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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 691 - 720 of 753 in total
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 #691
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 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 691 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 691 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 691 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 691 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 691 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 691 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
Wed, 16 Aug 2017 #698
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 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
Wed, 16 Aug 2017 #699
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 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
Thu, 17 Aug 2017 #700
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline


The visitor said that his life was going along pleasantly enough, but one morning he awoke very early and sat down for meditation before his family or the neighbours were up, and suddenly he felt an overwhelming urge to spend the rest of his life in meditation. There was no doubt about it; he would devote his remaining years to finding whatever there was to be found through meditation, and he told his wife, and his two boys that he was going to become a sannyasi. His colleagues were surprised by his decision, but accepted his resignation; and in a few days he had left his home, never to return. That was twenty-five years ago. He disciplined himself rigorously, although he found it difficult after a life of ease, and it took him a long time to master completely his thoughts and the ( sensory ) passions that were in him. Finally, however, he began to have visions of the Buddha, of Christ and Krishna visions whose beauty was enthralling, and for days he would live as if in a trance, utterly absorbed in that love which is devotion to the Supreme. Everything about him - the villagers, the animals, the trees, the grass - was intensely alive, brilliant in its vitality and loveliness. It had taken him all these years to touch the "Hem of the Infinite" and it was amazing that he had survived it all.

Q: I have a number of disciples and followers, as is inevitable in this country, and one of them suggested to me that I attend a talk which was to be given by you in this town, where I happened to be for a few days. More to please him, I went to the talk, and was greatly impressed by what was said in reply to a question on meditation. It was stated that « without self-knowledge, which in itself is ( a basic part of) meditation all meditation is a process of self-hypnosis, a projection of one’s own thought and desire ». I have been thinking about all this, and I see that what you say is perfectly true- although it’s a great shock to me to realise that I have been caught in the images or projections of my own mind. I now realize very profoundly what my meditation has been. For twenty-five years I have been held in a beautiful garden of my own making; the visions were the outcome of my particular culture and of the things I have desired, studied and absorbed. I now understand what I have been doing, and I am more than appalled at having wasted so many precious years.

(We remained silent for some time...)

What am I to do now? Is there any way out of this inner prison I have built for myself? I can see that what I have come to in my meditation is a dead-end, though only a few days ago it seemed so full of glorious significance. However much I would like to, I can’t go back to all that self-delusion and self-stimulation. I want to tear through these veils of illusion and come upon That which is not put together by the mind. You have no idea what I have been through during the last two days! The ( mental ) structure which I had so carefully and painfully built up over a period of twenty-five years has no meaning any more, and it seems to me that I shall have to start all over again. From where am I to start?

K: May it not be that it is not a matter of 'restarting' (in another direction?) at all, but only the ( timeless holistic ?) perception of the false as 'false'- which is the beginning of self-understanding? What 'blinds' us is (our subliminal) desire to achieve a (spiritual) 'end'; but if we perceived that the 'end' we desire to reach is still within the self-centred field (of the already known?) , then there would be no thought of achievement. Seeing the false as 'false', and the true as 'true', is ( the very beginning of?) wisdom.

Q: But do I really see that what I have been doing for the last twenty-five years is 'false'? Am I aware of all the ( psychological) implications of what I have regarded as 'meditation'?

K: The ( subliminal ) craving for ( wider & ever more gratifying?) experiences is the beginning of illusion. As you now realize, your 'visions' were but the projections of your (collective cultural) background, of your (traditionalistic) conditioning, and it is these projections that you have experienced. Surely this is not ( the authentic?) meditation. The ( right) beginning of meditation is the understanding of your background of self( -interest) , and without this understanding, what is generally called 'meditation', is merely a form of self-hypnosis. Now, you have practised self-control, mastered thought, and concentrated on the furthering of experience. But this is still a ( sophisticated form of?) self-centred occupation and to perceive that it is not ( an authentic?) meditation is the beginning of ( an universally open?) meditation. (In a nutshell:) To see the truth in ( regarding ?) the 'false' sets the mind free from the 'false'. This freedom from the 'false' ( from the 'known'?) comes when the mind is no longer concerned with (its personal) 'success', or with the attainment of a (spiritual) end. ( In the context of time-free meditation?) there must be the cessation of all 'search', and only then is there a possibility of the 'coming into (one's) being' of That which is Nameless.

Q : I do not want to deceive myself again.

K: Self-deception exists only when there is any form of craving or (personal) attachment. Consciously or unconsciously, the (all-controlling?) 'experiencer' is always seeking greater, deeper, wider experience; and as long as this ( self-identified ?) 'experiencer' exists, there must be delusion in one form or another.

Q: All this ( holistic approach) involves a lot of time and patience, doesn’t it?

K: ( Thinking in terms of?) 'time and patience' may be necessary for the achievement of any ( material) goal. Any ambitious man, worldly or otherwise, needs time to gain his end. ( The self-centred ?) mind is the product of time and its working to free itself from time only strengthens its enslavement to time. ( Thinking in terms of?) 'time' exists only when there is a psychological gap between 'what is' and 'what should be', the (desired) end . To become aware of the 'falseness' of this whole manner of (temporal ) thinking is to be free from it - which does not demand any (special ? ) effort or practice. ( The insight-based ?) understanding is immediate, it is not ( the result of thinking in tems ?) of time.

Q: The 'meditation' I have indulged in can have meaning only when it is seen to be false, and I think I see it to be false. But...

K: Please don’t ask the inevitable questions ( of 'how ?' ) or what else there will be in its place, and so on. When the 'false' has dropped away, there is ( an inner space ?) freedom for 'that-which-is-not-false ' (or... Truth?) to come into ( one's) being.

You cannot seek the true through ( a mentality based on the ?) the false; the false is not a steppingstone to the true. The ( attachments to the?) false must cease wholly, not in comparison to the true. There is no ( opportunistic ?) comparison between the false and the true; ( the mentality based on?) violence and ( the one based on?) Love cannot be compared. Violence must cease for Love to be. The cessation of ( our karmic residues of?) violence is not a matter ( that can be solved in terms?) of 'time'. The (non-dualistic) perception of the false as 'false' is the ( beginning of the?) ending of the 'false'.

( For more 'holistic meditation' homework: ) let the mind be empty ( empty itself of the known?) , and not filled with the 'things' of the mind. Then there is only Meditation, and not a (dualistic ?) ' meditator' who is ( pretending to be ?) 'meditating'.

Q: I have been occupied with the ( hidden agenda of the ?) 'meditator', of the 'experiencer', that is, with 'myself'. I have lived in a pleasant garden of my own creation, and have been a prisoner therein. I now see the 'falseness' of ( what was wrong with?) all that - dimly, but I see it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Aug 2017 #701
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline


(…) In the moonlight the garden became an enchanted place, the motionless, silent trees casting long, dark shadows across the lawn and among the still bushes. After a great deal of bustle and chatter, the birds had settled down for the night in the dark foliage. There was now hardly anyone on the road, but occasionally one would hear a song in the distance, or the notes of a flute being played by
someone on his way to the village. Otherwise the garden was very quiet, full of soft whispers. Not a leaf stirred, and the trees gave shape to the hazy, silvery sky.

Imagination ( the mental process of 'image making'?) has no place in ( a holistic ?) meditation; it must be completely set aside, for the mind caught in 'imagination' can only breed delusions. The (meditative?) mind must be clear, without movement, and in the light of that clarity the 'timeless' (dimension of Reality?) is revealed.

(He was a very old man with a white beard, gentle in manners and speech, but his eyes were full of sorrow – the sorrow of a vain (spiritual) search.

Q: I have searched for God in every possible way from the age of fifteen, but I have not found Him, and now I am past seventy. I have come to you as I have gone to other (seers ?) , hoping to find God. I must find Him before I die - unless, indeed, He is just another of the many myths of man.

K : Do you think that the Immeasurable can be found by our searching for It? By following different (traditional ) 'paths' will the seeker come upon the eternal? The ( ultimate ?) truth whether the Eternal exists or not, may be uncovered later; but what is (experientially ?) important is to understand 'why' we seek, and 'what' it is that we are seeking.

Q: I seek because, without (finding) God, my life has very little meaning. I seek Him out of sorrow and pain. I seek
Him because I want inner peace. I seek Him because He is the permanent, the changeless; because there is death, and He is deathless. He is order, beauty and goodness, and for all these (good) reasons I seek Him.

K: That is, being in agony over the impermanent we hopefully pursue what we call the 'permanent'. The ('psychanalytical') motive of our search is to find comfort in ( trying to reach) the ideal of the permanent ; but this ideal is born of ( the very realisation of our own) impermanency, out of the pain of constant change. This ideal is unreal, whereas our (existential?) pain is real; but we do not seem to understand (and transcend?) the 'fact' of this pain, and so we cling to the ideal, to the hope of painlessness. Thus there is born in us the dualistic state of 'fact' (vs) the 'ideal', with its endless conflict between what (one) is and what (one) should be.

(To make a long story short:) The real motive of our search is to escape from impermanency, from sorrow, into what the mind thinks is a state of everlasting bliss. But this ( projection of our self-centred) thought is born of sorrow. Our (spiritual) search, then, is ( becoming an  ?) urge to escape from (facing) 'what is' ( what actually going on within ourselves ?) .

Q: Do you mean to say that we must simply cease any spiritual search ?

K: ( This self-centred) 'search' - as we know it - may not be necessary at all if we would give our 'undivided attention' to the understanding of 'what is'. When the mind is free from sorrow, what need is there to search for (an ideal) 'happiness'?

Q: But...can our mind ever be free from sorrow?

K: We must (in the first place ) give our complete attention to the understanding of ( our existential) sorrow and we cannot do this if we are trying to escape from (facing this ) sorrow, or if our minds are (keeping ) busy with seeking the cause of it. There must be a total (meditative quality of inner) attention, and when the mind is no longer breeding ( superficial) conflicts through its various wants and cravings, when it is silent with (insightful) understanding, only then can the Immeasurable come into (one's inner ?) being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Aug 2017 #702
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline

( continuing to 'unzip' the Commentaries )


It was very quiet; there was not even the stirring of a breeze among the leaves. But there was always a movement of some kind in those woods, and that movement was part of the immense silence; it was not disturbing, and it seemed to add to the stillness of the mind. The trees, the insects, the spreading ferns, were not separate, something seen from the outside; they were part of that quietude, within and without. Even the muffled roar of a distant train was contained in that quietness. There was complete absence of resistance, and the bark of a dog, insistent and penetrating, seemed ( by contrast ?) to heighten the ( inner perception of that ) stillness. Beyond the woods was the lovely, curving river and all along both banks there were poplars, tall and stately, with their leaves aquiver in the breeze. The water was deep and cool, and always flowing so alive and rich. The river would always be there, it would always be nourishing the earth
and men. Far away were the snow-covered mountains, and on a clear evening, when the setting sun was upon them, their lofty peaks could be seen like sunlit clouds.

Q: Is it ever really possible, for the human mind to really free itself from its ( ages old?) conditioning? If so, what is the state of a mind that has unconditioned itself? I have heard your talks over a period of several years, and have given a great deal of thought to the matter, yet my mind doesn’t seem able to break away from the ( subliminal attachment to its ) traditions and ideas that were implanted during childhood. I know that I am as conditioned as any other person. From childhood we are taught to conform - brutally, or with affection and gentle suggestions - until conforming becomes instinctive, and the mind is afraid of the insecurity of not conforming.
Intellectually, I see the absurdity of conforming, but I can’t shake it off; and most of us have never thought very deeply about how our mind is almost entirely conditioned by the society and the culture in which we have grown up. We are unaware of this conditioning and just carry on, struggling, achieving, or being (hurt & getting) frustrated within the pattern of a given society.

Unfortunately for me, I came to hear several of your (revolutionary) talks, and then my pain of self- questioning began. For some time I did not think about this matter very deeply, but after having heard or read most of the things you have said, I realized how conditioned I am; and I saw that one must be free from conditioning - not only from the conditioning of the superficial mind, but also from that of the unconscious. But what is actually taking place is this: the conditioning I received in my youth continues ( on its own) while at the same time there is a strong ( conscious) desire to uncondition myself. So my mind is caught in this inner conflict between a conditioning of which I am now becoming aware, and the urge to be free from it. How shall I proceed from there?

K: Does not the urge of the ( conscious layers of the ) mind to free itself from its conditioning set going another pattern of resistance and conditioning? Having become aware of the mould in which you have grown up, you want to be free from it; but will not this new 'desire to be free' condition the mind again in a different manner? The old ( mental ?) pattern insists that you should conform to authority, and now
you are developing a new one which maintains that you must not conform; so you have two patterns, one in conflict with the other (although not at the same level ?) . As long as there is this inner contradiction (conflict of interests ?) , further conditioning takes place.

Q: I know that the old pattern is quite absurd and 'dead', and that there must be freedom from it, otherwise my mind will go on in the same stupid way.

K: Let’s be patient and go into it more. The old ( cultural) pattern has told you to conform, and for various reasons - fear of insecurity, and so on - you have conformed. Now, for reasons of a different kind, but in which there is still fear and the desire for security, you feel you must not conform. That’s so, isn’t it?

Q: Yes, more or less. But the old ( pattern of living is obviously) stupid, and I must be free from this 'stupidity'.

K: May I point out, sir, that you are not 'listening'. Please don’t carry on with your own thoughts about the problem, but just listen, will you?

Q: I will try...

K: One conforms instinctively for various reasons: out of attachment, fear, ( a residual herd instinct?), the desire for reward, and
so on. That is one’s first response. Then somebody comes along and says that one must be free from conditioning, and there arises the (opposite) urge 'not to conform'. Now, is there any essential difference between the desire to conform, and the (new desire) to be free of conformity?

Q : I really don’t know. What would you say ?

K: Must you not find out for yourself whether there is
any fundamental difference between these two opposing desires?

Q: How am I to find out?

K : By ( mindfully?) neither 'condemning' the (old) one nor eagerly pursuing the other. What is the state of the mind that is rejecting conformity? Unless you really experience and (holistically) understand that state, your efforts to be free will only bring about ( new conflicts and ) the formation of other patterns. Isn’t that so?

Q: I don’t quite understand how is such a 'detached' attitude to be achieved?

K: Surely, not to 'put an end completely' to the ( sub-conscious mental) mechanism that produces patterns, moulds, is to continue in a modified pattern or conditioning.

Q: I can understand this intellectually, but I don’t really feel ( the practicality of?) it.

K: There is this ( inherited ? ) urge that makes for (following the trodden ways of?) conformity, and the ( new) urge to be free. However 'dissimilar' these two urges may seem to be ( as they are not occuring at the same levels of consciousness) , are they not ( holistically speaking?) similar? And if they are, then your 'pursuit of freedom' is vain for you will only move from one ( time binding) pattern to another, endlessly.
( From the 'holistic' perspective ?) there is no 'nobler' or 'better' ( form of mental) conditioning; all ('thought & desire' created?) conditioning is ( generating frustration &  ?) pain. The desire 'To be or not to be' (inwardly free?) , breeds ( its own time-binding forms of ) conditioning, and it is the ( total process of thought-sustained ) 'desire' that has to be understood (and wisely integrated?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Aug 2017 #703
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline


Q: I want you to speak to me of the immeasurable ( inner emptiness or ?) void. I have had a feeling of that ( inner) void in my wanderings and meditations.

K: (For starters?) to discover whether that (Inner ) Void does really exists or is merely another invention of the ( man-made) mind, the mind must be free from the ( safety ?) net of authority and tradition.

Q ; Can the mind ever free itself from this 'net'?

K: ( The authentic Inner ) 'freedom' is a state of being which is not the outcome of the desire to be free. When the mind sees the falseness of (psychologically relying on?) authority and tradition, then only does the false ( 'safety net' of the known?) wither away.

Q: There has always been within myself an intimation of it, a nostalgic feeling for it; and as I grew older, my reading of various religious books only strengthened this feeling, giving it more vitality and purpose. But I begin to realize that I have become depended on the description of the ( mystical) experiences of others, as given in the ( Hindu) sacred Scriptures. This dependence I can now throw off, since I now see the necessity of doing so; but can I revive that original, uncontaminated feeling for that which is beyond words?

K: What is revived is not the living, the new; it is a memory, a dead thing, and you cannot put life into the dead. To revive and live on memory is to become a slave to stimulation, and a mind that depends on stimulation, conscious or unconscious, will inevitably become dull and insensitive. What you experienced as a youth, or only yesterday, is over and gone; and if you cling to the (memories of the?) past, you prevent the quickening ( direct ?) experience of the New.

”Q : I hope you realise that I am really in earnest, and for me it has become an urgent necessity to understand and to be of that void. What am I to do?

K: One has to ( meditate on ?) 'emptying the mind of the known'; all the ( spiritual ) knowledge that one has gathered must cease to have any influence on the living mind. Knowledge is the very process of ( recycling the old experiences of the?) past, and the mind must be free from this process. Recognition is part of this ( time-binding ?) process of 'knowledge', isn’t it?

Q: How's that?

Q: To 'recognize' something, you must have experienced it previously and stored it up in memory as ( experiential) knowledge. You may have experienced, once upon a time, this ( inner) void, and having once experienced it, you now crave for it. The original experience came about without you ( consciously) pursuing it; but now you are and the thing that you are seeking is not the ( direct experiencing of that?) Void, but the renewal of an old ( rewarding?) memory. If it is to happen again, all (personal) remembrance of it, all 'knowledge' of it, must disappear. All search for it must cease, for search is based on the desire to experience (something inwardly rewarding ?) .

Q: Do you really mean that I must not search it out? This seems incredible!

K: The ( hidden?) motive of your search is of greater (experiential) significance than the Search itself. The motive of your search is the desire to experience the 'Unknowable' (dimension of the Universal Mind?) to know the Bliss and the Immensity of it. This desire has brought into being the ( self-conscious ?) 'experiencer' who craves for (the Original ?) 'experience'. An all the other (worldly ) experiences have lost their taste , the experiencer now longs for the ( the Inner) Void; so there is (a subliminal split of the 'thought-desire' process into?) the 'experiencer', and the 'thing to be experienced'. Thus ( a time-binding) conflict is set going between the 'pursuer' and the thing 'pursued'.

Q: This I understand very well, because it is exactly the state I am in. I now see that I am caught in a 'net' (of inner fragmentation?) of my own making.

K: As every ( greedy?) 'seeker' is, and not just the seeker after Truth, God, the (Inner ) Void, and so on. But if once you understand the total ( illusory?) significance of ( the dualistic process of ?) search, will you continue to seek the Void?

Q: I perceive the inward meaning of your question and I have already stopped seeking.

K: If this be a 'fact', then what is the state of the (integrated) mind that is not ( engaged in?) seeking?

Q: This whole thing is so new to me that I shall have to gather myself and observe (...) I perceive how extraordinarily subtle it is; how difficult it is for the 'experiencer', the 'watcher', not to step in. It seems almost impossible for ( the joint process of desire &) thought not to create the 'thinker'; and as long as there is an 'experiencer', there must obviously be (a degree of inner) separation from 'that (inner Void) which is to be experienced'. And you are asking, aren’t you, what is the state of the mind when there is no (inner) conflict?

K: (This inner) conflict exists when desire assumes the form of an ( independent?) 'experiencer' and pursues 'that which is to be experienced' (which) is also put together by ( the same process of thought sustained ?) desire.

Q: You are saying that ( the process of thought-enforced?) desire not only builds the 'experiencer', but also brings into being ( a mentally projected image of?) 'that which is to be experienced'. Now, you are asking, what is the state of the mind which is no longer (entangled?) in this inner conflict, which is not driven by desire? But how can this question be answered without the ( interference of the?) 'watcher' who is watching the experience of desirelessness?

K: When you are ( becoming self-) conscious of your humility, has not humility ceased? The moment you are aware that you are happy, you cease to be happy. What is the state of the mind which is not caught in the (dualistic ) conflict of desire? The urge to find out ( the ultimate experiential answer?) is part of the same activity of ( the thought-sustained?) desire which has brought into being the ( illusory split between the?) 'experiencer' and the 'thing to be experienced', is it not?

Q: That’s so. Your question was an (experiential 'fly?) trap' for me, but I am thankful you asked it since I am now seeing more of the intricate subtleties of (my thought-enforced ?) desire.

K: It was not (meant to be?) a trap, but a natural and inevitable ( check-up?) question which you would have asked yourself in the course of your inquiry. If the mind is not extremely ( awake?) alert, aware, it is soon caught again in the ( illusory?) net of its own desire.

Q; One final ( bonus?) question: is it really possible for the human mind to be totally free of this ( thought-sustained ) desire for ( the Ultimate Spiritual?) Experience, which sustains the (very realistic, yet illusory?) division between the 'experiencer' and the 'thing to be experienced'?

K: Find it out (in your 'meditation' homework?) sir. When the mind is entirely free of this ( dualistic & illusory ) structure of ( thought sustained) desire, is this ( holistically integrated ?) Mind then different ( or divided ?) from the Void?

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 19 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 #704
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline

( Continuing to 'unzip' K's Commentaries On Living )


Q: I am not sure I understand you, when you say that knowledge must be set aside ( in order ) to understand Truth. I don’t mean mere book knowledge, but the knowledge that men have gathered but have not put down on paper, the mysterious tradition that’s beyond scrolls and sacred books. Given a first-rate mind and the capacity to accumulate (the essential) knowledge, a man should be able to do immense good. I know it isn’t the fashion, but I have a sneaking compulsion to reform the world, and knowledge (of how it can be done) is my passion. I have always been a passionate person in many ways, and now I am consumed with this urge to know. The other day I read something from your (public talks ) which intrigued me : you said that there must be 'freedom from knowledge' ; so I decided to come and ask you what do you exactly mean by this 'freedom'(from the 'known')

K: If I may ask, what do you mean by 'knowledge'?

Q: Yes, that’s a good question to begin with. Knowledge is everything that man has learnt through experience; it is what he has gathered by study, through centuries of struggle and pain, in the many fields of human endeavour, both scientific and psychological. However, even the greatest historian interprets history according to his learning and mood, so an ordinary scholar like me may translate this accumulated knowledge as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Though we are not concerned with ( our daily) action at the moment, it is inevitably related to knowledge, which is what man has experienced or learnt through thought, through meditation, or...through sorrow. Knowledge is vast; it is not only written down in books, but it exists in the individual, as well as in the collective , consciousness of man. Scientific and medical information, the technical ‘know-how’ of the material world, is rooted principally in the consciousness of the 'western' man, just as in the consciousness of 'eastern' man there is perhaps a greater sensitivity to unworldliness. All this is knowledge, embracing not only what is already known, but what is being discovered from day to day. Knowledge is an additive, endless process. So I can’t understand why you say that all knowledge must be set aside if there is to be a ( direct) understanding of Truth.

K: The division between knowledge and understanding is artificial, but to be free of this division, and perceive the ( qualitative ?) difference between them we must find out (experientially) what is the 'highest' form of thinking. Is not all our knowledge ( the result of?) an accumulation of conclusions and assertions? Such 'positive' thinking is based on ( our past) experience and can never uncover the New.

Q: You are stating that knowledge is ever ( functioning) in the (memory bank of the?) past, and that any thought originating from the past must inevitably cloud the perception of that which may be called Truth. However, without the past as memory, we could not even recognize (the utility of ) this object which we have agreed to call a chair. Surely you don’t mean that we should put aside all our practical memories and traditions?

K: ( In the 'psychological' areas following?) the ways of tradition inevitably lead to ( a life of spiritual ?) mediocrity, and ( as a rule of thumb ?) a mind caught in ( the inner routines of?) tradition cannot perceive what is ( eternally?) 'true'. ( Our psychological ) tradition may be just one day old, or it may go back for thousands of years. Obviously it would be absurd for an engineer to set aside all the engineering knowledge he has gained through the (accumulated ) experience of a thousand others; and if one were to try to set aside the (practical) memory of where one lived , it would only indicate a 'neurotic' state. But the gathering of ( outer) facts does not make for the understanding of ( our inner) life. Knowledge is one thing and ( self-) understanding another. Knowledge does not lead to ( an insightful inner ?) understanding; but such understanding may enrich ( our existing) knowledge, (which in turn) may implement understanding.

Q: Knowledge is essential and not to be despised. Without knowledge, modern surgery and a hundred other ( technological ?) marvels could not exist.

K: We are not attacking or defending ( the value of) knowledge, but our knowledge is ( covering ) only a part of human life, not the totality, and when that part assumes an all-consuming importance, as it is threatening to do now (and in the next centuries?) , then human life becomes a dull routine from which man seeks to escape through every form of (socio-cultural ?) diversions with disastrous consequences. Something much more profound is needed (for our inner education) . One may know (intellectually) that ( following gut feelings such as?) ) 'hate' is ( not only dangerous but?) futile, but to be (inwardly) free of ( the actual causes of this?) hate is quite another matter- since ( having access to an intelligence based on?) Love is not a question of knowledge. To go back, the 'positive' thinking ( starting from conclusions?) is no ( authentic?) thinking at all; it is merely a modified continuity (recycling & optimising?) of what has been previously 'known'. The core of such 'positive' thinking is always ( following the paths of?) tradition, a process of conformity and the mind that conforms can never be in a creative state of discovery.

Q: But can positive thinking be discarded? Is it not necessary at a certain level of human existence?

K: Of course it is, but that’s not the whole issue. We are trying to find out if knowledge may become a hindrance to the ( experiential) understanding of Truth. Will our previously accumulated knowledge, however vast, help us to understand ( the living spirit of?) Truth?

Q: What is Truth? Is it the Common Ground of human existence, or is it a subjective, individual experience?

K: By whatever name it may be called, Truth must ever be New, something 'living', not a fixed point within the ( time-bound) mind of man. 'Truth' ( the direct perception of the truth or falseness of anything that's happening ?) must be (seen or) discovered 'anew' from moment to moment, it is not a (storable ) experience that can be repeated; it has no ( temporal) continuity, it is a timeless (time free?) state (of Consciousness ?) . ( However?) the (inner separation or ?) division between the (consciousness of the?) 'many' and the ( individual?) 'one' must cease for Truth to be. It is not a fixed state ( dimension of consciousness?) to be achieved, nor a point towards which the mind can evolve, grow. If 'truth' is conceived as a ( man-made ) thing to be gained, then the cultivation of knowledge and the accumulations of memory become necessary, giving rise to 'the one who knows' and the 'one who does not know'.

Q: Then... you are against 'gurus' and 'followers'?

K: It’s not a matter of being against something but of perceiving that conformity, which is the ( result of the instinctive) desire for ( temporal) security, with its ( associated ) fears, prevents the experiencing of the Timeless.

Q: I think I understand what you mean. But is it not immensely difficult to renounce ( being attached to the inner safety provided by ?) all the (personal experience & ) knowledge that one has gathered? Indeed, is it possible?

K: To give up ( one's attachment to all accumulated ) knowledge in order to 'gain' ( a higher state of consciousness?) is no ( authentic) Renunciation at all. ( However?) to see the 'false' as (being actually ?) false, to see 'what is true' behind the ( apparent 'reality' of something that is ?) false, and to see what is true as ( being actually ?) 'true' - it is this ( direct perception of a holistic meditation ? ) that sets the mind free.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #705
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline

( continuing to 'unzip' the Commentaries on Living)


In the train carriage a man introduced himself. He was a well-known scholar; he knew many languages and could quote freely in them. He was full of years and also of knowledge, well-to-do and (scholarly) ambitious. He talked of meditation, but he gave the impression that he was not speaking from his own experience. His god was the 'god of books'.

K: Knowledge is (like) a ?ash of light between two (long inner intervals of ? ) darkness; and knowledge cannot go above and beyond that darkness. We have our being (rooted ) in the past, all our ( self-centred) thinking is founded upon the past. The past is the known, and the response of the past is ever overshadowing the present, the unknown. The unknown is not the future, but the present. The 'future' is but the (projection of our memory of the ) past pushing its way through an uncertain present. The intermittent lights of knowledge, are covering the emptiness of the present; but this (inner) 'emptiness' holds the miracle of life.

Addiction to knowledge is like any other addiction; it offers an escape from (facing our subliminal) fear of being nothing. The ( artificial) light of knowledge is a delicate covering under which lies an (imponderable spiritual) darkness that the (knowledgeable ) mind can not penetrate. The (conscious) mind is frightened of (examining the inner zones ) 'unknown', and so it 'escapes' (outwardly) into knowledge, hopes, imagination; and this very (illusory) knowledge is a hindrance to the (holistic) understanding of the unknown. To put aside ( our attachment to) knowledge is to invite (meet one's abyssal ) fears, and to deny the (all-knowing ) mind, which is the only ( psychologically safe?) instrument of perception one has, is to become vulnerable to sorrow, to joy.

To be ignorant is not (synonimous ? ) to being free of knowledge. Ignorance is the lack of self-awareness; and knowledge 'is' (just a cover-up for) ignorance when there is no understanding of the ways of the self. Understanding (the illusory nature ?) of the 'self' is freedom from knowledge.

There can be freedom from ( our psychological) knowledge (from the 'known'?) only when the process of gathering, the motive of accumulation, is understood. The desire to (indiscriminately?) store up ( all our past psychological experiences) is the desire to be (psychologically) secure, to be certain (of our temporal continuity) . This (subliminal) desire for ( achieving a long term ) certainty - through ( personal attachments &) identi?cations - is the cause of ( an unconscious) fear, which destroys all (sense of love &) communion. When there is this communion (with All That Is ?) , there is no need for ( any psychological ) accumulations. Such accumulation is (creating a ) self-enclosing ( wall of psychological ?) 'resistance', and knowledge strengthens (and justifies?) this resistance.

The worship of (academic ) knowledge is a (subliminal) form of idolatry, and it will not dissolve the inner con?icts and misery of our (intimate) life. This (all-purpose ) 'cloak of knowledge' conceals but can never liberate us from an ever increasing (snowballing global ?) confusion and sorrow. The ways of the mind (comfortably settled in knowledge?) do not lead to ( the direct perception of?) Truth and its (creative?) happiness.

( In a nutshell:) To 'know' ( to be comfortably installed in the 'known' ?) is to deny ( oneself the inward access to the universal Intelligence of the?) Unknown.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Aug 2017 #706
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline

(continuing to 'unzip' the first series of Commentaries on Living)


He was a quiet man, unobtrusive, hoping not to be too disturbed from his easy ways. He said that he was not personally ambitious, but prayed to God for the things he had, for his family, and for the even ?ow of his life. He was thankful not to be plunged into world's many problems and con?icts, as most of his friends and relatives were. He went on to say that he was not ( naturally) generous either, but gave a little something here and there. He was certain that each one must struggle to make a position for himself in the world.

Q: What is the matter with me, as I have no (psychological) problems?

K: Respectability, the exclusiveness of one's self-assurance does breed ( its own colateral ?) hatred and antagonism in our human relationship, which in society. The respectable are the ( self-selected?) 'cream of society', and so they are ever the cause of strife and misery. The respectable are always ( politically correct ?) on the defensive, ( subliminally) fearful and suspicious. Fear is ( of what might happen in the future is lurking ?) in their hearts, so their righteousness, virtue and piety are their (insurance policy of ?) defence. The respectable can never be open to ( their own inner?) reality, for, like those they despise, they are enclosed in the concern for their own self-improvement. The creative happiness is denied to them, for they avoid (facing this obvious ) truth.

( En passant ?) To be 'non-greedy' and 'not being generous' are closely related. Both are a 'negative' form of ( preserving one's ?) self-centredness. The greedy ( are) active, outgoing; they strive, compete aggressively. But even if you have not this ( pretty annoying?) drive, you are still not free of greed, but only (more safely) self-enclosed. Outgoing is a ( potential source of ) disturbances and painful struggles, so one's self-centredness is covered over by the word 'non-greedy'. To be generous with the hand is one thing, but to be generous of heart is of another (quality) . The generosity of the hand is depending upon the cultural patterns and so on; but generosity of the heart is demanding an extensive awareness and ( self-) understanding.

Not to be generous is the result of ( a subliminal ?) self-absorption, which has its own ( tranquilising?) activities, like those of a dreamer (for whom?) the 'waking-up' process is a painful one, and so, young or old, you would prefer to be left alone, to become respectable, and (inwardly ?) die.

On the other hand, the ( compounded) generosity of heart & hand is an outgoing movement, but often painful, deceptive and/or ( potentially) self-revealing. The generosity of the hand is (relatively ?) easy to come by; but the generosity of heart is not a thing to be cultivated, it is (the natural outcome of the inner ?) freedom from all (one's 'psychological' ?) accumulations.

( In a nutshell:) There is no generosity of heart as long as there is a ( psychologically active self-centred?) referential memory as the ”me” and the ”mine.”


He (J. Nehru ?) was a very famous politician, realistic, intensely sincere and ardently patriotic. Neither narrow minded not self-seeking, his ambition was not for himself, but for an idea and for the people. He had suffered for his ( Indian independency ?) cause and, strangely, was not bitter. He seemed more of a scholar than a politician. But politics was the bread of his life, and his party obeyed him, though rather nervously. He was a dreamer, but he had put all that aside for politics.

K: Have you noticed, in newspapers and magazines, the amount of space given to politics, to the sayings of politicians and their activities? The outward circumstances - comfort, money, position and power - seem to dominate and shape our existence. The external show has become increasingly signi?cant, and the 'total' process of life has been forgotten or deliberately set aside. It is so much easier to throw oneself into social and political activity than to (meditate and?) understand life as a whole. With a small heart you can talk of big things and of the popular leaders; you can hide your shallowness with the easy phrases of world affairs; your restless mind can happily settle down to propagate the ideology of a new or of an old religion.

Politics is ( mostly concerned with ?) the reconciliation of ( material causes & ) effects; and as most of us are concerned with them the external ( aspects of life) has assumed dominant signi?cance. By manipulating ( causes &) effects we hope to bring about ( a global) order and peace; but, unfortunately, it is not as simple as all that. Life is a total process, the 'inner' as well as the 'outer'; the 'outer' (conditions) de?nitely affects the 'inner', but ( on long term?) the 'inner' (trends of human consciousness ?) invariably overcomes the 'outer' (social structures) . What you 'are' ( thinking inwardly) , you bring about outwardly.

( As a 'rule of thumb'?) The outer and the inner (aspects of our existence?) cannot be ( endlessly?) kept in watertight compartments, for they are constantly interacting upon each other; ( on a longer term ?) the inner cravings, the hidden pursuits and motives, are always more powerful.

( The spiritual essence of human ?) life is not dependent upon political or economic activity; life is not a mere outward ( 'trump-?) show', any more than a tree is the leaf or the branch. Life is a total process whose ( holistic?) Beauty is to be discovered only in its integration. This ( inner) integration does not take place on the super?cial level of political and economic reconciliations; it is to be found beyond (the large scale manipulations of material ?) causes and effects.
Because we ( opportunistically chose to?) play with causes and effects and never go beyond them, except intellectually , our lives are ( inwardly?) empty, without much signi?cance. It is for this reason that we have become (addicted?) to political ( and/or sports ? ) excitement and/or to religious sentimentalism. There is hope only in the integration of the several ( compartmentalised inner ?) processes of which we are made up.

Such ( inner) integration comes into being only through ( developping an?) extensive and deep awareness. This (holistic?) awareness must go into the deeper layers of consciousness and not be content with surface responses.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 25 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Aug 2017 #707
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline

( continuing with 'unzipped' Commentaries on Living )


The Ojai valley WAS in the shadow, and the setting sun touched the faraway mountain tops; their evening glow seemed to come from within. To the north of the long road, the mountains were bare and barren, exposed by the ?re; to the south, the hills were green and heavy with bushes and trees. The road ran straight, dividing the long and graceful valley. The mountains on this particular evening seemed so close, so unreal, so light and tender. Heavy birds were circling effortlessly high in the heavens. On both sides of the road were orange orchards, well ordered and well kept. After the hot day the smell of purple sage was very strong, and so was the smell of sunburnt earth and hay. The orange trees were dark, with their bright fruit. The quail were calling, and a 'road-runner' (bird) disappeared into the bush. A long snake-lizard, disturbed by the dog, wriggled off into the dry weeds. The evening stillness was creeping over the land.

( The accumulative ) experience is one thing, and ( holistic) experiencing is another. ( The subliminal drive for new ?) experiences is a barrier to the state of ( pure ?) experiencing. ( The self-sustained desire for rewarding  ?) experiences is already in the net of time, it is already in the ( active memory of the?) past, a ( psychological?) memory which comes to life only as a response to the present. Life is ( always happening in ) the present, but the weight of (our past?) experiences shadows the present, and so (any new) 'experiencing' becomes (absorbed in the 'known' ) experience.
The ( self-centred ?) mind is ( routinely functioning in?) the field of the 'known', and it can never be in the state of (direct) experiencing; for what it experiences is the (modified?) continuation of ( its previous ) experiences. Such a mind only knows continuity, and it can never receive the New as long as its ( ever-refreshed sense of psychological ?) continuity exists.

What is 'continuous' can never be in a (pure ?) state of experiencing, a state without ( the burden of past?) experience.
( The constant recycling of our past?) experience must cease for experiencing ( the Newness of Life ?) to be.
The ( all-knowing ?) mind can invite only its own self-projection, the 'known'. There cannot be the ( direct?) experiencing of the Unknown until the mind ceases to ( acquire new?) experiences. Thought is the ( updated?) expression of ( our past?) experience - (a verbalised?) response of memory; and as long as (such) thinking intervenes, there can be no experiencing.

There is no ( proven ?) method to put an end to ( the dualistic ) experience; for the very means is a hindrance to experiencing (the New) . To have a 'means' to ( reach) the (desired) 'end' is to sustain the 'known'. The desire for (a rewarding ?) achievement must fade away; it is this ( thought sustained ?) desire that creates the ( time gap between the?) 'means' (employed?) and the 'end' (to be achieved) .

Humility ( of 'not-knowing' ?) is essential for experiencing (the Newness of Life?) . But how eager (greedy?) is the ( self-centred?) mind to absorb the new experiencing into ( its already known?) experience! How swift it is to 'think about the New' and thus make of it the 'old'! So it establishes the ( illusory division of the ?) 'experiencer' and the ( thing or state to be?) 'experienced', which gives birth to a ( steady-state?) 'con?ict of duality'.

( For homework?) In the state of (holistic) experiencing, there is neither the ( self-conscious?) 'experiencer' nor the ( thing or state of consciousness ?) 'experienced'. ( The perceptive 'newness' of ?) the tree, the dog and the evening star is not to be experienced by the ( savvy ?) 'experiencer'; it is part of the very movement of experiencing. There is no 'gap' (sense of separation?) between the 'observer' and the 'observed'; there is no time for thought to 'identify' itself. ( The self-centred process of?) ) thought is utterly absent, but there is 'being'. This state of ( holistic ?) 'being' cannot be meditated upon, it is not a (sensate ? ) thing to be achieved.
The 'experiencer' must ( 'take a break' and?) 'cease to experience', and only then is there 'being'. And in the tranquillity of its ( non-?) movement is the Timeless.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Aug 2017 #708
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline


The sea was very calm and there was hardly a ripple on the white sands. Around the wide bay, to the north, was the town, and to the south were palm trees, almost touching the water. Just visible beyond the bar were the ?rst of the sharks, and beyond them the ?shermen’s boats, a few logs tied together with stout rope. They were making for a little village south of the palm trees. The sunset was brilliant, not where one would expect it, but in the east; it was a counter-sunset, and the clouds, massive and shapely, were lit with all the colours of the spectrum. It was really quite fantastic, and almost painful to bear. The waters caught the brilliant colours and made a path of exquisite light to the horizon.
A single star was above the clouds.

On our way back, a woman joined us and began to talk of 'serious' things. She said she belonged to a certain society whose members meditated and cultivated the essential virtues. Each month a particular virtue was chosen, and during the days that followed it was cultivated and put into practice. From her attitude and speech it appeared that she was well grounded in self-discipline and somewhat impatient with those who were not of her mood and purpose.

K: Virtue is of the heart and not of the mind, When the mind cultivates 'virtue', it is a cunning calculation, a clever adjustment to environment. ( The concept of spiritual ?) 'self-perfection' is the very denial of virtue. How can there be virtue if there is fear (of facing 'what is'?) ?
Fear hides itself under different forms: virtue, respectability, adjustment, service and so on. Fear will always exist in the relationships and activities of the (self-centred ?) mind. There must be vulnerability to meet life, and not
the respectable wall of self-enclosing virtues. The Highest cannot be attained; there is no 'path', no progressive growth to it. Truth must come, 'you' cannot go to truth, and your cultivated virtue will not carry you to it. What you so 'attain' is not truth, but ( a projected image  of ?) your own desire; and in truth alone is there happiness.

The cunning adaptability of the (temporal) mind, (engaged in?) its own self-perpetuation sustains fear. It is this ( subliminal?) 'fear' that must be deeply understood, not how to become virtuous. A 'petty' (shallow egotistic?) mind may practise virtue, but it will still remain 'petty'. ( Its diligent search for?) virtue is then an escape from ( facing the sorrow of?) its own pettiness, and the 'virtues' it gathers will also be petty. If this ( existential?) pettiness is not understood, how can there be the (direct?) experiencing of Reality? How can a petty virtuous mind be open to the Immeasurable?

In comprehending the 'process of the mind', which is the 'self' , the (authentic ?) virtue comes into being as a spontaneous awareness and understanding of 'what is'. ( The self-centred?) mind can translate what is has understood into action, but it is not capable of ( a total) understanding. To understand (anything holistically ?) there must be the 'warmth' of recognition and reception, which only the heart can give - when the (thinking?) mind is silent. But the silence of the mind is not the result of a cunning mental calculation. The desire for silence is the curse of achievement, with its endless con?icts and pains. The craving to be ( to become inwardly something) , negatively or positively, is denying the virtue of the heart. Virtue is (to be found ?) in the freedom from the 'craving to be', and this (inner) tranquillity is of the heart, not of the mind. Through practice, compulsion, resistance, the ( self-centred?) mind may make itself ( artificially?) quiet, but such (self-imposed ) 'discipline' destroys the ( authentic) Virtue of the Heart, without which there is no ( inner ?) Peace, no Blessing; for this 'virtue of the heart' is ( one with holistic ?) understanding.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Aug 2017 #709
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline

More 'easy pieces' from the Commentaries on Living


The skyes were open and full. There were not the big, wide-winged birds that ?oat so easily from valley to valley, nor even a passing cloud. The trees were still and the curving folds of the hills were rich in shadow. The eager deer, consumed with curiosity, was watching, and suddenly darted away at our approach. Under a bush, of the same colour as the earth, was a ?at horned toad, brighteyed and motionless. To the west the mountains were sharp and clear against the setting sun. Far below was a big house; it had a swimming pool, and some people were in it. There was a lovely garden surrounding the house; the place looked prosperous and secluded, and had that peculiar atmosphere of the rich. Farther down a dusty road was a small shack in a dry ?eld. Poverty, squalor and toil, even at that distance, were visible. Seen from that height the two houses were not far apart; ugliness and beauty were touching each other.

This simplicity of the heart is of far greater ( inner ) importance and signi?cance than the simplicity of ( outward ) possessions. To be content with few things is a comparatively easy matter. To renounce comfort, or to give up smoking and other habits, does not indicate simplicity of heart. To put on a loincloth in a world that is taken up with ( fancy?) clothes, comforts and distractions, does not indicate a free ( inner state of?) being.
You have ( diligently) learnt the art of (mental) concentration, and you withdraw into a darkened room to meditate; you pass your days in prayer and watchfulness ? Outwardly you have (succeeded in ?) making your life 'simple', but will this gesture open the Door to Reality? Why are we so eagerly determined to give an outward expression of our ( spiritual?) intentions? Does not this whole problem lie in the desire to be sure, to be convinced of our self-importance in becoming?

( In a nutshell:) The desire to "be" (or to 'become' something ?) is the beginning of ( our mental) complexity. Driven by this ever-increasing desire to be ( successful?) inwardly and outwardly, we accumulate or renounce, cultivate or deny. Or, seeing that time steals all things, we cling to the 'timeless' (spiritual values) . This (vain inner ?) struggle to 'be' (or to 'become' 'something' or 'someone' ?) through attachment or detachment, can never be resolved by any outward gesture, discipline or practice; but the ( experiential?) understanding of ( what is wrong with ?) this struggle will bring about, naturally and spontaneously, the freedom from outward and inward accumulation - with their ( associated?) con?icts.

Reality is unattainable through any ( premeditated ?) 'means'. All (thinking in terms of?) 'means' and 'ends' must (simply) cease for the being of this Reality.


He came to see us surrounded by a happy lot of disciples. It was a very beautiful day and the shadows were dancing on the white walls of the house. In the thick foliage, parrots were screeching, and a noisy lorry went by. The sky was very blue, and a white-throated eagle was circling just above us with hardly a ?utter of the wing.

K: How ( invisibly ?) we destroy each other, the pupil the guru, and the guru the pupil! How we ( like to?) conform, break away ( from one pattern only ?) to take shape again!

( Inwardly) we are 'many' and not 'one'. The 'one' (the 'individualised' consciousness?) does not come into being till the 'many' ( inner fragments?) cease. The clamorous ( ego-centric consciousnesses of the?) 'many' are at war with each other day and night, and ( living in ?) this war (zone) is the pain of life. We try to impose the (will of?) 'one' on the 'many', but the 'one' soon becomes the many. ( Inwardly speaking?) we are the voices of the many, and we try to catch the 'silent voice' of the One.
Our ( meditation related?) problem is not how to hear the One voice but to understand the composition of the 'many' (inner fragments?) which we are. One ( self-identified ?) entity cannot understand the many ( fragmentary ?) entities which we are . Though one ( central) 'facet' tries to control, discipline, shape the other (inner) 'facets', its efforts are ever self-enclosing, narrowing. The whole (consciousness of mankind?) cannot be understood through our particular (consciousness ?) , and that is why we are never aware of the whole, because we are so occupied with (the problems of our own ) 'particular' (minds ?) . This 'particular' consciousness divides (separates?) itself and becomes ( part of the Consciousness Stream of the?) 'many' (other 'particular' minds ) .

To be aware of the whole (consciousness of man?) there must be ( an experiential ?) understanding of desire. Desire must be understood without 'him' who understands. If the 'entity who understands' is there, (its whole endeavour ?) is still part of desire. To understand ( oneself holistically?) - without the (dualistic entity of the?) experiencer - is to be free of (one's dualistic thinking in terms of?) the 'one' and of the 'many'.

All ( thought's ?) activities of conformity and denial, of analysis and acceptance, only strengthen the ( self-identification of the ?) 'experiencer'. This 'experiencer' can never understand the whole. The 'experiencer' is the accumulated (result of the past?) , and there is no (insightful?) understanding within the shadow of the past.
Dependence on the ( cultural traditions of the?) past may offer a ( fool-proof?) way of action, but the ( holistic ?) understanding is not of the result of ( a self-centred ?) thinking.

( For extra homework ?) In the awareness of this whole process there is a ( non-dualistic inner) Silence which is not ( created by?) the 'experiencer'. In this Silence only does ( the inner Light of ?) Understanding come into being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Aug 2017 #710
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline


What would happen if sleep were denied to us? Would there be more time for ( exploring deeper issues such as ?) humility, compassion and frugality? Would we be more creative? Sleep is a strange thing, but extraordinarily important. For most people, the ( self-centred?) activities of the day continue through their nocturnal slumbers; their sleep is the continuation of their life, dull or exciting, an extension at a different level of the same meaningless strife. The (physical) body is refreshed by sleep; the internal -(psychosomatic?) organism, having a life of its own, renews itself. During sleep, desires are quiescent, and so do not interfere with the organism; and with a refreshed (psychosomatic) body, the ( multi-level?) activities of desire have further opportunities for stimulation and expansion.

The more the ( thought sustained?) desires are strengthened, the less the meaning of sleep. Desires, positive or negative, are fundamentally always positive, and sleep is the temporary suspension of this 'positive',(deep sleep creating ?) a state ( of consciousness?) which desire cannot penetrate.The quietening of the super?cial layers of consciousness takes place during sleep, and so they are capable of receiving the intimations of the deeper layers; but this is only a partial comprehension of the whole problem.

It is obviously possible (in the context of a 'meditation friendly' life ?) for all the layers of consciousness to be in communication with each other during the waking hours, and also during sleep; and of course this is essential. This communication frees the ( 'thinking & feeling' ?) mind from its own self-importance, and so the mind loses, freely and naturally, its self enclosing efforts and activities. In this ( integrating?) process the impetus to 'become' ( psychologically) is completely dissolved, the accumulative momentum exists no longer.

But there is something more that takes place in sleep. There is found an answer to our ( time-binding ?) problems. When the conscious ( layers of the?) mind are quiet, (the deeper mind) is capable of receiving an answer. But what is far more important is an inner renewal which is not ( the result of a calculated ?) cultivation. This creative renewal does not take place ( spontaneously?) if there is any kind of effort on the part of the 'becomer'. The mind must voluntarily 'lose' ( or...let go?) all its accumulative storing up of ( its past) experiences as a means to ( optimise its ?) further experiences and achievements. It is this self-protective urge that breeds the 'curve' ( 'warping'?) of ( psychological?) time and prevents creative renewal.

Our consciousness - as we know it- is ( seriously stuck in  ?) time, a process of recording and storing ( physical, emotional & intellectual ?) experiences at its different levels ( isolated compartments ?) . Whatever takes place within this (man-made?) consciousness has its own quality, and is measurable. Now, during sleep, either this ( time bound?) consciousness is strengthened, or something wholly different may take place. For most of us, sleep strengthens experience, it is a process of recording and storing in which there is expansion but not ( a total ) renewal.

( In a nutshell:) This ( subliminal ?) process of ( our psychological ) 'becoming' must wholly come to an end, not as a means to further (optimise & expand our past ?) experience, but as an 'ending' in itself ( as when realising you were going in the wrong direction ?).
When this ( time-binding process of self-) 'becoming' has entirely ceased - during deep sleep or even during the waking hours - then 'That' ( original dimension of human consciousness?) which is beyond time, beyond the measure (or control of material ?) causes and effects, comes into being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Aug 2017 #711
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline

More 'unzipped' Commentaries


How easy it is to destroy the things we ( used to?) love! Health, mood and desire cast a 'shadow', and what was (looking) 'bright' becomes dull and burdensome. Through usage we wear ourselves out (inwardly ?) , and that (natural quality of mind?) which was sharp and clear becomes ( with time?) wearisome and confused.

( The domain of human) relationship is complex and dif?cult, and few can come out of it unscathed. Though we would like it to be enduring, continuous, (our mutual) relationship is a movement, a process which (should ) be deeply and fully understood rather than made to conform to an inner or outer pattern. Conformity, which is the ( basis of the?) social structure, loses its ( psychological?) 'weight' and 'authority' only when there is Love. ( The intelligent action of?) Love in (our daily?) relationship is a purifying process as it reveals the ways of the self. Without this ( inner) revelation, relationship has little signi?cance.

The ( experiential) dif?culty is that we do not ( allow the free access to this?) Love; and ( even ) if we do love we want it to function in a 'particular' ( mentally regulated?) way, we do not give it freedom. We love with our ( man-made?) minds and not with our ( original purity of ?) heart.
( Our particular?) mind can make itself invulnerable, but love cannot; mind can always withdraw, be exclusive, become personal or impersonal. Love is not to be compared and hedged about. Our ( experiential) dif?culty lies in ( not realising ) that what we call 'love', is really ( a man-made creation?) of the mind.
We ?ll our hearts with the 'things' of the mind and so keep our hearts ever ( spiritually?) empty and expectant. It is the ( particular?) mind that clings (to its own 'values' & 'things' ?) , that is envious, that 'holds' and/or 'destroys'.

Our life is dominated by the 'physical' centres (of interest?) and by the ( 'things' of the?) mind. We do not just love and let it ( act?) alone, but crave to be loved; we 'give' in order to 'receive', which is the ( fake ?) 'generosity' of the (cunning) mind and not of the heart. The ( time-bound?) mind is ever seeking certainty, security; but, can Love be 'made certain' (or guaranteed?) by the mind? Can the (thought dominated?) mind, whose very essence is of 'time', catch (the sense of pure ?) Love, which is ( has?) its own Eternity?

But even the 'love of the heart' has its own tricks; for we have so ( often hurt and/or ?) corrupted ( the pure feeling of?) our heart that it is hesitant and confused. It is this ( feeling of mistrust?) that ( eventually?) makes life so painful and wearisome. One moment we think we have love, and the next moment (the thrill of it ?) it is lost.

( On the other hand, if 'lucky' ?) there comes an imponderable ( Inner ) Strength, whose sources may not be fathomed. This Strength is again ( apparently?) destroyed by the ( man-made ?) mind; for in this battle the ( survival-oriented?) mind seems invariably to be the 'victor'.

This ( 'mind vs heart' existential ?) con?ict within ourselves is not to be resolved by the cunning mind, nor by the hesitant heart. There is no ( 'fool-proof' ?) way to bring this con?ict to an end. The very search for a ( practical?) means is another urge of the ( time-bound?) mind to be the 'master' and put away con?ict in order to be peaceful, to have love, or to become something (better) .

Our ( experiential?) dif?culty is that there are no ( temporal?) 'means' to ( access the Universal Source of Intelligence, Compassion & ?) Love as a desirable end of the mind. When we understand ( the truth of?) this- really and profoundly- then there is a possibility of 'receiving something' that is not of this world. Without the touch of that 'something', do what we will, there can be no lasting happiness in (our everyday) relationship.

If you have received that Benediction and I have not, naturally you and I will be in ( a 'guru vs disciple' type of ?) conflict . You ( the Enlightened One?) may not be in con?ict, but I ( the Hapless Disciple?) will be; and ( is engulfed?) in my pain and sorrow I cut myself off. Sorrow is ( potentially as 'psychologically'?) exclusive as pleasure, and until there is (the influx of?) that ( Universal?) Love which is not of my making, relationship is pain.
If (and...only if?) there is the Benediction of that ( Universally Compassionate ?) Love, you cannot but ( have Unconditional?) Love me, whatever I may be, for then you do not ( have to?) shape that Love according to my behaviour.

( In a nutshell:) Whatever 'tricks' the ( man-made ?) mind may play, 'you' and 'I' are ( still feeling ) separated; though we may be 'in touch' with each other at some points, our ( holistic ?) integration is not brought about by the ( self-centred ?) mind at any time; it comes into being only when the ( totality of one's ?) 'mind ( & heart'?) is utterly silent, having reached the 'end of its own tether'. Only then is there no (accumulation of misery and ?) pain in our ( everyday) relationship.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 31 Aug 2017 #712
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline


The long evening shadows were over the still waters, and the river was becoming quiet after the day. Fish were jumping out of the water, and the heavy birds were coming to roost among the big trees. There was not a cloud in the sky, which was silver-blue. A boat full of people came down the river; they were singing and clapping, and a cow called in the distance. There was the scent of evening. A garland of marigold was moving with the water, which sparkled in the setting sun. How beautiful and alive it all was - the river, the birds, the trees and the villagers.

Presently someone joined us and began to talk of his (own spiritual) experiences. He said he had devoted many years of his life to the search for God, had practised many austerities and renounced many things that were dear. He had also helped considerably in social work, in building a school, and so on. He was interested in many things, but his consuming interest was the ?nding of God; and now, after many years, His Voice was being heard, and it guided him in little as well as in big things. He had no will of his own, but followed the inner Voice of God. It never failed him, though he often corrupted its clarity; his prayer was ever for the puri?cation of the vessel, that it might be worthy to receive.

K: Can 'That Which Is Immeasurable' be found by the ( self- conscious entity ?) which is fashioned of time? Can the (Ultimate?) Reality be caught in the net of our personal desires? What we can 'capture' is the projection of the known; but the Unknown cannot be captured by the 'known'. That which is named is not the ( living spirit of the?) Unnameable, and by naming it we only awaken the (culturally) conditioned responses.

We respond to ( various mental & sensory?) stimulants, but (the Ultimate?) Reality offers no stimulant: it 'Is'. The ( conditioned) mind moves from the 'known' to the 'known', and it cannot reach out into the Unknown. You cannot 'think' of something you actually 'do not know'; it is impossible. What you can 'think about' comes out of the known, the past, whether that past be remote, or the second that has just gone by. This ( stand-by memory of the?) past is ( expressing itself in our ?) thought, shaped and conditioned by many in?uences, modifying itself according to circumstances and pressures, but ever remaining a process of time. Thought can only 'deny' or 'assert', but it cannot discover the New. Only when ( the whole activity of?) thought is silent, then there may be the ( perception of the?) New - which ( for various reasons ? ) is ( almost ? ) immediately ( processed and translated by thought ?) in terms of the old, into the experienced.

( In a nutshell:) Thought cannot penetrate ( inwardly) into the Unknown, and so it can never discover or experience ( The Timeless ?) Reality. Disciplines, renunciations, detachment, the diligent practice of virtues - however noble - are ( part of the?) the process of thought; and thought can only work ( linearly ?) towards an 'end', towards an 'achievement', which is ever ( a projection of?) the known.

To seek (one's temporal?) security in 'That which Is ( Timeless & ) Nameless' is to deny ( the inner opening to ?) it. Such 'security' may be found only in the ( mental?) projections of the past, of the known. For this reason the mind must be entirely and deeply silent – and this ( holistic quality of?) Silence comes when the mind is no longer seeking, no longer caught in the process of ( self-) becoming. This (inner ) silence is not cumulative, and it must be as 'unknown' to the mind as is the Timeless; for if the ( 'personal'?) mind ( is consciously) experiencing this Silence, what is 'experienced' is merely a self-projected repetition. The ( dualistic?) mind can never experience the New, and so the mind must be utterly still - not terming, naming, recording and/or storing up in memory. This ( time-biding ?) process of 'naming and recording' is a constant process of the different layers of (our brain's ) consciousness, not merely of the upper mind.

( Now, if and ?) when the 'surface mind' is quiet, the deeper ( layers of the ?) mind can offer up its intimations. (And still further on ?) when the whole consciousness is silent and tranquil, free from all becoming, which is the (truly creative) 'spontaneity', then only does the Immeasurable come into ( one's ) being.

(However, be aware that ?) The desire to ( stretch or to?) maintain (forever) this ( inner state of?) freedom gives continuity to the ( psychological personal?) memory of the 'becomer', which is a hindrance to Reality. (The Ultimate Inner ) Reality has no (temporal) continuity; it 'Is' ( existing in the Eternal Present?) from ( a timeless?) moment to ( the next timeless?) moment, ever new, ever fresh. What has ( a temporal) continuity can never be creative.

The upper mind is only an instrument of (physical survival and of ?) communication - it cannot measure That Which Is Immeasurable. ( The Ultimate Inner ?) Reality is (preferably ?) not to be spoken of; since when it is, it is no longer ( the Living) Reality.
This is (all part of?) Meditation.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 31 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Sep 2017 #713
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline


He had come ( to India) to find God, and travelled many thousands of miles by train, boat and plane. He spoke only his own language, and with the greatest of dificulties was adjusting himself to this new and rather disturbing (cultural) environment. He was entirely unaccustomed to this kind of food and to this climate - the damp heat was telling on him. He was a well-read man and had done some writing. He had just enough money to carry on, but ( bravely ?) decided to come .

K: Is God to be found by seeking Him out? Truth has no fixed abode; there is no Path, no Guide to it, and the word (itself) is not (the living ) truth. Is truth to be found in a particular ( cultural) setting, among certain ( self-selected?) people? Is there a Guide at all? When Truth is sought (out there  ?) , what is found can only come out of ignorance, for such search itself is born of ignorance. You cannot search out ( the Timeless ?) Reality; the 'you' must cease for Reality to be.

Q: But can I not find the Nameless? I have come to this country because here there is a greater feeling for this kind of spiritual search. Am I capable of finding it?

K: When you ask this question, are you not asking whether you, an ordinary individual, have the necessary means of gaining what you long for? Surely, your question implies that only the exceptionally (gifted people) can find Truth, and not the everyday man. We have (been given) the example of the man who is supposed to have discovered truth; and such 'examples', being elevated (by their followers and/or priests ?) far above us, creates (a sense of) uncertainty in ourselves. There is ( a constant comparison & even a subliminal ) competition between the 'example' and 'ourselves' (or even with other fellow followers?).

Why do we want to compare ourselves with the 'ideal'? Does such comparison bring (self-) understanding? Is not ( our spiritual ideal) a ( glorified?) self-projection, a man-made thing, and does it not therefore prevent the understanding of ourselves as we 'are'? Is not our comparison an evasion of the understanding of ourselves? There are so many ways of escaping (to see ) ourselves, and comparison is one of them. Surely, without the understanding of oneself, the search for so-called ( Ultimate) Reality is an escape from ( seeing the actual truths about?) oneself. Without self-knowledge, the 'God' that you seek is a 'god' (projected ) of illusion; and (living on) such 'illusions' do inevitably bring con?icts and sorrow. Besides, without self-knowledge, there can be no right (straight?) thinking; and then all knowledge is (empowering one's own ) ignorance - which can only lead to confusion and destruction.

However, self-knowledge is not an ultimate end; it is the only opening wedge ( the 'foot in the Door'?) to the Inexhaustible ( Source of Compassion & Intelligence?)

Q : But is not this 'self-knowledge' extremely dificult to acquire, and will it not take a very long time?

K: ( For starters?) the very conception that 'self-knowledge is dificult to acquire' is a (rather dissuasive ) hindrance to self-knowledge. Do not assume that it will be dif?cult, or that it will take (a lot of) time; do not predetermine what it is and what it is not. Begin.

Self-knowledge is to be discovered ( non-dualistically?) in the action of ( our everyday) relationships; as all action is ( involving some form of ) relationship. Self-knowledge does not come through self-isolation, through suppression, or sublimation in any form – these being a hindrance to the ( free) flow of self-knowing (of Learning ?) .

Any form of (opposing psychological) resistance (to seeing 'what one is'?) with its (clever) comparisons and justifications, its condemnations and identi?cations, is ( to live in) the denial of ' what is'.
'What is' is (hidden in) the implicit; and ( the exposure and ) awareness of the 'implicit', without any choice, is (allowing) the unfoldment of it. This unfoldment is the beginning of wisdom. (And this ?) 'wisdom' (or 'mindfulness' ?) is essential for the coming into being of the Unknown, of the Inexhaustible.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 01 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Sep 2017 #714
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline


QUESTION: What is the relationship between consciousness, mind, brain, thought, intellect, meditation and intelligence? Is awareness, attention still there when thought is not? Is awareness beyond time?

K: Let's begin. What is (the choiceless) awareness ? I am aware of the room I live in, or of the trees, the sky, the birds, the flowers, the beauty of the land and so on. Are we (non-verbally?) aware of all this, or only very rarely? If we are aware, is it a partial awareness, see one thing only? Or being aware you see the causation and the consequences and the ending of the cause?

( Suppose that ?) I am (becoming) aware of all the images I have built about my wife. The various incidents, flatteries, sex, companionship and so on, all that is a continuously (updated) memory. Am I (objectively?) aware of ( the interference of ?) these memories? Or those memories are so embedded, that there is no awareness of it? So am I aware of the (personal memories?) which interfere, block, the direct awareness of my wife? Can this (perceptive) 'block' (mental screen?) be put aside, wiped away so that I can be aware of my wife sensitively? So that these ( personal) memories don't interfere all the time. Does one see the fact that if this (active psychological) memory is functioning, then I am not aware (objectively) at all? If I am (becoming) aware that these memories are operating all the time, then I see how they 'block' (create a static) relationship with my wife and it feels (so much) easier to live that way.

But if one sees it is dangerous in (the sense of destroying the quality of that ) relationship, then the very fact of seeing the danger puts away the block, the barrier.

Now what is the relationship between consciousness, mind, brain, thought ? What is (at the basis of our everyday ) relationship ? Is it ( self-) identification? If it is ; then there is no ( direct?) relationship, right?
So to find out what is my relationship, without (self-) identification, that is very serious. And, to ask such a (profound?) question: what is the relationship between consciousness, mind, brain and so on, one has to go into this question, what is ( happening in our daily?) relationship? If it is not one based on identification, then what is the ( actual) relationship between consciousness, mind and so on?

First of all we have to enquire what is to be conscious, not only to what is taking place around me but also inwardly, what are my reactions, the beliefs, the fears, the faiths, the hopes, the various forms of identification, suffering, pain, ill health, and so on. All that is creating 'my consciousness', your consciousness, or someone else's consciousness, and this is all its ( psychological) content. Without its 'content' ( the self-?) consciousness, as we know it now, cannot be. Right?
Then we ask: what is the 'content' (made of?) - various traditions, culture, and what I believe, my faith, and so on. The ( holistic) question is: is my consciousness ( basically) different from yours? If I suffer, if I have anxiety, this is what we all share. It is not ( just) 'my' suffering but you also suffer ( for your own reasons) and so on. So apart from the superficial coatings, inwardly our consciousness is very similar. Intellectually you may see the reason, the logic of it, but to feel it, to see the truth of it ?

Q: You have to trust us more. I feel it is not only an intellectual understanding

K: Then sir, if that (sense of our) individual separation, psychologically, is non-existent, you have a tremendous responsibility for the whole (Consciousness of the world) . So (if we see the ) fact that ( the deeper layers of?) our consciousness are shared by all humanity, what is the relationship between consciousness, mind, brain and all the rest of it - meditation included, all right, include everything - what is the connexion between them all? Is the thread of this relationship 'thought'? As the pearls are held together by a thin nylon thread, are all these, consciousness, mind, brain, presently 'held together' by thought?Thought is the thin fibre that holds all this together.

So one has to go into the very question: why has thought become so extraordinary vibrant, alive, and full of activity? Is thought (including our?) feelings? Is thought ( including) emotion? Of course it is. If I do not recognize an emotion, which is the controlling activity of thought, then that emotion is not (registered) . So thought apparently is the main thread that holds the whole thing together ( as we are functioning now?) ?

Then what is the 'mind' - is it part of the ( activity of the?) brain? Or is it outside of the brain?

Q: Isn't it?... both?

K: Please this is much to serious a question to say yes, both. How am I to find it out (experientially?) ?

Q: Well, when you drive a motor car and observe the actual passage of the motor car going along a road, we don't normally think of what is happening inside the engine.

K: Yes sir, I know that when we use the 'mind', when we use the 'brain', when we use the word 'consciousness', they are all working together. But first of all are we aware that there is no separation between all this? Like driving a car the engine is working (on its own) , taking you along. Is it all a single movement, a unitary movement in which there is no separation?

Q: The separation is only in our thought. It isn't real.

K: I would like to find out (experientially?) for myself, what is the 'mind'? Is it part of the brain or not ? How do I find out (the truth of it?) ? Unless my brain is 'unconditioned' - unless there is freedom to look - I can't find out (the truth about?) anything. As long as that ( the perceptive quality of the brain ?) is conditioned I can never find out what the 'mind' is. I can say the mind is part of the brain or it is separate from the brain. Some (scientists do) agree that it is outside the brain. But the brain can understand the implications that the mind is something outside the brain only when it is free. So I am not concerned whether the mind is something outside or inside, my chief concern is whether the brain can be free from its ( time-binding?) conditioning. Then there will be discovery of that which is true, not just invention.

So we are asking: what is the connection between them all? Is it all one single movement? To find that out one must begin very near, which is , with what I am. May I ask this simple question, what 'are' you (inwardly ) ? You are ( subliminally identified with?) your name, your (cultural) tradition, your memories (personal ) . Right? You are all that. Which is, you are (the total content of human ?) consciousness. You have your faith, your gods, your fears, pleasures, suffering, pain, and emotionalism and so on and so on, you are all that. We agree to that?

Q: That is what we are. It is a fact.

K: That is a fact. Which means that (consciousness-wise) we are (subliminally?) identified the ( personal & collective memories of the?) past. (In a nutshell:) We 'are' the past. The ( organised memory of the past ) is knowledge. The past is ( both registerd and responding as ?) memory.
Q: So ?

K: So we 'are' (inwardly identified with?) a 'series of movements' in ( the field of?) memory. Right?

Q: Yes...

K: See the implications of it ? That (inwardly ) we are not actually living human beings. If I am a scientist I have accumulated knowledge through books, through experiments, through discussions, through various forms of hypothesis and conclusions, all those are the ( memories of my) past. So I 'am' ( subliminally identified with ) that past. I am ( the holder of my?) memories. Psychologically I am a 'dead' ( 'time-bound '?) entity. When once I realize that I 'am' ( subliminally identified with?) the whole movement of the past, not only it is a sudden shock to me but also the realization that there is nothing new (in my inner life?) .

Q: Isn't our ( capacity of holistic perception ?) narrowed down very much whenever you ( physically) do anything? You talked (marvelously) about being ( choicelessly) aware of all the tent and everything, but when I have to start vacuuming the carpet , I have to narrow it all down, and gradually as I do that, I get wrapped up in ( thinking of what ) I am doing, so that it is continually narrowing down.

K: The gentleman (indirectly) asks why do you, K, narrow down all this? Sir, putting a strong electric light on a small thing, you see it very clearly - right - and from there move. But if you stay only there then it remains very, very small.

Q: Excuse me, we didn't quite finish the last question : you were saying we 'are' the past and we 'are' all these things, but how is that (helping us?) ? It is like a lot of stuff on a table. What is the basis of that? That is what we should really get to. Not all that memory, that dead stuff.

K: Sir, if I acknowledge that I 'am' (unconsciously identified with my?) memory - the whole movement of memory - right - then in that observation there is a ( flash of?) perception when one asks: is it possible to live a life without memories except where it is necessary?

Q: It is, yes. I was aware of that even as a child.

K: All right sir, then we have solved the problem -namely that the brain, which has been conditioned by (safely living in the field of?) memory for a million years, can live, function, act, in all relationship of life without bringing in this terrible ( residues of?) past. If you can live that way, it is a most extraordinary thing to live that way. Right?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Sep 2017 #715
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline


It was a lovely garden, with sunken lawns and old shady trees. The trees gave shelter to many birds and many squirrels, and to the fountain came birds of every size, sometimes eagles, but mostly crows, sparrows and noisy parrots. The house and garden were secluded, the more so as they were enclosed within high, white walls. It was pleasant within those walls, and beyond them was the noise of the road and the village. The road passed the gates, and a few yards along that road was the village, on the outskirts of a large town. Some (local) weavers had stretched out long strands of gay-coloured threads to make cloth, and a group of children were watching them at work. It was a cheerful scene, bright, noisy and smelly. It was only a thin wall that separated the lovely garden from the pulsating village.

To deny ugliness and to hold to beauty is to be (holistically) 'insensitive'. To be aware of the beauty of that village is to be sensitive to the green, ?owering garden. Good(ness) is not (to be found ) in the garden, away from the village, but in the (inner) sensitivity that lies beyond both. This (holistic?) sensitivity is not a thing a be carefully nurtured by the ( self centred?) mind, which can only divide and dominate. In life there is both good and evil; but to pursue the one and to avoid the other does not lead to that (integrated ) sensitivity which is essential for the (creative) 'being' of Reality. This 'Reality' can be only when the ( dualistic mentality of ?) opposites cease. To condemn ( the 'bad' ? ) or identify (with the 'good'?) breeds the (subliminal) con?ict of the 'opposite' ( self-centred desires ?) , and this con?ict only engenders further con?icts.

( However, when ?) any fact (of life is ) approached unemotionally ( non-personally ?) , without (mentally) denying or justifying it, this does not bring about (any inner) con?ict.
A 'fact' (the 'what is' ?) in itself has no opposite; it generates an 'opposite' (an 'alternative' fact ?) only when there is a pleasurable or self-defensive attitude ( to it) . It is this (personal?) attitude that builds the (thick mental) walls of insensitivity and destroys (the holistic way of?) ) action.

If we ( choose to?) to remain in that ( wall protected rich-man's?) garden, there is ( obviously) a (subliminal) resistance to the ( ongoing misery of the ) village; and where there is resistance there can be no (holistic) action, either within the garden or towards the village. There may be ( a humanitarian ) activity, but not ( a holistic ?) action.
Activity is based on ideas, but ( the holistic) action is not. ( All human ideals or?) 'ideas' have their (real life ?) opposites, and the movement within the ( field of?) opposites is (resulting in ) mere 'activity' however prolonged (in time) or ( conveniently?) modi?ed. ( Time-based ?) activity can never be ( inwardly) liberating. (Such) activity has a 'past' and a 'future', but (a holistic?) action has no ( continuity in terms of?) time . This action is always (happening) in the ( eternal?) 'present' and is therefore immediate, and oddly enough, it has no inherent contradictions; (On the other hand, the self- centred or the group-centred ?) activity, though it may appear to be ( totally worthwhile and ?) without a break (morally flawless?) , is full of ( hidden ?) contradictions.

The (temporal) activity of ( any spiritual, cultural or technological?) revolution is riddled with (self-interest based ?) contradictions and so can never liberate (anyone). If there is ( a personal or collective ?) choice (of action) , there is ( a materially or morally rewarding ? ) 'activity' and not (a compassionate intelligent action; for such choice is based on ideas.
(The self-centred ) mind can (happily ?) indulge in (any tine-binding ? ) activity, but it cannot act (holistically) . ( The time-free?) action springs from quite a different Source.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Sep 2017 #716
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline


Why is it that we cling to our 'exclusiveness' of name, title, social position and personal acquisition? Is ( psychological ?) anonymity degrading, and despicable? Are we so ashamed of what we (think we ?) are, that name, position and acquisition become so all-important? It is curious how strong is the desire to be recognized by others , to be ( admired &?) applauded. Even the organized religions offers (+/- juicy?) positions of prestige and honour; there too you are somebody, apart and important. Or again you may wish to become the disciple of a ( World ?) Teacher, of a Guru, or of a Master (of Wisdom?) and ( happily ?) cooperate in their work.
There too, you are still ( feeling ?) important, you
represent him, you share his ( global ) responsibility. So,
subtly or grossly, your 'self' (-consciousness?) is nourished and sustained.

( For a brief analytical detour: ?) Why does the 'self' cling to outer and inner grati?cations, to (the many trivial) pursuits that inevitably bring pain and misery? (Simply because ?) this striving makes us feel alive, that there is a purpose to our life, and that (eventually )vwe shall be able to throw off the causes of our inner con?icts and sorrow. We feel that if (this momentum of ?) activity stopped, we would be 'as nothing', we would feel lost, life would have no meaning at all; so we 'keep going' inspite of our inner con?ict, confusion and antagonism.

But we may also be ( subliminally?) aware that there is something more, that there is an 'otherness' (or another dimension of our consciousness?) which is above and beyond all this misery. Thus, we are in a constant (existential ?) battle within ourselves.
The greater the outward show, the greater the inward poverty; and the cause of this 'inward emptiness' is ( an un-conscious identification with?) the desire to become; but, do what you will, this (inner vacuum or ?) 'emptiness' can never be ?lled. You may escape from ( facing it?) it in crude ways, or with (intellectual) re?nement; but it is as near to you as your shadow. You may not want to look into this ( immaterial sense of inner ?) emptiness, but nevertheless it is there.

The outer adornments and the personal sacrifices can never cover this (sense of) inward poverty. By its ( protracted worldly?) activities, inner and outer, the self tries to ?nd some enrichment, calling it ( life?) experience or giving it a different name according to its convenience and grati?cation. The 'self' (-centred consciousness?) can never be anonymous : identity is its very substance. This identifying process prevents the awareness of its own nature. The cumulative (subliminal) process of identi?cation builds up the 'self'(- consciousness) , positively or negatively; and its activity is always self-enclosing, however wide the enclosure. Every effort of the self(-identified consciousness ?) to 'be' or 'not to be' is a movement away from what it really is. Apart from a name, ( and many other personal ?) attributes, idiosyncrasies, possessions, what is the 'self'? Is there a 'self' ( -centred consciousness?) , when its ( personal) qualities are taken away? It is this fear of being nothing (or of 'not being'?) that drives the self into activity; but ( psychologically-wise?) it is nothing, it is an emptiness.

( However?) if ( when in a meditative mood ?) we are able to face that (inner) emptiness, to be ( or abide?) with that (inner sense of ) aching loneliness, then the fear (of inwardly being 'as nothing' ) altogether disappears and a fundamental (qualitative?) transformation takes place.

But...for this to (actually) happen, there must be the non-dualistic experiencing of that ( inner state of) 'no-thing'-ness - which is prevented if there is a (lurking ? ) 'experiencer' who desires to 'experience' that emptiness in order to overcome it, or to (transcend it)  ; then there is no actual experiencing, for the 'self' continues ( as the supervising ?) 'experiencer' .
( In a nutshell:) It is the direct experiencing of 'what is', without 'naming' it, that brings about the freedom from 'what is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Sep 2017 #717
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline

Still more 'unzipped' Commentaries on Living


She had belonged to several religious societies and ?nally settled down in one. She had worked for it, as a lecturer and propagandist, practically all over the world. She said she had given up family, comfort and a great many other things for the sake of this organization; she had accepted its beliefs, its doctrines and precepts, had followed its leaders, and (even) tried to meditate. She was regarded highly by the members as well as by the leaders. But ( unfortunately, after ?) having heard what I had said about beliefs , spiritual organizations and the ( psychological) dangers of self-deception, she had withdrawn from this organization and its activities. She was no longer interested in 'saving the world', but was occupying herself with her small family and its troubles, and took only a distant interest in the troubled world (out there) . She was inclined to be bitter for her life seemed so wasted. After all her past enthusiasm and work, where was she? What had happened to her? Why was she so dull and weary, and at her age so concerned with trivial things?

K: How easily we destroy (or corrupt ?) the delicate sensitivity of our (inner) being. The incessant strife and daily struggles soon dull the mind and the heart; while our cunning (clever) mind quickly ?nds (material) substitutes for the (lost) sensitivity of life. Amusements, family, politics & beliefs take the place of (inner) clarity and love. Clarity is (replaced ) by 'knowledge and beliefs' and Love (is 'lost in translation' ?) by ( simply indulging in) sensations.

Is there a (redeeming?) necessity for our many beliefs ? The (insightful ) understanding of 'what is' does not demand beliefs, but a (quality of) direct perception, being directly aware without the interference of (our personal) desires. It is ( the time-binding activities of ?) desire that make for (our inner) confusion, and 'belief' is the extension of desire. The ways of desire are subtle, and without understanding them, our belief (or...our 'blind faith'?) only increases con?ict, confusion and antagonism.
We turn to belief as a (supportive) means (in our everyday) action. Belief gives us that peculiar strength which comes from exclusion; and as most of us are concerned with 'doing' (the material chores of life ?) 'belief' becomes a (psychological) necessity. We feel we cannot act ( efficiently) without (the support of a strong?) belief, because it gives us something to live for, to work for.
To most of us, life has no ( other ) meaning but that which our ( personal or collective system of?) belief gives it. We commonly think that ( a decent?) life must be lived in the safe patterns of belief; for without ( rellying on a time-proven ? ) patterns, how can there be ( a consistent way of ) action?

But how can the 'things of the mind', however brilliant and subtle, ever bring about the (profound sense of ) 'completeness' of our action, or a radical transformation in one’s being and ( ultimately ?) in the social order? Is ( our idealism?) the means of action? Our idea(lism) may bring about a certain series of (outwardly beneficial?) actions, but that is mere ( a humanitarian?) 'activity'- but ( the outward ) activity is wholly different from ( a holistic way of ) action. It is in this 'activity' that one is caught; and when for some reason or other the 'activity' stops, then one's inner life becomes meaningless, empty.
Consciously or un-consciously we are aware of this (inner vacuum or ) 'emptiness', and so our ideals and ( material ) activity become all-important. We ( try to?) ?ll this (sense of our existential?) 'emptiness' with ( 'high hopes' and?) beliefs, and ( the directed ) activity becomes an intoxicating necessity. For the sake of this activity, we will 'renounce' and/or adjust to any material inconvenience, or to any illusion.

( In a nutshell:) The activity of ( organised?) belief may at ?rst seem orderly and constructive, but in its ( psychological) wake there is conflict and misery. Every kind of belief, religious or political, prevents the understanding of ( one's authentic ) relationship (with What Is ?) , and there can be no ( holistic?) action without this understanding.


It was a powerful motor car and also well tuned; it took the hills easily, without a stutter, and the 'pick-up' was excellent. The road climbed steeply out of the valley and ran between orchards of orange and tall, wide-spreading walnut trees. On both sides of the road the orchards stretched for fully forty miles, up to the very foot of the mountains. Becoming straight, the road passed through one or two small towns, and then continued into the open country, which was bright green with alfalfa. Again winding through many hills, the road ?nally came out on to the desert.
It was a smooth road, the hum of the motor was steady, and the traf?c was very light. There was an intense awareness of the country, of the occasional passing car, of the road signals, of the clear blue sky, of the othe person sitting in the car; but the mind was very still. It was not the quietness of exhaustion, or of relaxation, but an (inner) 'stillness' that was very alert. There was no 'observer' of this tranquillity; the 'experiencer' was wholly absent. Though there was a desultory conversation, there were no ripples in this (inner) silence. One heard the roar of the wind as the car sped along, yet this stillness was inseparable from the noise of the wind, from the sounds of the car, and from the spoken word. The mind had no recollection of previous stillnesses, of those silences it had known before ; it did not say, ”This is tranquillity.” There was no ( mental process of ) verbalization - the recognition and the af?rmation of a somewhat similar experience. And because there was no such verbalization, thought was absent. There was no recording - when the words are not (used) , the ( thinking ) mind cannot operate, and so there was no gathering process at work. The movement of the (thinking) mind was totally absent.

The car stopped at the house. The barking of the dog, the unpacking of the car and the general disturbance in no way affected this extraordinary ( sense of inner) silence. There was no disturbance, and the stillness went on. The wind was among the pines, the shadows were long, and a wildcat sneaked away among the bushes. In this silence there was ( a creative?) movement, and this movement was not a distraction. There is a 'distraction' (of attention?) when the main interest shifts; but in this silence there was an absence of (any self-) interest, and so there was no 'wandering away'. That movement (of total attention?) was not away from the silence ; but was of it. It was the (peaceful?) stillness of a life in which there was a total absence of con?ict. This (inner) stillness and its movement was (that of a ) Creation ever renewing itself. It was an ( eternal ?) 'movement' that had no beginning and so had no ending; nor was it a ( temporal) continuity. Movement (commonly) implies time; but here there was no time. Time is ( created by the desire for?) the more and the less, the near and the far, yesterday and tomorrow; but in this (creative inner) stillness all ( divisions & ) comparisons ceased. It was not a (temporary) silence that came to an end to begin again; there was no repetition. The many (mind-) tricks of the cunning mind were wholly absent.

( Brief 'psychanalytical' detour :) If this silence were a (self-projected ) illusion, the (all- knowing ?) mind would have some relationship to it, it would either reject it or cling to it, reason it away or 'identify' itself with it, with a subtle satisfaction; but since it has no ( verbal) relationship to this ( timeless ?) Silence, it cannot accept or deny it. The (self-conscious ?) mind can operate only with the 'things' which are of itself; but it has no relationship with the ( 'other?) things' that are not of its own origin.

This 'Silence' is not (the artificial creation?) of the ( temporal ?) mind, and so this mind cannot cultivate or become identified with it. The content of this Silence is not to be measured by words.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 04 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 05 Sep 2017 #718
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline

More 'unzipped' Commentaries on (the Art of Holistic ?) Living


He was a reporter, quick and intelligent and besides the interview, he wanted to discuss some of his own problems. When the interview for his newspaper was over, he talked of his career and what it was worth - not financially, but its significance in the world. He was a big man, clever, capable and self-con?dent. He was climbing rapidly in the newspaper world, and in it there was a ( juicy ?) future for him.

K: Our ( conscious) minds are stuffed with so much knowledge that it is almost impossible to experience ( truth?) directly. The experience of the 'experiencer' is (safely copied ?) after the pattern of others, of the religious and social authorities. We are the result of the thoughts and influences of others; we are conditioned by the religious as well as political propaganda. The organized religions are ? First-rate propagandistic (machines) , every means being used to persuade and then to hold.

( On the other hand, inwardly) we are a ( dynamic?) mass of confused responses : ( nice sounding?) words have an extraordinary significance for us; they have a neurological (or 'neuro-lingvistic' ?) effect whose ( induced ) sensations are (appearing far ?) more important than what actually is beyond the symbol. The symbols, the images are all-important; we are empty in ourselves and we try to fill this emptiness ( inner vacuity?) with words, sensations, hopes and imagination; but the emptiness continues.

The constant repetition of a ritual, of a word, of a prayer, with its (induced ) sensations, however pleasant and noble, is not the actual state of experiencing; it is a gratifying sensation to which a noble term is given. But in ( a non-dualistic?) 'experiencing' the sensory responses soon yields place to ( a direct perception of?) actuality. The 'actual', the 'what is', cannot be understood (and transcended?) through mere sensation. The senses play a limited part, but ( a holistic?) understanding or 'experiencing'- is beyond and above the senses. Sensation (the recorded sensory outcome?) becomes important only when ( the direct?) experiencing ceases; then words are ( becoming) significant and symbols dominate; then ( replaying the ) 'gramophone record' becomes enchanting.

The direct experiencing ( of Truth?) has no (temporal?) continuity; what has continuity is sensation, at whatever level. The repetition of sensation gives the appearance of a fresh experience, but ( such refreshed?) sensations can never be new. The search of the New does not lie in (the field of?) repetitive sensations. The New comes into (one's inner?) being only when there is ( direct) experiencing; and such ( 'experiencer'-free?) 'experiencing' is possible only when the (thought sustained?) pursuit of sensations has ceased.

The desire for the repetition (or recreation?) of a (supposedly great ?) experience, whether your own or that of another, leads to insensitivity, to (a spiritual?) 'death'. The verbal repetition of a truth is a ( half-?) lie. ( The direct perception of?) Truth cannot be 'repeated', it cannot be (mediatically?) 'propagated' or 'used'. The ( verbal description of truth ?) which can be (conveniently?) used and repeated has no life in itself, it is mechanical, static. A 'dead' thing can be used, but not ( the living spirit of?) Truth.
You may 'kill' and/or 'deny' truth first, and then use it (as an intellectual concept ?) ; but it is no longer Truth. The 'propagandists' are not concerned with (the direct) experiencing ( of whatever they are propagating?) ; they are concerned with the ( for-profit ?) organization of sensation, religious or political, social or private. The (professional?) 'propagandist', religious or secular, cannot be an (authentic?) 'speaker' of truth.

( The state of 'experiencer'-free?) experiencing can come only with the absence of the ( thought-sustained?) desire for sensation; ( in meditation ?) the 'naming', the ( process of verbal recognition?) must cease. There is no ( self-sustained) thought process without verbalization; and to be caught in verbalization is to be a ( conscience ) prisoner to the ( ever multiplying ?) illusions of desire.


WE WERE SITTINGin the shade of a large tree, overlooking a green valley. The woodpeckers were busy and there were ants in a long line scurrying back and forth between two trees. The wind was from the sea, bringing the smell of a distant fog. The mountains were blue and dreamy; often they had seemed so close, but now they were far away. A small bird was drinking from the little pool made by a leaky pipe. Two grey squirrels with large bushy tails were chasing each other up and down a tree; they would climb to the top and come spinning down with mad speed almost to the ground, and then go up again.
He was once a very rich man and had renounced his riches. He had had a great many possessions and had enjoyed the burden of their responsibility, for he was charitable and not too hard of heart. He gave without stint and forgot what he gave. He was good to his helpers and saw to their bene?ts, and made money easily in a world that was bent on money making. He was unlike those whose bank accounts and investments are bigger than themselves, who are lonely and afraid of people and their demands, who shut themselves off in the peculiar atmosphere of their own wealth. He was saying that he had given up his possessions because it had struck him one day, as he was reading something, how vastly stupid were his money-making and his wealth. Now he had but few things and was trying to lead a simple life to ?nd out what it was all about and whether there was something beyond the appetites of the 'physical' centres.

K: To be content with little is comparatively easy; to be free from the burden of many things is not dif?cult when one is on a ( spiritual) journey . The urgency of inward search clears away the (problems & ) confusion of having many possessions, but being free from the outer things does not mean a simple life. Outer simplicity and order do not necessarily mean inner tranquillity and innocence.

It is good to be simple outwardly, for it does give a certain freedom, it is a gesture of integrity; but why is it that we do not with the inner simplicity ? Freedom from ( the attachment to material ?) 'things' needs ( the awakening of?) intelligence – and this Intelligence is not personal. If one is aware of all the ( psychological ) implications of ( having too?) many possessions, the ( perceptive action of this ?) awareness liberates, and then there is no need for dramatic assertions and gestures.
( Clue:) The emphasis is not on 'how much' or 'how little', but on ( the awakening of a compassionate?) Intelligence; and the intelligent man, being content with little, is free from many possessions.

( To recap:) Contentment ( with what one has?) is one thing and ( the Inner) Simplicity is quite another. Contentment comes with the awareness of 'what is', and Simplicity with the freedom from 'what is' . But ( in both cases?) it is our own desire for contentment or for simplicity that is time binding. It is well to be outwardly simple, but it is far more important to be inwardly simple and clear. The (state of inner) clarity does not come through a determined and purposeful efforts of the (self-conscious) mind; such mind can adjust itself, can arrange and put its thoughts in order; but this is not clarity or simplicity.

The action of ( 'free?) will' (often?) makes for confusion; because will, however sublimated, is still the instrument of desire. The will to be or to become (inwardly better) may clear a way amidst confusion and it may temporarily light up the immediate foreground, necessary for our everyday activities, but it can never clear up (our psychologically conditioning ) background; for ( the 'free-) will' itself is the outcome of this very ( obscure?) background. The (personal & cultural) background breeds and nourishes our (free) will, (which in turn?) may 'sharpen' the background, heighten its potentialities; but it can never cleanse the background.

Simplicity is not of the ( self-centred?) mind. A planned simplicity is only a cunning adjustment, a defence against pain and pleasure; it is a self-enclosing activity which breeds various forms of (inner) conflict and confusion. It is this (ongoing) 'conflict' that brings darkness, within and without.

( In a nutshell : ) Conflict and clarity cannot exist together; and it is the freedom from conflict that gives simplicity, not the ( wilful) overcoming of con?ict. What is 'conquered' ( by will power) has to be conquered again and again, and so ( this inner) conflict is made endless. The understanding of conflict is the understanding of ( the thought-sustained action of ? ) desire. Desire may abstract itself as the 'observer', or as 'the one who understands'; but this sublimation of desire is only a postponement and not understanding. The phenomenon of the 'observer' and the 'observed' is actually not a dual process, but a single one; and only in experiencing ( or 'seeing' the truth that ?) it is an unitary process is there freedom from ( the fragmentation of thought-) desire, from conflict. The question of 'how' to experience ( the holistic seeing of) this fact should never arise. It must 'happen' (of its own necessity?) ; and it so 'happens' only when there is ( an inwardly integrated state of?) alertness and passive awareness. You cannot know (in advance ) the actual experience of meeting a ( sneaking) poisonous snake by imagining it while sitting comfortably in your room. To 'meet the snake' you must venture out beyond the paved streets and artificial lights.

Thought may record ( post facto ?) but it cannot ( directly) experience the ( actual state of ) freedom from conflict; for Simplicity or ( Inner) Clarity is not of the ( particular) mind.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 05 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 #719
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline


She said, under the trees after the talk, that she had come to listen, just in case the 'Teacher of All Teachers' spoke . She had been a very earnest (K follower?) , but now it had become an obsession . She was big and soft-spoken; but in there lurked condemnation nourished by her (strong) convictions and beliefs. She added, after a pause, that she would know when the World Teacher spoke, for she and her (esoteric ?) group had some mysterious way of knowing it, which was not given to others.

K: Exclusive, private knowledge offers a deeply satisfying pleasure. To ( assume you ?) know something that others do not know is a constant source of (personal ) satisfaction; it gives one the feeling of being in touch with deeper things which afford (commend ?) prestige and authority. You are directly in contact, you have something which others have not, and so you are important, not only to yourself, but to others. The others may look up to you apprehensively, because they want to share what you have; but you give (the crumbs?) , always knowing more. You are 'the' (spiritual) authority; and this position comes easily, for people want to be told what to do , to be led (on the spiritual path) . The more (painfully?) we are aware that we are (inwardly) lost and confused, the more eager we are to be guided and told; so an authority is built up in the name of a ( certified?) Master (of Wisdom?)
However, the worship of (someone's spiritual?) authority, whether in big or little things, is (not a good idea?) since there is no intermediary between 'you' and Reality; and if there is one, he is a 'mischief maker'- whether the highest (top of the line?) 'Saviour' or your latest ('Psy' or ?) Guru.

( As a simple rule of thumb?) The one who ( assumes that he?) knows does not (really) 'know' (more than you know ) ; he can 'know' only ( the projections of ) his own prejudices, his self-projected beliefs and sensory demands. He cannot know ( the living spirit of?) Truth, the Immeasurable. Position and (spiritual) authority can be cunningly cultivated, but not ( the authentic) humility. ( This fundamental ?) virtue ( of not-knowing ?) gives freedom; but the cultivated (mask of?) humility is not virtue, it is mere sensation and therefore harmful and destructive.

( For meditative homework?) it is important to ?nd out, not who is the Master, the (holiest?) person or leader, but 'why' you follow (him) : you follow (in the secret hope) to become 'something', to 'gain', or just to be (inwardly) clear. ( This spiritual ) clarity cannot be given (to you) by another, ( for the elementary reason that ?) we have brought about (the state of inner conflict & ) confusion....and we have to clear it away.

We may achieve (or... purchase?) a gratifying position in the hierarchy of any 'organized belief'; but this is just another self-enclosing activity ( eventually ?) leading to (more) con?ict and misery. Momentarily ( for a while ?) you may feel happy with your (spiritual) achievement, you may even persuade yourself that your position is ( totally merited &) inevitable, but as long as you crave (inwardly) to become something, at whatever level, there is bound to be (a fall-out of ?) misery and confusion.

(On the other hand?) being (inwardly?) 'as nothing' is not the action (of ) will-power , since desire sharpened and heightened, always leads to strife and con?ict.

The setting up of ( a spiritual ) authority and the following of it, is the denial of (self-) understanding. When there is (self-) understanding there is a freedom (from the known ?) , which cannot be given by another. What is given can be taken away; and so authority and its (colateral ) fears are bred. Fear (of the Unknown?) is not to be put away by appeasements and candles; it ends with the cessation (coming to a full stop ?) of the 'desire to become'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 #720
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline


He said he practised 'meditation' for many years; he had (diligently) followed certain disciplines after reading many (knowledgeable ?) books on the subject, and had even been to a monastery of some kind where they 'meditated' several hours a day. But... even though after these many years his mind was (finally ) under control, there was no joy in his meditation; and that the self-imposed disciplines were making him (inwardly) rather hard and arid. Somehow he was very dissatis?ed with the whole thing. He had belonged to several 'religious societies', but now he had ?nished with them all and was seeking independently the God they all promised. He was getting on in years and was beginning to feel rather weary.

K: The right (kind of) meditation is essential for the purgation of the mind (of its 'psychological' residues ?) , for without this emptying there can be no (deeper  ?) renewal. What is important ( to start with?) is to ?nd out the ( actual) interests of the mind. The ( average human) mind is a ( dynamic?) bundle of (so many) con?icting ( desires and?) interests, and merely to strengthen ( a dominating self-?) interest against the anothers the cultivation of resistance, and where there is resistance there is no ( insightful ?) understanding. A well-disciplined mind is not ( necessarily ?) a free mind, and it is only in freedom that any ( deeper self-) discovery can be made. There must be 'spontaneity' to uncover the movements of the 'self ( - identified' consciousness?) , at whatever level it may be placed. Though there may be 'unpleasant' ( or destabilising?) discoveries, the ( activities &?) movements of the self ( - centred mind?) must be exposed and understood; but ( a self-imposed?) disciplines destroys the spontaneity in which ( profound) discoveries are made.

( In a nutshell:) ( The cultivated spiritual?) 'disciplines' are mere mental impositions and so can never be the means of denudation. Through self-discipline the mind can strengthen itself in its purpose; but this purpose is self-projected and so it is not the Real. The mind creates reality in its own image, and disciplines merely give vitality to that image.

Only in the discovery from moment to moment of the ways of the self can there be ( the creative) joy. The self, at whatever level it is placed, is still of the ( all-knowing) mind. The ( self-conscious?) mind cannot think about something which is not of itself; it cannot think of the Unknown. The 'self' at any level is ( within in the field of?) the known; and though there may be layers of the 'self' (of our ego-centric consciousness?) of which the super?cial mind is not ( even?) aware, they are ( sooner or letter?) revealed in the action of ( our daily ) relationship; and when ( this ) relationship is not con?ned within a ( standardised cultural?) pattern, it gives an opportunity for ( an insightful?) self-revelation.

( Our everyday ?) relationship is ( mirroring ?) the ( subliminal?) action of the self, and to ( experientially?) understand this action there must be ( a quality of inner) awareness without ( any personal preference or?) 'choice'; for to 'choose' is to emphasize one interest against another.

This (quality of non-personal ?) awareness is the (right inner environment for directly ?) experiencing the action of the 'self', and in this experiencing there is neither the 'experiencer' nor the thing 'experienced'. Thus the ( 'attending' ?) mind is emptied of its ( ego-centric?) accumulations; there is no longer the ( self-conscious?) ”me,” the (savvy?) 'gatherer'. The accumulations, the stored-up memories are the (psychological infrastructure of the?) ”me; the ”me” is not an ( independent?) entity apart from its (personal) accumulations. ( However, more often than not?) the ”me” separates itself from its characteristics as the 'observer', the 'watcher', the 'controller', in order to safeguard itself, to give itself ( and to the brain the sense of a safe ?) continuity amidst impermanency. The ( insightful?) experiencing of this unitary process frees the mind from its 'dualism'. Thus the total process of the mind, the open as well as the hidden, is (exposed) experienced (with ) and understood in its entirety.

Then dreams and everyday activities are ever an ( opportunity for?) the 'emptying' process. ( In the context of meditation?) the mind ( aka: one's consciousness?) must be utterly empty (& open ?) to receive; but the (devious inner ?) craving 'to be empty in order to receive' ( somethig better in exchange?) is a deep-seated impediment, and this ( self-created handicap?) also must be understood completely, not only at the (strictly personal) level. The ( ages old human) craving to 'experience' (the best things of life ?) must wholly cease, which happens only when the 'experiencer' is not nourishing himself on his ( personal) experiences and their memories.

The 'purgation' of the ( psycho-contents of the?) mind must take place not only on its upper levels, but also in its hidden depths; and this can happen only when the 'naming' process comes to an end. Naming (recognising and storing our personal experiences ?) only strengthens and gives continuity to the 'experiencer' , to the desire for permanency, to the characteristic of particularizing memory.

( Meditation clue:) There must be silent awareness of naming, and so the understanding of it. We name not only to communicate, but also to give continuity and substance to an ( exciting?) experience, to revive it and to repeat its sensations. This naming (recognition?) process must cease, not only on the super?cial levels of the mind, but throughout its entire structure. This is an 'arduous' (or 'very intimate' ?) task, not to be lightly experienced; for our whole ( self-centred) consciousness is a process of naming or terming our various experiences, and then storing or 'recording' it (for further use) . It is this ( cummulative) process that gives nourishment and strength to the illusory separation of the 'experiencer' as distinct and separate from the actual experience.

Without thoughts there is no ( 'thinking?) thinker'. Thoughts ( as responses of the 'known'?) create the 'thinker' ( identitary interface?) , who ( further down the road ?) isolates himself to give himself ( the sense of its own?) permanency; for (one's) thoughts are always impermanent (and subject to change?) .

There is freedom when one's entire (integrated inner) being, the super?cial as well as the hidden, is purged of the past.
When all the many ( specialised?) layers of our consciousness are quiet, utterly still, only then is there the ( Visitation of the?) Immeasurable, of a Bliss that is not of time, ( and not to mention ) the Renewal of Creation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 691 - 720 of 753 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.)