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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 721 - 750 of 753 in total
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 #721
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline

SELECTED Q & A's from the 80's

QUESTION: How do you know that what you are saying is true?

K: Facts themselves show what the truth is : Isn't it an (observable ) fact that as long as there is nationalistic division, economic division, racial division, religious division, there must be ( a potential for ?) conflict. That is an (outwardly observable?) fact.
(And in our daily) relationships: as long as there is this ( 'gut feeling' of ?) psychological separation between two human beings, there must be a conflict (ridden relationship?) . That is an (inwardly observable ?) fact.

So, what is an (observable) 'fact'? That which has really happened before, an incident, a car accident, that is a ( recorded) fact. And what is happening now, sitting here, what I am thinking, what I am doing now, is a also a 'fact'. But what will happen in the future may not be a fact - it might happen, or might not happen.

Then, what is an 'idea' ? We see a fact and make a (mental?) abstraction of it, a 'conclusion' regarding the fact, and we pursue the ( implications of that?) conclusion, rather than the understanding of the fact.

So, the 'speaker' is merely pointing out the ( psychologically related?) 'facts'. ( The direct perception of?) these facts (of life) is not personal.
So can we always deal with ( the actual) facts, be (or abide?) with 'facts'? Not translate the facts according to my ( cultural) prejudices, according to my belief, according to my neurotic illusions, can one look at these facts and understand what those facts are telling, saying?
Now, it is also an (inwardly observable ?) fact that we have ( or cultivate noble ?) 'ideals'. The ideal that we must live peacefully. The ideal that we must be non-violent...why do we have ( such) ideals at all? Is it because our brain is incapable of living (comfortably?) without a (self-protective wall of?) illusions? Isn't my brain capable, strong, vital, to understand directly things 'as they are' and not create (and project in the?) future the 'ideal' (situation) ? Don't we see that ( getting strongly identified with?) ideals of every kind divides people ? That is also an ( easily perceivable?) 'fact'.
So, can we be free of ( our attachment to?) such (noble?) ideals, or of being identified with one ( cultural) group against another group ?
Couldn't we do that now? To have a ( prejudice?) free brain, that is not cluttered up with a lot of ( cultural?) rubbish, a lot of illusions, is that possible?
Some of you may say, 'No, I can't live ( safely in the 'real' world ?) without my beliefs, my ideals, my faith, otherwise I am ( feeling) lost' .

But if we could have a ( leisurely?) conversation, and say, 'Why do I cling to my particular prejudice, particular ideal, why have I identified myself with them? Why do I ( need to inwardly ?) identify myself with anything?' And push the inquiry deeply to find out why we have allowed ourselves to be ( culturally standardised and?) programmed ? ( Clue:) Why are we afraid of public opinion and so on ?
So this question regarding 'how do you know what you are saying is true?' has very little (experiential) meaning. Truth is not ( necessarily?) something that is mysterious, Truth is (to be found in what?) you 'are'. From there we can begin. Truth is : I am ( getting ?) angry, ( greedy or?) jealous, I am aggressive, I quarrel. That is an (inwardly observable?) fact. So one must begin (to inquire from) where one is and have a complete knowledge of oneself, not from others, but to know what you ( really) are. ( Clue :) You are the (living) Story of Mankind. And if you know how to read that Book which is yourself, then you (may realise that?) you 'are' the rest of the world.

QUESTION: Isn't desire something fundamental in all human beings? Without desire could we function in this world at all?

K: Could we have a ( friendly?) conversation on what is desire, why desire has become so important in our lives and why desire dominates and why desire changes its object from ( a day to another or from?) year to year.

And all the monks throughout the world, who are supposed to be (spiritually) serious people, (try to?) suppress their desires - they may worship whatever symbol, whatever person, but desire is there burning like a fire. Right? This is a common fact. And to understand the whole nature of desire one must go into it very, very carefully. Let's talk about it together, shall we?

On (the worldly?) side the human beings yield to desire, to doing everything that they want to do ; and the monks, the sannyasis of India, and the Buddhist monks, all say you must control your desire, or transform ( re-direct ) your desire to ( finding?) God. Have you ever been in a monastery? I was in ( a trappist?) one for some time ( just?) 'for fun'. And I watched, I listened, slept there, did the things they did. It was really a cruel affair. Take a vow of silence and never speak again - you understand what it means? Never look at the sky, the beauty of trees, the solitary tree in a field, never communicate what you are feeling to another. In the name of 'service', in the name of God, human beings have tortured themselves to find Illumination, to find enlightenment, to find ( The Kingdom of?) Heaven. This is ( soon becoming) a tremendously torturing affair. And desire is at the root of all this.

So, what is desire? Why are there these two ( contradictory directions ?) in life, the suppression, the control, and the other side to 'do whatever you want'. There are these ( new age?) gurus who say 'Do what you want, God will bless you (anyway?) ', and of course they are becoming very, very popular. And thousands offer them everything they have...

So we must go into this ( very basic ?) question: What is the nature of desire? And what is that entity that controls desire? The urge to possess something, and the ( controlling) entity that says, "Don't". ( or 'why not ?') There is this ( inner conflict and ?) battle going on: one desire opposing another desire. Which is: why is there in human beings this 'dualistic' process going on, wanting and not wanting, suppressing and letting go? Why is there this contradiction in us?

Does this (internal) contradiction exist because we are not facing ( the inner?) facts? I am (naturally ) greedy or violent . That is a fact. But when I ( have a glimpse of?) that , there is immediately an idea that I must not be ( greedy or?) violent ( for various reasons) So there is a battle between ( my greed or ) violence, ( which is what I actually) am, and my trying to be non-violent. Why have we done this? The non-violence is non-fact. I know it is a ( very trendy?) fashion that we must all be 'non-violent'. Whereas we are actually violent human beings.

Therefore why do we have its opposite? Is that an (convenient?) escape from ( facing the actual?) fact? Is it because we do not know how to deal ( holistically?) with the (inner) 'facts'?

So let's find out how to deal with the fact only, not with its ( controlling) opposite. (Suppose that ) I am ( inwardly greedy and/or?) violent. And I have no ( need to introduce the desire for its?) opposite. So, what does ( the self-inflicted psychological ) 'violence' means ?
( For starters, it?) means comparison : I compare myself with you, who are ( looking?) clever, bright, noble and what takes place when I am comparing with you? Through comparison I make myself ( culturally standardised and/or ?) dull.
So, why do I psychologically compare myself with anybody? Is it because I do not know how to deal with (the facts within?) myself? Then I am imitating, conforming. You have set a ( cultural standardising?) pattern and the resulting comparison and imitation is violence.
So when ( and if?) you look at ( this whole heritage of?) violence it opens itself more and more and it reveals most extraordinary things. But if you are pursuing ( the ideal of?) non-violence, which is non-factual, it has no ( experiential?) meaning. So, let's come back to how do you ( holistically?) observe (this whole heritage of?) violence? Is the 'observer' different from the thing called 'violence'?
This word 'violence' is used to identify that particular ( set of) reactions. And by using this ( culturally loaded?) word constantly I am ( 'objectivising' and ?) strengthening that feeling. So can I be free of the (co-notations of this loaded ?) word and look?

What is desire? How does it happen? And can that (thought sustained action of desire?) be lived with, so that there is no suppression, no condemnation, or indulging in it? So, when you ( inwardly attend & ) understand something very clearly then it becomes simple. If I know how to dismantle an older (model of motor) car, then it is fairly simple to deal with something faulty.
So let's look at this ( 'engine of desire' ?) very carefully : What is the root and the beginning of any desire? Can we observe its root and remain with that root? You see something beautiful, a nice picture, a beautiful piece of furniture, or jewelry. You see it in a shop window. What takes place?
There is a ('first sight' gratifying ) reaction to that. You go inside the shop and you ask the man to show you that particular jewel. You touch it. The you have a certain sensation. Then thought 'imagines' how lovely you ( or your loved one?) would look with that jewel. So at that moment, (a new) 'desire' is born.
( Recap:) It is natural to have this sensation - seeing that jewel in the window, going into the shop, handling it, sensation, a feeling. Then ( the self-centred process of ?) thought comes along and says, "How lovely that would be on my finger. How lovely it would be if I owned that marvellous piece of jewelry." At that moment (a personal ) desire is born. Thought sees that car, touches it, goes round it, feels it, opens it up and then ( the rewarding) sensation. Then thought (or rather, the 'thinker' thinks : ) , "I'd like to have ( the money to buy?) that car, sit in it, drive it." You understand? All this takes place instantly, now we are separating it (in slow-motion ?) step by step.

So if you are aware of this whole process - seeing, contact, sensation, thought imagining 'you' in the car and driving it off. You understand that? That moment is the birth of desire, when thought interferes with sensation. Got it? This is an (everyday inner ) fact. You see a nice shirt in the window and you go through the whole process in a flash of a second. But when you slow it down, like in a film, step by step, you see the whole movement of it - seeing, contact, sensation, thought with its image, then...a new desire is born.
Then let's find out why ( our self-centred ) thought does this. Why thought captures the ( gratifying) sensation and makes an image of it. Why does thought do this?

Q: Because it gets trapped in memory which likes to repeat itself ?

K: This is the (very nature of any) habit, isn't it? An un-conscious, unaware movement. Right? And we never (take a 'time-out' to ?) separate thought from sensation. You understand what I am saying? So thought is more dominant than ( the sensory) desire itself . Which is, thought shapes sensation.
So 'desire' and 'thought' go together like two horses. And then like two horses trotting along together, then thought says, "I must control it ".
So, can there be a gap, a (silent ?) interval, between sensation and the moment when thought captures (and processes ) sensation? You understand what I am saying? Why don't you ( mindfully ?) stop there? Why does thought take over so quickly? If you are aware ( in slow-motion ) of this whole movement then there can be a clear observation when thought begins to come in. When you observe it so closely then thought 'hesitates'. And if we understand this whole movement of desire there is a certain quality of ( inner) discipline : the very attention to this whole movement is (generating ) its own discipline.

Q: When we go now from this tent, what do we do with our thoughts that they don't start (interfering?) ?

K: I explained the other day that thought is ( vitally) necessary in certain areas ( of outer existence) - to go home, to do your job, your skill, but it is not necessary in other ( inner?) areas. And to find out where thought is, and where it is not necessary requires a great deal of inner observation, attention, care.
So if this is very clearly understood- the origin and the beginning of desire - then that very clarity (of insight?) is ( bringing) its own (inner) order, then there is no ( need to?) 'discipline' (thought & ) desire.

Q: What is the difference between the clarity of desire of buying something or to look for truth?

K: We are trying to understand ( the process of of?) desire, not the objects of desire. Your 'object' may be to sit next to God, while my 'object' of desire may be to have a nice (British) garden. But ( the process of thought sustained?) desire is common to both of us and we are trying to ( holistically) understand desire.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Sep 2017 #722
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


Q: How does one break free of habits? Once one has intellectually reached an understanding from such as one has just discussed, how does one actually break free of habit then?

K: When one understands something 'intellectually' , how does one break that habit. That is the question the gentleman asked.
What is habit? It is a ( psychosomatic?) repetition, isn't it? The brain establishes a ( safe & rewarding?) pattern, drinking, sex, whatever it is, then repeats it, then it becomes ( automatic?) mechanical. Right?
So the ( human ) brain, through ( creating and settling itself in?) habits has become what it is now, (inward clue:) not alive . Now how do you break a habit? Without conflict - right? You understand? Let's say I have a habit, of what - give me an example of habit, would you please.

Q: Smoking ?

K: Smoking is such an easy affair, that is an easy affair to stop.

Q: ( You are?) always giving the same answer...

K: I hope I am not giving the same answer. ( How about taking the mental ?) habit of thinking the same thing over and over and over again, or the habit of chattering. Let's take 'chattering' - not only chattering with myself but endlessly talking ( tweeting?) with others. Right? The other day somebody came to see me, it was a ( private ) interview. The moment she entered she began to talk, talk, talk, and when she left, "I am glad to have met you." But inwardly we all chatter endlessly . That has become an extraordinary ( mental) habit for most people, they can never be quiet, never be silent - in the sense of the brain being completely still.
So this ( mental) habit of chattering. How do I stop it? First of all, 'who' ( or what?) is it to stop it? Seeing that it is a wastage of energy, chattering, chattering, then will you stop that?
So we have to ask a ( meditation related?) question which is more serious: is there such an 'entity' inside of you, that that will say, "No I will not chatter"? Is it your ( free?) will, that makes the decision not to chatter? And if it is will, what is this 'will'? The quintessence of desire - right?
So, if you try to stop it through will, through ( the powers of thought & ?) desire, that creates another conflict (inner), doesn't it? But, to stop chattering ( or over-eating, over-drinking, etc ?) without ( any sense of effort or ?) conflict, is that possible?

(Step one:) First of all, I may not be ( seriously?) aware that I am ( indulging in this habit of mental ?) chattering . You may ( brutally?) point it out to me and say, "Old chap, do stop chattering so much."

(Step two)  : I either get hurt (or insulted?) or, if (and when) I go beyond that (strong personal reaction) and I say, "Now, in what manner am I to stop it?"
Then I have got the (choice between the?) orthodox means of (using my own ) will (-power) , or taking a pill that will quieten me down, and having been quietened I take another drug to keep me awake, etc. (Or again?) I want to find out how to stop this habit (of mental) chattering without any kind of effort.

This is an important (psychological aspect of the) question : to do something without ( inner friction or?) effort. Will you do this (as a 'just for fun' homework ?) ? Find out your particular habit, ( become?) aware of ( what is wrong with?) it, and say, now, can it be ended without any action of will (-power) , (or in the expectation of a better ?) reward - reward and punishment they are the two ( motivational) elements we live on. So can I break that habit without any side effects. Right? I will go into it.

(Step three: ) First of all am (becoming) aware of my habit without ( the induced pressure of ?) somebody telling me of my habits. See the ( qualitative?) difference ? If you tell me of my habit ( of mental chattering?) then I either resist it, or say, yes, I should stop it. But if I see it for myself, I am a step ahead (of the challenge?) . Right? Now what does this quality of (choiceless ?) awareness mean? To look at something without any ( personal) reaction, to watch it without any ( sense of?) condemnation, justification or explanation, just to 'watch' it (non-personally?) so that the old (traditional ego-centric ) reactions don't come in and say, "I must stop it", 'I must ( be more attentive ?) . So ( it all comes down to?) to watch (your mental?) chattering very carefully (or 'midfully'?) . To watch it without any reaction of past memories.

( Step four : ) This ( non-personal watching?) becomes very difficult. If I watch that tree in movement in the wind, it is a beautiful thing, but if I don't like the wind therefore I won't watch it (completely?) . Similarly one can watch ( the movement of one's mental) chattering. ( Clue:) The 'watcher' is not different from ( the mental movement of) chattering. So the watcher is... just watching. You understand (the hidden difficulty?) (Usually) we watch things with our ( mental background of ) prejudices, with our opinions, with our memories, with the whole verbal structure. Right?

Now ( in step five:) can you watch without that ( 'observer' ?) structure ( personal background ?) ? That is where the 'art of watching' (the 'what is') comes in . In that (inner) awareness I am not seeking any reward or punishment, I am just watching. Which means that I am giving complete attention at that moment. At that second all my ( available intelligent?) energy, all my capacity and attention is there.

Which means that ( in step six :) when there is complete attention, complete, not attention brought about by any form of desire, through any form of reward or punishment, just complete attention, then that habit (of mental chattering) has no place (no psychological utility ?) . You understand?

Do it please (here and/or for homework?) , try it once. Now, you will say, yes, for the moment it is possible, I can see that ( my stupid habit of chattering?) can end, if I give complete attention to something there is an ending to it, but... (later on?) it comes back.

( Step seven;) If the mental chattering comes back. Then what is your reaction? 'I did it once, gave complete attention, and it seems to subside for the second, now if I give the same attention it will subside again'. So you have become 'mechanical' (caught in a higher level of habit?) . Do you understand this? That flame of attention wiped away for a few minutes ( the inner fragmentation and the?) chattering. I have seen the thing 'works'. Then the next moment, or next hour, ( your mind settles down in the old routine and ) you begin to chatter and suddenly catch yourself and say, "I must pay attention." So again you repeat, again it disappears. But...what you are learning is ( just a new trick of?) 'paying attention', which means you are not attending (completely) .
( In a nutshell:) If you are constantly reminding yourself to be attentive, this is not ( the free?) attention. Attention has no ( continuity in?) time.
So, if you give your complete ( time-free?) attention, which means there is no wastage of ( intelligent ) energy, then the ( 'habit) thing' goes away.

So ( in step eight?) your ( primary ) concern is not anymore ( how to sustain the holistic quality of?) attention but not wasting energy - you follow? We waste ( our inner ressources of?) energy in a thousand ( fragmentary) ways, and the habit of 'chattering' is just one of them. So, I don't ( bother anymore to?) pay attention any more (to my mental habit of) chattering, but I am going to see ( why and?) how I waste my (intelligent?) energy - right? I am going to pursue that.

( So, for step nine:) I am going to watch, learn, see where (and how) I am wasting ( my total) energy. Oh, there are so many ways. Right? So my mind now is not becoming 'mechanically attentive' but it is 'moving' (along and learning about 'what is' ) . Right? All the time picking up the 'new' things. So that the brain becomes extraordinarily ( and efforlessly ?) alert, and when it is so 'alert' ( the energy fragmentation and its associated?) 'habits' have no place. ( QED?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Sep 2017 #723
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline

Another 'unzipped' Commentary on Living (cca 1956)


HE WAS AN oldish man with long, grey hair and a white beard. He had lectured about philosophy at universities in different parts of the world. He was very scholarly and quiet. He said he did not meditate; nor was he religious in the ordinary sense. He was concerned with knowledge only; and though he lectured on philosophy and religious experiences, he hadn’t any of his own nor was he looking for any. He had come to talk over the question of 'Time'.

K: Time is a very strange phenomenon. To a scientist, time is one thing; to an historian, time is the study of the past; to a man on the stock market, it is the 'ticker'; to an exhausted man, it is the rest in the shade. Each one translates it according to his particular needs and satisfactions, shaping it to suit his own cunning mind. Yet we cannot do without time. If we are to live at all, (keeping track of the?) chronological time is as essential as the seasons.
But is there a 'psychological' (continuity of) time, or is it merely a deceptive convenience of the mind? Surely, 'there is a time to grow and a time to die, a time to sow and a time to reap' ; but is not (our) psychological (projection of?) time,( aka : ) the process of (self-) becoming, utterly false?

Q: What is time to you? Do you think of time? Are you aware of time?

K: Can one think of time at all except in the chronological sense? We use (to think in terms of) time as a means of (our personal) achievement, tangible or psychological. ( Thinking in real ) time is needed to go to the train station, but most of us also use time as a means to achieve a 'psychological' end, and the ends are many. We are becoming aware of (the limitations of) time whenever there is an impediment to our (expected) achievements, of becoming successful. ( This psychological dimension of?) Time is the 'space' (or the distance to be covered) between 'what is' and what (we think) 'we should be'. The beginning (causation) going towards the ( desired) end is 'time'.

Q: Is there no other time? What about the scienti?c implications of ( the continuum) 'time-space' ?

K: There is a 'chronological' and a 'psychological' (dimension of) time. The 'chronological' one is necessary, and it is there (as indicated by any time-piece) ; but the other is quite a different matter. Any (given) cause and its particular effect are said to be a time process, and it is (generally) considered that the interval between the cause ( and its upcoming ) effect is 'time'; but is there an interval? The cause and the (visible) effects of a disease may be separated by time, which is (measurable) chronologically; but is there a (similar time-gap or) 'interval' between a psychological cause and its effect? Is not (at the level) 'cause-effect' a single process? (What we inwardly are, or do ?) today is the effect of ( what we were, or did) yesterday and the cause of (what we will be, or do) tomorrow; it is one movement, a continuous ?owing. There is no actual separation, no distinct line between (a psychological) cause and (its) effect; but we ( think they are ) separate them in order to achieve (a better inner condition) .
I (think that I ) am 'this', and I (hope to) become 'that'. To become that I need a 'chronological' time (agenda) used for (my own) psychological purposes. ( Eg:) I am ignorant, but I ( hope to) become wiser : the (psychological movement of my ?) ignorance becoming 'wiser' is only a (more knowledgeable continuity of my present ) ignorance; for (although it can pretend it?) ignorance can never become wise, any more than greed can ever become non-greed.
Ignorance is ( perpetuating itself in ) the very process of (self-centred) becoming.

Is not ( any ego-centric ) thought the product of time? All our knowledge is the (result ) of time. ( The psychological) time is the continuation of (our past) experience (stored ) as memory. The (self-identified ) mind is the machine of time. Knowledge is ever of the past; knowledge is never out of time, but always in time and of time. This continuation of memory, knowledge, is ( the time-bound ) consciousness : (what we were in the?) past, in conjunction with the (many challenges of the?) present is moving to the 'future'. But (what we'll be in the?), future is the modi?ed continuity (of what we were in?) the past. This whole process is thought, the ( ego-centric ) mind. Thought cannot function in any ?eld other than that of time. Thought may speculate upon the timeless, but it will be its own projection. All speculation is ignorance.

Q: Then why do you even mention the 'Timeless'? Can this Timeless (dimension of Reality?) ever be known? Can it ever be recognized as the timeless?

K: Thought (the dualistic thinking) cannot know ( or experience) the Timeless. It is a state of Being in which thought, time, is not.

Q: What (experiential ) value has it?

K: Its (spiritual?) worth is unknown. It is not marketable. It cannot be weighed for a (man-made) purpose.

Q: But what part does it play in life?

K: If our life is ( dominated by ?) thought, then none at all. Life has ( a holistic ) meaning only when the (inner dimension of the?) Timeless is (present?) ; otherwise (a time bound ) life is (inevitably getting stuck in ) sorrow, con?ict and pain.
The ( dualistic way of ?) thinking cannot solve any human problem, for itself is ( the creator of) the problem.
The ending of (the continuity of our psychological) knowledge is the beginning of ( an universally open?) wisdom. ( Universal) Wisdom is not of time, it is not ( to be found in ) the continuation of ( past) experience & knowledge.

(In a nutshell) A time-bound life is (accumulating debris of ) confusion and misery; but when 'that which is' is the Timeless, there is bliss.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Sep 2017 #724
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline

( More unzipped Commentaries on Living)

SINCERITY (of purpose)

He spoke at length of God, of his morning and evening prayers, of his fasts, his vows and his burning desires. His mind was well trained, for his (lawyer) profession demanded it. He was a bright-eyed and alert man, though there was a certain (mental) rigidity about him. He was obviously driven by an extraordinary will (-power) , and though he smiled easily his will was ever on the alert, watchful and dominant. Without will (power) , he said, there could be no virtue; (and free- ) will was essential to break down evil. The battle between good and evil was everlasting, and will alone held evil at bay. He had a gentle side too, for he would look at the lawn and the gay ?owers, and smile; but he never let his mind wander beyond the pattern of will and its action. Though he sedulously avoided harsh words, anger and any show of impatience, his will made him strangely violent. If beauty ?tted into the pattern of his purpose, he would accept it; but there always lurked the fear of sensuality, whose ache he tried to contain. He was well read and urbane, but his will went with him like his shadow.

K: Sincerity ( of purpose) can never be 'simple'; (such) sincerity is the breeding ground of the (self-centred ) will (power) , and (even our most sincere ?) 'will' cannot uncover the ways of the self. Self-knowledge is not the product of will; self-knowledge comes into being through awareness of the moment-by moment responses to the movement of life. Will only shuts off the 'spontaneous' responses, which alone reveal the (ego-centric ) structure of the self. Will is the very essence of desire; and to the understanding of (the self-centred thought driven by ?) desire, will becomes a hindrance.

The action of will in any form, whether of the upper mind or of the deep-rooted desires, can never be 'passive'; and it is only in passive (awareness) , or in alert silence, that ( the direct perception of?) Truth can be.
(Our inner) Con?icts are always between various (contradictory) desires, at whatever level they may be placed. The strengthening of one (dominating ) desire in opposition to the others only breeds further resistance, and this resistance is 'will' ( the 'power of character'?) . ( Self-) understanding can never come through (the cultivation of) resistance. What is important is to (holistically) understand (the activities of thought & ) desire, and not to overcome one desire by (opposing) another.

The desire to achieve, to gain is the basis of (our ego-centric) sincerity ; but this urge is the beginning of ( an unconscious ?) fear (of the unknown?). (This subliminal?) fear limits self-knowledge to the ( field of that which was already ) 'experienced' (personally or collectively) , and so there is no possibility of transcending the 'experienced'. The (accumulative) 'self-knowledge' only cultivates a wider and deeper self-consciousness, the ”me” becoming more and more (dominant) at different levels and at different periods; so (an unconscious inner ) con?ict and/or (existential) pain continue. You may deliberately forget yourself in some (temporal) activity, in cultivating a garden or an ideology, but you are now (identified with?) the ideal, the (social) activity, or the 'god'. The greater the (degree of self-) identi?cation, the more your (own inner ) con?icts and pains are covered over, and so the (compulsory yearning for?) being identi?ed with something.
This desire to be one with a chosen object (of self-identification) brings the con?ict of (intellectual) sincerity, which utterly denies ( the authentic inner ) simplicity.

(The inner) Simplicity and (the) sincerity (of purpose) can never be (travel) companions. He who is (subliminally?) identi?ed with something , at whatever level, may be (totally ) sincere (about his purpose) but he is not (inwardly ) simple. The will to be (or to become something?) is the very antithesis of (an integrated ) simplicity. Simplicity comes into (one's) being with freedom from the acquisitive drive of the desire to achieve . Achievement is ( based on self-) identi?cation, and (self-) identi?cation is (based on ? ) will.

( The quality of inner) Simplicity is the alert, passive awareness in which the 'experiencer' is not recording the experience (for his further use?) . Self-analysis prevents this 'negative' awareness; in analysis there is always a (driving) motive-to be free, to understand, to gain-and this desire only emphasizes the self-consciousness (of the 'analyser') . Likewise, introspective ( intellectual) conclusions arrest ( the free flow of ) self-knowledge.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Sep 2017 #725
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


He said that he had read practically every serious book on death and the hereafter, books from ancient times as well as the modern ones. He had been a member of the Psychical Research Society, had attended many seances with excellent and reputable mediums, and had seen many manifestations which were in no way faked. However, in spite of the fact that he had seen undeniable manifestations of ( the spirits of) those who were dead, he was still not satis?ed that he had understood the truth of the matter. Though he had acquired considerable knowledge and experience in physic matters, there remained in his mind an element of doubt; and as he was getting on in years he wanted to know the (final) truth. He was not afraid of death, but the truth about it must be known.

The train had come to a stop, and just then a two-wheeled carriage was passing, drawn by a horse. On the carriage was a human corpse, wrapped in an unbleached cloth and tied to two long green bamboo poles, freshly cut. From some village it was being taken to the river to be burnt. As the carriage moved over the rough road, the body was being brutally shaken, and under its clothes the head was obviously getting the worst of it. There was only one passenger in the carriage besides the river; he must have been a near relative, for his eyes were red with much crying. The sky was the delicate blue of early spring, and children were playing and shouting in the dirt if the road. Death must have been a common sight, for everyone went on with what they were doing. Even the 'inquirer into death' did not see the carriage and its burden.

K: The (temporal ?) mind is the result of all its experiences, but it can experience only that with which it is familiar, which it knows (or is knowable?) at whatever level. Its knowledge, beliefs, convictions, conclusions and 'experiences' are hindrances to (the direct perception of?) truth- since they constitute the (infra- ?) structure of the 'self' (aka: the 'soul' ) . This 'self' cannot be if there is no cumulative effect of experience; and its 'fear of death' is actually the fear of 'not being', of not experiencing. If there were the certainty of (direct ) 'experiencing' , there would be no fear (of death) . This fear exists ( essentially) only in the relationship between the known and the unknown. The 'known' is ever trying to capture the Unknown; but it can capture only that which is already (recorded within the ) known.

Our desire to 'experience' Truth must be (wisely) understood - if there is ( any personal) motive in this search, then Truth does not come into being. Can there be a search without a motive, conscious or unconscious? if you have formulated an 'end' (result) , then your search is a means to achieve that end, which is self-projected. Therefore your search is for (personal) grati?cation, not for truth.

The understanding of 'what is' needs no ( personal) motive; since ( based on ) choiceless awareness, is not a search for something; it is to be aware of the (psychological) craving for (reaching a self-projected?) 'end' and of the (cunning ) means to it. This (excellent quality of) 'choiceless' awareness brings the (insightful ?) understanding of 'what is' . It is odd how much we crave for ( our personal ) permanency, for continuity. This (subliminal form of ) desire takes many forms, from the crudest to the most subtle. With the obvious forms we are well acquainted: name, shape, character, (property), and so on. But the subtler (aspect of this ) craving (for temporal continuity) is much more dif?cult to uncover, (expose ?) and understand. ( The 'psychological' sense of one's ) identity as ( 'my') ideas, as ('my') being, as ( 'my') knowledge, as ( my high hopes of ?) becoming (better) , at whatever level, is dif?cult to perceive and bring to light ( especially if we are personally committed to upgrading & consolidating it?) .

We only know ( our own ) continuity, and never non-continuity. We know the continuity of (our ) experiences, of (our personal) memory, of incidents, but we do not know that state in which this (sense of our 'personal') continuity is not. We call it 'Death', the 'Unknown', the 'Mysterious', and through naming it (and acquiring all the available informations about it ) we hope somehow to capture (the ultimate truth about ? ) it - which again is the (expression of the same subliminal ) desire for continuity.

Our self-consciousness is (built on our past ) experiences, on the ( processing &) naming of these experiences, and on recording them ; this process is (constantly) going on at various depths of our mind. And we 'cling to' this process of self-consciousness in spite of its passing joys, and/or con?icts, confusion and misery. This is what we 'know'; this is 'our' existence, the continuity of our very being, the 'idea' (that one has of oneself, the 'self-image'?) , the memory, the word ( the verbal structure?) .

( The good news may be that ?) the 'idea' ( one has of oneself, or the 'self-image') does continue (after the physical death?) , all or part of it, the ( strong self- identified ?) 'idea' that makes up the 'me' ; (but on the other hand ?) does this ( 'soul' like  ?) continuity bring about ( the spiritual ?) freedom, in which alone there is discovery and renewal?

( To recap:) What has ( a 'psychological) continuity' can never be other than that which it is ( now) , with certain modi?cations; but these modi?cations do not give it a 'newness' ( a spiritual rebith?) . It may take on a different ( physical ?) cloak, a different (skin ?) colour; but this 'centre of continuity' is not of (our timeless?) spiritual essence, for it is still ( existing ) within the ?eld of ( collective) thought, of memory, and so ( in the Stream?) of Time. It can 'experience' only its self-projected experiences, thereof giving itself further continuity.

Thus, it (the 'self-centred' entity ?) must cease to give itself continuity. (Any psychological ? ) continuity is ( also involving ?) decay, and there is ( a truly spiritual renewal of one's ) life only in the ( natural ?) 'cessation' of the centre; then ( the 'psychological' ) dying is ( integrated into ? ) living , a ( spiritual?) renewal from a moment to (another) moment. This ( time-free ?) renewal is ( the inner action of ?) Creation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Sep 2017 #726
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


As he talked (and was listened to ?) he slowly became almost friendly. It was the 'friendliness of the moment' whose warmth would be shut off instantly if it were thwarted or if anything were asked of him . But as nothing was being asked, he was (feeling) free and temporarily (even ?) affectionate.

K: The desire to hurt another is strong in most of us; we hurt others because we ourselves are hurt, we are so bruised by our own con?icts and sorrows. The more we are inwardly tortured, the greater the urge to be outwardly violent. Inward turmoil drives us to seek outward protection; and the more one defends oneself, the greater the attack on others. But...what is it that we defend, that we so carefully guard? Surely, it is the (great ?) 'idea' (or 'self-image' we have ) of ourselves, at whatever level. If we did not guard this 'idea' ( idealised self-image ?) , there would be no (necessity to think in terms of ?) ”me” and ”mine.” We would then be utterly sensitive, vulnerable to the ways of our own being, the conscious as well as the hidden; but as most of us do not desire to discover the (ego-centric) process of the ”me”, we resist any encroachment upon the idea ( we have) of ourselves. The idea of ourselves is wholly super?cial; but as most of us live on the surface (of life) , we are content with illusions.

The desire to do harm to another is a deeply (calculated ?) instinct. We accumulate (lots of personal ) resentment, which gives us a peculiar vitality, a feeling of (self-righteous ) action, but what is been accumulated must be ( eventually vented or ?) expended through anger, insult, depreciation, obstinacy, and/or (optionally ) through their (carefully cultivated) opposites ( fake affection, praise, appreciation) .
So, why do we (record &) store up ( personal) ?atteries and insults, hurts and/or (other signs of) affection ? Without this accumulation of (our personal) experiences and of their responses, we are (inwardly feeling as) nothing if we have no (titles added to our?) name, no attachment, no belief. It is this fear of being (inwardly as ) nothing that compels us to accumulate; and it is this very ('psychological' ) fear, whether conscious or unconscious, that, in spite of our accumulative activities, brings about our (inner fragmentation and ) disintegration. If we can become aware of the true (causes of ) this fear, then it is the (perception of the ) truth that liberates us from it, and not our 'purposeful' (self-conscious) determination to be free,

You may have your name and title, your property and bank account, you may have power and be famous; but in spite of all these safeguards, inwardly you are 'as nothing'. You may be totally unaware of this inner 'no-thing'-ness, but it is there, do what you will to avoid it. You may try to escape from it in devious ways, through personal or collective acts of violence, through individual or collective worship, through knowledge or amusement; but whether you are asleep or awake, it is always there.
You can come upon your (right) relationship to this (inner sense of ) 'no-thing'-ness and its (associated) fears only by being choicelessly aware of the escapes. You are not the (knowledgeable) 'observer' watching it; without you, the thinker, the observer, it is not. You and (your existential sense of ) nothingness are one; a joint phenomenon, not two separate processes. So, if you, (identified as) the 'thinker', are approaching it as something contrary and opposed to you, then any action you may take towards it must inevitably lead to illusion and so to further con?ict and misery. But when there is the (non-dualistic) experiencing of that 'no-thing'-ness as you, then the fear (of being one with it ) completely drops away. Only then is it possible for the mind to be (truly) still; and in this (integrated inner) tranquillity, Truth comes into being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 Sep 2017 #727
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline

( more 'unzipped' Commentaries on Living)


He was an (old school ?) 'scholar' addicted to knowledge as another is to drink and when he gave his opinion it was with a shake of the head and a smile that conveyed in a subtle way that it was not merely his opinion, but 'the' ?nal truth.

Q: You have had your own ( psychic?) experience but you cannot convince me ( that your approach is the only one). There are different paths to Truth, and ( hopefully?) we shall all meet there some day. The (TS?) Masters, though not actual, visible gurus, are a 'reality', and to become their disciple is essential. To ?nd the Master you had to serve, work, sacri?ce, obey and practise certain virtues; and of course ( for starters, some ?) belief was necessary.

K: To rely on ( one's psychic ?) experiences as a means to the discovery of 'what is' (within oneself) , is to pursue the way of self-aggrandizement. The many challenges of life must be met newly, freshly, and to meet them adequately, the conditioning memory of (our past) experience must be set aside, for (this) experience is of time ( the outcome of the past) ; and how can a (self-centred) mind which is the result of (all its collective & personal) experience, of time, understand the Timeless? The truth ( or falseness?) of any experience is perceived only when there is a (quality of non-personal ?) awareness - without condemnation, justi?cation, or any form of (self-) identi?cation. There is no 'your' experience, or 'my' experience but only the ( compassionate & ) intelligent understanding of the problem.

Without knowing oneself, ( any personal ?) experience ( will sooner or later?) breed illusions; while with (a solid background of) self-knowledge, any experience does not leave a cumulative residue as (psychological) memory. Self-knowing is the discovery from moment to moment of the ways of the 'self', its ( ego-centric) intentions and pursuits, its thoughts and appetites.

The very term 'my experience' indicates ignorance and the acceptance of (a self-isolating) illusion. But many of us like to live in illusion, because there is ( an expectation for?) greater (personal achievements &) satisfaction in it; it is a private (safe?) heaven which stimulates us (inwardly) and gives the feeling of (existential ) superiority. If I have capacity, a gift, (or just opportunity and) or cunning, I become a 'leader', or a (sales?) representative of that illusion; and as most people love the avoidance of ( inwardly facing ?) 'what is', there is a built up of a ('religious') organization with (material) properties and rituals, with vows and secret gatherings.

The illusion (of one's self- isolation?) is (conveniently) clothed according to tradition, keeping it within the ?eld of (social ) respectability; and as most of us seek ( a position of authority & ) power, an 'hierarchical' principle is established, the novice and the initiate, the pupil and the Master, and even among the Masters there are degrees of spiritual growth. Most of us like to be (guided spiritually ) and this ( hyerarchical) system offers the means. The ( ages old?) desire to use others for your 'psychological' necessities makes for dependence. Without possessing 'things', 'people' and/or 'ideas', you are ( feeling inwardly) empty, a thing of no importance. So, in order to prevent this gnawing fear of being nothing you want to 'be' (or to become ?) something', by belonging to this or that organization, to this or that ideology, to this church or that temple; so this hierarchical structure offers an excellent opportunity (and a long future?) for self-expansion.

Can there be hierarchical divisions or degrees in our spiritual growth, in the understanding of truth, in the realization of God? ( The Intelligence of ?) Love admits no division. Either you love, or do not love; but do not make ( your actual ?) lack of love into a long-drawn-out (time-binding ) process whose ( happy ?) ending is 'Love'. When you (realise ) you do not ( have any authentic affection & ) love, when you are 'choicelessly' aware of that fact, then there is a possibility of (a holistic inner) transformation.

The ( solid illusion of the  ?) separation between God or ( the Timeless?) Reality and 'yourself' is brought about by you, by the (personal and/or collective?) mind that clings to the known, to certainty, to ( its temporal) security. This ( chasm of one's inner ?) separation cannot be bridged over; there is no ritual, no discipline that can carry you across it; there is no ( personal?) Saviour, Master, or Guru who can lead you to the Real or destroy ( dispel the illusion of?) this separation.
( Experiential clue:) This ( sense of inner ) division is not between the Real and yourself; it is (located only) in yourself, it is the (result of a subliminal ?) con?ict of opposing desires : desire creates its own opposite; and ( the authentic inner) transformation is not a matter of being centred in one desire, but of being free from the con?ict which craving brings. ( The thought sustained desire or ) 'craving' at any level of one’s being breeds further ( fragmentation of thought- desire ?) which only increases the con?ict both within and without. This (existential) con?ict cannot be dissolved by someone else, however 'great', nor through any ( white?) magic or ritual. These may put you pleasantly ( back?) to sleep, but on 'waking up' the problem is still there. But most of us do not want to 'wake up' ( assume full responsability for what we 'are' inwardly ?) , and so we live in illusion. However, with the dissolution of (inner fragmentation and its existential ?) con?icts, there is tranquillity, and then only can Reality come into (our) being.
What is essential is to understand the increasing con?ict of desire; and this understanding comes only through self-knowledge and constant awareness of the movements of the (egocentric, time-bound ) 'self'. Our suffering can never be understood and dissolved through the search for a ( fool- proof ?) way of life. Such a search is mere avoidance of (directly facing our) suffering. The understanding of yourself, however painful or passingly (rewarding & ) pleasurable, is the ( authentic) beginning of Wisdom.

There is no ( known?) 'path' to this ( Universal) Wisdom. ( The man-made) experience and knowledge is the ( result of a ) continuous chain of ( time-binding) responses and so can never comprehend the New, the Uncreated. Wisdom is the ( 'holistic' acronym for the insightful ?) understanding of 'what is' from moment to moment, without the accumulation of ( 'psychological' debris as ?) 'experience' and 'knowledge'. It is this endless ( inner?) discovery that makes for Wisdom. Wisdom is ever new, ever fresh, and there is no means of gathering it. The means destroys the freshness, the newness, the spontaneous discovery.
The (traditional concept ?) 'Many paths ( are leading ) to one ( Ultimate) Reality' is (very likely ?) the invention of a (well rounded ?) mind that cultivates tolerance. ”I follow my path, and you follow yours, but let us be friends, and we shall eventually meet.” Will you and I meet if you are going North and I am going South? Can we be ( other than politically correct?) 'friendly' if you have one set of beliefs and I another ? To be ( Truth?) friendly implies ( having a harmonious?) relationship in work, in thought; but is there any (such ) relationship between the man who ( is accumulating personal hurts & ?) hates and the man who ( has free access to Universal Compassion &?) Love? Is there any ( authentic ) relationship between the man ( safely settled ?) in ( his ego-centric?) illusion and the one who is (inwardly) free? The free man may try to establish some kind of relationship with the one in ( temporal) bondage; but he who is in illusion can have no relationship ( other than 'utilitarian'?) with the man who is (inwardly?) free.

The ( self-) separated (minds, while instinctively?) clinging to their separateness, try to establish a (functional) relationship with others who are also self-enclosed; but such attempts ( although materialistically successful?) invariably breed ( colateral ) con?icts and pains. To avoid this ( existential?) pain, the clever ones invent ( generous concepts such as religious ) 'tolerance', each looking over his self-enclosing barrier and attempting to be kind and generous. ( Such idealistic ) tolerance is of the mind, not of the heart. Do you talk of tolerance when you love? But when the heart is empty, then the ( ego-centric ?) mind ?lls it with its cunning ( intellectual schemes?) devices and fears.

( Recap:) There is no ( authentic) communion where there is ( a cultivated?) tolerance. There is no path to Truth (either) . ( The living spirit of?) Truth must be discovered, but there is no ( fool-proof?) 'formula' for its discovery. What is ( pre-) formulated is not ( holistically?) true. You must set out on an uncharted sea, and this 'uncharted sea' is (only available within?) yourself. You must set out to 'discover yourself', but not according to any plan or pattern, for then there is no ( creative) discovery. Discovery brings a (sense of creative) joy that is ever 'new'.

( In a nutshell :) Self-knowledge is the beginning of Wisdom in whose tranquillity and silence there is ( an open Window to ?) the Immeasurable.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 Sep 2017 #728
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline

( More unzipped Commentaries on Living )


It was a lovely evening, calm and free, and on the horizon was the smoke of a steamer. The orange groves stretched to the foot of the mountain, and their fragrance ?lled the air. The evening was turning blue, as it always did; the air itself became blue, and the white houses lost their brilliance in that delicate colour. The blue of the sea seemed to spill over and cover the land, and the mountains above were also a transparent blue. It was an enchanted scene, and there was immense silence. Though there were a few noises of the evening, they were within this Silence, they were part of the silence, as we were too. This ( loving?) Silence was making everything new; one’s eyes were cleansed, and the mind was of that silence. The ending of the day was the death of all yesterdays, and in this death there was a rebirth, without the sadness of the past. Life was new in the immensity of this Silence.

In the room a man was waiting (for us ) , anxious to talk things over. He was peculiarly intense, but sat quietly. He was obviously a city-dweller, and his smart clothes made him seem rather out of place in that small village and in that room. He talked of his activities, the dif?culties of his profession, the trivialities of family life, but what really bothered him were his sexual appetites. He was married and had children, but his sexual activities had become a very serious problem to him and were driving him almost crazy. He had talked to doctors and analysts, but the problem still existed and he must somehow get to the bottom of it.

K: How eager we are to solve ( ASAP ?) our problems! How insistently we search for a remedy! We never ( take the time to?) consider the problem itself, but with (mental) agitation and anxiety grope for an answer. (Moreover?) though the problem is self-created, we try to ?nd an answer away from it. The ( holistic ?) solution is not separate from the problem itself. But, as our search for a (totally satisfying) answer is the avoidance of the problem, we get lost in ideals, convictions, experiences, and so get more and more confused and weary.

To come to a (convenient ?) conclusion is comparatively easy; but to understand (holistically?) a problem demands quite a different approach, in which there is freedom from the (urgent ) desire for an answer. This (space of inner?) freedom gives the ( natural) ease of full attention; the ( totality of the?) mind is not distracted by any con?ict or opposition to the problem. There is (an insightful?) understanding only when there is ( a spirit of inner ?) communion, establishing a right relationship with the problem, which is the beginning of understanding.

( Psychological) problems will always exist where the ( ego-centric ?) activities of the 'self' are dominant. To be aware which are and which are not the ( problematic?) activities of the self needs a constant ( inner) vigilance. This vigilance is not the result of a disciplined attention, but of an an extensive awareness which is choiceless. Such awareness ( comes with the ?) understanding of the whole content of the problem, the hidden as well as the super?cial. The surface (problems?) must be understood for the hidden to show itself; the hidden cannot be exposed if the surface mind is not quiet (at peace with itself?) . Awareness is the silent and choiceless observation of what is; in this awareness the problem unrolls (unfolds ) itself, and thus it is fully and completely understood.

( Brief 'psycho-analytical' detour:) Most of our psychological problems are 'self'-created, so there must be self-knowledge. 'You' and the 'problem' are one, not two separate processes. You (both) are the ( creator and the beneficiary of the ) problem. The (everyday) activities of the 'self' are frighteningly monotonous. One's self- (centred consciousness ?) is a bore; it is intrinsically enervating, pointless, futile. Its contradictory desires, its hopes and frustrations, its realities and illusions are enthralling, and yet empty; its activities lead to its own weariness. The 'self' is ever climbing and ever falling down, ever pursuing ( success) and ever being frustrated, ever gaining and ever losing; and from this weary round of futility it is ever trying to escape, through outward activity or through gratifying illusions, through drink, sex, radio, books, knowledge, amusements, and go on. Its power to breed illusion is complex and vast. These illusions are homemade, self-projected; they are the ideal, the idolatrous conception of Masters and saviours, the future as a means of self aggrandizement, and so on. In trying to escape from its own monotony, the 'self' pursues inward and outward sensations and excitements. These are the substitutes for self-abnegation, and in the substitutes it hopefully tries to get lost. It often succeeds, but the success only increases its own weariness. It pursues one substitute after another, each creating its own problem, its own con?ict and pain. Self-forgetfulness through drink or sex, through worship or knowledge, makes for (a psychological) dependence, and then, the ( particular thing ) on which you depend creates a problem. Dependence ( itself ) breeds possessiveness, envy, fear; and then the overcoming of it become your new problem.

In our search for ( personal comfort , pleasure & ) happiness we create (dependence?) problems, and in them we get caught. We ?nd a certain (sense of) inner ( harmony & ) happiness in the self-forgetfulness of sex, and then we use it as a ( mechanical) means to achieve ( the same state?) we desire.
(However, the seeking of ?) happiness 'through something' must invariably beget con?ict, for then the means (to reproduce it?) are becoming more important than happiness itself. And when the 'means of my happiness' is a living person, then the relationship is becoming one of mere usage. ( An authentic human ) relationship implies communion with another on different levels; and is there communion with another when (s)he is only a means of my happiness? In using another, am I not really seeking (the perfect?) self-isolation, in which I think I shall be happy? This ( mutual?) self-isolation we call 'relationship'; but actually there is no ( authentic) communion in this process. Communion can exist only where there is no fear; and there is gnawing fear and pain where there is usage and so dependence. As nothing can live in isolation, the attempts of the mind to isolate itself lead to its own frustration and misery. To escape from this sense of incompleteness, we seek completeness in ideals, in people, in things; and so we are back again where we started, in the search for substitutes.

A (deeper, existential ?) problem is never solved on its own level; being complex, it must be understood ( as part of a ?) total process. For such ( a holistic) resolution of a problem, there must be a ( choiceless) awareness, the (quality of a ) passive alertness which reveals its total process.
( Back to this particular problem of sex addiction, the wider issue involved is that?) Love is not ( in the field of?) sensation. Sensations and thought become the ( material) substitute for Love. Sensations are of the (self-centred?) mind, as sexual appetites are. The (self-centred) mind breeds the (sex) appetite, through remembrance, from which it derives gratifying sensations. This ( self-fragmented?) mind is composed of different con?icting interests or desires, with their exclusive sensations; and when one or other begins to predominate, they do clash - thus creating a problem. Sensations are both pleasant and unpleasant, and if the ( self-centred?) mind holds to the pleasant, it is becoming a slave to them. This bondage becomes a problem because the avoidance of its painful (aspects) is also a bondage, with its own illusions and problems. The ( fragmented ?) mind is the maker of problems, and so it cannot resolve them.

( To recap:) Love is not of the (by-product of our ego-centric? ) mind; but when this mind takes over, there is ( this whole field of gratifying) sensations, which it then calls 'love'. It is this 'love of the mind' that can be thought about, that can be ( conveniently?) clothed and identi?ed. The ( temporal ) mind can recall or anticipate its pleasurable sensations, and this process is (generically called) 'appetite', no matter at what level it is placed. Within the ?eld of the mind, love cannot be. ( This self-centred) mind is the area of fear and calculation, envy and domination, comparison and denial ; Love and the processes of this mind cannot be bridged over, cannot be made one. When the sensations predominate, there is no (free inner ?) space for love; so the things of the mind ?ll the heart. Thus love is made into an ideal, to be used and believed in, and ideals are always self-projected. So the mind takes over completely, and love becomes another word (for any rewarding ?) sensation. But Love is a state of ( auniversally integrated?) being in which 'sensation' as ( personal feelings sustained by the self-centred ?) thought is wholly absent.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 Sep 2017 #729
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline

( More unzipped Commentaries on (Holistic) Living)


The breeze was blowing from the sea, cool and fresh, and under the tree it was quiet. The colours on the mountains were vivid, and the blue jays were very talkative. A cow wandered by, followed by her calf, and a squirrel dashed up a tree, wildly chattering. It sat on a branch and began to scold, and the scolding went on for a long time, its tail bobbing up and down. It had such sparkling bright eyes and sharp claws. A lizard came out to warm itself, and caught a ?y. The tree tops were gently swaying, and a dead tree against the sky was straight and splendid. It was being bleached by the sun. A few clouds rested on the distant mountains.

What a strange thing is ( our existential?) loneliness, and how (psychologically) frightening it is (to face it ? ) ! We never allow ourselves to get too close to it; and if by chance we do, we quickly run away from it. We will do anything to escape from this loneliness, to cover it up. Our conscious and un-conscious (subliminal) preoccupation seems to be to avoid it or to overcome it. Both are equally futile, since though suppressed or neglected, (its imponderable?) pain is still there. You may be intensely active, but loneliness silently creeps upon you; put the book down, and it is there. Amusements and drinks cannot drown (for good your ?) loneliness; you may temporarily escape it, but when the laughter and the effects of alcohol are over, the (gnawing sense of?) loneliness returns. You may be ambitious and successful, you may be rich in knowledge but loneliness is there, waiting and watching, withdrawing only to approach again.

Loneliness is the awareness of (our ) complete (inner) isolation - are not our activities self-enclosing? Are not our thoughts and emotions exclusive and dividing? Are we not identi?ed with the collective, with the country, or with the ( self-selected ?) few? The very activity of the (temporal) self, at whatever level, is the way of isolation; and loneliness is the awareness of the 'emptiness' of the self. It is this emptiness that we seek to ?ll. There may seem to be no social harm in ?lling this emptiness at a noble level; but (the resulting) illusion breeds untold misery and destruction, which may not be immediate. The craving to ?ll our (existential) emptiness – or to run away from it, which is (basically) the same thing - cannot be (forever?) sublimated or suppressed; for the (self-conscious) entity that is to suppress or sublimate is another form (expression of the same) craving? You may change the objects of your craving (to fill your inner emptiness) but without understanding the (total) process of (loneliness and its ) craving, ( the dualistic) illusion is inevitable. There is no (self-conscious?) entity separate from craving; there is only craving, there is no one who craves. ( Loneliness and its compensatory ?) cravings takes on different masks at different times, depending on its interests. The (active past ) memory of these varying interests meets the new (challenges of life) , which brings about con?ict, and so the 'chooser'( or controller ?) is establishing itself as an entity separate and distinct from craving. But this (self-identified mental ?) entity is not different from its qualities. The entity who tries to ?ll or run away from emptiness, incompleteness, loneliness, is not different from that which he is avoiding; he 'is' it ( created by the desire to avoid all these) . All that (this mental entity?) can do is to understand himself (holistically) . He 'is' (not really separated from ?) his (inner sense of) loneliness, or emptiness; but as long as he regards ( these qualities?) as something separate from himself, he will be (living ) in illusion and endless con?ict.

When he directly 'experiences' ( by total immersion?) that he 'is' (the creation of ?) his own 'loneliness' (self-isolation) , then only can there be freedom from ( the subliminal) fear ( of abiding with 'what is'?) (Experiential clue:) The word ”loneliness,” with its (associated ) memories of pain and fear, prevents the experiencing of it afresh. When the word is no longer (predominant) , then the relationship between the 'experiencer' and the ( inner condition which is being?) 'experienced' is direct; then the experiencer 'is' the experience, ( the holistic attitude?) which alone brings freedom from fear.

( For further homework & study?) Love and loneliness cannot abide together; when there is the feeling of loneliness, Love is not (around ?) . You may hide your ( inner ) loneliness under the word 'love', but when the object of your love is no longer there, then you are becoming (painfully?) aware of your own loneliness .

We jealously cling to 'the one we love', we miss him when he is not around and are utterly lost when he dies. But later we may seek comfort in some other form (of personal attachments?) , in some substitute. all this Love? Love is not something to be used as an escape from our own (inner) wretchedness and when we do so use it, we create ( a lot of false) problems which have no solution. Love is not an abstraction, but its ( timeless?) 'Reality' can be experienced only when ( the ego-centric ?) mind, is no longer the supreme factor.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 Sep 2017 #730
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline

(More 'unzipped' Commentaries on Living)


He said that his ( Gurdjieff?) 'guru' was too great a man to be described, and that he had been a disciple of his for many years. This ( very special ?) 'teacher' imparted his teachings through brutal shocks, through foul language, through insults and actions that were contradictory; and he added that many important people were among the followers. The very crudeness of the procedure forced people to think, it made them sit up and take notice, which was considered necessary because most people were asleep and needed to be shaken. This teacher said the most awful things about God, and it seemed that his pupils had to drink a great deal, as the teacher himself drank heavily at most meals. The teachings, however, were profound; they had been kept secret at one time, but now they were being made available to all.

The late autumnal sun was pouring in through the window, and one could hear the roar of the busy street. The leaves in their death were brilliant, and the air was fresh and clean . As with all ( big) cities, there was an atmosphere of ( existential ?) depression and un-nameable sorrow in contrast to the light of the evening; and the arti?cial gaiety was even more sorrowful. We seem to have forgotten what it is to be natural, to smile freely; our faces are so closed with worry and anxiety. But the leaves sparkled in the sun and a cloud passed by.

K: In all the so-called 'spiritual' movements the social divisions are maintained. This craving for (personal) distinction becomes ( a part of?) what we ( like to) call 'spiritual growth': the hierarchical division as the Master and the initiate, the ( diligent ?) pupil and the novice. Without understanding this (subliminal ?) craving , it is utterly vain to seek to be free from pride.

Q: But, we need guides, gurus, Masters. You may be beyond them, but we ordinary people need them, otherwise we shall be like lost sheep.

K: We choose our leaders out of our own confusion, and so they also are confused. We demand to be coaxed and comforted, to be encouraged and grati?ed, so we choose a teacher who will give us ( the illusion of ) what we crave for. We do not search out ( the truth of our inner?) Reality, but go after grati?cation and sensation. It is essentially for self-glori?cation that we create the ( spiritual) teacher, the Master and it is out of your confusion and appetites that you choose. If you are seeking ( a higher form of personal) grati?cation, you will naturally ?nd what you desire, but do not let us call it Truth. ( The perception of?) Truth comes into being when ( the expectation for personal?) grati?cation, the desire for sensation, comes to an end.

Q: You have still not convinced me that I do not need ( such) a Master (of Wisdom) .

K: (The perception of?) Truth is not a matter of argumentation and conviction; it is not the outcome of (personal?) opinion.

Q: But this Master helps me to overcome my (in-excess?) greed, and envy.

K: How can another person help bringing about a ( radical qualitative ?) 'transformation' in yourself ?
You are merely dominated, in?uenced. This ( programmed ?) in?uence may last a considerable time, but you are not transformed. You have been ( just ) 'overcome' ( been re-programmed?) ; and whether you are 'overcome' by ( the pressures of collective?) envy or by a 'nobler' in?uence, you are still ( in a condition of psychological?) 'slave', you are not free. We like being 'slavish', or to be 'possessed' by someone, whether by a Master (of Wisdom?) or by anyone else, because there is security in this possession; the Master becomes the refuge.
However such ( sense of?) possession ( or of 'belonging' to a selected group ?) is not ( bringing any ) freedom from ( the personal & collective?) greed.

Q: I must resist this ( temptation & ?) greed, I must ?ght it, make every effort to destroy it, and only then will it go.

K: From what you say, you have been in con?ict with ( your own?) greed for a great many years, and yet you are not free from it. To conquer ( greed?) is not to understand(it) . What you 'conquer' (now) has to be conquered again ( next time) , but there is ( an authentic inner ?) freedom only from what which is fully understood. To understand ( anything for good ?) , there must be an awareness of the process of 'resistance' - we are educated to resist (any temptation?) , but in this 'resistance' there need be no ( intelligent ?) observation, no communication; resistance is an indication of the ( cultivated?) dullness of the mind. A mind that 'resists' is self-enclosed and so is incapable of sensitivity, of understanding. Tunderstand the ways of (this dualistic ?) resistance is far more important than to get rid of greed. Actually, you are now committed (engaged?) , and around your commitments, which you have probably lectured and written about, you have gathered ( influent ?) friends. So your past (experience) is preventing you from listening to what is being said.

Q: I both agree and disagree with you...

K: Which shows that you are weighing your commitments against what is being said, which is not to listen. You are afraid to listen (to some potentally destabilising stuff ?) and so you are in a con?icting (inner situation?) , agreeing and at the same time disagreeing.

Q: You are probably right, but I cannot let go of all that I have gathered: my friends, my knowledge, my ( own spiritual?) experience. I know that I must let go, but I simply cannot, and there it is.

K: This inner con?ict ( between being attached and letting go?) will now be greater than ever; for when once you are becoming aware of ( the truth regarding?) 'what is', and deny ( acting on) it because of your commitments, a still deeper (existential?) contradiction is set going. This ( ages old spiritual ?) contradiction is that of the duality (of multi-level desire) : there can be no bridging over of opposing desires; and if a bridge is created, it is resistance, which is consistency. Only in understanding ( the dualistic nature of?) 'what is' is there freedom from 'what is'.

It is an odd fact that ( the bulk of spiritual?) followers like to be bullied and directed, whether softly or harshly. They think the 'harsh' treatment is ( an invaluable?) part of their training for ( a solid ?) 'spiritual' success. The desire (for the ego to be ?) hurt or rudely shaken, is ( the sadistic counter-) part of the pleasure of hurting; and this mutual degradation of the 'leader' and the 'follower' is the outcome of the desire for ( ever new ?) sensations. It is because you want ( to achieve a?) greater sensation that you follow and so create the 'spiritual leader', the guru; and for this new grati?cation you will put up with (the occasional) discomforts, and/or discouragements. All this is part of a (tricky ?) mutual exploitation, it has nothing whatever to do with Reality and will never lead to ( any creative?) Happiness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Sep 2017 #731
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


THE RIVER WAS full and sweeping, in some places several miles wide, and to see so much water was a delight. To the north were the green hills, fresh after the storm. It was splendid to see the great curve of the river with the white sails on it. The sails were large and triangular, and in the early morning light there was an enchantment about them, they seemed to come out of the water. The noise of the day had not yet begun, and the song of a boatman almost on the other side of the river came ?oating across the waters. At that hour his song seemed to ?ll the earth, and all other sounds were silenced; even the whistle of a train became soft and bearable.
Gradually the noise of the village began: the loud quarrels at the water fountain, the bleating of goats, the cows asking to be milked, the heavy carts on the road, the shrill call of the crows, the cries and laughter of children. And so another day was born. The sun was over the palm trees, and the monkeys were sitting on the wall, their long tails almost touching the earth. They were large, but very timid; you called to them, and they jumped to the ground and ran to a big tree in the ?eld. They were blackfaced and black-pawed, and they looked intelligent, but they were not as clever and mischievous as the little ones.

Q: Why is thought so persistent? It seems so restless, so exasperatingly insistent. Do what you will, it is always active, like those monkeys, and its very activity is exhausting. It is never quiet, never in repose; it is always pursuing, always analysing, always torturing itself. Sleeping or waking, thought is in constant turmoil, and it seems to have no peace, no rest.

K: Can thought ( our self-centred thinking ?) ever be at peace with itself ? Is not thought in its very nature restless, the response to the constant challenges (of life) ? There can be no cessation to these challenges, because every movement of life is a challenge; and if there is no awareness of challenge, then there is decay, death. Challenge-and-response is the very way of our life, and our responses can be adequate or inadequate;. Challenge demands action, not verbalization. ( Indulging in?) verbalization is ( the very nature of?) thought. The words, the ( images and the ?) symbols, retards action; and when thought meets the challenge, which is ever new, is not that response the outcome of the old, of the past?

When the ( memory of our?) old ( experience) meets the new, inevitably the meeting is incomplete; and ( trying to compensate ) this (uncomfortable sense of ) incompleteness is ( a subliminal action of ) thought in its restless search for completeness. Can thought, idea, ever be complete (action?) ? Thought, idea, is the response of memory; and memory is ever incomplete. Experience is the response to challenge. This response is conditioned by the past, by memory; such response only strengthens the conditioning. Experience does not liberate, it strengthens belief, memory, and it is this memory that responds to challenge; so experience is the conditioner.

Q: But then, what place has thought?

K: Do you mean what place has thought in ( terms of a holistic ) action? Has ideation any function in action? (Our personal) ideas and beliefs, are a ( fool-proof?) safeguard against ( the possible ?) risks of ( a direct, integrated ) action; they have a place as a controller, modifying and shaping action. Ideation is the ( safe) pattern for ( our everyday) action.

Q : Can't there be ( a spontaneous?) action without these patterns?

K: Not if one is ( mentally committed to ) seeking a result. Action towards a predetermined goal is not action at all (in the psychological field) . The very function of thought is to create a ( temporal) pattern for action, and thereby to kill (the spontaneity of genuine ?) action.
Most of us are concerned with the ( postponing or?) 'killing' of ( the directly perceptive ?) action; and ( our attachmments to ) ideas, beliefs, dogma, help to destroy it. ( The insight based ?) action implies vulnerability to the unknown; and thought, belief, which is the known, is an effective barrier to the Unknown. Thought can never penetrate into the unknown; it must cease for the Unknown to be. The action of the Unknown is beyond the ( safe ) action of thought; and thought, being aware of this, consciously or unconsciously clings to the known. The known is ever responding to the (challenges of the ) unknown and from its inadequate response arise con?ict, confusion and misery. It is only when the known, the ideation ( process) , ceases that there can be the action of the Unknown, which is measureless.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 Sep 2017 #732
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline

( more 'unzipped' Commentaries on Living)


Q: The (Swiss?) mountains made me silent. I went to the Engadine and its beauty made me utterly silent; I was speechless at the wonder of it all. A tremendous experience. I wish I could hold that silence, that living, vibrant, moving silence. When you talk of silence, I suppose you mean the same extraordinary experience I have had ? I really would like to know if you are referring to the same quality of silence as I experienced. The effect of this silence lasted for a considerable period, and now I go back to it, I try to recapture and live in it.

K: You are made silent by the Engadine (sightseeings) , another by a Master (of Wisdom?) , by a book, or by (relaxing ) drink. Through outward stimulation one is reduced to a (deeper psychological?) sensation which one calls silence and which is extremely pleasurable. The effect of ( mountain's majestic ) beauty and grandeur is to drive away ( momentarily?) one’s daily ( entanglements with personal?) problems and con?icts . Through outward stimulation, the mind is made temporarily quiet; it is perhaps a new experience, a new delight, ( but the problem is that?) the mind goes back to it as a remembrance when it is no longer experiencing it. To remain ( forever?) in the Swiss mountains is probably not possible; but it is possible to seek that state of quietness through some other form of stimulation, through drink, through a person, or through an idea, which is what most of us do. These various forms of stimulation are the means through which the ( time-bound?) mind is made still; so the means become signi?cant, important, and we become attached to them. The means take the place of ( the real) experience, which is now only a ( pleasant?) memory.
There is a similarity in all (sensory, emotional & intellectual ?) stimulations: the ( subliminal?) desire to escape from ( facing?) 'what is' – our (extra boring?) daily routine, a relationship that is no longer alive, or from knowledge which is always becoming stale.

Psychological escapes are more harmful than the obvious ones, being more subtle and complex and therefore more dif?cult to discover. The ( induced?) silence that is brought about through stimulation, ( by 'sitting at the feet of the Master'?) or through various prescribed disciplines, is a result, an effect and so not creative; it is a 'dead' (static?) silence

( However), there is a (deep sense of inner peace or ) silence which comes into being when the process of ( 'time & ) thought' is understood. Thought is the ( mental ?) response of ( our ego-centric?) memory and this memory dictates our action according to pleasure and pain. So ideas control our action, and hence there is a con?ict between our (actual) action and our ideas (of what it should be) . This ( 'mind – over-matter' ?) con?ict is always with us, and ( only ) as it intensi?es there is an ( existential) urge to be free from it; but until this con?ict is ( fully) understood and ( wisely?) resolved, any attempt to be free from ( the pain of it?) is ( resulting in?) an 'escape'.
( In a nutshell:) As long as our action is approximating our ideation , con?ict ( of duality ) is inevitable. Only when ( the inwardly perceptive) action is free from such ideas ( of what it should be or should produce?) does this (subliminal) con?ict cease.

Q: But how can action ever be free from ideation ? Surely there can be no action without having some ideas ?rst. Action follows idea, and I cannot possibly imagine any action which is not the result of a (pre-conceived) idea.

K: Ideas ( regarding what our action should be  ?) is the (thought out ?) outcome of memory; idea is the verbalization of memory. ( But in terms of one's inner life) the ideation is an inadequate reaction to the challenges of life. Adequate response to life is ( a compassionate & intelligent?) action, not ideation. We respond ideationally in order to ( play safe & ) safeguard ourselves against action. There is ( a lot of temporal?) safety in the ?eld of ideas, but in a situation of intense crisis there is ( the unique opportunity for a?) direct ( spontaneous ) action, freed from ( the background of our past?) ideas.

It is against ( the temporal uncertainty of?) such spontaneous action that the (time-settled?) mind has disciplined itself; and as with most of us the ( intellectual part of the?) mind is dominant, ideas act as a brake on ( a truly compassionate?) action and hence there is friction between action and ideation.

Q: I ?nd my mind wandering off to that happy experience of the Engadine. Is it a (psychological?) escape to relive that (great) experience in memory?

K: Obviously. The 'actual' is your life in the present: this crowded street, your business, your immediate relationships. If these were ( totally ?) pleasing and gratifying, the ( souvenirs of?) Engadine would fade away; but as the 'actual' ( existence) is confusing and painful, you turn to a (happy?) experience which is over and dead. You may remember that experience, but it is ?nished; you give it life only through ( refreshing its) memory. It is like pumping life (new energy?) into a 'dead' thing.

( In a nutshell:) Our present ( existence ) being ( totally safe but ?) dull & shallow, we turn to the ( happy memories of the?) past or look to a ( exciting) self-projected future. To escape from the present inevitably leads to (creating a long time-line of?) illusions. To see the ( truth about our) present ( inner life) 'as is', without ( trying to improve it by?) condemnation or justi?cation, is to understand ( the truth or falseness of ) what is, and then there is (an inwardly integrated?) action which brings about a ( qualitative?) transformation in 'what is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Sep 2017 #733
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
I think it is obvious that a sense of beauty in nature is not the same as the pleasure of drinking or even of an idea because only the resonance we may feel in us of something in the present may give this sense of beauty.

Agreed, Jess, K is certainly over-simplifying the issue, perhaps in pursuing his 'dharma' of cornering his unsuspecting casual visitors in order to 'force' an insight. A tough karmic job indeed( even for a World Teacher !) , not to mention the rather mediocre results. But looking at all these - holistically inspired- study cases, there is always something new to learn for the keen listener. And as they say... 'better luck next time'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Sep 2017 #734
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline



Whenever he had time he would read sacred books and repeat over and over again certain words which he considered bene?cial. They brought peace to the soul, he said. Life had scarcely touched him, for he had very studiously guarded himself against any exposure; he had made himself invulnerable, physically as well as psychologically. Psychologically he had refused to see himself as he was, but it was beginning to tell on him, there was about him a deep haunted look. Financially he was safe, but he also wanted a safe investment in the ' spiritual world', and that was why he played with ideas, mistaking ideas for something spiritual, real. He had no love except for his many possessions and it was slowly dawning on him that he was a very sad man. Even this realization he was avoiding as long as he could; but life was pressing him.

Q: You often said that when a problem is not consciously soluble, the 'unconscious' (part of the mind) takes over and helps to solve it. But then, what is the conscious and what is the unconscious? Is there a de?nite line where the one ends and the other begins? When one fails, does the other begin to function?

K: What is it that we ( generically) call the 'conscious'? Let's observe how we 'consciously' approach any life problem : we try to seek a (positive) answer to the problem; we are
concerned with the solution, and not with the (deeper causes of the ) problem. We are (simply) looking for a ( quick) way out of the problem; we want to avoid ( facing ) the (real causes of the) problem through an answer, through a solution. We do not ( spend some quality time to?) observe the problem itself, but grope for a satisfactory answer. Our whole conscious concern is with the ?nding of a solution, a satisfying conclusion. Often we do ?nd an answer that grati?es us, we may think we have solved the problem. What we have actually done is to cover over the problem with a conclusion, with a satisfactory answer; but under the weight of the conclusion, which has temporarily smothered it, the problem is still there.

And when there is no satisfactory answer, the 'conscious' or upper ( layers of the?) mind stops looking for it ; and then the so-called 'unconscious', the deeper (layers of the?) mind, takes over and ?nds an answer (or...maybe not?) .

The conscious mind is obviously seeking a ( quick) way out of the problem, and a satisfying conclusion. Is not the (superficial) conscious mind itself a storehouse of (personal & collective) 'conclusions' which are the imprints of the past? Surely, the 'conscious' mind is made up of the ( personal & collective experiences of the ?) past, it is founded on the past ; and when this ( self-conscious) mind approaches a problem, it is incapable of looking at the problem without the screen of its conclusions; it cannot be silently aware of the problem itself. It knows only conclusions, pleasant or unpleasant, and it can only add to itself further conclusions, further ideas, further ?xations.

When it cannot ?nd a satisfactory conclusion, the ( intelligent ?) conscious mind gives up the search, and thereby it becomes quiet; and into the quiet upper mind, the 'unconscious' (mind ) pops an answer.

But is this 'unconscious', the deeper (layers of our) mind, ( structurally?) different from the conscious mind? Is not the unconscious also made up of ( still older ) racial, group and social conclusions, memories? Surely, the 'unconscious' is also the result of the past, of time, only it is ( strategically?) submerged and waiting; and when called upon it throws up its own hidden conclusions. If they are satisfactory, the upper mind accepts them; and if they are not, it ?ounders about, hoping by some miracle to ?nd an answer. If it does not ?nd an answer, it wearily puts up with the problem, which gradually corrodes the mind. Disease and insanity follow.

( In conclusion...?) the upper and the deeper ( layers of the ) mind are not so dissimilar; they are both made up of conclusions, (of personal and) memories, they are both the outcome of the past. They can supply an answer, a (new) conclusion, but they are incapable of dissolving the (real causes of the ) problem. The problem is dissolved only when both the upper and the deeper mind are ( remaining) silent, when they are not projecting positive or negative conclusions. There is freedom from the ( self-interest generated) problems only when the whole mind is utterly still, choicelessly aware of the problem; for only then the 'maker of the problem' is not (intruding) .


Who cares to listen to the troubles of another? We have so many problems of our own that we have no time for those of others. To make another listen you have to pay either in coin, in prayer, or in belief. The professional will listen, it is his job, but in that ( listening) there is no (intelligent compassion to bring a ) lasting release. We want to unburden ourselves freely, spontaneously, without any regrets afterwards. The puri?cation of ( one's own) confusion does depend on him who desires to open his heart. To open one’s heart is important, but the introspective talk can never open the heart; it is (self) enclosing, depressing and utterly useless. To be open is to listen, not only to yourself, but to every in?uence, to every movement about you. It may or may not be possible to do something tangibly about what you hear, but the very fact of being open brings about its own action. Such hearing puri?es your own heart, cleansing it of the things of
the mind.

Q: We have come to talk about our problem. We are jealous - I am not but she is. Though she used not to be as openly jealous as she is now, there has always been a whisper of it. I don’t think I have ever given her any reason to be jealous, but she ?nds a reason.

K: Have you not noticed that even when you know the (immediate) cause, jealousy continues? Do not let us look for the reason, but let us understand 'jealousy' itself. As you say, one might pick up almost anything to be envious about; envy is the thing to understand, and not what it is about.

Q : Jealousy has been with me for a long time. I didn’t know my husband very well when we married, and you know how it all happens; jealousy gradually crept in, like smoke in the kitchen.

K: Jealous (possesivity?) is one of the ways of holding the man or the woman, is it not? The more we are jealous, the greater the feeling of possession. To possess something makes us happy; to call something 'ours' makes us feel warm and comfortable. To be exclusive in our possession gives assurance and certainty to ourselves. To own something makes us important; it is this importance we cling to. To think that we own a human being, makes us feel strong and strangely content. Envy is because of the importance ( we are giving to?) ourselves.

Q: But I am not important, I am nobody; my husband is all that I have. Even my children don’t count.

K : We all have only one thing (our self interest?) to which we cling, though it takes different forms. You cling to your husband, others to their children, and yet others to some belief; but the intention is the same. Without the object to which we cling we feel so hopelessly lost, do we not? We are afraid to feel all alone. This ( subliminal) fear ( of not having or not being anything?) is ( the real cause of?) jealousy, hate, pain.

Q: But we do love each other.

K: Then how can you be ( possesive & ) jealous? We do not (really have an authentic?) love, and that is the unfortunate part of it. You are (subliminally ) using your husband, as he is using you, in order to be happy, to have a ( home?) companion, not to feel alone; you may not possess much, but at least you have someone to be with. This mutual need and use we call 'love'.

Q: But ( to put it so it ) sounds dreadful !

K: It is not (reall ?) dreadful, only we never ( take some qualit time to ) look at it.

Q: I know, but I want to carry on as I am, even though it means being jealous, because I cannot see anything ( else coming?) in my life.

K: If you saw ( an opportunity for) something else you would no longer be jealous of your husband, would you? But you would ( eventually) cling to the other thing as now you are clinging to your husband, so you would be jealous of
that too. You want to ?nd a ( more rewarding) substitute for your husband, and not freedom from jealousy. We are all like that: before we give up one thing, we want to be very sure of ( getting) another.

When you are completely 'uncertain' ( of any temporal possessions) , then only is there no place for envy. There is envy when you feel that you have something. Exclusiveness is ( the result of) this feeling of certainty; to own (something) is to be envious (of having more ?) .
( But at the same time the jealous sense of?) ownership breeds ( resentment & ) hatred. Where there is possession there can never be love; to possess is to destroy love.

Q: I am beginning to see (your point) . I am beginning to understand that I have really never loved my husband...
( And... she wept).


SHE HAD COME with three of her friends; they were all earnest and had the dignity of ( an ancient tradition of) intelligence. They all wanted to help her do whatever she thought was the 'right' thing, but the dif?culty was, what was the right thing for her to do? She herself was not sure, she felt disturbed and confused, but she ( definitely) wanted to be free, and she repeated this several times.
There was ( an induced silence & ?) 'quietness' in the room; their nervous agitation had subsided, and they were all eager to go into the problem ( as suggested?) without expecting a result, a de?nition of the right thing to do.

K: The right action would ( hopefully?) emerge, naturally and fully, as the the content of the problem itself is exposed. The right approach to the problem was important, because the ( insightful understanding of ) problem held the right action.

Q: I want to be free from ( the psychological residues of?) a particular relationship.

K: When you say, ”I want to be free,” you imply that you are not ( feeling ) free. In what way are you not free?

Q: I am free physically; I am free to come and go (anywhere I want) , because physically I am no longer his wife. But I'd want to be completely free; I do not want to have anything to do with that particular person.

K: In what way are you ( feeling ) related to that person, if you are already physically (legally) free? Are you related to him in any other way?

Q: Actually I have a great resentment against him. I do not want to have anything to do with him.

K: If you have a lot of resentment against him, you are not free of him. Why have you ( kept) this resentment against him ?

Q: Because I have recently discovered what he is (inwardly) : his meanness, his real lack of love, his complete sel?shness. To think that I was jealous, that I idolized him, that I submitted to him! Finding him to be stupid and cunning when I thought him the ideal husband, loving and kind, has made me resentful of him. To think I had anything to do with him makes me feel unclean. I want to be completely free from him.

K: As long as you have this resentment against him, you are not free (inwardly) . He is what he is, but is your resentment really against him? Or, having seen ( the truth about) what is, you are ashamed of yourself for having been associated with it? Surely, you are resentful of your own actions. You are ashamed of yourself. But...being unwilling to see this, you blame him for what he is. When you realize that your resentment against him is an escape from ( facing) your own romantic idolization, then he is 'out of the picture'. It is with yourself that you are angry, and not with him.

Q: Yes, that is so.

K: If you really see ( the truth of) this, experience it as a fact, then you are ( instantly?) free of him. He is no longer the object of your enmity. Hate binds us ( inwardly) - as 'love' does.

Q: But then, how am I to be free from my own shame, from this resentment which has been slowly ripening in me and has come to fullness in this crisis? How am I to wipe out the (psychological residues of my?) past?

K: The 'why' of your desire to wipe out the past is of more signi?cance than knowing 'how' to wipe it out. The intention with which you approach the problem is more important than knowing what to do about it. So, why do you want to wipe out the memory of that association ?

Q: The memory of all those years has left a very bad taste in my mouth. Is that not a good enough reason?

K: Not quite. Surely, it is not only (just) because they leave a bad taste in your mouth. Merely wiping out (or deleting?) the unpleasant memories does not solve the problem, does it?

Q: I thought it did; but what is the ( real) problem then? Are you not making it unnecessarily complex? Why add another burden to my existence ?

K: Are we adding a further burden, or are we trying to understand ( the real causes of?) 'what is' and be free of it? Please have a little patience. What is ( behind) the urge that is prompting you to 'wipe out' the past? You have a certain idea of yourself, (a very good self-image?) which these (miserable) memories contradict, and so you want to get rid of them. You have a certain self-esteem, have you not?

Q: Of course, otherwise...

K: We all place ourselves at various ( spiritual) levels, and we are constantly falling from these heights. It is the falls we are ashamed of, but the ( overrated?) self-image is the cause of our shame, of our fall. It is this 'self-image ( 'who' or 'what' we think we are?) that must be understood. If there is no ( psychological) pedestal on which you have put yourself, how can there be any fall? If you can understand this, then there will be no shame of the past; it will have completely gone. It is this avoidance of what is, of seeing what you are, that brings about ( inner conflicts bringing ) confusionyou?) and antagonism, shame and resentment.

( For homework:) Just be aware of what you ( think that you are?) , pleasant or unpleasant: live with it without ( even) naming it; for the very naming is ( subliminally associate with?) a condemnation or an identi?cation.
Live with it without the fear (of being like nothing?) , for fear prevents ( any authentic) communion, and without communing with it, you cannot live with it. To be in (direct) communion ( with 'what is'?) is to love. Without love, you cannot wipe out the past; with love, there is no past.

( Parting words : ) Love, and ( the binding impact of ) time is not.


She had travelled half across the world to talk about herself and her problems. She was used to analysing her own thoughts and feelings.

K: Why are you so intent upon analysing yourself?

Q: I do not know, but I have always done it ever since I can remember.

K: Is ( self-) analysis a way of protecting yourself against ( the 'wild side' of?) yourself (such as ) emotional explosions and the consequent regrets?

Q: That is exactly why I am constantly questioning myself . I do not want to get caught up in all the ( ongoing) mess about me, personal and general. I see now that I have used analysis as a means of keeping myself intact, of not getting caught in the social and family turmoil.

K: Have you been able to avoid getting caught?

Q: I have succeeded in some directions, but in others I do not think I have. But anyways, in talking with you about all this, I see what an extraordinary thing I have done. I have never looked at it all so clearly before.

K: Why are you protecting yourself so cleverly, and against what? You say, against the mess around you; but you see it clearly as such, you do not have to 'guard yourself' against it. One guards oneself only when there is ( a lurking?) fear. So what are you ( subliminally ?) afraid of?

Q: I do not think I am afraid (of anything specific) ; I simply do not want to get entangled in the miseries of existence. I have a profession that supports me, but I want to be free of the rest of the ( psychological) entanglements, and I think I am succeeding.

K: Then why do you resist these entanglements? One resists something only when one does not know how to deal with it. If you know how a 'motor car' works, you are free of ( the possible mishaps of ) it; if anything goes wrong, you can put it right ( or better the AAA ?).
( But in the psychological area?) We resist that which we do not understand; we resist ( our inner ?) confusion, evil & misery, only when we do not know its structure, how it is put together. You resist confusion because you are not aware of its structure, of its make-up. Why not (simply become?) aware of it?

Q: Perhas because I have never thought about it that way ?

K: It is only when you are ( getting) in direct relationship with the (very complex?) structure of (your inner) confusion that you can become (responsibly) aware of the working of its mechanism. It is only when there is an (inner) communion you can understand yourself ; and such communion or (intelligent & compassionate inner ?) relationship can exist only when there is no fear.

Q: What exactly is this 'fear' ?

K: There is fear of the known or of the unknown,the fear of the ( bad consequences of something done in the?) past or of ( what could happen in to ou ?) the future.
The ( thinking ) relationship between what one is (now) and what could happen ( in the future?) causes fear. Fear arises when one interprets 'what is' in terms of reward and punishment. Fear exists in the con?ict of the opposite (desires) : the worship of success brings the ( lurking) fear of failure.

The effort to become (someone or something) is the beginning of ( any psychological) fear, the fear of being or not being. The ( temporal) mind, the residue of experience, is always in fear of the unnamed, of the ( ultimate) challenge. The ( thinking) mind, which is (based on) names, words & memory, can function ( comfortably?) only within the ?eld of the known; and the 'unknown' (aspects of existence) are resisted or translated by the mind in terms of the known. This resistance or translation of the new challenges (of life) is fear; for the ( all-knowing) mind can have no communion with the unknown. The known cannot commune with the unknown; ( thinking within the field of ?) the known must cease for the unknown to be.
The ( ego-centric ?) mind is the maker of ( its own) fears; and when it ( tries to) analyses fear, seeking its cause in order to be free , it only further isolates itself and thereby increases fear. When you use ( self-) analysis to resist confusion, you are only increasing the ( mental) power of resistance; but resistance to ( one's inner) confusion only increases the fear of it, which hinders freedom.

In ( the open ) communion (with oneself) there is freedom, but not in the fear (of facing 'what one is').

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 25 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #735
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


THE SINGLE TREE on the wide green lawn was the centre of the little world which included the woods, the house and the small lake; the whole surrounding area seemed to ?ow towards the tree, which was high and spreading. It must have been very old, but there was a freshness about it, as though it had just come into being; there were hardly any dead branches, and its leaves were spotless, glistening in the morning sun. Because it was alone, all things seemed to come to it. Deer and pheasants, rabbits and cattle congregated in its shade, especially at midday. From the woods, the tree seemed far away; but seen from the tree, the woods, the house and even the sky seemed close - one often felt one could touch the passing clouds.

We had been seated under the tree for some time, when he came to join us. He was seriously interested in meditation, and said that he had practiced it for many years. He did not belong to any particular school of thought, and though he had read many of the Christian mystics, he was more attracted to the meditations and disciplines of the Hindu and Buddhist saints. He had realized early, he continued, the immaturity of asceticism, with its peculiar fascination and cultivation of power through abstinence, and he had from the beginning avoided all extremes. He had, however, practised discipline, an unvarying self-control, and was determined to realize ( the truth of?) That which lay through and beyond meditation. He had led what was considered to be a strict moral life. He had once played with worldly things, but the play was over some years ago. He had a job of sorts, but that too was quite incidental.

K: The 'end' (or the final goal of?) of meditation is ( to be found in the act of?) meditation itself. The search for something through and beyond meditation is ( self-interst motivated and ?) end-gaining; seeking a ( spiritual reward or?) result is the projection of ( our own) desire.
Using meditation as a means to arrive, to gain, to discover, only gives strength to the 'meditator'. The meditator is ( not separated from ) the ( act of) meditation; meditation is ( must include ) the understanding of the 'meditator' ( entity) .

Q: I meditate to ?nd the ultimate Reality, or to allow that Reality to manifest itself. So, this is not exactly a result I am seeking, but rather that Bliss which occasionally one senses. It is there; and as a thirsty man craves for water, I want that inexpressible happiness. That Bliss is in?nitely greater than all joy, and I pursue it as my most cherished desire.

K: That is, you meditate ( in order ) to gain what you want. And to attain what you (so strongly) desire, you strictly discipline yourself, in the hope to achieve certain results, certain well-marked stages, depending upon your persistence of effort, and progressively experience greater and greater joy. This well-laid-out course assures you of the ?nal result. So your meditation is a (subliminally?) calculated affair, is it not?

Q: When you put it that ( over-simplified?) way, it does seem, in the super?cial sense, rather absurd; but deeply, what is wrong with it? What is wrong essentially with seeking that Bliss? I suppose I do want a result for all my efforts; but again, why shouldn’t one?

K: This desire for ( achieving the perfect ?) Bliss implies that 'Bliss' is something ?nal, everlasting, does it not? One has pursued the worldly goals and has seen their transient nature, and now one wants the everlasting state, a (Summerland?) that has no ending. The ( subliminally ego-centric?) mind is seeking its ?nal and imperishable refuge; so it ( endeavours to ) discipline itself in order to gain what it wants. It may once have experienced that Bliss, but now it is struggling after it and the mind is never at (peace with itself and at?) rest, it is always striving, always achieving (higher states of consciousness?) but , of course there is always the fear of ( falling back or?) losing (whatever was already achieved) . This process ( of psychological becoming) is ( commonly) called 'meditation'.
Can a mind which is caught in this endless (process of personal) becoming be aware of Bliss? Through effort and struggle, through ( getting entangled in?) resistances and denials, the mind makes itself insensitive; and can such a mind be open and vulnerable? Through the desire for that ( Eternal State of?) Bliss, have you not built (and/or consolidated?) a Wall (of self-interest ?) around yourself, through which the Imponderable, the Unknown, cannot penetrate? Have you not effectively shut yourself off from the ( direct perception of the?) New?
Out of the old, you have made a path for the new, but... can the New be contained in the old?

( As a simple rule of thumb?) the ( self-centred ?) mind can never create the New; this mind itself is a result (of an ages old evolution in time ) , and all ( its expected?) results are an outcome of the old. Results can never be new; the pursuit of a result can never be spontaneous; that ( mind) which is free ( of the known?) cannot pursue an end. Surely that is not ( an authentic) meditation. Meditation is the freeing ( the mind ) of its ( subliminal identification with the?) 'meditator'; in this freedom alone is there ( the true spirit of) discovery, sensitivity to receive. Without this freedom (from the known ?) , there can be no Bliss; but this freedom does not come through ( self-) discipline. The ( self-centred thought ) pattern must be broken for this freedom to be.

The breaking ( free from ?) the mould ( of the known ?) is ( the first & last step in?) meditation. But this ( temporal) mould is broken only from (a timeless?) moment to (another timeless?) moment. The ( 'breaking free' ?) moment is (preferably?) the 'forgotten' moment. It is in the 'remembered' moment that the maker of the (temporal) mould come into being, the creator of all problems, con?icts, miseries.

Meditation is freeing the mind of its (already known?) thoughts at all levels. ( The self-centred process of?) thought creates the ( self-conscious entity of the?) 'thinker'. The 'thinker' ( mental entity?) is not ( intrinsically) separate from thought; they are a unitary process, and not two separate processes. (Considering them as two) separate processes only lead to ignorance and illusion.
But when the 'meditator' is ( totally immersing itself in ) the meditation, the mind is ( naturally) alone (all-one?) and silent. Only to the 'all-one' (holistically integrated mind?) can the Causeless come, only to the all-one is there ( the visitation of?) Bliss.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 #736
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline

( More unzipped commentaries on Living)


K: Thought is always an outward response, it can never respond deeply. Thought is always the outer; thought is always an effect, and thinking is the reconciliation of effects. (The self-centred process of?) thought is always super?cial, though it may place itself at different levels. Thought can never penetrate the profound, the implicit. Thought cannot go beyond itself, and every attempt to do so is ( resulting in ) its own frustration.

Q: What do you mean by 'thought' ?

K: Thought is (a higher level sensory ?) response to any challenge; thought is not ( the total) action, the 'doing'. Thought is the result of ( our personal & collective?) memory. This whole thinking process is (generating our ) consciousness; the waking and the sleeping, the upper and the deeper levels are all part of memory, experience. Thought, being a result (of our opportunistic self-interest?) , opposes or agrees, compares or adjusts, condemns or justi?es, and therefore it can never be free from its own mooring. Thought is anchored to memory, and it can never be free to discover the truth of any ( existential) problem.

Q: Do you mean to say that thought has no value at all?

K: It has ( its practical?) value in the reconciliation of ( material causes & ) effects, but it has no value in itself as a means to ( an integrated human ?) action. The ( loving, compassionate & intelligent?) action is not the result of thought; thought, the result (of a highly cultivated self-interest ?) can never create the 'New'; the ( perceptive action of the?) New is from moment to moment, and thought is always the old, the past, the conditioned. It has ( its own practical) value but not (in terms of inner?) freedom. Thought is (also time-) binding, for it is cherished (by any traditionalistic culture?) .

Q: What relationship is there between (the ego-centric?) consciousness and thought?

K: Are they not (essentially?) the same? Is there any difference ( psychologically speaking ?) between ( our self-centred ?) thinking and being ( self-) conscious? When one is (becoming ) conscious of that chair, it is a (sensory) response to a stimulus; and is not thought also the response of ( all our past?) memory to a challenge? It is ( the personal recording of ) this response that we call 'experience' and associated with the naming of it - this total process, at different levels, is ( generating the 'known' space of the everyday ) consciousness, is it not?

( All our accumulated ?) experience is the ( processed?) outcome of ( direct) experiencing. The outcome is given a name; the 'naming' itself is one of the many conclusions which constitute (our personal & collective?) memory. This concluding process is (sustaining our ) self-consciousness. The 'self' is (the identitary part of our ?) memory, the result of our many ( personal & collective) 'conclusions'; and the everyday thinking is always (concerned with ) the super?cial ; ( the temporal ?) consciousness is ( generated by ) the recording of the super?cial. This super?cial ( consciousness does also ?) separate itself as the 'outer' and the 'inner' , but this separation does not make thought any the less a super?cial (response) .

Q: But is there not something ( within the human Consciousness?) which is beyond thought, beyond time, something that is not created by the ( time-bound) mind?

K: Either you have read about that ( timeless?) state, or there is the ( actual) experiencing of it. The ( direct) experiencing of it cannot be ( told or ) 'thought about' - and the very repetition of the ( sacred?) words prevents the direct state of experiencing. That state of 'pure experiencing' cannot be as long as there is ( the verbal interference of?) thought.

Q: Then how is ( this interference of?) thought to come to an end?

K: By seeing the actul truth that thought - the outcome of the known - can never be in the state of (direct) experiencing. Experiencing ( the timeless dimension of our Consciousness?) is always new; thinking is always ( the response?) of the old. See the truth of this, and ( the very perception of its?) truth brings freedom - freedom from thought, from the result, Then there is That which is beyond (the limitations of our self-centred?) consciousness,which is neither the 'sleeping' nor the 'waking' (consciousness) , that which is nameless: it 'Is'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Oct 2017 #737
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


Q: I am married and the mother of several children, but I have never felt ( the ) 'Love' (you are talking about) . I am beginning to wonder if it exists at all. We know sensations, passions, excitements and satisfying pleasures, but I wonder if we know this 'Love'. We often say that 'we love', but there is always a ( sense of inner) withholding. Physically the 'giving' is a gift of the senses, but that which alone can give is left unawakened, far away. We meet and get lost in the smoke, but that is not the ?ame. Why is it that we have not got the ?ame? Why is the ?ame not burning without smoke?

K : Is 'Love' the unattainable (spiritual) ideal which becomes attainable only if the conditions are ful?lled? Has one the time to ful?l all the (prescribed?) conditions? We talk about beauty, write about it, paint it, preach it, but (inwardly) we are not beautiful, nor do we know Love. To be inwardly open and vulnerable is to be sensitive; the vulnerable ( mind) is free from ( the worries of?) tomorrow and open to the unknown. That ( mind & heart?) which is open and vulnerable is beautiful; the ( self-) enclosed is ( perceptively?) dull and insensitive. Dullness, like cleverness, is a ( subliminal?) form of self-protection. We open this door, but keep that one closed, for we want the fresh breeze only through a particular opening. We never go outside or open all the doors and windows at the same time.

The sensitivity (of one's total being ?) is not a thing you get (progressively) in time. The dull can never become the sensitive; the dull is always the dull. Stupidity can never become intelligent. The ( mechanistic?) attempt to become intelligent is stupid. That is one of our dif?culties, is it not? We are always trying to become something - and ( the psychologically protective shield of ) dullness remains.

Q: Then what is one to do?

K: Do nothing but be ( contemplatively aware of?) what you are - insensitive. To do ( something regarding this self-created condition ?) is to avoid ( facing the ) 'what is', and the avoidance of ( seeing) 'what is' is the grossest form of ( perceptive?) stupidity. Whatever it does, the insensitive (mind & heart?) cannot become the sensitive; all it can do is to become ( contemplatively ?) aware of what it is and let the story of what it is unfold. Do not interfere with your insensitivity : listen (to it) , and it will tell you its story; but listen without interruption or interpretation right to the end of the story. Then only will there be ( the totally perceptive?) action.

The doing is not important, but the listening is.
To give, there must be the inexhaustible. The withholding that gives is the fear of ending, and only in ending is there the inexhaustible. Giving is not ending. Giving is from the much or the little; and the much or the little is the limited, the smoke, the giving and taking. The smoke is desire as jealousy, anger, disappointment; the smoke is the fear of time; the smoke is memory, experience. There is no giving, but only extending the smoke. Withholding is inevitable, for there is nothing to give. Sharing is not giving; the (self-) consciousness of ( the one who is) sharing or giving puts an end to communion. The smoke is not the ?ame but we mistake it for the ?ame. Be aware of the smoke of that which is, without blowing away the smoke to see the ?ame.

Q: Is it possible to have that ?ame ( of Intelligent & Compassionate Love?) , or is it only for the few?

K: Whether it is for the few or for the many is not the point, is it? If we pursue that path, it can only lead to ( the continuity of our own ) ignorance and illusion.
Our ( experiential) concern is with ( the awakening ?) of that ?ame without smoke? Find out; ( take the time to mindfully ?) observe the smoke silently and patiently. 'You' cannot dispel the smoke, for 'you' are the (producer of the?) smoke. As the smoke goes (away) , the ?ame will come. This '?ame' is inexhaustible. When the 'heart' is empty of the things of the mind, and the mind is empty of ( the things of?) thought, then is there Love. That ( quality of mind & heart) which is ( open & ) empty is inexhaustible.

( In a nutshell:) The battle is not between the ?ame and the smoke, but between the different ( mental) responses within the smoke(-d mind?) . The ?ame (of Universal Love) and the smoke ( of the particular mind & heart ) can never be in con?ict with each other - how can there be a (mutual) relationship between them? The one 'is' (present ?) when the other 'is not' (around?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Oct 2017 #738
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


IT WAS A narrow street, fairly crowded, but without too much traf?c. When a bus or a car passed, one had to go to the very edge, almost into the gutter. There were a few very small shops, and a small temple without doors. This temple was exceptionally clean, and the local people were there, though not in large numbers. At the side of one of the shops a boy was sitting on the ground making garlands and small bouquets of ?owers; he must have been twelve or fourteen. The thread was in a small jar of water, and in front of him, spread in little heaps on a damp cloth, were jasmine, a few roses, marigold and other ?owers. With the string in one hand he would pick up with the other an assortment of ?owers, and with a quick, deft twist of the string they would be tied and a bouquet would be made. He was paying hardly any attention to what his hands were doing; his eyes would wander over to the passing people, smile in recognition of someone, come back to his hands, and wander off again. presently he was joined by another boy, and they began talking and laughing, but his hands never left off their task. By now there was quite a pile of tied ?owers, but it was a little too early to sell them. The boy stopped, got up and went off, but soon returned with another boy smaller than himself, perhaps his brother. Then he resumed his pleasant work with the same ease and rapidity. Now people were coming to buy, one by one or in groups. They must have been his regular customers, for there were smiles, and a few words were exchanged. From then on he never moved from his place for over an hour. There was the fragrance of many ?owers, and we smiled at each other.

How we are bound to the past! But we are not (just) bound to the past: we are the ( thought-time movement of the) past. And what a complicated thing this ( constantly active memory of the past is ? ) past is, layer upon layer of undigested (personal & collective) memories, both cherished and sorrowful. It pursues us day and night, but occasionally there is a ( perceptive ?) breakthrough, revealing a clear light. The 'past' is (acting subliminally?) like a shadow, making all things look dull and weary; in that shadow, the ( quality of living in the ) present loses its clarity, its freshness, and our ( psychological expectations for) tomorrow are the continuation of the shadow. The past, the present and the future are tied together by the long string of memory; the whole bundle ('continuity package' ?) is ( a process of) memory, with little fragrance. Thought moves through the 'present' to the 'future' and back again (into the past?) ; like a restless animal tied to an (invisible?) 'post', it moves within its own radius (field of the known ?) , narrow or wide, but it is never free of its own ( temporal) shadow. This movement is the 'occupation' of the mind with the past, the present and the future. The ( personal) mind is (identifying itself with?) this occupation. If the mind is not occupied, it ceases to exist; its very occupation 'is' its existence. The constant occupation with ( processing?) insult and ?attery, with God and drink, with virtue and passion, with work and self-expression, with storing up and giving, is all the same; it is still ( a state of inner) occupation, worry, restlessness.

To be ( constantly) occupied with something or other, with furniture or God, is a ( resulting in a mental ?) state of pettiness, shallowness. ( This constant ) occupation gives to the mind a feeling of ( rewarding) activity, of being 'alive'. That is why the mind stores up ( its past experiences) to sustain itself with (lucrative or meaningful?) occupations. The (ego-centric) mind must be busy with something and the better occupations have social signi?cance. To be occupied with something is the nature of the mind, and its (temporal) activity springs from this. To be occupied with God, with the State, with knowledge, is the ( self-sustaining) activity of a petty mind. Occupation with something implies ( some personal) limitation, and the 'God' of the ( ego-centric) mind is a petty god. Without such occupations , the ( self-conscious) mind is not (feeling alive) ; and the ( subliminal) fear of 'not being' makes the mind restless and active. This restless activity has the appearances of ( a significant & productive) life, but it leads always to ( a form of inner?) 'death'.

(More often than not?) our dreams are another occupation of the mind, the continuation of the (self-) conscious state, the extension of what is not active during the waking hours. The activity of both the 'upper' and the 'deeper' mind is occupational. Such a mind can never be aware of ( the inner benefits of?) ending (its attachments?) , but only of a (positive?) result, its search for results is ever continuous. This ( self sustained) occupations of the mind have no ending; but only to that which 'ends' can there be the new, only to that which 'dies' can there be life.

The 'death' ( psychological ending?) of the (state of self-) occupation of the mind, is the beginning of silence, of total silence. There is no ( 2-way?) relationship between this imponderable silence and the activity of the mind. The ( self- occupied?) mind cannot commune with silence; it can have contact only with its own self-projected state which it calls 'silence'. But this silence is not Silence, it is merely another form of ( dis-) occupation. There is Silence only with the 'death' ( the coming to an end?) of the mind’s occupation with silence.

The ( inner peace of this total) Silence is beyond the dream (state) , beyond the ( un-conscious) occupation of the deeper mind. The ( content of the?) deeper mind is (a karmic?) a residue, the residue of the past, open or hidden. This residual past cannot experience (the depths of total) silence; it can dream about it, as it often does, but the dream is not the 'real' (thing ?) - (both) the dream and the dreamer are the occupation of the mind.
The mind (& heart?) is a total process, and not an exclusive part. The total process of ( our temporal) activity, residual and acquiring, cannot commune with ( the Source of of ) that Silence which is inexhaustible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Oct 2017 #739
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


HE WAS A scholar, well versed in the ancient literature, and made a practice of quoting from the ancients to top off his own thoughts. One wondered if he really had any thoughts independent of the books. Of course, thought (thinking within the field of the known ?) is the verbalization of ( all our cultural ) in?uences. To 'think' ( within the known?) is to be dependent (of your cultural background) ; thought can never be free.

But he was concerned with (the accumulative kind of ) learning; he was burdened with knowledge and carried it highly. He began right away talking in Sanskrit, and was shocked to ?nd that Sanskrit was not at all understood. He could hardly believe it.

Q: What you say at the various meetings shows that you have either read extensively in Sanskrit, or have studied the translations of some of the great teachers. ( When he found it was not so, and that there had not been any (consistent reading of any ?) philosophical or psychological books, he was openly incredulous.

K: It is odd what importance we give to the printed word, to so-called 'sacred' books. The scholars are (like programmed ) gramophones; they go on repeating, however often the records (or digital tracks?) may be changed. They are concerned with ( gathering second hand) knowledge, and not with (directly) experiencing ( the truth of the matter) . Knowledge is a (sublimial?) impediment to experiencing. But knowledge is (also) a safe ( psychological) haven, and as the ignorant ( masses?) are impressed by ( any nice sounding and /or well structured ?) knowledge, the ( knowledgeable) 'knower' is (instinctively?) respected and honoured. ( As for the knower himself, his ?) knowledge is an addiction, as drink; but knowledge does not bring (the wisdom resulting from self-) understanding. Knowledge can be taught, but not wisdom; there must be a freedom from knowledge for the coming of wisdom.

Knowledge is not the ( right) coin for the purchase of wisdom; but the man who has entered the ( safe) refuge of knowledge does not venture out, for the ( mental stimulation of?) words feed his thought and he is grati?ed with thinking.

Thinking is an impediment to ( the direct) experiencing; and there is no wisdom without experiencing.
A (constantly) occupied mind is not free, spontaneous, and only in spontaneity can there be ( self-) discovery. An occupied mind is self-enclosing, not vulnerable, and therein lies its security. Thought, by its very nature, is self-isolating; it cannot be made vulnerable. Thought cannot be spontaneous, it can never be free. Thought is the ( temporal continuity?) of the past, but that which continues cannot be free (of the limitations of time?) . There is ( a timeless inner ?) freedom only in ending.

An occupied mind creates what it is working on. It can turn out the bullock cart into (a real) jet plane. ( But inwardly?) we can think we are ( brilliat or?) stupid, and we are ( brilliant or?) stupid. We can think 'we are God', and we are ( mentally impersonating?) our own conception: ”I am That.”

Q: But surely it is better to be occupied with the things of God than with the things of the world, is it not?

What we think, (is what) we are; but (inwardly) the understanding of the process of thought is (prioritarily) important, and not 'what' we think about. Whether we think about ( reaching) God, or about ( having a cool ?) drink, is not ( spiritually?) important; to be occupied with one’s own projections, at whatever level, is to worship 'oneself'. The Self with a capital ”S” is still a projection of ( our self-centred) thought. Whatever thought is occupied with, that it is; but... what it is, is nothing else but ( the virtual reality of) thought. So it is important to (spend some quality time and ) understand the (inner workings of the ) thought process.

Thought is ( a verbal or emotional) response to a challenge, is it not? Without challenge, there is no thought. The process of challenge and response is ( called having an ) experience; and (our past) experience verbalized is thought. Experience is not only of the past, but also of the past in conjunction with the present; it is the conscious as well as the hidden. This residue of experience is memory, in?uence; and the response of memory, of the past is thought.

Q: But is that all there is to thought? Are there not greater depths to thought than the mere ( opportunistic) responses of ( our past) memory?

K: ( The ego-centric) thought can and does place itself at different levels, the stupid and the profound, the noble and the base; but it is still thought, is it not? The God of thought is still of the mind, of the word. The thought of God is not God, it is merely the response of memory. Memory is long-lasting, and so may appear to be deep; but by its very structure it can never be deep. Memory may be concealed, not in immediate view, but that does not make it profound. Thought can never be profound, or anything more than what it is. Thought can give to itself greater value, but it remains thought. When the mind is occupied with its own self-projections, it has not gone beyond thought, it has only assumed a new role, a new pose; under the cloak it is still ( created & controlled by) thought.

Q: But how can one go beyond ( the limitations of) thought?

K: One cannot go beyond thought, for the ”one,” the maker of ( the transcendental) efforts, is the result of thought.
However, in exposing & uncovering the thought process, which is self-knowledge, (seeing ) the truth about 'what is' puts an end to the thought process. The 'truth of what is' is not to be found in any( scholarly ?) book, ancient or modern. What is found are words, but not ( the living dimension of?) truth.

Q: Then how is one to ?nd Truth?

K: One cannot ( endeavour to ) ?nd it. The very effort to ?nd truth brings about a self-projected end; but that end is not ( the living spirit of) truth. Only when ( the self-created continuity of) thought ends is there ( a glimpse of?) truth. There is no ending of thought through compulsion, through discipline, through any form of resistance. Listening to the story of 'what is' brings its own liberation. It is truth that liberates, not the effort to be free.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #740
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline

( Still unzipping the Commentaries on Living)


It was a pleasant ( small K discussion ) group; most of them were eager (to listen & learn?) but there were a few who listened in order to refute. Listening is an art not easily come by, but in it there is ( a vast potential for?) beauty and great understanding. We ( usually) listen (from the background?) of various depths of our being, but this ( fragmentary?) listening is always with a preconception or from a particular point of view. But to listen simply there must be an inward quietness, and (a few basic degrees of?) freedom from the strain of acquiring ( higher knowledge) , a relaxed attention. This alert (inwardly integrated?) yet passive state is able to 'hear' beyond the mental conclusions. Those who (have) love (in their hearts) may listen; but it is extremely rare to ?nd ( the perfect ?) listener. Most of us are after results, achieving goals, we are forever overcoming and conquering, and so there is no listening. It is only in listening that one hears the ( true ?) song of the words.

Q: Is it possible to be free of all desire? Without desire, is there life? Is not desire life itself? To seek to be free of desire is to invite death, is it not?

K: What is desire? Desire arises in our relationship (with people, objects & ideas?) . Without ( mental or sensory) contact, there is no desire. Contact may be at any level, but without it there is no sensation, no response, no desire. We know the process of desire, the way it comes into being: perception, contact, sensation, desire. But when are we aware of desire? Only when there is the disturbance of pleasure or of pain. It is when there is an awareness of con?ict, of disturbance, that there is the cognizance of desire. Desire is the inadequate response to challenge. The perception of a beautiful (motor) car gives rise to the disturbance of pleasure. This disturbance is the consciousness of desire; The focusing of disturbance, caused by pain or by pleasure, is or self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is ( undissociated from ) desire. We are self- conscious when there is the disturbance of inadequate response to challenge. This (subliminal) con?ict is ( generating the?) self-consciousness. Can there be freedom from this disturbance, from the con?ict of desire?

Q: So, do you actually refer to the freedom from the con?ict of desire, or from desire itself?

K: Are 'con?ict' and 'desire' two separate states? If there were no ( conflicting?) disturbances of pleasure or pain, of wanting, seeking, fulfilling, either negatively or positively, would there be desire? Is it that you want to get rid of the con?icting elements of desire, and keep the pleasurable element? Or do you think pleasure does not disturb?

Q: Pleasure is not disturbing.

K: Is that true? Have you never noticed the ( subliminal?) pain ( involved in?) pleasure? Is not the craving for pleasure ever on the increase, ever demanding more and more? Is not the craving for more as disturbing as the urgency of avoidance? Both bring about conflict. We want to keep the pleasurable desire, and avoid the painful; but if we look closely, both are disturbing. But do you want to be free from disturbance?

Q: If we have no desire we will die; if we have no con?ict we will go to sleep.

K: Are you speaking from experience, or have you merely an idea about it? We are imagining what it would be like to have no con?ict and so are preventing the experiencing of whatever that state is in which all con?ict has ceased. Our problem is, what causes con?ict? Can we not see a beautiful or an ugly thing without con?ict coming into being? Can we not observe, listen without ( the interference of the?) self-consciousness? Can we not live without ( self-created?) disturbances? Surely, we must understand the disturbance, and not seek a way of overcoming or exalting desire. ( One's inner ?) conflicts must be understood, not ennobled or suppressed.
What causes con?ict? Conflict arises when the response is not adequate to the challenge; and this conflict is the focusing of consciousness as the self. The self- consciousness, the focusing of the self through conflict, is the total process of ( personal) experience, of naming, of recording.

Q: In this process, what is it that gives rise to con?ict? Can we be free from con?ict? And what is beyond (this state of inner ) conflict?

K : It is ( the mental process of recognition and ? ) naming that gives rise to ( the inner) conflict, is it not? You approach the challenge, at whatever level, with a record, with an idea, with a conclusion, with prejudice; that is, you name the experience. The responses of the past cannot understand the living, the new, the challenge; the responses of the past are inadequate, and from this arises con?ict, which is ( manifested as ) self-consciousness. Conflict ceases when there is no process of ( recognising and) naming.

( For homework:) You can watch in yourself how the ( process of recognition & ) naming is almost simultaneous with the (direct ) response. The ( silent?) interval between ( the total sensory?) response and naming is 'experiencing'. ( This state of direct ?) experiencing, in which there is neither the 'experiencer' nor the ( thing) 'experienced', is beyond ( the duality of the inner ? ) con?ict. This conflict (of duality) is ( subliminally expressing itself in ?) the focusing of one's self-consciousness , but only with the cessation of this (inner) conflict there is the ending of all thought and the beginning of the inexhaustible.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 08 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #741
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


The little puppies were plump and clean, and were playing in the warm sand. There were six of them, all white and light brown. Their mother was lying a little away from them in the shade. She was thin and worn out, and so mangy that she had hardly a hair on her. There were several wounds on her body, but she wagged her tail and was so proud of those round puppies. She probably would not survive for more than a month or so. She was one of those dogs that prowl about, picking up what they can from the ?lthy streets or around a poor village, always hungry and always on the run. Human beings threw stones at her, chased her from their door, and they were to be avoided. But here in the shade the memories of yesterday were distant, and she was exhausted; Besides, the puppies were being petted and talked to. It was late afternoon; the breeze from across the wide river was fresh and cooling, and for the moment there was contentment. Where she would get her next meal was another matter, but why struggle now ?

Past the village was the house in which people were waiting a to talk over. They were of every type: the thoughtful and the eager, the lazy and the argumentative, the quick-witted and those who lived according to de?nitions and conclusions. The thoughtful were patient, and the quick-witted were sharp with those who dragged; but the slow had to come with the fast. Understanding comes in ?ashes, and there must be intervals of silence for the ?ashes to take place; but the quick are too impatient to allow space for these ?ashes. Understanding is not verbal, nor is there such a thing as intellectual understanding. Intellectual understanding is only on the verbal level, and so no understanding at all. Understanding does not come as a result of thought, for thought after all is verbal. There is no thought without memory, and memory is the word, the symbol, the process of image-making. At this level there is no understanding. Understanding comes in the space between two words, in that interval before the word shapes thought. (The insightful?) understanding is neither for the quickwitted nor for the slow, but for those who are aware of this measureless (inner) space.

Q : We see the rapid disintegration of human relationship in the world, but more so in ourselves. How can this falling apart be stopped? How can we integrate?

K: There is ( an inner) integration if we can be watchful of the ways of disintegration. Integration is the coming together of the whole (being?) . Before that can be, we must ?nd out what we mean by disintegration, must we not? Is con?ict an indication of disintegration? We are not seeking a de?nition, but the signi?cance behind that word.

Q: Is not struggle inevitable? All existence is struggle; without struggle there would be decay. If I did not struggle towards a goal I would degenerate. To struggle if as essential as breathing.

K: (Such) a categorical statement stops all inquiry. We are trying to ?nd out what are the factors of disintegration, and perhaps con?ict, struggle, is one of them.

Q: What do we mean by con?ict, struggle?

K: ( An inner) struggle is not only at one level of existence, but at all levels. The very process of (self-) becoming is involving struggle, con?ict, is it not?

Q: Is it not a necessity? Is there not ( a subliminal ) fear ( of not being?) behind this effort?

K: Living now and becoming (better tomorrow?) are two different states, are they not? Existence may entail effort; but we are considering the process of becoming, the psychological urge to be better, to become something, the struggle to change 'what is' into its opposite. This psychological becoming may be the factor that makes everyday living ( feel so) painful, competitive, a vast con?ict.
So, what do we mean by (this psychological) becoming? It is the struggle to change 'what is' into something else : I am this, and I want to become that, and this becoming is a series of con?icts. When I have become that, there is still another that, and so on endlessly. This becoming is without end, and so ( our inner) con?ict is without end. Now, why do I want to become something other than what I am?

Q: Because of our cultural conditioning, because of social in?uences, because of our ideals. We cannot help it, it is our nature.

K: It is a sluggish mind that makes this assertion and just puts up with its suffering, which is ( a psychological form of?) stupidity. Why are we so conditioned? Is it the ideal that makes us struggle to become 'that', when we are 'this'? Would we degenerate (inwardly) if we did not struggle towards an end?

Q: Of course. We would stagnate, go from bad to worse. « It is easy to fall into hell but dif?cult to climb to heaven ».

K: You say that the (spiritual) ideal is giving us the impetus to struggle (to ascend?) , so let us ?nd out how the ideal comes into being. Is not the ideal a projection of the mind?

Q: I want to be like you. Is that a projection?

K: Of course it is. The mind has a ( self-created image?) , perhaps pleasurable, and it wants to become like that ideal, which is a projection of your desire. You are this, which you do not like, and you want to become that, which you like. The ideal is a self-projection; the opposite is an extension of what is; it is not the opposite at all, but a continuity of what is, perhaps somewhat modi?ed. The projection is self-willed, and ( our existential) con?ict is the struggle towards ( achieving this) the projection - and this struggle is called 'becoming'. You are struggling to become something, but that something is your own projection. See how the mind has played a trick upon itself ? You are pursuing your own projection, your own shadow. This struggle is considered spiritual, evolutionary, and so on; but it is wholly within the cage of the ( all knowing?) mind and only leads to illusion.

Now, when you are ( becoming?) aware of this ( mental) trick which you have played upon yourself, then 'the false as the false' is seen. The ( subliminal?) struggle towards achieving ( a self-projected?) illusion is the disintegrating factor. All con?ict, all (self-) becoming is disintegration. When there is an awareness of this trick that the mind has played upon itself, then there is only 'what is'. When the mind is stripped of all ( its illusions of ) becoming, of all ideals, of all comparison and condemnation, when its own structure has collapsed, then the 'what is' has undergone complete (qualitative?) transformation. As long as there is the naming of what is there is ( a binding) relationship between the (self-centred?) mind and 'what is'; but when this naming process - which is ( the active response of ) memory, the very structure of the mind - is not, then the 'what is' is not ( the same as before ?) . In this (qualitative ) transformation alone is there ( an inner) integration.
Such integration is not ( a result of ) the action of will, it is not the process of becoming integrated. When (the process of inner) disintegration is not (going on anymore) , when there is no (psychological) con?ict, no (subliminal?) struggle to become (other than one is?) , only then is there the 'being whole', the complete.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #742
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


WE WERE STEADILY climbing, without any perceptible movement. Below us was a vast sea of clouds, white and dazzling, wave upon wave as far as the eye could see. They looked so astonishingly solid and inviting. Occasionally, as we climbed higher in a wide circle there were breaks in this brilliant foam, and far below was the green earth. Above us was the clear blue sky of winter, soft and immeasurable. A massive range of snowcovered mountains stretched from north to south, sparkling in the brilliant sun. These mountains reached an elevation of over fourteen thousand feet, but we had risen above them and were still climbing. They were a familiar range of peaks, and they looked so near and serene. The higher peaks lay to the north, and we shot off to the south, having reached the required altitude of twenty thousand feet.

The passenger in the next seat was very talkative. He was unfamiliar with those mountains, and had dozed as we climbed; but now he was awake and eager for a talk. It appeared that he was going out on some business for the ?rst time; he seemed to have many interests, and spoke with considerable information about them. The sea was now below us, dark and distant, and a few ships were dotted here and there. There was not a tremor of the wings, and we passed one lighted town after another along the coast. He was saying how dif?cult it was not to have fear, not particularly of a crash, but of all the accidents of life. He was married and had children, and there was always ( a subliminal sense of ?) fear - not of the future alone, but of everything in general. It was a fear that had no particular object, and though he was (professionally) successful, this fear made his life weary and painful. He had always been rather apprehensive, but now it had become extremely persistent and his dreams were of a frightening nature. His wife knew of his fear, but she was not aware of its seriousness.

K: Fear can exist only in relation to something. Do you know speci?cally of what you are afraid?

Q: I have never been able to lay my ?nger on it, and my dreams too are very vague; but threading through them all there is fear. I have talked to friends and doctors about it, but they have either laughed it off or otherwise not been of much help. It has always eluded me, and I want to be free of the beastly thing.

K: Do you really want to be free (of it) , or is that just a phrase?

Q: I may sound casual, but I would give a great deal to be rid of this fear. I am not a particularly religious person, but strangely enough I have prayed to have it taken away from me. When I am interested in my work, or in a game, it is often absent; but like some ( inner) monster, ever ( lurking & ) waiting, and soon we are companions again.

K: Have you that fear now? Are you aware now that it is somewhere about? Is the fear conscious or hidden ?

Q: I can sense it, but I do not know whether it is conscious or unconscious.

K: Do you sense it as something 'far away' or 'near' - as a feeling?

Q: When I am aware of it, it seems to be quite close. But what has that question got to do with it?

K: Fear can come into being only ( when thinking ?) in relation to something. That something may be your family, your work, your preoccupation with the future, with death. Are you afraid of death?

Q: Not particularly, though I would like to have a quick death and not a long-drawn-out one. I don’t think it is my family that I have this anxiety about, nor is it my job.

K: Then it must be something still deeper than the ( attachments to your?) super?cial relationships that is causing this fear. One may be able to point out what it is, but if you can discover it for yourself it will have far greater signi?cance. Why are you not afraid of ( losing) the super?cial relationships?

Q: My wife and I love each other; she wouldn’t think of looking at another man, and I am not attracted to other women. We ?nd completeness in each other. The ( future of our?) children is (a cause for) ananxiety, but... they will have to do the best they can. My job is fairly secure, but there is the natural fear of anything happening to my wife.

K: So you are sure of ( the steady course of ) your deeper relationship. Why are you so certain?

Q: I don’t know, but one has to take some things for granted, hasn’t one?

K: That’s not the point. Shall we go into it? What makes you so sure of your intimate relationship? When you say that you and your wife ?nd completeness in each other, what do you mean?

Q: We ?nd happiness in each other: companionship, understanding, and so on. In the deeper sense, we rely on each other. It would be a tremendous blow if anything happened to either of us. We are in that sense ( psychologically ) dependent.

K : You mean that without her you would feel utterly alone, is that it? She would feel the same; so you are mutually dependent.

Q: Yes, but what is wrong with that?

K: Are you sure you want to go into all this? All right, so you depend on her for your happiness, and this (relation of mutual) dependence is called love. ( So, here's the cause of your fear:) you are afraid to be (all) alone. She is always there to cover up the fact of your (deeper existential?) loneliness, as you cover up hers; but the fact is still there : we use each other to cover up this sense of inner loneliness; we run away from it in so many ways, in so many different forms of relationship, and each such relationship becomes a (form of psychological ) dependence. I listen to the radio because music makes me happy, it takes me away from (getting bored with?) myself; books and knowledge are also a very convenient escape from myself. And on all these things we depend.

Q: But then, why should I not 'escape' ? I have nothing to be proud of, and by being identi?ed with my wife, who is much better than I am, I get away from my (boring) self.

K: Of course, the vast majority ( are very good in) escaping from themselves. But by escaping from yourself, you become (psychologically?) dependent. This dependence grows stronger, the escapes become more essential, in proportion to the fear of (facing?) what is. The wife, the book, the radio (and the internet?) , become extraordinarily important; of the greatest value. I use my wife as a means of running away from (the sad inner reality of?) myself and she is also using me- this ( 2-way ) usage is called 'love'. You do not like what you are, and so you run away from yourself, from 'what is'.

Q: I see something in that, it makes sense. But why does one run away? What is one escaping from?

K: From your own loneliness, your own (inner) emptiness, from what you 'are'. If you run away without seeing ( the sad reality of ?) 'what is', you obviously cannot understand (the whole truth about?) it ; so ?rst you have to stop 'running away' and only then you can ( afford the quality time to?) watch yourself as you are. But you cannot observe 'what is' if you ( have reactions of ) like or dislike (for) it - ( like when ) you call it 'loneliness' and run away from it; this very 'running away' from ( facing) 'what is' is (only increasing your existential?) fear.
You are afraid of this loneliness, of this emptiness, and ( your psychological) dependence is the covering of it. So ( the lurking sense of existential ?) fear is constant as long as you are running away from what is.
To completely 'identify' yourself with (the loved) person or a ( beloved?) ideal, is no guarantee of ( fool proof ?) escape, for this ( bottomless ?) fear is always (lurking?) in the background. It comes (surreptitiously in your) dreams, when there is a break ( a time-out ?) in identi?cation; and there is always such a ( temporal) break , unless one is ( highly neurotic & ) unbalanced.

Q: Then my fear arises from my own inner insuf?ciency ? I can see that, but what am I to do about it?

K: 'You' ( the 'thinker' entity?) cannot do anything ( positively?) about it. That is the most essential thing to realize (that any such action is still an attempt to escape) . Then you will ( eventually get to ?) see that 'you' are not separate from that ( sense of existential) 'hollowness'. You 'are' (both the creator & the sufferer of?) that insuf?ciency. ( In a nutshell:) The 'observer' (realises that he ) 'is' (fully responsible for?) the observed 'emptiness'.
Then if you ( meditatively?) proceed further, there is no point in calling it 'loneliness'; the terming of it has ceased. If you proceed still further (in this inner integration?) , which is rather arduous, the thing ( previously) known as 'loneliness' is not; there is a complete cessation of (the sense of inner insufficiency aka : ?) loneliness, emptiness, or of the ( division of the?) thinker vs thought. This ( deep sense of inner integration?) alone puts an end to fear.

Q: Is this ( having anything to do with?) 'love'?

K: You do not think about (the subliminal presence of?) Love when it is there; you think about it only when it is absent, when there is distance between you and the object of your love. When there is a direct communion (with All That Is ?) , there is no thought, no image, no ( need for the ) revival of memory; it is when the communion breaks, at any level, that the process of thought, of 'image making', begins.
Love is not (the creation ) of the (personal ? ) mind. This mind makes the 'smoke (- trail'?) of envy, of sorrow and of worrying; and this effectively smothers the ( original) ?ame.
When this 'smoke' is not, the ?ame is. The two cannot exist together; the thought that they exist together is merely a wish(ful thinking), a ( convenient ) projection of thought, and ( the self-centred?) thought is not ( engendering ) love.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 #743
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


The man considered himself vastly learned, and to him knowledge was the very essence of life. His knowledge was not about one or two things, but covered a great many phases of life; he could talk with assurance about the atom and Communism, about astronomy and the yearly ?ow of water in the river, about diet and overpopulation. He was strangely proud of his knowledge and, like a clever showman, he brought it to impress; it made the others silent and respectful. How frightened we are of knowledge, what awesome respect we show to the knower! His English was sometimes rather dif?cult to understand. He had never been outside of his own country, but he had books from other countries. He was addicted to knowledge as another might be to drink or to some other appetite.

Q: What is wisdom, if not ( a form of superior ) knowledge? Why do you say that one must suppress all knowledge? Is not knowledge essential? Why are you so insistent in saying that knowledge is an impediment to ( a holistic?) understanding?

K: Knowledge is conditioning. Knowledge does not give freedom. One may know how to build an airplane and ?y to the other end of the world in a few hours, but this is not freedom. Knowledge is not the ( inwardly) creative factor, for knowledge is ( based on ) continuous (accumulation ) , and that which has continuity can never lead to the ( unfolding of the?) implicit, the imponderable, the unknown. ( An insightful inner?) understanding does not come with knowledge ; it is in the (timeless?) interval between words, between thoughts, that comes understanding; ( the nature of?) this interval is a silence unbroken by knowledge, it is the open, the imponderable, the implicit.

Q: Without knowledge, how can there be any authentic discovery?

K: The ( inward?) discovery (of the New?) does not take place when the mind is ( being constantly busy?) with ( its activities of self-centred ?) knowledge; only when this is absent there is stillness and free inner space, and in this state understanding or (self-) discovery comes into being.

Knowledge at one (practical ) level, though conditioning, is necessary: language, technique, and so on. This ( form of) conditioning is essential for outer living; but when this conditioning is used 'psychologically', when ( inwardly one is living exclusively in the field of the known?) then it will inevitably breed con?icts and confusion.
Besides, what do you actually know?

Q: I know ( a lot of stuff?) about a great many things.

K: You mean you have lots of information, data about many things. You have gathered certain facts; but then what? Does information about the disaster of war prevent wars? You have, I am sure, plenty of data about the effects of anger and violence within oneself and in society; but has this information put an end to hate and antagonism?

Q: A wide spread knowledge about the effects of war may not put an immediate end to wars, but it will eventually bring about peace. People must be educated, they must be shown the effects of war, of con?ict.

K: Because you have studied the long history of human inequality, are you free from giving importance to yourself? Because you have extensive knowledge of the world’s miseries and disasters, do you (have more ?) love? Besides, what is it that we know, of what have we knowledge about ?

Q: Knowledge is experience accumulated through the ages. In one form it is ( stored in our cultural) tradition, and in another it is instinctive , both conscious and unconscious. Whether handed down or acquired these memories, both racial and individual, are essential, because they help and protect man. Would you also 'do away' (or discard) this (experiential?) knowledge?

K: Action shaped and guided by fear is no action at all. Action which is the outcome of racial prejudices, fears, hopes, illusions, is conditioned; and all conditioning, as we said, only breeds further con?ict and sorrow. You are conditioned as a brahmin in accordance with a tradition which

has been going on for centuries; and you respond to stimuli, to social changes and conflicts, as a Brahmin. You respond according to your conditioning, according to your past experiences, knowledge, so new experience only conditions further. Experience according to a belief, according toanideology, is merely the continuation of that belief, the perpetuation of an ( ancient) idea. Such experience only strengthens belief. Idea separates, and your experience according to an idea, a pattern, makes you more separative. Experience as knowledge, as a psychological accumulation, only conditions, and experience is then another way of self-aggrandizement Knowledge as experience at the psychological level is a hindrance to understanding.

Q: Do we experience everything only according to our beliefs?

K: That is ( generally?) obvious, is it not? You are conditioned by a particular society to believe in God, in social divisions; and you will experience (life) according to your ( organised system of?) beliefs, but while such experience is useful at certain levels; it is also strengthening the 'me', the 'ego', only leads to illusion and sorrow. And can there be ( any free?) experiencing if we ( assume we?) know? Does not ( our thinking within the field of?) the known prevent ( the direct?) experiencing? You may know the ( scientific) name of that flower, but do you thereby experience ( feel?) the ( beauty of the?) flower?
( The direct ) experiencing comes ?rst, but the naming only gives strength to the ( ego-centric ?) experience and prevents further experiencing. For the state of (direct) experiencing (to stay alive?) , must there not be freedom from naming, from ( mental) associations, from the process of memory?

( Inwardly speaking our ?) knowledge is super?cial, and can the super?cial lead to the deep? Can the ( knowledgeable) mind, which is the result of the past, ever go above and beyond its own (ego-centric?) projection? To discover (anything new) , it must stop projecting. Without (constantly working at?) its projections, ( the self-conscious?) mind is not. Knowledge, the past, can project (and optimise?) only that which is ( already) known. The instrument of the known can never be the discoverer. The known must cease for discovery; the (ego-centric?) 'experience' must cease for experiencing. Knowledge is a hindrance to ( self-) understanding.

Q: What are we , if we are deprived of all our knowledge, experience, (and personal?) memory? We are then 'nothing'.

K: Are you anything more than that now ? When you say, ”Without knowledge we are nothing,” you are merely making a (rhetorical ?) assertion without experiencing (the truth regarding ?) that state, are you not? When you make that statement there is a certain fear of being (inwardly) naked. Without these ( knowledge ) accretions (inwardly) you are nothing ( or 'not-a-thing' ?) - which is the truth. And why not be that? Why all these pretensions and conceits? We have clothed this (inner) 'no-thingness' with various comforting ideas; but beneath these coverings (inwardly) we are actually nothing. The direct experiencing of ( the truth of?) that (inner) 'no-thingness' is the beginning of wisdom.

How ashamed we are to say we do not know! We cover the fact of 'not knowing' with words and (outward) information. You have a lot of information, conclusions, explanations about 'yourself', but you are not aware of « that which is », of the implicit. Explanations, conclusions, called knowledge, prevent the (inner) experiencing of 'what is'. Without being innocent, how can there be wisdom? Without 'dying to the past' how can there be the renewing of innocence? This 'dying' is from moment to moment; to die is not to accumulate (psychologically?) ; the experiencer must die to the (personal memories of his?) experience. Without experience, without knowledge, the 'experiencer' is not.

( In a nutshell?) To ( think that you?) 'know' is to be (inwardly) ignorant; not to know is the beginning of (a timeless?) wisdom.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 10 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 #744
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


THERE WAS HARDLY anyone left on the long, curving beach. There was no strong breeze, but it was a heavy sea, with thunderous waves. The moon, almost full was just rising out of the blue-green water, and the 'breakers' were white against the yellow sands.

How essentially simple ( our inner?) life is, and how we complicate it! (It is becoming more & more?) complex, but this complexity must be approached simply, otherwise we shall never understand ( what lies behind ) it. We know too much, but this 'too much' is so limited. With this ( all-knowing approach we ) meet the Immense : our experience and knowledge bind us, and the waters of Life pass us by.
To be (one with) all that (is) needs ( a quality of selfless?) Love. This Love is not complex, but the ( greedy?) mind makes it so. We know the ways of desire and the will of desire, but we do not know love. Love is the ?ame without the ( personal?) smoke. We do not live with its ?ame, following swiftly wherever it may lead. We ( think that we?) know too much, which ( on the scale of the Universe?) is always little, and we make a ( temporal?) path for love. ( Thus), Love eludes us, but we (can always) have the empty frame. ( On the other hand?) those who do not know are the simple (of mind?) ; they can go far, for they have no burden of knowledge.
He was a sannyasi who had renounced the world many years ago and was now approaching the stage ( of total detachment ?) when neither this world nor the 'other world' interested him. He had practised many austerities and had (acquired an ) extraordinary control over his breathing and nervous system. This had given him a great sense of ( inner ?) 'power', though he had not sought it.

K: Is not this 'power' as detrimental to ( self-) understanding as the ( worldly ) power of ambition and vanity? Greed, like fear, breeds the power of ( generating its own course of ?) action. All such sense of power, of domination, gives strength to one's 'self-consciousness' , is not the 'self' a hindrance to ( the direct perception of?) Reality?

Q: The 'lower'( desires?) must be suppressed or made to conform to the 'higher' ones . Con?ict between the various desires of the mind and the body must be stilled; in the process of control, the 'rider' tastes ( a sense of inner) power, but this power (can be wisely) used to clear the way for the Supreme. Will power , when used for personal ends, is destructive, but when used in the right direction it is bene?cial. Without will, there can be no ( purposeful ?) action.

K: Are not all our goals the outcome of one’s own prejudices, inclinations, fears and hopes? You use will power, to make way for (reaching the?) Supreme; but the end is ( a projection of?) itself, only it is called the 'supreme'.

Q: Can ( the inner) con?ict (caused by the multiplicity of desire?) come to an end without the power of will?

K: Without understanding the ways of ( your inner) con?ict and how it comes into being, of what value is it merely to sublimate this con?ict, or ?nd a substitute for it? You may be able to suppress a ( particular) disease, but it is bound to show itself again in another form. Will itself is the outcome of ( our inner) struggle; will is a directed (focussed form of ) desire. Without comprehending the process of desire, merely to control it is to invite further burning, further pain.
Control is ( a subliminal ) evasion (from facing 'what is'?) . You may ( succeed in ) controlling a child or a ( personal) problem, but you have not thereby understood either. ( A holistic form of ?)
understanding is of far greater importance than arriving at an end.

(In a nutshell:) The ( inward) action of will(power) is destructive, for action towards ( achieving a psychological) end is self-enclosing, separating, isolating. You cannot silence the con?ict of desire, for the thinker and his thoughts are the outcome of desire; and without understanding ( the nature of) desire, which is the self(-interest?) placed at any level, high or low, the mind is ever caught in ignorance. The way to the Supreme does not lie through will, through desire. The (manifestation of the?) Supreme can come into being only when the maker of effort is not (present) . When the ( self-centred?) mind which is put together through desire comes to an end, not through effort, then in that (sense of inner peace or?) 'stillness', Reality comes into being.

Q: But is not simplicity essential for this inner stillness?

K: What do you mean by 'simplicity'? Do you mean identi?cation with ( the ideal of?) simplicity, or the 'being simple'?

Q: You cannot be simple without identifying yourself with that which is simple, externally as well as inwardly.

K: So, you are (inwardly) complex, but you become simple through identifying yourself with the ( poor) peasant or with the monk’s robe. But does this process of ( self-) becoming lead to simplicity, or merely to the ( subliminal?) identi?cation with an ideal of simplicity ? Am I simple because I ( mentally) keep on identifying myself with the pattern of simplicity?
Simplicity lies in the ( non-dualistic?) ) understanding of what is, not in trying to change 'what is' into 'simplicity'. Can you change (your) greed, whether for God, or for ( fame & ) money into 'non-greed'? What we identify ourselves with is always self-projected, whether it is the supreme, the State or the family. Identi?cation at any level is the ( self-sustaining?° process of the 'self'.

( The authentic inner ) simplicity is ( to be found in?) the ( non-dualistic?) understanding of 'what is', however complex it may appear. The 'what is' is not dif?cult to understand, but what prevents ( its global ?) understanding is the ( mental) distraction of comparison, of condemnation, of prejudice, whether negative or positive, and so on. It is these that make for ( its apparence of? ) 'complexity'. ( The direct perception of?) 'what is' is always simple but it is made complex by our ( dualistic?) approach to it; so there must be an understanding of the whole process of ( our dualistic) approach, which makes for complexity ( Eg : If you do not condemn the behaviour of a child, then he is what he is and it is possible to act (educationally?) . The (mental) action of condemnation leads to complexity; the action of what is is simplicity.

( In a nutshell:) nothing is ( more) essential for ( an authentic inner ) stillness but ( the meditative ?) 'stillness' itself; it is its own beginning and its own end. If the beginning is (an open attitude of inner peace & ?) silence, the 'end' (result) is also silence. Silence is when (the self-centred mental) noise is not. (This mental ) noise does not come to an end through the further noise of effort, of discipline, of ( self-imposed?) austerities, or (exercising one's ?) will (-power) . See the truth of this, and there is ( the right beginning of?) silence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #745
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


He was a doctor not only of medicine but also of psychology. Thin, quiet and self-contained, he had come from across the seas, and had been long enough in this country to be used to the sun and the heavy rains. He had worked, he said, as a doctor and psychologist during the war, and had helped as much as his capacity allowed, but he was dissatis?ed with what he had given. He wanted to help much more deeply; what he gave was so little, and he felt there was something missing in it all.
We sat silent for a long period while he gathered the pressures of his ( personal) distress. Silence is an odd thing. Thought does not make for silence, nor does it build it up. Silence cannot be put together, nor does it come with the action of will. Remembrance of silence is not silence. Silence was there in the room with throbbing stillness, and the talk did not disturb if. The talk had meaning in that silence, and silence was the ( living) background of the word  - in silence there is ( a non-verbal) communion.

The ( psy -)doctor was saying that he was dissatis?ed with everything: with his work, with his capacities, with all the ideals he had so carefully cultivated. He had tried the various schools of thought, and was dissatis?ed with them all. During the many months since he had arrived here, he had been to various teachers, but had come away with still greater dissatisfaction. He had tried many 'isms', including cynicism, but ( this existential?) dissatisfaction was still there.

K: Is it that ( subliminally?) you were seeking ( the perfect ?) satisfaction and have not so far found it? Is this constant desire for ( higher) satisfaction causing discontent? Searching implies ( thinking within the field of?) the known. If you were really dissatis?ed with everything (you knew ) , you would not be seeking a way out of it.

Q: I have been through all that yet I am completely dissatis?ed.

K: You may be dissatis?ed with ( the quality of your?) outward relationships, but perhaps ( inwardly ) you are seeking some (form of?) psychological attachment (or prfessional activity?) that will give full satisfaction.

Q: I have been through that too, but I am still dissatis?ed.

K: I wonder if you really are? If you were wholly discontented (of living in the field of the known?) , there would be no ( mental) movement in any particular direction, would there? If you are thoroughly dissatis?ed with being in a (prison ?) room, you do not seek a bigger ( prison) room with nicer furniture; yet this desire to ?nd a better room (with a better view ?) is what you call dissatisfaction. You are not dissatis?ed with all rooms, but only with this particular one, from which you want to escape. Your dissatisfaction arises from not having found complete satisfaction. You are really seeking ( your own ) grati?cation, so you are constantly on the move, judging, comparing, weighing, denying; and naturally you are dissatis?ed. Is this not so?

Q: It looks that way, doesn’t it?

K: So you are really not dissatis?ed ; it is simply that you have not so far been able to ?nd complete and lasting satisfaction in anything. That is what you want: a sense of complete satisfaction, of a deep inner contentment that will endure.

Q: But I want to help, and this ( gnawing) discontent prevents me from giving myself to it completely.

K: Your goal is to help and to ?nd complete grati?cation in it. You really do not want to help, but to ?nd satisfaction in helping. You look for a completely satisfying drug which for the time being you call 'helping' (people) . So, what you really want is to find a long lasting (sense of) self-grati?cation.

With most of us, our (existential) discontent is soon put to sleep, drugged, made quiet and respectable. Outwardly you may have ?nished with all isms, but psychologically, deep down, you are seeking something that you can hold on to. You say you have ?nished with all personal relationship with another. It may be that in personal relationship you have not found a lasting grati?cation, and so you are seeking relationship with an ideal, which is always self-projected. In the search for a relationship that will be completely gratifying, for a secure refuge that will weather all storms, do you not lose the very thing that brings (inner) contentment? Real contentment does not imply stagnation, reconciliation, appeasement, insensitivity. ( Such timeless ) contentment is ( to be found in ) the understanding of 'what is', and the 'what is' is never static.
With the ( non-dualistic?) understanding of 'what is' comes (an inner sense of?) inexhaustible love, tenderness, humility. Perhaps that is what you are in search of; but 'that' cannot be sought and found (in the field of the known?) . It is there when all (such) search has come to an end. Searching and watching are two ( qualitatively) different processes; one is time binding, and the other brings understanding. Search, having always an end ( or a purpose) in view, is ever time-binding; while a passive (inner) watchfulness brings understanding of ( the actual movement of) 'what is' from moment to moment. In ( directly attending the ) 'what is' from moment to moment there is ever an ending ( of the thought-time process?) ; in search there is (the subliminal) continuity (of the 'seeker' ?) .
( The ego-centric process of ?) search can never ?nd the New; only in ending is there the (birth of the?) New. This New is inexhaustible: Love alone is ever renewing .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #746
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline

( more unzipped Commentaries on Living)


The cabin was high up in the mountains, and to get there one had to cross the wide desert by car, passing through may towns, and through luxuriant orchards and rich farms that had been reclaimed from the desert by irrigation and hard work. One town was especially pleasant with green lawns and big shady trees, for nearby was a river that came down from the distant mountains into the very heart of the desert. Beyond this town, following the cascading river, the road led on towards the snowy peaks. The earth was now rocky, bare and sunburnt, but there were many trees along the river’s banks. The road curved in and out, rising higher and higher, and passing through forests of ancient pines with the scent of the sun among them. The air had become cool and fresh, and soon we arrived at the cabin.

After a couple of days, when it had got used to us, a red-and-black squirrel would come and sit on the window-sill and 'scold' us. It wanted nuts. Every visitor must have fed it; but now visitors were few, and it was eager to store up for the coming winter. It was a very active, cheerful squirrel, and it was always ready to gather what it could for the many cold and snowy months ahead. Its home was in the hollow of a tree that must have been dead for many years. It would grab a nut, race across to the huge trunk, climb up it noisily, scolding and threatening, disappear into a hole, and then come down again with such speed that one thought it would fall; but it never did. We spent a morning giving it a whole bag of nuts; it became very friendly and would come right into the room, its fur shining and its large beady eyes sparkling. Its claws were sharp, and its tail very bushy. It was a gay, responsible little animal, and it seemed to own the whole neighbourhood, for it kept off all the other squirrels.

He was a pleasant man, and eager for wisdom. He wanted to collect it as that squirrel gathered nuts. Though he was not too well-to-do, he must have travelled a good bit, for he seemed to have met many people in many countries. He had apparently read very extensively also, for he would
bring out a phrase or two from some philosopher or saint. He said he could read Greek easily and had a smattering of Sanskrit. He was getting old and was eager to gather wisdom.

K: Can one gather wisdom?

Q: Why not? It is experience that makes a man wise, and knowledge is essential for wisdom.

K: Can a man who has accumulated (lots of knowledge & experience?) be wise?

Q: Life is a process of accumulation, the gradual building up of character, a slow unfoldment. Experience, after all, is the storing up of knowledge. Knowledge is essential for all understanding.

K: Does ( self-) understanding come with knowledge, with experience? Knowledge is the residue of experience, the gathering of the past. Knowledge, and ( self-) consciousness, is always (based on?) the ( memory of the ) past; and can the ( memory of the) past ever understand ? Does not ( any insightful?) understanding come in those intervals when thought is silent? And can the ( conscious) effort to lengthen or accumulate ( more of those?) 'silent spaces' bring understanding?

Q: Without accumulation, we would not be ( what we are); there would be no continuity of thought, of action. Accumulation is ( building) character, accumulation is a virtue. If I did not know the structure of that ( engine) motor, I would be unable to understand it; if I did not know the structure of music, I would be unable to appreciate it deeply. Only the shallow 'enjoy' music. To appreciate music, you must know how it is made, put together. Knowing is ( based on) accumulation. There is no appreciation without knowing the facts. Some accumulation of some kind is necessary for understanding, which is wisdom.

K: To discover (anything new?), there must be freedom ( from the knowledge of the past?) , must there not? If you are bound, weighed down, you cannot go far. How can there be (inner) freedom if there is accumulation of any kind? The man who accumulates, whether money or knowledge, can never be free . You may be free from the acquisitiveness of ( material) things, but the greed for ( gathering 'higher') knowledge is still bondage, it holds you. If a mind that is tethered to any form of acquisition capable of wandering far and discovering?
Is virtue ( the result of ) accumulation? Can a mind that is accumulating virtues ever be virtuous? Is not ( the highest ) virtue ( to be found in?) the freedom from becoming? Character may be a bondage too. Virtue can never be a bondage, but all accumulation is.

Q: How can there be wisdom without ( gathering and processing one's ?) experiences?

K: Wisdom is one thing, and knowledge another. We have (lots of) knowledge, the accumulation of ages; and why are we not wise, happy, creative? Will knowledge make for bliss? Knowing, which is the accumulation of experience, prevents ( the direct) experiencing. The accumulation of experience is a continuous process, and each experience strengthens this ( self-sustaining?) process; each experience strengthens ( the stand-by ? ) memory, gives life to it. Without this constantly (refreshing) response of memory, ( the psychological ) memory would soon fade away. Thought is memory, the word, the accumulation of experience. This whole burden of the past is the ( self-centred ?) mind, is thought. Thought is the accumulated; and how can ( the self-centred process of?) thought ever be free to discover the new? It must end for the new to be.

Q: I can comprehend this up to a point; but without thought, how can there be understanding ?

K: Is ( the insightful?) understanding a process of the past, or is it always ( occuring ) in the ( eternal?) Present? Understanding means (integrated ) action in the present. Have you not noticed that ( such) understanding is in the instant, that it is not ( a matter of) of time? ( The flash of inner?) Understanding is always immediate, now, is it not? Do you deliberately set out to understand? Do you 'choose' to enjoy the beauty of an evening?

Q: But is not any understanding ( the result of ) a conscious effort?

K: This conscious effort, the will to understand, is the continuation of the past, perhaps modi?ed, but still of the past. ( Psychologically speaking?) when we make an effort to be or to become something, that something is the projection of ourselves. When we make a conscious effort to understand, we are hearing the ( background?) noise of our own accumulations. It is this noise that prevents ( the insightful?) understanding.

Q: Then what is wisdom?

K: Wisdom 'is' (commencing only ?) when ( the continuity of past?) knowledge ends. Knowledge has continuity (in time) but that ( mental activity?) which has continuity can never be free (to perceive?) the new. There is freedom only to that ( mind) which has an ending. Knowledge is always becoming the old (memory) . The 'old' is ever absorbing the 'new' and thereby gaining strength. The ( continuity of the?) old must cease for the new (perception?) to be.

Q: You are saying, in other words, that thought must end for wisdom to be. But how is thought to end?

K: There is no ending to ( the temporal continuity of?) thought through any kind of discipline, practice, compulsion. The thinker 'is' ( not separated from?) the thought, and he cannot operate upon himself; when he does, it is only a ( clever?) self-deception. He 'is' thought, he is not separate from thought ; he may pretend to be dissimilar, but that is only the craftiness of thought to give itself' ( a solid illusion of?) permanency. When thought attempts to end thought it only strengthens itself. Do what it will, thought cannot end itself. It is only when the truth of this (impossibility?) is ( actually) 'seen' that thought comes to a (natural ?) ending. There is freedom only in seeing the truth of 'what is', and wisdom is the perception of that truth.
( However, since ?) the 'what is' is never static, to be (able of) passively watching it there must be freedom from all accumulation (aka : freedom from the 'known'?) .


WE WERE HIGH up on the side of a mountain overlooking the valley, and the large stream was a silver ribbon in the sun. Here and there the sun came through the thick foliage, and there was the scent of many ?owers. It was a delicious morning, and the dew was still heavy on the ground. The scentedbreezewascomingacrossthevalley,bringingthedistantnoiseofpeople,thesoundofbells and of an occasional water-horn. In the valley the smoke was going straight up, and the breeze was not strong enough to disperse it. The column of smoke was a lovely thing to watch; it rose from the bottom of the valley and tried to reach up to the very heavens, like that ancient pine. A large black squirrel which had been scolding us gave it up at last and came down the tree to investigate further, and then, partially satis?ed, went bounding away. A tiny cloud was forming, but otherwise the sky was clear, a soft, pale blue.
He had no (open?) eyes for all this, consumed with his immediate problem, as he had been consumed with his problems before. The problems moved but had their being around himself. He was a very rich man; he was lean and hard, but had an easy air with a ready smile. He was now looking across the valley, but the quickening beauty had not touched him; there was no softening of the face, the lines were still hard and determined. He was still hunting, not for money, but for what he called 'God'. He was forever talking about love and God. He had been to many ( spirtual) teachers; and as he was getting on in years, the hunt was becoming more keen. He had come several times to talk over these matters, but there was always a look of cunning and calculation; he was constantly weighing how much it would cost him to ?nd his God, how expensive the journey ( in the Unknown) would be.
He knew that he could not take with him what he had; but could he take something else, a coin that had value where he was going? So, he was there that morning to further expose himself; for there was trouble brewing, serious disturbances were taking place in his otherwise successful life. The goddess of success was not with him altogether.

Q: I am beginning to realize what I am. But what do you want me to do? I wish to God I had never listened to you or come anywhere near you. I now have sleepless nights, and I always slept so well before; I have torturing dreams, and I rarely used to dream at all. I have silently cursed you - but I cannot go back. What am I to do? I have no friends, as you pointed out, nor can I buy them as I used to - I am too exposed by what has happened. Perhaps I can be your friend ? You have offered help, and here I am. What am I to do?

K: To be (inwardly) exposed is not easy. Has one opened that ( Pandora's?) 'cupboard' which one has so carefully locked, stuf?ng into it the things which one does not want to see? Do you want to open it and see what is there?
Once open, however little, it cannot be (totally) closed again. The door will always remain open; day and night, its contents will be spilling out. One may try to run away, as one always does; but it will be there, waiting and watching. Does one really want to open it?

Q: Of course I do, that is why I have come. I must face it, for I am coming to the end of things. What am I to do?

K: Open (you own Pandora Box?) and look : to accumulate wealth there must be ruthlessness, cunning calculation, dishonesty; there must be the search for power, that egocentric action which is merely covered over by such pleasant-sounding words as responsibility, duty, ef?ciency, rights.

Q: Yes, that is all true, and more. There has been no consideration of anyone; my 'religious' pursuits have been mere cloaks of respectability. Now that I look at it, I see that everything revolved around me. I was the centre, though I pretended not to be. I see all that. But what am I to do specifically ?

K: First one must recognize things for what they are. But beyond all this, how can one wipe these things away if there is no affection, no love, that (inner) ?ame without smoke? It is this (this intelligent?) Flame alone that will wipe away the contents of the 'cupboard', and nothing else; no analysis, no sacri?ce, no renunciation can do it. When there is this ?ame you will meet the storm without waiting for it.

Q: But how am I to have this Love? I know I have no warmth for people; I have been ruthless, and they are not with me who should be with me. I am utterly alone, and how am I to know love? I am not a fool to think that I can get it by some conscious act, buy it through some sacri?ce, some denial. I know I have never loved, and I see that if I had, I would not be in this situation. What am I to do? Should I give up my properties, my wealth?

K: If you ?nd the 'garden' that you have so carefully cultivated has produced only poisonous weeds, you have to tear them out by the roots; you have to pull down the walls that have sheltered them. But beyond all this, there must be the ?ame (of insight?) that cleanses the mind and the heart, making all things new. That ?ame is not of the ( temporal?) mind, so, it is not something to be cultivated.

Q: I am aware that there is no love in any of these ( temporal) things. But my heart is still empty, and how is it to be ?lled? What am I to do?

K: ( Just a few clues:) your attachment denies love. Love is not to be found by ( indulging in ) suffering; ( the exciting?) sensations and their grati?cation are ever coming to an end; but Love is inexhaustible.

Q: I'm afraid that these are mere words to me. I am starving: feed me.

K: To be fed (by the universal Love?) , there must be a 'hunger'. If you are hungry, you will ?nd food. But are you really hungry (inwardly) , or merely greedy for the taste of a new food? If you are greedy, you will ?nd that which will gratify; but it will soon come to an end, and it will not be love.

Q: But what am I to do?

K: It is essential to become aware of what you are doing (inwardly) . You are concerned with the future (results of your ) action, and that is one way of avoiding immediate (perception & ) action. You do not want to act, and so you keep on asking what you are to do. You are again deceiving yourself, and so your heart is empty. You want to ?ll it with the things of the mind; but love is not of the mind.
( So, here's your homework:) Let your heart be empty. Do not try to ?ll it with words, or with the actions of the (calculated ) mind. Let your 'heart' be wholly empty; then only will it be ?lled.


The other three pious egoists came to see me. The ?rst was a sannyasi, the second was an orientalist and a great believer in universal brotherhood; and the third was a con?rmed worker for a 'marvellous' (communist?) Utopia. Each of the three was strenuous in his own work and looked down on the others’ attitudes and activities, and each was strengthened by his own conviction. Each was ardently attached to his particular form of belief, and they appeared meek and genarly the man of brotherhood, but there was a hardness of heart and that peculiar intolerance which is characteristic of the 'superior'. They were the chosen, the interpreters; they knew and were certain.

Thesannyasi said that he was preparing himself for his next life (after-life?) . This life, he declared, had very little to offer him, for he had seen through all the illusions of worldliness and had forsaken worldly ways. He still had some personal weaknesses and certain dif?culties in concentration, but in his next life he would be the ideal which he had set for himself.

His whole interest and vitality lay in his conviction that he was to be something (special) in his next life. We talked at some length, and his emphasis was always on the tomorrow, on the future. The past existed, he said, but always in relation to the future; the present was merely a passage to the future, and today was interesting only because of tomorrow. If there were no tomorrow, he asked, then why make any effort? One might just as well vegetate or be like the paci?c cow.
The whole of life was one continuous movement from the past through the momentary present to the future. We should use the present, he said, to become something in the future: to be wise, to be strong, to be compassionate. Both the present and the future were transient, but tomorrow ripened the fruit. He insisted that today is but a stepping stone, and that we should not be too anxious or too particular about it; we should keep clear the ideal of tomorrow and make the journey successfully. Altogether, he was impatient of the present.

The man of universal brotherhood was more learned, and his language more poetic; he was expert in handling words, and was altogether suave and convincing. He too had carved a divine niche for himself in the future. He also was to be something (great) . This idea ?lled his heart, and he had gathered his disciples for that future. Death, he said, was a beautiful thing, for it brought one nearer to that divine niche which was making it possible for him to live in this sorrowful and ugly world.

He was all for changing and beautifying the world, and was working ardently for the brotherhood of man. He considered that ( the personal) ambition was inevitable in a world where you had to get things done; and unfortunately, if you wanted certain organizational activities carried on, you had to be a little bit on the hard side. The work was important because it was helping mankind, and anyone who opposed it had to be put aside - gently, of course. The organization for that work was of the utmost value and must not be hindered. ”Others have their own paths, but ours is essential, and anyone who interferes is not one of us.”

The ( communistic?) utopian was a strange mixture of idealist and practical man. His Bible was not the old but the new. He believed in the new implicitly. He knew the outcome of the future, for the new book foretold what it was to be. His ( general) plan was to confuse, organize and carry out. The present social structure was corrupt, it must be destroyed, and out of this destruction the new would be built. The present was to be sacri?ced for the future. The future man was all-important, not the present man.
”We know how to create that future man : we can (ideologically ) shape his mind and heart; but we must get into power to do any good. Once we have the power in our hands, we will use every form of compulsion to bring about a new world without class distinctions, without priests.

( K's Commentary) The sannyasi, the man of brotherhood and the Utopian all live ( preparing ) for tomorrow, for the future. They are not ( personally) ambitious in the worldly sense, but they are ambitious in a much more subtle way : The Utopian has identi?ed himself with a group (ideology) which he thinks will have the power to reorient the world; the man of brotherhood aspires to be exalted, and the sannyasi to attain his goal. All are ( subliminally) consumed with their own (self-) becoming, with their own achievement and expansion. They do not see that this ( projected) desire denies peace, brotherhood and supreme happiness.
Ambition in any form - for the group, for individual salvation, or for spiritual achievement - is a postponed form of action. Desire is ever of the future; the desire to become is inaction in the present. The Now has greater signi?cance than the tomorrow. In the Now is ( contained all the movement of?) time, and to understand the Now is to be free of time. Becoming is the continuation of time, of sorrow. Becoming does not contain being. Being is always in the present, and being is the highest form of transformation. Becoming is merely modi?ed continuity, and there is radical transformation only in (living in ) the present, in ( the timeless?) 'being'.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 14 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Oct 2017 #747
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


HE WAS AN oldish man with long, grey hair and a white beard. He had lectured about philosophy at universities in different parts of the world. He was very scholarly and quiet. He said he did not meditate; nor was he 'religious' in the ordinary sense. He was concerned with knowledge only; and though he lectured on philosophy and religious experiences, he hadn’t any of his own nor was he looking for any. He had come to talk over the question of 'Time'.

K: Time is a very strange phenomenon, but if we are to live at all, (keeping track of the?) chronological time is as essential as the seasons. But 'psychologically' (speaking?) is there time, or ( thinking of one's inner life in terms of time?) is it merely a deceptive convenience of the mind? Surely, there is a ( physical) time to grow and a time to die, a time to sow and a time to reap' ; but is not (the) psychological time, the process of (inwardly ) becoming (something or other), utterly false?

Q: But then, what is time to you? Do you think of time? Are you aware of time?

K: Can one think of time at all except in the chronological sense? We use ( thinking in terms of) time as a means of ( personal) achievement, tangible or psychological. ( Thinking in terms of ) time is needed to go to the train station, but most of us also use (the same thinking in terms of) time as a means to achieve a ( desired) 'psychological' end, and these ends are many. We are becoming aware of (the limitations of thinking in terms of) ) time whenever there is an impediment to our (personal ) achievements, of becoming successful. ( Thes psychological ?) time is the ( interval or?) 'space' between 'what is' (or what we are?) and what (we hope that) 'we should be'. The beginning (of any action) going towards the ( desired) end is 'time'.

Q: Is there no other ( dimension of) time? What about the scienti?c implications of ( the continuum) 'time-space' ?

K: There is a 'chronological' and a 'psychological' (thinking in terms of ) time. The 'chronological' one is necessary, and it is there ; but the other is quite a different matter. Any (given) cause and its particular effect are said to be a time process, and it is (generally) considered that the interval between the cause ( of any action and its ) effect is 'time'; but ( in the human psyche?) is there such an interval? The cause and the (ultimate ) effects of a disease may be separated by a time, which is (measurable) chronologically; but is there a (similar ) 'interval' between a psychological cause and its effect? Is not the 'cause-effect' a single process? ( What we are inwardly?) today is the effect of ( what we were) yesterday and also the cause of (what we will be, or will do) tomorrow; it is one ( unitary mental?) movement, a continuous ?owing. There is no actual separation, no distinct line between (a psychological) cause and (its ) effect; but we (like to ) separate them in order to achieve (a better inner condition) .

I am 'this', and I (wish to) become 'that'. To become that I need a 'chronological' time(-line) used for (my personal) psychological purposes. ( Eg:) I am ( unhappy and ) ignorant, but I ( wish to) become wiser : the (psychological movement of my ?) ignorance becoming 'wiser' is only (the same old) ignorance; for ignorance can never become wise, any more than greed can ever become non-greed.
So, (the existing inner) ignorance is ( continuing in ) the very process of (self-centred) becoming.

Is not ( the self-centred process of ) thought the product of time, the ( constantly updated) continuation of (our past) experience (stored in) memory. The (thinking ) mind is the machinery of time. This continuity of memory and knowledge, is ( creating our temporal ) consciousness : our past, in conjunction with the ( many challenges of the?) present is moving to the 'future'. But ( the psychological ) future is the modi?ed continuity (of our) past. This whole process is ( the creation of) thought, of the ( ego-centric ) mind. Thought cannot function in any ?eld other than that of time. Thought may speculate upon the timeless, but all its speculation is ignorance.

Q: Then why do you mention the 'Timeless'? Can the Timeless (dimension of Reality?) ever be known? Can it ever be recognized as the timeless?

K: Thought cannot know the Timeless. It is a state of Being in which thought, time, is not.

Q: Then....what value has it?

K: Its ( qualitative ?) worth is 'unknown'. It is not marketable. It cannot be weighed for a (man-made) purpose.

Q: But what part does it play in life?

K: If our ( inner?) life is ( completely dominated by the material time and self-centred) thought, then none at all. ( The human) life has ( a deeper ) meaning only when the Timeless is (awakened?) ; otherwise life is sorrow, con?ict and pain.
Thought cannot solve any ( inner) human problem, for itself is ( the creator of) these problems.
However, the ending of ( living inwardly tethered into the field of?) knowledge is the beginning of ( a timeless) Wisdom. Wisdom is not of time, it is not ( found in ) the continuation of ( dualistic) experience & knowledge.

(In a nutshell) A time-bound life is (accumulating) confusion and misery; but when 'that which is' is the Timeless, there is bliss.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Oct 2017 #748
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


The outer noise (eventually may ?) end, but (the inner space of ) silence is penetrating and without end. One can shut oneself off from (the physical) noise, but there is no enclosure against silence; no ( mental) walls can shut it out, there is no resistance against it. (The mental?) noise shuts all things out, it is excluding and isolating; Silence includes all things within itself. Silence, like love, is indivisible; it has no division as ( this is) noise and (this is) silence. The ( self-conscious) mind cannot follow it or be made still to receive it. The mind that is (purposefully) made still can only re?ect its own images, noisy in their exclusiveness.

A mind that is (artificially) made still can only resist (noise) , and all such resistance is (creating more mental) agitation. The mind that is ( spontaneously) still - not 'made still'- is ever experiencing ( the inner space of?) silence; the thoughts, the words, are then (included) within this (space of?) silence, and not outside of it. It is strange how, in this silence, the mind is (naturally ) tranquil, with a tranquility that is not formed (or put together?) . As this inner tranquillity ( peace of mind?) is not marketable, it has a quality of the pure, of the all-one. That ( sense of inner tranquility) which can be used (for personal purpose?) is soon worn out. Tranquillity does not 'begin' or 'end', and a mind thus (timelessly) tranquil is aware of a Bliss that is not the re?ection of its own desires.

She said she had always been 'agitated' ( disturbed ? ) by something or other; if it was not the family, it was the neighbours or some social activity. This (constant inner ) agitation had ?lled her life, and she had never been able to ?nd the ( true) reason for these constant upheavals. She was not particularly happy; and how could one be with the state of the world as it was ? She had had her share of passing (moments of?) happiness, but all that was in the past and now she was 'hunting' for something that would give a (deeper) meaning to her life.
She had been through many things which at the time seemed worthwhile, but which afterwards faded into nothingness. She had been engaged in many social activities of the serious kind; she had ardently believed in the things of religion, had suffered because of deaths in her family, and had even faced a major (surgical) operation. Life had not been easy with her, she added, and there were millions of others in the world like herself. But now she wanted to go beyond all this (superficial) business, whether foolish or necessary and ?nd something that was really worthwhile

K: The (inner) things that are worthwhile are not to be found (by going after them ?) . They cannot be bought, they must happen; and their 'happening' ( unfolding?) cannot be cunningly planned. Is it not a true (observable fact?) that anything that has a deeper ( experiential ) signi?cance always 'happens', it is never (artificially ) brought about? The (freshness of such inner ) 'happening' is (the) important (element) , not the ( knowledgeale conclusions that one is ) ?nding. The ?nding is comparatively easy, but the 'happening' is quite another matter. Not that it is dif?cult; but the (subliminal) urge to 'seek & ?nd' (fetch?) , must wholly (come to a full?) stop for the (spontaneous?) happening (of the New?) to take place. Finding ( what you were expecting?) also implies (the possibility of ) losing (it) ; you must have (some high expectations) in order to lose. To possess or be possessed is not (tantamount to) being inwardly free to understand.
But ( returning to your particular problem?) why has there always been this 'agitation', this restlessness? Have you seriously inquired into it before?

Q: I have attempted it half-heartedly, but never purposely. I have always been distracted (by other things) .

K: If one may point out, it is simply that
this has never been a vital problem to you . When there is a vital problem, then there is no distraction. Distraction does not exist; distraction implies pursuing a central interest from which the mind wanders outwardly ; but if there is an (awakening of one's true ) central interest, there is no distraction. The mind’s wandering from one thing to another is not (actually a ) distraction, it is an avoidance of (facing) 'what is' (within itself) . We like to wander far away because this (central) problem is (too?) close. Our (mental) wandering gives us something to do, like worry and gossip; and though the wandering is often ( pointless or even ?) painful, we prefer it to ( facing the sad state of the inner?) what is. ( But before going any further) do you seriously wish to go into all this, or are you merely playing around with it?

Q: I really want to go through to the very end of it. That is why I have come.

K: You are unhappy because there is no (creative inner ?) spring that keeps the well full, is that it? You may once have heard the whisper of water on the pebbles, but now the 'riverbed' is dry. You have known happiness, but it has always receded, it is always becoming a thing of the past. Is ( the revival of?) that (inner) Spring the thing you are groping after? And can you seek it, or must you come upon it unexpectedly? If you knew where it was, you would ?nd means to get to it; but not knowing, there is no path to it. To 'know' it is to prevent the happening of it. Is that one of the problems?

Q: That de?nitely is. Life is so dull and uncreative, and if that thing could happen one wouldn’t ask for anything more.

K: Is loneliness a problem?

Q: I don’t mind being lonely, I know how to deal with it. I either go out for a walk, or sit quietly with it till it goes. Besides, I like being alone.

K: We all know what it is to be lonely: an aching, fearsome (sense of inner) emptiness that cannot be appeased. We also know how ( thousands of ways ) to run away from it, for we have all explored the many avenues of escape. Some are ( getting ) caught in one particular avenue, and others keep on exploring; but neither are in direct relationship with 'what is'. You say you know how to deal with 'loneliness'. If one may point out, this very action upon loneliness is your way of avoiding it. You go out for a walk, or sit with loneliness till it goes. You are always operating upon it, you do not allow it to tell its story. You want to dominate it, to get over it, to run away from it; so your relationship with it is one based of fear.
Is ful?lment also a problem? To ful?l oneself in something implies the ( same) avoidance of ( directly dealing with?) what one is, does it not? If I identify myself with the country, with the family, or with some (bank account or?) belief, I feel ful?lled, complete. This search for completeness is another (subliminal) avoidance of what is.

Q: Yes, that is so; that is also my problem.

K: If we can ( non-dualistically?) understand 'what is', then perhaps all these problems will cease. Our approach to any problem is to avoid it; the mind is occupied with ?nding a way to deal with the problem, which is really an avoidance of it; and so the (nature of our central) problem is never understood, it is still there. For the 'what is', to unfold and tell its story fully, the ( inwardly observing?) mind must be sensitive, quick to follow. If we 'anaesthetize' the mind through escapes or through seeking an explanation or a cause for it, which is only a verbal conclusion, then the mind is made dull and cannot swiftly follow the story which the problem, the what is, is unfolding.
( For homework, try to?) See the truth of this and the mind is (becoming inwardly) sensitive; and only then can it receive. Any activity of the mind with regard to its (existential) problem only makes it dull and so incapable of following, of listening to the problem. When the mind is sensitive, the what is, the ( sense of inner) emptiness, has a wholly different signi?cance.
So what is the relationship of the (self-centred?) mind to 'what is'? So far, the 'what is' has been given a name, a term, and this ( mental process of?) naming prevents a direct relationship, which ( eventually does?) makes the mind inwardly dull, insensitive. The ( conscious?) mind and 'what is' (happening within itself?) are not two separate processes, but the naming separates them. When this naming ceases, there is a direct ( non-verbal) relationship: the ( the self-centred?) mind and the 'what is' are one. The 'what is' is now the observer himself without a (naming or) terming , and only then is the 'what is' (getting qualitatively) transformed; it is no longer the thing called 'emptiness' with its associations of fear, and so on. Then this ( integrated?) mind is a state of experiencing, in which the 'experiencer' and the 'experienced' are not. Then there is an immeasurable depth, for he who ( the verbal) measurement is gone. That which is deep is silent, tranquil, and in this tranquillity is the spring of the inexhaustible. The inner agitation of the mind is (sustained by ?) the usage of words. When the (noise of the ?) words is not, the Measureless is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Oct 2017 #749
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


The island below us was green and sparkling, freshly washed by the rains. How neat and orderly everything was looking from that altitude! At that height one saw what was happening on both sides of the river, and how the past and the future met. The future was not hidden, though it lay around the bend. At that height there was neither the past nor the future; the curving space did not conceal either the time of sowing or the time of reaping.

The man in the next seat began to talk of the dif?culties of life. He complained of his job, the incessant travelling, the inconsiderateness of his family, and the futility of modern politics. He was on his way to some far-off place, and was rather sad at leaving his home. As he talked he became more and more serious, more and more concerned about the world ad particularly about himself and his family.

Q: I would like to go away from it all to some quiet place, work a little, and be happy. I don’t think I have been happy in all my life, and I don’t know what it means. We live, breed, work and die, like any other animal. I have lost all enthusiasm, except for making money, and that too is becoming rather boring. I am fairly good at my job and earn a good salary, but what it is all about I haven’t the vaguest idea. I would like to be happy, and what do you think I can do about it?

K: It is a complex thing to understand, and this is hardly the place for a serious talk.

Q: I am afraid I have no other time (to ask such questions) ; the moment we land I must be off again. I may not sound serious, but there are spots of seriousness in me; the only trouble is, they never seem to get together. I am really quite serious at heart. My father and my older relations were known for their (spiritual) earnestness, but the present economic conditions don’t allow one to be completely serious. I have been drawn away from all that, but I would like to get back to it and forget all this life of stupidity, I would like to be really happy.

K: ( The happiness brought by ?) sensation is one thing, and (the creative?) happiness is another. ( A rewarding?) sensation is always seeking further ( still more rewarding?) sensations, ever in wider and wider circles. There is no ending to the pleasures of sensation; they multiply, but there is always ( a subliminal sense of?) dissatisfaction in their ful?lment; there is always the desire formore, and this demand for more is without end. Sensation and dissatisfaction are inseparable, for in the very ful?lment of sensation, the demand for more is born. The 'more' is ever in the future; the ( projection of an ) everlasting dissatisfaction with 'what has been'. There is a (time-binding) con?ict between what has been and what will be. Physical sensations are always crying for more; and when they are thwarted, there is anger, jealousy, hatred.
Such a mind can never ?nd ( the sense of a creative?) happiness. This happiness is not something to be pursued and found, as is sensation. Remembering ( the past moments of?) happiness is only a reaction against the (boredom of the ?) present.
( The creative ) happiness is not ( to be found in the field of?) sensation. Have you ever been aware of being ( creatively ) happy?

Q: Of course I have, thank God, otherwise I would not know what it is to be happy.

K: Surely, what you were aware of was the sensation of an (personal ?) experience which you ( like to ) call 'happiness'; but that is not necessarily the creative) happiness. You remember that you were happy; but can the (memory of the?) past tell what happiness is? It can recall but it cannot be. Recognition is not happiness; to know what it is to be happy, is not happiness. Recognition is the response of memory; and can the mind, the complex of memories, experiences, ever be happy? The very recognition prevents the experiencing.

When you are ( self-consciously?) aware that you are happy, is there happiness? When there is happiness, are 'you' aware of it? ( The self-?) consciousness comes only with the con?ict of remembrance of the more. ( The creative) happiness is not ( to be found in ?) the remembrance of the more. Where there is (any inner or outer ) con?ict, happiness is not. Con?ict is where the mind is. Thought at all levels is the response of memory, and so thought invariably breeds con?ict. Thought is sensation, and sensation ia not happiness. Sensations are ever seeking grati?cations. The end is sensation, but happiness is not an end; it cannot be sought out.

Q: But how can (the constant pursuit of?) sensations come to an end?

K: To destroy one's sensations is to become (inwardly) insensitive, dead; not to see, not to smell, not to touch is to be ( as good as?) 'dead', which is, isolation. Our problem is entirely different, is it not? Thought can never bring happiness; it can only recall sensations, for thought is (the result of ages spent in the field of sensation). Therefore, it cannot produce, or progress towards ( the creative) happiness. Thought can only go towards that which it (already) knows, but the ( field of the?) known is not (one of?) happiness; the 'known' is sensation.

Thought ( the memory active part of the brain?) must become aware of its own ways, of its own cunning deceptions. And in being aware of itself, without any desire to be or not to be, the (inwardly integrated ?) mind comes to a state of 'passive watchfulness' in which ( the function of?) thought is wholly inactive. It is the highest state of sensitivity. When the mind is completely inactive at all its levels, only then is there ( the insightful ?) action ; this action is without cause, and only then is there bliss.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Oct 2017 #750
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 688 posts in this forum Offline


How (subliminally?) frightened we are of the New, of ( facing ) the Unknown! We'd (rather) like to remain (safely ) enclosed in ( the endless continuity of?) our daily habits, routines, (temporary joys?) quarrels and anxieties. . We move within the walls of our own thought; and when we do venture out, it is still within the ( virtual ) extension of those walls. We have never ( contemplated?) an ending, but always nourish the continuous (thought streaming?) . We carry from day to day the burden of yesterday; our life is one long, continuous movement and our minds are (made ) dull and insensitive.

He could hardly stop weeping. It was not controlled or retrained weeping, but a sobbing that shook his whole body. He was a youngish man, alert with eyes that had seen (artistic?) visions. He was unable to speak for some time; and when at last he did, his voice shook and he would burst into great sobs, unashamed and free.

Q: I haven’t wept at all since the day of my wife’s death. I don’t know what made me cry like that, but it has been a relief. I have wept before, with her when she was alive, and then weeping was as cleansing as laughter; but since her death everything has changed. I used to paint, but now I can’t touch the brushes or look at the things I have done. For the last six months I also have seemed to be dead. We had no children, but she was expecting one; and now she is gone. Even now I can hardly realize it, for we did everything together. She was so beautiful and so good, and what shall I do now? The other day I picked up the (painting ) brushes, and they were strangers to me. Before, I didn’t even know I held a brush in my hand; but now it has weight, it is cumbersome. I have tried to forget, but do what I will, it can never be the same again. I used to listen to the birds, but now I want to destroy everything. I can’t go on like this. I haven’t seen any of our friends since then, and without her they mean nothing to me. What am I to do?

(…..We were silent for a long time....)

K: Love that turns to sorrow and to hate is not (the authentic ?) love. Do we know what this Love is?

Q: I knew such love, and I still have that love for her; but now I am becoming aware of other things also, of myself, of my sorrow, of the days of my misery.

K: We are now becoming aware that we are lonely, without a (life) companion, without the smile and the familiar sharp word; we are aware of ourselves now. Was the ( beautified image we created about the ?) other ever real, or a dream clothed with the beauty of a joy which soon fades? Death (the illusory safety provided by these self-created images?) cannot always cover life, however much we may desire it; the 'what is' is stronger than 'what is not'.

When the 'other' is, we are not (important) ; we are feeling free, uninhibited - the 'other' may be the (beauty of the new born ? ) ?ower, the (charismatic ?) neighbour, the scent, the remembrance. We all want ( to identify ourselves with?) the 'other' - the 'other' is the ( beautified?) dream of ourselves; but upon waking, we are left with …. 'what is'. The ( spiritual essence of?) 'what is' is deathless, but we ( usually chose?) to (deny the unknown nature of?) 'what is'. The desire to deny it is leading to the (establishing of a?) 'continuous' (existence in the known?) , and (it's a no-brainer that?) what is continuous can never know the deathless.

Q: I am not at all sure that I understand what you are saying.

K: Did you not often ?nd that, though you are not giving your full attention to what is being said or to what you are reading, there has nevertheless been a (subliminal?) listening, perhaps unconsciously, and that something (new) has penetrated ( your mind even ?) in spite of yourself?
( For instance : ) Though you have not deliberately looked at
those trees, yet ( later on) the (holistic?) image of them suddenly comes up in every detail - have you never found that happening? Of course you are dazed from the recent shock; but as you will (eventually) come out of it, what we are saying now will be ( subliminally?) remembered and then it may be of some help.

But what is still more important is that when you come out of the shock, the suffering will be more intense, and your (natural) desire will be to (find an easy) escape, to run away from ( the sad realisation of?) your inner misery. There are only too many people who (are making a prosperous living from) helping you to 'escape'; they ( or their books?) will offer every plausible explanation, conclusions which they or others have arrived at, or you yourself will ?nd some form of withdrawal to drown your misery. Till now you have been too close to the event, but as the days go by there will be (an irresistible ) crave for some kind of consolation: religion, social activity, or some ideology.
But ( what's wrong with such) escapes of any kind, is that they prevent the ( direct) understanding of your own sorrow. Sorrow has to be understood and not ignored. To ignore it is giving continuity to suffering.
And (in order ) to insightfully understand suffering needs a (non-personal ?) experimental approach- not to seek a de?nite end result. If you only seek to get over your suffering, which is ( tantamount?) to condemning it, then you do not ( take the quality time to ?) understand its whole process.

( Here are a few experimental pointers : ) to ( insightfully?) understand (your ) suffering : (a) there must be no 'positive' action of the mind in order to justify or to overcome it: the mind must be entirely silently watchful, so that it can follow without hesitation the 'unfolding' of ( the deeper layers of?) sorrow. (b) Your mind cannot follow the story of sorrow if it is tethered to any ( personal) hopes, conclusions or remembrances. To follow the swift movement of 'what is', the mind must be free (to move along with it?) ; (this basic inner) freedom is not to be had at the end, it must be there at the very beginning.

Q: What is the meaning of all this (personal & collective?) sorrow?

K: Is not sorrow the indication of ( an existential, unsolved?) con?ict, the con?ict of pleasure and pain ? Is not sorrow the intimation of an unawareness of the total process of oneself ? There must be suffering as long as there is no understanding of the ways of the self; and the ways of the self are to be discovered only in the action of relationship.

Q: But my relationship has come to an end.

K: There may be the end of a particular relationship; but relationship can never end. To be is to be related, and nothing can live in isolation. However, if we try to isolate ourselves through a particular relationship, such isolation will inevitably breed sorrow. Sorrow is (implicit in ) the process of isolation.

Q: Can my life ever be what it has been?

K: Can the ( freshness of ?) yesterday's joys ever be repeated today? The desire for their repetition arises only when there is no ( creative?) joy today; when our 'today' is empty, we look to the past or to the future. This desire for repetition is ( the direct result of our ?) desire for ( temporal) continuity, but in ( self-) continuity there is never the new. There is ( a sense of creative?) happiness, not in the past or in the future, but only in the movement of the present.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 721 - 750 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.)