaching without simply conforming to it ?

K: There is only learning: such learning is the doing. The ( directly perceptive act of ?) learning is not separate from the action. If they are (offset or ?) separate, then our learning is ( based on ) a set of 'ideals' according to which action takes place, whereas if 'learning' is (inwardly integrated with the ?) the 'doing' there is no conflict. You cannot (actually ?) learn about yourself except in action. It is not that you first learn (gather informations ?) about yourself and then act from that knowledge, for such action becomes imitative, conforming to your ( choice of ?) accumulated knowledge.

Q: But, sir, every moment I am directly challenged, by this or by that, I respond ( instinctively ?) as I always have done - which often means conflict. So, I'd like to understand the pertinence (validity ?) of what you say about learning in these everyday ( 'real life' ?) situations.

K: Challenges are always new (unexpected ?) but (our self-centred ?) responses are inadequate, and therefore there is conflict. So, what is there is to learn ? There is the learning about how these responses come into being, about their (subliminal ?) background of conditioning, so there is a learning about the whole structure and nature of the (psychological ?) response. However, this 'learning' is not ( resulting into ?) an accumulation (of knowledge ) from which you are going to respond to the ( future ?) challenges. Learning (by direct perception ?) is a movement which is not anchored in knowledge. If it is anchored it is not a living movement. The 'intelligent' machine, the computer, is anchored (in its preset programming ?) . That is the basic difference between man and the machine. Learning is watching, seeing, but if you look from ( the safe background of the ?) accumulated knowledge then the seeing is limited (to a practical functionality ?) so there is nothing (qualitatively ?) 'new' in it.

Q: You said that one learns about the whole structure of ( one's psychological) responses. This means there is a certain accumulated volume of whatever is learnt. But on the other hand the 'learning' you speak of is so fluid that it accumulates nothing at all?

K: Our (present ?) 'education' is (based on ?) gathering volumes of knowledge, but the computers do this faster and more accurately. What need is there for such an ( outdated ?) 'education'? Eventually the machines are going to take over most of the ( demanding ?) activities of man. So, when we (assume ?) that learning is ( mainly concerned with ) gathering knowledge, aren't we denying the (non-mechanical ) movement of life, which is ( expressing itself in ?) relationship and behaviour? If our relationship is based on our previous experience and knowledge, then is there a 'true' relationship? ( Our psychological ?) memory is (essentially based on ?) images and words, and if our relationship is 'tethered' to this 'memory', ( the freedom of ?) its movement is limited and it becomes agonizing.

Q: Are you not contradicting yourself when you say that one learns in observing the whole structure of one's responses, and at the same time say that learning precludes accumulation?

K: The seeing of the ( existing 'psychological' ?) structure is alive, it is moving; but when that seeing adds (o reinforces ?) this (existing) structure then the (continuity of the ?) structure becomes far more important than the ( action of direct ?) seeing, which is the living. So, there is no contradiction. What we are saying is that the ( direct, non-verbal ?) 'seeing' is far more important than the (continuity of the 'psychological' ?) structure. When you give importance to the (academical ?) learning about the structure and not to learning as ( the direct action of ?) 'seeing', then there is a contradiction; then seeing is one thing and learning about the structure is another.
(To recap:) We said the 'seeing' is (undivided from) the 'acting'; the two things are not separate . Then this seeing is always new and so the acting is always new. Therefore the seeing of the everyday response brings out (or awakens ?) the ( creativity of the ?) 'new', which is what you call 'spontaneity'.

( Here is a practical example: ) at the very moment of ( the instinctive response of ?) anger there is no ( mental) recognition of it as 'anger'. The ( verbalised ?) 'recognition' takes place a few seconds later as "being angry". Now, is there an actual 'seeing' of that anger, a choiceless awareness of that anger, or is it ( a mental processing based on ?) 'choice', based on the old? If it is based on the old, then all the ( previously 'known' ) responses to that anger - repression, control, indulgence and so on - are the traditional activity. But when the ( quality of inward ?) seeing is "choiceless", there is only the ( perception of something ?) 'new' . From all this arises another ( metaphysically ?) interesting problem: our dependence on ( shocks or ?) 'challenges' to keep us awake, to pull us out of our daily routine, tradition, established order, either through (social) revolt, or some other (more natural ?) upheavals.

Q: Is it possible for the human mind not to depend on challenges at all?

K: It is possible (but only ?) when the mind is undergoing a constant (inward renewal ?) and has no (psychological need for ?) safe anchorage, vested interests or ( self-) commitments. An awakened mind, a mind which is 'alight' (a light for itself ?) - what need has it of 'challenges' of any kind?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Dec 2015 #44
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: Meditation and the 'psychological' significance of Death

Meditation is the (inward?) action of Silence. We (usually ?) act (inwardly ?) out of opinions, conclusions or speculative intentions. This inevitably results in ( multiple inner ?) contradictions between 'what is' ( what we 'are' ?) and 'what ( we) should be'. This action out of (our experience of the ?) past called 'knowledge' is 'mechanical', capable of adjustment and modification but having its roots in the past. And so the shadows of the past always covers the present. In our daily relationship this action is the outcome of the images an conclusions; relationship then is becoming a thing of the past, not a living (interaction) . Out of this inner disarray and contradiction ( the utilitary daily ?) activities proceed, breaking up into social institutions and religious dogmas. From this endless ( socio-cultural ?) noise, the "revolution" (promising ?) a new social order is made to appear as though it really were something new, but as it is ( a mere translation within the field of the known ?) it is not a real change at all.

A change (within human consciousness ?) is possible only when denying (or 'dying' to ?) the known; action then is not according to a pattern but out of a (spiritual ?) Intelligence that is constantly renewing itself. ( Such?) intelligence is not a matter of discernment or critical evaluation but the seeing of (the truth regaring ?) 'what is'. The 'what is' (within the human psyche ?) is constantly changing, and when our seeing is anchored in the past, the intelligence of seeing ceases. Then the dead weight of memory dictates the action and not the intelligence of (direct ?) perception. Meditation is the seeing of all this ( inner/outer confusion ?) at a glance. But to see it, there must be silence, and from this silence there is ( a quality of ?) action which is entirely different from the activities of thought.

He was a well-known ( Italian ) film director very friendly, with a ready smile. Like all the more 'sensitive' film directors he was concerned with the unconscious, with fantastic dreams and conflicts to be expressed in his pictures. He had studied the 'gods' of the analysts and had taken drugs himself ( but only ?) for 'experimental' purposes...

K: The human mind is heavily conditioned by the culture it lives in - by its traditions, by its economic conditions and especially by its religious propaganda. The (modern human ?) mind strenuously objects to being a slave to the tyranny of the State, yet it may accept the ( psychological ?) 'tyranny' of the Church or of the latest 'fashionable' psychiatric dogmas. This (fragmented human ?) mind, which has created such havoc in the world, is basically frightened of (inwardly facing ?) itself.

Amidst all this (global) turmoil of wars, dissensions and utter selfishness, there is the main (unsolved ?) issue of 'death'.
The various 'religions' give us a ready-made answer to this issue; but ( the inner challenge of ?) 'death' is not answerable by the intellect; it is a 'fact', and you cannot get round it. You have to 'die' ( inwardly ?) to find what ( the truth about ?) death is, and that, apparently, man cannot (or is not willing to ?) do, for he is ( subliminally ?) frightened of 'dying' (or letting go ?) everything he knows, (especially ?) his most intimate hopes and visions.

( Inwardly ?) there is really no 'tomorrow', although many (calendaristic ?) "tomorrows" are between the 'now' of life and the 'future' ( of the physical?) death. In this ( time) dividing (interval) man lives with anxiety, but always keeps an eye on that ( 'ending' ?) which is inevitable. To 'die' to everything one knows is ( the 'psychological' experience of ?) death. To invite the (inward actuality of ?) 'death' to cover the whole of 'today' is the total ( inward ?) dying; then there is no ( 'time') gap between life and death. Then death 'is'( integrated with ?) living and living 'is' death.

Apparently, no one is willing to do this . Yet man is always seeking the (creativity of the ?) 'new'; holding in one hand the 'old' and groping with the other into the Unknown for the 'new'. So there is an inevitable conflict of duality between the fact and the what should be. This (inner) turmoil completely ceases when there is the 'ending of the known'. This 'ending' is ( the 'psychological' essence of ?) death and you cannot possibly escape from it by clinging to the ('known') things of today, which are of yesterday, nor by worshipping the ( commercialised ?) symbols of 'hope'.

( In a nutshell:) One has to die to 'death' (to the 'known' ?) ; only then is Innocence born, only then does the timeless 'New' come into (one's ) being. Love is always 'new', but the (mental ?) 'remembrance' of love is the death of love.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Dec 2015 #45
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: On Love & Beauty

It was a wide, luxuriant ( Swiss ) meadow with green hills round it. That morning it was brilliant, sparkling with dew, and the birds were singing to the heavens and to the earth. In this meadow with so many flowers, there was a single tree, majestic and alone. It was really a splendid tree with its late spring leaves all aflutter in the breeze, healthy; it wasn't clothed in the robes of majesty but it was in itself splendid and imposing. With the evening it would withdraw into itself, silent and unconcerned, though there might be a gale blowing; and as the sun rose it would wake up too and give out its luxuriant blessing over the meadow, over the hills, over the earth. Though your eyes had seen more lovely things, it was not the 'accustomed eye' that saw this tree, alone, immense and full of wonder. As you went and sat in its shadow, your back against the trunk, you felt the earth, the power in that tree, and its great aloofness. It was really a good place for meditation if you know how to meditate. It was very quiet, and your mind also became quiet, uninfluenced by the surroundings, a part of that brilliant morning, with the dew still on the grass and on the reeds. There would ( perhaps ?) always be that ' sense of ?) beauty there, in the meadow with that tree.


He was a middle-aged man, well kept, trim and dressed with good taste. He said he had travelled a great deal though not on any particular business. His father had left him a little money and he had seen a bit of the world, not only what lay upon it but also all those rare things in the very rich museums. He said he liked music and played occasionally.

Q: There's so much violence, anger, and hatred of man against man. We seem to have lost love, to have no beauty in our hearts; probably we have never had it. Love has been made into such a cheap commodity, and artificial beauty has become more important than the beauty of the hills, the trees and the flowers. The beauty of children soon fades. I have been wondering about love and beauty. Do let us talk about it if you can spare a little time.

K: 'Love' and 'Beauty' cannot be separated. Without Love there is no ( inner sense of ?) Beauty; they are inseparable. ( But unfortunately for the modern civilisation ?) we have exercised our intellect, our ( mental ?) 'cleverness', to such an extent that they predominate, violating what may be called ( empathy or ?) Love. We shan't be able to find out what that ( compassionate intelligence of ?) Love is if we don't step down from our ( self-protecting?) 'cleverness' and intellectual 'sophistication', if we don't 'feel' the brilliant light reflected on water and are not aware of that new grass. Isn't it important for us to find out how we have alienated ourselves from the very common things of life? If we lose touch with Nature doesn't it also mean that we are losing touch with ( people and also ?) with ourselves? We seek for Beauty and Love outside ourselves, in other people, or in ( valuable ?) possessions. ( So, eventually ?) they become far more important than ( the inner sense of ?) Love itself.
Beauty is in ourselves, not necessarily in the things about us. When we invest 'beauty' in them, then the ( inward sense of ?) beauty in ourselves lessens. So as the (outer) world becomes more violent, materialistic, the museums and all those other possessions become the ( safe cultural values ?) with which we try to clothe our own inner nakedness and emptiness.

Q: Why do you say that when we find beauty in people and in things around us, and when we experience pleasure, it lessens the beauty and the love within us?

K: All ( 'psychological' ) dependence breeds in us possessiveness, and we become ( inwardly identified with ?) the 'thing' which we possess. ( Eg:) If I possess this house - I 'am' (inwardly identified with the mental 'image' of ?) this house. So the dependence on the beauty of a line, or on the loveliness of a face, surely must diminish the ( creative freedom of the ?) observer himself; when the things outside us become of great (inner value ?) meaning, we are inwardly poverty-ridden .

Q: You are saying that if I respond to that lovely face I might be inwardly ( insufficient or ?) 'poor'. But on the other hand, if I do not sensitively respond to that face or to the line of a building am I not also isolated and dull ?

K: When there is ( this assumption of one's self- ?) isolation there must, precisely, be dependence, and dependence breeds (the need for more ?) pleasure, therefore fear (to see the inner facts ?) . When there is inward poverty there is the urge to fill it. This is ( leading to ?) the bottomless 'pit of the opposites', the ( endless pursuit of self-projected ?) 'opposites' which fill (occupy ?) our lives and create the ( daily ) 'battles' of life. All these ( self-projected ?) 'opposites' are identical (to whatever they are trying to compensate ?) for they are branches of the same root (of desire ?) However 'love' is not the product of ( any sensory ?) dependence, and has no opposite.

Q; Doesn't ugliness exist in the world? And isn't it the opposite of beauty?

K: Of course there is 'ugliness' in the world, as hate, violence, and so on. But why do you compare it (place it on the same level with ?) beauty, with non-violence? We compare it because we have ( a mental ?) 'scale of values' and we put what we call 'beauty' at the top and 'ugliness' at the bottom. Can you not look at ( the actuality of our inherited ?) 'violence' non-comparatively ? And if you do, what happens? You are ( inwardly) dealing only with facts, with what ( actually) 'is' and act (in a flash of insight ?) immediately.
Beauty ( as an inward state of 'being' ?) is not comparable, nor is Love, but when (the 'I' starts choosing ?) : "I love this one more than that one", then it ceases to be Love.

Q: Being sensitive one responds readily and without complications to the lovely face, to the beautiful vase. ( But usually) this ( spontaneous ?) 'un-thinking response' slides imperceptibly into dependence, pleasure and all the complications you were describing, which seems to me inevitable.

K: Is there anything ( psychologically ?) "inevitable" - except, perhaps, death?

Q: If it is not inevitable, it means that I can ( take steps to) order my conduct, which is quickly becoming 'mechanical'.

K: The ( insightful ?) seeing of this 'inevitable' ( sliding ?) process is to be (inwardly) not mechanical. It is only the mind that refuses to see 'what is' that becomes mechanical.

Q: Supposing that I see this 'inevitable' (sliding back into duality ?) , I still wonder where and how to draw the line?

K: You don't (have to ?) 'draw the line'; the 'seeing'( itself) brings its own action. When you say, "Where am I to draw the line?" it is the interference of thought which is frightened of being again (trapped ?) and wants to be free. ( The insightful ?) 'seeing' is not ( connected to ?) this process of thought; seeing is always new and active. Thinking (coming from the 'known' ?) is always old, never fresh.

(In a nutshell: ) ( The 'insight'-based ?) 'seeing' and the ( 'known' based ?) 'thinking' are of two different orders altogether, and these two can never come together. So, Love and Beauty have no ( mental) 'opposites' and are not the outcome of ( the attempt to compensate ?) inward poverty. Therefore ( the insightful perception of ?) Love is ( occuring ?) at the beginning and not at the end (of the spiritual Quest ?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Dec 2015 #46
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: What is 'God' to you ? (From the Only Revolution (1969)

The sound of the church bell came through the woods across the water and over the deep meadow. The sound was different according to whether it came through the woods or over the open meadows or across the fast-running, noisy stream. Sound, like light has a quality that silence brings; the deeper the silence the more the beauty of the sound is heard. That evening, with the sun riding just above the western hills, the sound of those church bells was quite extraordinary. It was as though you heard the bells for the first time and they carried the feeling of that evening.
We hardly ever listen to the sound of a dog's bark, or to the cry of a child or the laughter of a man as he passes by. We (mentally ?) separate ourselves from everything, and from this isolation look and listen to all things. It is this separation which is so destructive, for in that lies all conflict and confusion. If you listened to the sound of those bells with complete silence you would be 'riding' on it - or, rather, the sound would carry you across the valley and over the hill. The beauty of it is felt only when 'you' and the 'sound' are not separate, when you are part of it. Meditation is (an unique opportunity for ?) ending this separation

Meditation is not ( supposed to be ?) a separate thing from life; it is the very essence of daily living. To listen to those bells, to hear the laughter of that peasant as he walks by with his wife, to listen to the sound of the bell on the bicycle of the little girl as she passes by: it is the whole (unity?) of life that meditation opens.


Q: What is God to you? For the priests, it is a convenient word to enable them to hang on to their jobs, or to their vested interests, both physical and spiritual, but for the average man - I don't think it bothers him very much, except occasionally when there is some kind of calamity, otherwise it has very little meaning. So I've made the rather long journey (till) here to find out from you if God exists in your life. I've been to India and visited various teachers in their places there, with their disciples, and they all maintain that there is God, and point out the way to Him. I would like, if I may, to talk over with you this rather important question which has haunted man for many thousands of years.

K: It is important from the beginning to understand the contradiction between 'belief' and 'reality'. Belief is the result of ( our cultural ?) conditioning, or the outcome of our own fear (of the Unknown ?) , or the result of (accepting ?) an outer or inner authority which gives ( spiritual ?) comfort. Reality is something wholly different, and there is no passage from this to That. The theologian starts from a fixed position. He 'believes in God', and then spins theories according to his ( cultural) conditioning and the cleverness of his mind. The unwary ( belivers ?) are caught in this, as the unwary fly is caught in the web of the spider. The ( sacred ?) words become extremely important, and their repetition 'mesmerizes' the credulous. The 'believing mind' is not an enquiring mind, and so it remains ( comfortably installed ?) within the limits of the formula or the principle. It is like an ( domesticated ?) animal tied to a post, who can wander only within the limits of the rope.

Q: But without ( any faith or ?) belief we have nothing! I believe in Goodness; I believe in the Hereafter and in evolutionary growth towards spiritual perfection. To me these ( inner) beliefs are immensely important, for they keep me in line, in morality; if you take away belief (my inner faith ?) I am lost.

K: "Being" good is now, in the present; "becoming" good is the invention ( projection ?) of a mind that is caught in time. What is ( inwardly ?) important is not what you believe, but why your mind is burdened with beliefs. Are they ( spiritually ?) essential? If you put that question to yourself seriously you will find that they are the result of fear, or of the habit of accepting (the collectively adopted values ?) . It is this basic fear (of being insecure inwardly ?) which prevents you (of getting directly ?) involved in what actually is. Being involved is natural; you are involved in life, in your activities; you are in life, in the whole movement of it. But to be ( inwardly ?) 'committed' ( to an ideology ) is a process of ( the self-centred ?) thought, and thought is always (self-) separative, it always functions in fragments (in safe compartments ?) .

Q: You are forcing me into a corner by ( the integrity of ) your perception, but isn't this also a ( subliminal ?) form of propaganda ?

K: Surely not. You are 'forcing yourself' (or... are 'subliminally' pushed ?) into a corner where you have to realize for yourself what is actually ( shown in the 'mirror' placed ?) in front of you, therefore you are free of all (outward) authority. To see (the truth about 'what is' in there ?) belief is not necessary. On the contrary, to see, freedom from belief is necessary. Seeing is a 'negative' state (of not-knowing ?) in which the "what is" ( is revealing itself ?) evident. Belief is a ( safe) formula (for inner) inaction which (eventually ?) breeds hypocrisy, so it is a ( 'psychological' ?) danger which must be totally avoided if one is to see the truth of 'what is'.

Q: Can I be free of this (inner) fear?

K: Surely you're putting the question wrongly: you 'are' the (producer of this subliminal ?) fear; 'you' and the 'fear' are not two separate things. The (self-) separation is (generating its own ?) fear, but when you see that you 'are' the fear, that you and fear are not two separate things, fear disappears. Then ( your ) 'beliefs' are not necessary at all since you live only with 'what is', and see the truth of it.

Q: But you still have not answered my question about God, have you?

K: Where is God to be found? In the skies, in your heart, or, is it merely a symbol representing 'something' that cannot ever be put into words? Obviously you must put aside the "web" of words that man has woven around himself. Only after having done this can you begin to enquire if there is, or not, a Reality which is Immeasurable.

Q: But when you have discarded all this ( verbal shield ?) you are feeling completely lost, empty, alone - and in this state (of inner insufficiency ?) how can you seriously enquire?

K: You are in this state (of self-insufficiency ?) because you have not actually seen (inwardly) the false as being 'false'. When you see ( the truth about ?) it, it gives you a tremendous ( intelligent ?) energy and freedom to see the truth as being the 'truth', not as a fancy of the mind. It is this ( inwardly perceptive ?) freedom that is necessary to see if there is, or not, 'something' (the Unnamed ?) which cannot be put into words. But this is not a 'personal' achievement. Truth (or 'God' ?) is not 'yours' or 'mine'. What is 'yours' can be organized, enshrined, exploited. That is what is happening in the world. But ( a living ?) Truth cannot be 'organized'. Like Beauty and Love, Truth is not in the realm of ( personal) possessions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Dec 2015 #47
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: Meditation is the essence of Energy ( From The Urgency of Change, K in conversation with Alain Naudé, cca 1972) )

Questioner: I would like to go into the deeper sense of meditation. There are various ( meditation) schools which (are all trying to ) teach 'awareness' but they seem rather superficial, so can we leave all that aside and go into it more deeply?

Krishnamurti: In (the context of ?) 'meditation' ( the acceptance of ?) any form of authority, either one's own or the authority of another, becomes an impediment and prevents the freedom (of inquiry) - a freshness, a newness (of insightful perception ?) . Conformity and imitation must also be set aside completely. Even your past ( inner ) 'experience' must go. Then only can one enquire into this very deep and extraordinarily important thing called meditation. Meditation is the essence of energy.

Questioner: What do you mean by these two words 'energy' and 'meditation'?

Krishnamurti: Whatever you 'do' or 'think' needs energy, but this energy can be dissipated through various conflicts, (trivial ?) pursuits and/or 'sentimental' activities. Our energy is wasted in the conflicts which arise in the (perceptive duality between ?) "me" and (whatever is perceived as ?) the "not-me", in the division between the 'observer' and the (thing) observed, the 'thinker' and the thought. When this 'wastage' is no longer taking place there is an (holistic ?) quality of energy which can be called (choiceless ?) awareness - an 'awareness' in which there is no evaluation, judgement, condemnation or comparison but merely a (quality of ?) 'attentive observation', a seeing of things exactly as they are, both inwardly and outwardly, without the interference of ( the self-centred process of ?) thought, which is the (response of the) past.

Questioner: This I find it hard to understand. If there were no ( memory based ?) thinking at all, how would it be possible to recognise my house, my wife or my neighbourhood? Isn't recognition necessary when you look at a tree or the woman next door?

Krishnamurti: When you observe a tree is ( a verbal ?) recognition necessary? Do you have to say 'it is an oak tree' or do you just look? If you begin to recognise it as an 'oak' or a 'mango' tree then your past (knowledge ) interferes with the direct observation. Same when you look at your wife, if you look with the ( 'psychological' ?) memories of annoyances or pleasures you are not really looking at her but (are confirming your ?) 'image' which you have about her. (Obviously ?) that prevents (or inhibits any ?) direct perception: direct perception does not need ( the back-up of ?) 'recognition'. To ( physically ) recognise your wife, your children, your house or your neighbourhood is, of course necessary, but why should there be an interference of the past in the eyes of the mind and the heart? Doesn't it prevent you from seeing clearly ( objectively) ? When you condemn or have an opinion about something, that opinion or prejudice distorts ( the objective quality of ?) observation.

Questioner: Yes, I can see that. That subtle (subliminal ?) form of 'recognition' does indeed distort . So, you're saying all these 'interferences' of thought (of the 'previously known' ?) are a 'waste of energy'. This point can be logically and actually understood. Then there is the ' space' (the 'psychological distance' ?) that exists between the 'observer' and the thing 'observed' is also a similar waste of (our intelligent ?) energy and brings about conflict. I find your statement 'logical' but I find it extraordinarily difficult to remove this ( self-separating ?) 'space' and bring about harmony between the 'observer' and the 'observed'. How is this to be done?

Krishnamurti: Asking 'how ' means (asking for) a system, a ( meditative ?) practice which ( eventually ?) becomes ( repetitive and ?) mechanical. We have to be rid this word "how".

Questioner: We certainly can go beyond those ('time' loaded ?) words, but ( the question still remains ?): is it possible to bring about a union between the observer and the observed?

Krishnamurti: The 'observer' is always casting its ( 'knowledgeable' ?) shadow on the things it observes. So one must understand the (psychological ?) structure of this 'observer' rather than ( trying to ?) to bring about a 'union' between the two. One must understand the movement ( temporal sequence of activities ?) of the 'observer' and in that ( insightful ?) understanding perhaps the ( identification with this all controlling ?) 'observer' comes to an end.

We must (first ?) examine what the (psychologicl content of this ?) 'observer' is: all the memories (gathered in the past ?) , conscious and unconscious, the racial inheritance, the accumulated ( practical) experience which is called 'knowledge', its reactions. The 'observer' is really a conditioned (id-?)entity, who asserts that 'I am'. (In our brain's constant effort to improve its ?) comfort and security, the 'observer' sets himself apart as 'something' ( an independent entity ?) different from that which he observes, inwardly or outwardly. This brings about a (perceptive ?) duality and from this duality there is conflict, which is the "wastage of energy".
To be ( meditatively ?) aware of this 'observer' , of its self-centred activities, assertions, prejudices, it must be observed without any form of ( judgemental ?) evaluation, without like and dislike; just observe it in daily life, in its relationships. When this ( inward quality of ?) observation is ( crystal ?) clear, isn't there then a freedom from the ( identification with this ) 'observer'?

Questioner: You are saying, sir, that the 'observer' is really the 'ego'; and as long as the 'ego' (this self-centred interface ?) exists, he must resist, divide, separate, for in this ( individualistic ?) separation he feels alive. It gives him the vitality to resist, to fight, and it has become accustomed to that battle; it is his way of living. But can I look at myself so completely, so truly, without distortion? You say that when I do look at myself so clearly then the "I" has no 'movement' at all. You're saying this is part of meditation?

Krishnamurti: Of course, this 'is' meditation.

Questioner: Such quality of observation surely demands extraordinary self-discipline...

Krishnamurti: The root-word for 'discipline' means to learn; when there is ( this integrated inward ?) learning which needs (a quality of ?) undivided attention, it brings about its own responsibility, its own (creative ) activity? If this is what you mean by the word 'self-discipline', then surely there is ( in yourself) this freedom to learn?

Questioner: I can't quite go along with you where this 'learning' is concerned, but I see very clearly that this 'observer' (active interface ?) must come to an end. It is logically so, and there must be no conflict: that is very clear. But for most of us learning ( about oneself) is an additive process, so you are apparently giving it a different meaning altogether. Can learning be without accumulation?

Krishnamurti: This learning is (has ?) its own action. But what generally happens is that having learnt we try to act upon what we have learnt. So there is ( a subliminal ?) division between the past and the ( present) action , hence a conflict between 'what should be' and the 'what is', or between 'what has been' and "what is". We are saying that there can be (an insightful ?) action in the very movement of learning: that is, learning 'is' doing; it is not a question of having learnt ( about all the 'psychological' stuff ?) and then acting. This ( time delay ?) is very important to understand because 'having learnt', and 'then acting from that accumulation', is the very nature of the "me", (and of the 'psychological' time ?) . The "I" (the 'me-thinking' process ?) is the essence of the past and this (active ?) past impinges on the present and so ( is going ?) on into the 'future'. While in the ( non-dualistic ?) 'learning' there is a constant (moving with the 'facts' ?), so there is no (need for any psychological ?) 'accumulation' which (would eventually ?) become a (new facet of the ?) "I".

Questioner: But in the technological field there must be accumulated knowledge. One can't fly the Atlantic or run a car, or even do most of the ordinary daily things without knowledge.

Krishnamurti: Of course not, sir; such knowledge is absolutely necessary. We are talking about the (inward ) 'psychological' field in which the "I" operates. ( But since the 'outer' reality is intimately related to our 'inner' reality ?) the "I" can use technological knowledge in order to achieve a better position or prestige; so whenever in (our practical ?) functioning the "I" interferes, things begin to go wrong, for the "I", through ( its acquired) technical skills seeks (to optimise its social ?) status. So the "I" (the 'self'-centred mind ?) is not concerned merely with knowledge in scientific fields; it is using it to achieve something else. It is like a musician who uses the piano to become famous. What he is ( truly) concerned is ( 'money' and ?) 'fame' , not the Beauty of music in itself .
We are not saying that we must get rid of technological knowledge; on the contrary, the more technological knowledge there is the better living conditions will be. But the moment the "I" (our self-interest ?) uses it, things begin to go wrong.

Questioner: So, you are giving quite a different dimension to 'learning', which is marvellous. You are saying that meditation is the ( natural ?) movement of 'learning' and in it there is freedom to learn about everything, not just about meditation, but about the way one lives, drives, eats, talks, everything.

Krishnamurti: As we said , " The essence of energy is ( to be found in ?) meditation". To put it the other way round (negatively ?) - so long as there is a 'meditator' there is no ( authentic ?) meditation.

Questioner: So, you are saying that learning must be a constant flow, without any 'breaks', so that learning and action are one, in a (time-free) movement? The moment there is a 'break' between learning, action and meditation, that is bringing disharmony and (a mentality based on ?) conflict. In that 'break' is ( created the duality of the ? ) 'observer' and the 'observed' and hence the whole wastage of energy; is that what you are saying?

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is what we mean. Meditation is not a ( static) state (of mind) ; it is a (fluid) 'movement', and when we separate ( our daily ?) action from ( an inwardly integrated ?) 'learning', then the 'observer' ( the 'me-who-knows' ?) comes between the learning and the action; then he uses action and learning for 'ulterior' motives. When there is this harmonious movement of acting, of learning, of meditation, there is no wastage of (one's 'mind'?) energy and this is the Beauty of meditation.

(In a nutshell:) 'Learning' is far more important than meditation or action (taken separately ?) . To learn ( holistically ?) there must be complete ( inward) freedom, not only consciously but deeply, inwardly - a ( sense of ?) total freedom. And in freedom there is this movement of learning, acting, meditating as a harmonious whole. The ( ethymology of the ?) word 'whole' not only means 'health' but 'holy'. So learning is holy, acting is holy, meditation is holy. This is really a 'sacred' thing and its Beauty is ( to be found in ?) itself and not 'beyond' it.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 16 Dec 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Dec 2015 #48
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: The 'ending' of thought (From The Urgency of Change, cca 1972)

Questioner: I wonder what you really mean by 'ending' thought? I talked to a friend about it and he said it is some kind of 'oriental nonsense'. When we don't think we are vacant, dull and unproductive, whereas when we are awake we are thinking, doing, living, quarrelling: these are the only two states we know. You say, be beyond both - beyond thought and vacant inactivity. What do you mean by this?

Krishnamurti: Very simply put, thought is the ( global) response of ( our past) memory, and when thought is functioning there is no new (new quality of ?) living at all; it is ( the 'active' memory of ?) the past modifying itself in the present. So there is nothing new in living that way. When something New is to be found the mind must not be cluttered up with (its self-centred ?) thoughts, fears, pleasures, and everything else. Only when the mind is uncluttered can the New come into being, and for this reason we say that ( the whole mechanism of ?) thought must be still (passively stand-by ?) and operate only when it has to - objectively, efficiently. All ( 'psychological' sense of self-?) continuity is ( generated by an 'unconscious' activity of ?) thought; and when there is (the all controlling sense of self-?) continuity there is nothing new . Do you see how important this is? It's really a (trully existential ?) question : either you live ( 'psychologically' anchored ?) in the past, or you live totally differently.

Questioner: I can see your point but how in the world is one to end this (very intricate process of ?) thought? When I am awake, I think, when I am asleep I also think. The whole structure of my ( 'psychological') being is ( built around this self-identified process of ?) thought and its roots lie far deeper than I know. So how can one 'go beyond' it?

Krishnamurti: We both agreed that when thought is still, something New (a new perceptive quality ?) can be (or occur ?) . We both saw that point clearly and to ( insightfully ?) understand it is (triggering ?) the 'ending of thought'.

Questioner: But isn' this 'understanding' also (taken over by?) thought ?

Krishnamurti: You assume that it is ( taken over by ?) thought, but is it, actually?

Questioner: It is (when translated into ?) a mental movement with a meaning, a communication to oneself.

Krishnamurti: But is the (insight-based ?) 'understanding' a mere 'mental movement with ( a verbal) meaning? The (verbal recognition of the ?) meaning of the words and the ( intellectual) 'understanding' of that meaning is necessary in ( all the pactical areas human ?) life. There thought must function efficiently. But you are asking how ( the 'psychological' component of ?) thought, which is the ( driving) movement of our life -as we know it-, can come to an end. Doesn't it end when 'you' die ?

Questioner: Yes...?

Krishnamurti: So, that is the 'right' question (psychologically-wise ?). To 'die' to ( your attachments to ?) the past, to tradition.

Questioner: But... 'how' ?

Krishnamurti: The brain is the source of thought. The brain is ( a form of living ?) matter and thought is ( the compex processing of all our experience in the world of ?) matter. Can this ('thinking' ?) brain be very still? It is not a question of ( how) to end ( the whole process of ?) thought, but of whether the ( total energy of the ?) brain can be completely still. Can it act with full capacity when necessary but otherwise be still? What happens (inwardly) when the brain is completely still ?

Questioner: In this ( 'silent' moment ?) there is ( the perception of ?) a blackbird singing, the blue sky, the sound of the wind in the trees and my own heartbeat, the total quietness of the body...

Krishnamurti: If there was (a verbalised ) recognition of the blackbird singing, then the ( 'thinking' ?) brain was active, was interpreting. So, it was not still. This really demands a tremendously (awakened ?) 'alertness' and a ( quality of inner ?) discipline which is not brought about by your (subliminal?) desire to achieve a (highly rewarding ?) new experience. Therefore during the day thought (the 'thinking' brain ?) must operate effectively, sanely, but also to watch itself.

Questioner: That's (relatively ?) easy, but what about 'going beyond' it?

Krishnamurti: 'Who' is asking this question? Is it the ( self-identified ?) desire to experience something new or is it the ( authentic spirit of ?) enquiry? If it is the (spirit of ?) enquiry (itself) , then one must enquire and investigate the whole ( multi-level process ?) of thinking, to become completely familiar with it, know all its tricks and subtleties (psychological 'nuts and bolts' ?) . If you have done all this you will know that the question of 'going beyond thought' is an empty one. Going beyond thought is ( implicit in the actual ?) 'knowing' (of) what thought is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Dec 2015 #49
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: Choiceless awareness and Attention ( from the Urgency of Change, cca 1972)

Questioner: I should like to know what you mean by 'awareness' because you have often said that this 'awareness' is really what your teaching is about. I've tried to understand it by listening to your talks and reading your books, but I don't seem to get very far. You seem to give some deeper meaning to this word, since it seems to me that we are (pretty much ) aware of what's going on all the time. When I'm sad I know it and when I'm happy I know it too.

Krishnamurti: I wonder if we really are aware of anger, sadness, happiness (at the very moment they occur ) ? Or we are ( becoming conscious ?) of these things only when they are all over?
So, let us begin (this enquiry ?) as though we know nothing about it and explore it very deeply (since it ?) could reveal an extra-ordinary state, a ( perceptive ?) dimension not touched by ( our self-centred ?) superficial awareness.
Let us start from the 'superficial' (level of sensory awareness ?) and work through (inwardly) . We perceive with our senses the things about us - the colour of the flower, the humming bird over that flower, the light of this Californian sun, the thousand sounds of different qualities and subtleties, the depth and the height, the shadow of the tree and the tree itself. We feel in the same way our own bodies, which are the instruments of these different kinds of superficial, sensory perceptions. If these perceptions remained at the superficial level there would be no confusion at all since there is no preference, no 'likes' or 'dislikes', no 'psychological' involvement. Is this sensory perception (level of ?) awareness quite clear? It can be expanded to the stars, to the depth of the seas, and to the ultimate frontiers of scientific observation, using all the instruments of modern technology.

Questioner: Yes, I think I understand that.

Krishnamurti: Now, the next step ( level of awareness ?) is ( related to ?) what you 'think and/or feel' about them, to your ( personal) 'psychological' response to (what we call ?) 'thoughts' or 'emotions'. (At this level ?) the ( verbal) description is never the ( actuality of the facts ) described. Never confuse the words with the things they describe. The word is never the real, as we are so easily 'carried away' when we come to the next stage of awareness where it becomes 'personal' and we get emotional through ( by ?) words.

So there is the sensory awareness of the tree, the bird, the door, and there are (our personal ?) responses to that (in terms of ?) thoughts, feelings, emotions. Now when we become ( non-verbally ?) aware of these ( 'personal') responses, we might call it the 'second depth' of awareness. There is the awareness of the rose, and the awareness of our response to the rose. In reality it is the same (choiceless quality of ?) awareness which sees the rose and which sees the response. It is one movement and it would be wrong to (split it into ?) an 'outward' and an 'inward' awareness. When there is a ( direct ?) visual awareness of the tree without any 'psychological' involvement there is no division in that relationship. But when there is a 'psychological' (and/or cultural ?) response to the tree, this response is a conditioned response, the ('knowing' ?) response of our past memory, past experiences, and this response is (subliminally bringing ?) a division in our relationships. This response is ( the origin ?) of what we shall call the "me" in relationship with the "non-me". This is how 'you' place yourself in relationship to 'the ( rest of the ?) world'. So the world is seen not as it is, but in its various relationships to the "me" of memory.

(To recap:) When there is the (pure) 'awareness' of the tree there is no evaluation. But when there is a (verbally compounded ?) response to the tree, the tree is 'judged' ( in terms of ?) 'like' and 'dislike', then a ( subliminal inward ?) division takes place as the "me" who is ( feeling to be) different from the "thing observed". This "me" is the ( self-identified cultural ?) response of all our past memory, past experiences.
So can there be a (non-verbal ?) awareness of these responses and reactions, without any judgement? In this way we eradicate the ( 'psychological' sense of ?) division both in looking at the tree and in looking at ourselves.

Questioner: Yes, I think I understand all that.

Krishnamurti: Is this seen as clearly as the (actual perception of the ?) tree itself, or is it simply the clarity of ( the verbal ?) description? Remember, as we have already said, the (fact) described is not the verbal description. What have you got, the thing or its description?

Questioner: I think, the 'thing'.

Krishnamurti: Therefore, there is no "me" ( interfering with its ?) verbal description in seeing the actual fact ? There is either the "me" or the "seeing", there can't be both (at the same time) . The "me" cannot see, cannot be aware ( of anything underneath its own level ?) .

Questioner: I think I've got the feeling of it, but I must let it sink in. May I come again tomorrow?

Questioner: Is there a 'true me' outside the 'me' of temporal reality ?

Krishnamurti: We have seen how heavily conditioned are our ( 'psychological') responses . When you ask if there is a "me" ( a true 'self' ?) outside of ( the world of ) relationship, it becomes a speculative question as long as there is no freedom from these ( self-identified ?) conditioned responses.

So our first question (should rather be): Can the mind, in which is included all our ( thoughts and ?) feelings, be free of the ( burden of this psychological ?) conditioning, which is the ( stream all our ?) past? This (active) past is ( impersonated by ?) the "me". As long as the mind is operating in ( rooted in?) the past there is the "me" ( safe platform of observation ?) , the mind 'is' ( identifying itself with ?) this "me".
So we are asking: can the mind (or the human consciousness ?) free itself from ( the psychological burden of ?) yesterday? All this ( has to be ?) one unitary action of awareness.

Questioner: Indeed, can the human mind be free of the past ?

Krishnamurti: Who is putting that question? Is it the ( self-centred ?) 'entity' who is the result of a great many conflicts, memories and experiences, or does this question arise out of the perception of the ( actual) fact? One either turns away from ( such ?) a 'fact' or one faces it. If there is no ( response of the past interfering as the ?) 'observer', then there is ( an authentic state of ?) silence, a complete negation of the whole past.

Questioner: Here you 'lost' me. How can I wipe away all my past in a few seconds?

Krishnamurti: Let us bear in mind that we are discussing ( choiceless ?) 'awareness'. To recapitulate: there is the ( sensory perception of the ?) tree, then there is the 'word ( the 'recognising & naming' ) response to the tree, then 'my' ( personal) response coming from the past; and ( since the 'personal' mind gets stuck there ?) there is the question: can I escape from all this turmoil and agony? If the "me" is asking this question it is (obviously trying to ?) perpetuate itself.
Now, being aware of this ( time binding trap ?) , it (the mind ) doesn't ask the question! Being aware and seeing all the implications of it, the question cannot be asked. Do you see that all this (self-centred ?) awareness is superficial? It is the same as the awareness which sees the tree.

Questioner: But isn't there any other dimension of 'awareness' (of human consciousness ?) ?

Krishnamurti: When the 'observer' is wholly silent isn't there a different quality of awareness coming into ( one's) being?

Questioner: What action could then be taken without the 'observer' ?

Krishnamurti: Again, are you asking this question from this 'side of the river' ( the 'known' side) , or is it from the 'other bank'? If you are on the 'other bank', you would not ask this question since your action will be 'originating ?) from ( the 'not-knowingness' of ?) that bank.

So ( to re-recap): there is the ('knowledgeable' ?) awareness of this bank, with all its structure, its nature and all its ( time-binding?) traps, and what deadly monotony there is in all that! Now, ( the non-personal quality of ?) awareness has shown us the nature of the trap, and therefore there is the negation of all traps; so the ( open ended space of the ?) Mind is now empty. It is empty of the "me" and of the traps. This ( awakened ?) mind has a different quality, a different dimension of awareness. This awareness is not ( even) aware that it is aware (is not self-conscious ?) .

Questioner: My God, this is sounding too difficult. You are saying things that sound true, but I'm not there yet. Can you put it differently? Can't you pull me out of my trap?

Krishnamurti: Nobody can 'pull you out' of your trap - no guru, no drug, no mantra, and especially not myself. All that you have to do is to be (diligently ?) 'aware' from the beginning to the end, and not ( fall asleep and ?) become inattentive in the middle of it. This new quality of awareness is ( a state of inwardly integrated ?) 'attention', and in this 'attention' there is no frontier (no boundaries ?) made by the "me". This 'attention' is the highest form of virtue, therefore it is (the anonymous action of ?) Love. It is supreme intelligence, and there cannot be ( a self-sustained quality of inward ?) attention if you are not sensitive to all these man-made ( 'time'-binding ?) traps.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 19 Dec 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 #50
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: The New Human Being ( From the Urgency of Change)

Questioner: I am a reformer, a social worker. Seeing the extraordinary injustice there is in the world my whole life has been dedicated to reforming society so that man can live in dignity, beauty and freedom, and realize the potential which nature seems to have given him, and which he himself seems always to have stolen from his fellow man. It seems to me that all the social injustice in the world absolutely must be changed. I want passionately to do something about it, yet I don't know where to begin to tackle it.

Krishnamurti: Reforms needs further reforms, and this is an endless ( postponing ?) process. So let us forget ( being obsessed with ?) this idea of wanting to reform the world and let us see actually what is happening, right throughout the world. ( The omnipresent medias ?) are constantly talking about the political (and economical ?) action as being a most important action, then there is the 'religious' action based on belief, authority and acceptance, obedience and the utter denial of (any individual) freedom. So if one puts aside all these, what is one to do?

Questioner: This is what I was actually asking you...

Krishnamurti: We must take the 'fact'( the 'what 'is' ?) of the actual relationship between human beings and change that radically. That is the real thing. But this ( qualitative ?) revolution is not to be achieved through ( the traditional process of ?) evolution, which is ( a process of ?) time.

Questioner: All historical changes have taken place in time; none of them has been immediate. Are you not proposing something quite ( unrealistic and) inconceivable?

Krishnamurti: If you take time to change, everything you are trying to change is constantly being modified and perpetuated by the environment, by life itself. So there is no end to it. It is like trying to clean the water in a tank which is constantly being refilled with dirty water. So ( for an individual change in our consciousness?) 'time' is out. Now, what is going to bring about this ( inner) change? It cannot be (our self-centred ?) will, determination, or choice, or desire, because all these are part of the ( same self-centred ?) entity that has to be changed.

Questioner: Is there any human action which is not the action of will and ( self-) assertiveness?

Krishnamurti: Instead of asking this ( academical ?) question let us go much deeper. All the 'social maladies' you mentioned are the projection of a (hidden contradiction and ?) conflict in the heart of each human being. The only possible change is a radical transformation of yourself in all your relationships, not in some vague future, but ( in the time-fee dimension of the ?) 'now'.

Questioner: But how can I completely eradicate this conflict in myself, this contradiction, this ( ages old ) conditioning? I understand what you mean intellectually, but it is merely an idea to me; I don't see it with my heart. If I try to act on this 'intellectual understanding' I am getting in ( a still greater ?) conflict with other deeper parts of myself.

Krishnamurti: If you could passionately see (the truth about ?) this contradiction, the ( subliminal ?) division between the mind and the heart, then that very ( insightful ?) perception 'is' the revolution. If you actually see ( the truth about it ?) in yourself, then the problem ( of man's fragmentation ?) comes to an end. A man who is passionate about the ( actual state of the ?) world and sees the necessity for ( a radical ?) change, must be free from the weight of time, free from the ( psychological) burden of the past, free from all the action of ( self-centred ?) will: this is the new human being. This is the (true ?) social, psychological, and even political revolution.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Dec 2015 #51
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: Seeing The Whole ( from The Urgency of Change, 1972)

Questioner: When I listen to you I seem to understand what you are talking about, not only verbally, but at a much deeper level. I am part of it; I fully grasp with my whole being the truth of what you say. My hearing is sharpened, and the very seeing of the flowers, the trees, and those mountains with snow, makes me feel I am part of them. In this awareness I have no conflict, no contradiction. it is as though I could do anything, and that whatever I did would be true, would not bring either conflict or pain. But unfortunately that state lasts only for an hour or two, while I'm listening to you. When I leave the talks it all seems to evaporate and I'm back where I was. I am constantly trying to be aware of my ( state of inner ?) conflict, of my confusion, but this ( self-directed ?) 'awareness' in no way resolves these things. On the contrary, being aware of them seems to give them vitality and duration. You often talk of a 'choiceless' awareness, but my mind is full of choices, decisions and opinions. I have applied this ( highly recommended) 'choiceless' awareness to a particular habit I have, and it has not gone. When I am trying to be aware of some inner conflict or strain, the 'observer' keeps looking to see if it has already gone... so I'm never able to 'shake it off'.

Krishnamurti: Awareness is not a ( mental ?) commitment to something. Awareness is a (non-verbal quality of ?) observation of both outer and inner, in which the 'direction' (of personal motivation ?) has stopped. You are ( passively ?) aware, but the thing of which you are aware is not being encouraged or nourished. Awareness is not is not a (concentrated ?) action of will (focussed on ?) what it will be aware of, and analysing (disecting ?) it in order to bring about a certain result. When atention is deliberately focused on a specific subject - whether reading a book or watching your anger this (is enclosing) all your energy and thought within your chosen frontiers ; and in this exclusion (of everything else ?) , the very thing you are concentrating upon is strengthened, nourished.

So here we have to understand the (holistic ?) nature of awareness: You can either be aware of a particular thing, or be aware of that particular thing as part of the totality (of your being ?) . The particular in itself has ( a relatively ?) little meaning, but when you see (it as part of ?) the total (picture ?) , then that 'particular' has a relationship to the whole. Only in this (all inclusive ?) relationship does the 'particular' find its right meaning (its right place ?) ; it doesn't become all-important, it is not exaggerated.

The real question is: does one see the total process of ( one's ?) life or is one concentrated on the particular, thus missing the whole field of life? To be aware of the whole field (includes the ) seeing of the particular, but, at the same time, ( it is seen in the wider perspective of?) its relationship to the whole. (Eg:) If you are feeling angry and are getting concerned with ending that (particular reaction of ?) anger, then you try to focus your attention on that 'anger' and ( implicitly ignoring its relationship to ?) the whole and that feeling of anger is strengthened. But anger is interrelated to the whole ( of yourself ?) . So when we separate the 'particular' from the 'whole' , this (obsessive focussing on the ?) 'particular' breeds its own problems.

Questioner: What do you exactly mean by 'seeing the whole'? What is ( the nature of this ?) 'extensive' (or all inclusive ) awareness in which the particular is seen as a detail? Is it some 'mystical' experience? And of what "whole" are you talking about ?

Krishnamurti: The whole field of our life (of our existence ?) : the mind, love, everything which is in life. Let's put this (in a holistic perspective?) way: do you perceive with your 'mind' and your 'heart' ( kept ?) separately, or do you 'see', 'hear', 'feel', 'think', 'all (- in one' ?) together ?

Questioner: I don't know what you mean.

Krishnamurti: ( Take an everyday challenge of life :) You hear an insult, your feelings tell that you don't like it, your mind intervenes to (respond or to calm down ?) control or justify, and so on. Then again ( a self-assuring ?) feeling takes over where the mind has concluded. So ( even a minor ?) event unleashes a chain-reaction of the different parts of your being. What you heard had been 'broken up' (and processed fragmentarily ?) , and if you concentrate on (or... get stuck into?) one of those fragments, you miss the total process . Hearing can be fragmentary or it can be done with all your being, totally. So, by "perception of the whole" we mean ( an inwardly integrated ?) perception with your eyes, your ears, your heart, your mind; not perception with each separately, giving your complete attention. In that (inner state of integrated ?) attention', the particular, such as anger, has a different meaning since it is (perceived as ?) related to many other issues.

Questioner: So you mean "seeing with the whole of your being"; it is a question of quality not quantity. Is that correct?

Krishnamurti: Yes, precisely. But do you "see totally" in this way or are you merely (conceptualising ) it? Do you see anger with your "heart, mind, ears and eyes"? When you give importance (priority ?) to the ( perception of the ?) whole (picture ?) you do not forget the particular.

Questioner: But then, what happens to the 'particular', to that specific reaction of anger?

Krishnamurti: If you are aware of that 'anger' with your whole being, is there ( any residues of ) anger (left )? ( Our) inattention is ( at the origins of ?) anger, not attention. So an "attention with your entire being" is seeing the whole, while "inattention" is ( resulting in ?) seeing (an/ord getting stuck in?) the 'particular'. To be ( perceptively ?) aware of the whole and of the particular, and of the ( subtle inter-?) relationship between the two, is the whole problem. When (inattentive inwardly?) we ( cvasi-unconsciously ?) divide the particular from the rest and try to solve it. And so ( the chain of human ?) 'conflict' increases and there is no way out.

Questioner: Are you saying that there should be no division between this reaction of anger and me when I look at it with all my being?

Krishnamurti: Exactly. this what you actually are doing, or are you merely following the ( rationality of the ?) words?

Questioner: Well, I am simply trying to understand you...

Krishnamurti: Are you trying to understand me or are you "seeing the truth" ( having an insight into ?) what we are talking about, which is independent of me (as a 'speaker' ?) If you actually "see the truth" of what we are talking about, then you are ( a "light for yourself" and therefore ?) your own guru and your own disciple, which is to understand yourself. This ( insight-based quality of ?) understanding cannot be 'learnt' ( or bought ?) from another.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Dec 2015 #52
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: Reincarnation and the Stepping Out

( a reader friendly edited K conversation with Alain Naudé and Mary Zimbalist following the death of a common friend)

KRISHNAMURTI: The other day Sidney Field came to see me. His brother John died recently and he was very concerned whether his brother was living in a different level of consciousness; whether there was John as an entity born [in the] next life. And did I believe in reincarnation, and what did it mean. So out of that conversation two (metaphysical) things came up. First, is there a permanent ego? If there is such a thing as a permanent something, then what is its relationship from the present (life) to the future (life) ? If you admit or accept or believe that there is a permanent ego, then reincarnation is plausible, because the permanent ego (self) if it is permanent, can be changed in ten years’ time. It can incarnate differently in ten years’ time. If there is no permanent entity, then what is reincarnation? Both involve time, both involve a movement in space. Space being environment, relationship, pressure, all that existing within that space, time. So is there a permanent 'me'? Obviously not. But Sidney said, “Then what is it that I feel, that John is with me? When I enter the room, I know he is there. I’m not fooling myself, I’m not imagining; I feel him there as I feel my sister who was in that room yesterday. It’s as clear, as definite as that.” I said of course he is there, because first of all you have your association and memories of John and that is projected, and that projection is your remembrance.

MARY ZIMBALIST: When you say 'he was in that room', whether alive or dead, was there something external to his brother and his sister that was there, or was it in their consciousness?

K: It is both in their consciousness and outside their consciousness. That may emanate from them or from John's (psychical) atmosphere, his thoughts, his way of behaving still remaining there, even though physically he might have gone.

Z: Are you saying there is a sort of ( psychic ?) energy which human beings give off?

K: There was a photograph of a parking lot taken where there had been many cars, and the photo showed, although there were no cars there, the form of the cars that had been there. That is, the heat ( image) that the car had left came on the negative.

ALAIN NAUDE: And also one day when we were all living in Gstaad, the first time I was your guest at Gstaad, we were living at Les Capris—you left for America before any of us left, and I went into that flat— and your presence was there, so strong, that one felt one could touch you.

K: So there are three possibilities. a) I project it out of my remembrance and consciousness, b) pick up the residual energy of John.

A: Or John is really there as before he died? The third possibility?

K: I live in a room for a number of years. The presence ( the psychological atmosphere ?) of that room contained my energy, my thoughts, my feelings. So those are the three possibilities. And the other is John’s ( self-identified ?) thought, because John (still) clings to ( this) life. John’s desires are there 'in the air', not ( just) in the room.

A: Immaterially?

K: Yes, they are there just like a thought( standing wave ?) .

A: Does that mean that there is still there a being who is self-conscious calling himself John, thinking those thoughts?

K: I doubt it.

A: Well, that is what most people who believe in reincarnation would postulate.

K: This makes three possibilities plus the idea that John whose physical body is gone, exists ( as a thought form in the stream of collective ?) thought.

A: As a thinking entity?

K: It’s rather interesting—John continues (within that Stream ?) because he is (was a psychological manifestation of ?) this world of vulgarity, of greed, of envy, and competition. That is the common pattern (the self-centred collective mentality ?) of man. It continues and John may be identified with that, or 'is' (the manifestation of ?) that.

A: John is the desires, the thoughts, the beliefs, the associations which are incarnate and which are material.

K: Which is 'the world'—which is ( the mentality of practically ?) everybody.

A: It would be nice if you could explain it a little better. Do you mean that John continues because there is the continuation of the 'vulgar' in him ?

K: That’s right: (greed ?) fear, wanting power, position. So because that ( drive) is a common thing of the world, he 'is' of the world and this ( self-centred consciousness of the ?) 'world' does incarnate.

A: What do you mean when you say "the 'world' does incarnate" ?

K: Take the mass (group consciousness ?) of the people caught in this 'stream' and that stream goes on . I may have a son who is part of that stream and in that stream there is John also, as a human being who is caught in it. And my son may remember some of John’s attitudes.

A: Ah, but you are saying that John is contained in all the memories that different people have of him. In that respect we can see that he does continue to exist. Because I remember a friend of mine died not long ago, and it was very clear to me when I thought about it that in fact he was very much alive in the memories of all the people who had loved him.

K: That’s just it.

A: Therefore, he was not absent from the world, he was still in the stream of events which we call 'the world', which is the lives of different people who had associated with him. In that sense we see that he can perhaps live forever.

K: Unless he breaks away from it—breaks away from the stream. A man who is not vulgar—let’s use that word, vulgar, representing all this... greed, envy, power, position, hatred, desires, all that—let’s call that vulgar. Unless I am free from the vulgar, I will continue representing (impersonating ?) the whole 'vulgarity' of mankind.

A: Yes, I will be that vulgarity by pursuing it, and in fact incarnating in it, giving it life.

K: Therefore I incarnate in that ( collective Stream of ?) vulgarity. That is, first I can project John, my brother.

A: So, all his ( self-identified ?) thoughts remain in the room?

K: Feelings...

A: The 'psychic' equivalent of his physical energy remains like the smell of an old coat that you hang up.

K: His 'will' (power ?) , if he has a very strong will; active desires and thought, they also remain (are hanging around ?)

A: But that’s not different from the third point. The third point is that his (self-identified ?) 'thought' remains, which is will, which is desire.

K: The fourth point is ( his continuity within ?) the Stream of Vulgarity.

A: Well, that’s not very clear.

K: Look, sir, I live an ordinary life, like millions and millions of people. A little more refined, but ( inwardly) I am ( part of ?) that current. This 'me' is bound to continue in that stream, which is the Stream of 'Me'.

A: Therefore are you saying, sir, even dead I continue because the things (or tendencies ?) which were ( creating the) 'me' are continuing.

K: In the (shared consciousness of all ?) human beings.

A: Therefore, since these 'things' which filled and occupied my life survive, in a manner of speaking I survive since they do.

K: That’s right. That’s four points.

A: The ( 1000 $ ) question is: is there a ( self-) conscious thinking entity who knows that he is conscious when everybody has said, “There goes poor old John,” even put him in the ground. Is there a conscious entity who immaterially says, “Good gracious, they’ve put that body in the ground but I have consciousness of being alive.”

K: Sidney was asking that same question. Does John, whose body was cremated — does that 'entity' continue to live?

A: Does that entity continue to have its consciousness of its own existence?

K: When you ask whether he is still living in a separate consciousness, I question whether he was ever separate from the stream. You follow what I am saying, sir? When John was alive, was he different (spiritually independent ?) from the Stream? The Stream of humanity is ( propelling itself by selfishness ?) anger, hate, jealousy, seeking power, position, cheating, polluted. When John existed physically, he had a physical body, but 'psychologically' (inwardly) he was ( part ?) of this. Therefore was he ever different from this stream? Or only thinking that he was different.

A: Well, there was an 'entity' who was self-conscious...

K: But was there a 'John' who was different from the stream? This is what is happening with millions of people. As long as I 'swim' in that current (of self-centredness ?) , am I different from the stream? This is what we call the 'permanent self' . There is only an (independent spiritual entity of ?) 'John' when he is ( stepping ?) out of that stream.

( To recap: ) We were trying to find out if there is a permanent 'self' which incarnates. People who 'believe' in reincarnation say there is a permanent 'self' and it take many lives so that it can become ( perfect and ?) absorbed in Brahma and all that. Now, is there from the beginning a permanent entity, an entity that lasts centuries and centuries? There is no such permanent entity, obviously. The (illusion of my) 'permanence' is ( created by ?) the identification with my furniture, my wife, my circumstances. But these are 'images' of thought. So ( at this stage of our spiritual development ?) there is no permanent 'self'. If there is something 'permanent' it would be the stream itself . Now, realizing that I am like the rest of the world, that there is no separate 'K', I can 'incarnate' ( become spiritually individualised only ?) if I step out of it. 'Incarnate' in the sense that such ( qualitative ?) 'change' can take place away from the stream. In the stream there is no ( posibility for such inner ?) change.

A:Therefore, if there is a (spiritual ?) entity, then it must be out of the stream. Therefore, that which is 'true' (truly spiritual ?)

K: is not (to be found ?) in the stream. When Naudé dies, as long as he (inwardly ) belongs to the stream, that stream and its flow is semipermanent. But if Naudé 'steps out' of the stream, he is no longer belonging to the stream; therefore there is nothing 'permanent'. So, as long as I belong to the Stream there is no ( independent spiritual ?) entity. I 'am' the world.

A: That’s right.

K: So, when I step out of the( stream of the ?) 'world', is there a ( self-conscious ?) 'me' to continue?

A: Exactly...

K: So, when we say 'I must have many lives' (in order to become spiritually enlightened ?) what we are trying to do is to justify the existence of this (collective ?) stream, (assuming that) I must go through ( all the tribulations of ?) the stream.

A: What we are trying to do is trying to establish that we are different from the Stream.

K: ( Which ) we are not. So, sir, if there is no permanent ( self-conscious entity as ?) 'K' or 'Naudé' or 'Zimbalist', what happens? I think that in the Tibetan tradition, when a person is dying, the monk comes in and sends all the family away, locks the door and says to the dying man, “Look you’re dying, so let go all of your antagonisms (all your negativity ?) , all your ( deeper attachments to ?) worldliness , because if you let go you are going to meet a ( spiritual ?) 'light' in which you will be absorbed. If not, you’ll have come back to the Stream (and start all over again) . You will be ( part of ?) the Stream (of Self-interest ?) again.

A: Yes...

K: So what happens to 'you' if you step out of the stream? The stepping out is the ( spiritual equivalent of ?) 'incarnation'. Yes, sir, there is a new ( spiritual ?) dimension coming into being (being born?). You follow? ( Suppose that ?) Naudé has stepped out of the stream. You are not ( self-identified as ?) an 'artist', as a 'musician', all that ( outward ?) identification is part of the stream. When you discard all that, what happens?

A: You have no (such self-centred ?) 'identity' ?

K: 'Identity' is here. Say, for instance, Napoleon, or any of these ( bad ?) 'world leaders': they did every horror imaginable, they lived and died in this Stream (of collective selfishness ?) , they were of the stream. Now there is a man who 'steps out' of the stream.

A: Before his physical death?

K: Of course; otherwise there is no point (it's too late ?) . Suppose you, living now, step out of the stream. What happens?

A: Nothing can be said about what happens. It’s like people talking about deep sleep from awakeness.

K: You see, none of us 'step out' of this river (of collective selfishness ?) , and we are always from the river, trying to reach the 'other shore'. We belong to this stream, all of us. Man does belong to the stream and from the stream he wants to reach that other shore, (without ) never ( actually) leaving the river. Now this man says, all right, I see the fallacy of this, the absurdity of my position. So the ( totality of his) mind says, “Out!” He steps out and what takes place?

A: The only thing that one can say is "silence". But in terms of the stream it is sometimes called 'oblivion'.

K: You know what it means to step out of the stream: no 'character' (no self-image ?), because the moment you have (a self-conscious ?) 'character' it’s of the stream. The moment you say 'I am virtuous',—or 'not virtuous', you are of the stream. To 'step out' of the stream is to step out of this whole ( self-centred mental ?) structure. Even the (artistical forms of ) creation as we know it is in the stream. Mozart, Beethoven, the painters, they are all here: I can 'create' in the stream. I can paint marvelous pictures. I can compose the most extraordinary symphonies, all the technique...

A: Why are they extra-ordinary?

K: Because the world needs it. There is the demand and the supply. But I’m saying to myself what happens to the man who really 'steps out' ? Here in the river, in the stream, our energy is ( caught) in conflicts, in contradictions, in vulgarity and that’s going on all the time... When he 'steps out' of it, there is no more (inner sense of ) 'conflict', there is no ( sense of self-) division . So what is the ( inner ?) quality of that mind that has no sense of division? It is one of 'pure energy', isn’t it? So our ( first and last ?) concern is ( to have a total insight into ?) this 'stream' (of collective self-interest ?) and to step out of it.

A: That is the (true purpose of ?) real meditation, because the ( swimming or drifting in the ?) stream is not a (creative ?) life. The (survival based mentality of the ?) stream is totally mechanical.

K: So, I must 'die' to the stream .

A: All the time ?

K: All the time . And therefore I must not get ( inwardly ?) entangled with those who are in the stream.

A: You mean that one must repudiate the 'things' (the 'psychological values' ?) of the stream.

K: As I move away from the stream my mind is now ( Universally ?) open. I think that is Compassion. When man stream steps out of the (selfishness) Stream and looks, then he has compassion.

A: And love...

K: So, you see, sir, 'reincarnation', that is, incarnating over and over again, is ( taking place ?) in the stream. This is not a very comforting thing. I come to you and tell you my brother died yesterday, and you tell me this. I call you a cruel man. But you are weeping for yourself, you are weeping for the stream. That’s why people don’t ( really ?) want to know ( the truth ?) . I want to know 'where' my brother is (gone) , not whether he 'is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Dec 2015 #53
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: The Eternal Seeker

Questioner: What is it I'm seeking? I really don't know, but there is a tremendous longing in me for something much more than comfort, pleasure and the ( vain ?) satisfaction of self-fulfilment. I happen to have had all these things, but this is something much more - something at an unfathomable depth that is crying to be released, trying to tell me something. I've had this feeling for many years but when I examine it I don't seem to be able to touch it. Yet it is always there, this longing to 'go beyond the mountains and the skies' to find something (of a truly spiritual significance ?) . Perhaps this thing is there right in front of me, only I don't see it. So, how am I to cross to the "other shore" without taking a boat and rowing across the waters? I feel that's the only way.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that's the only way - to find oneself ( consciousness-wise ?) on the "other shore", and from there to live, act and do everything that one does in daily life.

Questioner: But is it (also available ?) for me? I've sat silent; I've studied, examined myself rather intelligently, and of course I've long ago discarded the temples, the shrines and their priests. So you see ,I have come here with complete simplicity.

Krishnamurti: I wonder if you really are ( inwardly ?) so simple as you think! From what depth (of your being ?) are you asking this question, and with what love and beauty? Can your mind and heart receive that 'something' which (always ?) comes unexpectedly?

Questioner: If it is as subtle as all that, how real is it? Intimations of such subtlety are usually fleeting, coming and going unnoticed .

Krishnamurti: Must everything be written out on the blackboard (of the 'conscious' mind ?) ? So let us find out whether our minds and hearts are really capable of receiving that Immensity, and not just the words.

Questioner: I think that I've done (my inner 'homework') fairly intelligently, putting aside all the obvious stupidities of nationalism, organized religion, beliefs and I think my mind can grasp the subtleties of life, but that surely is not enough? So what else is needed? What have I to 'do' or 'not do'?
Krishnamurti: ( The contemplative inner state of ?) 'doing nothing' is ( spiritually ?) far more important than 'doing something'. Can the mind be completely inactive, and thereby be 'supremely active'? Love is not (to be found in ?) the activities of thought; it is not (to be found in ?) good behaviour or social righteousness. As 'you' cannot cultivate it, 'you' can do nothing about Love.

Questioner: I understand your statement that "inaction is the highest form of action" - which doesn't mean to do nothing. I come back to my original feeling that there is this ( universality of ?) Love, and I know, too, that it is the only thing (that matters ultimately ) . But my heart is still empty after I have said that.

Krishnamurti: Does this mean that you are no longer ( subliminally ) saying to yourself : "I must attain this 'something' beyond the furthest hills?"

Questioner: You mean I must give up this intimate feeling I have had for so long that 'there is something' beyond all the hills?

Krishnamurti: It is not a question of 'giving up' anything, but there are only these two things: love, and the mind that is empty of ( its identification with the self-centred process of?) thought. If you really have finished with all the ( 'spiritual' goals ?) which man in his search for something has put together, then, are only these two things ( to be seriously meditated upon ?) - 'love' and the 'empty mind'.

Questioner: I am not sure of (having grasped the truth of this ?) . So again I ask what I am to do ?

Krishnamurti: Do you know what it means to 'commune' with what we have just said about love and the mind?

Questioner: Yes, I think so.

Krishnamurti: I wonder if you do. If there is communion with these two things then all (your meditative ?) action will be ( starting ?) from there.

Questioner: The trouble is that I still think that there is 'something' (else) to be discovered which will put everything else in its right place, in its right order.

Krishnamurti: Without these two things there is no possibility of 'going further'. And ( inwardly speaking ?) there may be no 'going anywhere' at all!

Questioner: But can I be in 'communion' with ( the true spirit of ?) it all the time? When we are together I can be somewhat in communion with it. But can I maintain it?

Krishnamurti: To desire to 'maintain it' (to give it a temporal continuity ?) is the 'noise' (of thought & time ?) , and therefore the 'losing' of it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 Dec 2015 #54
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K lesson du Jour: All about the 'psychological' conditioning and... its undoing

Questioner: You have talked a great deal about (the time binding nature of our psychological ?) 'conditioning' and have said that one must be free of this bondage, otherwise one remains imprisoned always. ( If misunderstood ?) such a statement seems rather outrageous and unacceptable, so I should like to discuss it with you to see how far the human being can uncondition himself. Is it really possible, and if so, what does imply? Is it possible for me, having lived in the ( man-made ?) world of habits, traditions and (thoughtless ?) acceptance of so many things - is it possible for me really to 'throw off' this deep-rooted conditioning? So, what exactly do you mean by "conditioning", and what do you mean by "freedom from conditioning"?

Krishnamurti: Let us take the first question first. We are physically 'conditioned' ('neuro-programmed' ?) by the climate we live in and the food we eat, by the culture in which we live, by the whole ( mentality ?) of our social, religious and economic environment, by our experience, by education and by family pressures and influences. All these are the (active) 'factors' which condition us. Our 'conscious' and 'unconscious' responses to all the challenges of our environment - intellectual, emotional, outward and inward - all these are the action of conditioning. Language is ( part of our cultural ?) conditioning and all thought is the action, the response of conditioning.
Not being able to 'uncondition' (unprogram ?) ourselves in this world, and/or not even realising that 'conditioning' is the central problem, we think that (there is a spiritual ?) freedom in 'Heaven', or in (reaching) 'Nirvana'. Nowadays the 'psychologists' do try to get to grips with this problem, but in doing it (analytically they ?) condition us still further. Thus the religious 'specialists' (myth makers ?) have conditioned us, the 'social order' has conditioned us, the family which is part of it has conditioned us. All this is the ( psychological imprinting of the ?) past which makes up the open as well as the hidden layers of the mind. En passant it is interesting to note that the so-called 'individual(ity)' doesn't exist at all, for it draws on the common (collective ?) reservoir of conditioning which we shares with everybody else, so the ( antagonstic) division between the 'community' ( mentality ?) and the 'individualistic' (one) is false: there is only ( an active human ) 'conditioning' (dealing with ?) all our relationships - to things, people and ideas.

Questioner: Then what am I to do to free myself from it all?

Krishnamurti: The central factor of this conditioning is the "me" (psychological identification ?) which thinks in terms of ( its own continuity in ?) time, the same "me" which now exerts itself in the demand to be free. So the ( active?) root ( process ?) of all conditioning, is the ( self-centred ?) thought which is ( identifying itself as ?) the "me". This "me" is the very essence of the past, the "me" is (generating its own ?) 'time', the "me" is ( colaterally generating ?) 'sorrow' , and now same the "me" endeavours to free itself from itself, makes efforts to achieve (a higher consciousness ?) . This 'struggle to become'( or 'upgrade' itself ?) is ( projecting its own ?) time (line) in which (is involved) the greed for "the more and the better".
( In a nutshell ) The "me" is the ( active) factor of (this man-made ?) 'conditioning'.

Questioner: But what am I left without this "me"?

Krishnamurti: If there is no "me" (identification ?) you are unconditioned, which means you are ( inwardly as ?) 'nothing'.

Questioner: How can the ( self-sustaining ?) action of the "me" stop?

Krishnamurti: It can "stop" ( come to an end ?) only if one sees this whole thing, the whole business of it. If you see it in action, in its relationships, the 'seeing' is the ending of the "me". Not only is this ( non-personal ?) 'seeing' an action which is not conditioned but also it acts upon conditioning.

Questioner: Do you mean to say that the brain - which is the result of our vast evolution in time can free itself?

Krishnamurti: The brain is the result of (mankind's evolution in ?) time; and it is conditioned to protect itself physically; but when it ( is 'overdoing' it ?) trying to protect itself 'psychologically' then the "me" begins, and all our misery starts. It is this (instinctual ?) effort to protect itself 'psychologically' that is (resulting in ?) the affirmation of the "me". The brain can learn, can acquire practical knowledge , but when it acquires ( the self-protecting ?) knowledge psychologically then that ( active) 'knowledge' asserts (expresses ) itself in relationship as the "me" with its experience, its will and its violence. This is what brings division, conflict and sorrow to relationship.

Questioner: Can this brain be ( inwardly) 'still' and only operate when knowledge is demanded in (terms of outward ?) action, as for example in learning a language, driving a car or building a house?

Krishnamurti: The real question is whether the brain, the whole of it, can be still, quiet, and respond efficiently only when it has to, in the practical fields of daily living ? We say it can and this is (very much related to ?) the understanding of what 'meditation' is.

Questioner: I should like to continue where we left off yesterday. As you said at the end, meditation is the emptying of the mind of all conditioning so that there is no distortion or 'illusion'. But in fact, what do you mean by 'illusion'?

Krishnamurti: It is so easy to deceive oneself, so easy to convince oneself of anything at all. The ( subliminal) feeling that one must 'be something' is the beginning of (self-) deception, and, of course, this idealistic attitude leads to various forms of 'hypocrisy' ( theatrical 'masks' ?). What makes 'illusion'? Well, one of the factors is this constant ( mental) comparison between 'what is' and 'what should be', or 'what might be', ( the process of ?) thought trying to improve itself, to get more pleasure, and so on. It is this 'desire for more', this (inner sense of) dissatisfaction which must inevitably lead to every form of self-deception and illusion. It is our desire and despair, that project the 'goal' to be reached . ( In a nutshell:) Desire, dissatisfaction, fear, pleasure, wanting more, wanting to change, all of which is measurement - this is the 'way of illusion'.

Questioner: Do you really have no illusions at all about anything?

Krishnamurti: I am not all the time (mentally ?) 'measuring' myself or others. This freedom from measurement comes about when you are really living with 'what is' - neither wishing to change it nor judging it in terms of good and bad. Living with 'what is' does not mean to identify yourself with it either.

Questioner: Can we go back to the question of what is this 'freedom' that everyone wants? Sometimes this innate desire for freedom expresses itself in the stupidest ways, but I think one can say that in the human heart there is always this deep longing for freedom. What does it mean to be really, honestly, 'free'?

Krishnamurti: Perhaps this may help us to understand it (in a roundabout way ?) : the total negation ( of the psychological illusion of 'being' or 'becoming' something ?) is ( bringing ?) that freedom. To negate all inward acceptance of authority, to negate everything one has said or concluded about reality, to negate all the drives which stem from remembered or forgotten pleasures, to negate all ( attempts of self-) fulfilment, such negation is the most positive action, therefore it is freedom.

Questioner: If I chisel away at this, bit by bit, it will go on for ever and that itself will become my ( new ?) bondage. Can't it all wither away in a flash, can't I negate the whole human deception, all the values and aspiration and standards, immediately? I am faced now with this challenge which I know is true, and yet my utter incapacity to 'do it' (is blocking ?) me. I see the beauty of this thing, to be inwardly completely 'as nothing', but....

Krishnamurti: You know, it is only when there is 'emptiness' ( free inner space ?) in oneself, that 'emptiness'( Inner Void ?) that comes with the total negation of everything "one has been and should be and will be" - it is only in this emptiness that there is ( the inward opportunity of ?) Creation - that something new can take place.
It is your imaging of ( what such inner?) 'emptiness' is ( that generates its own ?) fear. You are really ( 'viscerally' ?) frightened of leaving the 'known', the attachments, the satisfactions, the pleasurable memories, the continuity and security which give comfort. Thought is comparing 'this' (safety of whatever it knows ?) with what it thinks is ( a void?) 'emptiness' , so this fear 'is' (enfolded in that very ?) thought.
To come back to your question - can the mind negate the total content of the 'conscious' and 'unconscious' essence of 'yourself'? Can you "negate yourself" ( the 'self'-identification ?) completely? If not, there is no freedom. Freedom is not 'freedom from something' - that is only a reaction; ( the spiritual essence of ?) freedom comes in ( to be found in ?) this total denial.

Questioner: But what is the good (or the advantage ?) of having such freedom?

Krishnamurti: 'Good' in terms of what? Of (what was already ?) 'known'? Freedom is the absolute Good and its action is ( creating ?) the beauty of everyday life. In this freedom alone there is living, and without it how can there be love? Everything exists and has its being in this 'freedom'. It is everywhere and nowhere. It has no frontiers. Can you (inwardly ?) 'die' now to everything you know and not wait for tomorrow to 'die'? This freedom is (its own ?) eternity and ecstasy and love.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Dec 2015 #55
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: An insider's view into the nature of insight and the field of 'time'

Q : We were discussing among ourselves this question about the need for a tremendous (inner) clarity. (The problem is that ?) the 'ego' (the 'self'-consciousness ?) inteferes with ( a pure ?) perception.

K : How do you have an 'insight' into anything ? It's not dictated by your previous knowledge or by your past experience. This 'flash of clarity' takes place suddenly, right ?

Q : Yes, all the great discoveries are made that way. Except that in science this is easier because you are looking at something which is 'objective'. But when you are looking at 'yourself' it's a pretty subjective issue...

K: That's why, when you are looking at yourself can you have an insight into the whole whole movement (constantly changing activities ?) of your (self-centred) consciousness ?

Q: That's just the question : how can there be 'insight' (a flash of inner clarity?) in a confused person with its 'ego' ? How can that 'insight' arise at all?

K: It won't arise ! A man who is concerned with its own little 'self' does not want (such) insight.

Q: So, unless the 'ego' ( the 'self'-identified consciousness ?) comes to an end there is no insight.

K: I'm not quite sure whether it should 'completely end' or (whatever the nature of ?) 'insight' is, will end that. You understand ? Not the other way around. To have an insight into (the totality of your) consciousness you do not have to have the ending of the 'ego', but you can have a (flash of ?) insight into the whole movement of your consciousness.

Q : But will not the 'ego' distort that perception ?

K: If the ( inner clarity of that?) insight is tremendous, the 'ego' can't interfere at all, it has no place. And wouldn't that ( flash of ?) insight wipe away the ('identification' ) because the insight is (qualitatively?) much 'stronger' (of a higher level ?) than the other ?

Q: This statement is for me only a ( metaphysical) speculation; although to you it may be a 'fact'.

K : Yes, it is speculative to you...So, what shall we do ?

Q: May I ask why our ( inward ?) insights are so limited ?

K : Because of our (active?) conditioning, obviously. A scientist has a sudden flash (into his 'scientific' problem) That 'flash' takes place without ( any direct link to ?) his previous knowledge. He is 'caught up' (absorbed ?) in this enormous inquiry, and suddenly he gets a 'flash' ( has a true perception regarding his problem) . But that 'flash of insight' is 'partial' (is not affecting his inner?) life because (at that level) he is still 'conditioned' (anchored in the known ?) … So, what shall we do then ? Let's work it out!

Q: It seems to me that one of the important points is the nature of the question. You see, like Newton was asking the question 'Why the Moon is not attracted by the Earth?' When everyone thought that it was only 'natural' because the Moon has a different kind of matter- 'celestial' . And Newton questioned that. He said that he questioned everything in science, but he asked questions only about science...

K: About a particular field

Q: I feel that this ( inspiring ?) analogy with science it's 'side-tracking' us. A scientist is looking at ( material) facts which fall within a certain pattern, and if he can find a beautiful equation to describe it, that's the 'insight' for him . So the scientist's insight is related to the 'phenomenal world', while the (inward) 'insight' you are talking about cannot exist as long as the self(-consciousness) is there .

K : Yes, ( a total ?) 'insight' can only take place when there is no 'self' (identification?) but (generally speaking ? ) the 'self' is so dominant (so 'all controlling'?) that there is no (free inner space for a total) insight . But in talking it over together you are beginning to move away from the (total dominancy of the?) 'self', aren't you ?

Q: I find that these things are becoming more clear intellectually , but this kind of (verbal ) understanding has its own limits...

K : That's right.

Q : ...since the 'self' (identification) has been acting ( to protect its own continuity ?) in a more subtle way. I felt that when we are discussing it ( academically ?) there is not that intensity of perception which perhaps comes when there is a deeper experience- like the big loss of something you were very attached to, something that shakes you up. It is like when you act in a situation of emergency, the 'self' (consciousness) does not have the time to interfere : you just perceive and act.

K : You have just touched on something: isn' it ( the inner proces of?) 'time' that prevents ( the total ) insight ?
Let us go slowly into it: the whole proces of the 'ego' is ( based on our evolutionary experience in ?) time. Right?

Q : Yes
K : So, the ending of ( this 'psychological' continuity in?) time is (allowing ?) the 'total' perception. You see what I mean ? The 'ego' is built through time.

Q : That's clear...

K: And when you are still thinking in terms of time it is the ( same mentality as that of the?) 'ego'.

Q : Are you saying that 'time' is (synonimous with the) 'ego' ?

K: Of course ! Everything is time. Just remain with it, old boy !

Q : You mean, all ( our self-centred ?) thought is (the cummulative result of ?) 'time' ?

K Yes. So whenever you are ( engaged in ?) thinking in terms of time there is no ( inner space for any ?) insight

Q: This brings us to this other question : the brain operates and has its (biological) function for the organism to survive. And it must 'think' in order to survive. So ( the self-centred process of ) thought arises (naturally ?) which ( automatically) brings you (the thinking entity) into the 'psychological' field of time.

K : Yes...

Q : And this (process of spatio-temporal thinking?) creates the 'ego'. Now, why does this happen?

K: Because (the brain) has found ( established its 'psychological') safety in that. It hasn't realise the 'insanity' (irationality ?) of that because we have lived for so long ( safely protected ?) in our tradition, our whole (mentality ?) is ( the result of ?) 'time'.

Q: Why hasn't intelligence or 'insight' broken through?

K: Ah, we haven't got it (yet ?) ! So we've come to a point which is, we are thinking in terms of ( continuity in?) time. The 'ego' is (the result of our natural evolution in?) time and we are still caught up (inwardly) in that.

Q : So, the physical brain produces both ( the process of self-centred ?) thinking and ( the 'psychological background' of our continuity in ?) 'time'.

K: And in that there is security.

Q : A false ( sense of ?) security ?

K : It thinks (and feels ?) that there is security.

Q : So, one is living in a body in which there is a brain constantly producing 'thought' and 'time'. So how can it end, Sir ?

K: I'll show you in a minute. We said that ( the inner process of?) 'time' is (undissociated from the?) 'ego'. The ego (the self-centred mentality ?) 'is' time. So, are you still thinking in terms of time ? Are you caught in that ( mental ) pattern ?

Q : Is it not possible that a person is out of the 'ego' (-centric mentality ?) but he may use his capacity of thinking?

K : That's different.

Q: So, that's just factual thinking , not the kind of thinking that expands the 'ego'.

K: Yes, yes. So, listen to it carefully : «Time 'is' ego». Are you still thinking (inwardly ) in terms of time? Thinking is time. Are you still caught in that (mental?) pattern?

Q: I'm afraid that yes...

K : Wait. Be 'aware' of that. 'Aware' in the sense that you know the full depth of these words «Time is ego». Are you aware of the full significance, the depth of it, the ( inward) meaning of it?

Q: Intellectually it seems pretty obvious...

K: No, it's not 'obvious'! If you are not 'aware' of that (truth ?) , then you have no ( moral ?) right to ask the question «What is insight?»... 'Insight' has nothing to do with 'time'. That means, if you are still (inwardly involved in ?) 'time' in the sense of ( self-centred?) 'thought' and so on, you can't have (free access to?) the other .

Q : We are occupied with ( a multitude of problems related to our physical existence in ) 'time'

K : Even if one is occupied with (thinking in terms of?) 'time' (one can take a meditative 'time-out' to ?) find if ( the inner process of 'thought- ) time' can stop.

Q: That was our starting question, sir!

K: Careful now, just listen to it: your brain is reluctant to go into this because it may loose (the feeling of its ?) complete (inner) security. As it has lived in (the field of ) time, it has worked in time, it has brought about (its own continuity in ?) 'time', in that (the brain has generated this feeling of?) complete protection for itself.

Q: Which is (then expressed as?) the 'ego'!

Q2: But why doesn't thought realise that it is (creating) the problem ?

K : Because we have not faced this thing ! Nobody has critically faced this thing. We are (experientially placing ourslves ?) in a 'crisis' (situation) now ! We four are in a 'crisis' to find out ! But thought says : "I must (take some more time to ) investigate , I must question, I must argue !"

Q : That is the problem: the 'ego' (is deviously ?) interfering.

K : No, no! ( the whole proces of ?) 'time' interferes. Therefore, look at it. Can you observe without ( the psychological background of ?) 'time' (interfering?) , without the ( knowledgeable control of the?) 'ego' ? Can one observe oneself without saying 'Yes, I am conditioned, I must be free of it' and all the rest of it? Just to look at this 'yourself', who is made up ( of hyper-active memories?) And the brain is finding security in ( the virtual permaneny of ?) that 'thing' which it has created as the 'me'. So, the brain is 'reluctant' to let it go because it doesn't know if there is ( a different form of inner?) security . When there is (the inner light of ?) 'insight', there is complete security.
(Thinking in terms ?) time doesn't give (an authentic) security.
Now, you have listened to it. Has this been a 'challenge', a shock ? If not, why ?

Q: Because we have a partial, fragmentary perception ?

K: No! No! Much more than that ; when you are ( totally) challenged, say your son or somebody close to you dies, that's a tremendous ( psychic-) challenge to you: you have to do something . But here you say, 'Well, I will (take all my time) discuss it ( seriously ?) …

Q : Yes, because the (personal ) challenge is not so clear here...

K: Why? It will never be clearer!

Q : Sir, this is the problem of all the mankind that it is not so 'clear'. That is ( causing) the 'lack of insight'. Which in turn is due to the 'ego' (self-protective mechanism) and that's back ( into the field of the known ?) - the vicious circle. I see that I'm caught in this 'vicious circle' and that another person (such as K?) is not able to help you break this circle...

K: Ah, no! The other person doesn't say "Break the circle" . The other person says: "Listen! Look!" Now, if you 'look' or 'listen' it either is just a verbally (induced ?) wave and goes off, or it is (received as ?) a tremendous (inner) challenge, as great as somebody dying next to me !

Q: For us, it's obviously not...

K: Why?

Q: I think because we are still (psychologically anchored ?) in the field of time.

K: No, no! That's not an ( intelligent ?) answer.

Q: We are still holding on to our ( 'psychological' sense of ?) security.

K: No, my question was: why isn't it (perceived as a total?) challenge? You haven't answered it.

Q: Why does the brain resist (facing this total?) challenge?

K That's right. Why are you 'resisting' ?

Q: Is it because we don't perceive the 'danger' of it?

K No, no! You are preventing yourself (from seeing it?) by talking (by translating the direct challenge in terms of the known ?) .

Q: It seems to me that for a 'flash' there is a (perhaps a subliminal?) perception of the 'danger', but it resists...That's just the way it goes!

Q2: But would you feel this (psychological) 'danger' as acutely as if your house were on fire? My answer is 'No'

K: Why 'no'?
Q : Because the fire is destroying everything that I hold on to, while this ( challenge doesn't look like ?) changing things too much.

K: Why? Isn't this the same thing?

Q : I don't see this (presumed inner ) 'danger' clearly...

K: Why is this ( not seen as ?) a greater challenge than your house on fire- far more dangerous ? You would not allow yourself ( the inward space?) to 'see the danger', because "God knows what might happen to you: you might give up your 'professorship' (laughs ), you might give up your family! You might give up everything!" ( The 'subliminal' feeling is ?) "By Jove, it's too risky!"

Q: So, it is the 'self''s (own protecting mechanism?) that is preventing such a (radical inner) perception?

K: No! No! ( the subliminal mentality of?) 'time' is making you feel how dangerous it is, and therefore you say 'It is the 'self'. But of course, this thought- time (process) 'is' ( undissociated from?) the 'self'.
( To recap:) We are asking: why don't you see this tremendous (inward) danger? Is it by 'habit' ? Is it that you are not (vitally) interested in it ?

Q: I'm not making any excuses, sir, but is it that the physical structure of the brain is such? This brain is creating ( its own sense of safety in terms of?) time and thought...

K: Would you say, sir, that the brain is in (a state of) constant (self-centred) movement ? Thinking, foreseeing, registering ? It is like a ( moving) jelly ! (laughs) And it has never ( fully) appreciated a quiet, still (inner state of) non-movement, of non-registration?

Q: Would you say, 'never' ?

K: Occasionally! Therefore it (the quality of this quietness?) is partial.
It is a partial (occasional?) movement. When it is so, it (the brain) must (automatically?) go back (to its 'default' settings?) , because it has lived 'partially' ( fragmentarily ?) all its life!

Q : Isn't it therefore a question of ( lacking the sufficient ?) 'energy'? It requires a tremendous (concentration of ?) energy to stay in that (meditative state of 'non-movement'?), but it is 'soooo easy' not to be in that !

K: Agreed. But when you have a (major existential crisis ?) the energy is (instantly gathered ?) there.

Q: Whereas here we dissipate (temporally ?) that ( total) energy and bring only our partial energy to deal with our problem ?

K:Surely !

Q: What is ( the nature of ) this (total) energy, sir ?

K: Sir, ( mental and emotional ?) energy can be created through friction: like a motor ( motivational ?) energy. With us it's like that, isn't it ? We have a great deal of energy (generated) through friction ( trying to overcome our difficulties ?) But when there is no friction we 'flop' ( or fall asleep ?)

Q : The whole structure of any society is based on this premise (of overcoming material challenges): competition, success: that will 'activate' (really motivate ?) us, otherwise you will go (on stand-by ?) or 'go to sleep'

K: Of course! That's all we know. So we are asking is there a (different inner ?) energy which is not brought about through friction ? Suppose I say 'Yes' . For you, it may be just a theory. But if you are ( vitally) interested, if you say ; "By Jove, I will give my life to find that out !" You will have it there (laughs)

Q : But...has it happened to anyone? This going from a state where there is the 'self' , through insight, to a state of 'no self'?

K: Again, you are thinking in terms of 'time': (you or other people going ) from 'this' to 'that'. You don't ask the right question ! I know the energy that's created through friction- the whole civilisation is based on that, on ( entropy and ?) friction. I want to find out if there is an (available source of inner ?) 'energy' which has no friction. You gave 30 years to become a Professor, but you don't give even five minutes (of meditative inquiry?) to find this out!

Q: No, that's not true, we give it time but I guess we don't give it the 'totality of ourselves'

K: You never give it ( a chance to happen ?) ! I'll put it this way : Without (the spiritual light of ?) insight life (on planet Earth ?) is a burden- 'Burden' in the biggest sense of the word . So there must be (this quality of?) insight, otherwise what is the point of going through all these horrors that one goes through ?

Q: So, if there is no ( temporal) transition from 'this' to 'that', what then is this 'total revolution' you are talking about?

K: That is (taking place in?) the ending of 'this'.

Q: Therefore, when 'this' is not, 'That' is ?

K: So your concern is with (understanding and ending?) 'this'.

Q: If I may ask you, sir, what is the relevance of this extraordinary phenomenon that is 'K' to our lives ? When one listens to you one has a certain feeling (of inner clarity) which goes away rapidly when one is away from you. You yourself say that you can't 'help' anyone- or in your words "Seek your own (spiritual) salvation" or " Be a light to yourself". So, why do we keep coming back, why are we unable to see what you're putting forward as a tremendous ( spiritual ) crisis in our life ?

Q2: I would say that we live (keep being busy ?) with 'problems' and that's all that we know- and here is a man who says there is an entirely different way of living in which we can dissolve all our (personal?) problems and there would be love and compassion.. So one is concerned with listening to him to find out what he has to say. The day you find out, perhaps you won't come back...

K: Either you come back because you want (expect ?) something or you have various problems which you want to (get expose and?) dissolve. Or, it may be something much deeper : perhaps you see the (inward) beauty of ( what) this man is talking- so the 'Beauty', the 'Good' is attracting

Q: But why can't I see for myself the 'crisis' or the 'challenge'?

K : Either it is (for you personally) a tremendous crisis or it's like this ( wealthy ?) man who came to see me every day, and one morning he said: 'tell me about myself, really, I'm interested'. I began to tell...and from that morning he never came back because he saw that : " I'll have to give up my- etc, etc' ". He couldn't take it. But here we 'take it', we assimilate a little bit (laughs)

Q: But it also creates a tremendous inner conflict because it's a partial assimilation: going back in a world where this does not operate, and then coming back to listen to you again.... So, again, what is stopping this (insightful ) perception you are taliking about? You speak with a great deal of passion, of clarity and still we seem unable to 'see' it. I don't think we understand it even intellectually or verbally.

K: Oh, yes, you understand that! You understood every word when we said 'Time "is" (creating?) the ego'. You understood it verbally and saw the fact of it.

Q : Then, at this moment wouldn't it be all finished ? But we see it through 'analysis', we don't see it directly the way you are talking of 'direct perception'- So, in our discussions with you it remains a verbal communication which is (intellectually accepted by ) the conscious mind. It does not go deeper.

K: That's very clear. So, what shall we do?

Q: Can't you communicate it non-verbally?

K: Yes. If I want to tell you something which is very 'serious'- to me at least, it's very, very serious. But, will you 'listen'?

Q : We seem to be (either unwilling or ?) incapable of it... I can see intellectually that what is preventing (this non-verbal listening) is our attachment, our self-dentification, and 'time' …

K: Now, if you just sat quietly and listen without any words? Would you listen?

Q: We do this when there is love...

K: No, no. I want to tall you something ( which inwardly) is dreadfully serious, which will affect your life and the life of your friends and so on. Apparently the (non-verbal dimension of the ) 'story' I want to tell you, you have not listened to. Now, I want to tall you the story non-verbally. Which mens what ? To 'listen' with the same intensity, at the same level, at the same time. Otherwise there is no (total?) communication. Will you do it?

Q: Yes!

K : Now?

Q: Yes!

K: Be clear about that. Which means that when you are as 'intensely eager' to listen to it, you are at the same level, there's no 'high' and 'low', but ( both) at the same depth: "By Jove, I want to listen to this chap!" ( at those deeper levels ?) you can't 'argue' with him, see? So, stop arguing. Will you listen to it that way?

Q: I think that part of our ( cultural) conditioning is that there is an (subliminal ?) resistence to such listening.

K: That's just it!

Q : But I want to listen, so do please go on.

K I will go on! Which means what ? That we are in communication with each other completely. The same intensity, the same level, at the same time- that means you are completely listening- there is no thought interfering. Right ? Which is implying what ? A non-verbal state of 'love' and therefore there is no (need to ) communicate ( verbally ?). When I tell you something serious and say "My dear chap, I love you with all my heart " would you argue ?

Q: It seems to me that we are not able to meet at the same level...

K: Therefore... you are not 'listening'

Q: Yes, but it's not voluntary.

K You are not listening because (subliminally ?) you don't want to listen! Because you feel: "'My God, I don't know what may happen"... You see, nobody has told you that!

Q: Sir, the intellect is more superficial than the emotions.

K I don't differentiate between the two! They are both the same. When a man is 'emotional' (dominated by emotions) he is nonsensical . When he is 'intellectual', just words, he is 'nonsensical' too.

Q: But suppose you are able to approach a man either "intellectually" or "emotionally "?

K: I ( personally ?) can't (do this ?) - then I say: "Go and jump in the lake!"

Q: I just wanted to ask you : anyone who has not dissolved the ego is automatically 'evil' ?

K Not that he is 'evil'; there is ( a seed of? ) 'evil' in him.

Q : But, for instance Mother Theresa and Hitler - we cannot put them in the same bracket...

K: I don't put them in the same bracket. All I say is they are both working in the same 'field' (of mankind's known ?) . They may be at distant corners- it's an enormous field !

Q: But that field (of the 'world' ?) is our life, Sir...

K: That's what I'm saying: "Get out of it!"

Q: Well, that brings me to another question: even if an individual 'steps out' of this field...

K Ah, that's a hypothetical question. I wouldn't answer that. Then you didn't listen to that man ( K) saying : You 'are' the total, the whole humanity. You 'are' the rest of humanity. Would you accept that (responsability?) , not theoretically, but factually? So, if you transform yourself- not from 'this' to 'that'- but if you end 'this' , then it ( the resulting global consciousness ?) affects the rest of the world.

Q: But the 'rest of the world' is going down the stream the same way! Buddha came and went, Christ came and went...

K: That is not your concern !

Q: But I feel that (even an enlightened ) individual is unable to help the others...

K Wait a minute. What do you mean by 'help' ? ( 'Help' people to ) move from one corner of the field to another corner of the field?

Q : Sir, this can be done and people are helping each other to do that.

K : And that has no value !

Q: It has no 'value' from the point of view of stepping out of the field.

K: The whole ( 'psychological') field ( dominated by self-interest ?) has no value !

Q: Sir, the man who has 'stepped out' of the field is affecting the consciousness of those who are still living in that field ?

K: Yes.

Q: The whole human consciousness, of everybody?

K: Yes. I am certain of it !
Q: What makes you feel so certain?

K: It is so!

Q: I mean, it 'could be so'. But how can you make it clear that the man who is out of the field is affecting the field of (human consciousness) as a whole?

K: Because he brings about a new light, a new perception, he brings something totally "new" which the men in the field- perhaps some of them- can capture it.

Q: But now we have another point that you may be trying to say that some people in the field are more (inwardly) perceptive than others?

K: Yes.

Q: Not everybody is ( 'psychologically' ?) equal in the field ?

K: No. Of course not!

Q: Therefore some are more likely to "see it" than others and this man who is out of the field may make possible...

K: For a few in the field...

Q: To see something.

Q2: Two things I'd like to clarify, sir: The man who has 'stepped out' ( of the 'known' field ?) does he affect the whole field of human consciousness?

K: I say he does!

Q2: But the people who came in contact with him, who have a certain receptivity , he affects them more ?

K: Surely. They may be living in the field , then their whole (inward) movement of life would be to move out...

Q2: Is that why they come to you?

K: Perhaps...

Q: I'm not sure, sir, that if the Buddha was not born the world would have been very different today.

K: No. I doubt it too! But you are talking from the (collective mentality of the?) field. Therefore your statement has no value ! As long as you are living in the field and say that the Buddha has no value, you are looking at it partially. So, are we discussing from living (anchored ) in the field and trying to bring the 'Other' into the field ? Those of us who are ( holistically ?) 'serious' want to move out of the field !

Q : Now, what makes a certain person respond to you more than others ?

K: It may be pure chance! It may be that they had a hell of a life and they feel that something must (be changed?)

Q: Sorrow?

K: Their sorrow, or they may see something beautiful which they have never seen before. They notice inwardly this extraordinary sense of beauty and they say: "By Jove!" So, there are all these factors...

Q: Now, sir, you meet people who have come to you with different levels of receptivity and who come for different reasons. And you want people to step out of the field ; so you're talking to these people, describing what is happening to them and you also lead a personal life which exemplifies what you are talking about, but...

K: Carry on.

Q: Now, it is not succeeding, if I may point it out crudely!

K: I understand...

Q: So, isn't there something beyond this which is possible?

K: Look at it the other way, which is, meeting people and talking is both at the conscious level and also at a deeper level, right?

Q : Yes, there must be receptivity at both levels.

K Of course! The intellectual says 'By Jove, it's quite logical, sane, I see what he means'. And the romantic, emotional , sentimentalist, is responding in his or (her?) own way. So what is your question?

Q: You are out of the field. In what way are you affecting people who are 'within the field' and what is the barrier within the field which is preventing the deeper perception?

K: Look, sir, it's simple enough: the people (inwardly living anchored ) in the field (of time ?) ) only want 'rewards'- they think in terms of 'reward'. They have been trained in (terms of) punishment and reward all their life. Now, here comes a man who says " ( Inwardly, psychologically ?) there is no reward or punishment" . They are not used to this.

Q: But the same man (K) also says that there is an 'ending of sorrow' and that becomes a reward for them...

K: Of course! So they are thinking in terms of expecting a reward (for their psycholgical endeavours ?)

Q: So, is that the (communication ?) barrier?

K: Perhaps, sir ! That's one barrier.

Q: So, can't there be another form of communication which can 'cut through' the 'barriers' which the other person has?

K: Yes, if he's willing to listen! Therefore the very act of (a non-verbal, non-argumentative?) listening is ( triggering ?) the awakening of that (quality of integrated ?) Intelligence. Then that Intelligence can communicate with the Other. You follow what I'm saying? If you are actually free from all sense (of getting ?) a reward, that is ( leading to ?) the ending of sorrow. But this is not a 'reward'; it is so (a 'fact' ?) !

Q: For you this is not a reward, but for us when you say that, you are holding a promise, a reward, because we think in terms of our personal sorrow ending...

K: I know. There is not only the personal sorrow, there is also a global sorrow.

Q: Now you see this 'barrier' and you see this person keeps coming back to you . So there must be something happening to him...

K: : Which is what? Say for instance that you can't give up a (bad) habit instantly- you will take days!

Q: But you say it can be done instantly...

K: Yes, but he says: I'm used to the other. Tell me how quickly I can do it! So, he's still ( subliminally ?) thinking in terms of expecting a reward

Q: Sir, if I may ask you (a very personal question ?) : were you once ( living ?) in this field (of time ?) ?

K: I question it too! (laughs)

Q: So, then you are telling us that "it is possible", but you haven't stepped out of that field yourself, (since...) you were never in the field. So in other words the question is whether it is possible (for someone already libving in the field of thought and time?) to 'step out' of that field ?

K: A man who is not born in the 'field' may have more (perceptive? ) clarity than the man in the field. So he says "Get out. This is the way out!"

Q: But he didn't have to get out, he was out...

K: You are missing my point: if you have never been ( psychologically anchored ?) in this field you see the whole thing at a glance. Therefore he says: 'Look, this is the way to do it.'
So (to recap:) You began by asking : as long as the 'ego' exists, there is no insight . And I said: ( a total) 'insight' ( awakening of Intelligence ?) takes place when there is no 'time' ; 'time' being the (essence of) the 'ego'. And...we are still talking from within the field of time. All that you have said is still within the field of 'time' . And I say: For God's sake stop (arguing ?) for a minute and listen ! And you keep saying : 'I can't listen because I am caught' Then... you are caught. It's up to you!

Q: But are you not saying that a man who is caught (in the field of thought-time) can step out?

K: I say so, obviously!
Q: Do you know a single person who has done it?

K: That's not my business!

Q: And you are concerned that people 'step out', otherwise you would not be at it...

K: Of course!
Q: There are 2 ways in which this concern is showing: to talk to people, to create 'centers' where there is...

K...more ( space for ?) sensitivity-

Q: Yes, and the other is affecting ( more directly) the whole consciousness of man...

K: Leave that (aside) !

Q: The third is the life you are leading, which is a tremendous thing...

K: Doesn't matter!

Q: But is it having an effect, sir? Do you see it having an effect?

K: Sir, I am not ( personally ?) concerned with it. It's like a spring flowing. If you want to drink from it, drink it!

Q: But you watch some people very carefully, you know them. Is it having an effect?

K: I wouldn't answer your question.

Q: Isn't it a valid question?

K: No, it isn't. It is a 'valid' question if you ask: "Is it affecting me, Asit". Then I will deal with it, but not 'generally' .

Q: We are obviously affected. I mean, we have all benefitted, but we have benefitted from the field ! I think that mankind has benefitted, but still within the field.

K: I say that's not a (spiritual?) benefit at all. It's like moving from that corner to this corner and saying 'That's marvellous !'

Q: Yes but there's significance in that too.

K: Mighty little significance! Even logically it has very little importance.

Q: Sir, have from childhood heard you, lived with you and I still do all the things I should not be doing! Not only intellectually, but in every way-

K: If you really mean it, don't do it ! You say : I smoke and I can't give it up. I say: "why the hell can't you give it up?" And he says: "because I don't see clearly", etc -(laughs)

Q: So the question is that after listening to you for my most innocent, formative 40 years of my life (starting from age 6) my brain still starts deteriorating. What happens, sir?

K: Look, Asit, you've got (still ?) a good brain! Why don't you use the brain for this ? What is preventing you ?

Q: I don't know, I wonder about it a great deal

K: Don't 'wonder' , you'll never find it (this way) ! If you've got a good brain why is it deteriorating?

Q: What is in this brain, or mind, or body that is making it go (inertially ?) in this direction though he sees it's the wrong direction ?

K: What is preventing? I can give you a dozen reasons, what is the (central ) fact? This is applicable to everybody! Is it that we are innately, so profoundly ( inwardly negligent and/or ?) "lazy" ? We've got to this ( time spread ?) lethargy...

Q : It is the easy way out. So easy...

K : Which means, we are "psychologically" seeking ( to constantly improve and optimise our ?) comfort and we want to remain comfortably in that "amorphous" state of laziness !

Q: That means there has not been any authentic communication during all these 40 years; subconscious or unconscious …

K: Why, sir? You answer it yourself!

Q: Because from the age of 6 up to 20 there was no resistance.

K : I know, it may be ( the psychologicaly sloppy ?) 'European' education. The (material temptations of the ?) western civilisation are much more stronger - with all their industry, their comfort, their money- you follow ? That's much more attractive than the other. I'm not saying that you are ( forever ?) trapped in it ! But we like this 'amorphous laziness' of ( psychological ?) comfort !

Q: Is that all?

K: That may be the central factor. You've got a candle, you've got the matches, but "my God, to get up and go and light the match !" (laughs)

Q : But isn't that due to the lack of insight ?

K: No, no! Because there may be a tremendous (psychological ) danger in getting up and trying to 'light the candle' ! He (the 'ego' ?) may see things which may shock him, frighten him , which might 'destroy' him !

Q: What kind of things?

K: I don't know, with him it may be (losing?) the personal comfort, attachments, ambitions...

Q: It would seem to me that if there is a really total insight, then there is an insight into that laziness too.

K: He hasn't got it! What he's got is an insight in the field (of time) - knowing that it's rotten!

Q: But then, what is needed is a total insight beyond that?

K: That's just it, it ( the 'ego') cannot have total insight.

Q: So, is it that unless the mind is truly sensitive the communication (with truth ?) does not have the intensity to make the breakthrough?

K: But sir, if you really want something beautiful, you 'go after it'! Nothing is going to prevent you! If you want to furnish your (inner?) house in a most marvellous way- I am talking of the 'house' which is not within the field (of time)! When you want to have that (inner) feeling of beauty you work for it ! So, what shall we do ? A man says to me 'Come this way, it's much more beautiful ; you'll live much more happily- really happily- And you say, 'It takes so much energy (plus the inner discomfort?) to leave all this ; it will mean walking in a totally different direction and I don't know if I want to, and even if I do, what's the pont of it?- in the sense that 'it won't affect vast masses of people, and so on' !

Q: You see, chasing money may not bring you happiness but it brings you comfort (laughs)

K: But if you know the value of money and put it in its right place, you are finished with it! To put it in the right place needs a little energy, but you are unwilling to spend that energy!

Q: But we are not masters of ourselves,sir, we are just led down the road. We are slaves to this!

K: Therefore don't talk about getting to the 'other'!

Q: So, the whole ( necessary ?) thing is putting everything in the right place?

K: Yes.

Q: Putting thought in its right place, money, food, sex...

K: Everything.

Q: The moment it goes out of its 'right' place, you're trapped ( in time?)!

K: You've lost the energy.

Q: But you cannot define what this 'right place' is...

K: Oh yes, you can! Didn't you hear what that man ( K) said? If I have nothing 'psychologically' in me, it's perfect order!

Q: And this 'putting things in their right place' is (related to) perceiving things clearly?

K: To see things clearly!

Q: That puts it in the right place.

K: That's very simple, that doesn't need (a lot of ?) insight- but from that ( inward order ?) comes insight!

Q: Perceiving things clearly does need insight?

K: Sir, look: if you put your socks and your trousers and your shirts all jumbled up, it takes time to fetch the socks- but suppose you put socks in the right place, the coat in the right place and so on, you are free from all the 'bother'-ation: you go to it directly, you don't waste energy. So, if you put everything in order, inwardly, you conserve (do not dissipate?) energy!

Q: All 'things' have a (natural ) tendency to 'go out of place' and it's only a constant clear perception of it which keeps it in its right place.

K: You do not have to do it constantly. Once you put it (garbaged the 'psychological things'?) in its right place, it's finished !

Q: That "once you put it in the right place and it stays there" it is not quite clear to me...

K: Not only physically, but can you do it (inwardly?) You can't! Because (in there) it's such a vast jumble. So, as long as there's something accumulated 'psychologically' , there can not be ( lasting sense of ?) order inside!

Q: In other words, sir, the moment there is any attachment, things are not in the 'right place'?

K: That's it!

Q: The moment there's no attachment it (the psyche) is automatically, forever in its right place?

K: Right!

Q: Which brings us back to square one: The attachment is (the nature of the) 'ego' and if there was no 'ego' there would be order

K: No, it is disorder that is the 'ego' , which is tim. So, where there is attachment there is fear, suspicion, anxiety...

Q: Pleasure..

K: Of course, (the search for) pleasure, comfort: but where there is 'attachment' there is no freedom. If you like to be caught in the net of comfort, fear, occasional pleasure, occasional sense of openness and so on- remain there!

Q: Now, Sir, in order to think clearly does one not need to have certain basic self- disciplines and a certain basic physical equipment?

K: But you have it! The moment you say: I'm going to keep the socks in the right place, it's finished!

Q: You mean to say people have these basic disciplines? All these yogic disciplines people go through, are unnecessary?

K: Absolutely!

Q: Because most normal human beings have the ( perceptive) 'equipment' ?

K: Of course!

Q: Are you saying that very seriously?

K: I am saying that seriously. If I want to get up in the morning-as I do now- at a quarter to six to do asanas and the rest of it, I get up. If I am tired, I say, allright, this morning I won't do so many exercises...

Q: No, Sir, don't take your example! Look at other people.

K: Other people say: "For God's sake, let me stay in bed!" They are lazy...

Q: You always talk of 'discipline' as suppression, but obviously there is a ( different quality of?) discipline .

K: There's (an inner) discipline which is ( having this inward) order.

(Re-re-re recap:) Look: my urge is to tell you something; He( K) does it every other day, he feels intensely; but will you "listen"? That's all he says: For God's sake, "please listen!" And you say: sorry, I have got my wife, my job, my family. I listen because it sounds very nice theoretically...

Q: Yes, but is man intrinscally capable of listening in the state in which he presently is?

K: Of course, sir, when you are in an (actual state of inner ?) crisis, you listen. When someone near to you dies , you 'listen' damn well; you are shocked by it. You are in a state of concentrated energy.

Q: Because that suffering is affecting me within the field ?

K: No! It is 'challenging' you to question the ( spiritual validity of living in that ?) field! It is challenging you to say "For God's sake, why am I going through this?" "Why is everybody going through this"? But if you say : I need my comfort (zone ?) , it must be somewhere- then you're off (back to square one) ! We've got plenty of (such ) challenges, all the time. I am challenging you right now, but you wouldn't even listen...

Q: If it was voluntary, I would listen!

K: Then, don't listen! Carry on, knowing that you are living in a field ( of "time" ?) where nothing Good is going to flower!

Q: When you see that, I think the 'carrying on' will become even more difficult....

K That's all; But he won't listen to that, he is alreasdy arguing that there is someting good in that field (of Time) : Gandhi has done some good, and Mrs Gandhi has done some good and... Hitler has not done good...
So, you didn't ( fully ?) 'listen' to what is being said.

Q: Isn't it possible that our ( involuntary ?) 'non-listening' is partly because one starts to say something immediately about it?

K: I think, Sir, probably a great deal is because we have never loved or been loved. If I come to you and say " My dear chap, I really love you", you would not listen, it wouldn't mean anything to you. Nobody has told you that from the bottom of their heart- neither your parents, or your wife nor your friends! Had they, perhaps then you would listen (with an open heart?)!

Q: But when you talk to us we feel this 'love'...

K: Therefore that (lack of sensitivity to 'love'?) may be the factor that's destroying (the consciousness of?) mankind- 'mankind' being you. They wouldn't listen! They say: 'Yes that man says that 'he loves me', I wonder why ? What is he going to get out of it?'

Q: Don't the parents love their children?

K Don't tell me they (really?) care for them! If they loved them , they would do something else, they wouldn't like them to become bourgeois little non-entities! You see, you're off ( in the field ?) again! You would not (silently) 'listen' even for five seconds. That's why I feel that in our life nobody has told us : 'I love you' . When someone is saying that, you "listen", you don't discuss, you don't play around. You say, My God, is that so ? How marvelous !

Q : I think everybody has become very cynical...

K: Of course, absolutely cynical! Because they have been cheated that way (by various 'gurus') !

Q : It's been happening so many times- (laughs) …

K: The Indian peasant, sir, is dirt poor, he has been so exploited, (but if) anybody comes and says 'I love you, I'll help you', he says 'Thanks God! (laughs). I think we got somewhere.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Dec 2015 #56
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: THE FUSION OF THE "THINKER" WITH HIS "THOUGHTS" ( from Commentaries on Living- second series)

He had spent many years in search of Truth. He had been the round of many teachers, many gurus, and being still on his pilgrimage, he had stopped here to inquire. Bronzed by the sun and made lean by his wanderings, he was an ascetic who had renounced the world and left his own faraway country. Through the practice of certain disciplines he had with great difficulty learned to "concentrate" and subjugate his appetites. A scholar, with ready quotations, he was good at argument and swift in his conclusions. He had learned Sanskrit, and its resonant phrases were easy for him. All this had given a certain sharpness to his mind; but a mind that is made sharp is not (necessarily ?) pliable and free.

K: To understand, to discover (the innermost Truth?) must not the mind be free at the very beginning? Can a mind that is 'disciplined' ever be free? ( Understanding the value of inner?) freedom must be at the very beginning, must it not? A mind that is ( self-) disciplined and controlled, is 'free' ( only) within ( the boundaries of ?) its own pattern; but that is obviously not Freedom. ( Self-imposed inner ) 'discipline' is conformity; its paths lead to the "known", and (the field of what is already ?) known is never the free. Discipline with its (subliminal background of?) fear is ( propelled by ?) the greed of ( self-) achievement.

Q: I am beginning to realize that there is something fundamentally wrong with all these ( spiritual) 'disciplines'. Though I have spent many years in trying to shape my thoughts to the desired pattern, I find that I am not getting anywhere.

K: If the 'means' is imitation, the end (result) must be a copy. If the mind is being 'shaped' in the beginning, it must also be conditioned at the end; and how can a conditioned mind ever be free? The means "is" (undivided from ?) the end, they are not two separate processes. It is an illusion to think that through a wrong means the "true" (end result) can be achieved. When the means is suppression the end also must be a product of fear.

Q: Well, even since childhood my 'education' has been a process of conformity, and self-discipline has become almost instinctive with me ever since I first put on this (monk) robe. But most of the books I have read, and all the 'gurus' I have been to, do prescribe ( self-) control in one form or another, and you have no idea how I went at it. So what you say is really a shock to me, but it is obviously true. Have my years been wasted?

K: They would have been wasted if your 'practices' would have prevented your (inner) receptivity to truth, that is, if these impediments were not wisely observed and deeply understood. The very urge to understand is the beginning of freedom. So what is your problem now?

Q: I am still seeking Truth; my deepest instinct urges me to seek and find It and I am not interested in anything else.

K: Let us begin near to go far. Can Truth be found by 'seeking'? Search implies a fore- knowledge, something already felt or known, but is Truth something ( static ?) to be gathered and held? Search implies an 'out-going' or an 'inward-going' process, does it not? But must not the mind be ( meditatively ?) 'still' for Reality to be ? ( This process of ?) "search" is ( also a subliminal ?) form of acquisitiveness; and as long as the mind is the focusing of this effort ( inner 'conflict') can it ever be still?

Q: But is not a certain kind of ('spiritual') effort essential?

K: We shall see. Let us inquire into the truth (regarding) 'search'. To seek, there must be the "seeker", the (self-identified ?) 'entity' separate from "that which he seeks". But is there such a separate entity? Is the "thinker" separate from "his thoughts and experiences"? Without inquiring into this whole problem , Meditation has no meaning. So we must understand the (mental) process of the "self". What is ( behind ?) the mind that seeks, that chooses, that is fearful, that denies and justifies? What is "thought"?

Q: I have never approached the problem in this way, and I am now rather confused; but do please proceed.

K: Through sensory perception and contact there is "sensation"; from this arises desire, desire for this and not for that. Desire is at the beginning of ( self-) identification, of this (sense of ?) "mine" and "not-mine". Thought is ( a form of ?) "verbalized sensation"; the verbal response of the memory (of all our past ?) experience (plus) the "image"( making process ?) . In itself, ( this sensory -generated ?) 'thinking' is transient, changing, impermanent, and ( therefore ?) it is seeking ( its own "steady-state" of ?) permanency. So thought creates the 'thinker' , who then assumes the role of the censor, the moulder of ( its lesser ?) thoughts. This illusory "permanent entity" is the ( evolutionary ?) product of the transient process of thought. But this ( controlling ?) entity "is" ( part of ) thought; without (the basic activities of ?) thought he is not.

( To recap:) The "controller" 'is' (undissociated from the thoughts being ?) controlled; (the "thinking brain" ?) is merely playing a ( self-) deceptive game. Till this false(ness) is seen as "false", Truth is not.

Q: Then who is the entity that says, "I understand?”

K: Again, the "desire to experience" creates the "experiencer", who then accumulates and remembers (its previous experiences ? . Desire makes for this separation of the thinker from his thoughts; namely the "desire to become", the "desire to experience", the desire to 'be more' or to 'be less', makes for ( the 'psychological'?) division between the "experiencer" and the "experience". The ( choiceless ?) awareness of these "ways of desire" is ( the Way of ?) self-knowledge. And self-knowledge is the ( true?) beginning of Meditation.

Q: Now, how is actually happening this "fusion" of the thinker with his thoughts?

K: ( Negatively put: ) not through the ( enforced ?) action of 'will', nor through 'self-discipline', nor through any other form of ( 'self'-centred ?) 'effort', 'control' or 'concentration'. The use of (such) 'means' implies an 'actor' who is (using them) , does it not? As long as there is ( this subliminal identification of 'thought&desire' as ?) the 'actor', there will be a division. The "fusion" takes place only when the mind is utterly still, without 'trying to be still'. This (total inner) stillness is ( taking place ?) not when the 'thinker' ( self-identification process ?) comes to an end , but when the "thought - time" process itself has come to an end. There must be freedom from this response of (the sensory) conditioning, which is ( the self-centred activity of ?) thought. How can there be understanding when the (totality of the ?) mind is agitated? (But one's spiritual ?) "earnestness" must be tempered with the swift play of "spontaneity". You will find, if you have actually 'listened' to all that has been said, that Truth will come ( to you) in moments when you are not expecting it. So, if I may suggest , be open and sensitive, be fully aware of what "is" from moment to moment. Don’t build around yourself a "wall" of impregnable ( self-centred) thoughts. The Bliss of Truth comes when the mind is not occupied with its own activities and struggles.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 31 Dec 2015 #57
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: Desire and the 'I'

Q: Meditation is of the greatest importance to me; I have been meditating very regularly twice a day for more than twenty-five years. At the beginning it was all very difficult, I had no control over
my thoughts and there were far too many distractions; but I gradually cut them out pretty thoroughly.
More and more I gave my time and energy to the final end. I have been to various teachers and have followed several different systems of meditation, but somehow I was never satisfied with any of
them; they all led to a certain point, depending on the particular system, and I found myself becoming a mere result of the system, which was not the final end. But from all these experimentations I have learned to master my thoughts completely, and my emotions also are entirely under control. I have practiced deep breathing to quiet the body and the
mind. I have repeated the "sacred word" and fasted for long periods; morally I have been upright, and the worldly things have no attraction for me. But still, after all these years of struggle and effort, of self-discipline
and denial, there is not the ( inner) Peace, the Bliss of which the Great Ones speak. On rare occasions there have been enlightening moments of deep ecstasy, the intuitive promise of greater things; but I seem
unable to pierce the illusion of my own mind, and I am endlessly caught in it. A cloud of confusing despair is descending upon me and there is increasing sorrow.

We were sitting on the bank of a wide river, close to the water. The sun was setting behind us and there were heavy shadows on the water. It was a beautiful still evening with masses of clouds towards the east,
and the deep river seemed hardly to be flowing. To all this expanding beauty he was completely oblivious; he was wholly absorbed in his problem. We were silent, and he had closed his eyes; his stern face was calm, but inwardly there was an intense struggle going on. A flock of birds settled down at the water’s edge; their cries must have carried across the river, for presently another flock came from the other shore and joined them. There was a timeless ( loving ?) silence covering the earth.

K: During all these years, have you ever stopped striving after the 'final end'? Do not will and effort make up the 'I', and can the process of ( our self centred thinking in terms of ?) 'time' lead to the Eternal?

Q: I have never consciously stopped striving after That for which my heart, my whole being longs. If I stop I would 'fall back' and deteriorate. It is the very nature of all living things to struggle upwards, and without this purposive striving, I could never go beyond and above myself.

K: Can the 'I' ever free itself from its (temporal) bondage and illusions? Must not the 'I' cease for the Nameless to be? And does not this constant striving after the "final end" only strengthen the self? Your effort may be ennobling, but it is still ( fuelled by ?) the desire to gain, is it not?

Q: I have overcome all desire, except this one, which is more than desire; it is the only thing for which I live.

K: Then you must 'die to' (let go ?) this too, as to the other longings and desires. Through all these years of struggle you have strengthened your 'self' ( -consciousness ?) in this one purpose, but it is still within the field of the 'I' (of self-interest ?) . But you want to experience the Unnameable - that is your longing, is it not?

Q: Of course. Beyond a shadow of doubt I want to experience 'God'.

K: The 'experiencer' is ever being conditioned by what (he desires to ?) experience. If this 'experiencer' is aware that he is experiencing God, then that 'God' is the projection of your hopes and illusions. There is no ( authentic inner ) freedom for the 'experiencer'; he is the maker of ( his own continuity in ?) 'time' and he can never experience the ( timeless dimension of the ?) Eternal.

Q: Do you mean to say that all what I have diligently built up, with considerable effort and through wise choice, must be destroyed? And must I be the instrument of its destruction?

K: Can the 'I' positively set about (ab)negating itself? If it does, its (background) motive is to gain That which is not to be possessed. However noble its aim, any effort on the part of the 'I' is still within the field of its '(kn)own' memories, idiosyncrasies (individualised characteristics ?) and projections, whether conscious or unconscious. The 'I' may divide itself into the "organic 'I'", and the "non-I" or the "transcendental self"; but this dualistic ( mental) separation is an illusion in which the mind is caught. Whatever may be the ( self centred ?) movement of the mind, of the "I", it can never free itself; it may go from stupid (choices) to more intelligent choices, but its movement (activities ?) will always be within the sphere of its own making.

Q: You seem to cut off all hope. What is one to do?

K: ( Meditation-wise ?) you must be completely 'denuded', without the weight of the past or the enticement of a hopeful future - which does not ( necessarily ?) mean 'despair'. "You" (the self-identified mind ?) cannot do anything. ( Nevertheless ?) the mind can and must be 'still' (inwardly silent ?) without any longings, or desires; but (not by ?) suppressing all noise, for that very effort (is generating its own background?) noise. This ( quality of loving ?) "silence" is not the opposite of noise.

Early next morning he came back. The sun was just showing itself above the treetops, and there was a mist over the river. A boat with wide sails, heavily laden with firewood, was lazily floating down
the river; except for the one at the rudder, the men were all asleep on different parts of the boat. It was very still, and the daily human activities along the river had not yet begun.

Q: In spite of my outward anxiety, inwardly I must have been alert to what you were saying yesterday, for when I woke up this morning there was a certain sense of freedom and clarity that comes with understanding. May we proceed from where we left off?

K: We cannot begin exactly where we left off, but we can look at the whole problem afresh. The 'outward' and 'inward' (compartments of one's ?) mind are ceaselessly active receiving impressions;( but by getting entangled ?) in its memories and reactions; it is (becoming ?)
a (pro-active ?) aggregate of many desires and conflicts. ( As a result ?) it functions only within the field of ( its past knowledge accumulated in ?) time, and in that field there are various contradictions, the opposition of (various) desires and ( the resulting ?) 'efforts'.
This (messy ?) 'psychological' activity of the 'I' must cease, for such activity causes problems and brings about (mental ?) agitation and disorder. But any ( pre-determined ?) effort to stop this ('brownian' mental) activity only makes for greater activity and agitation.

K: That is true, I have noticed it. The more one tries to make the mind still, the more resistance there is, and then one’s effort is spent in overcoming this resistance; so it becomes a vicious circle.

K: If you are aware of the viciousness of this circle, in this very
realization the 'observer' ceases to be ( active ?) .

Q: That seems to be the most difficult thing to do: to suppress the (all-controlling ?) 'observer'. How is one to do it?

K: After all, the "thinker" (controlling entity ?) and "his thoughts" are not two different processes, but we (conveniently split ?) them in order to attain our desired end. The 'censor' comes into being with ( the time- spread of ?) desire. Therefore our problem is not how to suppress the censor, but to understand ( the time-binding process of ?) desire.

Q: There must be an (awakened state of mind) which is capable of such understanding, a state which is apart from ignorance. Otherwise I do not see how this ( identification with the ?) 'observer' can be eradicated. And can it be?

K: We were saying that it is essential to understand desire. Desire can and does divide (splits ?) itself into (the pursuit of ?) pleasure and ( the avoidance of ?) pain, one desire opposes another, the more profitable ( choice ?) conflicting with the less profitable (options) and so on. Nevertheless, though for various reasons it may separate itself, ( the vital energy of ?) desire is in fact an invisible process, is it not?

Q: This is kind of difficult to grasp. I am so used to opposing one desire by another, that I cannot as yet be fully aware of desire as a single, unitary process; but now that you have pointed it out, I am beginning to feel that it is so.

K: Desire may break (split or fragment ?) itself up into many opposing and conflicting urges, but ( deepp down ?) it is still ( an unitary energy of ?) desire. Those many ( fragmentary ?) urges go to make up the (active content of the ?) 'I' (-consciousness ?) , with its memories, anxieties, fears, and so on. So, the entire activity of this 'I' (the self - centred consciousness ?) is taking place within the field of desire, is it not?

Q: Please go on. I am listening with my whole being.

K: Our problem, then, is this: is it possible for this (fragmentary ?) activities of desire to come to an end naturally, freely, without any form of compulsion? It is only when this ( energy integration ?) happens that the mind can be "still". If you are ( meditatively ?) aware of this actual fact, does not the ( time-binding ?) activity of desire come to an end?

Q: Only for a very brief period; then once again the habitual ( fragmentary mental ) activity begins. How can this be stopped?

K: You see how "greedy" we (the fragmentary activities of desire ?) are ; we want ever more and more. So the very demand for the cessation of the ( old) 'I' becomes the activity of the (new) 'I'; but it is not new, it is merely another ( self-fragmented energy ?) form of desire. Only when the ( 'desiring' ?) mind is spontaneously still can the other (time-free dimension ?) which is not of the ( conditioned content of this ?) mind, come into being.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 31 Dec 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Jan 2016 #58
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: Insights into the 'psychological' fragmentation of Desire

Q: As far back as I can remember, I have had endless conflict, mostly within myself, though sometimes it manifests outwardly. I am not greatly worried by any outward conflicts, as I have learnt to adjust
myself to circumstances. But what I cannot understand is this ( ongoing ?) inward conflict which I am unable to control; it goes on beneath the everyday occupations, and frequently explodes in
my more intimate relationships.

K: What do you mean by 'conflict' and what do you think is the nature of it?

Q: Outwardly I am fairly busy and my work demands concentration and attention. When my mind is thus occupied, the inward conflicts
are forgotten; but as soon as there is a lull in my work, I am back in my conflicts. These conflicts are of varying nature and at different levels. On (the personal) level I want to be successful in my work, to be at the top
of my profession, with plenty of money and all the rest of it, and I know I can be, but at another level, I am aware of the (vanity ?) of my ambition. I love the good things of life, and opposed to that, I
want to lead a simple, almost an ascetic existence. I ' sincerely) hate a number of people, and yet I want to forget and forgive. Instinctively I am a peaceful person, yet anger is easy for me. Outwardly I give the ( reassuring) appearance of being calm and steady, but I am agitated and confused by my inward conflicts.
I would really want to 'break through' the confusion of my own desires, but I find it almost impossible to talk these things over with anybody. I am not secretive, but I hate to talk about myself and I could not possibly
do so with any "psychologist". Knowing all this, can you tell me whether it is possible for me to have some kind of inward serenity?

K: Instead of trying to 'do away' with conflicts, let us see ( first) if we can understand this "agglomeration of desire", for it is ( the fragmentation of ?) desire that causes conflict. Desire is stimulated by ( sensory ?) associations and remembrances; the recollection of the pleasant and the unpleasant memories nourishes desire and 'breaks it up' into (multiple layers of ?) opposing and conflicting desires. The ( self-conscious ?) mind identifies itself with the 'pleasant' ones as opposed to
the unpleasant and through this ( subliminal ?) choice the mind separates (fragments the total energy of ?) desire, dividing it into different categories of pursuits and values.

Q: You are saying that, although there are many conflicting and opposing desires, ( inwardly ?) all desires are one. Is that it?

K: That is so, is it not? And it is really important to understand this point , otherwise the conflict between opposing desires is endless. This "dualism" (the inner splitting ?) of ( the vital energy of ?) desire, which the ( self-centred ?) mind has brought about, is an "illusion".
There is no ( such) 'dualism' in desire, but merely different types (vectors ?) of desire. There is dualism only between time and eternity.
Therefore our concern is now to see the "unreality" of the ( self-splitting ?) dualism of desire. Desire does divide itself into ( what it) wants and ( what it does ) not-want, but the avoidance of one and the pursuit of the other is still ( the time-binding activity of ?) desire.
There is no escape from ( such internal) conflicts through any of the "opposites" of desire, for desire itself is breeding them.

Q: I see rather vaguely that what you say is factual, but it is also an ongoing fact that my mind is still torn between my many desires.

K: If it is an (actuallly perceived ?) "fact" that all (the contradictory aspects of ?) desire are one and the same, then we cannot alter that fact: if we see it to be true then it (the "intelligence" awakened by this perception ?) has the power to set the mind free from breeding illusions. So we must be ( responsibly ?) aware of ( the total inner energy of ?) desire breaking itself up into separate and conflicting parts. We 'are' (all) these opposing and conflicting desires we 'are' the whole bundle of them, each pulling in a different direction.

Q: Yes, but what can we do about it?

K: Without first catching a glimpse of desire as a single unit (unitary inner movement ?) , whatever we may or may not ( try to ?) 'do' will be
of very little significance, for desire only multiplies (the fragmentation of ?) desire and the mind is trapped in this ( hopeless ?) conflict.
There is freedom from conflict only when desire, which makes up (includes ?) the 'I' (the self-centred consciousness ?) with its ( personal) remembrances and recognitions, comes to an end.

Q: When you say that conflict ceases only with the cessation of ( the fragmentation of ?) desire, does this imply an end to one’s active ( 'worldly' ?) life?

K: It may or it may not. It is foolish on our part to speculate about what kind of life it will be without ( the inner fragmentation of ?) desire.
Q: You surely do not mean that organic wants must cease ?

K: Organic wants are moulded and expanded by our 'psychological' (ego-related ?) desires; we are talking of these desires.

Q: Can we go more deeply into the functioning of these inner cravings?

K: ( Our fragmentary ?) desires are both open and hidden, conscious and concealed. The 'concealed' ones are of far greater significance than the 'obvious'; but we cannot become familiar with the deeper if the superficial are not understood and "tamed". It is not that our conscious desires must be suppressed or sublimated, but they must be observed and 'quieted'. With the calming of ( their) superficial agitation, there is a possibility that the deeper ( fragmented ?) desires, motives and intentions will come to the surface.

Q: How is one to quiet the surface agitation? I see the importance of what you are saying, but I do not quite see how to approach this problem, how to experiment with it.

K: ( In the inner context of meditation ?) the "experimenter" is not separate from that with which he is experimenting. The truth of this must
be seen. "You" are not an entity apart from the "desires" you are experimenting with . The 'I' who says, ‘I will suppress this desire and go after that’, is himself the outcome of all desire, is he not?

Q: One can feel that it is so, but actually to (experientially ?)realize it, is quite another matter.

K: If as each desire arises there is an awareness of this truth, then there is freedom from the illusion of the "experimenter" as a separate entity unrelated to desire. As long as the "I"( 'observer') exerts itself to be free from desire, it is only strengthening ( the fragmentation of ?) desire ( by pushing it ?) in another direction and so perpetuating conflict.

If there is an awareness of this "fact" from moment to moment (and) the experiencer "is" (not separing itself from ?) the experience, then you will find that ( the internal fragmentation of ?) desire with its many varying conflicts comes to an end.

Q: Will all this help one to a calmer and fuller life?

K: Certainly not at the beginning(since) it is sure to arouse more ( latent conflicts and ?) disturbances, and ( therefore a lot of ?) deeper "adjustments" may have to be made; but ( on the long run ?) the deeper and wider one goes ( inwardly ?) into this "complex problem" of ( the self-fragmentation of ?) desire and ( the resulting ?) conflicts, the simpler it becomes.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 01 Jan 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Jan 2016 #59
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour; TIME, HABIT AND IDEALS (from Commentaries on Living 3-rd series)

The mind is silent only with the abundance of ( brain's free?) energy, when there is that ( self-sustained?) attention in which all 'contradiction' -created by the pulling of (thought & ) desire in different directions, has ceased. A mind that is not silent is never (time-) free; and it
is only to the silent mind that the Heavens are opened
. Only the silent mind can receive that "blessing" which is not of the church or belief. For the total mind to be silent, all its contradictory corners (compartments ?) must be "fused" in the flame of understanding. All ( time based activity of ?) desire is ( eventually reaching the limits of its own ?) contradictions, for every ( self-focussed ?) centre of desire is opposed to another centre. The silence of the total mind is ( the main task of ?) meditation.

He was a youngish man, with a large head, clear eyes and capable-looking hands. He spoke with ease and self-assurance, and he had brought along his wife, a dignified lady who evidently wasn’t going to say anything. She had probably come under his persuasion, and preferred to (sit back and ) listen.

Q: I have always been interested in religious (spiritual ?) matters, and early in the morning, before the children are up and the household bustle begins, I spend a considerable period of time in meditation. I find it very helpful in gaining control of the ( restless activities of the) mind and in cultivating certain necessary virtues. I heard your last public discourse on meditation a few days ago, but as I am new to your teachings, I was not quite able to follow it thoroughly . So, I came to talk with you about 'time', since a certain amount of time is necessary for the cultivation of those qualities and sensibilities of mind which are essential if enlightenment is to be attained. Am I right ?

K: Do not such conclusions prevent clarity of thinking ?

Q: This is what most of the religious books maintain, that ( a certain) time (of self-preparation ) is necessary to attain liberation. Perhaps that some (lucky ?) individuals here and there have realized that exalted state instantaneously; but they are only the very few. The rest of us must have time, short or long, in which to prepare the mind to receive that Bliss.

K: Now, what do we mean by 'time'? There is the (chronological) time (measured ) by the clock- ( the historical) time as our past, present and future. There is also the ('psychological' dimension of ?) time ( involved in ?) the process of becoming something. But is it ever possible for our mind to be free of time, to go beyond its limitations? Let’s begin with the 'chronological' (component of ?) time. Can one ever be free of it?

Q: Not if one wants to catch a train ! To be 'sanely active' in this world, and to maintain some kind of order, chronological time is essential.

K: Then there is ( the background psychological process of ?) 'time' of ( our collective) memories, habits and tradition; and ( the personal ?) time as effort to achieve, to fulfil, to become. It obviously takes time to learn any skill or technique. But is "time" also necessary for the realization of the Supreme?

Q: It seems to me that it is.

K: What is (the entity ?) that is achieving, realizing?

Q: I suppose it’s what you ( generically) call the 'me', or the 'ego' ?

K: Which is an (active ?) bundle of ( self-centred) memories and associations, both conscious and unconscious. It’s the ( self-conscious ?) entity who enjoys and suffers, who has practiced virtues, acquired knowledge, gathered experience, the
entity who has known fulfilment and frustration, and who ( wishfully ?) thinks there is the Soul, the Higher Self. This 'ego' entity is the product of ( our outward existence in ?) time. Its very substance is ( a background mentality of ?) time: it thinks, it functions and builds itself up in ( terms of its own continuity in ?) time. This 'me' also thinks that through time it will reach the Supreme. But its ( image of the ?) 'Supreme' is (a concept) it has formulated, and is therefore also within the field of time, is it not?

Q: The way you unfold it, it does seem that both the 'maker of effort' and the ( final) 'end' for which he is striving are equally within the sphere of time.

K: Through time you can achieve only that which time has created. ( The self-centred process of ?) thought can realize only that which thought has put together.

Q: Are you saying, sir, that the mind must be free from (its psychological anchorage in ?) memory, and from the desire to realize the Supreme ?

K: We shall come to that presently. If we may, let us approach the problem differently. There is a time interval, a "gap" between what I actually 'am', and what I ( think I) should be, the ( spiritual) ideal. This ideal is to be achieved gradually, while during this the gradual approach I have the ( rewarding ?) opportunity to indulge in the pleasure of (my self-centred habits ? ). It has
been said for centuries, and we go on repeating, that time is necessary to be free from violence; but it has become a mere thinking habit, and there’s no ( vital ?) wisdom behind it (since in the meanwhile ?) we are still (indulging in the rewards of being inwardly ?) violent. So ( the mentality of ?) time is not the factor of freedom. Cannot ( the inherited self-centred ?) violence just
cease now - not tomorrow or ten years hence?

Q: Do you mean 'instantaneously'?

K: When you use that word, aren’t you still thinking or feeling in terms of time? Can ( this whole momentum of self-centred ?) violence cease, that’s all, not in any given ( chronological ?) moment?

Q: Is such a thing possible?

K: Only with the ( insightful ?) understanding of ( thinking in terms of ?) "time". The ( traditional ?) mind thinks in habits ( along temporal patterns ?) ; it is conditioned to "gradualism", and has come to regard time as a means of
achieving freedom from violence. With the understanding of the "falseness" of that whole process, the truth of ( our 'psychological' background of ?) violence is seen, and this is the liberating factor.

Q: I think I understand what you are saying, or rather, I feel the truth of it. But isn’t it very difficult to free the mind from (its deeply rooted 'thinking' ) habit?

K: It is 'difficult' only when you fight habit. Take the habit of smoking. To (dualistically ?) fight that ( bad ?) habit is to give it life. Habit is ( psycho-somatically ?) 'mechanical', and to resist it is only to give it more power. But if you ( meditatively ?) consider this mind and observe the formation of its habits, then with the understanding of the larger issue, the lesser ( related dependency ?) becomes insignificant and drops away.

Q: But since we're here, why does the human mind form habits?

K: Be (choicelessly, non-personally ?) aware of the ways of your own mind, and you will discover why. The human mind forms 'habits' in order to be secure, safe, certain, undisturbed, in order to have ( a sense of its own safe?) continuity. The mind moves from the 'known' to the 'known', from one certainty to another; so there’s never freedom from the known.
This brings us back to what we started with. Whatever ( our self-centred) thought can think about is still within the field of time. The ( 'knowing' ?) mind cannot possibly formulate the unknown. It can speculate about the unknown, but its speculation is not the Unknown.

Q: Then the problem arises, how is one to realize the Supreme?

K: Not by ( following ?) any method. Its realization is possible only when the mind is no longer (entangled ?) in ( its) bondage to time.

Q: Can the mind free itself from its self-created bondage? Is not any outside agency (or some help ?) necessary?

K: When you look ( forward ?) to ( any help coming from ?) an 'outside' agency (including K ?) , you are back again in ( the 'psychological' safety of ?) your (existing cultural ?) conditioning, in your 'conclusions'.
Our only concern ( here and now ?) is with the question, "Can the mind free itself from its self-created bondage?" All other questions are ( spiritually ?) irrelevant and prevent the mind from 'attending' (giving full attention to what 'is' ?) There is no (free energy of ?) "attention" when there’s a motive, the pressure to achieve, to realize; that is, when the mind is
seeking a result, an "end". The mind will discover the solution of this problem ( of Supreme Truth ?) through the (time-free ?) intensity of the question itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Jan 2016 #60
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: All about TIME and CONTINUITY (from Commentaries on Living second series)

There is a (hidden) sadness (within our 'shared-by-all' consciousness ?) of which we are so little aware. We know our own sorrow, but we are not aware of the sadness of the other. How can we be when we are enclosed in our own misfortunes and trials?
When our 'hearts' are weary and dull, how can we feel the weariness of another? Sadness is so exclusive, isolating and destructive. How quickly the smile fades! Everything seems to end up in sorrow, the ultimate isolation.

She was very well read, capable and direct. She had studied sciences and religion, and had carefully followed modern psychology. She had attended several of the (K) talks and discussions and had felt that a source common to all the great (spiritual) Teachers was active; she had listened with care and had understood a great deal, and
had now come to discuss the "inexhaustible" and the problem of "time".

Q: What is the (inner energy?) Source beyond time, that state of being which is not within the reasoning of the mind? What is the "timeless", that creativity of which you have often spoken?

K: If we can understand what we mean by "time", perhaps it may be possible for the timeless to be. This "timelessness" is a state which comes only when ( the psychological component of ?) time is not (active ?) . So let us rather consider what we mean by "time". Time is ( both) chronological and psychological. The heavens are filled with physical growth (which can be measured in terms of chronological time) , and so is the earth. This is an obvious fact, and it would be stupid to deny it. ( And inwardly there is the process of ?) psychological becoming: I "am this" and I (hope that I) shall "become that", using time as a passage, as a means; the what has been is becoming the what will be. We are very familiar with this process.
So thought is ( creating its own continuity in ?) time, from what has been to what will be, the 'what is' and the 'ideal'. Thought is ( both the producer and ?) the product of time, and without the thinking process, time is not. The ( thinking) mind is the maker
of time, it 'is' time.

Q: That is obviously true. Our mind is both the maker and user of time. Without this mental process, time is not. But my question was: is it possible to go beyond the (temporal limitations of our?) mind? Is there a state which is not of thought?

K: Let us together discover whether there is such a state or not. Is love ( compatible with the self-centred process of ?) thought?.

Q: Do you mean that when there is ( the inward sense of ?) "all-oneness", thought ceases and there is only love?

K: That is not the point. Is love ( the result of ?) a thought process? Thought is (a process of ?) of time; but is love time-binding? Thought is bound by time, and you are asking if it is possible ( for the human mind ?) to be free from the binding quality of time.

Q: It must be, otherwise there could be no ( possibility of inward ?) Creation. Creation is possible only when the process of ( self-centred ?) continuity ceases. Creation is the new, the new vision, the new invention, the new discovery, the new formulation, not the continuity of the old.

K: Continuity is ( like ?) 'death' to Creation.

Q: Exactly. But how is it possible to put an end to this continuity?

K: What makes for ( this inner sense of self- ?) continuity? What is it that joins moment to moment, as the thread joins the beads in a necklace? The ( perceptive creativity of the present ?) moment is the New, but this new is (quickly ?) absorbed into the ( memories of the ?) old and so the (time-binding) chain of ( our self-conscious ?) continuity is formed. Is there ever the ( full experiencing of the ?) New, or only ( the verbalised ) 'recognition' of the new by the old? If the old recognizes the new, is it the (direct perception of the ?) New? The (active memory of the ?) 'old' can recognize only its own projection; it may call it 'the new', but it is not. The ( newness of the ?) New is not recognizable; it is a (timeless ?) state of non-recognition, non-association. The old gives itself continuity through its own projections; it can never 'know' the New. ( Perception-wise ?) the New cannot be with the old. The ( direct) experiencing of the New is ( happening only in ?) the absence of the old. It is the ( active memory of the ?) old that gives continuity; the old is
memory, the 'word' (the verbal process ?) , which is time.

Q: Then, how is it possible to put an end to this (constant interference of our?) memory?

K: The ( controlling ) 'entity' that desires to put an end to memory is himself the forger of memory; he is not apart from memory. That is so is it not?

Q: Yes, this (self-conscious) "maker of effort" is born of memory, of thought; thought is the outcome of the past, conscious or unconscious. Then what is one to do?

K: Please listen, and you will do naturally, without ( much ?) effort, what is essential. Desire is ( the active source of energy behind the process of ?) thought; desire forges the ( time-binding ?) chain of memory. And the way of desire is "accumulation" ; to accumulate is to continue. ( The background process of ?) gathering experience, knowledge, or things, makes for ( our self-) continuity and the gathering "centre" ( energy core ?) is desire, the desire for the more or the less. This ( dynamic) centre is ( manifesting as ?) the "self" (-consciousness ) , ( a psychological identification ?) placed at different levels according to one’s conditioning. ( And of course....) any activity of this ( self-focussing) "centre" ( of desire ?) only brings about the further continuity of itself. Any 'move' (of its part ?) is time-binding; it prevents ( the newness of ?) Creation.
The 'timeless' (dimension of our being ?) is not (to be found ?) within the time-binding quality of memory. There is the Unnameable only when ( the desire for further 'personal' ?) experiences (and/or ?) knowledge, has wholly ceased. ( The perception of this ?) Truth alone frees the mind from its own ( temporal ?) bondage.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 696 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)