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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 691 - 702 of 702 in total
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 #691
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 673 posts in this forum Offline

(More 'unzipped' Commentaries on Living)

WHAT AM I TO DO? (A small group K dialogue from the mid-50's)

The room was not very large, and the few who had come rather crowded it. They were of all ages. There was an old man with his very young daughter, a married couple, and a college student. They evidently didn’t know each other, and each was eager to talk about his own problem, but without wanting to interfere with the others. The little girl sat beside her father, shy and very quiet; she must have been about ten. She had on fresh clothes, and there was a flower in her hair. We all sat for awhile without saying a word. At last, rather nervously, the young man began.

Q(1) : I am now in my last year at college, but somehow I don’t seem to be very interested in any particular career. I simply don’t know what I want to do. I have several friends who studied for different careers, and who are now earning their own way; but most of them are already becoming dull and weary, and what they will be like a few years hence, God only knows. I don’t want to be like that – but nothing else seems to interest me either. What am I to do ?

K: Apart from the usual careers, what would you really like to do? You must have some interest, however vague it may be. Somewhere, deep down, you know what it is, don’t you?

Q: You see, I have no much interest in raising a family, and I don’t want to be a slave to a routine. Most of my friends who have jobs, or who have embarked upon a career, are tied to the office from morning till night; and what do they get out of it? A house, a wife some children - and boredom. To me, this is really a frightening prospect, and I don’t want to be caught in it; but I still don’t know what to do.

K: Since you have thought so much about all this, haven’t you tried to find out where your real interest lies?

Q: I just don’t want to get caught in a treadmill that’s all. But what is it I would really like to do? I wish I knew.

K: Do you like ( working with?) people? Perhaps you might like to do something along the line of social work ?

Q: Curious you should say that. I have thought of doing social work, and for a time I went around with some of those who have given their lives to it. Generally speaking, they are a dry, frustrated lot, ceaselessly active in trying to improve social conditions but unhappy inside.

K: I suppose 'religion' means nothing to you?

Q: As a young boy I often used to go with my mother to the temple, with its priests, prayers and ceremonies, but I haven’t been there for years.

K: Religion is something much more than all that. Are you adventurous?

Q: Not in the usual meaning of that word mountain climbing, polar exploration, deep-sea diving, and so on. There’s something rather immature about all that.

K: We have eliminated a great deal, haven’t we? If you don’t want to do any of these things, then what’s left?

Q: I don’t know. Am I still too young to know?

K: ( Existential?) discontent is part of human existence, but we generally find a way to tame it : through a ( materially rewarding) career through marriage, through belief, or through idealism and good works. One way or another, most of us manage to smother (or sweep under the carpet?) this flame of discontent don’t we? Now instead of smothering this flame of discontent through some form of satisfaction, is it possible to keep it always burning? And is it then ( the same frustrating?) discontent?

Q: Do you mean I should remain as I am, dissatisfied with everything about me and within myself, and not seek some satisfying occupation that will let this fire burn out? Is that what you mean?

K: The idea that we should be (inwardly) at peace only makes discontentment painful. With the understanding of (the holistic significance of your?) discontent, you may be able to ( see and ) do much more. Now, ( as a rule of thumb?) the mind ( occupied with its self-interest?) is in essence mediocre. Established in a respectable and profitable routine, this mind feels secure, both inwardly and outwardly; therefore it ceases to be disturbed (inwardly ?) . This is so isn’t it?

Q: In general, yes. But what am I to do?

K : You may ( be able to) discover the solution if you go further into this feeling of discontent. ( For starters?) don’t think about it in terms of (expecting to?) be contented. Find out why it exists, and whether it shouldn’t be ( potentially a flame of passion to be ?) kept burning. After all, you are not particularly concerned about earning a livelihood, are you?

Q: Not really.... One can always survive somehow or other

K: So that’s not your (immediate) problem at all. But you don’t want to be caught in a routine, in the wheel of mediocrity; isn’t that what you are concerned about?

Q: It looks like it, sir.

K: Not to be thus 'caught' (in the Wheel of Time?) demands hard work, incessant watching, not coming to ('fool-proof' blueprints or ?) 'conclusions', for to think from (a mental platform made of personal or collective ?) 'conclusions' is not to think (creatively?), at all. It’s because the mind starts from a belief, from (its past) experience or knowledge, that it gets caught in routine, in the (safety?) net of habits, and then the (timeless ) flame of (passion?) is smothered.

Q: I see that you are perfectly right, and I now understand what it is that has really been on my mind. I don’t want to be like those whose life is routine and boredom. Losing oneself in various forms of (hedonistic?) adventures is equally meaningless; and I don’t want to be merely contented either. I am beginning to see a direction which I never knew even existed. Is this new direction what you were referring to an inner movement, which is timeless and ever creative?

K: Perhaps. (The authentic religious life is ?) the moment-by moment discovery (& unfolding?) of that ( inner timeless) movement, which has no name.


Q(2) : I have listened very attentively, and have seen something beyond my (personal ) problems. In listening quietly to the troubles of another, your own (psychological) burden is sometimes lightened.
Now, personally, I have reached an age when I no longer ask what I am going to do; instead, I look back and consider what I have done with my life : upon graduating from college, I went in search of work, and once having found a job, I spent the next forty years and more in earning a livelihood and maintaining a rather large family. During all that time I was caught in the office routine and in the habits of family life, and I know its pleasures and tribulations, its tears and passing joys. I have grown old with struggle and weariness, followed in the last years by a fast decline. Looking back on all that, I now ask myself, ‘What have I done with my life? Now that I have retired, I can see that I have been living on the surface of life; I have merely drifted. Though I struggled a little against the strong current of society, in the end I was pulled along by it. Now, I am (seriously) concerned with the few years that I still have left. Between now and the fast-approaching day of my death, how am I to meet this thing called life? That is my problem.

K: What we 'are' (now 'psychologically'-wise ?) is made up of (the residual memories of ? ) 'what we have been'; and 'what we have been' also shapes our future. Our (time-bound?) 'present' is a movement of the 'past' to the 'future'.

Q: What has been 'my past'? Practically  nothing much. There have been no great sins, no towering ambition, no overwhelming sorrow, no degrading violence. My life has been that of the average man, an even (thought-time) flow, the (average) dull and empty existence without much meaning. It would have been (basically) the same, had I lived in a palace, or in a village hut. How easy it is to slip into the (collective) current of mediocrity! Now, here's my ( 1000$) question : is it possible to break away from this petty (Current of the ) past?

K: When you use the word ‘past’, what does it signify?

Q: It seems to me that the 'past' is chiefly a matter of ( mental) associations and memory.

K: Do you mean the totality of ( the personal & collective ) memory, or just the memory of everyday incidents? ( The memory of everyday ) incidents that have no psychological significance, while they may be remembered, they just come and go; they do not occupy or burden the ( deeper layers of our ) mind. Only those remain which have a 'psychological' significance. So is there a ( streaming of the ) past that remains immovable, from which you can cleanly and sharply break away?

Q: My past is made up of a multitude of ( personal & collective memories of big & ) little things (hectically) put together , and its roots are shallow. A good shock like a strong wind, could blow it away.

K: And you are waiting for the ( Good ?) 'wind'. Is that your problem?

Q: Not necessarily. But must I go on like this for the rest of my days? Can I not break away from the ( weary burden of my psychological) past?

K: What is this 'past' from which you want to break away? Is it something static, or is it a living thing? If it’s a living thing, how does it get its life? Through what means does it revive itself? And furthermore, if it’s a 'living thing', can you break away from it? And who is the ‘you’ that wants to break away?

Q: Now I’m getting confused. I have asked you a very simple ( 1000$) question, and you counter it by asking several more complicated (100$) ones. Would you kindly explain what you mean?

K: You said, sir, that you want to be 'free from ( the psychological burden of ) the past'. ( But, inwardly -speaking, ?) what is this 'past'?

Q: It consists of ( all the personal & collective ) past experiences and the ( residual) memories one has of them.

K: Now, ( most of?) these memories are on the surface, they are not deep-rooted. But may not some of them have roots deep in the 'unconscious'?

Q: Traditions and beliefs may have deep roots in ( the consciousness of) many people, but they don’t play a very significant part in my life.

K: If the (residues of the ) 'past' could be dismissed so easily, if only the outer 'husk of the past' remains, which can be brushed off at any time, then you have already broken away. But there’s more to this (complex psychological) problem than that isn’t there? How are you to 'break free' from your mediocre life? How are you to shatter the (self-centred) pettiness of the mind? Isn’t this also part of your problem, sir?

Q: I came with the intention of dispelling my ( known personal ) past, which is without much significance, but I am being confronted with another ( far more intricate?) problem.

K: Why do you say that your past is without much significance?

Q: I have ( conveniently?) 'drifted' on the surface of life, and when you drift, you can’t have deep roots, even in your own family. I see that to me life hasn’t meant very much; I have done nothing with it. However, since only a few years are now left to me, I would want to stop this 'drifting', to make something of what remains of my life. Is this at all possible?

K: What do you want to make of your life? Doesn’t the ( self-projected) pattern of 'what you want to be', evolve from 'what you have been'? Surely, your (new) pattern is a reaction from what has been; it is still an outcome of the past.

Q: Then how am I to make anything of my life?

K: What do you mean by ' your life'? Can 'you' act upon it? Or is Life something incalculable, and not to be held within the boundaries of the ( self-centred) mind? Human life is ( containing) everything, isn’t it? Jealousy, vanity, inspiration and despair; social morality, and the virtue outside the realm of cultivated righteousness; the knowledge gathered through the centuries; ( the personality or the ?) character, which is the meeting of the past with the present; the organized (systems of?) beliefs, called 'religions', and the (spiritual essence of the ?) Truth that lies beyond them; hate and affection; Intelligence , Love and Compassion which are not within the field of the ( self-centred) mind... Life is all this and still more, is it not? And 'you' would want to 'do something' with it, to give it shape, direction, significance. But...who is the ‘you’ that wants to do all this? Are 'you' different from that 'life' which you seek to change?

Q: Are you suggesting that one should just go on drifting?

K: The (holistic?) understanding of this totality of life brings about its own action, in which there is neither drifting nor the imposition of a (man-made) pattern. This ( living) totality is to be understood from moment to moment. ( Experientially-wise?) there must be a death ( 'letting go' ?) of the (psychological memory of the ) past moment.

Q: But am I capable of understanding the totality of life?

K: If you do not understand it (now, then...better luck next time?) , (since) no one else can understand it for you. You cannot learn it ( by 'copy-pasting' it?) from another.

Q: But then, how shall I proceed ?

K : Through (a holistic approach to ?) 'self-knowledge'; for the totality, the Whole Treasure of Life, lies within yourself.

Q: What do you exactly mean by this ( holistic approach to) 'self-knowledge' ?

K: It is to perceive (non-dualistically?) the ways of your own mind; it is to learn ( by full immersion?) about your cravings, your desires, your urges and pursuits, the 'hidden' ones as well as the 'open'. There is no ( holistic ?) 'learning' where there is the accumulation of knowledge. With (this non-accumulative approach to ? ) self-knowledge, the ( totality of the ) mind is free to be still. Only then is there the ( possibility of?) coming into (one's) being of That which is beyond the measuring of the (self-centred ) mind.

Q( 3) : Our ( 'married couple' related) problem was 'jealousy', but after listening to what has already been said here, I think we may be capable of resolving it (at home, eventually ?) . Perhaps we have understood more deeply by quietly listening than we would have by asking questions.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 06 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Aug 2017 #692
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 673 posts in this forum Offline

( more unzipped Commentaries on Living )

( The subliminal fear involved in the ?) FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN

The elderly man who had come was a sannyasi who had given up the world. His body was slim and well-disciplined, and he leaned slightly forward as though he were listening, but his back was perfectly straight. His face was clear and fresh, and he had about him the dignity of 'other-worldliness'. There was something very pleasant and friendly about him. He had travelled on foot all over the land going from village to village and from town to town. Being a sannyasi and a member of the highest caste he was received everywhere with respect and fed with care. When, on rare occasions, he travelled by train, it was always without a ticket, for he was a 'holy man', and he had the air of one whose thoughts were not of this world.

Q: From one’s youth the world has had little attraction, and when one left the family, the house, the property, it was for always. One has never returned. It has been an arduous life, but the mind is now well-disciplined. One has listened to spiritual teachers in the north and in the south; one has gone on pilgrimages to different shrines and temples, where there was holiness and right teaching. One has searched in the silence of secluded places, far from the haunts of men, and one knows the beneficial effects of solitude and meditation.
In the talk of the other evening, it was said that the mind must be free from ideas, formulations, conclusions. Why?

K: Can ( any spiritual) search begin from that which is already known? Must not search begin ( with a sense of inner) freedom?

Q: When there’s freedom, is there any need to search? Freedom is ( supposed to be achieved at?) the end of search.

K: Surely the 'freedom from the known' is only the beginning of search. Unless the mind is free from ( the attachment to its personal ?) 'knowledge' there is no discovery (of the New?) but only a continuance of what has been. The ( personal & collective experience of the ?) past dictates and 'interprets' further experience, thereby strengthening itself. To think from a ( fixed?) conclusion, from a belief, is not to think (freely ?) at all.

Q: The ( memory of the?) 'past' is ( subliminally determining?) what one is now and it is made up of the things that one has put together through desire and its (time-binding?) activities. Is there an actual possibility of being free of the past?”

K: Isn’t there? Neither the (active memory of the?) past nor ( what we are in) ? the 'present' is ever static, fixed, finally determined. The past is the result of many pressures, influences and conflicting experiences, and it becomes the moving present, which is also changing, being transformed under the ceaseless pressure of many different influences. The ( average self-centred?) mind is the result of the past, it is put together by time, by circumstances, by incidents and experiences based on the past. And everything that happens to us, outwardly and inwardly, does affect it. It does not continue as it was, nor will it be (in the future?) as it is (now)

Q: Is this always so?

K: Only a specialized (living) thing is set forever in a mould. The ( genetically programmed ?) seed of rice will never become wheat, and the rose bush can never become the palm tree. But fortunately the human mind ( consciousness?) is not specialized, and it can always break away from what has been; it needn’t be a slave to tradition.

Q: But ( one's personal & collective ?) karma is not so easily disposed of; that which has been built up through many lives cannot quickly be broken.

K; Why not? What has been put together through centuries or only yesterday, can be undone immediately.

Q: In what manner?

K: Through the (insightful) understanding of this chain of cause-effect. Neither cause nor effect is ever final, unchangeable - that would be everlasting enslavement and decay. Each effect of a cause is undergoing many influences from within and from without, it is constantly changing, and it becomes in its turn the cause of still another effect. Through the understanding of what is actually taking place, this process can be stopped instantaneously, and there is freedom from that which has been. Karma is not an everenduring chain; it’s a chain that can be broken at any time. What was done yesterday can be undone today; there’s no permanent continuance of anything . Continuance can and must be dissipated through the understanding of its process.

Q: All this is clearly seen, but there’s another (personal?) problem which must be clarified. It is this : (One's) attachment to family and to property ceased long ago; but the mind is still attached to ideas, to beliefs, to visions. It was easy to shake off attachment to worldly things, but with the things of the mind, it’s a different matter. The ( self-conscious?) mind dares not be empty (of all thought) , for if it were empty, it would cease to be; therefore it is ( getting subliminally) attached to ideas, to hopes, and to its belief in the things that lie beyond itself.

K: You say it was easy to shake off attachment to family and property. Why then is it not easy to be free of attachment to ideas and beliefs? Are not the same factors involved in each case? A man clings to family and property because without them he feels lost, empty, alone; and it is for the same reason that the mind is attached to ideas, visions, beliefs.

Q: Being physically alone, in solitary places, causes one no concern, for one is alone even among the multitude; but the mind shrinks from being without the things of the mind.

K: This 'shrinking' is ( the expression of a subliminal?) fear, is it not? This fear is caused by the (mental) anticipation of the ( depressing?) feeling of being alone. We are afraid not of the fact (of loneliness) , but of the anticipated effects of the fact. The mind foresees ( the state of inner void?) and is afraid of what might be (living in no-thingness?) .

Q: Then is ( our psychological) fear always of the anticipated future and never of the fact?

K: Isn’t it? When there is fear of ( the exposure of something ) what has been (done in the past?) , that fear is not of the fact itself, but of its being discovered (by others?) , shown up, which again is (a possibility projected ? ) in the future. ( Similarly in one's inner experience ?) the mind is afraid, not of ( facing the apparent void of?) the unknown, but of losing ( its existing safety in?) the known. ( More specifically : ) One is (subliminally) afraid of the ( potentially destabilising ?) inner aloneness, the sense of emptiness, that might arise if the mind no longer had something (safe?) to cling to; so there is attachment to an ideology, a belief, which prevents the (insightful?) understanding of 'what is'.

Q: This point is also clearly seen.

K: And must not the ( meditating?) mind be (standing) alone, empty (of its psychological props) ? Must it not be untouched by the past, by the collective (standardised mentality ?) , and (or) by the influence of one’s own desire?

Q: That is yet to be discovered ( in one's meditation homework ?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 #693
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 673 posts in this forum Offline


....The mind is ( meditatively ?) silent only with the abundance of energy, when there is that ( quality of) attention in which all contradiction (created by the pulling of desire in different directions) has ceased. For the mind to be silent, all its contradictory corners (or compartments?) must be fused in the flame of understanding. In the silent mind there is no ( self-conscious) centre from which to become, to be, or to think. Meditation is the silence of the total ( holistically integrated ?) mind .

Q: I have always been interested in religious matters and early in the morning I spend a considerable period of time in the practice of meditation. I find ( the practice of) meditation very helpful in gaining control of the mind and in cultivating certain necessary virtues (inner qualities?) . I heard your discourse on 'meditation' a few days ago, but I was not quite able to follow it. I came to talk about the significance of 'time' as a means to the realization of the Supreme. As far as I can see, ( some quality?) time is necessary for the cultivation of the sensibility of the mind , if enlightenment is to be attained. This is so, isn’t it?

K: If one begins by assuming certain things, is it then possible to seek out the truth of the matter? Do not ( such) conclusions prevent clarity of thought?

Q: I have always taken it for granted that ( a certain amount of) time is necessary to attain liberation. This is what most of the religious books maintain, and I have never questioned it. One gathers that ( exceptional) individuals here and there have realized that exalted state instantaneously; but they are only the very few. The rest of us must have some time to prepare the mind to receive that bliss.

K: Now, what do we mean by 'time' ? There is (the mechanical measurement of) time by the clock, ( the linear dimension of ?) time as the past, the present and the future. There is ( also a psychological dimension of?) time as memory, time as (personal or collective) achievement and the (time involved in the ) process of 'becoming' something. All this is what we mean by time. And is it ever possible for the mind to be free of ( the psychological limitations of?) time? It obviously takes time to learn a profession, or acquire a technique. But is time also necessary for the realization of the Supreme?

Q: It seems to me that it is.

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

Q: I suppose it’s what you call the 'me ' ?

K: Which is a ( dynamic ) bundle of ( mentally 'active' ) memories and associations, both conscious and unconscious. It’s the entity who enjoys and suffers, who has known fulfilment and frustration, and this entity is ( obviously) the product of time : it thinks in (terms of ) time, functions in time and builds itself up in time. This 'me', which is ( a self-identified ) memory, also thinks that through time it will reach the Supreme. But its (concept of the ) 'Supreme' is something it has formulated, and is therefore also within the field of time, is it not?

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

K: Through time you can achieve only that which time has created. Thought ( thinking within the field of the known?) is the (cultivated) response of ( all our personal & collective) memory, and thought can realize only that which ( human) thought has put together.

Q: Are you saying, sir, that the ( meditative?) mind must be free from ( its psychological ) memory, and from the desire to achieve or realize (the Highest?)

K: We shall come to that presently. But let us approach the problem differently. Let’s say I am ( naturally greedy and/ or?) violent, and my ( compensatory ?) ideal is not to be violent. There is a ( psychological) gap between what I actually am, and the ideal of what I should be. To cover this (self-projected) 'distance', it takes time - the ideal is to be achieved gradually, ( but in the meanwhile?) I have the opportunity to ( occasionally) indulge in the ( traditional) pleasures of (my greed or ) violence. The ideal is the (cultivated) 'opposite' of what I really am (inwardly), a (rosy?) projection of thought. It has been said for centuries, that ( building a strong character in ?) time is necessary to be free from violence; but there’s no real wisdom behind it. We are still violent (in various degrees?) . So time is not the factor of ( spiritual) freedom; ( cultivating?) the ideal of non-violence does not free the mind from violence. And ( the holistic issue is : ) cannot ( this momentum of greed, envy & ) violence just cease - not tomorrow or ten years hence?

Q: Do you mean 'instantaneously' ( once for all) ?

K: When you use this word, aren’t you still 'thinking and feeling' in terms of time? ( The holistically correct question being :) can ( the inner momentum of ) violence ( come to a natural ending or?) cease ?

Q: But then, how is such a thing possible?

K: Only with (a global) understanding of ( what's wrong with the traditional way of thinking in terms of) 'time'. We are used the habit of resisting, suppressing, sublimating, substituting ( 'what is') , all of which involves effort and struggle through time. The (self-centred ?) mind is conditioned to (think in terms of ) gradualism, and has come to regard 'time' as a means of achieving freedom from violence. Now, with the ( insightful?) understanding of the 'falseness' ( inadequacy ?) of that whole process, the actual truth regarding (our inner heritage of animal?) violence is seen , and this is the liberating factor.

Q: I think I understand (the gist of) what you are saying, or rather, I feel the truth of it. But isn’t it very difficult to free the mind from its ( ages old?) habit of ( thinking exclusively within the known?)

K: It is difficult only when 'you' fight the habit. Take the habit of smoking. To fight that habit is to give it life (as well as to the 'habit-fighter' controlling entity ?) . ( In a nutshell:) Habit is ( a psycho-somatic) mechanical (process) , and to 'resist' it is only to feed the ( mental ?) machinery (that created it?) and give more power to it (both?) . But if you consider the mind ( from a holistic perspective?) and observe the ( ages old mechanism of ) formation of its habits, then with the understanding of the larger issue, the lesser becomes insignificant and ( sooner or later?) drops away (as being redundant ?) .

Q: Why does the human mind form habits?

K: Be (non-personally?) aware of the ways of your own mind, and you will discover why. The mind forms ( creates ?) habits in order to feel more secure, safe, undisturbed, ( but above all ?) in order to have ( the inner sense of temporal ?) continuity. ( Constantly gathering experience & knowledge and functioning exclusively within the field of past ?) memory is ( the central 'time' creating?) habit. The ( thinking) mind moves from the known to the known, from one certainty to another; so there’s never any (inner) freedom from the 'known'.

( To recap:) It is assumed that time is necessary for the realization of the Supreme. But whatever our ( 'known' based?) thinking can 'think about' is still within the field of time. The ( thinking ?) mind cannot possibly formulate the 'unknown'. It can speculate about the ( spiritual virtues of the?) Unknown, but its speculation is not the Unknown.

Q: But then, the problem arises, how is one to 'realize' the Supreme?

K: Not by any ( previously 'known'?) method. The ( experiential?) 'realization' is possible only when the mind is no longer in the 'bondage' of ( thought -) time.

Q: Can the average human mind free itself from this ( ages old?) bondage? Is not an 'outside agency' necessary?

K: When you look (forward to getting help from such ?) an 'outside agency', you are back again in your ( wishful thinking ?) conditioning. Our only ( meditative?) concern is with ( the spiritually redeeming ?) question, 'Can the human mind free itself from its ( ages old?) self-created (time-) bondage? '
All other questions are irrelevant and prevent the mind from attending to that one question. There is no ( knowledge -free quality of ?) attention when there’s a ( personal) motive, or the pressure to achieve, to 'realize' (the Highest?). The mind will discover the ( experiential) solution of this problem through the very intensity of ( asking ) this ( time-free?) question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 #694
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 673 posts in this forum Offline

( More unzipped Commentaries)


Beyond the chattering of the people, and beyond its own chattering, the ( meditating) mind was ( engaged?) in a completely silent journey into itself. This inward movement was not a journey undertaken by the ( conscious ) mind; it was an altogether different ( timeless?) 'movement'. The totality of the mind, not just a part of it, the hidden as well as the open, was completely still. In that stillness of being, the (memory of the?) past as the 'watcher', as the 'experiencer', is not (interfering) . There is no activity of ( thought-) time, but a movement of silence into the 'measureless'. It’s the (motionless inward ?) journey of one's total being, and in this journey of the whole, there is no point of departure and no point of arrival. The whole mind is still, and this stillness is a movement which is not the ( temporal) journeying of the mind.

( The man who had come had deep-set eyes, and a good body. He had renounced the world and its (worldly?) ways; and there was stamped on his face the thought of 'other' things. He was pleasant and friendly of manner, with expressive hands and sat gravely silent for a considerable time, testing out the atmosphere, feeling his way)

Q: I heard you many years ago, quite by chance, and something of what you said has always remained with me: 'the Ultimate Reality is not to come by through ( self-imposed) discipline, or any form of self-torture' . Since that time I have been all over the land, seeing and hearing many things. I have rigidly disciplined myself (to overcome my physical passions was not too difficult) but the other forms of desire have not been so easy to put away. I have practiced meditation every day for many years, but what I want to discuss with you is self-discipline. (A certain self-) control of the body and the mind is essential – and achiving moderation in self-discipline is not easy – but there is an exhilarating excitement in dominating oneself.

K: Asceticism has its own delights, just as worldliness has.

Q: That is perfectly true. I know the pleasures of asceticism, and the sense of ( inner energy and) power it gives. As all ascetics and saints have always done, I have suppressed the bodily urges in order to make the mind sharp and quiescent. I have subjected the senses, and the desires that arise from them so that the spirit might be liberated. I have denied every form of ( slackness & ) comfort to the body, and slept in every kind of place; I have have fasted for days at. a time. I have meditated long hours with one-pointed endeavour; yet my mind does not seem to have gone beyond a certain point. It’s as though one came up against an (invisible ) wall, and do what one may, it will not be broken down.

K: On this side of this (inner) Wall are the visions, the good acts, the cultivated virtues, the prayers and the self-denials , the gods; but all these things have only the significance that our own mind gives to them. This ( self-centred) mind is still the dominant factor, is it not? And is it capable of going beyond its own barriers, beyond itself? Isn’t that the question?

Q: Yes. After thirty years of years devoted to meditation and complete self-denial, why has this enclosing 'wall' not been broken down? I have talked to many other ascetics who have had the same experience. There are, of course, those who exert that one must be more arduous in self-denial, more purposeful in meditation, and so on; but I know I can do no more. All my best efforts have only led to this present state of ( a 'dead end'?) frustration.

K: No amount of ( personal) effort can break down this seemingly impenetrable wall; but perhaps we shall be able to understand the problem if we can look at it differently : Is it possible to approach ( holistically) the ( existential) problems of our life with the whole of one’s being?

Q : I don’t know what you mean by this.

K: Are you at any moment aware of your whole being, of the totality of it? Can there be the (integrated ) feeling of the whole of your being - the actual feeling of the whole ( of your consciousness) ?

Q: Such a ( holistic) feeling may be possible, but I have never experienced it.

K: At present, (the all-controlling) part of your mind is trying to capture the whole, is it not? The hidden part of your mind is ( engaged in a subliminal ?) conflict with the open part ; there is a ceaseless pursuit of ( one's desire for self-) fulfilment, and in its very shadow lies frustration; so we never know or experience the 'wholeness' of our being. We are ( inwardly) broken up into ( watertight) fragments, and by bringing the various fragments together, we hope to make the whole. Is it ever ( technically) possible to do this?

Q: But what else is there to do?

K: This ( magic?) feeling of the 'totality of your being', of your body, mind and heart is not ( the result of) bringing together of all these fragments. You cannot make ( the many fragments created by) contradictory desires into a 'harmonious whole'. To attempt to do so is an act of the ( intellectual ) mind, and this mind itself is only a part. A ( self-conscious) part cannot create the whole.

Q: I see this; but then what?

K: Our inquiry is not ( aimed at) finding out what to do, but to the (awakening?) of this feeling of the wholeness of one’s being - actually to experience it. This ( holistic) feeling (once awakened?) has its own action. ( Whenever there is an inner action without this feeling, the (impossible) problem arises of how to bridge the gulf between the 'fact' and the 'what should be) Then we never feel (anything) completely, there is always something to be gained or avoided. ( As a result ?) our ( everyday quality of ? ) living is always ( fragmentary) , never whole, and (in a nutshell) through the suppression of desire, through mere control of the mind, through denial of his bodily needs, the ascetic (is constantly creating a self-blocked condition which ?) makes himself insensitive.

Q: Must not our (wild) desires be tamed?

K: When they are 'tamed' by suppressing them, they (do indeed) lose their vigour, but in this very process the sensory perceptions are also dulled and the ( totality of the ) mind is made insensitive; therefore though ( the spiritual ?) freedom is sought, one has not the ( necessary intelligent?) energy to find it. One needs abundant energy to find truth, but this (high grade quality of ?) energy is ( thoughtlessly) dissipated through the ( countless inner ) conflicts which results from suppression, conformity, compulsion. (On the other hand, just ) yielding to one's desires also breeds ( its own agenda of conflicts & ) self-contradictions, which again dissipates (the ressources of intelligent?) energy.
Q: Then how is one to (integrate & ) conserve this precious energy?

K: This essential (intelligent) energy cannot be conserved or accumulated; it comes into one's being with the cessation of ( the lingering conflits & ) contradictions within oneself. By its very (sensory) nature, desire brings about contradiction and conflict. ( But the movement of thought driven by ) desire is (polarising invaluable ressources of intelligent ) energy, and it has to be understood (as such?) ; it cannot merely be suppressed, or made to conform. ( In a nutshell :) Any effort to coerce or discipline desire makes for ( dualistic) conflict, which brings with it insensitivity.
( On the other hand?) all the intricate ways of ( thought sustained) desire must still be (experientially) known and understood. You cannot cannot learn (from another ) the ways of desire, but only by ( becoming non-personally & ?) choicelessly aware of its ( hectic trends & ) movements. If you try to destroy desire, you destroy ( the holistic quality of your ) sensitivity, as well as the intensity that is essential for the understanding of truth.

Q: But is there not the same intensity when the mind is concentrated and one-pointed?

K: Such intensity is a hindrance to ( the holistic perception of the inner ?) Reality, because it is narrowing down the mind through the action of ( self-interest & ) will. ( On the other hand?) There is a wholly different intensity which comes when one’s whole being is integrated, not put together through the desire for a result.

Q: Will you say something more about this ( holistic quality of) 'total being'?

K: It is the feeling of being ( inwardly) whole, undivided, not fragmented - an intensity in which there is no tension no pull of desire with its contradictions. It is this ( holistic) intensity, the deep, unpremeditated insight that will break down this ( psychological ?) 'wall' which the human mind has built around itself.
That 'wall' is (subliminally created by ) the ego, the ‘me’, the self. All activity of this self (centred consciousness) is separative, enclosing, and the more it struggles to 'break through' its own barriers, the stronger those barriers become. The efforts of the self to be free only build up its own sorrow. When the truth of this is perceived, only then is there the movement of the whole (Mind?) . This ( timeless inner) movement has no centre, as it has no beginning and no end; it’s a movement beyond the measure of the (time-bound) mind. The ( global ) understanding of the activities of the conflicting parts of the mind, which make up the 'self' (centred -consciousness) or the 'ego', is ( the redeeming factor of any authentic ?) meditation.

Q: I now see what I have been doing all these years. It has always been a movement from the 'centre' - and it’s this very centre that must be 'broken up'. But how exactly is this to be done ?

K: There is no ( fool-proof ?) method, for any such method or system becomes ( another self-sustaining trick for ?) the centre. The ( insightful?) realization of the truth that this (all controlling ?) 'centre' ( created by our personal & collective self-interest) must be broken up 'is' (resulting in) the breaking up of it.

Q: My life until now has been ( the battleground of ) an incessant struggle but now I see the (actual ?) possibility of ending this conflict

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 10 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Aug 2017 #695
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 673 posts in this forum Offline

( continuing with the 'uzipped' commentaries)


Several people had come together, and as each one tried to state some problem, the others began to explain it and to compare it with their own trials. But ( our existential?) sorrow is not to be compared. Comparison breeds self-pity, and then misfortune ensues. Adversity is to be met directly, not with the idea that yours is greater than another’s. They were all silent now, and presently one of them began:

Q: My mother has been dead for some years. Quite recently I have lost my father also, and I am full of remorse. He was a good father, and I ought to have been many things which I was not. Our ideas clashed; our respective ways of life kept us apart. He was a religious man, but my religious feeling is not so obvious. The relationship between us was often strained, but at least it was a relationship, and now that he is gone I am stricken with sorrow. My sorrow is not only ( due to) remorse, but also the feeling of suddenly being left alone. I have never had this kind of sorrow before, and it is quite acute. What am I to do? How am I to get over it?

K: If one may ask, are you suffering on behalf of your father, that is, because he enjoyed living and wanted to live, and now he is gone; or you are suffering because there has been a break in a relationship that had significance for so long, and you are suddenly aware of your own loneliness ? Surely, you are suffering not for your father, but because you are feeling inwardly lonely, the sorrow which comes from self-pity.

Q: What exactly is this 'loneliness'?

K: Have you never felt ( inwardly isolated & ) lonely?

Q: I have often taken solitary walks. I go for long walks alone, especially on my holidays.

K: Isn’t there a ( qualitative?) difference between the feeling of ( inner) loneliness, and being ( happily?) alone as on a solitary walk?

Q: If there is, then I don’t think I know what (that inner) loneliness means.

K: Have you never experienced for yourself the ( painful?) feeling of loneliness, as you might experience a toothache? Are we experiencing the psychological pain of it, or merely employing a word to indicate something which we have never directly faced and experienced? Do we really suffer, or only think we suffer?

Q: I want to know what ( this inner ) loneliness is.

K: You mean you want a description of it ? It’s an experience of being completely isolated; a feeling of not being able to rely on anything, of being cut off from all relationship. The ‘me’ by its very nature, is constantly building a ( self-protecting) wall around itself; all its ( self-centred) activity leads to isolation. Becoming aware of ( the pain of) its isolation, it begins to identify itself with a person, country or ideology with property, with God ; but this ( compensatory) identification is part of the process of isolation. In other words, we escape from facing the pain of loneliness, from this ( imponderable ) feeling of ( our existential) isolation, and so we never directly experience it. It’s like being afraid of something round the corner and never facing it, never finding out what it is, but always running away and taking refuge in somebody or something, which only breeds more fear. Have you never felt ( existentially) lonely in this sense of being cut off from everything, completely isolated?

Q: I have no idea at all of what you are talking about.

K: Then, if one may ask, do you really know what your sorrow is? Are you experiencing your sorrow as strongly and urgently as you would a toothache? When you have a toothache, you act; you go to the dentist. But when there is sorrow you run away from it through explanation, belief, drink, and so on. You do still 'act' but your action is not the action that frees the mind from sorrow, is it?

Q: I don’t know what to do, and that’s why I’m here.

K: Before you can know what to do, must you not find out what is (the nature of your) sorrow ? When you are suffering from a toothache you don’t ( indulge in?) forming ideas and opinions about it; you just have it and you act. But here there is no action, immediate or remote, because you are really not ( directly experiencing your) suffering. To ( experientially) understand ( your) suffering, you must look at it, you must not run away.

Q: My father is gone beyond recall, and so I suffer. What must I do to go beyond the reaches of suffering?

K: We suffer because we do not see the truth ( regarding the nature of ?) of our suffering. The fact and our ideation about the fact are leading in two different directions. If one may ask, are you concerned with ( having a direct contact with?) the fact, the actuality (of your sorrow) , or merely ( trying to deal intellectually ) with the idea of ( your) suffering?

Q: You are not answering my question, sir ? What am I to do?

K: Do you want to ( indulge in?) escaping from (facing your) suffering, or to be free from it? If you merely want to escape, then a pill, a belief, an explanation, an amusement may ‘help’, with the inevitable consequences of ( drug) dependence, fear, and so on. But if you wish to be free from sorrow, you must stop running away and become aware of it without judgment, without choice; you must observe it, learn about it, know all the intimate intricacies of it. Then you will not be frightened of ( dealing with?) it, and there will no longer be the ( subliminal) poison of self-pity. With the (holistic) understanding of sorrow there is freedom from it. To understand sorrow there must be the actual experiencing of it, and not the verbal fiction of sorrow.

Q: May I ask one (bonus) question? In what manner should one live one’s daily life?

K: As though one were living for that single day, for that single hour.

Q: How is that ?

K: If you had only one hour to live, what would you do? Would you not arrange what is necessary outwardly, your affairs, your will, and so on? Would you not call your family and friends together and ask their forgiveness for the harm that you might have done to them, and forgive them for whatever harm they might have done to you? Would you not also 'die' (let go?) completely to the 'things' of the (material ?) mind, to your desires and to the world? And if it can be done for your (last?) hour, then ( by the same stroke) it can also be done for the days and years that may ( eventually ?) remain

Q: But is such a thing really possible, sir?

K: Try it ( for your meditation homework?) and you will find out.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 12 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 Aug 2017 #696
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 673 posts in this forum Offline


(A youngish man with good manners and a cultured voice, he was precise, orderly and rather fussy. His father was well-known in the political field. He was married and had two children, and was earning enough to make ends meet. He talked about his life, the vagaries of fortune, the ups and downs of his existence.)

Q: Living in this town has become a nightmare to me, the noise of this big city bothers me beyond all reason. The rumpus of the children in the house is bad enough, but the roar of a city, with its buses, its cars and tram-cars, the hammering that goes on in the construction of new buildings, the neighbours with their blaring radios - this whole hideous cacophony of noise is most destructive and shattering. I don’t seem to be able to adjust myself to it and even physically it tortures me. At night I stuff something in my ears, but even then I know the noise is there. I’m not quite a ‘case’ yet, but I shall become one if I don’t do something about it.

K: Why do you think noise is having such an effect on you?

Q: All I know is that noise in general is driving me nearly crazy.

K: Suppose you hear the persistent barking of a dog at night. What happens? You set in motion the (mental) mechanism of resistance, do you not? You are fighting againdt the noise of the dog. Does (this mental) resistance indicate sensitivity?

Q: I have many such fights with the noise of ( the neighbours TV's & ) radios, the noise of children in the house, and so on. We live on resistance, don’t we?

K: Do you really 'hear' the noise, or are you just become aware of the disturbance it creates in you, to which you resist?

Q: I don’t quite follow you. Noise disturbs me, and is not this 'resistance' natural?

K: We resist almost everything that is painful or sorrowful. And at the same time we set about cultivating the pleasurable, the beautiful; we don’t resist that, we want more of it. It’s only the unpleasant, the disturbing things that we resist.

Q: But as I said, isn’t this very natural? All of us do it instinctively.

K: I am not saying it is something abnormal; it is so, an everyday fact. But in ( psychologically) resisting the unpleasant, the disturbing do we not bring about a constant ( state of inner) conflict? And does not conflict make for dullness, insensitivity? This process of ( mental) opposition makes the mind ( become still more?) self-centred in its feelings and activities, does it not?

Q: But what is one to do?

K: Let’s understand the problem, and perhaps such understanding will bring about its own action in which there is no resistance or conflict. Doesn’t conflict, inner and outer, make the mind self-centred and therefore insensitive?

Q: I think I understand what you mean by 'self-centredness', but what do you mean by 'sensitivity'?

K: You are sensitive to beauty, are you not?

Q: That’s one of the curses of my life. It’s almost painful for me to see something lovely, to look at a sunset over the sea, or the smile of a child, or a beautiful work of art. It brings tears to my eyes. On the other hand, I loathe dirt, noise, and untidiness. At times I can hardly bear to go out into the (crowded) streets. The contrasts tear me apart inwardly, and please believe me, I am not exaggerating.

K: But is there ( a holistic?) sensitivity when the mind takes delight in the beautiful and stands in horror of the ugly? When there is this heightened appreciation of the one and resistance to the other, is there ( any intelligent & compassionate ?) sensitivity at all? Is there not ( a mental) distortion when you lean towards beauty and shrink from ugliness? In resisting noise, are you not cultivating insensitivity?

Q: But how is one to put up with what is ( noisy, vulgar &?) hideous? One cannot tolerate a bad smell, can one?

K: There is the dirt and squalor of a city street, and the beauty of an (inner) garden. Both ar facts, actualities, but in resting the one, do you not become insensitive to the other?

Q: I see what you mean but then, what can one do ?

K: Be ( non-personally ?) sensitive to both these 'facts'. Have you tried listening to ( the street ) noise as you would listen to music? Perhaps one never listens (choicelessly?) to anything at all. To listen there must be ( an inner quality of integrated?) attention, but where there is ( any mental) resistance there is no (compassionate ? ) attention.

Q: How am I to listen with what you call 'attention'?

K : ( For starters, consider?) how do you look at a tree, at a beautiful garden, at the sun on the water, or at a leaf fluttering in the wind?

Q: Oh, I just 'love to look' at such things...

K: And are you 'self-conscious' when you look at something in that manner?

Q: No.

K: But you are ( becoming self-conscious?) when you resist to whatever you see.

Q: You are asking me to listen to noise as though I loved it, aren’t you? Well I don’t 'love' it, and I don’t think it’s ever possible to 'love' it. You cant 'love' an ugly brutal character.

K: That is possible and it has been done (for various material or psychological reasons ?) . I am not suggesting that you should 'love' noise; but is it not possible to free the mind from all 'resistance' since it only intensifies ( your state of inner) conflict, and conflict makes for insensitivity; and when the mind is ( becoming dull &) insensitive, then ( our search for?) beauty is a (costly?) escape from ugliness.

If beauty is merely an opposite (to vulgarity & ugliness?) , it is not ( a holistic ?) beauty. The love ( to look or listen to something ?) is not a self-conscious activity. It is something outside the field of the ( all-knowing ?) mind. Listening is an act of attention, as observing ( something with love?) is.

( For more fun & profit homework:) If you do not ( attempt to mentally) condemn noise, you will find that it ceases to disturb the (inner peace of your ?) mind.

Q: I am beginning to understand what you mean. I shall try it (ASAP ?) as I leave this ( quiet ?) room.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Aug 2017 #697
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 673 posts in this forum Offline


A man and his wife and their friend were sitting in the sunlit room. There were no chairs, but only a straw mat on the floor, and we all sat around it. The husband and wife were fairly well-to-do, and they had grown-up children who were living there own lives. Their friend, an oldish man who was growing bald was a well-known lawyer with an excellent practice.

Q: My lawyer friend and I have been interested for many years in religious matters - not in mere ritualism and conventional beliefs, but in something much more than the usual paraphernalia of religions. Speaking for myself, I may say that I have meditated for a number of years on various questions pertaining to the inner life, and I always find myself wandering about in circles. For the present I do not want to talk over the implications of meditation, but to go into the question of simplicity. I feel one must be simple, but I’m not sure I know what this ( inner ) 'simplicity' is. Like most people, I am ( inwardly) a very complex being; and is it possible to become simple?

K: To 'become simple' is to continue in complexity. It is not possible to become simple, but one can approach complexity with simplicity.

Q: But how can a human mind which is very complex, approach any problem simply?

K: Being simple and becoming simple are two entirely distinct processes, each leading in a different direction. Only when the desire to become simple (is seen as false and?) ends is there the action of being. But before we go into all that, why you feel that you must have the quality of simplicity? What is the motive behind this urge?

Q: My life is getting more and more complicated; there is greater struggle, with growing indifference and wider superficiality. Most people are living on the surface and making a lot of noise about it, and my own life is not very deep; so I feel I must become simple.
K: Do you think it is simplicity to have a mind cluttered with beliefs, with desires and there contradictions, with envy and the pursuit of power? Is an occupied mind a simple mind?

Q: When you put it that way, it becomes obvious that it is not a simple mind. But how can one’s mind be cleansed of its ( past) accumulations?

K: We haven’t come to that yet, have we? We see that simplicity is not a matter of outward expression, and that as long as the mind is crowded with knowledge, experiences, memories, it is not truly simple. Then what is simplicity?

Q: I doubt that I can give a correct definition of it. These things are very difficult to put into words.

K: We are not seeking a verbal definition, are we? One of our difficulties is that we to find an adequate verbal expression without feeling the inwardness of the thing. Do we ever feel anything directly? Or do we feel everything through ( a mental screen of?) words, through concepts and definitions? Do we ever look at a tree, at the see, at the sky, without forming words, without a remark about them?

Q: But how is one to feel the nature or quality of inner simplicity?

K: The ( holistic) feeling of inner simplicity has nothing to do with your opinions, words or conclusions about that feeling.

Q: But the mind, with its complexities, is always interposing what it thinks it knows about simplicity.

K: Which prevents it from staying with the feeling. Have you ever tried to stay (or abide?) with the feeling?

Q: What do you mean by 'staying with the feeling'?

K: You do stay with a ( gratifying) feeling don’t you? Having tasted it, you try to hold onto it, you scheme to continue with it, and so on. Now, can one stay with the feeling which the word ‘simplicity’ represents?

Q: I don’t think I know what the feeling is, so I can’t stay with it.

K: Is it not possible to feel intensely, purely, without (any mental) contamination? To feel intensely about something - about your family, about your country, about a ( noble) cause - is comparatively easy. Intense feeling or enthusiasm may arise through identifying oneself with a ( winning?) belief or ideology, for example. Or, one may see a flock of white birds in the blue sky and almost faint with the intense feeling of such beauty, or one may recoil with horror at the cruelty of man. All such ( intense) feelings are aroused by a scene, by an act, by an object. But is there not an intensity of feeling without any ( material or mental) 'object'? And is it then just a 'feeling', or something entirely different?

Q: I’m afraid I don’t know what you are talking about sir. I hope you don’t mind my telling you so.

K : Is there an (inner) state (of being?) without a cause? If there is, then can one feel it out, be actually aware of that state? To be thus acutely aware, verbalization in every form, and all ( subliminal) identification with the words, with memory, must wholly cease. Is there a state without cause? Is not Love such a state? To ( feel this sense of?) love without the verbal-moral hedge around it is the state of Compassion, which is not aroused by an object. Such ( feeling of Intelligent & Compassionate ?) Love is ( the holistic ?) action, and all else is reaction. Any ( loveless ?) action born of reaction only breeds conflict and sorrow.

Q: If I may say so, sir, this is all beyond me. Let me be simple, and then perhaps I shall understand the profound.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Aug 2017 #698
Thumb_stringio Jess S Portugal 3 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
f beauty is merely an opposite (to vulgarity & ugliness?) , it is not ( a holistic ?) beauty. The love ( to look or listen to something ?) is not a self-conscious activity. It is something outside the field of the ( all-knowing ?) mind.

That's the point: beauty is outside the field of the mind, as love and compassion are. Now, I think I read (or was told) somewhere that these conversations are mostly made up by Krishnamurti in order to meet something he wants to impart. In this conversation, of course the noise and consequent sense of ugliness that this person may have felt has not to do with occasional noise and ugliness! One thing is to live in a certain place where you have to dispend your energy at work and with people around, another is to pass by and then find some rest in some place you identify with (usually called home). I think Krishnamurti is trying to point to an attitude which may be called equanimity which means that the superficial impressions you may experience won't upset the core of your sensitivity, but the thing is put in a way that Krishnamurti may seem to be just blaming the person for not being sensitive enough.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
1 day ago #699
Thumb_stringio Jess S Portugal 3 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
I think Krishnamurti is trying to point to an attitude which may be called equanimity which means that the superficial impressions you may experience won't upset the core of your sensitivity

Also, just by chance this morning, I found this book 'Cittaviveka' by an American monk who lived in Thailand and England for many years, I think, and the following excerpt on Metta that caught my eye may perhaps put more light on the matter: 'Metta means a lot more than just kindness, an awareness - kind awareness. Metta means we can coexist peacefully in a kindly way with the sentient beings within us and with beings outside. It does not mean liking, does it? Some people go that extreme. They say, «I love my weaknesses because that's really me. I wouldn't be me if I didn't have my wonderful weaknesses.» That's silly. Metta is being patient, being able to co-exist with, rather than trying to annihilate the pests of our minds.Our society is very much one that annihilates pests both inwardly and outwardly, wanting to create an environment where there are no pests. I hear monks say,«I can't meditate because there are too many mosquitoes, if only we could get rid of them.» Even though you can never really like mosquitoes, you can have Metta for them, respecting their right to exist and not getting caught up in resentment at their presence. Similarly, if I can have Metta for the depressed mood at the moment and allow it to be there, recognising it and not demanding that it may not be there, it will go. Feelings like these arise naturally and go away. We make them stay longer because we want them to go all the time. The struggle of trying to get rid of something we do not like seems to make it stay longer than it would otherwise. The more we try to control nature, manipulate it according to our greed and desire, the more we end up polluting the whole earth. People are getting really worried now because we can see so much pollution from all the chemicals and pesticides that we use to try to get rid of the things in nature that we don't want. When we try to annihilate the pests in our mind we end up with pollution too - we have nervous breakdowns and then the pests come back stronger than ever.'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
6 hours ago #700
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 673 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
When we try to annihilate the pests in our mind we end up with pollution too - we have nervous breakdowns and then the pests come back stronger than ever.'

Agreed, Jess. I think that K correctly identified the source of this 'pest' problem- when we approach it as the 'what is' and without the conflicting attitude of a righteous observer trying to castigate the unpleasant things observed, the whole thing is transformed into a 'learning' experience- which is awakening & stimulating some deeper energies previously entangled in various psycho-somatic processes.

The second observation would be that most- if not all of the traditional meditative or spiritual approaches neglect ( or just assume as acquired) the essential role of the freedom from the known . So, no matter how serious are the 'practicants', sooner or later the whole issue of inner liberation is subliminaly dragged back into the safe field of the known. Not that they want to do it purposefully, but this is the 'natural' (entropic) behaviour of any animal brain - to create for itself some 'home base'. And probably Mr Jesus noticed this too, speaking of the birds having their own nests, etc... but the 'son of man' having not such a place ( since the 'Kingdom of Heaven' was supposed to be it)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
5 hours ago #701
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 673 posts in this forum Offline


Q: What is the purpose of our life, of this monotonous, routine existence? I have always been seeking something or other: seeking a job when I got through college, seeking pleasure with my wife, seeking to bring about a better world by joining the Communist party, and now I am seeking God. By nature I am not a pessimist, but everything in life has saddened me. We seek and seek, and we never seem to find. I have read the books that most educated people read, but intellectual stimulation soon becomes wearisome. I must find, and my life is beginning to shorten. I want to talk most seriously with you, for I feel that you may be of help in my search

K: Can we go slowly and patiently into this movement called 'search'? Do you know why you are seeking, and what it is you seek?

Q: Like everyone else, I have sought many things, most of which have passed away; but, like some disease that has no cure, the search goes on.

K: Before we go into the whole question of what it is we seek, let’s find out what we mean by that word 'seeking'. What is the state of the mind that is seeking?

Q: It is a state of effort in which the mind is trying to get away from a painful or conflicting situation, and to find a pleasurable, comforting one.

K: Is there a 'true search' if our search is the outcome of a motive? Or is there a search which has no ( thought projected?) motive whatsoever? Can't the mind exist without the movement of search? Isn't our 'search' - as we know it- merely another means by which the mind escapes from ( facing) itself? Without understanding the full content of the mind that is seeking, the search (for Truth) has little significance.

Q: I am afraid, sir, all this is a bit too much for me. Could you make it simpler?

K: Let’s begin with the process we know. Why do you seek, and what are you seeking?

Q: One is seeking so many things: happiness, security, comfort, permanency, God, a society which is not everlastingly at war with itself, and so on.

K: The ( unhappy?) state you are actually in, and the ( happy?) 'end' you are seeking, are both creations of the (temporal?) mind, are they not?

Q: Please, sir, don’t make it too difficult. I know I suffer, and I want to find a way out of it I want to move towards a state in which there will be no sorrow.

K: But this ( sorrow-free) 'end' you are seeking is still the projection of a mind that doesn’t want to be disturbed; isn’t that so? And there may be no such thing, it may be an (ages old 'psychological?) myth'.

Q: If that is a myth, then there must be something else which is real, and which I must find.

K: Being unhappy, you are seeking happiness, are you not? As a man who is ambitious in the worldly sense pursues the path of his fulfilment, in which there is ruthlessness, frustration, fear, perhaps covered over with sweet-sounding words, so you also are seeking to fulfil your desire, even though it be for the highest. But...when you already know what the end is (supposed to be?) , is there (an authentic spiritual) search?

Q: Surely sir, God or Bliss cannot be known beforehand; it must be sought out.

K: How can you seek out that which you do not know? You think you know what God is, and having formulated what God is, you proceed to 'discover' that which your mind has projected. This is obviously not ( an authentic spiritual) search; you are merely pursuing what you already know. Search ceases when you ( assume that you?) know, because your 'knowing' is a process of ( mental) recognition, an action of the past, of the known.

Q: But I am really seeking God, by whatever name He may be called.

K: You are seeking 'God' (within the field of the known?) , as others are seeking 'happiness' through drink, through the acquisition of wealth & power, and so on. These are all well-known and well-established motives. But is there an (authentic) search when there is a motive?

Q: I think I am beginning to see what you mean ; do please go on.

K: If you are really earnest, the moment you perceive that in this whole ( traditional)'search', there is no search at all, you abandon it. But the ( hidden?) cause of your search still remains, because the core of your mind has not understood ( what is wrong with?) this whole problem of 'seeking' (while being inwardly anchored in the psychological safety of the?) known?) , and that is why it moves from one guru or ( spiritual) leader to another, ever moving within the ( complex) net(work) of the known. Now, can the mind remain ( quietly with itself) without seeking? And when this movement of search is not (active) , is there a 'seeker' ? The mind swings from one ( area of) search to another, but ever caught in the net of ( self-centred?) experience. This ( mental) movement is always towards the 'more': more stimulation, more experience, wider and deeper knowledge. The hunter is ever projecting the ( image of the?) hunted.

Now, once it is aware of the (inner) significance of this whole process of seeking, does the mind continue to seek ? And when the mind is not seeking, is there an 'experiencer' to experience?

Q: What do you mean by the 'experiencer'?

K: As long as there is ( the dualistic mentality of?) the 'seeker' and the thing ( which is being) 'sought', the 'experiencer' is the core of mind’s self-centred movement. From this (self-identified ?) 'centre', all ( our psychological?) activities take place, whether noble or ignoble: the desire for wealth and power, the compulsion to be content with what is, the urge to seek God, to bring about reforms, and so on.

Q: I see the truth of what you are saying. I have approached the whole thing wrongly.

K: Does this mean you are also aware that any approach to the problem, 'right' or 'wrong', is still self-centred activity, which only strengthens, subtly or grossly, the ( self-conscious?) 'experiencer'?

Q: How cunning the mind is, how quick and subtle in its movement to maintain itself! I see that very clearly.

K: When the ( meditating?) mind ceases to seek because it has understood the total significance of ( its dualistic) search, do not the ( time-binding mental ) limitations which it has imposed upon itself fall away? And isn't it then ( one with?) the Immeasurable, the Unknown?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
3 hours ago #702
Thumb_stringio Jess S Portugal 3 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
but the 'son of man' having not such a place ( since the 'Kingdom of Heaven' was supposed to be it)

Yes! I think we can generally say here that there is no place where we can keep love, compassion, beauty... it just doesn't belong to us... maybe we can be co-workers in allowing it to be expressed in this world if we live the right way... which has to be found every moment of our life and that's one of the reasons why Krishnamurti said that 'truth is a pathless land'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 691 - 702 of 702 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.)