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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 571 - 600 of 650 in total
Fri, 28 Apr 2017 #571
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 28 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Apr 2017 #572
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline


THE DIRECT APPROACH TO DISSOLVING THE 'SELF' ( experientially friendly edited)

K: What we have been discussing previously is this: how are we to recognize the various activities of the 'self' and its subtle forms behind which the (conscious ?) mind takes shelter. The actions based on ideas becomes the means of continuing the self. If the (mental screen of ?) ideas was not there, action has a different meaning altogether, an action which is not born of self (interest) . The search for power, position, authority, ambition and all the rest are the forms of the self in all its different ways. But what is important is to understand the 'self' and I am sure you and I are convinced of it.

You know what I mean by the 'self' ? By that, I mean the (subliminal identification with one's ?) ideas, memory, experience, the various forms of nameable and unnameable intentions, the conscious endeavour 'to be' or 'not to be', (plus ?) the memory of the ( collective & personal ?) unconscious, the racial, the group, the individual, the clan, and the whole of it all, whether it is projected outwardly in action, or projected spiritually as 'virtue'; the striving after all this, is the "self". In it, is included the competition, & the desire to 'be' ( someone or something ?)
The whole process of that, is the "self " ( aka: the 'ego' ?) ; and we know actually when we are faced with it, that it is an 'evil' thing, because its activities are separative and isolating. We also know some extra-ordinary moments when the "self" is not there, in which there is no sense of endeavour, of effort, and which happens when there is "love".

It seems to me that it is important to understand how our daily experience strengthens the "self" . We have (sensory, emotional and intellectual ?) experiences all the time, impressions; and we translate those impressions (in personal terms ?) , and we are acting according to those impressions; we are (becoming) calculated, cunning, and so on. There is the constant interplay between what is seen objectively and our (subjective ?) reaction to it, and the interplay between the conscious and the memories of the unconscious.
According to my ( personal bank of ?) memories, I react to whatever I see, to whatever I feel. In this process of reacting to what I see, what I feel, what I know, ( the personal ?) experience is taking place. Is it not? When I see you, I react; the (recognition & ) naming of that reaction is my experience.
If I do not name that reaction it is not (processed & stored as a personal ?) experience. Please do watch it: There is no (recording as personal) experience unless there is a naming process going on at the same time. If I do not 'recognize' you, how can I have ( a personal memory of that ?) experience? That is, if I do not react to (seeing ) you according to my past memories, according to my (cultural) conditioning , according to my prejudices, how can I know that I have had an experience? That is one aspect of (the personal) 'experience'
Then there is the projection of various desires. I desire to be ( heavenly ?) protected, or I desire to have a Guru, a Teacher, a God; and I have projected (outwardly) that desire which has taken a 'form' (an image ?) , to which I have given a name. That desire makes me say: 'I have met the Master''. You know the whole process of (recognising & ) naming a (subjective) experience.
For instance, when I desire the "silence of the mind", what is taking place? What happens? The very desire to have a silent mind is (subliminally translated into the ?) "experiencing of silence". Therefore the 'self', the 'me', has established itself as the "experiencer" of silence.

( Another example:) I want to understand what is Truth; that is my desire, my (spiritual ?) longing; then there is my (mental) projection of what I consider to be 'the' truth, because I have read lots about it, the religious scriptures have described it. And I "want" all that. What happens? That very (strong) desire is projected ( as a virtual 'image' of Truth ?) and ...I experience (that image of Truth) because I 'recognize' that (self-projected ?) state . If I do not 'recognize' that state, I would not call it Truth. But as I do recognize it , I ( think I have ?) experienced it. ( Implicitly ?) that ( self-projected ?) experience gives more strength to the self, to the 'me'. So, eventually, the "self" becomes entrenched in its own "(spiritual) experience". Then you say : 'I know that the Master exists', or that 'there is God', or ...'there is no God; or you want a particular political system to come, because that is right and all others are not.
So ( the desire for the 'ultimate' ?) experience is always strengthening the 'me'. The more entrenched you are in "your" experience and the more does the self (-consciousness ?) get strengthened. As a result of this, you have a certain "strength of character", "strength of belief", which you (may ?) put over across to other people who are not so clever as you are and because you have the 'gift of the pen' and you are cunning. And because this 'self' (-sustained image ?) is constantly acting, your beliefs, your Masters, your castes, your economic system are all a process of isolation, and they therefore bring contention.

We see all 'experiences' of the self are a negation, a destruction; and yet, that is what we call the 'positive' way of life. There is nothing (truly ) 'positive' in it. Can we, you and I as (integrated ?) individuals, go to the root of it and understand the process of the self? Now what is the element that dissolves it? What brings about dissolution of the 'self'?
Religious and other groups have (recommended ?) the identification with something Higher : Identify yourself with a larger ( Consciousness ?) , and the 'self' disappears; that is what they say. (However ?) we are saying here that such 'identification' is still a process of the self; the 'larger' ( Consciousness) is simply the projection of the 'me', which I then 'experience' and which therefore strengthens the 'me'. All the various forms of (spiritual) disciplines, beliefs and knowledge only strengthen the self.

Can we find an 'element' which would dissolve the 'self'? One can see that it always bringing anxiety, fear, frustration, despair, misery, not only to myself but to all around me. Is it possible for that 'self' (-centredness ?) to be dissolved, not partially but completely?
Can we go to the root of it and destroy it? That is the only way of functioning intelligently in an integrated manner. Most of us are 'intelligent' in layers, some of you are intelligent in your business work, some others in your office work and so on; people are intelligent in different ways; but, we are not integrally intelligent. To be integrally intelligent means to be without the "self". Now, is it possible for the "self" to be completely absent? What are the necessary ingredients, requirements? The (holistic ?) understanding of the self requires a great deal of intelligence, great deal of watchfulness, alertness, watching ceaselessly, so that it does not 'slip away'. ( The dualistic difficulty is that ?) the moment I say 'I want to dissolve this', and I (take steps towards ?) the dissolution of it , there is a ( 'recognition' & ?) 'experiencing' of the self; and so.... the 'self'(consciousness ) is getting strengthened . So, how is it possible for the 'self' (to 'stay put' and ?) not to 'experience'?

One can see that the Creation ( a totally new perception ?) is not at all in the (area of) 'experience' of the self. ( The new-ness of ?) Creation is when the 'self' is not there; because Creation is something beyond all (ego-centric ?) experiencing, as we know it. Therefore, is it possible for the mind to be quite (perfectly ) 'still' and in a state of 'non-recognition' (or 'innocence' ?) , which is, non-experiencing, to be in a state in which (the newness of ?) Creation can take place, which means, when the 'self (-consciousness '?) is absent? Look, Sirs, the (experiential) problem is this: any 'movement' of the mind, positive or negative, is (resulting in ?) an 'experience' which actually strengthens the 'me'. Is it possible for the (perfectly still ?) mind not to recognize? That can only take place when there is complete (inner) silence, but not the ( self-induced ) 'silence' which is an experience of the self and which therefore strengthens the self.

Is there a 'spiritual' entity apart from the 'self' ( the Higher Self ?) , which looks at the self and dissolves the self? Are you following all this? Is there a spiritual entity (essence ?) which supersedes the self and puts it aside? We (like to ?) think there is. Don't we? Most 'religious' people think there is such a (transcendental ?) element , while the 'materialists' says 'It is impossible for the self to be destroyed; it can only be (re-) conditioned and/or restrained - politically, economically and socially; we can 'break it' and (re-program ?) it to follow the desired social pattern, and to function merely as a (highly productive ?) machine. That, we know (only too well ?) There are other people, the so-called 'religious' ones who say 'Fundamentally, there is such an (transcending?) element. If we can get into touch with it, it will dissolve the self'.

( Please see what we are doing : (gently ?) pushing the 'self' into a corner. If (in the context of a silent meditation ?) you 'allow yourself' to be forced into the corner, you will see what is going to happen.)

Now, is there such a (transcending ?) 'element' to dissolve the 'self'? We would like that there should be an element which is timeless and which, we hope, will come and dissolve it, which we call ( The Grace of ?) 'God'. Now is there ( down there?) such a thing which the (spatio- temporal ?) mind can't conceive? There may be or there may not be; (but for the time being ?) that is not the point. But when you 'believe' that there is truth, God, timeless state, immortality, is that not (becoming part of ?) the process of strengthening the 'self'?

The self has projected this idea of (its own ?) continuance in a timeless state as a 'spiritual entity', and all such 'experience' will only strengthen the self; and therefore what have you done? You have not really dissolved the self but only given it a different name, a different quality; the self is still there, because you have (recognised, named and ?) 'experienced' it. So, if you observe inwardly, it is the same (self-centred ?) action going on, the same 'me' functioning at different levels with different names.
When you see the whole process, the 'cunning intelligence' of the self, how it covers itself up through identification, through virtue, through experience, through belief, through knowledge; when you see that you are moving in a (mental) cage of its own make, what happens? When you are ( becoming fully ?) aware of it, is not your mind extraordinarily ( naturally ?) quiet ? When you realise that every 'movement' of the (ego-centric ?) mind is resulting in the strengthening the self, when see it, when you are completely aware of it in action, when you come to that point you will see that the mind being utterly still, has no power of creating (illusions ?) . Whatever the mind creates, is within the field of the self. When the mind is 'non-creating' (not refreshing its self-image ?) , there is Creation, which is not a recognizable process.

Reality, Truth, is not to (material to ?) be 'recognized'. For Truth to come all these must go : belief, knowledge & experiencing . To the 'man of truth', Truth has come into being. A (self-) righteous man can never understand what is Truth; because 'virtue' to him is the cover-up of the self, the strengthening of the self.
That is why it is so important to be (inwardly ?) 'poor', not only in the things of the world, but also in (terms of ?) beliefs and in knowledge. A 'rich' man (either) with worldly riches, or 'rich' in (the area of psychological ?) knowledge and belief, will never know anything but ( spiritual ?) darkness, and will be at the centre of all mischief and misery.

But if you and I, as ( integrated ?) 'individuals', can see (through ?) this whole working of the 'self', then we shall know what Love is. I assure you that is the only (spiritual ?) reformation which can possibly change the world. Love is not (within) the 'self' (-centred consciousness ?) . The 'self' cannot recognize Love. You may say 'I love', but in the very saying of it, in the (self-conscious ?) 'experiencing' of it, Love is not. But, when you 'know' Love, the 'self' (consciousness ?) is not (around ? ) . When there is Love, the 'self' is not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 May 2017 #573
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline



K: How is (an integrated ?) collective action to be brought about? Does not such cooperation come when there is an "intelligence" which is neither collective nor individual? That is what I would like to talk over together this evening.
To discuss that problem profitably, you must find out what is the function of the mind. When you observe your own mind, you are observing not only the so called 'upper levels' of the mind but also watching the 'unconscious', you are seeing what the mind actually does. That is the only (experiential) way you can investigate: by not superimposing what it should do, how it should think or how it should act or, if you quote some 'higher authority', then you equally stop thinking. If you quote Sankara, Buddha, Christ or X, Y, Z, there is an end to all (inner) investigation.

So, what is the function of the mind? To find that out, you must know what the self-conscious mind is actually doing: it is all (engaged in ?) a process of thinking. Is it not? Otherwise, if the mind is not 'thinking' consciously or unconsciously, without verbalizing, there is no (self-) consciousness.
Now when you observe your (everyday) thinking, you will see it is a (self-isolating ?), fragmentary process. You are thinking according to your (mental) reactions, the reactions of your memory, of your experience, of your knowledge, of your belief. (Eg:) If I say that there must be a fundamental revolution, you immediately object to that word 'revolution', (especially) if you have got good investments, spiritual or other wise. So, your (mental) reactions are dependent on your knowledge, on your belief, on your experience. Your action, beliefs, knowledge, experience, give strength to the process of ( self-centred ) thinking. If you go deeper into the 'unconscious' (zones of consciousness ) , there too, it is the same process that is at work. There, we are the 'collective' (consciousness ?) influenced by the environment, by the climate, by the society, by the father, the mother, the grandfather; you know all that. There again, is the desire to assert oneself , to dominate as the 'me'.

So, is not the function of our ( self-centred ?) mind, as we know it and as we function daily, a process of isolation? Aren't you seeking your 'individual' salvation, or to be 'somebody' (sometimes ?) in the future - a great man, a great writer. Our whole tendency is to be (think in terms of being ) separated. Can the ( self-centred ?) mind do anything else but that? Is it possible for the mind not to think separatively, in a self-enclosed manner, fragmentarily? That is impossible. Because of this, we worship those who are intellectually superior, the lawyers, the 'professors', the orators, the great writers, the explainers and the expounders who have (intensively) cultivated the intellect and the mind.

And having cultivated this process for centuries, we find we cannot cooperate (freely and creatively ?) ; only we are urged, compelled, driven by authority, fear, either economic or religious. If that is the actual state, how can there be an intelligent 'coming together' to do something? As that (kind ofaction) is almost impossible, the religions and organized social parties force the individual to certain forms of discipline. So, until we understand how to transcend this separative thinking, this process (tendency ?) of giving emphasis to the 'me' and the ( 'all-knowing' ?) mind whether in the collective form or in individual form, we shall not have peace; we shall have constant conflict and wars.

Now, our problem is how to dissolve this, how to bring about an end to this separative process of thought? Can thought ever destroy the 'self', thought being the (intellectual) process of verbalization and of certain reactions? Can such thought put an end to itself? Thought is compelling itself, urging itself, disciplining itself, to be something or not to be something. Is that not a process of isolation? Therefore, it is not the "integrated intelligence" which can function as a whole, from which alone there can be (an authentic) cooperation.

So, how are you to come to the end of thought; or rather, how is thought to come to an end? I mean the ( self-centred process of ?) thought which is isolated, fragmentary and partial. How do you set about it? Will your so-called 'discipline' destroy it? Obviously, you have not succeeded all these long years; otherwise, you would not be here. The ('self-) disciplining' process is solely a (compulsory ?) thought process, in which there is repression, control, domination - all affecting the unconscious. It asserts itself later as you grow older. Having tried discipline for such a long time to no purpose, you must have found that obviously that 'self'(-centredness ?) cannot be destroyed through discipline, because discipline is a process of strengthening the self. Will ( a scholarly ?) knowledge destroy it? Will belief destroy it? In other words, will every thing that we are at present doing, all the activities in which we are at present engaged in order to get at the root of our self(ishness) , will all that succeed? Is not all this a fundamental waste ( of intelligent energy invested ?) in a thought process which is a process of isolation, a process of reaction?

What do you do when you realize deeply that the ( self-centred ?) thought cannot end itself? When (and if ?) you are fully aware of this fact, what happens? You then understand that any (mental) reaction is conditioned, and therefore giving continuity to the 'self ' in different ways, what actually takes place? What is the state of the mind which says 'It is so. That is exactly where I am , I see what knowledge and discipline can do, what ambition does'? Surely, there is (already ) a different process at work.
We see the (intricate ?) ways of the intellect, but we do not see the (simple ?) way of love; and this "way of love" is not to be found through the intellect. The (self-centred activity of the ?) intellect with all its desires, ambitions, pursuits, must come to an end for real love to come into existence. Don't you know that when you "love" you are not thinking of yourself? That is the highest form of intelligence . So, (this 'intelligence of ?) love' can come into being only when the (self-conscious ?) mind is not there. Therefore, you must understand the whole process of the (self-centred ?) mind and only then a deep ('inner) revolution' will take place.

This ( ages old self-centred ?) process of the human mind is not (to be fully ) understood just by listening to one or two talks. It can only be understood when there is a big ('psychological' ?) revolution in you, a deep interest to find out (the roots of our inner ) discontent, this ( existential ?) despair. But you (instinctively ?) prevent yourself to come to that state in which you are 'in despair'. You have always something or someone to lean on, you can always read books, listen to a talk, run away. It is only a man who has discarded completely all these (diverting ?) things, who 'stands naked', who will find what ( the true value of ?) Love is; and without that, there is no transformation, there is no (spiritual ?) renewal. There is nothing but imitation and ashes; and that is what our (artizanal ?) culture is at present. It is only when we know how to love each other, there can be cooperation, there can be intelligent functioning, coming together over any question. It is only then possible to find out what God is, what Truth is. Now, we are trying to find truth through intellect, through 'imitation' - which is ( a subtle form of ?) idolatry, whether it is made by hand or by mind. Only when you discard completely, through understanding, the whole structure of self (-ishness ?) , That which is Eternal, Timeless, Immeasurable, comes; 'you' cannot go to It; (but ?) It (may ?) come to you.

Question: Can the roots of (a deep psychological) problem like 'greed' be completely eradicated by (plain ?) 'awareness'? Aren't there various levels of awareness?

Krishnamurti: That is a problem to the questioner: 'greed' cannot be chipped away little by little. That which you chip away grows into ( a still subtler ?) greed in another form; and you know what greed does in society, or in the relationship between two individuals ; you know the whole process of the economic or spiritual, greed to be (or become something) . The questioner asks how this greed can fundamentally be eradicated. Let us find out.

First of all, 'why' do you want to get rid of greed? Is it not in order to get something else (in exchange) , because the sacred books say so or because you see its results in society? What is the urge that makes you say 'I must do away with it?' That is very important to find out, because 'you' , the (identification with ?) ' the want to be' (something) , positive or negative, may be the root. Is not thgis desire to be something the very nature of greed?
Can you live (or even ...survive ?) in this world without 'being something'? Can you live without 'being anything', without 'titles', 'degrees', 'positions', 'capacities'? Until you are prepared to "be (inwardly as ?) nothing", you must (naturally ?) be greedy in different forms.

Have you a true awareness of this function of greed and its destructive pursuits? Can the mind - after all, (the self-conscious ?) mind 'is' (identified with this ?) greed - can the mind be nothing, not seeking, not desiring to be, to become? Obviously ( in meditation ?) it can. It is only then, you are full; only then, you do not ask, you do not demand to be fulfilled. But you do not want to be (inwardly "as ?) nothing". All your struggle is to be something; is it not? If you are a clerk, you want to be something higher, to have better pay, more position, with a promise of reward in the future. You don't throw away all that, be (inardly) simple, be (as ?) nothing, be really naked. Surely, till you come to that state, there must be ( an open or subtle ?) greed in different forms. You cannot come to that ( non-greed ?) state, without 'being nothing'. Your experiencing of ( being inwardly ?) 'nothing' is another projection of the self and therefore a (subliminal) strengthening of the self. So, you cannot experience the "state of no-thingness" any more than you can experience the state of "love". When 'you' experience anything, love is not; because, as I explained yesterday, that which you call experience is only a projection of your own desire and therefore a strengthening of the self. So if you see all this, if you are aware of all this - not only at the superficial level, which is to have little, to possess only one or two (elegant ?) suits - , if you are aware of the whole significance of the (illusory ?) desire to transform yourself from this to that, when you are fully cognizant of the whole process of greed, then greed will drop away.
Obviously, there are many levels of awareness. The spirit of marvel of all what is taking place, of the trees, the moonlight, the poor unfed child, the half-starved - they are all superficial awareness, observations. But if you can go a little deeper, there is the awareness of how we are conditioned, not only at the conscious level but at a deeper level, an awareness which comes through dreams, or when there is a little space between two thoughts, a certain un-premeditated observation. And when you can go still deeper, that is, when the mind is absolutely without any (mental ?) reflection, recognition, when the mind is still, not (involved in ?) experiencing, in that stillness, there is Intelligence.
( In a nutshell:) ( The self-centred ?) mind is always verbalizing ( & processing & storing ?) its experiences and therefore giving strength to it self . Surely, the more we are becoming conscious of all the ways of the self, the more we are aware of all our feelings; we understand every sorrow, every movement of thought and live with it without brushing it aside, that gives ( the spiritual) maturity; not age, not knowledge, not belief. That brings about an ( universally ?) integrated Intelligence which is not separative.

Question: We are all Theosophists interested fundamentally in Truth and Love, as you are. Could you not have remained in our society and helped us rather than separate yourself from us and 'denounce' us? What have you achieved by this?

Krishnamurti: Can you belong to any organization, spiritual group, and seek Truth? Is Truth to be found collectively? When you believe in certain hierarchical (spiritual) principles and authorities, and I do not, do you think there is communion between us? When the whole process of your thinking is based on authority and hierarchical principles, do you think there is love between us? You may use me for (your) convenience, and I may use you for my convenience. But that is not love. Let us be clear.
To find out whether you are really seeking truth and love, you must investigate, must you not? If you do investigate, if you find out inwardly and therefore act outwardly, what would happen? You will be an outsider, wouldn't you? As long as there are societies and so called spiritual organizations who have vested interests in property, in belief, in knowledge - obviously, the people there are not seeking Truth. They may say so. So, you must find out if we are fundamentally seeking the same thing.
Can you seek Truth through a Master, through a Guru? Can you find Truth through the process of (psychological ?) time, in (terms of) becoming something? Can you find truth through the Master, through (being their ) pupil, through Gurus; and what can they tell you fundamentally? They can only tell you to dissolve the 'me'. If you are saying 'I am going to be somebody', if you occupy a position of spiritual authority, you can not be seeking Truth. I am very clear about these matters, and I am not trying to persuade you to accept or to denounce, which will be stupid. I cannot denounce you, as the questioner says.
Even though you have heard me for twenty years, you go on with your beliefs; because, it is very comforting to believe that you are being looked after, that you have special 'messengers' for the future, that you are going to be something beautiful, now or eventually. You will go on because your vested interests are there, in property, in job, in belief, in knowledge. You do not question them. It is the same all the world over.

The man who is inwardly seeing the truth of all these things, will find Truth. He will know what love is, not in some future date which is of no (experiential) value. You all talk about love & universal brotherhood; and everything you do, is contrary to that. It is obvious, sirs, that the moment you have an 'organization', there must be intrigues for (the best ?) position, for authority; you know the whole game of it.
So, if you really want to find truth and love, there must be singleness of purpose, complete abandonment of all vested interests; which means, you must be inwardly empty, poor, not seeking, not acquiring positions of authority as displayers or bringers of messages from the Masters. You must be completely naked. Since you do not wish that, naturally, you acquire labels, beliefs and various forms of security.

Sirs, find out whether you are really, as you say, fundamentally seeking Truth. I really question this , because your search is a projection of an experience which 'you' want (to achieve) . But when 'you' do not seek, when the mind is (meditatively ?) quiet and tranquil without any want, without any motive, without any compulsion, then you will find that an "ecstasy" comes. For that ecstasy to come, you must be completely naked, empty, alone. Most people join these societies because they are gregarious, because it is very convenient socially. Do you think you are going to find Truth when you are seeking comfort, satisfaction & social security? No, sirs; you must (inwardly ?) 'stand alone' without any support, completely and inwardly naked and empty. Then only, as the cup which is empty can be filled up, so the 'emptiness' within can be filled up with That Which Is Everlasting.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 May 2017 #574
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline


An integrative approach to Sorrow ( Experientially -Friendly Edited - EFE)

K: Perhaps this evening we can discuss the problem and the full implication of what is suffering and what is sorrow. And can the ( knowledgeable ?) mind which is itself a process of (ego-continuity in ?) time be the instrument of this understanding? If we dissociate the process of understanding from reasoning, from deduction, from 'analysis' which are a process of time, then we can probably comprehend fully a problem at one glance. If we are to understand (and transcend ?) sorrow, we must eliminate this 'time' process altogether. Time will not resolve (or undo ?) the process of building up of sorrow nor will it help in the resolution of sorrow. It can only help you to forget it, or evade it but still the sense of sorrow is there.

The possibility of its dissolution does not lie through the process of what we call the thought. If I would (holistically ?) understand something, first I must 'love' ( or have a compassionate understanding for?) it. If I would (want to really ?) understand you, I must (have affection for ?) you, I must have no prejudice. You may say 'I have no prejudice'. But ( deeper down ?) all of us are a bundle of ( cultural ?) prejudices, antagonisms; and we just put on ( 'politically correct' ?) verbal screens. Let us remove these 'screens' and see what the significance of sorrow is. I feel that only through that way, we shall resolve this enormously complex problem of human sorrow. When we 'love' (or have a authentic sense of affection for ?) somebody, our understanding) is a process of timeless quality: no (cautious ?) barriers of fear, of reward, of condemnation; nor is there an identification with something else - which is a mental process. If we can really see the significance of that (quality of total communion ?) , only then, we can approach, you and I as (integrated ?) individuals, this thing that is consuming most of us, sorrow.

( For starters:) (a) All our energy involved in movement, in action, is (manifested as ?) desire. This ( movement of ?) desire - when thwarted is ( resented as frustration and ?) pain, and when it is fulfiled, as ( a rewarding ?) pleasure. For most of us, (our daily ) action is a ( multi-level, departmentalised ?) process of fulfilment of desire. The "I want this " and "I don't want that " govern our attitude.

(b) This energy which is identifying itself as the 'me' is ever seeking a ( personal ?) 'fulfilment'. There are various forms of fulfilment and various forms of denial of our desire, each (time ?) binding, each bringing about its different kind of "sorrow" : physical sorrow, the sorrow of death, the sorrow that comes when there is no (hope of any personal ?) fulfilment, the sorrow resulting from a state of ( inner desolation and ?) emptiness, sorrow that comes when our ambition is not fulfilled, sorrow in not coming up to the social standards or the 'good example', sorrow of ( blindly following ?) the 'ideal' and finally the sorrow of ( self-) identification. We know various forms of sorrow at different psychological and physiological levels; and also we know the various (well-established ?) forms of (avoiding them through ?) 'escapes' - drink, rituals, repetition of words, the turning to tradition, looking to the future, looking for better times, better hopes, better circumstances; we know all these forms of (temporal) "escapes" - religious, psychological, physical and material. The more we escape, the greater and more complex the problems become. Our whole (psychological) structure is a series of 'escapes'.

(c) So (experientially -wise ?) there is not direct and vital communion with the ( 'fact' ?) of sorrow. You are ( pretending to be ?) a different entity looking at sorrow, trying to dissolve it or ('psych-)analyze' the problem of sorrow. In this process of analysis, condemnation and justification, you ( are feeling that you) are different; and something else (within your consciousness ) is suffering (for obvious or obscure reasons ?).
( In a nutshell?) sorrow is not different from the 'thinker'; the ( self-conscious ?) entity that desires (to get rid of it ?) , 'is' (in ?) itself sorrow. The very process of ( self-identified ?) desire which is (in itself) a process (generating) frustration and suffering. 'You' (the self-conscious entity ?) are not different from sorrow.

That is (less or more ?) the whole picture. We can enlarge it more, verbally paint it in more detail; but that is the problem. Is it not? You are not different from sorrow and therefore 'you' cannot resolve sorrow. You can't ( objectively ?) analyze 'yourself' as a separate 'observer' looking at sorrow; nor can you 'escape' (facing this ) sorrow by the energy spent in social activities.
So, you are ( both) the creator (and the beneficiary ?) of sorrow; 'you', the entity that suffers are not separate from your sorrow or pain. As long as there is a division between 'you' and 'suffering', there is only a partial comprehension, partial view of the thing. Which means really, that (experientially wise ?) you are ( finally ?) face to face with the thing that you call 'sorrow'.

Now, when you really 'love'( have affection for someone or something ?) there is no (mental) barriers; then there is (a state of direct ?) communion. Can you look ( with a similar 'love' ?) at this problem of a human sorrow that is so enveloping, so deep, so profound that no verbal description can cover it? Can you and I be in full communion with it? And what is this "sorrow" ? When your son dies, there is one kind of sorrow; when you see the poor unfed children, that is another kind of sorrow; when you are struggling to reach the top of the ladder and you don't succeed, that is a third kind of sorrow; when you are not fulfilling the ideal, you have sorrow. Surely, sorrow is ( the cummulative result of ?) a process of ( frustrated ?) desire ever increasing, ever multiplying, self-enclosing. Can I ( compassionately ?) understand this whole process of energy in movement as desire and put an end to ( the subliminal activity of ?) desire, not to (its life ?) energy? Can one understand this whole problem of "sorrow and desire" and thereby put an end to desire as a ( self-identified ?) movement of the 'me', and be in that state of (an original ?) energy which is pure intelligence?

This is not a ( scholastic ?) question to be answered by 'Yes (We Can' ?) or 'no (we can' ?) . This needs a great deal of meditation, a great deal of insight ( inner clarity ?) , and you can't have (such) insight if there is any sort of distortion of desire.
( This 'original' ?) Energy is pure intelligence; and when once we let it come into (our) being, then you will see that desire has very little significance (and put it in its right place ?) . But as long as desire is not fully comprehended, fully understood, there must be sorrow; because we cannot have the pure intelligence that is necessary for (ending) it. Reason can't dissolve sorrow, as it can't dissolve desire either. Therefore it is necessary to understand the whole problem by seeing the "whole picture", which means, to really to really 'love' ( have a 'loving' attitude regarding ?) sorrow. You understand? There are people who 'love' ( the redeeming virtues of ?) sorrow; but their hearts are empty; instead of loving man, they love 'sorrow', which is an ideal. Haven't you seen people who love this 'virtue'? They love sorrow because they feel a certain enthusiastic response, a certain well-being. I do not mean that kind of 'love' at all. When you love, there is no identification but there is communion; there is open receptivity between that and you. That is essential to understand (and transcend ?) this whole problem. And as I said, such an understanding is not of time. (An insightful ?) understanding has nothing to do with time or with (thinking in terms of ) time.

So (the self-centred ?) mind cannot solve the problem of sorrow. The mind that can understand this problem fully, is the mind that is not in a state of agitation, that is not seeking a ( personal ?) result, that it does not say 'I must be free from sorrow in order to 'experience' something more'. So if you can look at it 'completely' (non-personally ?) , not as a 'me' looking, but with an (inwardly integrated ?) mind to which the 'observer' and the 'observed' are the same, then you will find there comes a 'Love' that is not ( brought by ?) sensation, an Intelligence that is not of time or of ( temporal) thought process; and it is only That, that can resolve this immense and complex problem of human sorrow.

Question: What is meant by 'accepting what is'? How does it differ from resignation?

Krishnamurti: What is the (psychological ) process of 'acceptance'? I accept sorrow, I resign myself to the circumstance, to the (disturbing ?) incident.
(For starters ?) I accept them because they pacify me, they put me out (momentarily ?) of the state of ( an acute ) conflict. There is also an ulterior motive in 'resignation' : deep down, unconsciously, I do not want to be disturbed. But (any personal ) loss causes disturbance which we call suffering. And in order to escape from suffering, I explain, I justify and then say 'I am resigned to the inevitable, to my Karma', but that will not bring about understanding, will it?

However, if I am capable of looking at 'what is' - that is, at what has taken place, the death of someone, an incident - without any mental process(ing) , if I can observe it, be aware of it, follow it, be in communion with it, love it, there is no (need for any psychological ?) resignation, nor acceptance. I shall have to accept the fact. Fact is fact. But, if you can prevent yourself from translating it, giving it justification, then it begins to unfold itself , it begins superficially, but as it begins to unfold, it is like reading a (living ?) Book.
Understanding of 'what is' can not come about through any justification, condemnation, or identifying yourself with 'what is'. We have lost the "way of love" . That is why all this superficial process exists. Don't ask what this 'love' is. You can only find out what love is, by negation. As our life is mostly destructive, the way of our communion is self-enclosing. That which is all embracing can be understood only when there is a complete communion with 'That which Is'.

Question: For Truth to come, you advocate action without idea. Is it possible to act at all times without idea, that is, without a clear purpose in view ?

Krishnamurti: If you as an individual want to find out what 'idea' and 'action' are, you have to enquire into it, and not accept my experience which (for yourself ?) may be utterly false. Let us therefore find out together what we mean by (the psychological ?) action without idea. Please give your (mindful?) thinking to it. Let us find out together. It may be difficult, but let us go into it.

What do you mean by action? Doing something, to be, to do; our action is based on an ideal, various 'formulas' (mental images ?) about what you are and what you are not. That is the basis of our action, expecting a reward in future, or fear of punishment, or seeking self-enclosing ideas upon which we can base our action. You have an idea of virtue and according to that idea you live, you act in your relationship. That is, to you, relationship is action which is towards ideal, towards virtue, towards an achievement, collective or individual.
When my action is based on ideal, between action and idea, there is a gulf, there is a division of time: I am not (really) charitable now, , I am not loving, there is no forgiveness in my heart; but I (definitely ?) must be more charitable. There is (an interval of ?) time between 'what I am now' and 'what I should be', and we are trying to bridge it .

Now what would happen if the (self-projected ?) 'ideal' did not exist? At one stroke, you would have removed the (time) gap, would you not? You would be (left to deal with ?) what you 'are'. Have I frightened you all? The 'stupid' man always says he is going to become clever. He sits working, struggling to become; he never stops, he never (acknowledges the fact that ?) 'I am stupid'. So his action which is based on idea, is not ( a transforming ?) action at all.

Action means doing now, moving. And if there is no (self-projected ?) ideal, what would happen? You are 'that which is'. You are uncharitable, you are unforgiving, you are cruel, stupid, thoughtless. Can you (mindfully ?) remain with that? When I recognize I am uncharitable, and/or stupid, what happens, when I am aware it is so? Is there not ( an awakening of a deeper ?) intelligence, when I realize I am uncharitable ? In that very seeing of 'what is', is there not ( a transforming effect of ?) love?
So ( the psychological) action based on a (preconceived) idea is merely ( remaining in the realm of) ideation, but the (actual ) action which transforms human beings, which brings ( an authentic) regeneration, redemption, transformation such action is not based on ( a premeditated ?) idea. It is action irrespective of reward or punishment. Then you will see such action is timeless , because (temporal) mind does not enter into it; as (the thinking ) mind is a calculating process, dividing process, (a self-) isolating process.

( Still,) this question is not so easily solved (experientially ?) . Most of you put (intellectual ?) questions and expect an answer 'yes or no'. It is easy to ask questions like 'What do you mean?', and then sit back and let me explain; but it is much more arduous to find out the answer for yourselves, go into the problem so profoundly, so clearly and without any corruption, that the problem ceases to be. And that can only happen when the mind is really 'silent' in the face of the problem.
(A total insight into the ?) problem is (could be ?) as beautiful as a sunset, if you 'love' the problem. However if you are 'antagonistic' to the problem, you will never understand it. And most of us are antagonistic because we are frightened of the (uncertainty of the ?) result, of what may happen if we proceed; so we lose (from sight ?) the deeper significance of the problem.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 04 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 May 2017 #575
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline



K: Why is it that something that has been started by a few people with good intentions, with right motives, is soon usurped (or exploited ?) by 'bad' people and (eventually ?) destroyed?
What is this process of withering, this decay? If we can find out the truth of the matter, then perhaps we as individuals can set about an action which will not wither away. I think there is a deeper and more fundamental reason why this deterioration takes place so rapidly, and I hope that is one of your problems too: what exactly is behind this process of (our inner & outer ?) deterioration.
In our everyday life, we make effort to be or to become something- positively or negatively. We see that there is a sociological conflict (of interests ?) in the individual becoming more and more (rich, powerful, influential ) ; and to control it there are social laws or religious sanctions; but in spite of these sanctions, deterioration exist in our effort to be good, to be noble, to be beautiful, to seek truth. Until we really discover for ourselves which is behind this process of decay and deterioration, which is apart from our being, there is no end to the world's turmoil.

Now to go into this matter fully, you must enquire into the (dualistic) process of the 'experiencer' and the 'experience', because whatever we do contains this dualistic process. The will to experience, to acquire, 'to be' or 'not to be', is always there. And this 'will' is the ('time' ?) factor of our deterioration. In this 'will', there are (included both) the 'actor' and the 'thing he acts upon' : I am greedy, and I exert my will not to be (so ?) greedy; I use my (good ?) will to transform that which I consider evil, or I try to become or keep that which is good. So, the root of our (inner) deterioration is this (subliminally ?) dualistic action in will between the 'experiencer' and the 'experience' - two separate processes at work. As long (our inner energy ?) is divided into the 'experiencer' and the' experience' we are pursuing a false process which is destructive and I think therein lies the fundamental factor of (our inner) deterioration.
Is it possible to experience that state when there is only one (integrated mind ?) and not two separate processes, the (desiring ?) 'experiencer' and the (desired ?) 'experience'? Then perhaps we shall find out what it is to be Creative, and what the state is in which there is no deterioration at any time, in whatever relationship we may be.That (integrated consciousness ? ) can come about only when one is ( becoming) aware of the false process and see (the truth ?) that there is only one state in which the thinker "is" the thought.

( Eg: I am becoming aware of the fact that ) I am greedy. ( The holistic approach is that ?) 'I' and 'my greed' are not two different (conflicting) states; there is only one thing and that is "greed". If 'I' am aware that 'I am greedy', what happens? Then, I (either enjoy indulging in the rewarding aspects of it or I ?) make an effort in order 'not to be greedy', either for sociological reasons or for religious reasons; that effort will always be (operative) in a small limited circle; I may extend this 'circle', but it is always limited .
Therefore the deteriorating factor is (right ) there. When I look a little more deeply and closely, I can see that the "maker of the effort" is (not separated from ?) the cause of greed - he 'is' ( the impersonation of ?) greed itself; and I also see that there is no 'me' and 'greed', existing separately, but that there is only ( a multi-level activity of ?) greed. If I realize that I am myself (one with) greed, then ( the quality of ?) our response to 'greed' is entirely different; then our ( noble ?) effort is not destructive.

What will you do when (realising that) your whole (psychological) being is greed, when whatever action you do is greed? Surely then, there is a different (integrative) process at work altogether: in that state, there is no 'maker of effort' entity . What is important is to see that the 'maker of effort' and the 'object' towards which he is making the effort are the same. That requires a great understanding and watchfulness, to see how the mind divides itself into the 'higher' and the 'lower '- the 'high' being the permanent entity - but still remaining a (safety based) process of thought and therefore of time. If we can understand this as directly experiencing, then you will see that quite a different factor comes into being.
The Unknown can't be understood by the (egocentric?) 'maker of effort'. To understand It, the mind must be completely silent, which ultimately means an act of complete 'self- abnegation' ; the 'self' (conscious entity ?), the maker of the effort to 'become' positively or negatively, is not there.

Question: How can this 'individual' regeneration be brought about in the 'collective' well-being of the greatest number, which is the need everywhere?

Krishnamurti: We think that individual regeneration is opposed to collective regeneration. The regeneration (of human consciousness ?) is anonymous. It is not 'I have redeemed myself'. If you are concerned with 'regeneration' - not of the 'individual' but (with a global consciousness ?) regeneration - then you will see there is quite a different Intelligence at work; because after all, what are we concerned with? What is the question with which we are concerned, profoundly and deeply? One might see the necessity for united action of man to save man. He sees that collective action is necessary in order to produce food, clothing and shelter. That requires intelligence; and intelligence is not individual. If the individual seeks intelligence it will be collective - then we are concerned with Intelligence that will solve the problem.

If both of us are concerned with the intelligent solution of the whole problem, because that problem is our main concern, then our concern is not how I look at it or you look at it, not my path or your path; we are not concerned with frontiers or economic bias, with vested interests and stupidity which come into being with those vested interests. Then you and I are not 'collective', nor 'individual'; this brings about collective integration which is anonymous.
But the questioner wants to know how to act immediately, what to do the next moment, so that man's needs can be solved. I am afraid there is no such answer. There is no immediate moral remedy, whatever politicians may promise. The immediate solution is the regeneration of the individual, not for himself but regeneration which is the awakening of intelligence. Intelligence is not yours or mine, it is intelligence. I think it is important to see this deeply. Then our political and individual action, collective or otherwise, will be quite different. We shall lose our (self-centred ?) 'identity'; we shall not identify our selves with something - our country, our race, our group, our collective traditions, our prejudices. We shall lose all those things because the problem demands that we shall lose our identity in order to solve it. But that requires great, comprehensive understanding of the whole problem.

Our problem is not just one of feeding, clothing and shelter (the people?) , but it is more profound than that. It is a psychological problem, why man 'identifies' himself (for psychological safety ?) - this identification with a party, with a religion, with knowledge, that is dividing us. And that 'identity' (issue ?) can be resolved only when, psychologically, the whole process of identifying, the desire, the motive, is clearly understood.
So, if you and I are both vitally interested in the solution of the human problem, we shall not identify ourselves with something else. But as we are not vitally interested (in Truth ?) , we have identified ourselves, and it is that identity (territoriality ?) that is preventing us from resolving this complex and vast problem.

Question: Although you have used the word 'Truth' quite often, I do not recall that you have ever defined it. What do you mean by it?

Krishnamurti: Truth is 'something that is timeless', that is not measurable by words. Since truth is measureless, timeless, ( the knowledgeable ?) mind cannot recognize it. Therefore, for ( the living dimension of ?) Truth to be, it is imperative that this mind should be in a state of 'non-experiencing'. Truth must come to you, the mind, you cannot go to it. If you go to it, 'you' will experience it. You cannot invite Truth. When you invite when you experience, you are in the position of recognizing it; when you recognize it, it is not (the living spirit of ?) Truth. Therefore, knowledge is not the way to Truth. Knowledge must be understood and put away for Truth to be. If your mind is quiet, not asleep, not drugged by words, but actually pursuing, observing the process of the mind, then you will see that quietness comes into being darkly, mysteriously; and in that state of stillness, you will see that which is eternal, immeasurable.

Question: There is an urge in every one of us to see God, Reality, Truth. Is not the search for beauty the same as the search for Reality?

Krishnamurti: Sirs, do realize 'you' (the self-centred entity ?) cannot seek God. You cannot seek Truth. Because, if you 'seek', your search is (conditioned by ?) the desire to find that which you want. How can you seek something of which you do not know? You seek something of which you have read, which you call Truth; or you are seeking something which inwardly you have a feeling for. Therefore, you must understand the motive of your search, which is far more important than the search for Truth.
Why are you seeking, and what are you seeking? You would not seek if there was joy in your heart. Because we are (inwardly) empty we are seeking. We are frustrated, miserable, violent, full of antagonism; that is why we want to go away from that and seek some thing which would be 'more'. In order to escape from your present conflicts, miseries, antagonisms, you say 'I am seeking Truth'. You will not find Truth because (the inner light of ?) Truth does not come when you are escaping from reality, from "that which is". You have to understand that and you must not go to seek the ( experiential) answer outside (yourself) . So you cannot seek Truth. It must come to you. You cannot beckon God, you cannot go to Him. Your worship, devotion, is utterly valueless because you want something, you put up the begging bowl for Him to fill. So, you are seeking someone to fill your emptiness. And you are interested more in the word than in the thing. But if you are content with that extraordinary state of loneliness without any deviation or distraction, then only 'That' which is eternal comes into being.

Most of us are so conditioned that we want to 'escape' (into something different ?) ; and the thing to which we escape, we call 'beauty'. We are seeking beauty through something - through dance, through rituals, through prayer, through discipline, through various forms of formulations, through painting, through sensation. Are we not? So as long as we are seeking beauty 'through something' we shall never have (any inner ?) beauty because the thing through which we seek, becomes all important. ( The inner sense of ?) Beauty is not found through something; that would be merely a sensation which is exploited by the cunning mind. Beauty comes into being through inward regeneration, when there is complete, radical transformation of the mind. For that, you require an extraordinary state of sensitivity. The man that is sensitive to both the ugly and the beautiful, goes beyond, far away from the things through which he seeks Truth. But, we are not sensitive to either beauty or ugliness; we are so (self) enclosed by our own thoughts, by our own prejudices, by our own ambitions, greed's, envies. How can a mind be sensitive, that is ambitious spiritually or in any other direction? There can be sensitivity only when the whole process of desire is completely understood; for, desire is a self-enclosing process, and through enclosing, you cannot see the horizon. The mind then is stifled by its own 'becoming'. Such a mind can only appreciate beauty through something. Such a mind is not a beautiful mind. Such a mind is not a good mind, it is an ugly mind which is enclosed and is seeking its own perpetuation. Such a mind can never find beauty. Only when the mind ceases to enclose itself by its own 'ideals' , 'pursuits' and 'ambitions', such a mind is (in itself ?) beautiful.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 05 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 May 2017 #576
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline


The 'impossible' question: how can our mind not be mechanical?

K: What I would like this evening, if we can experiment together , is to that of (going beyond the routinely functioning of the ?) mind as a repetitive machine, as a storehouse of memory, guiding, shaping controlling and therefore producing no creative action, a process of consciousness which when thwarted becomes the 'I', the 'me'. The self-conscious individual mind seeks fulfilment and therefore, in the very desire for fulfilment, there is frustration, from which arises sorrow.
One of the major factors of (inner) deterioration is the process of ( our self-centred ?) thought which is repetitive, imitative, conforming; because, we know what happens when we are repetitive, conforming and imitative; the mind becomes merely a machine automatically responding, functioning, reacting according to circumstances, according to memory like a physical machine put together. And... we do not know any other process.

Here arises the (very intimate ?) problem of "how you listen". Are you listening only at the verbal level or are you watching what is actually happening in your mental process? If you are watching your own mind using what I am saying, as a 'mirror' and therefore observing your own thinking in relation to what I am (pointing out ?) then you will discover whether your mind is something beyond the mechanical quality of a ( thinking ?) machine.
We are discussing the deteriorating factor of the mind, whether in the old or in the young. This deteriorating factor is observed as we grow older; old age is to most of us a problem, because we see the mind obviously deteriorating. You may not be conscious of it; but others may be conscious of the deterioration in you.

So, the problem is: Is our mind merely a (thinking ?) machine incapable of going beyond its mechanical quality, or can the mind be made to be non-mechanical?' That is, we have so far used the mind as a machine to achieve a result, to be something, to gain something, in which process conformity or repetition is essential. If I want to be successful, I must conform, I must repeat, I must imitate. So, we have used the machinery of the mind, the thought process, as a way of bringing about the desired end. ( Once caught ?) in this (time -binding) process, the mind becomes merely repetitive.
Is not repetition, imitation, a sign of ( a subtler process of inner) disintegration ? You can see how old people talk, the same thing over and over again, the same beliefs, the continuity, crystallized, stabilized and held firmly. All these are signs of ( brain's ) deterioration.
(Don't ask what would happen to society or what would happen to our relationship if there was no repetition or conformity. A mind that thinks about 'what will happen if' one is not mechanical, is obviously a mind already (comfortably settled in ) in the process of deterioration)

Is the (thinking) mind which is the only instrument we have, merely to be used as a machine, routine-ridden, repeating and conforming? How is the mind to be made non-mechanical? That is, how to remove the factor or factors that bring about deterioration? Surely, this is an important question. Is it not? This seems to me to be one of the gravest issues in the present crisis of the world culture because every sensation, every experience, every problem becomes repetitive.
Is it possible for (an integrated ?) mind to free itself from this mechanical process? What do we mean by 'mechanical process'? Is not ( our everyday thinking ?) the verbalizing process of memory in conjunction with the ( immediate challenges of the ?) present? That is the only instrument we have, or ( rather ?) that is the only (all-purpose ?) instrument which we are using (on a regular basis ?)
As I was saying, what is our thinking? It is memory in action. And our ( psychological ?) problem is that this thought process - which is the result of continued series of responses according to a certain background - can only produce mechanical results; and therefore it is merely a process of repetition.

The whole (active ?) content of our consciousness as we function now, whether we are conscious of it or not, is a mechanical process. I mean by 'mechanical' process a (culturally conditioned ) response of the past conditioned by the present, which is nothing but repetitive.
Let's take a very simple example. You are experiencing ( with all the senses functioning as an integrated whole ?) the beauty of a flower, or of the sunset, or of the shade of a tree. At the moment of experiencing, there is no (verbal process of ?) recognition; there is only a ( harmonious ?) state of being. As ( the timeless beauty of ?) that moment slips away, you (the 'experiencer'?) begin to give it a name; you say 'How beautiful that was!' That is, a process of ( verbal) recognition comes into being, and there is the desire for repetition of that sensation. So, next evening when look at the tree in the evening light, there is a certain vague sensation that I want ( to recapture the beauty of ?) it. So, I have set the repetitive machinery ( of personal experiencing ?) going.

Or you may have a beautiful statue in your room, or a fine picture. The first moment, it gives a great delight; you see something extraordinary and the mind captures it. You then sit down in front of the ( TV ? ) image, and hope to repeat that sensation. You have therefore set going the "mechanical process" of (experiencing ) which it is not only (running ) at the conscious level, but also more profoundly; ( and as a result ?) it brings about ( an inner ?) conflict, a 'struggle' (to recapture that magic moment ?) .
Our mind is used to ( all kind of ?) routines, repetitions, imitations, conformity; and if it perceives something (new & attractive ?) , it immediately wants to make it a "daily affair". That is clear, is it not? This is an observable 'psychological fact' of our daily existence.

Now, how can our mind not be mechanical? Now that I put this question in front of you and that you are becoming aware of it, what is your response? Do I actu ally know anything else? If I said there was something else, it would still be a projection of the past (personal & collective experience) into the present. This is a very complex problem because in this is involved the whole process of naming, and giving importance of words, not only neurologically but psychologically, not only at the conscious level but at the deeper level. That is also a deteriorating factor.
Therefore, can the (all-knowing ?) mind which is so much used to function mechanically, stop? This ( mental) machinery has to be stopped before you can find an answer. Can this machinery which is so (intellectually capable & ) cunning, so urgently demanding, can it 'come to an end'?
And how will this ( hyper-active ?) mind come to an end? That is an important ( experiential ?) question: the ( mechanical continuity of the thinking ?) mind must be stopped so that it can 'jump' to the other state. You cannot let it continue to function mechanically and ( still be free to ?) 'jump' (into the unknown ?) .
( In a nutshell:) A mind that is mechanical, can never find anything new (inwardly) . It's ( self-projected 'continuity' ?) must come to an end. Now how is this to be done? Is this the right ( experiential ?) question? In putting this question, the mind has again become mechanical: I want a result, the (instructions ?) are given and I follow them . What has happened? The practicing of the 'how' is (sustaining) the continuation of the ( old thinking ?) machine. See how false our thinking has become ?
There are two different states (options for ?) the mind (desiring to transcend its conditioning ?) , one pursuing the (methodology of the ?) 'how' and the other "enquiring without seeking a (personal reward or ?) result".

( At this point only the free ? ) mind which enquires, which pursues in research, will only help us. Now which is the state of your mind, the 'one that seeks a result' or the 'one that is enquiring'? If you seek a ( self-rewarding ?) result, you are merely pursuing mechanically; then, there is no end (and in time ?) that leads to deterioration and destruction. That is obvious.

Is your mind (meditatively ?) enquiring to find out the answer whether the mind 'can' come to an end, not 'how' to make it come to an end? The 'how' is entirely different from the 'can'. Can it? You have to be extraordinarily alert and extremely subtle to answer that question - and if you enquire into it , you will find that your mind is not (anymore enmeshed in ?) seeking a result, it is waiting for an answer; it is not desiring for an answer; it is not hoping for an answer . If you want to find out the (true ?) answer to a question, any response is mechanical, other than 'wait (& see' ?); since the experiential answer must be something which you don't know; the answers which you already know are mechanical (responses from the past experience of mankind) . But if you are faced with the question and you (meditatively ?) wait for the answer, then you will see that your mind is entirely in a different state. This (attitude of) waiting (& seeing ?) is more important than the answer. You understand ? Then, your mind is no longer (entangled in acting ) mechanically but a quite different thing comes into (one's) being without being invited .

Question: How can the 'thinker' and the 'thought' be united?

Krishnamurti: We are going to find out if it is possible to bring together the two separating processes of things at work. First, we 'know' that the 'thinker' (entity) and the 'thought process' are separate. But...are we aware how the thinker is always dominating (its) thoughts and is it possible for these two (mental processes ?) to be together so that there is no division, no battle?
It is only when there is no (such internal ?) struggle that there is ( a possibility to see ?) something new.

We know ( traditionally we 'know' ) that the thinker and the thought are separate, but most of us have never even thought about it, we take it for granted. It is only when somebody outside of you asks the question, then you are enquiring. So, why are the thought and the thinker separate? We have just accepted this ( inner duality ?) therefore, it has become a 'thinking habit' for us. What would happen to my mind if this (mental) habit stops? The mind would feel lost, would it not? It would be puzzled, bewildered by anything unexpected, by anything new; so the mind prefers to live (safely ) in this habit; 'I don't know what would happen if these two would come together (in my everyday life ?) , and I shall prefer the old things to continue'. So we want the old (dualistic mentality ? ) to continue for the obvious reason that we want security, certainty, to hold on to the things we know. (Our desire for mental ?) certainty makes us hold on to the old. That is a psychological fact, an observable fact.

Therefore our (prioritary ?) problem then is not how to bring the 'thinker' and the 'thought' together, but why the mind is seeking security, certainty. Can the human mind exist without seeking something to which it can hold on - knowledge, belief, what you will? The mind that we know is (safely installed in the 'known' ?) ; it is not interested in finding out; it is (prioritarily ) interested in being completely safe, completely secure, because we realize that our thinking could suddenly changes any moment; there is no actual (safety) in our thoughts; so it (the thinking brain ?) creates the 'thinker' as a permanent entity which will go on indefinitely, so, the mind has found (its temporal ?) security in the 'thinker' which (means that ?) the mind has the power to create the illusion of security and clings to it; therefore, so long as it is (instinctively ?) seeking this ( perfect illusion of ?) security, the mind is not interested in discovering what will happen if the thinker and the thought come together, it would rather 'hold on' to something it is already sure of.

So the problem is whether there is such a 'permanent thinking certainty'. Is there? Obviously not - neither in God, nor in wife nor in property which you would want to have (forever) . There is no (such) security.
(However ?) there is an (inner state of ?) complete 'aloneness' (all-oneness ?) without any dependability, without anything on which the mind can cling to.
But because the mind is afraid to 'be alone' ( to face its 'aloneness' ?) , it invents ( & projects ?) the 'thinker' as a permanent entity that will continue (forever). Or it would invent (and project its own desire for continuity in ?) property, wife, God, or a carved image.

( To recap:) The (traditional human) mind in its (instinctive ?) desire for security, has created (its own identification with the ?) 'thinker' as ( a controlling entity ?) apart from the ( impermanency of its own ?) thoughts, and it has 'accustomed' ( conditioned ?) itself to this division by mere habit; where there is ( an existence based on ?) 'habits' there is ( an inner sense of ?) permanency, and therefore the mind becomes mechanical.

When in your (inner ?) experience you realize that this 'thinker' is just the ( compensating ) result for ( the impermanent process of ?) thought, then you will see there is no (need for any ) effort to 'bring the two together'. Then there is only a state of (integrated all-oneness?) and an understanding without any words. But for (getting to ?) that, you must have an extraordinary insight into the whole of your consciousness, which is a process of meditation. That meditation is only possible when the mind understands (non-dualistically ?) the whole 'content' of your consciousness, which is 'yourself'.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 07 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 May 2017 #577
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline


Beyond the 'observer-observed' duality

As I was saying yesterday, one of the fundamental causes of (our inner) deterioration is the ( egotistic ?) will in action. I also said that imitation, repetition, the mechanical response of the mind, of memory, is another factor of deterioration of the mind. And is not ( our unconscious drive for ?) self-perpetuation one of the major factors that bring about (a certain qualitative ?) deterioration of the mind?
The only ( available ?) instrument we have is the (thinking ?) mind, but we have used it hitherto, wrongly. Is it possible now to bring to an end this whole process of 'self' (-centred thinking ?) with all its deteriorating factors, with all its destructive elements? I think most of us realize that the 'self' (-centred enrity ?) is separative, destructive, antisocial; outwardly and inwardly, it is an isolating process in which no (authentic) relationship is possible, in which love cannot exist. We more or less feel this actually or superficially, but most of us are not (responsibly ?) aware of it.

Is it possible to really bring this ( egotistic ?) process to an end, not substitute it for something else, or postpone, or explain it away? When we do put that question to ourselves, the natural response is : 'How ?'. The practical way, the manner, matters to us. If we can examine a little more closely perhaps we shall understand that the 'how', the 'practical' way of achieving a result, will not end this 'self' (centredness ?) . You may have a very rigorous self- disciplining method, or a method that will gradually ease you out of the conflict of self, a method that will give you solace; but essentially, the desire for a method only indicates really the (subliminal desire for ?) strengthening of the self.

Please follow this closely and you will see whether or not the 'how' indicates an imitative process through which the self-centred mind can gather strength and have greater capacity and not end at all.
Take the ('self'-related ?) question of envy: you envy the rich, envy the learned, envy of the man who achieves (fame & fortune ?) . Envy is clothed sometimes in a religious form but essentially it is the same; it is -( based on the same ?) desire to 'be' something, spiritually, economically. That is one of our major ( ego-centric ?) drives. Our instinctive response, if we are at all (inwardly responsible & ?) thoughtful, is to find a way to bring it to an end.
But can this envy be brought to an end by a method, by a technique? Envy implies the ( sublimated) desire to be something here or hereafter. So ( by following the 'how' ?) you have not tackled the ( ages old movement of ?) desire which makes you envious; but you have learned a way to cover up that desire by expressing (or redirecting ?) it in another way; but essentially, it is still envy. And we can then see that essentially it is ( amounting to ?) the strengthening of ( self-centred) thought. ( This process of ?) thought is one of the major factors that bring about deterioration, because thought is a process of (recycling & updating our past) memory, which is verbalization of memory and is a conditioning influence. The (self-centred ?) mind that is seeking a way out of this confusion is only strengthening that thought process. So, what is ( experientially ?) important is, not to find (the bestest ?) way or method - because we have seen what the implications in it are - but to become (responsably ?) aware of the whole process of the mind.

For most of us, (in terms of inner life ?) creation is non-existent; we do not know what it means to create. Without that creativeness which is not of time, which is not of thought, we cannot bring about a vitally different culture, a different state of human relationship? Is it possible for the mind to be in that receptive state in which creativeness can take place? Thought is not creative; the man who pursues the idea can never be creative; the pursuit of an ideal is thought process and is conditioned after the mind. So, how can the mind which is thought process, which is the result of time, which is the result of education, of influence, of pressure, of fear, of the search for reward, of the avoidance of punishment, how can such a mind be ever free so that creativeness can take place? We see that only when the ( time-bound ?) mind with its thought process comes to an end, is there creation.

Surely, in the present crisis of the world ( 1952 !) such creation is the most difficult thing to achieve. The only minds that are creative are those of human beings that are (inwardly) integrated. And...what is that creative state? Surely it cannot be stated positively. To describe it (positively) is to limit it. The description will be a process of measuring; and to measure it is to use a thought process. Therefore thought can never capture it. It is of no value to describe it. What we can do is to find out what are the barriers, by negatively approaching it, obliquely coming upon it by discovering for yourself the impediments that prevent that creative state, that extraordinary state in which the ( all-knowing ?) mind, the 'observer', is non-existent.
What is the first thing that stands in the way? Surely, the whole (egotistic ?) desire to be powerful, to dominate, stands in the way. Do watch in your own lives and you will see the separative, the destructive desire in action. That will obviously defeat ( the intelligence of ?) love. It is only love that is our redemption. But we are caught in the Stream of becoming, in the stream of desire for power; and we are incapable of stopping it and stepping out. To step out, there is no 'how'. You see the full implications of power; and when you realize it fully, you step out; there is no 'how'.
One other hindrances that prevents creativeness is authority, authority of the example, the authority of the past, authority of experience, authority of knowledge, authority of belief. And obviously, another factor that prevents the state (of inner creativeness ?) is repetition, imitation, perpetuation of an idea. Repetition is not only of sensation but of rituals, vain repetition of the pursuit of knowledge, repetition of experience, which have no (spiritual) significance at all. Another factor that divides us from that creative state is this desire for a method, the 'how', the way, practicing something so that our mind can achieve a result; this is a process of continuity, repetition; and the mind which is caught in repetition, can never be creative.

So, if you can see ( what is wrong with ?) all that, then you will find that it is the mind actually that is preventing the creative state from coming into being.
So when the mind is aware of its own movement, mind comes to an end. It is only then that the creative state can be; it is the only salvation because that creative state is "love". The mind can only create images, images of sensation, of experience; but the mind can never know love; and yet we have cultivated the ( intellectual ?) mind for centuries.
( To recap: ) it is extremely arduous for the mind to see all this process so that the experiencer is never apart from the experienced. It is this division between the observer and the observed that is ( behind) the (self-centred ?) process of thought. In Love, there is no 'experiencer' or the 'experienced'. Now, and as we do not know it and as that is the only redemption, surely an earnest man must ( spend some quality time and ?) watch the whole process of the mind, the hidden and the open. And it is only through a "meditative search", that we can have awareness of the mind and its content; then, the ( all knowing ?) mind comes to an end and ( the creative intelligence of ?) Love can be.

Question: How is man to 'fulfil' himself if he has no ideals?

Krishnamurti: We usually try to fulfil ourselves through family, through son, through brother, through wife, through property, through identification with a country or a group, or through pursuit of an ideal, or through the desire for continuity of the 'me' (in the after life ?) . There are various, different forms of (our attempts for 'self-) fulfilment' at different levels of consciousness.
Now, when are you conscious of this urge to be, to become, to fulfil? Are you not becoming aware of it when you feel your own loneliness, a sense of inexhaustible no-thingness, of yourself not being something ? And then, you ( try to fill it by ?) pursue (self-) fulfilment through innumerable forms, at different layers of consciousness. ( In a nutshell ?) The desire to 'fulfil oneself' is an escape from that ( uneasy feeling ?) which we call loneliness.
So our problem is not how to fulfil, or what is ( the bestest way of ?) fulfilment; because there is no such thing as fulfilment. The ( self-conscious?) 'me' can never fulfil; it is always empty; you may have a few (gratifying ) sensations when you are achieving a result (like...becoming a 'president' ?) ; but the moment these sensations have gone you are back again ( 'tweeting' from ?) that empty state. So you begin to pursue the same process as before.
So the 'me' is the creator of that (inner) emptiness. The 'me' is the empty; the 'me' is a self-enclosing process in which we are (eventually becoming ?) aware of that extraordinary sense of loneliness. So being aware of that, we are trying to run away through various forms of ( temporal ?) identification. These identifications we call 'fulfillments'. But actually, there is no fulfilment because mind, the 'me', can never fulfil; it is the very nature of the 'me' to be self-enclosing.

Now, what is a mind which is (becoming ?) aware of that emptiness, to do? That is your problem, is it not? For most of us, this ache of emptiness is extraordinarily strong. We do anything to escape from it. Any 'illusion' is sufficient (for the time being ?) , and that is the very source of illusion. Mind has the power to create illusions. And as long as we do not understand that 'aloneness', that state of self-enclosing emptiness - do what you will, seek whatever fulfilment you will - there is always that (invisible ?) 'barrier' which divides, which knows no completeness.
So our difficulty is to become (responsibly aware ?) of this (inner) emptiness, of this "loneliness". We are never getting face to face with it because we are always running away from it, withdrawing, isolating, identifying. We are never face to face, directly, in communion with it. We then are ( living the duality between ?) the 'observer' and the 'observed'. That is, the (self-conscious) mind, the 'I', observes that 'emptiness'; and then it either proceeds to free itself from that emptiness or ( still simpler ?) to run away.
Now, is that emptiness, loneliness different from the 'observer'? Is not the 'observer' himself (the creator of that ) emptiness ? (Clue:) if the 'observer' was not capable of (naming & ) recognizing that state which he calls 'loneliness', there would be no ( personal ?) experience. (If the 'fact' is seen non-dualistically :) he 'is' empty and he can do nothing about it. Because, if he does anything whatsoever, he becomes the 'observer' acting upon the (emptiness ?) 'observed', which is a false (dualistic) relationship.
So when the mind realizes that it 'is' empty and that it cannot act upon it, then, that (state of inner) emptiness of which we were aware 'from outside', has now a different meaning. So far, we have approached it as the observer. Now the observer himself is empty, alone, is lonely. Can he do anything about it? Obviously, he cannot. Then his relationship to it is entirely different from that of the relationship of the observer. He is that aloneness. He is (abiding ?) in that state in which there is no verbalization that 'I am empty'. So when the verbalization ceases, when the 'experiencer' ceases experiencing (his?) 'loneliness', or when he ceases to 'run away', then he is "entirely lonely", he is himself that; and ( if and ???) when he realizes that fully, surely, that emptiness, loneliness, ceases to be.

( The experiential clue is :) 'loneliness' is entirely different from 'all-oneness'. That (aching ?) 'loneliness' must be passed (transcended ?) to be "all-one". 'Loneliness' is not comparable with 'all-oneness'. The man who knows loneliness can never know That which is "all-one". Are you in that state of all-oneness? Our minds are not integrated to be all-one. The very ( dualistic) process of the mind is separative. And that which separates (itself) knows ( only the ) loneliness. But 'all-oneness' is not separative. It is something which is not the many, which is not influenced by the many, which is not the result of the many, which is not put together as the mind is; the (lonely ) mind is of the many. ( Our inherited) mind is not an (integrated consciousness ) that is "all-one" - it has being put together through centuries. This mind can never know all-oneness. But being (compregensively ?) aware of the loneliness, when 'going through it', there comes into being that (state of integrated) "all-oneness". Then only can there be ( an opening to ?) That Which is Immeasurable.
Unfortunately most of us seek ( to compensate that gnawing sense of loneliness by ?) dependence. We want companions, we want friends (while inwardly living ?) in a state which brings about conflict. That which is "all-one" can never be in a state of conflict. But ( the self-centred ?) mind can never understand that, it can only know 'loneliness'.

Question: You said that Truth can come only when one can be alone and can 'love' sorrow. This is not clear. Kindly explain what you mean by 'being alone' and by 'loving sorrow'?

Krishnamurti: Most of us are not "in communion" with anything. We are not directly in communion with our friends, with our wives, with our children. We are not in communion with anything directly. There are always barriers - mental, imaginary, and actual. And this (sense of our ?) separativeness is the cause, obviously, of sorrow. If you are capable of experiencing it directly, you will see that sorrow cannot come to an end by any mental process. You can explain sorrow away, which is a mental (intellectual) process; but sorrow is still there, though you may cover it up
So to understand sorrow, surely you must 'love it', you must be in direct communion with it. If you would understand something - your neighbour, your wife, or any relationship - , if you would understand something completely, you must come to it without any (personal) objection, prejudice, condemnation or repulsion; you must look at it, must you not? If I would understand you, I must be capable (and willing ?) of looking at you, not through barriers, screens of my prejudices and conditioning's; I must be in communion with you, which means, I must 'love you' (have an open affection for you ?) . Similarly, if I would understand sorrow, I must 'love it', I must be in communion with it. I can not do so if I am running away from it through verbal explanations or through ( convenient ?) postponements. So the words prevent me - words of explanations, rationalizations, which are still words, which are the mental process - , from coming directly in communion with sorrow. It is only when I am (getting ) in communion with sorrow.
The next ( experiential) step is: Am 'I', the 'observer' of sorrow, different from my 'sorrow' ? Obviously ( verbally ?) not...(but subliminally...'yes' ?) . So if I 'am' ( assuming the full responsability for my?) sorrow, then only is there a possibility of ending ( the cause of this ?) sorrow.
As long as 'I' am ( identifying myself as an objective ?) 'observer' of sorrow, there is no ending of sorrow. But when there is the realization that sorrow 'is' the 'me', the observer himself 'is' the (cause of its own ?) sorrow - which is an 'extraordinarily difficult' thing to experience (outside a 'meditator-free' meditation ?) because for centuries we have divided this thing - ,when the mind realizes it is itself both the 'creator of sorrow' and the 'feeler of sorrow', ( in short, that ) it 'is' sorrow, then there is the ending of ( the subliminal continuity of ?) sorrow. This requires a very alert, watchful, intelligent awareness. That intelligent integrated state is "all-oneness". When the observer 'is' the observed, then it 'is' the integrated state. And in that all-oneness, in that state of being completely 'all-one', full (whole ?) , when the mind is not seeking anything, neither seeking reward nor avoiding punishment, when the mind is truly still, not seeking, not groping, only then, That which is not ( to be described or ?) 'measured' by the (man-made ?) mind, comes into ( one's ) being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 May 2017 #578
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 6 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica quotes K:
sorrow - which is an 'extraordinarily difficult' thing to experience,

when the mind realizes it is itself both the 'creator of sorrow' and the 'feeler of sorrow...

John, Jan,

There is a very important link to understand between these two quotes. .

Jan Kasol quotes K:
the coming into being of consciousness through sensation

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 May 2017 #579
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline



K: Those who have seriously followed these talks will have observed that ( the self-centred ?) thinking we are now indulging in , is one of the major factors that divide man from man; it is one of the factors that bring about no action that postpone ( the inner ?) action; because our 'ideas' are the result of (this self-centred ?) thought and they can never produce action. There is a gap between idea and thought, and our difficulty is to bridge the gap (psychological trap ?) into which we have fallen.
I would like to discuss this evening this question of 'self-deception', the delusions that the ( self-centred ?) mind indulges in and imposes upon itself and upon others; that is a very serious matter, especially in a ( consciousness ?) crisis of this kind which the world is facing.
But before we can answer the ( academical ?) question 'What is self-deception and how does it arise?', must we not be(come) aware that we are deceiving ourselves? Do we actually realise that we are deceiving ourselves? What do we mean by (self-) deception? I think it is a very important (subject) because the more we deceive ourselves, this gives us a certain vitality, a certain energy, a certain capacity which entails the imposing of our deception on others. So, gradually I am not only imposing deception on myself but on others. It is an interacting process of self deception. Are we aware that in this process of ( self-centred ) thinking, there is ( a vast potential for ?) self-deception?
Is not ( behind our everyday ?) thinking a (subliminal ?) desire to be well thought of, a desire to have position, prestige and power? And is not this desire to be (recognised & appreciated ?) politically or sociologically, the very cause of self-deception? The moment I want (recognition & respectability ?) do I not bring about a state which easily coforms and accepts?
(In a nutshell ?) the fundamental factor of self-deception is this constant desire to 'be ( or 'become' ?) something' in this world and/or in the world hereafter. We know the result of wanting to 'be something' in this world; each is competing with the other, each is destroying the other in the name of (global) peace (and stability ?) ; you know the whole game we play with each other, which is an extraordinary form of self-deception. Similarly, we may want (personal ?) security in the 'other world', a position. So, we begin to deceive ourselves the moment there is this urge to be, to become or to achieve. That is (apparently ?) very difficult for the (self-centred ?) mind to be free from. That is one of the basic ( existential ?) problems of our life.

Is it possible to live in this world and be ( as ?) 'nothing'? Then only there is freedom from all (self-) deception, because then this ('psychologically transparent' ?) mind is not seeking a personal result and is not seeking ('psychological ) security' in any form, in any relationship. That ( inner transparency ?) takes place only when the mind realizes the subtleties of self-deception, and therefore abandons every form of (psychological ?) security - which means, the mind is capable then of being completely ('as ?) nothing'. Is that possible?
Surely as long as we ( are subliminally ? ) deceiving ourselves in any form, there can be no ( authentic affection or ?) 'love'. As the mind is (busy with) creating and imposing upon itself a delusion, it obviously separates itself from an integrated understanding. What is important to realize is that ( the authentic spirit of ?) cooperation is possible only when you and I do not desire to 'be(come)' anything. When you and I desire to be something, then a projected Utopia is necessary; but if you and I are 'anonymously (working ) creatively' without any self-deception, without any (psycho-) barriers of belief and knowledge, then there is true cooperation.
Is it possible for us to cooperate without ( expecting a personal ?) result, which you and I are (subliminally ?) seeking? Surely that is ( the spirit of ?) true cooperation. Is it not?
So, is it not important to find out whether you and I can live together in a world where you and I are (psychologically 'as ?) nothing'; not just at the 'superficial' (verbal) level but fundamentally? That is one of our greatest (socio-politic ?) problems, perhaps the greatest.
(I may identify myself with an object(ive) and you identify yourself with the same object(ive) ; both of us are intending to bring it about. Surely, this process of ( collective ?) thinking is very superficial, because through (this personal ) identification, we bring about ( a subliminal sense of ) separation - which is so obvious in our every day life. You are a 'Hindu' and I a 'Catholic'; we both preach 'brotherhood' but ( ideologically ?) we are at each other's throats. Why? Because "un-consciously" , deeply, you have ( identified yourself with ?) your beliefs and I have mine. By talking about 'brotherhood', we have not solved the whole problem of (our self- identification with ?) beliefs, but we have only intellectually agreed that this should be so; inwardly and deeply, we are against each other.
Until we dissolve those ('psycho-) barriers' which are a (major cause for ?) self-deception, which give us a certain sense of inner vitality, there can be no cooperation between you and me. Through identification with a group with a particular idea, with a particular country, we can never bring about (the free spirit of ?) cooperation.

Our difficulty is that each of us is so (subliminally ?) identified with a particular belief, with a particular (fool-proof ?) method in bringing about happiness & economic (welfare for all ?) , that we are incapable (or...unwilling ?) of going deeper into the problem; therefore, we desire to remain aloof individually in our particular ways, beliefs and experiences.
Until we understand and dissolve them at the deeper levels (of our being) , there can be no Peace in the world. Love cannot come to those who have a desire to hold on to it or who like to become identified with it. Surely such things come when the mind does not seek, when the mind is completely quiet, when the mind is no longer creating movements and beliefs upon which it can depend or from which it derives a certain strength, which is an indication of self-deception. it is only when the mind understands this whole process of desire, can the mind be still. Only then, the mind is not in movement to be or not to be; then only is there the possibility of a state in which no deception of any kind is possible.

Question: One starts with good will and the sincere desire to help; but unfortunately, to help constructively, one joins various ( established ) organizations, political or religious-sociological . And presently, one finds oneself cut off from all (authentic ) goodness and charity. How does this happen?

Krishnamurti: Most of us, especially if we are young and still sensitive and impressionable, want to do something about this world with its misery. So, you look around. Then what happens? You go to various meetings of the extreme left, middle or of the right, or pick up a religious book and try to solve the problem. You start out wanting to do good with a certain compassionate desire to bring about a (concrete ?) result, and you end up in an 'organization' which promises a future utopia. When you join the organization; your eagerness has gone into political activity, into an ideal, rather than than being concerned with how you should act 'now' to produce a change. Have we not introduced a postponement, a forgetfulness, a deception of the opposing (individuals or ?) parties which prevents us from doing anything? The result is that we are cut off from the (original) source of compassion and love. We call this immediate action. That is the case with most of us.

The difficulty with most of us is that once we are committing ourselves we are becoming (consenting ?) 'prisoners' of the groups who have the power, economic and psychological power, and we are at their mercy (of their group interests ?) ; and it requires a great deal of understanding to break away from all this. No one will help us because everybody else believes in something . Being caught in all this one grows old; then there is despair and tragedy, and one accepts it as the inevitable.
Is it possible to see this whole ( decaying) process of how goodness, charity, love, are destroyed by our stupidity because we are all so eager to do something? We have not the patience to look, to observe, to know more deeply. The very desire to be active in 'doing good' is a deception because the (omnipresent ) 'clever man' is waiting there to use your desire to help; we give ourselves over to him, to be exploited, to be used.

Is it not possible to become aware of the whole content of this problem, and to 'break away', and actually, face the problem so as to revive again that pristine goodness, that sense of being in a state of (intelligent ?) love? That is the only way to act. When there is love, that will bring about an extraordinary (crealive ?) state, an extraordinary result, which you and I cannot plan to produce, cannot (premeditate ?) . Seeing (the truth regarding ?) this whole problem of ('psychological' committment ?) , those who are serious have obviously to break away. In the very breaking away is the renewal; in the very seeing is the action ( not idea first and action afterwards).

Question: Why do you say that knowledge and belief must be suppressed for truth to be?

Krishnamurti: What is your know ledge and what is your belief? Actually when you examine your knowledge or your belief, what is it? ( Cultivated ?) memories, are they not? What have you knowledge of? Of other peoples' experiences written down in a book! You meet an incident and you translate that incident according to your ( cultivated ?) memory which you call (your) experience. Your knowledge is a process of ( mental) recognition. So, how can a mind crippled with knowledge which is the accumulation of the past translating the present in terms of its own convenience, how can such a mind burdened with such knowledge, understand what Truth is? Truth must be something beyond time. It cannot be projected by my mind; it cannot be carved out of my experience; it must be something unknowable from my past experience. If I know it is from the past, I recognize it. therefore it is not ( a living ?) truth. If it is merely a belief, then it is a projection of my own desires.
Why are we so proud of our knowledge? We are (getting safely ) enclosed in our beliefs or knowledge because we are afraid to be nothing. That is why you put so many titles; you give yourselves names, ideas, reputation, a vulgar show. So, when you examine this whole thing, what have you? Nothing but words, nothing but ( a carefully cultivated ?) memory. Truth is something that must be beyond the imagination, beyond the process of the ( all-knowing ?) mind. It must be eternally new, a thing that cannot be 'recognized', that cannot be described. When you quote what the Buddha has said, you have already begun to (evaluate & ) compare - which shows you have stopped thinking & feeling for yourself . ( The illusory safety of ?) your knowledge is destroying the immediate perception of what is truth.

That is why it is important to be (inwardly) simple, see these things simply, not with a cunning mind. Then you will see the mind is becoming new, it is in a state of constant experiencing, not in relation to the past; there is a new movement which is not repeatable. You can't suppress knowledge; you have to understand its (right place ?) but to find the Truth there is no "guru", there is no "example" to follow , there is no path. The (meditating ?) mind must be completely 'empty' ( of its 'psychological' content ?) , it is only when the mind is utterly still, that there is possibility of (having an insight into ?) That which is Immeasurable.

Question: What is the relationship between what the psychologists call 'intuition' and what you call (insightful ?) 'understanding'?

Krishnamurti: What do we mean by 'intuition'? What is an intuitive feeling? Whether it is right or wrong, you have 'a feeling that it must be so' or 'it must not be so', a ( 'gut' ?) feeling that is not logically thought out, a feeling which you call a 'flash' from a higher consciousness.
So, we want to find out the truth of it. First of all, it is very easy to deceive oneself. I have an intuitive feeling that reincarnation is true. Now, what is (psychologically) involved in this intuitive feeling? Your hope, your desire for (an after-life) continuity, a ( subliminal ?) feeling of emptiness, loneliness, all these are driving you; all these urge you to hold on to the idea of reincarnation. So, your own desire 'unconsciously' projects ( interferes in ?) that intuitive feeling. Without understanding the whole process of desire, you cannot depend on intuition which in some cases is deceptive.
Don't talk about scientists having an (insighful) perception of a problem; even the scientists work impersonally about a problem; and as they work at it they (may ?) suddenly see the answer; and that is their 'intuition'. But we don't tackle our (psychological) problems in that ( impersonal) way. We are we are confined, limited by our own desires; and our own desires dictate, consciously or unconsciously, the attitude, the response, the reaction.

( A holistic ?) understanding is (resulting from ?) the whole perception of the problem; which is (including the ?) understanding the desire and the ways it acts. When you "understand", you will see there is no (self-conscious ) entity as the 'examiner' who is looking at the examined problem. This (insightful ?) understanding is not intuition. This understanding (involves) the seeing of the process of how the desire works, entirely, not just at the superficial level; it is going completely into the thing, in which every possibility of deception is revealed.
( To sum it up:) ( A totally insightful ?) understanding is an integrated process, whereas 'intuition', as we generally use it, is departmental. The latter operates occasionally; the rest of the time, we are all (inwardly dull or ?) 'stupid' . What is the good of having such intuition? One moment, you see things clearly; and for the rest of the time, you are just the old stupid entity that you were before . ( The insightful self-) understanding is an integrated process, functioning 'all the time'; and that comes into being when we are aware of the total process of desire.

Question: You say that life, as we live, is 'negation' and so there cannot be love. Will you please explain?

Krishnamurti: Why do you want my explanation? Are our lives very creative, very positive? We are very 'positive' in (manifesting ?) our greed, in our personal ambitions (resulting in ) every form of destruction, separation, isolation - all these are there.
Our life, though it appears 'positive', is actually (creation-wise ?) a (form of ) 'negation' because it leads to death, destruction, misery. You will not accept that because you will say 'We are doing everything positive in this world; we can't live in a state of negation'. But if you are ambitious, you are destructive, corrupting, corroding in your relationships; Every act of yours is a negative act. Imitation is ( creatively speaking a form of ?) death; yet, we have 'examples' which we want to follow, we have gurus; we follow the process of repetition, imitation, routine - which is what? Death, negation! Is it not? How can such a ( mind ?) comprehend anything? Such an entity can't know love. The only thing that is 'positive' is Love. That comes into being only when the 'negative' state is not ( psycho-active ?) , when you are not ambitious, when you are not corrupt, when you are not envious. First you must recognize ( acknowledge ?) "that which is", and in understanding "that which is", the other ( 'positive' attitude ?) comes into being.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 08 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #580
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #581
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #582
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #583
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #584
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #585
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 7 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 #586
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #587
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #588
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #589
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 5 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 #590
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 5 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 #591
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #592
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #593
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #594
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #595
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #596
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 #597
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 #598
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 #599
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 #600
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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
Displaying posts 571 - 600 of 650 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.)