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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 571 - 577 of 577 in total
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 #571
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P: Where is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krishnamurti: The old brain is quiet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krishnamurti: It is perceivable but not recognizable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krishnamurti: But it is still there.

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

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

P: Do you record all that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

F: Vulnerability is connected with ego.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P: How do I know this ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 #572
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 #573
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

P: 'Material' is that which is measurable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P: Why do you draw this distinction?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krishnamurti: Absolutely.

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

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

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

Krishnamurti: Then what is the new instrument that investigates?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krishnamurti: Agreed. Carry on further.

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

Krishnamurti: Depending if there is a centre.

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

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

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

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

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

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

P: Yet it still registers ?

Krishnamurti: Of course. Noise is going on.

P: One's existence continues.

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

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

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

Krishnamurti: Therefore, that quietness is not Quietness.

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

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

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

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

F: Why should the total brain become silent?

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

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

P: Which is God ?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #574
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

N: Do you invite fear?

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

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

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

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

P: There lies (our) inadequacy...

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

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

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

P: Has it ever happened to you, sir?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #575
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
1 day ago #576
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
9 hours ago #577
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post was last updated by John Raica 9 hours ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 571 - 577 of 577 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.)