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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 571 - 600 of 751 in total
Tue, 09 May 2017 #571
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline

12-th K PUBLIC TALK , MADRAS, 1952


K: To understand what our self centred activity is, one must obviously examine it, be aware of the entire process. If one can be (non-personally ?) aware of it then there is the possibility of its dissolution; but to be aware of it requires a certain intention to face the thing as it is, to look at the thing as it is, and not to condemn it. That is one of our primary difficulties because the moment we are (becoming) conscious of that activity we are never in the position of looking at it directly; and when we do, very few of us know what to do.

Before we can deal with it, we must (experientially ?) know how this process comes into being. Surely, this is self-centred process is the result of ( our long evolution in ?) time. Is it not?
When are you conscious of being the 'me'? I am conscious of (myself) when I am opposing, when my consciousness is thwarted, when the 'me' is desirous of achieving a result, or when a pleasure comes to an end and I want to have more of that pleasure; then there is resistance and there is a purposive shaping of the mind to a particular end which will give me a new satisfaction;
So, as long as this centre (of self-interest) is active in any direction, conscious and unconscious, there is this ( self-generated ) movement (of its continuity ) in time, and I am conscious of my past (which) in conjunction with the (conditions of the ) present (projects my ?) future. ( In a nutshell) the self-centred activity of the 'me' is a (psychological) process of 'time'. It is ( the constantly updated ) memory (of the personal & collective past) that (sustains and ?) gives continuity to the activity of this centre (of self-interest ) which is the 'me'.

Now can the mind be free from it? That may happen to most of us when we do an unintentional, un-purposive act. Is it possible for our mind ever to be free from ( its psychological ?) self-centred activity? That is a very important question first to put to ourselves, because in the very putting of it, you will (eventually ?) find the answer. That is, if you are (becoming) fully cognizant of the total process of this self-centred activity at different levels of your consciousness, then surely you'll have to ask yourselves if it is possible for that activity to come to an end - that is, , not to think (psychologically) in terms of what I will be, what I have been, what I am. From such thought, the whole process of self centred activity begins; (along with ?) infinite mischief, misery, confusion, distortion, deterioration taking place.

Surely in this process of (psychological) time there is no (possibility for an inner) transformation; there is only continuity and no ending. In the process of time, there is nothing (creative ?) but (comparison and ?) recognition. It is only when you have a complete cessation of this (mental) 'time' process, of the activity of the self, is there the 'new', is there (an inner ?) revolution, is there ( a qualitative ?) transformation.
Now, being aware of this whole total process of the 'me' in its ( time-binding ?) activities, what is the mind to do? I do not know if any of you have had a moment of (inner creativity ? ) when there is no recognition. At that moment, there is that extra-ordinary state in which the 'me', as a (a self-sustained ) activity through 'recognition', has ceased. Perhaps, some of those who had it have seen that in that state that there is no 'experiencer' who remembers, translates, recognizes and then identifies (in short ?) there is no thought process which is of time. In that state of Creativity, or in that state of (seeing ) the New which is timeless, there is no action of the 'me' at all.

Now, our ( 1000$ ?) question surely is: Is it possible for the mind to experience, to have that state not only at rare moments but to be in that state without regard to time? Surely, that is an important discovery to be made by each one of us, because that is 'the' Door to ( Universal ?) Love; all other 'doors' are activities of the self. Where there is the action of the 'self', there is no ( inner space for this ?) Love. Love is not of ( the same dimension as matter and ?) time ; the (materialistic ?) mind, knowing only the process of time cannot (even) recognize ( the universal quality of ?) Love. Love is the only thing that is eternally new. And since most of us have cultivated a mind which is the result of time, we do not know what this Love is. We talk a lot about 'love', but the moment 'I' am becoming conscious that 'I love' ( or what I love ?) , the self-centred activity has ( surreptitiously) come into being; therefore it ceases to be Love.

This total process of (our temporal ) mind is to be understood only through (mindfully contemplating ?) our everyday relationship - with nature, with people, with our own projection, with everything. In fact, life is nothing but relationship. Seeing this whole picture, being aware of this whole process of time as ( self-) consciousness, without any choice, with out any determined, purposive intention, without the desire for any result, you will see that this process of 'time' comes to an end (spontaneously ?) not as a result of desire. It is only when that process comes to an end, that Love Is, which is eternally new.
We do not have to seek for Truth (outside of ourselves ?) . If we are aware of the moment-to -moment truth of this (inner) process of time, this awareness releases our consciousness, releases that (previously self-centred ) energy. As long as the (egocentric ) mind uses ( the inner space of our ?) consciousness as the (home -base for its ) self-centred activities, ( the psychological process of ) 'time' comes into being with all its miseries, with all its conflicts, with all its mischiefs, its purposive deceptions; and it is only when the mind, understanding this total process, ceases, that Love will be.

Question: How can one know if one is deceiving oneself?

Krishnamurti: Don't you know when you are deceiving yourselves? When you are incapable of facing a fact and are translating that fact in terms of your past memory, immediately self-deception has begun. I have a vision which I translate and to which I hold on; there is the experience which I translate according to my like or dislike and proceed to deceive myself through my past experience; there self-deception begins, starting with interpretation.
When I am capable of looking at the fact without any kind of comparison or judgment, without translating, then only there is the possibility of not being deceived. When I do not want anything out of it, when I do not want a result, when I do not want to convince you of it or convince myself about it, this possibility of not being deceived exists. I must look directly, be in contact with the fact, without any interpretation between me and that fact. Between me and that fact, the ( thought &) time process which is deception, should not be there.

So, to discover for oneself if there is self-deception is very simple, very clear: as long as there is the 'interpreter' (conveniently ?) translating his experience, there must be deception. Don't say there is infinite time to get free from this 'experiencer', from the 'translator'. That is another of your ways of self deception; that is your desire to evade the fact. It is only when you do not put out the begging bowl for another to fill, then only you will know the state in which no (self-) deception is possible.

Question: You say that through identification we bring about separation, division. Your way of life appears to some of us to be separative and isolating and to have caused division among those ( theosophists ?) who were formerly together. With what have you identified yourself?

Krishnamurti: Now, let us first see the truth of the statement that 'identification' divides, separates. You identify yourself with your country. Don't you? When you do that what happens? You immediately enclose yourself through that identification with a particular group. That is a fact, is it not? When you call yourself a Hindu, you have identified yourself with particular beliefs, traditions, hopes, ideas; and that very identification isolates you. That is a fact, is it not? If you see the truth of that, then you cease to identify; therefore you are no longer a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Christian, politically or religiously. So, identification is separative, is a deteriorating factor in life. That is a fact; that is the truth of it whether you like it or not.
( Our Conscious or subliminal self-?) identification with a family, with an idea, with a belief, with any particular organization is all separative. Your (culturally standardised ?) way of existence, your way of life, is separative; and so you are ( personally ?) responsible for separation. Surely, Sirs, there must be ( a spiritual ?) revolution, not according to any particular ideology or pattern. If it is according to an ideology or pattern, then it is an identification with a new idea and therefore it gives continuity to a particular form; and that is certainly not revolution. ( An authentic inner ?) revolution comes into being when there is an inward cessation of all identification; and you can only do that, when you are capable of looking straight at the fact without deceiving yourself and without giving the interpreter a chance to tell you what he thinks of it.

Seeing the truthabout (self-) identification, obviously I am not identified with anything. Not to be identified ( with anything ?) means to stand alone, but not as a 'noble' (self-righteous ?) entity facing the world.
The questioner says I have brought disunity (in the TS ?) . Have I? Sirs, we must 'break (away' ?) to find out (the truth ?) . The real revolution is the inward revolution; it is a revolution that sees things clearly and that is of love. In that state, you have no ( need for any ?) identification with anything.

Question: You say there can be ( an authentic ?) cooperation only when you and I are 'as nothing'. How can this be true? How can two 'no-thingnesses' be related and what is there for them to cooperate about?

Krishnamurti: The state of (inner) 'no-thingness' is not a (self-) conscious state. You can't say "I am as nothing". When you are conscious ( of yourself) as 'being nothing', you are then something. When you are ( self-) conscious that you are virtuous, you become respectable; when I am conscious that I am 'as nothing' then that very nothingness is some thing..
There can be ( an authentic) cooperation only when you and I are 'as nothing'. Find out what it means, and meditate about it. What does that state of no-thingness mean? To be ( inwardly as ) nothing is not a self- conscious state; when you and I love( have an authentic affection ?) each other, we cooperate, not to do something about which we have an idea, but in whatever there is to be done. That state can only come into being when the ( egotistic ) activity of the 'me' has ceased; and in that cessation of the 'me', you are co-operating in what is to be done and not with any idea. Don't you know all this, Sirs? Don't you know that when you and I love each other, we do things so easily and so smoothly; we do not (need to ) talk about cooperation.

Question: What system of meditation should I follow?

Krishnamurti: We are going to find out the truth whether systems, methods, help you to meditate. .
What is are the implications of following a system (of meditation) ? Daily practice, repetition, copying and imitation. Is it not? All systems imply only this. Through practice, through repetition, are you going to find happiness? That happiness, bliss, something which is not measurable, cannot come that way.

At the very beginning of your 'practice', you have both the beginning and the end (-results) of that practice; that is, what you begin with is also what you end up with; the beginning 'is' (determining) the end. If I practice, if I copy (some great example ?) , I will end up as a machine repeating. If my mind is only capable of repeating, practicing day after day a certain method, following a certain system, at the end my mind is still copying, imitating, repeating. Surely this is obvious, is this not? Therefore at the beginning, I have set the course which my mind shall follow; if I do not understand at the beginning, I shall not understand at the end. That is the obvious truth. So, I have discovered that the end is (co-present ?) at the very beginning. If at the beginning there is no ( sense of inner ?) freedom, therefore there is no freedom at the end. Therefore the (right ?) beginning matters enormously.

Imagine that the whole idea of (following a meditative ?) system has fallen away. What then? The idea of concentrating your mind on a particular object - Master, some image - has also dropped away. Then what happens? Your mind be comes more cognizant, more aware. Do you not then see that any pursuit of any form of (personal) achievement, is a burden? Then all sense of achievement, of being somebody, drops away; therefore the mind becomes (naturally) quieter, more serene, not looking for a reward or punishments; it becomes completely indifferent to flattery and insult alike.

The things that were agitating you before, the things that acted in a separative way, being fearful ( about the future ?) , seeking a reward, avoiding punishment, all these have gone away. The mind has become more quiet, more alert. There is a silence, not induced, not disciplined, not forced. Then what happens? Then, in that quiet state, 'ideas' come up, 'feelings' come up; and you understand them and put them away (or to their right place ?) . Then, if you proceed a little further (along this spontaneous meditation ?) , you will see that in that state there are certain inner activities which are not 'self'-projected, which come darkly and mysteriously without invitation, like the breeze, the sunset, like beauty. The moment they come, the mind, seeing the beauty, may like to hold on to it and thereby creates the process of 'time'. That possibility also must go away.

When all these things go away, what is the state of the mind that is not naming, that is not recognizing? Such a mind is quiet; such a mind is silent; this silence has come very naturally without any form of enforcement, without any compulsion, without any discipline. It is (the seeing of ?) the truth ( regarding the false ?) that has liberated the mind. In that state, the mind is extraordinarily quiet. Then That which is New, which is not recognizable, which is Creation, which is Love, which is not different from the beginning, comes. And such a mind is a blessed mind, is a holy mind. Such a mind alone can help. Such a mind can cooperate. Such a mind can be all-one, without any self-deception.

What is beyond, is not measurable (in terms of ?) words. That which is not measurable, comes when you are least expecting it; it comes when you are watching the sky; it comes when you are sitting under the shade of a tree; it comes when you are observing the smile of a child or the tears of a woman. The man who understands the true meditation which is from moment to moment, only shall know. There is no experience of the 'individual'. Where Truth is concerned, the (self-conscious ?) 'individuality' disappears, the 'me' has ceased to be.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 10 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #572
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline

Mind without measure (reader friendly edited)


K: This is not a 'lecture' but rather a (virtual ?) conversation between you and the speaker, sitting in an (imaginary ?) park and talking over together about their (real ?) problems. I wonder if you have (such a close ?) 'friend' with whom you can talk, with whom you (can freely ?) expose your own feelings, your own concepts, your ideas and disillusionment and so on.

(For starters ?) we are first going to consider what is the root cause of all this (ongoing inner & outer ?) confusion? Because (if and ?) when one can find the cause then we can end it. A cause has an end. Right? I hope we are following each other. So we are asking what is the root of all this ? So, what is the cause of it? Is it that we have (blindly accepted ?) the authority of tradition, authority of books, authority of leaders, gurus and so on ? When you depend (psychologically ?) you gradually become feeble, you are incapable of thinking clearly . So (this lack of ?) self-reliance, of a sense of ( global ?) responsibility may the root cause of this, that we have become irresponsible. Is it possible to be a 'light to oneself', and inwardly, psychologically to think clearly for oneself. Being 'a light to oneself' requires great (inner) freedom, a very clear brain, an active brain, to challenge, to question, to doubt, that means to have energy, but when you depend on others you lose energy.
So this is the (subconscious ?) cause. (However ?) where there is a cause to any problem, there is an end to that problem. If that is the cause of the present (psychological) degeneration of mankind, then can this degeneration be put an end to? The (problem is that the human) brain is conditioned. It has lived ( survived ?) for millions of years, it has had many ( bad ?) 'experiences', it has faced wars, sorrow, pleasure, pain, agony, great disturbance, and it is ( safely settled in its socio-cultural ?) conditioned as a 'Hindu' or as a 'Christian', etc . So we are now enquiring whether your brain, which is conditioned, if you are aware of it, can that 'condition' be resolved.

A ( 2-way ) relationship between the brain and the (universally intelligent ?) mind is realized (only ) when the brain is completely free, then the brain 'is' the mind. We will go into that later as we go along. So we are asking, whether it is possible (for the traditional brain ?) to be free. And where do you begin to enquire whether it is possible to free the brain from its conditioning? Do you begin to enquire from the outside, or do you begin to enquire from inside? You understand my question? Is the 'outer' world different from the world in which you live inside? Do you understand my question? The 'society', the outward world, is that different from 'you'? Or, you ( the 'universal' human being ?) have created it, you who want ( the bestest ?) security you have created all this. So please look at this (holistically ?) : the world 'is' (created by ?) you, and you are (conditioned by ?) the world. It is very important to understand this. We, in our (egocentric) desire for security, we have created the 'world outside' of us, a society which is everlastingly at war (with itself ?) , because we ourselves are (living ?) in conflict, we want to protect our (personal & social ) 'image'. That's part of our (cultural) conditioning.

So knowing that 'you' have created this world (directly or implicitly ?) can you observe 'yourself' as you would observe your face in a (non-personal 'magic' ?) mirror? Can you observe your (self-centred ?) reactions, your responses? Because your reactions and your responses are what you 'are'. Let's begin to enquire what is (the psychological component of of our ) relationship ? ( Being) wounded psychologically from childhood and ( responding ?) from those psychological wounds we bring about (more ) violence or we enclose yourself more and more not to be hurt anymore. As a result, your relationship with another becomes very narrow, limited.
So we must first enquire whether it is possible to find out whether you can never be hurt. What is the root-cause of being hurt inwardly ? When I say, "my pride (or self-esteem ?) is hurt", what does that mean? My (fake ?) 'teachers' have hurt me, my parents have hurt me - we are all wounded psychologically by a (mean ?) word, look, or gesture.

So 'what' is it that is hurt? What is the 'me' which is being hurt? Is it not an ('personal ?) image' that you have built about yourself? Haven't you got images? The (human) brain has the capacity to create (mental) 'images' (about practically everything ) . These 'images' are (the root cause of ?) the illusions we have, like 'war', it is a (collective ?) illusion and we accept killing another human being as part of the image which we have. We have many, many 'images', and one of the (central ?) images is, "I am being hurt". So we are enquiring what is this (psycho- ) entity that is being hurt ? The (personal) 'image' that I have built about myself. And if I compare myself with somebody who is more clever, more bright, more intelligent, that is, when there is measurement there must be hurt. So please enquire whether you can live (inwardly) without (comparing yourself) without (psychological) 'measurement'. You understand my question? It begins at the school level, and that same process continues throughout life. So please enquire if it is possible to live without (psychological) comparison, without measurement? This is a complex (neuro-lingvistic ?) question because even the word 'self-improvement' is (indicating an inner ?) measurement.

It is part of ( an authentic ?) meditation is to enquire into "not becoming", which is also a ( wide-spread form of ?) measurement.
So is it possible in our (everyday) relationship with each other not to have 'measurement' ? That means your brain must be active (fully attentive ?) in your relationship, not just (the carry-on ?) routine. So one must enquire whether in our daily relationship there is ( a self-image being ?) hurt, and that hurt brings about greater self isolation. You follow? Each country is isolating itself - Britain is isolated, France is isolated, America is isolated, in their way of looking at life. So where there is isolation there must be conflict. If you are isolated as an 'Arab', and I am isolated as a 'Jew', we are going to fight (or build a 12 feet wall ?) . So please see the importance of this (image making ?) As long as there is (a sense of self-) isolation, either outwardly, or inwardly, there must be conflict.
So in enquiring whether the human brain can resolve its own conditioning, one must enquire into what is our relationship with another, with your wife, with your husband, with your children. Begin there, near to home - to go very far you must begin very, very near. To 'go very far' (inwardly ?) you must put your own 'house' in order. So be aware, alert, in watching your relationship, and learning from that awareness how you respond, what are your reactions. That is our everyday life. And that requires constant attention to every reaction, every thought.

We will further enquire whether (psychologically speaking ?) it is 'your' (personal ?) brain or it is the (universal ?) 'brain of mankind'. This is really a very serious question: is your brain a (particular ?) brain, or, the brain of humanity? When you say, it's my brain - when you say, it's my consciousness, is it your consciousness, individual consciousness, or, it is the consciousness of mankind ? - I will go into it very, very briefly now, (but for homework ?) you can enquire into it. (Psychological proof:) you suffer, you are inwardly uncertain, ( worried ?) anxious, you are in agony, pain. And that's exactly what your neighbour does (inwardly ) he suffers, he goes through agonies, sorrow, pain, trouble. So is your (self-) consciousness separate from the rest of mankind? No, of course not. Deeply down are you not the rest of mankind ? Now, when you realize the truth of that, you will never kill another because you are 'killing yourself'. Out of that (holistic realisation ?) comes great Compassion, Love.
We have talked for an hour. Do you want to ask questions?

Q: What is an 'impersonal' action?

K: First of all, what do you mean by that word 'action'? Either you act according to a pattern, experience or knowledge, which is the 'past', or act according to some ideal which is (projected) in the future, or act according to your (momentary) convenience. The word 'action' means acting in the present, whether that action is correct, true, actual, depends on the quality of your brain, of your heart, not just theory. You are sitting there, and the speaker is sitting here, you are listening and he is speaking, that's an action, whether you listen, that's an action, or whether you don't listen, that's an action, and 'how you listen' is an action, whether you are actually listening or you only 'think' that you are listening.
And what do you mean by 'impersonal'? Are you an (integrated ?) 'individual' and then ask, 'can I be impersonal' ? Your 'individuality' is a form of (self-) isolation, and therefore we have no love for each other. We talk about the Love of God, but we don't (have ?) 'love' each other.
So please, sirs, to be a light to ourselves, means not depend on anyone psychologically, inwardly, to live a life free, full of vitality, energy, so that your brain is active, not mechanical. So please do enquire into a different way of living.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #573
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline



K: We are going to talk over together this evening many things; and there is an 'art of listening'. That is to listen to what is being said, not 'interpret' (translate ?) what is being said to your own convenience; one has to have not only a certain quality of attention but also a sense of affection, a sense of trying to understand what the other fellow is saying.
So one has to learn the 'art of (pure ?) listening'. When you listen to a music which you like, there is no resistance, there is not any form of defence, any form of resistance, you are going with it, flowing with it. So please in the same way kindly listen to understand what is being said, not the person who is saying it -he is just a 'telephone'. Learn the art of listening, not to the speaker only, but to your wife, to your husband, to your children, to the birds, to the wind, to the breeze, so that you become extraordinarily sensitive in listening. And when you 'listen' you capture quickly, you don't have to have a lot of explanations and analysis and descriptions, you are flowing with it.
Perhaps many of you have listened to the speaker for a number of years and you say, 'Why haven't I, after years of listening to this man, changed?' - because they have actually not listened with their depth, with their heart, with their mind, with their whole energy. So don't blame the speaker but rather learn, if one may suggest most respectfully, the way of listening. There is great beauty in listening, to a bird, to a wind among the leaves, and to a word that is spoken with depth, with meaning, with passion.

We were saying yesterday that the future of man has no existence in isolation - isolation as a nation, isolation as a group, isolation in religions, isolation as a (self-centred ?) 'individual', and isolation in consciousness. For most of us our thinking is individual(istic ?) . What I think, what you think, my thought against your thought, or your husband's thought, your wife's thought.
But ( our capacity of ?) thinking is the ordinary common factor for the poorest, ignorant man, and the greatest Noble prize winner, scientist, they both 'think'. So, it is not your individual thinking, it is the capacity of the human brain to be active and respond in words, in thought. This (capacity of ?) thinking is the nature of man, it is not your thinking or my thinking. Can we go on from there?

And also our consciousness is shared by all human beings, all human beings suffer, go through great agonies, shed tears, have this sense of loneliness, pain, anxiety, depression, uncertainty - the poorest and the most sophisticated, erudite human being, all have this general factor, they all share this. It is the (shared ?) consciousness of all human beings. This is very difficult for most people to see the reality of it because we have been so conditioned (by self-interest ?) - you may at the periphery have certain mannerisms, certain habits, certain tendencies, capacities, but if you move from the outer to the inner we all share the same common issues. And unless we realize ( the responsability involved in ?) this, not intellectually, but in our heart, in our minds, in our blood, we are going to destroy each other, which is going on.
Our (self- centred ) consciousness is made up of one's beliefs, one's tendencies, one's secret desires, anxieties, beliefs, loneliness, and so on. That is the 'content' which makes up our consciousness; without the content there is no ( self-) consciousness as we know it. And we are trying to understand why human beings live perpetually in ( a state of inner ?) conflict and is (the nature of our ?) psychological violence? The inward anger, hatred, wanting to dominate people. Right? Not only physical domination but the domination of ideas - I know, you don't know, I will tell you and you will obey. The 'gurus' are (more subtly ?) violent because they are dominating people with their ideas, with their ( fool proof ?) systems of meditation and all that business. I am just pointing out what the 'psychological' aspects of violence are : the dependence, imitation, conformity, domination. That's a fact. Can we deal (directly) with the fact and not with the idea of their 'opposite' ? Actually we are asking, is there such a duality, or only 'what is'? You understand my question? There is only 'what is', that is, I am violent. Now is it possible to be free ( ASAP ?) of this violence, rather (than struggling inwardly ?) to become non-violent? Is this clear, are we meeting each other?

Q: We are not clear.

K: You see, here, this country has propagated this idea of non-violence. Being violent they are propagating something which they are not, and if you ask them, 'I am practising non-violence' - you understand, practising. That means I am gradually, day by day, practising to become that, not to understand violence but to become something which I have called non-violence. See the difference? And hence there is conflict. Right? When I am observing, learning, enquiring into the fact there is no conflict, but if my mind is all the time saying, I must achieve non-violence, then there is conflict. But if I say, look, I am violent, what is the root of violence, what is the nature of violence, I don't condemn it, I observe it.
Now, wait a minute, here it is very important to understand what we mean by observing. Now when you observe the full moon, do you observe it, do you see the beauty of that light, you see the grandeur, the extraordinary quality of that light, or do you say, 'Yes, it's a full moon' and you do something else? So what do we mean by observing? Do you ever observe the mountain, with all that grandeur, majesty, the snow-cap, and the deep valleys full of dark shadows, the extraordinary majesty of mountains. When you observe for a single moment all your problems have gone because the majesty of that has driven away all your problems, for a second. Have you noticed this? But the old problems come back immediately.
So we are going to talk over together, what does it mean to observe (non-dualistically) . Suppose I (discover that inwardly I ?) am violent, how do I observe this violence ? Is my (psychological background of ?) violence different from me or I 'am' that violence ? When you are (really ) angry, you are different from (your) anger. You (become) different from your anger only when you want to control it, but are you actually different, separate, from (your reactions of ?) violence? The (casual ?) observer says, I am different from that ( reaction of ) violence. So who is this 'observer'. The 'observer' is the (experiential memory of our ?) past who has known what violence - all the stored-up (personal ?) memories - and the movement of all that is the past. Thought has divided itself as the 'observer' and the 'observed': I am not (always ?) violent, but violence is not part of me. But when you look at it very closely, you are (constantly ?) greedy, envious, competitive, depressed and the 'observer' is not different from that which he is observing. If you really truly understand this with your heart, with your mind, with all your being, ( the state of inner ?) conflict comes to an end because there is no duality at all. Psychologically, inwardly there is only this 'fact' (with many branches ?) : one is violent, (which is manifested in being) angry, jealous, hatred and so on.
Now to observe this (basic psychological) fact without its (remedial ?) opposite is to observe 'what is'. In that ( 'factual') observation the observer 'is' the observed, the thinker 'is' the thought, the experiencer 'is' the experience. But ( for reasons of inner comfort ?) we have separated it. So the thinker 'is' the ( controling sub-process of ?) thought, there is no thinker without thought. So what takes place when this (elementary inner ?) truth is realized? Have you not eliminated altogether the (conflict of the ?) opposites ? And living with (the truth of ?) that, like a precious jewel that you have discovered and you are watching the beauty of that jewel, the light, the facets, the many aspects of it, as you are watching it, which is part of yourself. Therefore (this integrated ?) observing is (becoming) extraordinarily important. And if there is no division whatsoever between the 'watcher' and that ( background of violence ?) which is watched, you come to realize that "nothing can be done about it". But in such observation there is something totally new, you are facing this reaction which you have called 'violence' anew.

That is, (for homework ?) have you ever observed anything anew? Have you seen the new moon that is coming up, as though for the first time in your life? Have you looked at your wife, or your husband, as though for the first time? Have you? To observe (the newness of everything?) requires a great energy, vitality to see actually what 'is'. We must now go into this question why the human brain is always occupied, never free, never quiet. You are 'practising' (inner) quietness, that's your meditation. It's like a pianist practising the wrong note. So enquire into all this, please, because we are reaching a crisis, or we have (already on the brink of ?) a (major) crisis in the world, a tremendous crisis, and also crisis in our consciousness, in us.

Does love exist in this country? Do you love anybody? Can love co-exist with fear? When each one is (struggling to ?) become something, how can there be love? So will you enquire if it is possible to love another without wanting a single thing from another, neither emotionally, physically, in any way ? Without ( this sense of free affection or ?) 'love' there is no right action. When there is love, whatever you do is right action. We may do social work, but when there is love in your heart, in your eyes, in your blood, in your face, you are (inwardly a very ?) different human being. Whatever you do then has beauty, has grace, is right action.
All these may be excellent words that you hear, but will you have this (inner) quality? It cannot be cultivated, but without that you are (inwardly ?) dead human beings. So find out for yourself, why this flame doesn't exist in you. Why you have become such paupers. You see, unless we put our (inner) house in order there will be no order in the world. You may meditate for the rest of your life, without that your meditation has no meaning. So after hearing all this, what's your response?

Q: You have been talking about (such a ) radical (inner) change for the last fifty years, and obviously there is no radical change in the world.

K: All right. "Then why do you talk ?", is that it?

Q: Precisely.

K: The gentleman asks : you have talked probably over fifty years about fundamental change of human consciousness and there is no (visible ?) change at all. Then the question is, "why do you talk".
The speaker is not talking for his (self-) fulfilment - if he didn't talk he wouldn't be depressed, he wouldn't feel lacking something. The speaker has tried not to talk for a year, therefore why do I talk ? Have you ever asked why the lotus blooms, have you ever asked it? Have you, sir?

Q: You look very 'self satisfied'.

K: Don't let this become a (personal) 'argument', please. Have you ever asked a flower why it grows, why it has so much beauty, why it has such marvellous colour, the depth and the smell and the glory of a simple flower? The speaker may be talking out of Compassion - may be. But he is not talking for his 'self-fulfilment'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #574
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline


Consciousness and Relationship (Experientially friendly edited)

K:(...) We are going to ask the nature of our consciousness. Our consciousness is (coloured by ?) what you are (strongly attached to ?) : your belief, your ideals, your gods, your violence, fear, myths, romantic concepts, your pleasure, your sorrow, and the fear of death, and the everlasting question of man which has been from time immemorial, whether there is something sacred beyond all this. That is your consciousness. So we are asking whether the (psychological ?) content of this consciousness can be totally changed.

First, your consciousness is the consciousness of all humanity, because what you think, your beliefs, your sensations, your fears , your pain, your sorrow, your insecurity, is shared by all humanity. This is a fact that you suffer; your neighbour suffers; that neighbour may be thousands of miles away, he suffers. He is (feeling inwardly ) insecure, as your are. So your consciousness is not (just ?) yours any more than your thinking is not (just your ?) individual thinking. ( The faculty of ?) thinking is common (to all) , from the poorest man, the most uneducated, unsophisticated man in a little tiny village to the great scientist, they all 'think'. Their thinking may be more complex, but (the functionof) 'thinking' is shared by all human beings. And again human consciousness is similar, is shared by all human beings.

Therefore there is no ( authentic) 'individuality ', (except ?) peripherically . Inwardly he shares the ( consciousness ?) 'ground' of all humanity. This is a 'fact' if you examine it very closely, but if you are caught in the conditioning of being an individual, you will never understand the immensity and the extraordinary (implications of this ?) fact that (consciousness-wise ?) you 'are' the entire humanity. From that there is ( a possible opening to ?) love, compassion, intelligence, but if you are merely conditioned to the idea that you are an (isolated) individual, then you have endless (psychological) complications because it is based on illusion, not on fact.

'You' are (psychologically ?) the product of a society which 'you' have created. Man has created this society (based on ) greed, envy, brutality, violence, wars; he has created all that and also he has created the extraordinary world of technology.
So ( in a nutshell:) you are the world and the world is you. Your (deeper ?) consciousness is the common ground which all human beings share; all human beings 'think'. So you are not (yet ?) an individual. That's one of the truths that one must understand, by questioning your own ( deep sense of self-) isolation because there is no security in isolation.
So if you recognize the truth, the fact that you are not an (isolated ?) individual, then the problem is, can you, as a (responsable ?) human being representing all humanity, bring about a fundamental 'psychological' revolution?

You might say if I, as a human being, change, how will it affect the whole consciousness of mankind? (And the answer is :) The ( Science People ?) are experimenting with (the collective consciousness ?) of rats. If one generation learn a particular lesson very slowly, the next generations learns much quicker. It is not (a matter of ?) genetic action, but after 5 or 10 generation of rats, the latest ( 'wiz -kids' ?) generation learns the lesson far quicker, in a couple of days. Now they are doing the same experiment in Australia, same experiment in America and other places: those (smarter ?) rats which have learnt much quicker in London affect the whole of rat's ( collective) consciousness. Am I making it clear?

Audience: Not (really)...

K: One group of rats, one generation learns a lesson very slowly. The next generation learns a little faster and so on. The last generation - say after 25 generations - the last generation 'learns the lesson' in a couple of hours. And what they have learnt (the easy way ?) in a couple of hours is transmitted to ( the shared consciousness of ?) all the rats in the world. It is not a genetic transformation, but the 'group consciousness' is being affected.
So the (gist of this) question is: if you change fundamentally, you affect the whole consciousness of man. ( Here are a few bad examples: ) Napoleon (aka: the 'Butcher') affected the whole consciousness of Europe. Stalin (the 'Iron Man' ?) affected the whole consciousness of Russia, and ( here are a few good ones ?) human beings all over the world like the (myth of the ?) Christian Saviour, he has affected the consciousness of the world, and the Hindus with their peculiar gods have affected the consciousness of the world. So, when you, as an (inwardly integrated ?) human being, do radically transform (yourself) 'psychologically', that is, be free of fear, have right relationship with each other, the ending of sorrow, and so on, which is a 'radical' (consciousness ?) transformation, then ( chances are that ?) you (subliminally ?) affect the whole Consciousness of Mankind. So it is not a matter of individual salvation. It is the salvation of ( the consciousness of ?) all human beings of which you are (a responsible part) .

So, (for starters ?) we must enquire what is (our actual) relationship? Why in human relationship with each other there is such (a vast potential for ?) conflict and such an intense sense of 'loneliness' ? Why there is conflict between you and your husband, or between the wife and the man? Please ask this question of yourself, because where there is ( an open or latent ?) conflict in relationship there is no love, there is no compassion and there is no intelligence.

So, the fact is, however intimate that relationship may be, there is always conflict. One dominating the other; one possessing the other; one jealous of the other. And so this is what we call 'relationship'.
Now, can that (pretty sad quality of ?) relationship which we know now, can that be totally changed? Ask yourself : why is there conflict between two human beings, whether they are highly educated or not at all educated. Is it not because each person is (openly or subtly) concerned with himself? So, he is isolating himself. In isolation you cannot have right relationship. So, please enquire, question, doubt whether it is possible to live with another with (a sense of ?) complete harmony, without any dissension, without any division.

If you enquire deeper , you will find that you have created an 'image' about her, and she has created an 'image' about you. These two 'images' - the (mental ) pictures of living together for 20 years, ( the compounded memory of ) the nagging, the cruel words, the indifference, the lack of consideration and so on, are in(teracting) in our relationship with each other. So where there is (such an ?) image about another (eventually ?) there must be (an open ?) conflict. I am sure you also have an 'image' about the 'speaker'. I am quite sure of it. Why? You don't (really) know him , but ( by mere habit ?) you have (already ) created an image about him. That he is a beautiful ( human, being ?) , he is this, he is that. And with that ( psychologically enhanced ?) image you look at the person. But ( the real culprit is ?) the ( mechanical activity of our own ) brain, the ( ego-centric activity of ) thought creates the 'image'. And this 'imagination', this 'making of (mental) pictures' has no place in ( a relationship based on ?) love. We don't (have any ?) love for each other. If you had that quality, that 'perfume of love', there would be no wars. There will be no (fighting ?) Hindus, Muslims, Jew and Arab.

You listen to all this and but will still remain with your images. You still wrangle with each other, quarrel with each other, dissent. Our life has become so extraordinarily meaningless. We ( our 'self-images' ?) are put together by thought. Your 'gods' are put together by thought. All the rituals, all the dogmas, the philosophy are all put together by thought, and (such) thought is always limited (by its self-interest ?) . And so thought has created the 'image', about you as the wife or the husband, about you as the Indian and you as the American and so on. It is ( our strong attachments to ?) these 'images' which are unreal, that are separating humanity. If you don't call yourself an 'Indian', and I don' t call myself an 'American' but we (realise that we are) are human(e ?) beings, we should have a global relationship.
But you are not (prioritarily ?) interested in all that. You remain (inwardly) 'mediocre' - as the man who has only climbed half way up the hill, who has never climbed right to the top, 'psychologically'. And if you don't change radically, you are bringing about ( the seeds of cultural ?) destruction for the future generation. So, please give attention to what is going on outside you and also what is going on inwardly, for the inward (trends of the human) 'psyche' conquers the outer environment. We give such importance to the outer aspects : right laws, feeding the poor, but our inward thoughts and feelings, our inward isolations are separating man against man, and each one of us is responsible for this. If you fundamentally bring about a change in your daily life, to have right relationship with each other, to live correctly, not ambitious and so on, then only there is it possible for the ending of conflict between human beings.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #575
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline



(...) K: As we said yesterday, there is an 'art of listening' and there is an 'art of learning'. Most of our learning is accumulating a lot of knowledge about various subjects as an engineer, as an astronomer (in order ?) to act skilfully in the world as a carpenter, as a mason, as a doctor. That's what we do - knowledge accumulated from which we act either skilfully, or not skilfully, efficiently or inefficiently.
So we are asking a very serious question which is, what place has knowledge in human relationships? Knowledge is always (stored ?) in the (memory of the ?) past. And this knowledge, both in the scientific world and in human existence is based on experience. That is experience, either inherited or accumulated in the present, that becomes ( organised as ?) knowledge, then that knowledge is ( stored in ) memory, and from that memory, the reaction is ( expressed as ?) thought.
Can we go on from that? Knowledge is being added to all the time: more and more and more they are discovering. And so scientific knowledge is never complete. Please, see the fact, the truth, that thought under all circumstances, whatever the thought of the scientists or of the great philosophers, is always (time - ?) bound, narrow, limited.
Thought is a material process because thought is held in the (physical) brain - in the very brain cells themselves. So thought is a material process. So whatever thought thinks about or invents is the result of a material process. So when thought creates (the concept of ?) 'God', it is still a material process. Thought is not sacred. So, if this is very clear, not verbally but deeply, profoundly, then we can ask is there a 'new instrument' (available to us ?) which thought has not touched at all, because whatever ( the self-centred process of ?) thought touches must be limited, and being limited it must inevitably create conflict, bring about fragmentation.

The human brain has got extraordinary capacity, as can be seen in what is happening in the technological world, extraordinary capacity, but the capacity has only been developed in one direction, that is, the technological world: the doctor, surgeon, mathematician, the computer experts and so on. But the human problems, which is our conflict with each other, our sorrow, pain, grief and endless conflict, the (self-centred thinking ?) can never solve. So we, as ordinary human beings, are going to find out for ourselves if there is, or if there is not a "new instrument" which is not touched by thought, which is not the result of time.
(For starters ?) have you ever tried to observe yourself, your wife, the tree across the road and that animal that goes by, without the word? Have you ever tried to look at a tree without naming it, without bringing all the past 'images' about a tree - just to observe the tree without the word, which is ( the action of ?) thought, just to 'look' at it ?

So the first (step in activating the new perceptive instrument is:) to be aware whether you can see, observe, look, without a single word, (or mental) picture, so that you will awaken your (total ?) sensitiveness. We are saying that the first essential quality in the enquiry whether there is another instrument, the first thing is, one has to be extraordinarily sensitive. We live by senses, and perhaps some have developed a particular sense. But the speaker is saying to "awaken all your senses" to their highest degree so that you look at the world with all your senses. To look at the world with that immense feeling when all the senses are fully awakened. In that there is a great extraordinary sense of (inner) energy and beauty.
We can see that the ( 'standardised' human being ?) has become (inwardly ?) dull through repetition, through tradition, through the pression of the environment - we have gradually lost all sensitivity, all energy to create. We are talking of Creation in the sense of bringing about something totally new. And to have that capacity, the drive, the beauty, one must have great sensitivity. And you cannot have great sensitivity if every sense is not fully functioning, fully aware.

Now ( for another brief detour :) why have we destroyed our senses? How can you destroy the most extraordinary instrument that we have, the body, with all its senses, the (psycho-somatic ?) body which is such an extraordinary ( perceptive ?) instrument. So, in the investigation of a new instrument we are coming upon this thing called 'desire'. You see a pleasant object, a beautiful object, a beautiful woman or a man, you desire him or her or that object. So we are asking: what is the origin, the source of desire? If you had no senses, there would be no 'sensation'. Sensation arises when you see something in the window of a shop, a shirt, a robe, a radio, or whatever or what you will. The 'visual' perception. Then you go inside that shop, touch the material, and from the touching of it there is a ( a pleasant ?) sensation. Then what happens? Then ( your self-centred ?) 'thought' says, 'how nice it would be if I had that shirt on me, or (even better ?) if I stepped into that car.' At that moment when thought creates the (mental) 'image' out of the (pleasant ?) sensation is the origin of desire. Right?
Now, the next (experiential) question is to look at a car, at a shirt, at a woman, at a picture, (to see ) the arising of sensation, and find out whether 'thought' can be in abeyance, not immediately create a picture, immediately create an image of you in that shirt, or in that car and so on. Can there be a 'gap' (a silent interval ?) between (the actual) sensation and (the intervention of ?) thought impinging upon that sensation? This will make your brain alert, watchful.

And also in the investigation of this new (perceptive) instrument, ( just another necessary detour: ) can we ever be free from fear? What is the cause of fear? Where there is a cause there is always an end to that cause. We are looking together, not at the symptoms of fear, but we are asking what is the root of it? Is the cause of (our psychological ?) fear 'time'? That is, 'time' being ( thinking about ?) what might happen tomorrow or what has happened yesterday or many thousand yesterdays, or what might happen now? Is (the thinking of ourselves in terms of ?) 'time' the factor of fear ?
(Eg:) I am living; I am full of energy but something, ( but...?) an accident might kill me? I am well, but there is always death. I apply for a job; I may not have the capacity for the job. So there is fear. So ( thinking about oneself in terms of ?) time is one of the factors of fear. Right?

So (in a nutshell:) ( the process of self-centred ?) 'thought' and ( its projection in ?) 'time' are the very root of fear. So thought is (projecting its own ) movement (in time ?) . So, 'time' is a (mental ?) movement.
(Eg:) I am unhappy, violent, lonely, depressed, anxious, that's what one is; that is a (psychological) fact. Then comes the idea that I must become something else from (this gloomy ?) 'what is'. That (projected ?) 'becoming' is time. That is, you are allowing ( this mentality of ?) 'time' to interfere. But when you say, 'I am violent, I am going to understand it, look at it, watch it, go into it very quickly, deeply,' there is no ( need to project a 'better ?) time'. But if you are trying to become something else, there is time. Right? ? You are 'what you are', from there you start. But if you are comparing, trying to become like someone else you will never understand yourself, what you 'are'.
So (the psychological ) 'time' is a ( virtual movement of ?) becoming. That is, I am 'violent', I must become 'non-violent'. The (projected goal of ?) 'non-violence' is not a fact, has no reality. And if you forget about the (ideal of ?) non-violence then you can tackle ( the inner ?) violence, go into it. Now, the (insightful ) understanding of ( one's inner ?) violence can take ( a lot of ?) 'time' if you are lazy ( self-complacent ?) , but the (earnest ?) man who is concerned with ( tackling the tidal wave of vulgarity & ?) violence, which is spreading all over the world, destroying humanity, will ( hopefully ?) understand it instantly.
So where there is a ( mentality of 'self-?) becoming' you must have psychological time. That 'becoming' is illusory. The 'fact' is what you are at the moment: your anger, your reactions, your fears, look at it. So ( thinking of oneself in terms of ?) time is a major factor of fear.

You cannot stop the physical (flow of ?) time. But when you begin to understand the (illusory ?) nature of 'time' inwardly - as a (projected ?) movement of (self-centred ?) thought - understand it, not suppress it. So if you really, deeply are concerned with the total ending of psychological fear, one has to go into the question of 'time' in depth and also the nature and structure of thought. But if you say, 'Please tell me a method to get rid of fear,' then you are asking a terribly wrong question, because the very question implies that you have not (taken the quality time to ?) understood yourself, you have not 'looked at yourself'.
So next Sunday we will talk about sorrow, love and compassion and perhaps, on what is the nature of the religious mind, and what is meditation, and if there is something Sacred beyond all thought. We must investigate all that, because that is all (about our ?) Life: death, the conflict, pain, sorrow, pleasure, fear, meditation, all that is our life, and to understand it one must have vitality, strength, and you will not have that energy if you are merely repeating words, if you cling to some belief, to some conclusion, that destroys all energy. Energy implies 'freedom' (from the inner 'thought & time' process ?) Only then can you have an "extra-ordinary" energy.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #576
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 11 posts in this forum Offline

From your 585 above:

K: "You might say if I, as a human being, change, how will it affect the whole consciousness of mankind? (And the answer is :) The ( Science People ?) are experimenting with (the collective consciousness ?) of rats. If one generation learn a particular lesson very slowly, the next generations learns much quicker. It is not (a matter of ?) genetic action, but after 5 or 10 generation of rats, the latest ( 'wiz -kids' ?) generation learns the lesson far quicker, in a couple of days. Now they are doing the same experiment in Australia, same experiment in America and other places: those (smarter ?) rats which have learnt much quicker in London affect the whole of rat's ( collective) consciousness. Am I making it clear?

Audience: Not (really)...

K: One group of rats, one generation learns a lesson very slowly. The next generation learns a little faster and so on. The last generation - say after 25 generations - the last generation 'learns the lesson' in a couple of hours. And what they have learnt (the easy way ?) in a couple of hours is transmitted to ( the shared consciousness of ?) all the rats in the world. It is not a genetic transformation, but the 'group consciousness' is being affected."


I strongly suspect that the experiment mentioned above is not replicatable. Any refernces? There are plenty of "scientific" experiments that are just cooked up, either as deliberate distortions or innocently the result of strong desire for proof that suports some prejudice.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Thu, 18 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #577
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline


ALL ABOUT INTELLIGENCE ( 'reader friendly' edited)

K: What we ought to be concerned with is why, we somewhat intelligent people, somewhat educated people with families, with all the daily work that one goes through, why we lead such disorderly lives? What is the nature of this disorder? (a) There is disorder where there is contradiction: say one thing and do something totally different; think one thing and act quite the opposite. I wonder if one is aware of that. (b) Then, there is conflict when there is division between what is actually going on and try to change that according to a certain pattern, certain ideals, certain attitudes and convictions (c) Another cause is to pursue in our so-called 'inward life', pursue authority: the authority of a book, the authority of a guru, the authority of so-called spiritual people. And (d) one of the other causes of disorder is this everlasting attempt to become something ( better ?) inwardly. And perhaps and other causes bring about disorder. So we are going to investigate each one of them.

Why do we have 'ideals' at all? The root meaning of the word 'idea', is to observe, to see, to look. But we have translated it as an (idealistic ?) projection of a particular concept, brought about by thought, and if the pursuit of that ideal becomes all consuming then you totally neglect 'what is'. We are using the word 'what is' in the sense what is actually happening both outwardly and inwardly. When we are ( openly or subliminally ?) violent, as most human beings are, to have an 'ideal of non-violence' has no reality, but what has (an experiential) validity, is ( facing ?) the fact that we are violent and understanding the causes of this violence. If we understand, give our (undivided ?) attention to 'what is', that is ( selfishness?) violence, antagonism, brutality, and to deal with it.

So (in a nutshell:) to see the illusory nature of 'what should be ' is the beginning of intelligence.
Then (b) there is division in us; there is duality. In the world of the spirit, psychologically, is there an opposite at all? Is (being) 'good' the opposite of (being mean & ?) 'evil'? If it is the opposite then this ('being) good' has its root in its own 'opposite' (is an fancy upgrade of 'being bad' ?) Is this clear? The 'opposite' is put together by thought.
So what is ('being ) good'? According to the (updated websters ?) dictionary, it means good behaviour, understanding the wholeness of life, and in that there is no fragmentation as the 'evil'. So we are enquiring together: if in our life there is (a convenient mixture of ?) 'love' and 'hate' - I hate (someone) and also (I like to) think I love (someone else ?) . The opposite of hate is not Love. The opposite of hate is still ( a modified form of ?) hate. Right?

(c) One other factor of disorder in our life is the acceptance of the so-called 'spiritual authority'. Inwardly, why do we accept authority? - the authority of a Book, the authority of a 'Guru'. When we are (gently or brutally ?) 'guided' by somebody in what to believe, what not to believe, to accept his system of enlightenment and so on and so on, what is happening to our own brain, to (the integrity of ) our own inward ( or spiritual ?) search? That has been the ( 2-nd hand ?) condition of human beings right throughout the world for millions of years. The (oficially certified ?) 'interpreters' between God and you, between 'That Which is Holy' and you, he assumes he knows it; he assumes he has 'realized' it and he is going to tell you what to do. And you, wanting comfort, security will accept him without a single doubt.
Now, to question (this) 'spiritual' authority, so that you rely entirely on being a light to oneself, requires your questioning of 'why you believe' so that your own mind becomes clear, strong, vital, so that there is energy for creative activity. But when you follow somebody your brain becomes (psychologically standardised but ?) dull, routinely, mechanical - which is very destructive for the (creative ?) nature of the human mind .

So please see why this disorder exists in our life, and when you begin to investigate into that disorder, then out of that disorder comes (a sense of integrated ?) order. When there is the dissipation of the whole causes of disorder, there is order. This order is (providing its own ?) virtue: order means (inner) freedom. So where there is order in our life, 'total' order, that order is virtue and that very order is freedom.

The word 'freedom' is misused by everybody. There is ( the material & psychological ?) 'freedom from something', and there is ( a pure sense of ?) freedom. (Suppose that ?) I am ( an unconscious ?) prisoner of my own ideas, of my own (psycho-somatic habits ?) and so on, my brain is a prisoner to that. And then ( my 'free will' ?) is to be free from one particular conditioning and unknowingly or unconsciously fall into another conditioning. So freedom 'from something', from anger, from jealousy, all that; that is not freedom at all. Freedom means to 'be' free, not (just getting rid of ?) something (painful?) . This requires a great deal of 'enquiry' (soul searching ?) , since 'freedom' is (refering to ?) the ending of that conditioning. Where there is an end to my (self-centred ?) conditioning then only is there ( an authentic ) freedom.
So (in a nutshell:) without having that ( sense of inner?) freedom there must be disorder. When there is an end to that ( complex causality of disorder ?) , there is Order .

Then we ought to talk over whether there is an end of (human ?) sorrow, since ( if and ?) when there is an end to sorrow, then only there is Love, then only there is Compassion. So what is (the inner cause of this ?) feeling of loneliness, the sense of isolation? What is the cause of ( our personal ?) sorrow, which is pain, tears, a sense of desperate loneliness, what is the cause of it? We are talking about the inward nature of suffering - the pain, the anxiety, the hope, all that constitutes sorrow. And this sorrow has existed ( as psychological background ?) in all the days of our life, and we never seem to be free of it, completely ending sorrow.
So together, if you will, we'll go into this, because there is a (possible ?) end to this sorrow. Sorrow (often) comes (to the surface ?) with the loss of (someting or ?) somebody. , Can one remain (non-personally ?) with that loneliness which is a total sense of isolation brought about through our daily activity of selfish ambitions (in the context of the brutal socio-economic ?) competition, each one 'out for himself'. Those are the attributive causes which bring about loneliness. And if you 'run away' from it, you will never solve sorrow.

The word 'sorrow' has etymologically the same root as 'passion', the word 'passion'. Most of us have no ( authentic) passion. We may have lust; we may have ambition; we may want to become a rich (& famous ?) man, we devote our energies to all that. But that does not bring about passion. Only with the ending of sorrow, there is Passion. It is ( freeing ?) that total energy (of sorrow) , not limited by ( our self-centred ?) thought. So it is important to understand the nature of its ending : to hold that sorrow, and look at it, be with it, live with it. There is ( love & ?) beauty in that sorrow, depth in that sorrow.

So we ought also to talk over together what is "love". It is really very important to enquire into it, because without love (our inner) life is empty. You may have all the riches of the earth, but without love you are an empty ( but noisy ?) shell. So together we are going to ( take a psychological detour and ?) find out what is not love. That is, through 'negation' come to the positive. (a) Is 'jealousy' - in which there is attachment, anxiety, in jealousy there is hate, is that love? You are attached to your family; you are attached to a person or an idea or a concept or a conclusion. What are the (psychological ?) implications of attachment? Where there is attachment, there is possessiveness, there is fear, there is suspicion. Surely all that has (nothing to do with ?) love.
(For homework ?) if I may suggest, most respectfully, (try to ) become aware of the consequences of that attachment. If you are attached to (a person or to ?) an ideal you are always on the defensive or aggressive. So, where there is attachment, there must be ( a potential for ?) pain, anxiety, suspicion, watching. Surely that is not love, is it?

So ( the 1000 $ Question is ?) can one be totally free of all ( personal ?) attachment? It's up to you, but when you are attached, there is no love. And to find out what love is (in our own life ?) , as we said there must be an end to sorrow, an end to attachment, end to everything we have committed to inwardly. Where the 'ego', the ( self-conscious ?) 'me' is, Love is not.
You hear all this my friend, but you will walk away from here with the same attachment, with the same (sticky ?) 'convictions' and never enquire further because the more you enquire into all this (psychological stuff ?) , the more life ( risks to ?) become 'dangerous' ( unsettling ?) because you may have to give up a lot of (attachments to ?) 'things' naturally and easily (or...not so easily ?) . You also realize that when you 'see the truth' of something, you are standing completely alone.
And also we should discuss the nature of Intelligence. Compassion has its own intelligence. Love has its own intelligence. We are going again to enquire ( negatively ?) into what is not Intelligence. ( Worldly ?) Knowledge is not (an indication of ?) Intelligence. Love is not the product of ( self-centred ?) thought. To see that which is false as 'false' (as such ?) is the beginning of Intelligence. To see the nature of ( inner) disorder and end it, not carry on day after day, but ending it: this ending is the (action of an ) immediate (clarity of ?) perception which is Intelligence.

So (to recap:) (intellectual ?) cleverness is not Intelligence. Having a great deal of knowledge about various subjects, mathematics, history, science, poetry, painting, to be able to paint and all the rest of it, that is not the activity of ( Compassionate ?) Intelligence. Intelligence is the activity of the wholeness of life, not broken up, fragmented. And that intelligence is not (personal ?), it doesn't belong to anybody people, like Love is not Christian love or Hindu love and so on. So, (for homework ?) please enquire into all this. Because our life depends on all this. We are ( inwardly ?) 'miserable' people, always ( living in anxiety & ?) conflict. We have accepted it as the way of life. But in ( meditatively ?) enquiring into all this there is the awakening of that ( quality of integrated ?) Intelligence. Only when that ( Compassionate & Loving ?) Intelligence is in operation, there is 'right action'.
Tomorrow we will talk over together death, meditation and if , beyond all ( the superficial agitation of temporal ?) thought, there is something enduring, something sacred, something immeasurable.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 19 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #578
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline


The Religious way of Life

K: We were saying that we must find together a new (inwardly perceptive ?) instrument, and that is what we are going into when we talk about death, religion, meditation, and to understand, to discover, to come upon something beyond time, beyond all measure. If this is very clear we can look at our life, at our own 'personal' (self-) circumscribed life. Because it is much more important what happens before death rather than what happens after death. Is this clear? We are always enquiring into what happens after death but we never enquire what is happening before death.
Please listen to all this, if you care to - (living inwardly caught in ?) time is death. We are talking about the time that thought has created : I hope to become rich, or I hope to become a spiritual person. This time is a (mental ?) movement, apart from the time by the watch, by the sunset, or the time to get from one point to another. We are talking about the 'psychological' time, that time is ( a form of spiritual ?) death. To think ( of ourselves & others ?) in terms of time is to bring about division, fragmentation, and give the future a far greater significance than ( to what we are in ?) the present.

The speaker said that this 'time' is a (mental ?) movement projected by our thought, and thought itself is the product of ( our long evolution in ?) time, because man has acquired ( lots of real and redundant ?) knowledge through its long evolution, and ( the psychological problem is that ?) when we think in terms of time (not only) we divide (as yesterday-today-tomorrow ?) the (wholeness of ) life which is being lived now , but in that life we have separated death from living.

As we said we never enquire deeply what happens long before (our physical) death? Very few people ask that. They are all concerned with what happens (to them) after death, But not with the long period thirty, forty, or fifty years which is ( karmically speaking ?) far more important than what happens after. If we don't understand that profoundly, then when you meet death you are frightened, you are totally blind to everything.
So our life which we live daily, has it any significance at all, has any (spiritual ?) value, depth, beauty ? What is your daily life? Perhaps you will go to the office from nine to five for the rest of your life. Have you ever thought what a tragedy it is ? I go to the office from nine to five for the next sixty years. Then I retire and die. in the office, or in the factory, you are competing, insulted, bored, and you come home. What do you call 'home'? Just the roof, half a dozen rooms, to live there, eat, sex, children, quarrelling, discussing, arguing, bullying each other, and during these forty, fifty years, there is ( the cummulative weariness of ?) constant struggle, constant conflict, pain, a little joy, the pursuit of pleasure, and eventually facing the inevitable death. That is our life, to put it in a nutshell. Now this is the life of every human being on earth, whether they live in an affluent democratic society or in a totalitarian state. This is ( the inner ?) state of every human being, that is his consciousness with its ( psychologically active) 'content' - the beliefs, the dogmas, the (identification with a ) name, the form, the pains, anxieties, loneliness, despair, depression, desire, all that is 'you'. And this is the consciousness ( shared by ?) all human beings. If you feel the depth of it, the extraordinary beauty of it, the strength of it, that you 'are' like the rest of mankind, then you are no longer a ( self-centred ?) 'individual' (consciousness ).

So if you 'are' the (consciousness ?) of mankind, then what is your (human) responsibility to what is (currently ?) happening in the world? The rest of mankind is ( actively busy in ?) destroying itself. In this poverty ridden country, each one is exploiting and destroying the other and and all the rest of it. So you have to find out for yourself what is your responsibility, what is your right action in front of all this? Your consciousness is shared by all human beings living on this earth. They all go ( eventually ?) through every kind of misery, every kind of suffering - pain, anxiety, despair and a feeling of utter loneliness.
So if you are at all aware of what is happening in this ( 'psychological '?) world, then you will have to ask yourself (for homework ?) what is your responsibility, what is your action.

So now you think you are separate from the rest of mankind. And what happens to me after I die? Let us examine that very closely (analytically?) . What 'are' you now ? Let's examine it together dispassionately. You are ( strongly identified with ?) with the (psycho-somatic ?) body; ( and mentally) you are what you think, the result of ( a culturally standardising ?) education. And they don't (really) educate you to understand the beauty, the wholeness of life. They only give you a lot of ( 2-nd hand ?) knowledge so that you can act either skilfully or (maybe ?) not. That is not ( a wholesome ?) education. Education is the cultivation of the whole human being, the unfoldment, the flowering of a human mind, not crippled by specialization. So what are you (inwardly ?) ? A series of (nice sounding ) ideas, a repetitive memory, a sum of 'convictions'? All this is a (mental) verbal structure. Right?

But you say, 'That is not all, there is something much deeper' - (a spark of ?) God, the Soul, there is a fragment of ( spiritual ?) light in me', (but ) when you (assume) you are 'more than that', it is also the invention of thought obviously.
So 'you' (the self-conscious 'entity-in-command' ?) are actually a series of memories, a series of reactions and responses based on your knowledge, your experience, your quality of mind. This is what you cling to: a lot of ( personal & collective ?) memories, a vast reservoir of memories, words, pictures, symbols. Your consciousness is ( shared by ?) the rest of mankind. So, (consciousness-wise) I am all the inherited racial memories and personal memories, which is all in the past. I am all that and all human beings are that, all human consciousness is that. So death is the end all the (personal attachments to all) things you have held (as precious) , your jewels, your house, your bank account, your wife, your children, all that is death.
So please listen: can you invite the 'ending of attachment'? Can you, living actively, end your attachment, end a particular habit voluntarily, easily, quietly, because when you end something like attachment, there is a different activity going on: to incarnate in the present now, that is ('the' ultimate ?) creative activity. It is up to you sirs if you want to do all this.

We ought to talk over together what is a 'religious mind'? The origin of that word, ( re-ligare ?) meant to bind (or to connect ?) yourself to some Higher principle, or to some noble idea. But (for starters ?) to understand our daily life, to bring about a radical change in that life, to have a brain that is ( bravely ?) facing 'what one is', and is going beyond 'what is', that is the beginning of a religious mind. So to understand the whole meaning of daily living, which is the understanding of relationship, relationship with each other, to love, to have that quality of love, that perfume, that ( sense of inner) beauty, that flame. That is a religious mind. (In a nutshell ?) to live a life that has no conflict, that has the sense of compassion with love with intelligence - compassion is intelligence - that is the religious life.
But ( in the meanwhile ?) we have to understand what is "meditation"?
For starters being aware, being conscious of your environment, of how you talk, how you walk, how you eat, what you eat; to be aware how you speak to another, how you treat another; to be aware as you are sitting there, to be aware of your neighbour, the colour, the coat, the way he looks, without criticism, just be aware. That gives you great sensitivity & empathy, so that your body is subtle, sensitive, aware of everything that is going on around you. To be aware without any choice
Then (the next step is :) attention. Have you ever (completely) 'attended' to anything? Given your whole energy, listened totally to another, completely attended ? If you are attending now completely to what is being said, in that attention there is no ( self-conscious ?) centre as the 'me'. That is, giving all your energy, your listening, vibrantly alive to 'attend' (being totally 'present' ?) you will find there is no centre as the 'me' attending. When you are attending so deeply the brain becomes naturally quiet. There is no chattering, and there is no (need to) control thought.

So ( to wrap it up ?) in meditation there is no 'controller', there is no activity of will, which is desire. Then the whole (inner activity ?) of the brain becomes utterly quiet, silent. It is the silence of supreme intelligence. In that silence 'that which is nameless' Is. That is sacred, immovable, is not touched by thought, by endeavour, by effort. It is the way of intelligence which is the way of compassion. Then that (mind ?) which is (touched by the ?) Sacred is everlasting. That is ( the true purpose of ?) meditation. Such a life is an (authentic) religious life and in it there is a great (sense of ?) Beauty.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #579
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline



K: We are going to talk first, about what is happening to our brain, to our conduct, why human beings who have lived on this earth, perhaps a million years and why has ( the average ?) man become what he is, thoughtless, careless, indifferent - without any love, brutal, violent? Why have we become like this? You might blame it on our (animal ?) inheritance, you might blame it on the environment, on the culture, on the society. But who has created this society? Each one of us has contributed to that chaos, to the mess that is going on, the disorder, the anarchy.
(Our self-centred thinking ?) has created the problems of division, the problems that arise through division, between the Jew and the Arab, one group against another group. So, (our ego-centric component of ?) thought is responsible for all the misery it has brought about in the world. Thought has also done ( a lot of ) great ( technological) things for humanity.

So, first of all, we are going to look together, why the human brain which has gone through every kind of experiences, pleasurable, painful, and every kind of incidents & accidents - why that brain had become so limited (inwardly) , while in the technological world it is not limited there at all. It is moving with extraordinary rapidity. But the human brain is 'limited' because it is incapable at present of going inwardly. And if it can go in one direction with such extraordinary vigour, then it has (potentially the same ) infinite capacity in the inward, the 'psychological' world. But we have not given that same consideration, questioning into what we are.
So, how do we investigate ( by experiential immersion ?) into something that is 'yourself' - both the unconscious and the conscious (layers) the whole realm of your inward activity which dictates the outer activity. If that inner activity is not in order, then you create a society as we have done, which is totally in disorder; as anyone ( who wants to see ?) can see. You cannot create outward order unless there is inward order. One has to realize this fact, that the outward chaos, confusion, the brutality, the violence is the result of our own (inner) disorder, of (an ongoing ?) conflict in our own consciousness.
And ( the 1000$ question is :) can all this misery, confusion, conflict, anxiety, and so on, can it ever end? This (psychological) question is serious since the (causation of the ) crisis is there, not in the (outer) world. Please understand all this. The "crisis" is in our consciousness, the crisis is in what we have become. Unless we meet that crisis, that challenge, we are going to perpetuate wars, destruction, and there will be outward chaos.

What you 'are' (inwardly) is (determined by ?) the 'content' of your consciousness: your beliefs, your opinions, your experiences, your illusions, your fears, your pleasures (not to mention ?) the loneliness, the sorrow, and the great grief and the fear of death. That is what you 'are' (psychologically) . And we are saying this 'content' of ( our self-) consciousness is put together (constantly updated & optimised) by your (self-centred ?) thinking as a Hindu or a Christian, or whatever. ( The self-centred activity of ?) 'thought' which is (intrinsically) limited has brought about limitations in our consciousness. Thought is limited because the end product of (our sensory) experience, stored as 'knowledge' in the brain's memory and our response to any challenge is ( controlled & expressed in terms of ?) 'thinking'. So, being (intrisically ) limited, it must inevitably create problems in ( the sphere of) human relationship , where the human beings are perpetually in conflict with each other, agreeing, disagreeing, believing and not believing, one dogmatic opinion against another opinion. It is perpetual 'war (zone' ?) between human beings which created by (their ego-centric) thinking. And having created the problems then thought tries to solve them and so increases the problems, which is what is actually happening.

If one sees this as an actuality, as a fact, then one can ( spend some quality time to ?) ask a totally different question, which is, the only (thinking) instrument that we have now the outcome of a limited (fragmentary ?) knowledge, and if thought is not the (adequate) instrument to solve human problems, then what is the (right ?) instrument? This is really a very important question to ask, because thought -as the instrument that we have used to solve our problems in our daily life in relationship, is a worn out instrument, a blunt instrument. And unless we find a new (inwardly perceptive ?) instrument, there can be no fundamental, radical change of the human psyche. So, we are going together to enquire into the nature of that (new perceptive ) instrument, the quality of it, the structure of it, the beauty of it. And a mind which is enquiring into the nature of the quality and structure of this 'new instrument' demands a brain that is (integrated &) stable, not wobbly, sloppy. I don't know if you have noticed how are our minds are sloppy , no true feeling of cooperation, feeling of affection, feeling of love.
So, what is the (new ?) instrument that will solve our problems? When one realizes the fundamental truth that your consciousness is not (just) 'yours', but it is the (consciousness shared by the ?) rest of mankind , then our whole (inner mentality ?) changes, then you are (responsibly) concerned with the whole consciousness of humanity, which means your son, your neighbour, your wife, your husband, and the man who is (thousands of) miles away.

We'll continue tomorrow evening in our enquiry whether there is a different kind of instrument, a different kind of (creative inner) activity which is not the activity of thought. Don't come to any (hasty ?) conclusion but enquire, question, doubt. To have a subtle mind, quick mind, a brain that is active, not bogged down by tradition, by conclusions, by ideals, so that you and the speaker can talk about it, enquire into it very, very deeply.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #580
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 12 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
The other assertion is his classic one that we are responsible for the chaotic condition of society today. Couldn't this be taken as a manipulation of discourse? Why shouldn't we conclude that we are victims instead? Why always carry the guilt with us? If we look scrupulously at our actions and we don't find blame in them we don't have to feel responsible for this society.

As I see, manipulation is a strong word here and inappropriate, what we could rather accuse him is that he trusts that we are doing the hard-work of observation along with him, when we are going to a K talk and feeling self righteous about it; and the feeling of self righteousness, most likely is what which causes the guilt feeling in us when asked for taking responsibility for the whole of society. K, as far as I see, don't let us get stuck with the conscience created oppositions of guilt and self righteousness; if we don't interrupt our listening, we'll be able to see that he is working to show us the exit or a rising up from conscience created oppositions, right from the very beginning.

contraria sunt complementa

This post was last updated by natarajan shivan Sun, 21 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #581
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 12 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
You see, this matter of guilt and blaming is quite a game in Christian societies, at least.

I trust Dostoyevsky has firmly secured Christianity and has shown how miracle, mystery and God works together when there is faith nurtured by self-mastery along with active love to meet life and world at large. K's teachings shouldn't come as a surprise to the Christian world if they had understood Dostoyevsky.imo.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 May 2017 #582
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline


About the complex causation of our inner (& outer) conflicts

K: May we continue with what we were talking about yesterday evening ? We said yesterday: look ( inwardly ?) at the activities of thought because we live by thought: all our actions are based on thought, all our contemplated efforts are based on thought - our meditations, our worships our prayer. And ( this self-centred ?) thought has divided the world not only geographically but also psychologically inwardly, man('s consciousness ?) is fragmented. We all live a 'fragmented' (compartmentalised ?) life. Each fragment has its own energy, has its own capacity, has its own discipline, and each part plays a ( subliminal part ?) in contradicting the other parts. And this division is such a waste of energy in (pointless ?) conflicts: wasting our energy, quarrelling, dividing, each one pursuing his own thing, demanding his own personal security and so on. When one action contradicts another action - like saying one thing and doing another, all l such activities must invariably condition the brain. We are conditioned and there is no question about it, and as we were talking about yesterday, a new (inwardly perceptive ?) instrument is necessary to solve our human problems and we are going to talk about it as we go along.

We are saying that (our existing) conditioning can be examined, can be observed and there can be total freedom from that conditioning. And to discover for ourselves whether this is possible or not, we have to enquire into our relationship (with everything ?) . Relationship is the (magic ?) mirror in which we see ourselves as we are. All our life is a movement in relationship. There is no living thing on earth that is not related to something or other. And in that mirror of relationship we can see ourselves as we 'are': our reactions, our depressions, loneliness and sorrow. And we can also discover whether we (have any ?) love (for anything ?) or if there is not (in our daily existence) such thing. So we are together examining this question of relationship, because that is the basis of ( all ) life. And if we cannot find the right relationship, if we live (safely settled in ?) our own particular narrow life, that isolated existence brings about its own destruction.
So why is it that human beings throughout the long existence of their lives have never had a relationship in which there is neither oppression, possessiveness, attachment, contradiction and so on. Why there is always this (subliminal sense of ?) division - man, woman, we and they ?

One 'quality' ( in our) relationship is 'attachment'. I am (getting) attached to my wife because she gives me pleasure, sexually, as a companion, as a cook, you know all the rest of it. And the consequences of attachment is a continuation of fear of losing, jealousy, anxiety. Where there is jealousy there is hatred. And is attachment ( a sign of authentic ?) love? That is one point, in our relationship. Another aspect is that each one of us has, through the years, put together an image about each other. And in that (mental) relationship ( based on ?) images, how can there be any actual, factual relationship with another? All of us, from childhood, have (actively) built images about ourselves and about others. And we are asking a very, very serious question: in our relationships can one live without a single image?

Surely you all have a (highly mediatised ?) 'image' about the speaker, haven't you? Actually you don't know him. He sits on a platform, talks - but you have no relationship with him because you have an 'image' about him and you have your own ( kit of ?) personal 'images' about yourself. You have got so many (everyday ) images; about politicians, about business men, about the guru, about this and that. You understand my question? When you have an image about another, that image gives 'you' ( your own 'self-image' ?) a sense of ( being in ?) security. But as long as you have an image about another, there is no love. There is no security in (the 'imaginary' ?) things that thought has put together, so is it possible to be free from this (image making ?) conditioning in our relationship? That is, to observe in the 'mirror of relationship' attentively, closely, persistently, what our reactions are; whether they are mechanical, habitual, traditional.

And what does it mean to 'observe', what does it mean to 'look'? When you ook at the new moon, the slip of the new moon, so delicate, so fresh, so young, can you look at it without using the word 'moon'? Can you look at that moon, the tree, the flower with all its colour, and can you look at it without naming it, without using the word to identify it ? Have you ever tried it? When you (learn to ?) observe without a word, without a name, without the image you have created about her or him, in that observation, there is no 'centre' from which you observe. Can you look at the speaker, observe him without your image, without the name? The word is (the recognising interference of ?) thought. Thought is born out of memory. So you have the ( screen of your past ?) memory, the 'image' interfering between you and the other.
If there is no (interference of ?) thought, in that (non-verbal) observation, there is no ( identification with a ) centre as 'me' looking at 'you'. Right? Then only is there a right relationship with another. In that, there is a quality of love, a quality of a certain beauty, a certain sensitivity, but if you constantly have an image about another there is no communication, there is no love, there is no depth of that word. So to look at another without the image, and the image is our (main psychological ?) conditioning. But if you can observe your own activity of thought, that is, thought to observe itself, not you observe thought. You see the difference ? Because 'you' (the 'observer' ) are put together by thought.

We are saying our (self-centred ?) conditioning is so deep, and to understand it one must understand the nature of effort and conflict? What is the cause of conflict? Where there is a cause, that cause has an end. So if you can find out, not be 'instructed' - the speaker is not 'instructing' - but if you can find out for yourself what is the cause of conflict by which man has lived from time immemorial. What is the cause of it? Is there one cause or many causes?

One of the causes may be the constant attempt to become something - the ( process of self-) becoming. That is, (the attempt ) to become something different from what I am. I am not beautiful, but I will become beautiful; I am violent but I will become non-violent. So this becoming is a process of evolution: all human beings apparently are violent (aggressive, territorial, possessive ?) and becoming ( a better person ?) is a process of (thinking in terms of ?) evolution which requires time & space. And we are asking: is this movement from 'what is' to what 'should be' one of the causes of ( our inner & outer ?) conflict? Is 'time' one of the factors of conflict? Is duality another causes of conflict? That is, inwardly, psychologically, is there a duality at all? I am violent. When I try to become non-violent there is duality. And we are asking does ( our inner) conflict exist as long as there is 'duality'? When there is only 'what is' you deal with 'what is', not with 'what should be'. I am violent and this ideal of 'non-violence' has no (experiential ?) value because in (striving to ?) become 'non-violent' I am sowing the seeds of violence all the time. And when you look at it, are you looking at it as something separate from you or, what you observe "is" what you (the 'observer' actually ?) are?

( In a nutshell:) The observer "is" the observed; the thinker 'is' the thought, the experiencer 'is' the experienced. The two are not separate (processes) . And where there is such division there must be conflict. So time, (thinking inwardly in terms of ?) evolution, and the (dualistic) sense of the opposite, are the ( inner) factors of violence. These are the many other factors, all these factors are (constituting the temporal ?) 'me. So 'me' in essence is the ( central) cause of conflict. And just to observe it , like you observe the marvellous movement of the skies, the ocean, then it tells you all its content without your analysing.
So a brain that is in conflict mechanically, psychologically, must inevitably bring about disorder in itself and so outwardly. And we will go into it again next week end, whether it is possible for human beings to be totally, completely free of it? When there is that freedom (from inner conflict ) , there is order, there is love, compassion and that compassion 'is' (creating its own ?) intelligence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 May 2017 #583
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline

3-RD K TALK IN MADRAS (January) 1983

All about time & thought, desire and fear (experientially -friendly edited)

K: This evening, we ought to talk over together about the (psychological) nature of time, desire and fear and whether (the) sorrow (of ignorance ?) , which man has lived with, can ever end?
I hope it is clear, that to understand each other there must be an (integrated ) communication of the mind and the heart, to "have the mind in the heart". Most of us listen to words, to ideas, agree or disagree, analyse, speculate and so on, but we never meet at the same time at the same level, with the same intensity. Then there is a real, deep, profound communication; which means you or the speaker must have no prejudice, no bias, not committed to any philosophy to any conclusion, but meet in ( a spirit of ?) freedom. And to meet in freedom requires a great deal of intelligence, a great deal of enquiry.

We have lived for millennia upon millennia - thousands of years with sorrow, pain, anxiety, loneliness, despair, fear and the pursuit of wandering desire, and (the more thoughtful ?) men have always asked if there is a stop to time? And we are going to talk over together the nature of ( our psychological) time.
Time is a very, very complex affair and one must have a great deal of patience, because we live by time. We have divided (organised ?) our life in a (linear ?) time movement. Time means (thinking in terms of ?) evolution both physical as well as one imagines that one will evolve into something totally different from 'what is'. So we must together understand, not verbally but the feeling of time, the sense of time. Outwardly, physically, time which is fundamentally a process of division is (obviously) necessary - like the seed growing into a great tree that requires time, years, the time to acquire knowledge, the accumulating process of learning, mathematics, physics or how to fly one of these jets. All that requires time. One cannot possibly escape from that (material flow of ?) time or try to find a stop to that kind of time. That would be utterly meaningless and foolish. But we can enquire into the nature of (the psychological) time (required) to become something inwardly. We think time is necessary to be free of ( our psychological problems, such as ?) violence, time is necessary to be free of (greed or ?) envy. We are conditioned to the concept or to the 'illusion' that time is necessary (psychologically to move ) from 'what is', to 'what should be'. Is time is at all necessary for a radical (inner) change? We said ( that thinking of ourselves in terms of ?) time is (implying a ) division between what 'I am', and what 'I should be'. That is a division and ( to achieve what ) 'I should be' requires time and we are questioning that. Enlightenment, does that demand time? We are questioning a most fundamental (psychological assumption ?) because all our philosophy, our life, all the books that you read have all said that ( a certain preparation in ?) time is necessary. You must go through various (stages of inner ) discipline in order to come to a state of mind that has not been touched by time.

Now, the moment you admit that there is such a psychological time there must be (an inner) conflict. I have divided (myself from my background of a?) violence - which I 'am' - and to achieve ( an inner state free of ?) 'violence' there is a (time-) division immediately taking place and therefore there must be (an open or subliminal ?) conflict. So, (thinking inwardly in terms of ?) time is the (root ?) cause of conflict. Where 'time' comes into being, there must be conflict, and the (inner process of ?) becoming something is endless. Now we are asking, is there a (possibility to ?) end this (residual) violence in which there is no time at all ? You understand my question? That is (for instance, if ?) I am greedy, that is the only 'fact' I have (to deal with) . The (projected goal of ?) non-greed, non-violence is just a concept, a structure of thought which cannot either understand or end violence. It is (basically ?) an 'escaping' process - the ideal.

(In a nutshell: ) Greed, measurement, comparison - 'I am this', 'I will be that', which is measurement, all that implies a 'psychological' time. That is the illusion in which we live. We are questioning the reality of that. There is only 'what is: human beings are (inheriting a ) violent (background) . Is it not important to find out whether it is possible to end (our psychological heritage of ?) violence or greed, anger immediately - can the whole (psycho-) movement of violence totally end (now ?) ? And to find that out one must understand ( the postponing action of ?) time : thought has divided 'what is' from 'what should be'. I am ignorant, but I will be enlightened some day. So we are now asking whether it is possible to end violence, greed, what you will, immediately, so that it never comes up again. Aren't you interested in that to find out? So, how do you observe violence? Violence is (basically ?) a sensory response. You have hurt me physically , or my (good ?) image about myself has been 'hurt'. And to get over that hurt, give me time. I will be aware, I will be more careful, listen carefully and so on.
You see all that is effort, which is brought about by the division of time. Clear? So is it possible to end (the psychological component of ?) violence so completely that it never comes back? That is why we are asking, how do you look at that violence? Do you look with the (mental background of the ?) memories that you have had, with the accumulated hurts, accumulated pleasures, companionship, stored in the brain as memory? Do you look at your wife, and your husband with those memories? So memory is ( the result of ?) time. And where there is (an ongoing process of ?) time, there must be division. And hence you have row after row, quarrels and all the rest of it in your relationship with another.

So it is of the highest importance to find out 'how' to observe. ( For starters ?) how to observe a tree, which is one of the most beautiful things on earth, how do you look at it? When you use the word (to name it ?) the ( interfering cultural ?) 'remembrance' prevents you from looking. So can look at a wife or a husband or a tree or the moon or the flowing waters of a great river without the word, without the name, which is the (psycho-interference ?) past ? So (for the next step:) can you look at violence or greed or whatever you will without the word? The moment you use the word 'violence', you have already put it in ( the framework of ?) time and therefore you have already brought about an ('observer-observed' mental ?) division.
Now ( for an in-class exercise ?) can you observe the 'speaker' now? Can you observe him without (mentally associations with ?) his reputation, without any image, look at him, can you? So (if yes, then for homework ?) can you look at your wife, at a tree, at a flower without the (interfering action ?) of thought? This (interfering ?) movement of thought is (both the result and the creator of psychological ?) time. Thought divides as ( our memory of ?) time divides. So, when you just 'look', you are looking without the (knowledgeable background of the ?) 'observer', who is the (active memory of the ?) past, who is (behind the naming ?) word, who is the memory. To look at yourself, as you look in an (objective ?) mirror to look at yourself, and that (magic ?) mirror is the "mirror of relationship". There you can perceive every movement of thought, every movement of reaction.
Therefore we have to learn how to listen, how to observe, not accumulate how to listen, just listen, just observe with all the memory. Then you will see that in ' what you observe', which is violence, there is no division between the 'observer' and the (violent reaction which is ?) 'observed'. The observer 'is' the violence. And when you are so alert, watch, observe, it is like putting a great "light" on the thing which you observe, then it disappears totally, never to return.

Now we ought to ( take a short detour and ?) talk over what is 'desire', because time and desire and thought are the major factors of 'fear'. So we ought to talk over together, have a dialogue about what is desire, the wandering nature of desire, desire which is never content, and we are going to examine together the nature of that desire.
What is desire? Is the object creating the desire or the desire exists and its objects vary ? If the object creates desire then it is a totally different (aesthetic & commercial ?) investigation. But if desire exists and the wandering nature of desire from one thing to another, we have to examine together what is the origin, the 'beginning' of desire. If one can understand the origin, the source of desire, then we can deal (intelligently ?) with it. But if we don't ask the origin, the beginning then we are merely trimming the branches of desire. Is this clear?
( For starters ?) we live by sensation. Our sensory responses, their reaction is the activity of sensation. Right? I see you, well dressed, clean, healthy, beautiful or whatever you are. This ( optical ) seeing is the beginning of sensory responses. Then what happens? The very seeing of that beauty - of a nice, clear, intelligent face, is a "sensation", isn't it? Then what is the next step that takes place? Then (my self-centred ?) thought comes in and says, "how beautiful, I wish I had that statue in my room, I wish I was in that car, I wish I had that house". Right? At that moment when thought (processes and ?) takes charge of sensation, at that precise moment, "desire" is born.

So (action-wise ?) is it possible for thought not to intervene? Can there be a (silent ?) interval between 'sensation' and (the intervention of ?) thought not immediately taking charge? If there is (such a contemplative ?) gap, which requires extraordinary (mental) skill and attention, what happens ? You see where the sensory responses are essential for life, but when thought (intervines &) controls, shapes, gives ( a mental) identity to sensation, then at that precise movement (a time-binding ?) desire is born. Then you see how thought makes all our life a (string of temporal ?) problems, which we went into the other day.
So time, desire, thought, are the factors of fear. I am afraid what might happen to me because I have had an accident a couple of days ago or a year ago and I am afraid it might happen again. You may not want to acknowledge it, you may not want to face it, but you are frightened ( of what your future can bring ?) and fear narrows down (our existence) it makes human beings so bound to authority, or to some ideas. So we are not talking about the many expressions of fear, but fear itself, the root of it.

What is the root of fear? Isn't it "time and thought"? That is, I am ignorant in the deep sense of the word, which is not knowing myself wholly. That is ignorance - a movement, that is (expressing itself as ?) 'me', that has no beginning (from the night of time ?) and perhaps with no end. And to (expose and ?) understand that deep (heritage of ?) ignorance I imagine that I need time and also I need experience, accumulation, reincarnation and all the rest of it. So ( associated with this ages old ignorance ?) there is fear. And what is the root of it all? Why has man, throughout the ages carried this burden of fear? He hasn't been able to resolve it. You may be (inwardly ?) 'blind' to it but it is always there, in one form or another. So we are asking what is the root of it. The root of it is (the joint psycho-process of ?) "time and thought".
( Eg:) I had pain a couple of weeks ago and I fear it might return again, which is (the result of my self-centred thinking in terms of ?) time. You understand this 'thought- time' ? It is the ( lingering ?) remembrance of that pain and (the thought that ?) it might happen again. So the psychological fear is ( the painful memory of something that happened in a past ?) time and ( its carry-over by ?) thought.

( So, to wrap it up:) If one (insightfully ?) understands the (psychological) nature of 'time and thought' and of the wandering 'movement of desire' - in the sense of "seeing the truth of it instantly", the 'fact' of it, the reality of it, the depth of it, the intensity of it - if you do see it so clearly then you will never (need to ?) ask, "how is fear to end ?" or "how am I to stop time & thought" - which are the active causes of (psychological) fear. You will never (need to) ask that question, because (there's no point to ?) ask (redundant mental ?) questions about what you actually 'see as the truth'. It is there for you to "see" it, not to to argue about, analyse, discuss, take sides. It is like seeing the most beautiful thing on earth, with an excellent mind and a heart that is always aflame. If you see it (so totally ?) , then fear ends.
And ( for more homework & study) where there is the ending of fear, there is no (need to invent a man-made ?) god. You understand? It is out of our fear, out of our desire, that we invent these 'gods'. A man in whom there is completely no fear, is a totally different human being and he needs no 'god'. Sirs and ladies give your heart to consider all this. Not your intellect. Intellect has its place, but when you are examining something very, very seriously, the (intelligence of the ?) heart must enter into its consideration. When the 'heart' enters, when there is love to observe, love of watching, seeing, then when you see the truth of desire, time and thought, then there is no fear whatsoever. Then only, there can be Love. Fear and love cannot go together. Fear and pleasure go together but not Love and fear.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #584
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline


A MEDITATION ON LIFE ( experientially -friendly edited )

This evening we ought to talk over together whether sorrow can ever end, the sorrow of man. And what is love, what is compassion, and what is intelligence? We ought to talk over together also the significance of death. And if we have time, we ought to talk over the whole question of 'meditation'.

( Sorrow:) We have lived with sorrow generation upon generation: the grief, the sorrow of loneliness, the sorrow of great anxiety, the sorrow of having no proper relationship with another, the sorrow of a mother losing a son, and also the (imponderable ?) sorrow of ignorance. Sorrow has many forms. It isn't just (triggered by ?) one incident called 'death', it isn't just one (sad) happening in one's life, but ( is the compounded result of ?) a series of incidents, a series of accidents and experiences which both contain both pleasure and pain, the sorrow of ( being caught in ?) this (time binding ?) movement of reward and punishment, the sorrow of old age, the sorrow of illness, blindness and malformed children. Man has carried a great weight of sorrow and we try to escape from it. There is not only the 'personal' sorrow (caused by ?) the loss of someone whom you loved, or by never having a single, happy, original day, ( but the non-personal ?) pain of seeing poverty in this land and people doing nothing about it. So man has carried this ( subliminal burden of ?) sorrow from time beyond measure. And we are still lonely, aching with deep inward pain, the lack of opportunity, lack of the things we all want.

So we ought together this evening consider whether it is possible to end ( carrying ?) this enormous burden carried by those who are in sorrow. What the cause of sorrow? Where there is a cause, there is and end. (However ?) its causation is a 'movement', it is not a fixed one. And if you can understand and discover the cause of this 'burden of sorrow', then perhaps we shall understand the nature of love, and find that extraordinary perfume that is really the "light of the world".

It requires an unemotional approach to it and you can only consider this question experientially when "the mind is in the heart" - to comprehend sorrow, the mere 'intellect' cannot go very far. All of us have the capacity to understand (verbally) , to discern, to argue, to choose, to weigh one against the other. But if your intellect dominates the process of investigation, therefore it distorts (or... takes short cuts ?) . Isn't it possible to approach it with a holistic (attitude ?) ? We never look at our life as a whole. We have fragmented it up as the 'intellect', the 'emotions', and so on, so that we can never look at a problem wholly. The word 'whole' means having a healthy mind, a mind which is (comprehending the ?) whole, a sense of covering the earth and the skies and the beauty of all that. It also (means) 'holy'. And in investigating this question (of sorrow ?) , one needs to have that quality of a "mind in the heart" - a very factual mind, tempered with the quality of love. When we use the word 'heart' we mean by that - mind in the heart, mind in the quality of love, which has nothing whatsoever to do with any any ideals, with any obedience.

So together, let us look at this question. What is sorrow, and why has man put up with sorrow, why has he accepted it as he has accepted fear, as he has accepted pleasure, desire, all the things that man is surrounded with, both outwardly and inwardly. We are not talking about the (countless ?) various types of sorrow. but 'what is the nature of it?' In that thing called sorrow there is pain, there is grief, there is a sense of isolation, a sense of my loneliness in which there is no relationship.
( Suppose that ?) I have lost my son. It is not only a physical shock but it is a great crisis in the consciousness, in the psyche. There is a sudden ending of (the object of my personal ) attachment, a sudden ending of all the hopes I have invested in him, my life becomes 'empty' (pointless ?) , and either one finds a rational explanation or plunges oneself into some form of entertainment, drugs, drinks and all the rest of it, or believe in some future life. This is the lot of ( most if not ?) all human beings.

So what is ( the nature of ?) this 'ending'? Have we ever 'ended' something ( we were attached ?) without a motive, without an (expectation of ?) reward or punishment ? Because where there is a 'ending' (of psycho-attachments ?) there is (an opportunity for ?) a totally new beginning. But, as our life is based on reward and punishment, both outwardly and much more inwardly, we never (freely ?) end ( our attachment to ?) something without a 'cause'.
So grief, loneliness and a sense of separation, which is essentially: time, identification, investment and all the things one has cultivated in another, there is a 'shock' and all that (comfortable continuity ?) 'ends' (the aftermaths of that ?) shock I call "sorrow". Now can't one (quietly ?) remain with that tremendous challenge without a single movement of thought? Because ( the sense of a great personal or collective ?) sorrow is perhaps one of the greatest challenges on the human mind, on (our) human(e) quality.
If you merely escape from it, try to 'rationalize' it (to reason it out ?) , then sorrow is your shadow; but with the ending of that (of its causation ?) , there is ( the birth of ?) a passion which is the very essence of (one's inner ?) energy. Very few of us have that passion which is living, not occasionally, but that passion which moves the universe.

So we ought to look into what is Love. That word has been so spoilt, we have given to that word such a shallow meaning (as in:) "I love my wife". That 'love' may be ( a convenient extension for my ?) attachment, that love may be seeking comfort, pleasure sexually, pleasure of companionship and so on.
So we are going to consider what is (the true nature of ? Love. Because in trying to see the depth of it, the beauty and the extraordinary quality of it, Love may be related to Death. Now, to (experientially ?) find something true, one must negate that which is false. And to discover what is false and what is true, and what is true in the false, one requires not only the capacity to think (coherently and ?) clearly only, but the (passionate ?) demand, asking, questioning. We are asking is desire ( related to ?) love? Desire is a wandering ('mobile' ?) movement, and is love wandering, unstable, weak, or is it something as strong, as vital as death? Is love pleasure: sexual pleasure, the pleasure of owning, dominating, possessing a person? Is that love? Is attachment to the person - my wife, my husband, my family, attached which means to hold on, cling to. Is that love? Or in attachment there is fear, jealousy, anxiety, hate. Where there is jealousy, there is ( a potential for ?) hate. Is that love? Has hate any relationship with love? Is love the opposite of hate? Is the good the opposite of that which is not good?

Ask these (uncomfortable ?) questions sirs (for homework ?) . If hate is the opposite of love, then hate has its root in love. So please examine your own life, not listen to what the speaker is saying. Examine, each one of you, your own life honestly and ask these questions. Desire, pleasure, attachment, jealousy, anxiety, fear of losing, is all that love?
(And if they are not ?) can you be (get ?) free of your attachment (ASAP ?) not at the last moment when death is there (in your neighbourhood ?) ? Can you end attachment to another? See the ( psycho- karmical ?) implications of attachment, the consequences of attachment. Fear, anxiety, jealousy - where there is jealousy there is fear, hate, anger and more, when there is attachment, and is all that love? And what is the relationship between love and compassion, or they are the (part of the ?) same movement? Is love the highest expression of Compassion?

You may do social work, help the poor, out of pity, out of sympathy, out of charity, but is all that love and compassion? So in understanding the nature of love, having that quality, which is "mind in the heart", that is, Intelligence, Intelligence is (coming with ) the understanding or the discovering of what love is. This Intelligence has nothing whatsoever to do with thought, with cleverness or knowledge. Intelligence goes with Love and Compassion. And you cannot come upon it as a (self-centred ?) 'individual'; Compassion is not yours or mine, where there is Intelligence, there is no 'me' and 'you'. And intelligence does not abide in your heart or your mind, that Intelligence, which is supreme is everywhere. It is that Intelligence that moves the earth and the heavens and the stars because that is compassion.

We ought to talk over together what is ( the inner significance of ?) death - what is 'life', what is 'death', and 'who' is it that dies? We are not talking of the physical ending of the organism, but why we have (inwardly) separated from life from death? There is (in between) a (continuous) interval of forty, fifty or a hundred years. We want to prolong (stretch ?) our lives as long as possible. Modern medicine, surgery, health and all that can help to prolong one's life. (I do not know for what, but one wants to prolong it).

So what is Life - your life, or the life of the universe, life of the earth, life as nature, this vast movement without a beginning and without an end? Are we talking about that Life or about 'your' life ? If you are talking about 'your' life, what is that life (made of ?) ? Going to the office from morning till night for fifty, sixty years, breeding children and conflicts from morning till night: conflict as ( in pursuit of ?) pleasure, conflict as fear and desire. This is your life. Are talking about, the ending of that life? (If yes, then ?) what is important: what lies beyond death, or the long series of incidents of life in your life? What is important: before or after death? Life, the beauty of it, the energy of it, the passion of it, the immensity of it, which you have reduced to a shallow 'my life'.

So, are you concerned about (what happens with ?) the 'me' that is going to die?
What is the 'me', what is the 'you'? Is it a series of (personal memories & ?) words? Is it your name, your form, how you look, your bank account, your ideals, your beliefs, your experiences? So is that ( personal memory pack ?) what you are frightened of 'dying'? So we are asking what is it that dies, and what is it that clings to (its personal ?) life -going to office, sex, pain, pleasure, fighting each other, quarrelling, destroying each other. This is your life, whether you are young or old. Is that what you are afraid of ending? Or are you considering life as a whole, the life of the universe, which is so immense, so vast, so incalculable? That Life is (present) there, as well as here, as well as in this little life you have - this 'anxiety' (daily worrying ?) , this conflict, this misery, with occasional spurts of joy and clarity.
So please, enquire what you 'are' (attached to ?) , to what (your) thought clings, to the 'image' you have built about yourself. Your 'self'- (consciousness ?) is built through time, from the moment you are born till now. And you accept (assume that ?) this 'me' has a reality - a series of (nice sounding ?) words, a series of memories, accidental experiences which are all put together by ( the self-centred ?) thought, and that (self-conscious ?) 'me' is holding on to all this travail of life.
And if you are not 'holding' it, then life is something totally different: it is a vast incalculable movement. But that can only be seen when the 'self'-(conscious 'me' ) is not (around ?)

Now we are together going to examine what is 'meditation', not 'how' to meditate, but what is the nature, the quality, the beauty of meditation.
The word 'meditation' means to think (thoughtfully ?) , to ponder, and also it means to measure (myself) I am this, I must be that. I am comparing myself with you, how clever, beautiful, lovely, and I am not, that is measurement. Following an (enlightened ?) 'example' is (the result of such ?) a measurement. And wherever there is comparison psychologically, meditation cannot be.
So (a few clues about how ?) to meditate: (a) in meditation there must be no (sense of ) effort. I have been told the meaning of the word 'mantra' is to ponder over 'non- becoming', and to absolutely deny all self-centred activity. I believe that is the root meaning of that word: not becoming and totally not living in a self-centred way.
(b) Meditation is to live a 'diligent' life. Meditation is not (to be separated ?) from daily living, going off into a little corner, meditating for twenty minutes every day or every afternoon, every evening - that meditation is so totally separate from your daily living.
So (c) ( as homework ?) find out whether it is possible to live a daily life of meditation, which means no measurement at any time.
and (d) In ( a holistic approach of ?) meditation there is no (necessity for thought-) control, because the controller 'is' (not separated from ?) the 'controlled'. In meditation there is no (legitimate place for ?) 'will' because the essence of desire is will - 'I will meditate, I will practice this day after day, discipline'.
(In a nutshell ?) In meditation there is no effort at all because there is no controller.
(e) And ( experientially wise ?) meditation implies 'awareness': awareness of the earth, the beauty of the earth, the dead leaf, the dying dog, the dog that is diseased, to be aware of your environment; to be aware of your neighbour; to be (sensitively ?) aware of the beauty of the wind among the leaves; ( not to mention ?) to be choicelessly aware of your thoughts, your feelings - just to be aware. That hightens your sensitivity.
(f) To observe diligently everything. When you say, I will do something, do it, never forgetting what you have said. Do not say something you don't mean. That is part of meditation.
And (g) when you are so aware, then there is ( the presence of ?) attention. To 'attend' not only to the speaker but to what your wife is telling you, or your husband is telling you or your children are telling you, what the politicians are telling you - their trickery, their search for power, position; to attend. When you so profoundly attend, there is no centre as the 'me -who- attends'. That is also ( an essential aspect of ?) meditation.

And if the mind has moved that far, then what is 'religion'? Religion is none of these rituals, the beliefs that are put together by thought, which is a material process and you worship that which thought has created, which is what you have created. So a 'religious' man does not belong to any group, to any religion, has no belief, because his mind is free, unafraid, because Intelligence is the highest form of (inner) security, the Intelligence of Compassion. That Intelligence has no doubts, no uncertainties , no fears, which is something immense.
And (h) where there is attention, there is 'silence' - in that quality of (undivided ?) attention there is great silence, unfathomable silence. That 'silence' has never been touched by thought. And only then, That which man has searched from times immemorial, that 'something sacred', nameless, supreme. It is only that mind that is utterly free from all the travails of life, it is only such a mind that can find the supreme. That means meditation is the expression of daily activity.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 24 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 May 2017 #585
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline


The three 'series' of K's Commentaries on Living were my first Experiential Bible- there is an immanent sense of an 'unknown mystery' in their very simplicity and beauty of expression . But in terms of my own inner experience they proved to be rather 'slippery'- the deeper message seemed encrypted in the beauty & simplicity of K's holistic language. So here's just an personal attempt to 'see through the veil'


Q: Do you think being a social worker is ( an indication of our cultural ?) conditioning? Does it only bring about further conflict?

K: Let us find out what we mean by 'conditioning'. Are
we ever aware of it? Or we are aware of (its resulting ?) conflicts, of a 'struggle' at various levels of your being? Surely, we are conscious only of (the inner) conflict.

Q: What do you mean by 'conflict'?

K: The (inner ?) struggle between (opposite desires ?) ideas, beliefs, ideologies. And is not such conflict inevitable as long as there is no integration between the (thinking ?) 'actor' and his (thought of ?) 'action', between challenge and response? Conflict is our problem, is it not?

Q: Are you suggesting that we should all seek a life of contemplation?”

K: Contemplation is arduous, it is one of the most difficult things to understand. ( For the moment ?) we are trying to understand what are the factors of ( inner ?) conditioning. What makes for conditioning?

Q: Social or environmental influences: the (cultural pressures of the ?) society in which we were born, the economic and political pressures, and so on.

K: That is so; but is that all? Society is the outcome of man’s relationship with man, a relationship based on (reciprocal) use, of comfort, of gratification, and it creates influences, 'values' that bind us. This binding is our (social ?) conditioning. But we are (also psychologically ?) bound by our own thoughts and actions ; but we are not aware that we are bound, we are only aware of the ( resulting ?) conflicts of pleasure and pain.
(In short ?) We are not aware of our (own psychological ?) conditioning, and until we are (becoming aware of it ?) ,
we can only produce further conflict and confusion.

Q: How is one to become aware of this conditioning?

K: It is possible only by (an experiential ?) understanding of the process of (psychological) attachment. If we can
understand (how and ?) why we are attached, then perhaps we can be (responsibly ?) aware of our conditioning.

Q: Isn’t that rather a long (and roundabout ?) way to approach a direct question?

K: Is it? Just try to be aware of your (un-conscious ?) conditioning. You can only know it indirectly, in its relation ( interactions with ?) something else. ( So, for starters?) we can only ( become?) aware of (inner & outer ?) conflicts.
The (resulting state of inner) conflict is the result of our conditioning. Our conditioning is (the result of our psychological ?) attachment: attachment to our tradition, property, to people, to ideas and so on. If there
were no (psychological ?) attachment, would there be any conditioning? Of course not. So why are we (getting ?) 'attached'? Because through the attachment with my work, with my family, with my property, I become 'someone', (I am creating the protective sense of an 'identity' ?) and (subsequently ?) 'my' work, 'my' family, 'my' property become important.

( In short ?) The objects of my attachment offer me the means of ( a very safe ?) escape from my own 'emptiness' (inner nothingness ?) . Attachment is (a temporal) escape, and it is (this desire to ?) escape that strengthens conditioning. If I am getting attached to you, 'you' have become the means of escape from myself; therefore 'you' are (becoming) very important to 'me' and I must hold on to you. ( Later on the effect becomes cause and ?) you become the (new ?) conditioning factor, and (our ?) escape is the (new active factor of ?) conditioning.
(In a nutshell ?) If we can become aware of our ('psycho-) escapes', we can then ( have the opportunity to ?) perceive the factors, that make for our conditioning.

Q: Am I 'escaping from myself' through social work?

K: ( Here's the checkpoint :) Are you 'attached' to it, would you feel lost, empty, bored, if you did not do your social work?

Q: I am sure I would.

K: (Therefore ?) the attachment to your work is your (main psychological ?) escape. ( Not to mention that ?) there are ( a lot of similar ?) 'escapes' at all the levels of our being - religious ceremonies, knowledge, God, and .... amusements. ( Basically ?) all (our psychologically motivated ?) 'escapes' are the same. ( Searching for ?) 'God' and 'drink' are on the same level as long as they are escapes from (facing ?) what we are. When we are becoming aware (that they are psychological ?) escapes, only then can we know of our conditioning.

Q: What shall I do if I cease to 'escape' through social work?
Is not all my (outward ?) action a form of escape from what I am?

K: Does your question reflect an 'actuality', a 'fact' which you are experiencing? If you did not escape, what would happen? Have you ever tried it?

Q: What you are saying is so 'negative', if I may say so. You don’t offer any substitute for work.

K: To replace one ('escape' ?) activity by another without understanding ( the deeper causes of why you want to ?) escape is rather futile, is it not? It is these ( self-projected ?) escapes and our (subsequent ?) attachment to them that make for ( our psychological ?) 'conditioning'. ( Acting from the safe background of this ?) conditioning brings 'problems' & conflicts. It is conditioning that prevents our understanding of Life's challenges; being (safely settled in our ?) conditioning, our responses must inevitably create conflict.

Q: How can one be free from conditioning?

K: Only by (becoming or ?) aware of our (psychologically sticky ?) 'escapes': our attachment to a (particular) person, to our work, to an (award winning ?) ideology, is the conditioning factor. This is the first thing we have to understand, that all (such 'psycho-) escapes' are 'unintelligent', as they (will eventually ?) inevitably bring about conflict.
The understanding of 'what (one) is' and an adequate action only when the mind is no longer (busy with ?) seeking any escape. The very (attempt of the 'thinker' to ) 'think about what is' is another escape from (directly seeing ?) what is. The (self-centred ?) mind, unwilling to deal directly with 'what it is', seeks (instinctively) these various escapes; and (its 'natural' ?) way to escape is... by thinking .

( In a nutshell ?) Freedom from conditioning comes with the freedom from ( the ages old habit of indulging in our 'dualistic' way of ?) thinking'. When the (thinking ?) mind is utterly still, only then is there (the inner space of ?) freedom for the Real to Be.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 26 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 May 2017 #586
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline

Continuing to 'unzip' K's Commentaries on Living


HOW NECESSARY it is to die each day, to die each minute to ( one's attachments to ?) the (memory of the ?) many yesterdays and to the moment that has just gone by!
Without ( this psychological disengaging, aka: ?) 'death' there is no renewing; without death (the ending of the past ?) there is no (new ?) creation. The burden of ( the psychological memory of the ?) past gives birth to its own continuity, and the worries of yesterday gives new life to the worry of today.
( In a nutshell ?) 'Yesterday' perpetuates (itself ) 'today', and ( our projection of ?) 'tomorrow' is still (rooted in ?) 'yesterday'. There is no release from this continuity (of our psychological time ?) except in 'death'. In dying (to 'yesterday' ?) there is joy.
This new morning, fresh and clear, is free from the
darkness of yesterday; the song of that bird is heard for the first lime, and the noise of those children
is not (exactly the same as ?) that of yesterday. We (un-consciously ?) carry the memory of yesterday, and it darkens our (inner) being. As long as our mind is ( working as ?) a (repetitive ?) machine of memory, it knows no rest, no quietude, no silence; it is constantly wearing itself out. That (psyche ?) which is still can be reborn, but anything that is (trapped ?) in constant activity wears out and is (becoming ?) useless. The well-spring ( of inner renewal ?) is in ending, and (therefore ?) 'death' is as near as life.


She had studied for a number of years with one of the famous psychologists and had been analysed by him, which had taken considerable time. Though she had been brought up
as a Christian, but had also studied Hindu philosophy and its teachers, she had never joined any particular group or associated herself with any system of thought.
As always, she was still dissatisfied, and put aside psychoanalysis; and now she was engaged in some kind of
welfare work. She had been married and had known all the misfortunes of family life as well as its (passing ?) joys.
She had taken refuge in the warm delight of this country by the blue ( Mediteranean ?) Sea, (but her ?) sorrows had multiplied and she had never been able to go beyond a certain depth, and it was not very deep.


K: Almost everything (we are doing inwardly ) is shallow and soon comes to an end, only to begin again with a further shallowness. The "inexhaustible" ( spring of our inner being ?) is not to be discovered through any activity of the mind.

Q: I have studied certain subjects fairly deeply; but somehow, after all these years, I am still on the fringe of things, I don’t seem able to penetrate beyond a certain point; I want to go deeper, but I cannot. My (present) conditioning is of the beneficent kind: doing good to others, helping the needy, consideration, generosity, and so on; but it is (time-) binding, like any other conditioning. My problems to be free, not only of this conditioning, but of all conditioning, and to go beyond. This has become an imperative necessity, not only from hearing your (revolutionary ?) talks, but also from my own observation and experience.

K: Why did you engage in welfare or in any other kind of (social ?) work? Have you asked yourself the reason for all these activities?

Q: I have always wanted to help people , to do good, and it wasn’t just empty sentimentality. I have found that the ( bourgeois ?) people with whom I live are not 'real', but only masks; it is those who need help that are 'real'. Living with the 'masked' is ( pretty boring ?) and stupid, but (living ?) with the others there is also struggle, pain. One must
live and act, and my conditioning has been to act as decently as possible. But before we go any further, let me say that I am a solitary person; though I see many people, I am alone and I like it. There is something exhilarating in being alone.

K: To be (inwardly ?) "alone", in the highest sense (of all-one ?) , is essential; but the aloneness of withdrawal gives a sense of invulnerability. Such 'aloneness' is a refuge. But isn’t
it important to find out why you have never asked yourself the (real ?) reason for all your 'good activities'? Shouldn’t you inquire into that?

Q: Yes, let us do so. Is it the fear of inner solitude that has made me do all these things ?

K: Outwardly you don’t mind being alone, but from inner solitude you turn away. What is it that you are afraid of?

Q: Of this inner solitude ?

K: You cannot be afraid of inner solitude, because you have never looked at it; you are only measuring ( or evaluating the pro's & con's of ?) it now with what you already know.
You 'know your worth' as a mother, as a capable and
efficient person, and you also know the worth of your outer solitude. So it is in relation to ( sticking to ?) all this 'known' that you approach the (uncertain experience ?) of 'inner solitude'; the (mind established in the ?) 'known' looking at the 'unknown' - it is this ( 'time' projecting ?) activity that causes fear.

Q: Yes, that sounds perfectly true. I am comparing this 'inner solitude' with the other things I know through my past experience. It is (hanging on to ?) these experiences that are causing fear of something I have really not experienced
at all.

K: So your fear is really not of (facing) the inner solitude, but the ( personal memory of the ?) past is afraid of (dealing with ?) something it does not know, which it has not experienced before. The (active memory of the ?) past wants to ( safely ?) absorb the "new", and make of it another ( transcendental personal ?) experience.
But can this ( personal memory of the ?) past, which is 'you' (the 'knowledgeable experiencer') , experience the Unknown? The 'known' can only experience only that which is of (the same material nature as ?) itself, it can never experience the New, the Unknown. So, by giving the Unknown a name, by calling it 'inner solitude', you have (safely) recognized it verbally, and the 'word' ( along with its mental processing ?) ais taking the place of (direct ) experiencing; for the words are the (self- protective ?) screen of fear.
( In a nutsell:) Terming it as ‘inner solitude’ is covering the ( actual) fact , the 'what is', and the very word is creating fear.

Q: But then, why I'm not able to look directly at it ?

K: Let us first understand (a) "why" we are not capable of looking at the fact, and (b) 'what' is preventing our being passively watchful of it.

(a) The 'known', ( all your ?) past experience, is trying to 'absorb' (incorporate the new experience of ?) what it calls 'inner solitude'; but it cannot 'experience' it , for it does not know what it is; it knows the term, but not what is behind the term.
(In a nutshell:) The Unknown cannot be 'experienced' ( by a mind rooted in the known ?) . 'You' ( the 'thinker' behind your ?) thought cannot comprehend it, for thought is the outcome of the 'known', of our (past) experience. As
thought cannot 'know' the Unknown, it is afraid of it ( keeps a safe distance ?) . There will be this fear (of the Unknown) as long as ( our self-centred process of ?) thought desires to
experience, (to avoid ?) or to 'understand' the Unknown.

Q: Then what... ?

K: Please 'listen'. If you listen rightly (with the 'mind - in - the -heart' ?) , the "truth" of all this will be ( hopefully ?) seen, and then (the seeing of the ?) truth will bring its own action.

Whatever ( your self-centred ?) thought (is trying to do ) with regard to this 'inner solitude' is a (subliminal form to ?) avoid (facing ?) 'what is'. In avoiding 'what is', thought creates its own (safe screen of ?) conditioning which prevents the (direct ?) experiencing of the 'new', of the Unknown. Fear is the only (safe ?) response of thought to the Unknown.

( For homework :) Just see ( the truth ?) that thought cannot operate upon the Unknown, upon 'what is' behind the term ‘inner solitude’. Only then does the 'what is' unfold itself, and it is inexhaustible. If one may suggest, you have 'heard' it , and let that work as it will. ( For the totality of the mind ?) to be still after 'tilling and sowing' is to give birth to Creation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 May 2017 #587
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K.: Whatever ( your self-centred ?) thought (is trying to do ) with regard to this 'inner solitude' is a (subliminal form to ?) avoid (facing ?) 'what is'. In avoiding 'what is', thought creates its own (safe screen of ?) conditioning which prevents the (direct ?) experiencing of the 'new', of the Unknown. Fear is the only (safe ?) response of thought to the Unknown.

We 'want' to see, experience the 'new', but only if we can see it through the 'old'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 May 2017 #588
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
But basically, the 'experiencer' experiencing or the 'thinker' thinking are materially safe modes and we apply them almost automatically in the inner experience. The result is a perceptive blank

Yes, I was also struck in the first 'commentaries' you put up...our avoidance (fear) of our 'nothingness' to the extent that so many of our actions, though accepted as normal in the society are actually 'escapes' from 'what is'. All our psychological attachments for example.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 27 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 May 2017 #589
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
it even calls for faith which doesn't go with the teachings,

I noted his use of the word 'faith' in a 1929 talk that Jan put up a while back. That what is necessary for us to have is a "faith of certainty" that we have in us the "potentiality" for this transformation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 May 2017 #590
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
avoidance to look directly at the fact-

Which strangely enough equates in our brain to 'death'. That the 'fact' can exist without 'us' is unpalatable...who would be 'there' to experience it, to name it, to commit it to memory, to re-cognize it...that is what we understand 'living' to be, the past modifying the present. As you say that is where the 'safety' is imagined to be. Is this our situation that the ancient poet was describing when he wrote "gave up his birthright for a mess of pottage"?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 27 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 May 2017 #591
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline

Continuing to 'unzip' K's Commentaries on Living


SHE WAS A teacher, or rather had been one. She was affectionate and kindly, and this had almost become a routine. She said she had taught for over twenty-five years and had been happy in it . Only recently she had suddenly discovered it during one of the (K group ) discussions, that she really 'hated' - not anyone in particular - but there was a suppressed antagonism towards everyone and everything. What shocked her was that she had always thought she was affectionate and kind.


K: Love is a strange thing; as long as thought is woven through it, it is not (really) 'love'. Thought is (based on ?) sensation, and sensation is not love. The very process of ( our self-centred ?) thinking is the denial of love. Love is the flame without the (mental ?) smoke of thought, of jealousy, of antagonism, of usage, which are things of the (thinking) mind. As long as the heart is burdened with the things of the mind, there must be (frustration, resentment or even ?) hate; for the (self-centred ?) mind is the seat of antagonism, of opposition, of conflict. Thought is always in competition, always seeking an end, success; its fulfilment is pleasure and
its frustration is hate.

Q: You see, I always thought I loved the children, and even when they grew up they used to come to me for comfort when they were in trouble. I took it for granted that I loved them,
especially those who were my favorites away from the classroom; but now I see there has always been an undercurrent of hate, of deep-rooted antagonism. What am I to do with this ( pretty sad ?) discovery?

K: Have you also discovered the process of hate, did you observe it as you would a strange new animal? To see the cause, to know why you hate, is comparatively easy; but are you aware of the ways of hate?

Q: It is all so new to me, and I have never watched the process of hate.

K: Let us do so now - be passively watchful of hate as it unrolls itself. Hate is (the result of some ?) form of frustration, is it not? ( The desire for self - ?) fulfilment and frustration always go together.

Q: I can see now that in school and in almost all my relationships, there was a 'war' (zone ?) going on, only it was covered up. To become the 'ideal teacher' was my goal, and I was being recognized as such.

K: The stronger the (involvement in our ?) 'ideal', the deeper the suppression , the deeper the conflict and antagonism.

Q: Yes, I see all that now; and strangely, as I watch, I don’t mind being what I actually am.

K: You don’t mind it because there is a kind of brutal recognition (of an actual fact ) , is there not? There is ( a certain ?) pride in knowing (more about oneself) - but you are (still) caught in the net of your own thought, are you not?

Q: Yes, but then, what else can one do?

K: Watch the process of your own thinking ? How cunning and deceptive it is! It promises release, but only produces another crisis, another antagonism. Just be passively watchful of this and let the truth of it (unfold ?) .

Q: Will there be freedom from jealousy, from hate, from this constant, suppressed inner battle?

K: When you are hoping this, you are again projecting your own desire (in the future) ; you will succeed (or not ?) in your desire, but that is only another substitution, and so the battle is on again. This desire to gain or to avoid (psychologically ?) is still within the field of opposition, is it not?
( For homework: ?) See the false as the 'false', then the ( inner unfolding of the ?) truth is (taking place ?) . You don’t even have to look for it. Just be passively (no-personally ?) aware of this total (desire & time-?) thought process, and also of the desire to be free of it.

Q: I am beginning to see the truth of what you are saying.
I hope it won’t take many more years to go beyond this inner conflict....There I go, hoping again! I shall better watch it silently and.... see what happens.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 May 2017 #592
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
As I see it, 'avoid' and 'fear' are emotional reactions to 'what is', it isn't thought that is doing it at all. Thought analyses, that is, in order to make sense of what is happening, it looks at the different aspects of the present situation. Thought isn't an entity in itself, each one of us with all the conditioning that we carry and which we call me, is the entity, so it is the me that is responsible for the escape and the fear, not just thought.

I don't see how you are separating the "me" from thought. Without thought is there a 'thinker', a 'me'? Or is it the process of thinking that revitalizes that 'bundle of memories', called the 'self' or 'me'? Yes thought analyses what is received through the senses according to its memory but what it seems it is unable to do is to 'stop' when there is no 'need' for such analyses. It won't allow the new, the 'what is' to "unfold". For some reason it fears not being there at the 'new' so it inadvertently 'corrupts' the 'new' because 'thought' is the look out on a brand new morning, brand new birdsong, brand new breezes etc., do you sense the newness of it as it is unfolding, never seen before, or is it just 'another' morning, pretty enough but thought has already moved off to its own things? That 'automatic' operation of thought (when it is not called for) seems to me to be something we are so 'attached' to, this veil that is so habitual to us that we rarely notice it's near-constant operation. I think John has referred to it as being the 'default mode' (the 'safe' zone)? It allows an 'escape' from the present through its 'invention' of psychological time. But psychologically for each of us there is no such thing as 'time' only the "unfolding" present moment which thought is (through fear?) constantly "avoiding".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 May 2017 #593
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
Thought isn't an entity, it can't fear, can it?

On occasion K.has said the "thought is fear". That is striking isn't it? Not that there is a 'me' that is thinking and then I, the 'thinker' become fearful about something...I have an appointment tomorrow say, there is an image of me there and it goes wrong and now I am in fear of that taking place...but the 'image', the thought of bad things happening is the 'fear'. The image itself is the fear. That there is someone, a 'me' separate and apart from that process is the illusion of thought isn't it?

We're probably talking about the same thing but the words are different. Given we all face the same 'problem' as humans, why is it that we don't 'understand' it and can 'think' about it in the same way?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 May 2017 #594
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline

A HOLISTIC VIEW ON BOREDOM (unzipping K's Commentaries on Living)

How necessary it is for the mind to purge itself of all thought, to be simply 'empty' (as nothing) ; to die to all thought, to all of yesterday’s memories, and to the (expectations for the ) coming
hour! When the mind purges itself of all (psychological activities of ?) thought, only then is there the (rich ?) silence of Creation. ( However ?) there is no such 'purgation' of the mind if (thought) is (surreptitiously ?) weaving the pattern of its own becoming.


She said she had always been active in one way or another, either with her children, or in social affairs, or in sports; but behind this activity there was always a (sense of ) boredom, pressing and constant. She was bored with the routine of ( her upper middle class ?) life, with pleasure, pain, flattery, and everything else. Boredom was like a cloud that had hung over her life for as long as she could remember. She had tried to escape from it, but every new interest soon became a further boredom, a deadly weariness.

K: (...) You wouldn’t have come (all the way to) here if you didn’t want something. You want to be free of boredom. But as I cannot give you that freedom, you will (probably) get bored again; but (if for a change ?) we can together understand the process of (mental) acquisition, of (our limited self-) interest, of boredom, then perhaps there will be freedom.

( As a rule of thumb :) Possessions make the mind (of the possessor ?) weary. Acquisition, whether of knowledge, of property, of virtues, makes for insensitivity. The (very) nature of our ( time-bound ? ) mind is to acquire, to absorb, is it not? Or rather, the pattern it has created for itself is one of gathering in; but in that very activity the mind is preparing its own weariness, boredom. Interest, curiosity, is the beginning of ( a further process of personal ) acquisition, which soon becomes boredom, so the mind goes from (an old ) boredom to ( a new) interest and to (further) boredom again, till it is utterly weary; and these successive waves of interest and weariness are regarded as (natural in all human) existence.

Q: But how is one to be free from (the habit of) acquiring without further acquisition of (some higher knowledge ?) ?

K: Only by allowing the truth (regarding) this whole process of acquisition to be (exposed and) experienced, and not by tryingto be 'non-acquisitive' or 'detached' . The (experiential) 'difficulty' lies, not in the (intellectual ) understanding of what has been said, but in seeing this (whole process of 'psychological' acquisitiveness) as 'false'. To see the truth in the false is the beginning of wisdom.

The (other experiential ) difficulty is for the (thinking ) mind to be still; for this mind is always after something, acquiring or denying, searching and finding. The mind is never still, it is (personally engaged ) in a continuous movement : the (stand-by memory of the ) past, over-shadowing the present, makes its own future. It is a movement in time, and there is hardly ever an interval between (two trains of ) thoughts. One (train of ?) thought follows (or overlaps ) another without a pause; as we are always afraid of coming to an end.

But, (the inwardly creative ?) living is ( involving ?) the 'dying' to all (such psychological) acquisitions - to the (attachment to our ) past memories, to our experiences, to the past. How can there be (a newness ) living if there is (this constant recycling of our past) experience? This experience is stored as knowledge, as (personal) memory; but in the state of directly experiencing, is there (the interference of past ?) memory as the 'experiencer'?

The purgation of the mind (of its psychological content), is (an intrinsical part of inner ) Creation. Beauty is in (the timeless act of) "experiencing", not in (the past accumulations of ) experience; for (the craving for new ?) experiences is ever of the past, and (recycling the experiences of ?) the past is not (leading to a creative) living.
The purgation of the mind ( of its psychological residues ?) is (bringing a deep ) tranquillity of heart.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 29 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 May 2017 #595
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline


He was eager to find out how to subdue the mind. He said that he had deliberately withdrawn from the world and was living very simply with some relatives, devoting his time to the overcome the (agitation of his ?) mind. He had practiced a certain (method of self-) discipline for a number of years, but his mind was always ready to wander off, like an animal on a leash. He had starved himself, but that did not help; he had experimented with his diet, and that had helped a little, but there was never any peace (of mind) . His mind was forever throwing up images, conjuring
up past scenes, sensations and incidents; or it would think of how it would be quiet tomorrow. But that 'tomorrow' never came, and the whole process became quite nightmarish. On very rare occasions
the mind was quiet, but the quietness soon became a memory, a thing of the past.

K: What is (temporarily ?) overcome must be conquered again and again. The very desire to conquer is to give birth to further conflict. Why do you want to conquer and calm the mind?

Q: I have always been interested in religious matters; I have studied the various religions, and they all say that to know God the mind must be still. Ever since I can remember I have always wanted to find God, the pervading beauty of the world, the beauty of the rice field and the dirty village. I had a very promising career, had been abroad and all that kind of thing; but one morning I just 'walked out' to find that (inner) stillness. I heard what you said about it (in a talk) the other day, and so I have come.

K: Is the 'calmness of mind' the coin which will open the gates of Heaven? You want to 'buy your way to God' to Truth, but can you buy the Eternal through virtue, through renunciation, through mortification? It’s just a bargain, isn’t it? Your ‘virtue’ is a means to an end.

Q: But obviously some inner discipline is necessary to curb the mind, otherwise there is no peace. I have just not disciplined
it sufficiently; it’s my fault, not the fault of the discipline.

K: Discipline is a means to ( obtain a desired ?) end. But ( what ?) if the end is the 'unknown' ? Truth cannot be 'known'; if it is known, it is not ( the living ?) truth. If you can measure the Immeasurable, then it is not (immeasurable anymore ?) Our (mental) measurement is ( based on ?) words, and the word is not the real. (Experientially speaking ?) the end is determined by the means.
You used self- discipline, control, as a means to gain inner tranquillity, but is not ( the enforced ?) discipline, in its very nature, ( a subtle act of ?) violence? Doesn't (an imposed self-) discipline imply the suppression of 'what is' in order to achieve a desired end? Such suppression or sublimation only brings about further conflict. You may succeed in suppressing a disease, but it will continue to appear in different forms until it's (actual cause) is eradicated.

( Self-imposed ?) discipline is a (psychological) form of violence; so through ‘wrong’ means we hope to gain the ‘right’ end ?
Freedom (from the 'psychological burden' of the past ?) is at the beginning, not at the end; the first step (in the discovery of truth) must be free, and not the last. ( An imposed self-) discipline
implies the compulsory ( action of desire ?) and (in its shadow ?) it there is fear. Can there be ( any intelligent action of ?) love through fear? Love is when there is no fear at any level.

Q: But without some kind of self- discipline, how can the (intelligent and loving ?) mind function at all?

K: Have you never noticed that there is ( an insightful ?) understanding only when the ( activity of the ?) mind, as thought, is not functioning? Understanding comes with the
ending of the ( self-centred ?) thought process, in the (silent ?) interval between two thoughts. If we can be "simple" in our (inward ?) watchfulness, we shall understand; but our
approach is so complex (and fragmented ?) that it prevents (a global) understanding.
We are concerned with the (understanding & ) ending of ( the self-centred process of ?) thought itself. Now, what do we
mean when we say that "the mind wanders"? Simply that thought is everlastingly enticed from one attraction to another, from one association to another, and is in a constant (state of ) agitation.
So, is it possible for ( this hectic activity of ?) thought to come to an end?

Q: That is exactly my problem: I want to end (this endless movement of my ?) thought. I can see now the futility of (any self-imposed) discipline; I really see the falseness of it, and I won’t pursue that line any more. But... how can I end thought?

K: You ask "How can I put an end to thought ?". But are you, the 'thinker', an entity separated from your thoughts? Are you not your own thoughts? ( The routinely process of ?) thought may place the 'thinker' at a very high (commanding ?) level and (surreptitiously ?) separate itself from 'him' ( or from 'her' for a 'she-thinker' ?) ; yet the 'thinker' is still (enfolded ?) within the process of thought, is he not?

There is only ( a multi-level process of self-centred ?) thought, and (this grassroots) 'thought' gives form to the 'thinker' as a permanent, separate entity. ( The self-centred process of ?) thought sees itself to be impermanent, in constant flux, so it breeds a (subliminal identification with a presumed ?) 'thinker' (- in- chief ?) as a permanent entity apart from itself. ( Once the 'thinker-thinking' mode of operation is set up ?) the ( virtual ?) 'thinker' operates (in total safety ?) on its (own) thought. There is only (a multi-level ?) process of thinking, there is no (actual) 'thinker' apart from thought. The ( direct seeing and ?) experiencing of this truth is vital: there are only thoughts, and not an (isolated ?) 'thinker' who thinks thoughts.

Q: But then, how did thought arise originally?

K: Through (sensory) perception, contact, ( processing of) sensation, desire and identification; ‘I want’, ‘I don’t want’, and so on. That is fairly simple (to explain verbally ?) , is it not?
However, our (1,000 $ ?) problem is, "How can thought end?"

(Step 1:) When it is clearly seen that there is no separate entity as the 'thinker', then there are only thoughts, the process of ( our everyday) thinking. This 'thinking' is the (mechanistic ?) response
of ( a stand-by) memory, of our whole experience of the past.
( Step 2 ) This again must be perceived, not on the verbal level, but
there must be a (direct) expericencing of it.
(Step 3) then only is there ( the awakening of ?) a "passive watchfulness", a (non-personal quality of ?) "awareness" in which ( the 'personal' interference of ?) thought is entirely absent.
(Step 4) The (egocentric ?) mind, the self- centred consciousness which is ever (living in the memory of ) the past is not projecting ( and/or reconstructing ?) itself (in time) ; and ( another name for ?) this projection is "the desire to become".

(Step 5 ) The mind is now 'empty' (of its 'psychological' content ?) and thought is not ( around anymore ?) .

( Reviewing steps 1-5 ) Thought cannot 'come to an end' save through a passive watchfulness of every (activity of ?) thought. In this awareness there is no 'watcher' and no 'censor'; there is only (a state of integrated ? ) "experiencing" in which there is neither the 'experiencer' nor the 'experienced'.

(Step 6) Only when the mind is ( in this state of non-dualistic ?) "experiencing" is there ( the sense of authentic inner ?) stillness, a Silence which is not put together; and only in that (inner) tranquillity can the Real come into being. This ( innermost ?) 'Reality' is not of Time and is not measurable.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 May 2017 #596
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline

Continuing to 'unzip' K's Commentaries on Living:


He was a school principal with several college degrees. He had been very keenly interested in 'education', but now he had lost ( contact with ?) the Spring of Life. He carried on with his duties almost mechanically, going through his daily routines with weary boredom; there was no longer any zest in what he did, and the drive which he had once felt was completely gone. He had been religiously inclined and had striven to bring about certain reforms in his religion, but that (Spring ) too had dried up. He saw no value in any particular action.


Q: All my (outward ) actions seem lead to ( more inward ?) confusion, creating more problems, more mischief. I have tried to act with thought(fulness ) and intelligence, but the several activities in which I have 'engaged' have all made me feel depressed, anxious and weary, and they have led nowhere. Now
the fear of doing more harm than good has caused me to withdraw from all save the minimum of action.

K: Are you afraid of the confusion that your action might create (outwardly) , or of the confusion ( accumulated ?) within yourself? If you were clear within yourself and act from that (state of inner ) clarity , would you then be fearful of the outward confusion which your action might create? Are you afraid of the confusion within or without?

Q: I have not looked at it in this way before (so, tell me more about this ?) and I must consider what you say.

K: Would you mind ( that your action is ) bringing about more (psychological ?) problems ( to others ) if you were clear in yourself? To expose our (psychological ?) problems may appear (destabilising and ?) confusing, but if you were (inwardly) clear, would your action be confusing?

Q: If I were very clear within myself, I would meet these outer problems and try to clear them up. But ( my problem is that ?) I am not clear. I have lost all incentive for action.

K: Why have you lost incentive? Have you exhausted yourself in doing things that have no fundamental interest for you? Or is it that you have not yet found out what you are genuinely interested in?

Q: You see, after college I was very keen on doing social reform, and I ardently worked at it for some years; but (eventually) I began to see the pettiness of it, so I dropped it and took up (the next best thing ?) 'education'. Then I really worked hard at education for a number of years, but that too I finally dropped because I was getting more and more confused. I was ambitious, not for myself, but for the work to succeed; but the people with whom I worked were always quarrelling, they were jealous and personally ambitious.

K: You say you were not ambitious for yourself, but only for the work to succeed. Is there any (psychological ) difference between the 'personal' and 'impersonal' ambition? You would
not consider it 'personal' to identify yourself with an ideology - you
would call that a worthy ambition - but is it? Surely you have only substituted one term for another, but the (background ) drive is still the same: you want (to achieve public recognition and financial ?) success for the work with which you got identified. You have just substituted the term 'I' ('my ambition' ?) with (educational) work , country or God, but your ambition is still at work, ruthless, jealous, feudal. So, is it because the work was not (rewarding enough or ?) successful that you dropped it?

Q: I don’t think that was it. The (material side of the educational ?) work was fairly successful, as any (outward) work is - if one gives enough time, energy and intelligence to it. I just gave it up because it led nowhere; it brought about some temporary alleviation,
but ( spiritually -wise ?) there was no fundamental and lasting change.

K: What has happened to (your) creative flame? - is that the problem?

Q: Yes, that is the problem. I had that flame once, but now it is gone.

K: Is (that Flame of Passion still there but ?) dormant, or is it 'burnt out' through (its) wrong usage so that only ashes are left?
Perhaps you have not found your real interest. Do you feel frustrated?

Q: Economically I am content with little. I have always been drawn to "religion" in the deep sense of the word, but I suppose
I wanted to be 'successful' in that field too.

K: If you are not frustrated, why aren’t you content just to 'live' ?

Q: I am not getting any younger, and I don’t want to just vegetate.

K: Let us put the problem differently. What are you interested in actually?

Q: I really don’t know...

K: Aren’t you interested in finding out?

Q: But how am I to 'find out'?

K: Is it not really important to discover for yourself in what direction your (deeper ) interest lies ? So far you have tried certain (outward) things, you have given your energy and intelligence to them, but they have not deeply satisfied you.
So, either (a) you have 'burnt yourself out' doing things that were not of fundamental interest to you, or (b) your "real" ( "true" ?) interest is still dormant, waiting to be awakened. Now which is it?

Q: Again, I don’t know. Can you help me to find out?

K: If you have 'burnt yourself out', the problem demands a certain (healing & recovery ?) approach; but if (b) your fire is (still there ?) but 'dormant', then an ( ASAP ?) awakening of it is (prioritarily ?) important. Now which is it? (Seeing) the truth (regarding) 'what is' is (bringing ) its own (inwardly clarifying ?) action.

( In a nutshell:) (a) If you are 'burnt out', then it is a matter of lying creatively fallow. This 'creative fallowness' follows (naturally) the movement of 'cultivating' and 'sowing'; it is ( an interval of creative ?) inaction (necessary) for the future complete action.
Or it may be ( an intermingling with case (b) namely ?) that your Real interest in Life has not yet been awakened (either) .

Please 'listen' and find out (the truth of it for yourself ?) . If the intention to 'find out' is there, you will find out (the experiential answer ?) by being clear and (sticking to ?) in your intention. Then you will see that during the waking hours there is (the unfolding of ?) an alert (inward) watchfulness in which you are picking up every intimation of that latent interest, and dreams also play a part in it . In other words, the (right) intention sets going the mechanism of (inner) discovery.

Q: But how do I know that what I may discover to be my 'real interest' won’t also peter out?

K: There is no ( K label of ?) 'guarantee', of course; but there will ( be a learning opportunity for exercising ?) an alert watchfulness to discover the Real. If I may put it this way: it is not 'you' that are seeking your real interest; but being in that "passively watchful state", the Real interest will show itself. If 'you' try to find out what your real interest is, you will choose one as against another you will weigh, calculate, judge. In this ( dualistic ?) process you only spend your (intelligent ?) energies wondering if you have chosen rightly, and so on. But when there is passive awareness, then in that ( non-personal ?) awareness comes the (true ?) movement of interest.
( For homework:) Experiment with this (in the meditative mood ?) and you will see.

Q: If I am not too hasty, I think I am beginning to sense ( what is ) my genuine interest. There is a vital quickening, a new 'élan'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 01 Jun 2017 #597
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline


How simple it is to be innocent (untouched by one's past experiences ?) ! Without innocence, it is impossible to be (creatively ?) happy. Innocence is freedom from the burden of (our past) experience. It is the (psychological) memory of (our past ?) experiences that corrupts, and not the experiencing itself. The constant effort to accumulate (goods, knowledge etc ?) and to 'become' (someone ?) destroys innocence; and without ( the inner state of ?) innocence, how can there be wisdom?


Q: I have spared no effort to 'get somewhere' in the world, and have become a very successful moneymaker; my efforts in that direction have produced the results I wanted. I have also tried
hard to make a happy affair of my family life, but you know how it is. Family life is not the same as making money or running an industry. One deals with human beings in business, but it is at a
different level. At home there is a great deal of friction with very little to show for it, and one’s efforts in this field only seem to increase the mess. I am not complaining, for that is not my nature, but the marriage system is all wrong. We marry to satisfy your sexual urges, without really knowing anything
about each other; and though we live in the same house and occasionally and deliberately produce a child, but we are like strangers to each other, and the tension that only married people know is always there. I have done what I think is my duty, but it has not produced the best results, to put it mildly.
We are both dominant and aggressive people, and it is not easy. Our efforts to cooperate have not brought about any deep companionship between us. I'd want to go much more deeply into this problem.

K: What do you mean by 'effort'?

Q: To strive after something. I have striven after money and (social) position, and I have won both. I have also
striven to have a happy family life, but this has not been very successful; but now I am struggling after something deeper.

K: We strive after achievement; we make constant efforts to become something, positively or negatively. The (hidden cause of this inner ?) struggle is to be secure in some way; (and the resulting ?) effort is really an endless battle to acquire, is it not?
We may get tired of one kind of acquisition, and turn to another; and when that is gathered, we again turn to something else. ( Our psychological) efforts involved in gathering knowledge, ( material) possessions experience, is an endless (process of ?) becoming, expanding, growing.
( However, this 'winning' mentality based on ?) efforts towards an end must always bring conflict - antagonism, opposition, resistance. Is this (psychological side effect ?) necessary?

Q: Necessary to what?

K: Let us find out. Effort at the physical level may be necessary; the (collective) effort to build a bridge, to produce petroleum, coal, and soon, may be beneficial; but without understanding ( the psychological component of this ) striving after acquisition, our
efforts at the physical level will inevitably have disastrous effects on (the world of nature and on our ) society.
Is effort at the 'psychological' level necessary or beneficial?

Q: If we made no such effort, would we not just ( become sloppy and ?) disintegrate?

K: Would we? So far, what have we produced through effort at the psychological level?

Q: Not very much, I admit. Effort has been in the wrong direction. The direction matters, and the rightly directed effort is of the greatest significance. It is because of the lack of right effort that we are in such a mess.”

K: But how do you distinguish between the right and the wrong effort? According to what criterion do you judge?

Q: My criterion is determined by what brings (productive ) results. Finally, it is the result that is important, and without the
enticement of a goal we would make no effort.

K: If the 'result' is your measure (for what is right or wrong ?) , then surely you are not concerned with the means; or are you?

Q: I will use the means according to the end. If the final end is happiness, then the 'happy means' must be found.

K: The end is ( implicitly contained ) in the means (used to achieve it ?) , is it not? So there is only the means. The means itself is the end, the result.

Q: I have never before looked at it this way, but I see that it is so.

K: So, if the 'end' is ( contained ?) in the 'means', how can there be happiness through ( a metality based on ?) conflict and antagonism? If ( our psychological) 'effort' produces more problems, more conflict, it is obviously destructive and disintegrating. And why do we make effort? Effort implies acquisition for oneself or for a group, does it not?

Q: Do you think all (personal) acquisition is baneful?

K: Let us see. Having the essential physical needs, is one thing, but isn't our (psychological) 'acquisitiveness' - in the name of family, country, or God, that is destroying a sensible and efficient organization of physical necessities for the well being of man ? We must all have adequate food, clothing and shelter, but what is it that we are seeking to acquire (inwardly ?) , apart from these things? We are also making (psychological) efforts to acquire greater
or subtle varieties of sensation, which we may call 'experience', at 'knowledge', 'love', or the "search for God or truth";

(In a nutshell) Effort is to acquire gratification, which is sensation. You have found gratification at one level, and now you are seeking it at another; and when you
have acquired it there, you will move to another level, and so keep going. This constant desire
for gratification for more and more subtle forms of sensation, is called progress, but it is ( a progress involving ?) ceaseless
conflict. The search after ever wider gratification is without end, and so there is no end to conflict antagonism, and hence no (creative ?) happiness.

Q: I see your point. You are saying that the search for gratification in any form is (leading to some psychological ?) misery.
The effort towards gratification is ( only covering up an ?) everlasting (inner) pain. But what is one to do? Give up seeking
gratification and just stagnate?

K: If one would not seek ( the personal ) gratification, is stagnation inevitable? Is the state of 'non-greed' necessarily a lifeless state? Surely, gratification at any level is ( living in the field of ?) sensation. Refinement of sensation is only the
( intellectual upgrading &) refinement of words. The words, the (mental) symbols, the 'images' do play an extraordinarily importantpart in our lives. We may no longer seek the satisfaction of physical contact, but the verbal images become very significant.
At one (lower) level we gather gratification through crude means, and at another end through means that are more subtle and refined; but the gathering of ( nice sounding) words is for the same purpose as the gathering of things, is it not? Why do we gather?

Q: Oh, I suppose it is because we are so discontented, so utterly bored with ourselves, that we will do anything to get away from our own shallowness. That is really so - and it just strikes me that I am
exactly in that position. This is rather extraordinary!

K: Our ( material & intellectual) acquisitions are a means of covering up our own (inner vacuity ?) emptiness; our minds are like hollow drums, beaten upon by every passing hand and making a lot of noise. This is the (worldly ?) life, the conflict of never satisfying
escapes and mounting (inner) misery.
Isn't it strange that we are (inwardly ?) never strictly alone - we are always with something (that needs to be done or fixed ?) with a problem, with a book, with a person; and even when we are all alone, our ( personal & collective ?) thoughts are with us.

To be (inwardly) alone and 'naked' ( or 'image free' ?) is essential. All ( our psychological ?) escapes, all gatherings, all effort to
'be' ( healthy, powerful & successful ?) or 'not to be' (the opposite ) must cease (in meditation ?) ; then only is there the the (creative ) aloneness that can receive the All-one, the measureless.

Q: How is one to stop 'escaping'?

K: By seeing the truth that all (psychological ) escapes only lead to illusion and misery. The ( very perception of this ?) truth frees; 'you' cannot do anything about it since your (deliberate ) action to 'stop escaping' is becoming another ( more subtle form of ) escape.
( In the context of meditation ?) the highest state of 'non-action' is (allowing ?) the (creative) action of Truth.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 01 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Jun 2017 #598
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 695 posts in this forum Offline


The Professor said he had been teaching for many years, ever since he graduated from college, and had a large number of students in one of the governmental institutions (mass producing standardised ) students who could pass examinations, which was what the government and the parents wanted.

Of course, there were exceptional boys who were given special opportunities, but very few had the creative flame. He was now
withdrawing from the teaching profession, for after all these years he was rather saddened by the whole thing. However well boys were (scholastically) educated, on the whole they turned out to be a stupid lot. Those who were more clever or assertive attained high positions, but behind the screen of their prestige and domination they were as petty and anxiety-ridden as the rest.


Q: The 'modern' ( standardising) educational system is a failure. Learning to read and write and acquiring various (computer ?) skills & techniques, is obviously not enough. What do you consider to
be the end purpose of education?

K: Is it not to bring about an integrated (human consciousness) ? If that is the (highest ?) purpose of any education, then we must
be clear as to whether the individual exists for society or whether society exists for the individual.
If society educates and uses the individual for its (utilitary material ) purposes, then it is not concerned with the
cultivation of an integrated human being; what it wants is a conforming and respectable citizen, and this requires only a superficial (cultural) integration. But if ( an ideal ?) society exists for the individual, then it must help educating him to be an integrated human being.

Q: What do you mean by an 'integrated human being'?

K: To answer that question one must ( take a long 'psychological' detour and ?) approach it 'obliquely'.

Q: I don’t understand what you mean.

K: To state positively what an 'integrated human being' should be could only creates an (idealised) 'example' which we will try to imitate; but when we try to copy such an example, can there be integration? Surely, imitation is ( part of the ongoing ) process of disintegration - is this not what is happening in the world? We adhere to various ideologies and attend political meetings; there is also the mass-enjoyment of sport, mass-hypnosis (of the various media) . Is this a sign of (inner ?) integration?

Q: Do you mean that (imposing any cultivated ?) 'discipline' destroys integration? What would happen if you had no discipline in a school?

K: We are trying to see what are the factors of disintegration, or what hinders (the possibility of an inner ?) integration. Is not (an imposed) 'discipline' in the sense of conformity, resistance, opposition, conflict, one of the factors of disintegration?
Why do we conform? Not only for physical security, but also for
psychological comfort, safety. Consciously or (more often ?) un-consciously, the fear of being insecure makes for
conformity both outwardly and inwardly. We must all have some kind of physical security; but isn't the fear of being psychologically insecure one of the (hidden ?) factors of disintegration?

Q: With what would you replace discipline? Without discipline there would be even greater chaos than now. Is not some form of discipline necessary for action?

K: Understanding the false as (being) false, seeing the true in the false, and seeing the true as the true, is the beginning of (an integrated ?) intelligence. It is the (wise ?) elimination of fear that is important (in the context of an integrated education?) . Fear has to be observed, studied, understood. Fear is not an abstraction; it comes into being only in relation to something, and it is this relationship that has to be understood.

Q: But in a class of many students, unless there is some kind of
discipline - or, if you prefer, 'fear' - how can there be order?

K: By having very few students and the right kind of education. This, of course, is not possible ( on a large scale ?) as long as the State is interested in mass (standardised ?) citizens.
Is not ( our whole mentality based on ?) conflict - which is another factor of (inner) disintegration?

Q: But without striving there would be no progress no advancement, no culture. Without effort, conflict, we would still be savages.

K: Perhaps (psychologically ?) we still are. But let us get on with what we were talking about. Is not conflict a sign of disintegration?

Q: What do you mean by 'conflict'?

K: Conflict is (the result of our ?) inner and outer strife (opposing desire ?) . Conflict between 'what is' and the ideal, the 'what should be', the (projected ?) future. There is ( an open or subliminal state of ?) conflict at all the various levels of our existence; our everyday life is a series of conflicts, a battleground - and for
what? To (insightfully) understand (anything) there must be a certain amount of ( inner) Peace. Creation can take place only in peace, in happiness, not ( in a psychological 'war-zone') of conflict and strife.

( As a 'rule of thumb' ?) all this 'struggle' is between 'what is' ( what we actually 'are' or 'have' ?) and ( our 'psychological' projection of ?) 'what should be'. We have accepted this conflictual (attitude to life ?) as 'inevitable' (for our survival) , and ( in time ?) this 'inevitable' has become the ( cultural ?) 'norm', though it maybe false. Can ( the inner ?) 'what is' be transformed through the conflict with its opposite? I am this, and by struggling to be that, which is the opposite, have I changed this? Is not the (desired ?) 'opposite' a modified projection of 'what is'? Is not any ( mental) conclusion about 'what is' a hindrance to the understanding of what is?
If you would (really want to ?) understand something, must you not observe it, study it (objectively ?) ? Can you (learn about it) if you are prejudiced in favour of or against it? If you would understand your son must you not study him,
neither identifying yourself with nor condemning him? Surely, if you are (entering ) in conflict with your son, there is no understanding of him. So, is conflict essential to understanding?

Q: Is there not another kind of conflict involved in learning how to do a thing, acquiring a technique? For instance when one may have an intuitive vision of something the 'carrying out' may involve a great deal of trouble and pain.

K: A certain amount , it is true; but is not Creation itself ( undivided from ?) the means (employed ) ? If you have something (significant ) to say, that very thing creates its own style.

So, is conflict (a dualistic attitude ?) in any field productive of understanding? Is there not a continuous chain of conflict in our
effort to be (someone?) , or to become (something ?) , whether positive or negative? Does not the cause of conflict become the effect, which in its turn becomes the ( updated ?) cause? There is no release from ( the psychological chain of ?) conflict until
there is an (integrated ?) understanding of 'what is'. The 'what is' can never be understood through the (mental) screen of ideas; it must be approached afresh.
As the ( inner & outer unfolding of ?) 'what is' is never static, the (learning) mind must not be bound to (its past) knowledge, to a belief, to a conclusion.

( In a nutshell:) In its very nature, conflict is separative as all
opposition ( of various desires ?) is. (Anything based on ?) conflict, cannot under any circumstances bring ( an integrated ?) understanding, and so it is a degenerating factor in the (consciousness of the ?) individual as well as in (that of ?) society.

Q: What, then, is this 'integration'? I more or less understand what are the factors of disintegration, but that is only a (roundabout process of ?) negation. I may know what is wrong, but this does not mean that I know what is right.

K: Surely, when the false is seen as (being) 'false', the ( unfolding of the ) 'true' is (becoming possible ?) . So, when one is ( becoming responsibly ?) aware of the factors of degeneration, not merely verbally but deeply, then is there not (an inward ?) integration, a state of 'complete' attention ?
Is this ( inner) 'integration' static, something to be (achieved once for all ?) and finished with? It is not a (static) end, but a (living) state of being. Freedom is an abstraction to the man (inwardly living ?) in prison; but a 'passive (inner ?) watchfulness' uncovers the hindrances, and with freedom from these, integration comes into being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Jun 2017 #599
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
And perhaps there will be love which in its action will bring about true relationship between man and man'. The only thing we can understand here is that without love in action there is no true relationship between man and man.

I think this is probably true, but this 'love' that he speaks of, first has to be realized in myself. Can this love exist if there is 'attachment'? Doesn't my attachment signify 'fear'. Why is there attachment, dependance, if not for a deep fear, a dread of 'loneliness'? Can I see myself and those around me, in an almost constant psychological'escape' mode. Can I see the society in terms of an elaborate group means of escape? Can this 'love' find a place in me if there is a shred of fear, sorrow, anxiety, doubt, worry etc? Isn't the love that he speaks of the 'absence' of all that? Isn't the 'root' of all this the duality in myself of a 'thinker' apart from 'my' thought? That is what I'm seeing. That, maybe, is the main 'hinderance' to real love, compassion etc.,... the "personal" choice we make to escape through thought to avoid facing that "hollowness" in each of us.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 02 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Jun 2017 #600
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
Now education and schools should bring about wellbalanced people so that living in society may allow us to find reality but it is just as Krishnamurti says, people are getting more and more competitive and violent.

So more and more schools are going for the 'education' that helps students adjust, cope, succeed in a competitive and violent world. The aim of "well-balanced" seems to be getting scarcer and scarcer (even if there were the teachers, or the willingness to go about it.)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 03 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 571 - 600 of 751 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.)