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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 716 in total
Thu, 15 Oct 2015 #31
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

John, I made a compilation of what you put in bold letters....and see if there is something about all that.

This self-knowing is only in the active present; it has no continuity as ( an accumulation of self-?) knowledge

Dan: well I find that some of it leaves something, but k says about continuity as knowledge which is a different matter, yet when for example I have seen insightfully, of course without searching that there is no competition as such but elimination like thought eliminate a concept, then I know that for good..

But this was not experienceable, knowable; the totality of consciousness must be free of the known and be empty without any form of effort. It was there, inside and outside; one was walking in it and with it.

Dan: it all depends what k means here by consciousness ,what I always mean by that now is that it is a mixture of the analytical program and all memories of all kind, memories of the future included of the known makes sense,thought does not lead is the meaning here for something else is active and leading the brain mind instead of thought

The 'meditator' is ( the active interface of?) thought, but in meditation ( the self-identified?) thought must totally cease. This is the foundation for ( the authentic?) meditation.

Dan: same her, another process is active and something esle but thinking enters into being..

this brain being still and turning upon itself, it was no longer 'experiencing' outwardly or inwardly

There was that strange 'energy', call it by any name ( such as...kundalini?) , deeply active, without object and purpose; it was ( the energy of?) Creation, not the thing of human brain, of self expression and decay

Dan: I had lived that as well as without this kthing...the kundalini itself is a process leading to a connection with a strange energy and more ,yes I do not think that he is mentioning the kthing , as this energy can be there without the kthing is what I knew some long time ago...

It was a 'meditation in emptiness', an (inner) Void that had no borders

dan: yes it speaks but not in a straight manner..

Meditation is the emptying the mind of all thought, for (the self-centred?) thought and feeling dissipate energy; they are repetitive, producing mechanical activities ( a necessary part of existence though...), but they cannot possibly enter into the ( inner?) immensity of life

Dan: well that is good as if so we would have found ways to destroy the universe itself by now

Meditation is the emptying of the mind of the known.

Dan: then I know what it is

A life based on ( self-centred?) thought becomes (repetitive and predictibly ?) mechanical; however smoothly it may run, in that life there is no (spiritual?) renewal.

Meditation is the understanding of the facts

There is only fact : freedom from the known. Meditation was the 'explosion' of the fact.

Dan: I know that explosion....that is very well described....the kthing ws that too, the other contact as well ,an explosion

It is wholly ( a first degree encounter with?) the Unknown ;

Our (inner) life is so shallow and empty, petty thoughts and activities, ( intricately ? ) woven in conflict and misery, always journeying from the known to the known,

Dan: to be mad nuts we shall be so :-))

thought is the program for the known, our asleep capacities have talent with anything but that....

unfortunately there is no known switch to that which works, well you know the one I know a bot ,if not more bout, but not as a method as this has no continuity as such and as it it has to be differently new each time...

again thanks...

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Oct 2015 #32
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K is taking the psychological key words at their face value: our common, everyday consciousness is to a great extent coloured by our personal experience and culture and it is more of a self-consciousness than an objective, non-personal one . The same field of consciousness - if emptied of its ( personalised) content is an objective, open ended consciousness - see also 'mind'- perhaps our total consciousness. So, independently of what the expert linguists or philosophers would ever have to say, this is to be clarified only individually by having an insight into it.

Hello John, agreed it is self coloured consciousness, well for me such word is more a problem than helping in fact...but this is me ...such word hides a complex and subtle imbrication of many programs and adds on if I may use such word here..

when the weird energy is present and the analyser is not in the way incapable to stand this energy and so remains where it has too only, there was no emptying of the content of my personal known whatever this know is does not matter, it was not just interfering..

now k is k and due to its apparently quite constant mind in touch with this weird energy , well who knows what was really happening in his brain mind...?

I agree to leave the so called experts too, having some insight is the way....I do not know for you but for me I cannot be influencing the subject of any insights at all, they just happen whenever , I have no control at all over that...this comes from my time in pain, searching is something which I do not want to go into any more as the symptom of wrongness is kind of immediately back at me...just mentioning a personal way it is..not saying anything good or wrong about that.....just my way so far for now..who knows what will come next ? again not me as I have no clues..

John Raica wrote:
Now, regarding these 'insightfully selected' K quotes from his personal Notebook, I am treating them as a very personal learning experience, there is a certain inner 'resonance' in my own being with their true vibration. A single insightful phrase can eventually convey, trigger- or awaken- a totally 'new' ( and objective) look at our whole human condition , especially since the expression of that insight is taken out of the conventional associations mechanically assigned by our own thinking or by the collective mentality

Yes this is what I understand of your present ways..and as it was there I decided to go along with what struck you and see if there was something talking for me..

i agree wit this : especially since the expression of that insight is taken out of the conventional associations mechanically assigned by our own thinking or by the collective mentality...

the other(s) process(es) at work so ?


Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Oct 2015 #33
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

Highlights from a K Talk in Stockholm, Sweden (1956)

I feel it is important to know how to listen (non-verbally?). Very few of us really listen or see anything really clearly, because what we are observing or listening to is immediately translated by our own minds in terms of our particular ideas and ( cultural background?) . We think we are understanding, but surely we are distracted by our own opinions and knowledge that we never see the ( truth of the?) problem. But by ( a simultaneous?) listening and following the operation of our own minds we can actually see the fact, then I think we shall find that quite a different (intelligence based?) process is taking place which will enable us to look at our (inner) problems freely and clearly. That is listening totally. Surely a free mind is the mind that is empty of all beliefs ( wishful thinking?) , of all (crystallised?) patterns of thought - there is freedom only when the entire thought process is understood and transcended, and only then is it possible for a new mind to come into being ( to be activated?) . So, can the human mind free itself from its own conditioning and look at its problem anew? We have masses of information, knowledge but really we ( our lives?) are very shallow and unhappy.

Although in some ( developped) countries there is an economic security, inwardly the individual remains uncertain, unsure. And a global physical security which all human beings want and need, is made impossible because of this (irational?) demand for inward, 'psychological' security. Only when the mind is no longer acquisitive, no longer seeking or demanding anything, that it is free to find out what is true, what is God. That is why it is very important to understand ourselves - to be aware, without judgment or condemnation, to look at ourselves dispassionately, so that the hidden emotions are not ( re-)pressed back but invited forth and understood, then the mind becomes really quiet; and only then there is the possibility of leading a full life. We can help each other to find the door to ( a higher?) Reality, but each one must open that 'door' ( of inward Perception?) for himself; and this is the only positive action. So there must be in each one of us an inward 'religious' (spiritual?) revolution which will totally change the way of our thinking. There must be a silent (non-verbal) observation of the responses of our (self-centred?) mind, put together through the accumulations of ( our personal and collective) memory. This process of self-( exposing and?) understanding is an enormous task - not to be done casually, later on, but every day, every moment, so that we begin to see all the hidden motives and intentions which lie behind our thoughts, and thereby bring about the liberation of the mind from its own (time-?) binding processes. Then the mind is ( becoming naturally?) still; and in that stillness 'something' which is not of the ( man-made?) mind can come into being of its own accord.

There are some questions, but to any of the big, fundamental questions - of love, of life, of death and the hereafter - are there any (final?) answers? The difficulty is not in asking a question, or receiving an answer; it is to see the ( nature of our?) problem clearly. When there is ( this inner) clarity, there are no questions and no answers.

Question: We Swedes do not like to tackle the problems of life only with the mind, leaving the emotions aside. Is it possible to solve any problem only with the mind, or only by the emotions?

Krishnamurti: That is a very difficult thing to do - to look at something totally, fully and freely. It is very difficult to look at the ( vital problems such as?) death, love, or... sex, since most of us are trying to understand our problems with a mind that is confused; and when one is confused, whatever his actions may be, they will only lead to further confusion and misery. So we must first discover and acknowledge to ourselves ( the unpleasant truth?) that we are ( inwardly) confused ; only when one stops and faces the fact of one's confusion with the total (attention?) of one's being, is there the possibility of 'dissolving' ( transcending?) that confusion. No one can do this for us; we must do it ourselves.

Question: Juvenile delinquency is increasing. What is the reason and what is the remedy?

Krishnamurti: We all want to be somebody in this society; we are all trying to achieve success to have the best or to be the best, and in this process there is fear, envy, greed, ambition, ruthlessness. Our whole (collective mentality) is based on this process. We want our children to fit into this societyn to conform to the ( established?) patterns of our 'culture'. There is revolt, among the children as among the grown-ups. The problem is ( getting) even more complex when we consider the purpose of education? Is it to make us fit into society? -or does ( a spiritually friendly?) education consist in helping the child to become aware of all the conditioning influences ? If we are serious about this we will really study the ( mind of the?) child, observe him constantly and carefully - be aware of the books he reads, with their glorified heroes, watch him in his work, in his play, in his rest - and ( hopefully?) will help him to be unconditioned and free. But ( this educational endeavour?) implies that we must be aware first of our own ways of thinking. After all, we are also everlastingly battling with each other and within ourselves. This battle, this struggle, projects itself into society; and into ( the mentality of?) the child. ( Unfortunately?) we cannot change the whole of our society; only the individuals can change. But we are not ( truly) individualised , are we? We are caught up in the ( group ?) mentality; and so long as we do not understand ourselves and free ( our own?) mind from its self-imposed limitations, how can we help the child?

Question: Can one live in the world without any ambition? Does it not isolate us, to be without ambition?

Krishnamurti: I think this is a fundamental question. We can see what the ambition ( to become rich and famous ?) makes of the world. Everyone throughout the world is forcing himself to be important. Even in our education, the boy who is not clever is compared with the boy who is clever - and we can see the result of this ambition projected in the( geo-political) world. Each nation is seeking to maintain itself at all costs.
Now, the questioner wants to know whether without this ( collective drive of ?) ambition we shall not be isolated from society. Why is there this fear of being alone? Can ambition and love go together? The mind that is seeking all the time to be something, to become great, surely does not know what love is. So long as we are pursuing ambition, we are isolated. We are isolated already, are we not? But, you see, to be respectable, to be known, to have power, position, money, virtue - all these things give us a sense of self- importance. So it is very difficult not to be ambitious.
The man who is ( inwardly?) 'as nothing' is alone (all-one?) , but not isolated. To free oneself from ambition requires a great deal of insight, intelligence and love.

Q: Does suffering ultimately lead one to inward peace and awareness?

Krishnamurti: I am afraid not. We think suffering is a means to something else - to heaven, to the attainment of peace, and so on - and hence we have made suffering into a virtue. How does suffering arise? Suffering is an inward, psychological disturbance. I am not now talking of physical suffering, but of the psychological suffering which comes when we are frustrated, when we are lonely, when we do not understand the process of our own being, the complexity of our own thinking.
What happens when we suffer? We try to use it as a means to ( reaching?) something else, do we not? - we say it makes us more intelligent, that it leads to peace, to awareness; or we immediately seek to escape from it through ideas, through amusements, through every form of distraction. Suffering comes, does it not?, when there is ignorance, when there is a lack of knowledge of the workings of one's own mind, when the ( deeper layers of the?) mind is torn by contradictory desires, by loneliness, by comparison, by envy. But when we understand the whole process of ignorance, of envy, when we look at it, face it totally, without any desire to escape or condemn it, then perhaps we shall see that there is no necessity for suffering at all. Inner peace cannot be found through suffering, it comes only when there is understanding of the workings of one's own mind and when, through that understanding, the thought process comes to an end.

Question: Why do you go about the world giving talks? Is it for your self-fulfilment, or because you think you can help people in that way?

Krishnamurti: We all want to be 'helped', but that leads to ( subtle forms of?) exploitation, does it not? As long as we depend upon another for ( finding an) inward peace, we shall not find it, for such dependence only breeds fear. Then why is one talking? I do not think there is any answer to that question, any more than there is an answer if one asks of a flower, "Why do you glow in the sunshine?"
If I were trying to help you, or trying to fulfil myself, it would put me in the position of being the 'one who knows', and you in the position of 'not knowing'; so I would be using you, and you would be using me. Whereas, what we are trying to do here is to understand ourselves, for self-knowledge alone brings Reality. We know very little about ourselves, about the ways of the mind and the urge of ambition, envy. Only the mind that is aware that it does not know, that is totally aware of its own ignorance - only such a mind can be at peace (with itself) . The mind that has merely gathered experience, accumulated knowledge, or acquired a lot of technical information, is everlastingly in ( a state of?) conflict.
When the mind is willing to die to all the ( psycho-?) knowledge it has accumulated, only then can it know what it is to have inner peace. This is a state which most of us have experienced occasionally, a state when the self is entirely absent. But we are so occupied most of the time with ( the complexity and?) superficialities that the true things of life pass us by.

Question: I have read an American book which certainly seems to prove through hypnosis that reincarnation is a fact. What comment will you make on this?

Krishnamurti: This is rather a complex question : the physical organism will come to an end and we want to know if there is ( a psychic?) continuity after death. The things that we have known and experienced will all come to an end, and we want to know whether reincarnation is a fact. I do not know if you have ever felt that thought is independent of the body, independent of the physical organism. We have the organism, the nervous responses, and thought; and so we ask if thought continues after death.

Now, ( the actual experience of?) death is something totally unknown, it is something completely new, and however anxiously we inquire, we cannot find an answer that will satisfy. So, can we discover what is the truth about death? We know that ( now ) we seek the continuity of the 'me' and so long as there is the desire to continue, we give strength to the idea of the 'me' and 'my importance'., this ( self-identified ) thought may continue, it may take another shape and form, which is called 'reincarnation'; but ( the metaphysical issue is ) does that which continues ever know the immeasurable, the timeless? Can it ever be creative? Surely, God, or Truth, or what you will, is not to be found in the field of time. It must be entirely new, not something created out of our own hopes and fears.

So you see, the problem is not whether or not there is reincarnation, but ( seeing the truth of?) the fact that we are all seeking permanency, security, here and hereafter. So long as the mind is seeking security in any direction,suffering must continue. Only the mind which dies from day to day, from moment to moment, to all that it has accumulated, can know what the Truth is. And then perhaps we shall discover that there is no division between life and death, but only a totally different state (dimension of Consciousness?) in which time, as we know it, does not exist.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 17 Oct 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Oct 2015 #34
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

Inner highlights on Meditation ( From the K Notebook,1961)

Time is ( becoming an?) an illusion ( when the self-centred process of ?) thought uses it as a means to bring about an inward, a 'psychological' change ; such a change is only a modified continuity of what has been; such thought takes shelter in the illusion of a gradual progress in time. The very denial of such 'time' is (the way of a qualitative inner ?) mutation in which the ( residual psychic?) 'things' which ( man's evolution in?) time has brought : habit, tradition, reform, the ideals, are denied. Deny (the inward thinking in terms of?) time and a mutation has taken place, a total mutation, not the substitution of one pattern by another. In this ( psychical?) mutation, there is ( the awakening of a total) attention and from this attention there is a totally different kind of action, which does not become a habit, an (accumulation of?) knowledge which dulls the brain, making it insensitive to a mutation. Virtue then is not then an ideal to be pursued, put together by time ; to love is a ( qualitative?) revolution of our total consciousness.

Meditation, which began at unknown depths , went on with increasing intensity and carved the brain into total silence, 'scooping out' the depths of ( self-centred?) thought & feeling, emptying the brain of the known and its ( dark?) shadow . It was a « meditation without the meditator ». The "meditator" is ( a self-controlling process of ?) ?) thought, nurtured in ( its daily) conflicts and hurts . In meditation ( the interference of self-centred ?) thought must totally cease. This ( understanding ?) is the foundation for ( an authentic) Meditation.

The silence grew and became intense, wider and deeper. The (already quiet?) brain which had listened to the silence of the hills, fields and groves was itself now silent; it had 'folded' upon itself and entered into depths which were beyond itself. The brain is essentially a superficial (survival instrument?) ; its activities and responses are ( related to the ?) immediate (challenges of reality ?) Its thoughts and feelings are on the surface, though it may think and feel far into the future and way back into the past. But the same brain turning upon itself is no longer experiencing (anything) outwardly or inwardly. ( Its self- centred ) consciousness, the fears, hopes and despairs of the past and the future, the contradictions of the race and its own self-centred activities, was absent; it was simply not there. The entire being was utterly still and as it became intense, it was not more or less; it was intense and there was an entering into a depth (or a depth came into being?) in which thought, feeling and (self-) consciousness could not enter into, an inner dimension which the brain could not 'understand'. There was no 'observer', witnessing this depth. One`s whole being was alert, sensitive but intensely still. This 'new', this 'depth' was expanding beyond ( the limitations of?) time and space.

Walking along that darkening (country) road, there was the « ecstasy of the Impossible », the all-oneness of the Impossible. The 'possible' is mechanical ( can be duplicated?) but this ecstasy was simply there, not as an experience but as a fact. It was not a thing to be 'sought after' for there is no path to it. Everything has to 'die' for It to be, (an inner ending ?) which is ( also creation and ?) love.

It was a 'meditation' in emptiness, ( entering into?) a void that had no borders. Thought could not follow; it had been left ( behind) where ( its self-created ?) 'time' begins, nor was there a feeling to distort love. This was emptiness without space. The brain was in no way participating in this Meditation; it was completely still and he totality of the Mind was being aware of what was taking place. Thought is an impediment to Meditation and only through ( a 'meditator'-less?) meditation can this impediment be dissolved. For ( the self-centred?) thought dissipates energy and the essence of energy is ( to be found only in?) the freedom from 'thought & feeling', for ( self-centred?) thought and feeling are 'mechanical' activities - which are a necessary part of ( our physical) existence. But 'thought & feeling' cannot possibly enter into the ( inner?) immensity of life. Quite a different approach is necessary, a meditation ( which) is emptying the mind of the (psychical burden of the?) known. Walking on that ( country) road, there was a complete emptiness of the brain, and the mind was free of the 'knowing' of yesterday, Time, the 'thing' of thought, had stopped; there was no 'going' or 'arriving' or standing still. The totality of the Mind, in which is ( contained?) the brain with its thoughts and feelings, was empty; and because it was empty, there was ( only pure?) energy, a deepening and widening energy without measure. This (inner dimension of?) of 'otherness' was the ( Universal?) Mind without time; it was the breath of innocence and immensity. This ( inner?) emptiness was alone (All-One ?) .

Habits and Meditation can never abide together; an ( authentic ?) meditation can never follow the pattern laid down by (the self-centred process of?) thought which forms habit. Thought shattering itself against (the realisation of?) its own 'nothingness' is the explosion of meditation. This meditation has its own (creative?) movement, directionlessand so, causeless. In that peculiar silence meditation was a movement in which the brain emptied itself and remained still. It was a movement in emptiness of the totality of the mind and there was ( a sense of?) Timelessness. (Recap: The self-centred activity of) thought is a material (brain process ?) held within the bonds of time; ( such) 'thought' is never free, never new; every experience only strengthens the bondage and so there is sorrow. However astute, however experienced, thought can never end sorrow; it can ( manage to constantly?) escape from it but it can never end it, since the ending of sorrow is (also implying?) the ending of (the self-centred activity of ?) thought. The ending of thought is the ending of sorrow.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Oct 2015 #35
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

Neither time nor space exists for the man who knows the Eternal.
Space and time are "real" for the man who is yet imperfect: space is divided for him into "dimensions", and time into past, present and future. He looks behind him and sees his birth, his acquisitions and all that he has rejected. That 'past' is being continually modified by the 'future' which is ever being added to it. From the past man turns his eyes to the future where death and the Unknown await him. Life is not to be approached through the past, nor through the mirage of the future. Its discovery can only be made in the immediate present - by the individual for himself and not for others - by the individual who has become the eternal "I". That eternal "I" is created by the perfection of the 'self' - an (integrated all-oneness ?) in which all things are contained, even human imperfections. Man, not yet having achieved that ( timeless) condition of "life in the present", lives in the ( memories of a ?) past which he regrets, or in the (expectations of the ?) future of his hopes, but never in the present which he ignores. This is the case with all men ( and/or women ?) .
In this (eternally new ?) moment of equilibrium between the past and the future, the ( eternal ?) "I" is poised as a tiger ready to spring, as an eagle ready to fly, as the bow at the moment of releasing the arrow. This ( is the timeless act of ?) Creation, the fullness of all life, it is immortality. The wind of the desert sweeps away all trace of the traveller. The sole imprint is the footstep of the present. The past, the future... sands blown by the wind.


This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 18 Oct 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Oct 2015 #36
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Life is not to be approached through the past, nor through the mirage of the future. Its discovery can only be made in the immediate present - by the individual for himself and not for others - by the individual who has become the eternal "I". That eternal "I" is created by the perfection of the 'self' - an (integrated all-oneness ?) in which all things are contained, even human imperfections. Man, not yet having achieved that condition of "life in the present", lives in the past which he regrets, or in the future of his hopes, but never in the present which he ignores. This is the case with all men ( and/or women ?) .

Well, k is, for me, describing the thinking process, the analytical process, some of its program and its field of "expansion" which is the future; it clearly has no capacities at all about the present,as first it records something then watch it; so what it is watching is already past, and try to define the future, no its future only, thought cannot be global,all this creates the illusion of a movement , so all those unnecessary words like expansion, a myth for me, and so on..

Watching now at my own time in this present, the problem I see with k ways of remarkably describing all that, nevertheless it may give the impression that thought can do something about all that at all time, like watching, and all of it, when for me it cannot do anything but prevent any watching ,any life to be..

Here I am not mistaking insights, flashes for the weird energy; insights and all those effects of a brain now at work to solve all problems, already using more than thought to do so, meaning that more capacities are at work, a brain on its way to understand,discover and so on, but I talk about this weird presence which literally smashed everything which is of thought, putting all that where it has to , like in the crop field, in the kitchen , making furnitures etc organising the survival globally speaking ...

this brings nothing, but it is OK at it was not meant to....I still do not get how all this finds its way,yet I see some of it, I just remember this sensation of being able to not resist whatever the cost of this know this permanent feeling that whatever is done, the same old sticky frustration up to pain is always there, and that there never is some mental "orgasm" taking place..which become unbearable at some stage, making life a heavy burden and nothing more

that seemed to be a turning point to find ways to live that like anything else....

thought has the more than vital play at the beginning to renounce itself to its activities when it is about the expansion of itself through desires and goals..

if this is REALLY a fact, then something may happen by itself...or not.

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Oct 2015 #37
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

Highlights from the last K Talk in Stockholm (1956)

To those of us who are serious it must be a real problem to find out how to bring about a fundamental change in ourselves. It is obvious that such a change is necessary but the difficulty with most of us is, I think, that we do not know how to change. The question is, can the mind be free from its own self-centred activity? Is it possible for the mind not to be self-centred? There are those who maintain that such a thing is impossible, but if we would seriously inquire into whether it is possible to free the mind from all conditioning, how are we to set about it? Can we discuss and go further into this problem? Questioner: I think one must begin by discovering a means. Krishnamurti: Can we not dispose of all the 'means' which the mind invents in order to free itself? One means is using the action of will to break down our conditioning. Another means is psycho-analysis. You go to an analyst, or analyse yourself; you try to interpret your dreams, you carefully investigate each layer of memory, you examine every reaction, and so on. That is not the way, surely. And when we try to break down our conditioning through the ( disciplining?) action of will, what happens? One desire becomes dominant and resists the various other desires - which means that there is always the whole problem of suppression, resistance, and so-called sublimation. So will cannot help us to free the mind. Let us take a 'simple' example and go into it : we are all consumed with something, whether it be envy, fear, ambition; can the mind be totally free of these ( compulsory drives?) or must we go on chopping at them little by little until we die, and still not be free at the end of it all? We said yesterday that each one of us is (inwardly a self-energising?) 'bundle' of (accumulated memories of past ) experiences and reactions; I am taking only one thing out of that 'bundle' and look at it. ( let us take?) an experience which we all have: ( greed and/or?) envy. By what process can this experience be totally eradicated?

Questioner: One can learn to accept oneself.

Krishnamurti: But ( supposing ) one is still envious ?

Questioner: Truth will make us free.

Krishnamurti: But to see what is true (and what is false?) the mind must be very alert, vivid, sensitive - it must be in such a state to see the truth.

Questioner: We must be able to 'conquer' that envy by some sort of feeling of brotherhood. Krishnamurti: 'Conquering' is like putting a bandage over a wound. The wound is still there.

Questioner: How about understanding our envy and seeing how it inhibits us ?

Krishnamurti: But we have created a society in which envy ( the greed for have more?) is very dominant, have we not? Our education, our religious ambitions, our whole lives are based on this process - which breeds a competitive, ruthless society. Envy is an extraordinarily strong feeling, and having it, we function from ( getting identified with?) that centre. If there were no envy at all, what would be the state of the mind? And would it not then be possible to create quite a different society, quite a different kind of education? As individual human beings, is it not important that we should find out for ourselves if it is possible for the mind to be free of envy in its entirety?

Questioner: If we stop wishing, stop desiring...

Krishnamurti: How is one to stop desire? By will? By self-disciplining? If you do any of these things, there is a conflict.

Questioner: By studying it in all its forms ?

Krishnamurti: You can intellectually study all the various forms of envy and still suffer from it. Questioner: We must try to look at envy very calmly when it comes into our minds, and not bother too much to get rid of it.

Krishnamurti: If I am envious, how am I to look at it?

Questioner: Very calmly, I said.

Questioner: Is this not the main difficulty, that we never really meet envy? We are envious, but we do not see our envy, actually.

Krishnamurti: ( Exactly) Do we know envy as a living thing, or merely as a word, a verbal statement? Do we know it as an intimate fact? Questioner: I am afraid most of us know it only as a word and not as a fact. Krishnamurti: Of what significance is a verbal knowledge ( which is) unrelated to the feeling?

Questioner: I think we must accept envy and give it its right place in our lives. If we can see, without condemning it, that envy does not lead anywhere, we shall get rid of it.

Krishnamurti: To say one must accept envy does not help us. The ( immediate?) cause of envy we know, but I am talking of the totality of it, the cause and the effect. After all, I know why I am envious; I am not as beautiful or as clever as you are; I compare myself with you, and I am envious. But is it possible to be free from that whole complex process? Questioner: If I dwell in the ( sphere of the known?) 'self', it is not possible. But by meditating every day I can find out that the self has no value, and be free from envy.

Questioner: But after all, life has made us envious. We can try to be a little less envious; but even if we do not achieve that aim, life will still go on for many more years.

Krishnamurti: Those for whom envy is not a real problem can 'chop away' at it slowly; but that will never resolve our struggle and sorrow. The problem needs a lot of penetration, and one's life is based on envy to a very large extent. From childhood we are brought up in envy, encouraged in it, consciously or unconsciously. On the surface I may be able to brush it aside; but deep inside, ( the self-identified component of this?) envy is still biting and burning. How is that fire to be completely quenched? It may be that we have to look at the problem in an entirely different manner. Can we leave 'envy' for a moment and go into the question of what it is to be free? If there is (already a self-identified?) centre, what kind of action or non-action must take place? So long as 'you' are fighting 'greed' one part of the mind is resisting another part, so envy will continue, will it not?

Audience: Yes...

Krishnamurti: So long as there is this ( dualistic) conflict, one part of the mind dominating another part, there can be no freedom. Do you 'see' that fact? Audience: Yes. Krishnamurti: So my actual problem is (this inner?) conflict, the fact that 'I' am always striving in order to arrive somewhere. This 'striving' is the (core?) process of ( greed and/or ?) envy. I am discontented, and I am striving to reach 'contentment'. I think that if I can go to some other place, or reach some end, I shall be content. I am unhappy, and I am envious, always wanting more, more, more. My whole outlook on life is based on (psychological and material?) accumulation, because in myself I am discontented, unhappy, lonely, empty. Being empty, I want somehow to enrich my life. I try painting, writing, worshipping, and many other avenues of self-expression - hoping to cover up this sense of emptiness. Is this not a fact?

Audience: Yes.

Krishnamurti: But can this 'emptiness' ever be filled? Surely, the moment I try to fill my emptiness, there is again the whole problem of struggle, of how to make myself richer. Then I look around to see who is richer, more beautiful, more talented than I am, and immediately I am caught in the ( mental) field of self-comparison and struggle. What then? I know there is an inner ( state of ) insufficiency; and can it be looked at without the desire to run away from it?

So now we are no longer concerned with the question of ( greed and?) 'envy'; we are considering the question of this inner 'emptiness'. Is the mind really aware of its emptiness? When the mind is no longer caught in the mere ( verbal acceptance ) that it is empty, then there is only ( the actual fact of?) emptiness, this (uncomfortable?) sense of insufficiency, of being inwardly poor. To become fully aware of it is important, not the ( dualistic?) question of what to do about it – since when I ask what to do about it, 'I' am again in the ( dualistic ) field of ( 'me' and my?) 'envy'. But when one is aware of the (truth of the?) fact that the totality of one's being is 'empty' then one no longer seeks to escape from this emptiness. So, can the mind be aware of the 'fact' of its emptiness ?

If the mind is only concerned with the (truth of the?) fact that it is empty, then it no longer cares about who is more beautiful, or more intelligent. When the (insight into the truth of the?) fact operates, it is the (very seeing of?) truth that operates. But by being afraid of this emptiness or we trying to do something about it we create a ( separative?) hindrance between ourselves and the fact. ( In a nutshell : ) If the mind can be completely still in front of the 'fact' of ( its own inner?) emptiness, loneliness, envy, if it does not 'translate' that fact or wish it were different, then (the insight into the truth of?) this fact operates. But so long as we operate upon the fact, we cannot be free. To be silently aware of the fact without condemnation, without wanting (expecting?) a result, ( is the inward non-action that ?) reveals the truth, which is freedom. (May 25, 1956)

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 19 Oct 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Oct 2015 #38
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

More meditative highlights from the K Notebook

The Otherness

The Otherness is 'mysterious' in the sense that it is something ( from a dimension ?) beyond time and thought. ( Therefore?) a mind that is caught (entangled?) in 'time and thought' ( thinking mainly about its own time-continuity ?) can never comprehend it. Without (an awareness of?) that Immensity human existence becomes trivial and sorrowful. There is an 'absoluteness' about it, it is an 'absolute' energy : self-existent and without causation; it is not ( just?) the 'ultimate' energy for it is (the spiritual essence of?) all (living?) energy. ( However, the practical difficulty is that?) every form of ( fragmentary, self-enclosed ?) energy and action must cease for it to be : there must be a total 'destruction' ( of the accumulations of psycho-memory?) for it to be, a total destruction of the 'known' in which all ( 'psychological') shelter and existence is cultivated, a total emptiness and only then the Timeless comes. This destruction (ending) of 'time' is not a ( time-spread) process, but the total ending of ( self-centred?) thought and feeling.

Inner Beauty and Meditation

( The sense of inner ?) beauty is never personal. The "personal" cultivation of beauty is a self-centred activity which ( in time ?) leads to insensitivity.
Every (living?) thing was ( still?) asleep and the beauty of the morning was magic; it was the beauty of the earth, heavens and of man, of the sleeping birds and the fresh stream in a dry riverbed; it was incredible that this (inner sense of beauty?) was not 'personal'. There was an 'austerity of completeness', so utterly complete that it knew no corruption ; the fury of ( this inner?) Beauty wiped away the defences of 'time'. Meditating there, beyond the limitations of time, Beauty was not the personal pursuit of pleasure, of the images and visions of the brain with its thoughts and feelings. ( Inner) beauty has nothing whatsoever to do with the pleasurable feelings aroused by a concert or a painting. It is the beauty beyond time and beyond the aches and pleasures of thought. ( Unfortunately, the self-centred process of ) 'thought & feeling' dissipate ( our total?) energy and so this Beauty (of Creation ?) is never seen. ( An integrated inner ?) energy, with its intensity, is needed to see this beauty – a beauty that is beyond the eye of the 'beholder'. When there is ( the egotistic interference of ?) the 'observer', then there is no (inner) beauty.

There on the perfumed verandah, when dawn was still far away and the trees were still silent, (the essence of) 'what is' was Beauty. This ( spiritual) essence is not 'experienceable', for ( the desire new?) 'experiences' only strengthens the ( psychological anchoring in the ?) known. The 'known' is never ( containing?) the ( spiritual?) essence. Meditation is not only the 'ending' of ( desire for the extraordinary?) experience, but it is the opening of the door to ( one's spiritual?) essence, opening the door of an (inner) 'furnace' whose fire utterly destroys ( the psycho-residues of the known?) , without leaving any ashes; there are no remains. ( Psychologically ?) we are ( stuck with ?) the remains of many thousands of 'yesterdays', ( creating the perfect illusion of?) a continuity of endless memories choices and despairs. The ( accepted concepts of the eternal ?) 'Self ' and of the little ( egotistic?) 'self' are the ( result of our self-centred ?) pattern of existence with ( its) never ending ( colateral accumulation of?) sorrow. In the flame of meditation ( the ego-mental pattern of ?) thought ends and with it ( the ego-?) feeling, for neither is Love. Without Love, there is no ( spiritual?) essence; without it there are only ashes (active sub-programs of memory ) on which is based our ('psychological' ) existence. Out of the ( inner) emptiness love is

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Oct 2015 #39
Thumb_3135 Jo D United Kingdom 12 posts in this forum Offline

The last post reminded me that I read recently (not K) that when we are in presence everything becomes sacred. But when reading something striking in K, there isn't necessarily that connection with the sacred, but much more of an alertness, like a dog when she is listening out for something.

Also John, I am enjoying Think on These Things, it seems like a nice place for a beginner to K to start. Could you recommend another book that would be good for a beginner? Thank you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Oct 2015 #40
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

More meditations from the K Notebook

To deny (what is false in our own consciousness?) is essential. To deny ( the psychological accumulations of?) 'today' without knowing what "tomorrow" will bring is to keep awake. To ( inwardly) deny the ( authority of?) social, economic and religious patterns is to be 'alone' ( an integrated all-one?) , which is to be sensitive. Not to be able to deny totally is to be (inwardly ) mediocre. Not to be able (willing?) to deny ( the collective mentality based on ?) ambition and all its ways is to accept the 'normality' of ( an) existence which (also) breeds conflict, confusion and sorrow. To deny the politician's (mentality?) in us, the ( mechanical) responses to the immediate is to be free from fear. Total denial is the negation of the ( so called) 'positive', of the imitative urge and conformity. This denial itself is positive, for it is not a reaction. To deny the accepted standards of beauty is to discover ( the inner source of?) beauty which is beyond thought and feeling; but, to discover it, ( a special?) energy is necessary. This energy comes when there is no inner conflict, contradiction, and one's action is no longer partial.

The humility ( of not 'knowing'?) is the essence of all virtue. ( However, its creative ?) order is never permanent; it has to be maintained every day, as a room has to be cleaned every day. This order is not (self-centred or?) 'personal', an individual adjustment to the ( established?) patterns of conditioned responses, of like and dislike, pleasure and pain. This ( holistic?) order is ( found in?) the understanding of sorrow and the ending of sorrow . Such order is not an end in itself; ( if it becomes an end in itself ?) it leads to the ( psychological ) 'dead end' of respectability, which is deterioration and decay. Learning is the very essence of this 'humility', learning from everything and from everybody. There is no hierarchy in this learning. (Accepting someone's spiritual?) authority denies learning ; a 'follower' will never learn.

There were several people in the room, some sitting on the floor and some on chairs; there was the quietness of appreciation and enjoyment. A man was playing on an eight-stringed instrument. He was playing with his eyes closed, as delighted as the little audience. It was pure sound and on that sound one 'rode' far and deep; each sound carried one deeper. The quality of sound that instrument produced made the (listening) journey infinite; from the moment he touched it till the moment he stopped, it was the sound that mattered not the instrument, not the man, not the audience. It had the effect of shutting out all other sound, even the fireworks that the village boys were setting off; you heard them crash and crack but it was part of the sound and the sound was everything - the cicadas that were singing, the boys laughing, the call of a small girl and the sound of silence. He must have played for over half an hour and during that entire period the journey continued; it was not a journey on the wings of thought or in the frenzy of emotion. That sound carried one through and beyond the confines of time, and quietly it went on into great immense emptiness from which there was no return ( to what one was before?) . What is 'returning' always is ( a self-conscious?) memory, but here there was no (such) memory, no ( 'personal'?) experience. ( Seeing the truth of a?) fact has no shadows of memory.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Oct 2015 #41
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

Selected Q & A's from the 1956 K Talks in Brussels

Question: Is there such a thing as real happiness? Can anyone ever find it, or is our pursuit of it an illusion?

Krishnamurti: I think if we pursue ( personal?) happiness, one's life becomes very shallow. After all, ( creative?) happiness' is a thing that comes to you, it is a by-product; when you go after happiness, it eludes you, does it not? If you are ( self-) conscious that you are happy, you are no longer ( genuinely ?) happy.
So happiness is something that cannot be pursued, any more than you can pursue (inner) peace- if you pursue it, your mind becomes stagnant. For ( inner) peace is a living state; and to understand what this peace is requires a great deal of intelligence and 'hard work'. Similarly, happiness requires immense insight (inward clarity?) and as much (meditation-wise?) hard work as you give to earning a livelihood, and far more. But if you are merely seeking ( instant?) 'happiness', then you might just as well take a drug. Only when the mind is no longer pursuing its own gratification, its (self-) fulfillment, which is a self-centred activity - only then is there the cessation of all (inner contradictions and?) conflict. (This state may be called ( creative?) happiness). Where there is an inner conflict (between contradictory desires?) , there must be tension, misery; so, to live a life without conflict one has to understand the 'psychological' process of this movement which we call ( struggling with oneself or inner ?) conflict; and we cannot possibly understand it so long as there is the 'motive to achieve' something. To understand deeply the inward nature of effort, requires a great deal of self-perception. That is why it is very important to know oneself. In the very process of self-knowledge, perhaps there will be (a colateral?) happiness on the side - which is very unimportant (as a goal in itself?) .

Question: You seem to deny yoga (although you practise it daily?). Do you think it has no (spiritual?) value at all?

Krishnamurti: We think that by right breathing, by having the right kind of yoga, by practising meditation, controls, discipline, we shall arrive at that state of mind in which it is possible to find out what God is, or if there is God. Many people think these systems will lead to that. But I think that Truth or God has no path by which you can approach it; merely doing a particular exercise or struggling to control all one's thoughts won't makes the mind really alert, pliable, intelligent, perceptive. How can the mind discover what is ( eternally?) true if it is caught in ( following a guru or ?) a system? By taking a drink, or one of these ( magic?) pills, or by doing yoga, you can have a certain temporary alleviation, satisfaction, peace; but (on the downside?) you will have to keep on taking your drug.

( Recap:) Taking a pill or practising some method of making the mind quiet, does not bring about that ( enlightened?) state of deep comprehension of what is (or what is not?) true. Yoga (as well as) all the other various stimulants, produce their own ( psycho-somatic?) results; but they cannot possibly make (awaken?) the mind into that astonishing instrument of inner inquiry and discovery. The ( psychological aspect of the?) problem is not whether ( practising ) yoga is 'right' or 'wrong', but whether the human mind can be freed from creating a (new and rewarding?) habit and living in that habit. A mind that seeks 'peace' and establishes itself in the routine of ( "seek and find" ?) peace has merely disciplined itself according to a pattern ; but such a mind is not a living mind, it is not innocent, fresh. Only the mind that is innocent, fresh, free to discover, is creative.

Question: How is it possible to live in this world without any kind of security?

Krishnamurti: I do not think it is possible to live in this world without ( a deep sense of ?) security. If you did not know where you were going to get your next meal, where you were going to sleep tonight, you could not call it 'living'. Modern society is gradually bringing about that physical security - the 'welfare' state. But surely that is not ( solving ) our (inner?) problems since we also want to be secure inwardly, psychologically. Therefore we invent 'things' (ideals and concepts?) in which we seek psychological security - and thereby bring about physical insecurity (on the global level?) . ( Eg:) As I find delight in being an 'Indian' - or what you will - and depending on that ( identification?) for my inward security - I create the division of nationalities, frontiers which will invariably bring about insecurity, psychologically as well as physically.

So, is it possible for the mind to be 'psychologically' free of this demand to be secure, this demand for ( self-) permanency? We are always seeking 'permanency' in our relationships, are we not? We want permanency in our relationship with society, with a particular person, and if that is once ( legally?) established, then we want permanency in another directions - we want to become well-known, famous ( and/or?) we want permanency after death, or permanent peace, a permanent state of happiness; or we want to be permanently 'good' ( be on the 'right' side of History?) . I think this is ( gist of ) the whole (psychological?) problem - to free the mind of this constant urge to seek a ( static ?) 'permanent' state. For does not this very demand for permanency lead to ( spiritual?) mediocrity? Surely it is only the mind has no ( desire for an illusory self-?) continuity in the 'known' is capable of renewing (regenerating?) itself; not the mind that is merely (safely?) moving from the known to the known. After all, what we want is the ( mechanical?) continuity of the 'known' – of the 'known' (and rewarding?) experiences and pleasures. Also, as the mind is ( actively) seeking that state of ( self-centred ?) permanency, we are bound to create division ( individualistic competition ?) between man and man.

The problem is, then, can the mind live without seeking ( an illusory psycho-?) permanency at all? After all, the human mind is the result of time, of innumerable experiences and it cannot brush all that aside. But need ( our strong attachment to?) those memories, to the 'known', interfere and make the mind incapable of ( self-) inquiring? The mind is capable of (self-) discovery only when there is freedom from the known. All this is not a matter of acceptance or rejection. You have to experiment with this if you are at all seriously interested. You have to go ( meditatively and?) deeply into yourself so profoundly that the mind becomes capable of renewing itself, of remaining innocent in spite of the innumerable experiences and accidents of life. For only the innocent mind is open to receive that which is Eternal (eternally new?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Oct 2015 #42
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 150 posts in this forum Offline

Hi John,
Wonderful to read this. I had an interesting dream a while back and it has stayed with me: it was based I think on an idea that what we all are for the most part are 'words', words stacked on words in each ones own particular arrangement and this is what we present to each other in our lives...and in the dream, I was confronted with some antagonistic characters who seemed to be able to see through my 'guise' and were pointing out my 'flaws' and where this would have been a very uncomfortable situation; being 'exposed', it occurred to me that 'they' could not 'see' that they were made up of the same 'words'.memories, habits etc. and their criticism lost its 'sting'. I remembered then about 'vulnerability' and that being 'seen' as what one is, one's facade... is not a 'bad' thing.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 23 Oct 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Oct 2015 #43
Thumb_3135 Jo D United Kingdom 12 posts in this forum Offline

Thank you John for the helpful reply, I will take a look at the link.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Oct 2015 #44
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

More Rishi Valley Meditations from the K' Notebook

How easy it is to degenerate, in every way, to let the body waste, become sluggish, the mind allowing itself to become shallow, petty and dull. An (intellectually trained?) 'clever' mind is a shallow mind and it cannot renew itself and so ( it eventually?) withers away in its own ( success and/or?) bitterness; it decays by the ( mechanistic?) exercise of its own brittle sharpness, by its own ( self-centred) thought. Every (such ) thought shapes (or sinks?) the mind in the mould of the known; every ( self-centred) feeling & emotion, however refined becomes wasteful and empty and the ( psycho-somatic?) body fed on ( self-centred?) thoughts and feelings loses its ( natural) sensibility.

It is not the 'physical' energy, though it is necessary, that breaks through this wearying dullness; it is not enthusiasm or sentimentalism which bring about ( the total?) sensitivity of one's whole being . It is ( the self-centredness of?) thought which is the disintegrating factor; for thought has its roots in the 'known'. A life based on thought and its ( well-known routinely ?) activities, becomes ( repetitive and?) mechanical; however smoothly it may run, it is still a mechanistic action. Action with a ( psychologically biased?) motive dissipates energy and so disintegration sets in. All motives, conscious or unconscious, generate from the 'known' and a life of (in the field of?) the 'known' is (subjected to a temporal?) decay; in that (choice of?) life there is no renewal. Thought ( as a fragmentary mental activity?) can never bring about innocency and humility and yet it is innocency and humility that keep the mind young, sensitive, incorruptible. The freedom from the 'known' is the ending of ( this self-centred?) thought; to 'die' to ( one's identification with?) thought, from moment to moment, is to be free from the known. It is this (psychological ) 'death' that puts an end to decay.

There was not a sound in the valley; it was dark and there wasn't a leaf moving; dawn would come in an hour or so. Meditation is not self-hypnosis, by words or thought, by repetition or ( by concentrating on an?) image; all these (props?) must be set aside and then meditation is the ( non-dualistic?) understanding of the facts and so going beyond them. Self-knowing is (has to be ?) the beginning of meditation; otherwise it leads to every form of immaturity and silliness. On waking, the body was quiet, the brain was watchful and a timeless (non-directional?) movement began. Words are of the past or the future but the 'active present' has no words. The dead (memories?) can be put into words but the living (present) cannot. Every word used to communicate about this 'living' ( dimension) is a denial of the living. ( Nevertheless?) it was a movement that passed through and between the walls of the brain and the brain was incapable to pursuit or recognising (it) . This ( timeless?) movement was not born out of the known; the brain can follow the known as it can recognize it, but here no recognition, of any kind, was possible. Because it was without direction, this 'movement' was the essence of (one's?) total energy. This energy (of) 'love', has its own movement. ( Recap:) There is only this (observable ?) fact : the freedom from the known. Meditation is the ( time-free?) explosion of ( seeing the truth of?) this fact.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 24 Oct 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Oct 2015 #45
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

On the conflicting nature of desire and sorrow ( highlights from a K Talk in Brussels 1956)

One of our great ( 'psychological' ) difficulties is how to free ourselves from the complex problem of 'sorrow'. Unfortunately the intellect has no real solution to this problem. But if we can very seriously examine this problem of 'suffering' – by actually experiencing the whole process of it - then perhaps we shall discover its cause, and find out whether that discovery brings about the ( dis- ?) solution of it. Obviously, this problem of 'sorrow' is one of the fundamental (psychological) issues in our life. Most of us have some kind of sorrow, secret or open, and we are always trying to find a way to go beyond it, to be free of it. But unless we begin to understand for ourselves the really deep workings of the ( self-centred?) mind, sorrow will inevitably continue. Consciously or 'unconsciously' we all know that we suffer because we have in us the (dualistic?) contradiction of desires, one ( dominant form of?) desire trying to dominate another. This inner contradiction generates an (inner state of ?) conflict which ( eventually?) leads to the state of mind which we call 'suffering'. The whole complex (inward activity of?) of desire which create conflict is ( at least to me) the source of all sorrow.

Most of us are caught up ( or will eventually get stuck?) in this mass of contradictory desires, wishes, longings, fears ( as long as ) we are concerned about ourselves. And I think this ( core movement of desire manifested as?) 'self-concern' is the real source of our inner conflict and misery. So it seems to me very important, if we would (ever want to?) free ourselves from sorrow, to go into this whole complex which we call 'desire', ( the drive behind?) this ( pro-active?) 'bundle of ( personal) memories' which we call the 'me'. Is it possible to live in the world without ( being constantly driven by?) this 'complex (multi-level activity ?) of desire' from which all suffering arises? Can ( an intelligent human?) mind free itself from suffering? This must be a problem to all of us who 'think about these things', because all of us suffer, acutely or superficially. If it is our human (condition?) to ( be constantly driven by desire and?) suffer endlessly, then we must accept it and live with it. But I think that no ( reasonably intelligent?) man wants to be in that state. So, is it possible to end ( this inner dynamic of?) sorrow?

Surely, sorrow is the result, not only of our lack of self-knowledge, but also of this enormous (collective mentality of ? ) 'effort': that everyone is making to be ( or become 'someone' an/or?) to acquire 'something'. That is what we are doing all the time, is it not? . But it must be obvious to most of us that so long as I desire to become successful, for example, either in the material world or 'psychologically' (spiritually) , I must make ( pay the price in terms of?) effort, I must exert myself to achieve and that suffering is inherent in the very nature of that effort. I am not saying that we should 'reject' or 'sustain' ( physical?) effort, but whether effort is necessary 'psychologically', and whether (at that level?) it does not produce the seed of sorrow. Now, this ( 'psychological'?) effort, surely, is centred in the 'me' ('me'-first mentality ?) , the 'self' concerned with itself and its own activities.

Can the human mind free (untangle?) itself from this complex 'bundle of desires' without effort, without a motive? This is a very complex problem (since) my (whole inner?) life is made up of many wants and frustrations, many hopes, longings and aspirations : all that is the 'me', the self (centred consciousness ?) , which is the source of sorrow. Surely, any move this 'I' makes in order to be free of sorrow, furthers sorrow, By making an effort to get rid of sorrow, I build a resistance against it, which breeds further sorrow. If I see this, then what am I to do? How is a mind which is caught in ( the inner dynamic desire and/or ?) sorrow to free itself from sorrow? Can it do anything? Because any action on its part has a (self-continuing ) motive behind it; which invariably breeds conflict, which again begets sorrow. (Eg : ) I think I shall be 'happy' (happier?) if I have plenty of things, position, power, money. So I struggle (compete, etc ?) . In this very process there is ( a continuity of my inner ?) conflict, frustration; so ( the causation of?) 'sorrow' is set going. Or, if I am not worldly-minded, I turn to more 'spiritual' things, but there also I try to 'realize God', Truth, and all the rest of it; I cultivate virtue, follow yoga or some other system to the end that my mind may be at peace. So again there is a (still more subtle ?) struggle - which seems to me utterly futile, without meaning.

So what is the mind to 'do'? I know now the whole 'pattern of suffering', the causation of suffering and I see that escaping from suffering is no answer. One may escape momentarily, but suffering is still (awaiting) there, like a lingering poison. So how do I know that I suffer? Do I know it merely because I feel ( constantly) frustrated, or because I have lost someone ? Or do I (realise?) with my whole being that suffering is ( inherent in?) the nature of all desire, of all becoming? Surely, there must be suffering so long as one does not totally comprehend ( the process of?) desire ; whether we desire superficial things, or the deep, fundamental things, an ( implicit ) conflict (between 'what I want' and 'not want' ?) is always involved. So, can we find out whether the mind is capable of being free from ( this internal conflict of?) desire - from the whole 'psychological' process of the desire to be something, to succeed, to become, to find God, to achieve (and the possibility of not getting it) ?

Can the mind understand all that (duality of 'want & not want'?) and be free from it? Otherwise life is a process of continuous conflict, misery. You may find a 'semi-permanent' escape ; throw yourself into some activity, take refuge in a belief, find various ways of forgetting yourself; but conflict is still there. So, can the mind understand the (dualistic nature of this ?) process of desire?

An ( insightful?) 'understanding' comes only when the mind sees the ( truth about this ?) whole process of desire and, realising that it cannot do anything about, it becomes silent with regard to that problem? I think this is the fundamental ( transformational ?) issue : if the mind can look at this enormous problem of desire without any ( mental?) movement, you will find that when the mind is no longer contaminated by ( the dualistic conflict of?) desire and all the problems connected with it, then the mind itself is Reality - not the ( self-centred?) mind as we know it, but a Mind that is completely without the self, without desire.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Oct 2015 #46
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
I can only know myself as I am by observing my (everyday) living, watching myself (and the outer world?) in the (2-way?) mirror of my relationship with another. To watch myself in that mirror is not to be merely 'introspective', or 'objective', but to be constantly alert, watchful of what is taking place in the mind, in myself. To understand a thing as it is, any (prejudiced?) evaluation, must go - and this is only the beginning of it ( a very shallow beginning) but one must go through that, one must understand the whole process of the mind, not merely intellectually, but by watching oneself in this 'mirror of relationship', to actually experience what is taking place in the mind - examine it, be aware of the whole content of it, without denying suppressing, or putting it away.

Well John, my view about that is that it seems to invite logic, analyses, introspection, in order to "do" so..Well to be honest I don't get k's point at all... I mean the way it is expressed here does not speak to me...

I have to bring that back one more time but the drowning into suffering, suffering as a natural process and not as a curse of course, the proper drowning meaning that suffering wins and I am defeated so expecting nothing , then there is not me on one hand and suffering on the other hand, this seems, more than seems ,this brings some other capacities to rune themselves on and this out of many side effects has brought an intensive revealing of the software of thought itself, I never was searching for that just happens..

Then now i know about why are there desires for example and much more...why arrogance, fear, killing, suicide idea and much is something on the move, well again I have no control over it....

what if there is a guide for us behind all that....? then beyond suffering, when you learn to catch it from scratch or quite so, you know you are wrong again and again have to find one way to leave it alone...up to "you know that you have to find a way to leave it alone" thought so analysis is still concerned and it gets the message that it must cease its interfering, but to leave it alone for a fact is each time another piece of cake, another discovery because it seems that a method here does not work, simply because the only point is that me absolutely must shut up...
it is juts my experience so far...nothing more but nothing less, I mean this is not a guess...

This is in k words not necessarily here, but it is, it seems very difficult to put such momentum in words, even for oneself..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Oct 2015 #47
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

More Meditations du Jour from the K Notebook

( Inwardly speaking?) there are only facts and the (insight into the truth about these ?) facts teaches ; but to follow this teachings, the listening, the (inward ) observation must be acute (accurate?) ; such total attention is denied if there is ( a personal ?) motive for listening ; the (psychological?) action with a motive is leading to confusion and sorrow. Sorrow has been put ( gathered?) together by ( our self-centred ?) thought and this ( very process of?) thought, by feeding upon itself forms the 'I' and the 'me'. As an ( artificial intelligence?) 'machine'( appears to ?) have (its own ?) life, so has the 'I', the 'me' ( and/or the 'us'?)- a 'life' which is fed by thought and feeling. ( Seeing the truth about this inner ?) 'fact' destroys this machinery. The ending of sorrow is the ( insightful ?) understanding of the ( ongoing inner ) 'facts' from moment to moment. There is no system or method which will give this understanding but only the choiceless awareness of the fact. The 'meditation' according to a system is the avoidance of ( seeing the?) the ( actual ) fact of 'what you are'; it is far more important to understand 'yourself', the constant changing (re-shuffling?) of the facts about yourself, than to meditate in order to find God, have 'visions', ( hightened?) sensations and other forms of (spiritual?) entertainment.

The trees are beautiful in life and in death; they are always renewing themselves. ( However,) how easy it is ( for the human mind?) to degenerate, in every way, to let the body waste, become sluggish, fat; to allow ( the naturally generous ?) feelings to wither away; the mind allowing itself to become shallow, petty and dull. A 'clever' ( materialistic?) mind is a shallow mind- it cannot renew itself and so (it eventually?) withers away, decays by the exercise of its own ( self-centred?) thought. Every ( such?) thought shapes (entangles?) the mind in the mould of the 'known'; every feeling, every emotion, however refined becomes empty and the (physical) body fed on ( self-centred?) 'thought and feeling' loses its sensibility. ( To reverse this entropic trend?) it is not physical ( energy?) that breaks through the wearying dullness; it is not enthusiasm or sentimentalism either ( the element) which bring about sensitivity of one's whole being. It is ( the insight that ?) this ( self-centred process of?) thought is the disintegrating factor; for thought has its roots in the 'known'. A life based on thought and its (well known self-centred?) activities, becomes ( repetitive and predictible, therefore?) 'mechanical'; however smoothly it may run, it is still a 'mechanical' action- it dissipates ( our total?) energy and so disintegration sets in. All ( our psychological?) 'motives', conscious or unconscious, originate from the 'known' ; such a life of the 'known', though projected into the future is ( a slow form of inner ?) decay, since in such a life there is no renewal. ( The self-locked process of the 'thinker' and its ?) 'thought' can never bring about innocency and humility and yet it is innocency and 'humility' ( the humbleness of not-knowing?) that keep the mind young, sensitive, incorruptible.
( Recap :) Freedom from the known is ( coming through?) the ending of ( self-centred ) thought; to 'die' to thought (to an existence based exclusively on the previously 'known'?) , from moment to moment, it is this ( psychological ) 'death' that puts an end to (the mind's ?) decay.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Oct 2015 #48
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
So, the pre-requisite ( 'pre-K' requirement ?) in all this would be an insight into the perceptive validity of our existing self-locked (survivalist ?) perceptive and relational mode. Otherwise...we're just playing mind games with ourselves and...with others

Well John ,yes and up to a point I see myself doing that,as long as this weird energy is not there, there is still a sort of mind game yes, some could be necessary to broom the room and "god" knows what else....

since I wrote the last post I had this better definition of suffering, the absence of the weird energy is a suffering,the dictatorship of thought IS suffering leading to various levels and forms of this is quite out of the way, well for now :-)

since I got such totally incidental "revelations" of the software functioning of thought, here now there seem to have different possibilities ....

self knowledge is vital says k, well indeed it is then...

John Raica wrote:
I have noticed too, Dan, that there might be a potential educational flaw into this 'learning by observing oneself in the mirror of relationship'; For one thing it certainly worked for K...but again, his mind was cleansed of the 'observer-observing- 'the observed' duality.

I may be wrong, so a question ,k could have some ability to have both "worlds" somehow at the same time ,sometimes, and from time to time ,the weird energy was totally putting thought where it belongs to so let's say in the kitchen getting the lunch ready, or ..nothing for once! is my impression...but with some ???? of course.
....(John:So, technically speaking you can't honestly do both at the same time: to be inwardly in a safe-mode and also have a total perceptive contact with a reality)

John Raica wrote:
Now, for most of us here, this perceptive duality is a given- in the sense of a fail-safe perceptive mode which has worked for so many generations...and producing the 'mixed bag' reality of the present world. So, in practical terms, we are meeting daily a lot of potentially destabilising facts in the world 'out there'- to quote the French philosopher JP Sartre: 'L'enfer c'est les autres'...

Again I question like is it really about safety, It could be only about the known, field of thought ,incapable to go anywhere else then... I agree that it looks like to be about safety..this came to me within some revealing of the thought software,as a program..
The present world being as mad as centuries ago , we are just living it and not reading it....still hoping, hope being another escape of thought ....still playing games in fact.

John Raica wrote:
So, Mr K's injunction to directly see ourselves in 2-way the mirror of relationship sounds pretty the 'real' world. It may be working (???) in a self-selected (BP kind of) community and alternative school, but the main impediment is the wide spread inner attitude of a self-locked ( 'fail-safe') perceptive ego/observer/thinker/experiencer.

May be there is something very true and vital behind : directly see ourselves in 2-way the mirror of relationship

if so it has not crossed my own road such, as said.

Thought is turning round in circles in its self locked cage then....this is suffering...again because of the absence of the weird energy as well as the inability to solve problems..mainly what thought does is running away, well attempting to run away from what it does not know to stay in the known...

this is machines and mass murders....such life is a joke, talking for myself of course....which is only more bitterness and mind games from thought ,so such sentence is not just useless in fact but only strengthened it ...the perception of that is the destruction of libitum...


Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Oct 2015 #49
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

More Meditations du Jour from the K Notebook (1961)

Questioning (authority ?) has become merely a reaction to 'what is' and all reactions have little meaning (since) in the very breaking of the old patterns a new one is formed and so destroying ( the expected freedom ?). This endless revolt within the prison is the reaction of the immediate, and redecorating the prison walls seems to give us such satisfaction that we never (envisage to ?) break through the walls. The discontent of questioning is within the walls (of the known?) , which doesn't get us very far; it would take you to the Moon and to the neutron bombs but all this is still within the call of sorrow. Questioning the (inner infrastructure ?) of our sorrow and going beyond it is far more urgent than going to the moon or to the temple; it is this questioning that (eventually may?) tear down this structure. This ( inward) questioning destroys the machinery of ( self-centred?) thought, it shatters the authority of ( past?) experience, word (verbal knowledge ?) and power. This (inward) questioning, which is not born of ( personal?) choice and motive, 'explodes' the self-centred activity. ( Unfortunately?) we are ( sub-consciously?) afraid of this total destruction of ( our psychological?) 'known', the ground of the 'me' and the 'mine'; the ( inner safety of the?) known is better than the 'unknown' ; freedom from this known may destroy what we call 'love', 'relationship', 'joy' and so on. Freedom from the known, the explosive ( inward) questioning, ends sorrow, and then 'love' is something that thought and feeling cannot measure.

(Recap:) Our ( inner) life is so shallow and empty, petty thoughts and activities, woven in conflict and misery and always journeying from the known to the known, psychologically demanding security. There is no (authentic ) security in the 'known' however much one may want it. Security is ( related to a "psychological' continuity in?) time, but there is no ( such) 'psychological' time; it is an illusion, breeding fear. There is nothing 'permanent' now or in the future, (or even in?) the hereafter. By right questioning and listening, the (time-binding?) pattern moulded by ( self-centred?) thought and feeling, the pattern of the 'known', is shattered. Listening ( inwardly?) to every movement of ( our self-centred?) thought and feeling, ends the ( psychological infrastructure of the?) 'known'. ( An inner living based on ?) the known ( sooner or later?) breeds ( frustration and?) sorrow, love is (to be found in ?) the freedom from the known.

Every thought and feeling must ( be allowed to?) 'flower' , (this inward?) 'flowering' of everything in you, the ambition, the greed, the hate, the joy, the passion; in their very 'flowering' there is their 'death' (ending?). (However?) it is only in (a climate of inner ) freedom that anything can flourish, not in control and discipline; these ( may seem to work but inwardly they?) only corrupt. ( This inner?) flowering in freedom is ( the essence of?) all virtue. To allow our 'envy' to flower is not easy, since it is usually condemned or cherished but never given (allowed this?) freedom (to reveal itself?) . It is only in ( a climate of inner?) freedom that the fact of 'envy' reveals its depth, its peculiarities; if suppressed it will not reveal itself fully and freely. When it has 'shown itself' completely, there is an 'ending' of it, only to reveal another ( still deeper ?) 'fact' : 'emptiness', 'loneliness', 'fear' (of the unknown?) , and as each fact is (wisely?) allowed to 'flower in freedom', the ( dualistic?) conflict between the 'observer' and the 'observed' ceases; then there is no longer any 'censor' but only observation, only 'seeing'.

( Recap:) ( Inner?) freedom can only be (found?) in ( inward self-exposure and?) completion; there is 'completion' only in flowering and dying; there is no 'flowering' if there is no ending. The flowering of ( self-centred?) thought is (also ) the 'ending' of thought; for only in 'death' is there the ( birth of the?) new. The New cannot be if there is no freedom from the known. ( The continuity of a self-centred?) thought, of the 'old', cannot bring into being the New; it must 'die' for the New to be. What ( is inwardly allowed to?) flower must (naturally?) come to an end.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Oct 2015 #50
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 150 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
the average human brain seems to give a much higher priority to its 'psychological safety ' feature, as for the rest...c'est la vie

As has been said,'desire' seems to be at the root of all our problems. Whether it be for material comforts or 'spiritual' accomplishment, it ultimately leads us to conflict. It has to be seen again and again to discover its ubiquitousness. It, desire, seems to be 'regulated' in our fellow creatures but with us it's 'anything goes'. 'More' is better, "greed is good" etc. Desire is even there when we attempt to 'see' ourselves, with the motive of 'gain' lurking in the shadows. Letting 'what is' "flower" seems to be what is called for and that calls for a certain 'freedom' that understands that there is no other 'way'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Oct 2015 #51
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
if the 'self-protecting' interface is active we can see only the practical utility of people, nature, etc. It is a very very old survival based conditioning and our modern world still 'thrives' economically on it (with a few downfalls of course )

Hello John,

well , for me, it is not a conditioning as such, yet yes some conditioned learning of all kind whether false or right had been added to the main features ,years after years centuries after centuries; but it seems to me to just be about the thought program normal working order ,working in its field of competencies , If I may say so ,that is how I see all fields of competencies include to eliminate, give value and hierarchies etc etc but not to people, to concepts and techniques ONLY....

in the absence of an other capacities, I mean lost capacities that we necessarily had turned on, again for me, turned on in some unknown past, as otherwise we would not bee here, in such absence we treat others as we valued calculation and concepts...we lead a life of a calculator only...this life is pain, naturally meant to be painful in order to prevent man to go that way..but we did ....pain is the subject....we try to skip it all life......and life says next..

so simple.

John Raica wrote:
the image we get of the "others" is that of a very distorting mirror. So...we 'learn' something like 'It's cold out there', while 'in-here it's warm and safe'. Now, as you are mentioning quite often, this fail-safe mode is indeed synonymous to sorrow, but the average human brain seems to give a much higher priority to its 'psychological safety ' feature, as for the rest...c'est la vie..

again, is it about safety or about the known , the unknown ?? known = safe ? unknown = unsafe, or is it that thought is entirely useless about what is unknown ??

I think that I am dealing with safety , indeed it looks that way yes, but this is just some very superficial analytical analyses, yet vital for sure too, deep down for me it is about the known and the unknown and one desire is enough to do so...but even the desire for comfort and safety could be superficial and not a root problem, again the root problem could well be the inability of thought in so many fields of what life is....

any pain of such syndrome is an immediate warning = fault !!!

And it could be where we are wrong but not sensing that the warning is yes a symptom but a catalyst to leave absolutely free like I do with the wind or the sun..even if I protect myself from the sun or the wind, the sun is still there so is the wind...

So here now I am not concerned right now I mean with how others deal with that...I am concerned with my own way to deal or "mis-deal" with all that first.
Not to forget the experiences of the weird energy and more...because this gives a sense to be around something terribly RIGHT..often, but not always with kids, for me security has come after something I regarded as "good",of course I am not mentioning any kind of business,success, or such b.....t here .

when security comes after, it is not anymore about security is about whatever but that..


Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Oct 2015 #52
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
As has been said,'desire' seems to be at the root of all our problems. Whether it be for material comforts or 'spiritual' accomplishment, it ultimately leads us to conflict. It has to be seen again and again to discover its ubiquitousness. It, desire, seems to be 'regulated' in our fellow creatures but with us it's 'anything goes'. 'More' is better, "greed is good" etc. Desire is even there when we attempt to 'see' ourselves, with the motive of 'gain' lurking in the shadows. Letting 'what is' "flower" seems to be what is called for and that calls for a certain 'freedom' that understands that there is no other 'way'.

Hello the other Dan, unless I myself am the other Dan :-))

I agree that desire is a serious problem...What I have seen revealed for me about the thought program ,revealed is really the right word here, is that desire is vital, without desires thought would not function, thought as a program , a machine needs an incentive self induced to analyse, and desires are providing such incentives, like self reward does, self satisfaction does, self pride etc etc etc ..

desires contains a dark side named frustrations, greed, fear, hatred, and so many more dark aspects.....that was revealed again, not thought..I never searched to understand thought..going through the suffering door have done that is what I understand....

From very young surrounded by globally intelligent adults so in touch with what they are which is probably never the case on earth since ages , that would be a subject for the young to eventually go into...but

Anyway this dark side loaded in desires is for me in us with a motive as a function, it has a function..we do not suffer because the Universe, the Ground, the Origin, or whatever name suits her, is nuts.

exactly like physical pain it guides, don't do this.....

so even the letting "what is flower" can, as you know, be just another trick made up by thought...this is why what we call pain and that we immediately are trying to reject is so strong, as to by pass the powerful inertia of thought such strong incentive more powerful than thought is itself it is very possible that thought cannot by pass itself at all...this is my actual view so far..



Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Oct 2015 #53
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

Meditation du Jour (from the K Notebook, 1961)

The car was going fairly fast and it was a good place to (drive and?)
meditate. To be free of the ( 'psychological' load of ?) words , to see that ( inwardly) the word is not the thing, not to get caught in the ( cultural) overtones of the word and yet use words with care and understanding; to be sensitive to words and not to be 'weighed down' by them; to (perceptively ) 'break through' the verbal barriers and to consider the actual facts; to avoid the 'poison' of ( vain and glamorous?) words and still feel the beauty of them; to put away all ( personal) identification with words and to ( objectively) examine them (is a meditation 'must'?) , for words are a trap and a snare. They are the symbols and not the real. The ( self-protective?) screen of words acts as a shelter for the 'lazy' and (self-) deceiving mind.

( The intellectual?) 'slavery' (dependency on ?) words is the beginning of an (inner state of?) inaction which may appear to be action (very active?) but a mind caught in ( words and?) symbols cannot go far. Every ( verbalising?) thought shapes the mind and without understanding ( the self-centred core of?) thought, the mind becomes a 'slave' to words and sorrow begins. Conclusions and explanations do not (can not ?) end ( this) sorrow.

Meditation is a movement in time and out of time ; the beginning of meditation is a 'choiceless' (non-personal?) awareness of every thought and feeling, understanding their motives, their mechanism, allowing them to blossom . And when this 'thought and feeling' ( eventually ?) flourish and die, meditation is the ( inward ?) movement beyond time. In this movement there is ecstasy; in its complete 'emptiness' (inner transparency?) there is love, and with this love there is ( psychological?) 'destruction' and Creation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Oct 2015 #54
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
the inherited instincts for seeking/finding/and optimising the safety of our daily existence has led to a residual accumulation of "personal and collective" experience and psycho-knowledge.

Hi John, yes there is accumulation in one's lifetime , but is it now integrated to the core of all our concerned cells or whatever part of the body is concerned, well this i do not is the accumulation which is not from "instinct" ( with my words instinct is the programmed analytical process) passed on to the next generation ?? I do not know...I would be tempted to say no....but that is just a wild guess..

yet as i have seen in a strong vision some 5 years ago that the machine namely the analytical process starts to be rotten, at this level of the hardware and even software then , something "bad" is happening clearly..if behind the vision there is truth in it of course...when watching the state of this planet, well it could be so...

we may be living the end of thought domination in fact, one way or the other....well, may be this is just nonsense ??

John Raica wrote:
However, the karmic downfall of this attitude is that we do not see anything directly, we just automatically process every new perception in terms of our personal or group safety, commercial value, etc . To use a scientific term once used by David Bohm, this is creating a standing ( cultural) wave, an intrinsically limited mentality shared by practically everyone. It all comes with the verbalising process of thought: once it starts you are automatically drawn into the field of the known.

If so, as it seems to be so yes, what is wrong with that (just an open question)? To say that it is wrong by watching ones life and all what thought is producing on earth from machines to mass killing and tortures etc etc , this is already beyond the thought process is not it ? something says: this is totally wrong !!! and right away comes the thought: I must change this, the world according to my feelings..thought immediately has discarded itself from any responsibility into the is sliding on this false duality, me and the world....until death then...

John Raica wrote:
Which, as K and yourself very wisely pointed out...also involves sorrow. And most of us have become insensitive or even 'immune' to it. A very safe but... dull and boring existence- the "psychological" dead-end of our culture.

Yes, it looks that way, a dead end, and I would be tempted to add: AT LAST !

here we have a two ways option for me....mental and-or physical suicide as usual but worse (war etc etc) or ????

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Oct 2015 #55
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

Highlights from a K Talk on thinking in Athens (1956)

We are trying to find out what lies behind the superficial activities of our daily existence ; so please examine your own thought process as I am talking, and ask yourself what thinking is. Thinking is a process or ( memory's?) reaction, is it not? It is a (verbalised?) reaction according to our ( cultural?) background and without understanding this 'background', we shall never find out whether it is possible for the mind to go beyond the process of its own activities.

What happens when we  think ? Without realizing it, the ( thinking?) mind divides itself, and then one section of the mind ( controls and/or ?) investigates the other, giving an answer out of its own ( memory bank of?) accumulated experience, or according to the accepted experiences of others. This effort makes up what we call thinking, and the resulting answer is ( more often than not?) the ( predictible?) projection of a conditioned mind.

Surely ( the gravity of?) our present problems demand quite a different approach, they demand a new 'psychological' outlook; but we must understand the (limitations ?) of our own thinking before we can go beyond it. That is why it is important to inquire for ourselves into how the thinking (process) begins, and where it stops; because if we do not ( care to?) understand the activity of our own thought, we shall only create more problems, and perhaps bring about our own destruction.
When we think, we do so within the ( 'known') framework which society has imposed on us and so long as we think within a (given) framework, our problems, whether social or individual, will remain unsolved. I feel it is very important that you and I as two ( responsible?) individuals should investigate for ourselves the process of our own thinking.

Is there freedom in thinking, or is all thought limited? If you ( sincerely?) look into yourself, you will see that all thinking is is the result of time, the residue of various cultures, of centuries of knowledge and experience. The totality of our (self-?) consciousness derives from this residue of the past, both individual and collective. So our 'consciousness' is the outcome of many influences: climate, diet, various forms of authority the « do's and dont's » of society, and of the religion in which we have been brought up, the books we have read, the reactions we have felt, and so on. All these influences do condition and shape the mind, and from this ( cultural) background comes our thought. Furthermore, ( the 'personal' component of?) our thinking is based on the desire to become something (and the associated fear of not being able to?) , which is encouraged and stimulated by the competitive ( mentality of the?) society in which we have been brought up.
So the question is, can such 'thinking' solve our many problems?

There is no 'unlimited' thinking, thinking is always limited; and to find out what lies beyond ( the self-centred process of?) thought, it must first 'come to an end' (or...take a break?) . N can thought inquire into something which is ( non-material and?) measureless? ( Eg :) If I want to find out what 'love' (truly?) is I must first see whether my mind is conditioned (or not?) by the ( accepted?) ideas which society or the organized religion calls 'love'. Only when my mind is free from all conditioning that I shall be able to find out what love is. In the same way, to find out if there is truth, if there is God, my mind must be free from all the beliefs and prejudices in which it has been brought up.

So, to discover something true, not conditioned, not contaminated, you must cease (in a psychological sense?) to 'think'- and the mind can free itself (of the its conditioning influences?) only when it is (standing?) completely alone and through (an integrated ?) awareness it can begin to understand its own functioning; then an extraordinary ( quality of ?) silence comes about, a stillness in which there is no movement of thought. Then the mind is 'free' (that is?) no longer anchored to an ideology or aiming at a purpose. Unless you undergo this actual experience life remains very superficial and ( predictibly?) sorrowful. So what is important is to understand the process of your own thinking. In that direct understanding of one's own thinking, a radical (qualitative?) change in one's living will take place and only then will it be possible for the external ( cultural infra-?) structure of society to change also.

A number of questions have been sent to me, and I shall try to go into some of them.

Question: Psychoanalysts offer (for a reasonable fee?) the 'panacea' of analysis, asserting that by just knowing what it is all about, one is cured; but this does not always hold true. What is one to do when in spite of knowing the cause of one's trouble, one is still unable to get rid of it?

Krishnamurti: You see, in this problem there is involved the 'analyser' and the 'analysed'. You may not go to a psychoanalyst, you may analyse yourself, but in either case there is always the (inner splitting into the?) analyser and the analysed. When ( the self-conscious?) 'you' tries to examine the unconscious, or interpret a dream, there is the ( subliminal mental splitting as?) examiner and the examined, with the analyser trying to reshape ( improve and/or?) or control that which he has analysed. The ( kernel of the?) question is not only whether the analyser is capable of ( a totally objective?) analysing, but more deeply whether there is actually such a division between the analyser and the analysed. We have assumed that there is such a division; but is there in actuality? The 'analyser' (part) surely, is also the result of our thinking. So if we realize the fact that the 'thinker' is not separate from his thought, that there is only ( a global process of?) thinking and no 'thinker' (to control it?) then our whole approach to the problem of inner conflict changes. After all, if you do not think, where is the 'thinker'? The qualities of thinking, the memory of various experiences together with the ( identification created by the ?) desire to be secure, to be permanent, have created the 'thinker' (as a separate entity?) apart from (the rest of our?) thinking. We say that 'thinking' is passing, but that the 'thinker' is permanent. In reality there is no 'thinker', but only the process of thinking. And if there is only thinking, and not a ( controlling?) 'thinker' who thinks, once we fully understand (the truth of the fact?) that there is only 'thinking' there is a tremendous (qualitative?) revolution in your whole approach to life; because you have 'at one stroke' removed the very source of ( the duality?) conflict. It is the division between the thinker and the thought that creates conflict; and if one is capable of removing that division, there is no 'problem'.

Question: What would happen to the world if all men and women were to arrive at a state so far removed from attachment that 'marriage' and 'love affairs' became unnecessary?

Krishnamurti: Should we not rather ask ourselves whether there is ( authentic?) love when there is attachment? Our 'attachments' are based on (the shared desire for?) mutual satisfaction, mutual support, are they not? Each one 'needs' the companionship of another. So is there is ( any true?) 'love' at all when there is attachment ? Is there love when we are attached, when we (think that?) possess somebody? And why are we attached? To really go into it, to inquire why one is attached demands a great deal of hard inner work, since if you were not attached, what would happen? You would be at a loss, would you not? We are attached because ( with)in ourselves we are ( feelin ?) insufficient, psychologically dependent, and therein lies our misery.

Question: How is one to deal with a very small child if one is to avoid influencing him in any way?

Krishnamurti: What is important is to understand the whole problem of influence, and then perhaps we shall approach differently the education of the child. We know that we are being ( constantly?) influenced in some degree by everything around us; and to be free of such ( conditioning) influences, we must be(come) aware of the many factors which create them.

Take, for instance, the influence of the word 'patriotism'. We accept that influence all over the world, for every school, every government is sedulously conditioning us to accept it; and that is one of the basic (implicit?) causes of wars, because it separates man from man. So can we, the 'grown-up' people, free ourselves from this influence? This demands a great deal of insight, ( of a responsible?) understanding, for there is the possibility that you may be ostracized, you may lose your job (or not find any?) , and you will be a 'nobody' in that society.

Let us take another example. The worship of ( money and?) 'success' is also an influence throughout the world, is it not? And can one free oneself from this influence? Can you as an individual do it? If you really see the truth that ambition is ( inwardly?) destructive and deeply understand the whole process of 'influencing', you will be a different person; and then perhaps you will be able to help the child to understand and be free of all influence.

Question: Is it possible to live without any attachment?

Krishnamurti: Why don't you find out of 'what' you are attached and 'why'. You are attached to your family, to your property, to your name, to your beliefs and ideas, to your business - to a dozen things. To be free from this (multi-leve3?) 'attachment', you must first become aware that you are attached, experience the "fac" that you are attached, and understand 'why'. ( Eg:) You are attached, for instance, to some ( person?), belief or ideal, because without that concept and the feeling it evokes, your life would be empty, miserable; you would have nothing to rely on. That is why it is very important to study the process of one's whole being, and not merely try to ( ideologically) clarify what to believe and what not to believe, which is all so superficial. The key to freedom is within 'ourselves', but we are always expecting someone else to come and open the door and let the light in.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Oct 2015 #56
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

salut à tous et désolé pour le français..! ;-)

paul daniel wrote #96:
the drowning into suffering, suffering as a natural process and not as a curse of course

et oui! un processus naturel, je dirais même intelligent et à l'inverse de la "malédiction"!

qu'est ce qui, au quotidien, peut permettre l'émergence de l'éveil? qu'est ce qui est sous nos yeux le plus régulièrement, à portée de main avec le plus de constance et qui donc, constitue la plus grande oportunité? oui oportunité...

le conflit, le mal être, la gène, la honte, la peur, l'angoisse, le stress, la jalousie, la colère etc... au quotidien ils sont là (processus d'une d'une grande beauté en soi).

là, sous nos yeux, tous les jours... il suffit de s'arrêter et d'observer tout ça, il suffit juste de s'arrêter de générer des espaces (illusoires) entre ça et l'absence de ça...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Oct 2015 #57
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

I am translating Richard's post in English.

richard villlar wrote:

paul daniel wrote #96:

the drowning into suffering, suffering as a natural process and not as a curse of course

Richard: Indeed, this is a natural process, I would even say that it is intelligence and the opposite of malediction
What can allow,bring, human "awakening" in daily life? What is just regularly and constantly under our nose and which constitute THE main opportunity to do so , yes am talking about opportunity ?

I am talking about conflicts, discontentment, awkwardness, shame, fear, anxiety, stress, jealousy, anger and so on, there are present daily ( processes which I find of a great beauty in themselves)

under our very nose, everyday...we just have to stop and to observe all that, we must just stop to give us some illusory space between all this ,suffering etc, and the absence of it.

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sat, 31 Oct 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Oct 2015 #58
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

paul daniel wrote:
I am translating Richard's post in English.

Merci dan.

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Oct 2015 #59
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

Meditation du Jour: On Choice

All ( dualistic?) existence is (involving?) choice; only in aloneness (all-oneness ?) there is no choice. Choice, in every form, is (breeding its own?) conflict. This ( perceptive?) contradiction ( between the 'inner' ( the'observer'?) and the the 'outer' (the 'observed'?) breeds confusion and misery, despair and sorrow. Choice, selection, must always exist as long as there is the 'chooser' , the (self-identified bundle of ?) accumulated memories of pain and pleasure, and every 'experience' (born of ?) 'choice' only strengthens ( the identification with that ?) memory whose response becomes 'thought and feeling'. This memory has only a partial significance, to respond mechanically ( to life threatening situations?); ( otherwise?) this response is ( manifesting itself as ?) 'choice'. There is no ( true?) freedom in ( the psychologically motivated?) choices. You 'choose' according to the cultural background you have been brought up in, according to your social, economic, religious conditioning. Choice invariably strengthens this ( background?) conditioning; there is no 'escape' from this conditioning, it only breeds more suffering.

It was a beautiful evening and there on that road so
close to town, there was deep silence and not a sound disturbed it,
not even the moon and the passing lorry. It was a ( visitation of ?) 'silence' that no thought could touch, a 'silence' that went with the frogs and the cycles, a silence that followed you; you walked in it, you breathed it, you 'saw' it. It was not shy, it was there insisting and welcoming. It went beyond you into vast immensities and you could ( eventually?) follow it if your thoughts & feelings were utterly quiet, losing themselves as the frogs in the water; they had no
importance and could so easily 'lose' themselves. It was an enchanting evening, full of clarity and fast-fading smile.

(Back to the main topic: ) ( The 'self'-sustained process of ?) choice is always breeding misery. Watch it and you will see it lurking, demanding, expecting, and before you know it, you are caught in its net of inescapable 'duties', 'responsibilities', ( plus the associated  frustrations ?) and despairs. Watch it and you will be aware of the fact. Be aware of this 'fact'; it is there. If 'you' will let it alone, not interfering with it with your calculated and cunning ( value) judgements, it will 'flower' and show all its intricacies, its subtle ways, its seeming 'importance' and 'ethics', its hidden motives and fancies. If 'you' (the 'observer' ?) will leave the 'fact' alone, it will (eventually reveal?) all these and more. But you must be 'choicelessly' aware of it Then you will see that (the process of personal?) 'choice', having flowered, dies and there is freedom, not 'you' are free, since 'you' are the maker of choices! . ( In that newly found freedom?) there is nothing to choose. Out of this choiceless state there flowers a (consciousness of?) 'all-oneness' which is always flowering and it is always new.
All ( personal or collective ) 'choice' is in the field of the known; action in this field always breeds ( personal or collective?) sorrow. There is the ending of ( this) sorrow in 'aloneness' (all-oneness?) .

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 31 Oct 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Oct 2015 #60
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
This memory has only a partial significance, to respond mechanically;this response is choice. There is no freedom in choices. You choose according to the cultural background you have been brought up in, according to your social, economic, religious conditioning Choice invariably strengthens this conditioning; there is no escape from this conditioning, it only breeds more suffering.

Right. thought is a self enclose program,limited to itself,whatever this itself is. It is suffering. I now see that as such for me too. Thought is suffering, in that word can be put anything.

Is it incidental? Is it a necessity?
if it is incidental, well good luck to anyone with it. If so that would be bad luck for us, as the only other option I see so far would have been the absence of suffering.... god dammed !!

If there is an unknown necessity behind it, well what sort of necessity could that be ?
I leave that for now.

John Raica wrote:
choice is always breeding misery. Watch it and you will see it lurking, demanding, expecting, and before you know it, you are caught in its net of inescapable duties, responsibilities and despairs. Watch it and you will be aware of the fact. Be aware of this fact; it is there. If you will let it alone, not interfering with it with your calculated and cunning judgements, it will flower and show all its intricacies, its subtle ways, its seeming importance and ethics, its hidden motives and fancies.

What is the program of thought? It is a program, we all have it plus superficial differences as named by thought itself;thought by set up insists to make differences, to catalogue, to give value, to create hierarchies, up to war and mass killing,tortures and destructions,suicide and eradication etc ..all this is desires desire = no thought functioning...that is the by default program we all have from scratch ..a child already suffers in his-her own ways...yet normally there is still more + than - to his-her counter counting of reached desires....the world is waiting for me to be conquer ....ah ah ah...says the clown !!

let it alone says k, I agree experiences wise, but is it as simple as those few words for thought?

I think this is the core, one core , one huge step out of ???? ...thought is invading the outer somehow, by doing so what are its deep motives to do so ?

let it alone....

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 716 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.)