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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 721 - 745 of 745 in total
Sat, 02 Sep 2017 #721
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Sep 2017 #722
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Sep 2017 #723
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

Still more 'unzipped' Commentaries on Living


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 05 Sep 2017 #724
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 #725
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 #726
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 #727
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 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 #728
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 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 #729
Thumb_stringio Jess S Portugal 11 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
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.

I've quoted this bit, but others above would serve the same purpose. Just to say that habits are necessary for us to act efficiently only - as it happens with any human action - we must be aware that what we are doing fits the need, that is, awareness must go with the habit. Also, to say that will is 'the quintessence of desire' may sound clever but the way it is put is in order to decry will having already in mind a prejudice about desire! Why not say that passion instead is the quintessence of desire? Well, I think that when Krishnamurti is talking like this it is his particular mind that is talking, that which has been called somewhere I think his small mind and what comes from there probably isn't 'the teachings'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Sep 2017 #730
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 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 #731
Thumb_stringio Jess S Portugal 11 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
What is habit? It is a ( psychosomatic?) repetition, isn't it? The brain establishes a ( safe & rewarding?) pattern,

So far so good, I think. What is important is that one has learnt the pattern convenient to face a particular need. The problem arises when we want to impose that pattern to other situations only because we have become proficient using it. We impose it on inappropriate conditions and on other people. This matter of habit has to do with a sense of security which is basic in the teachings, in which we become aware that the human mind acts out of 'the fear of security' and I think that's the issue really. We will be doing the wrong thing if we insist on a habit because it has given us a sense of security, not because this habit is convenient in a certain situation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Sep 2017 #732
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 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
Mon, 11 Sep 2017 #733
Thumb_stringio Jess S Portugal 11 posts in this forum Offline


Well, I don't know about how in practice Krishnamurti dealt with insecurity because he never told us about it really. We know that physically he wouldn't go without being protected by at least one person and psychologically all we know is that on the one hand he believed some sort of entity was looking after him and on the other he would just faint or... well, we don't know how insecure he felt, he just eventually said he was as shy as when he was a child. But he was most certain that insecurity is a fact both at physical and psychological levels and he explicitly said that either you learn how to live with it or you become neurotic. ( 3rd Talk, Bombay 1964).

This post was last updated by Jess S Mon, 11 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Sep 2017 #734
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 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 #735
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 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 #736
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 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 #737
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 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 #738
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 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 #739
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 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
Wed, 20 Sep 2017 #740
Thumb_stringio Jess S Portugal 11 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
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.

If there is nothing mysterious about society and Krishnamurti explains why he asserts so in today's quote, then it only seems right that this guru has disciples. Disciples need this kind of guru so that's the reason that the guru exists, nothing odd or mysterious about it.

This post was last updated by Jess S Wed, 20 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Sep 2017 #741
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 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 #742
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 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 #743
Thumb_stringio Jess S Portugal 11 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
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

This brings me to an article I read called 'Science and Beauty' which is a dialogue between someone called Pushpa Bhargava, a cellular and molecular biologist and Shakti Maira, the interviewer and an artist. At some point Pushpa says, responding to some of Shakti's exchanges: ' Nature uses certain mathematical relationships and there is a reason why it does it. If you count the number of leaves on a plant, they follow a certain sequence. You see these numbers over and over again in nature . One number nature uses frequently is 1.618, the golden ratio. The same is true of fractals and the Finobacci numbers. The reason why nature uses those patterns and relationships is that they seem to be the easiest to generate during growth. (...) Nature has not used these patterns to please human beings. We ourselves are part of the natural system. It is just that we also have the ability to appreciate Nature. Nature found it convenient to use these patterns, which humans have put into numbers. (...) Elegance is beauty. These relationships have arisen out of a set of processes that follow scientific laws. And we as human beings have been programmed to recognise these relationships and react to them as part of our aesthetic experience. We humans give the patterns and relationships a quality of elegance. And we do it because it gives us an advantage. It would not be correct to say that such and such a thing is inherently elegant or beautiful. It is we who give it the quality of beauty and elegance. We are the product of the same natural process that has led to what we call elegance. This intrinsic sense of beauty, the ability to go through an aesthetic experience, has given humans a strong evolutionary advantage. I don't think we would have survived without it.'
So, from this (and a lot more that is said in this article) 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.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Sep 2017 #744
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 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 #745
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 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 8 hours ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 721 - 745 of 745 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.)