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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?


Displaying posts 751 - 758 of 758 in total
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #751
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 705 posts in this forum Offline

A CONVERSATION WITH SWAMI VENKATESANANDA 26TH JULY 1969

Swami Venkatesananda: We are sitting near each other, enquiring, listening and learning. Even so did the sage and the seeker, and that is the origin of the Upanishads. Now these Upanishads contain a few 'Great Sayings' ( Mahavakyas) . May I ask you what you think of them, are they still valid, or do they need revision or renewal?
These Mahavakyas are: (a) Prajnanam Brahma - ( the Universal?) Consciousness is infinite, the absolute, the highest Truth. (b) Aham Brahmasmi - I am that infinite ( but the 'I' here does not refer to the ego) . (c) Tat Tvam-asi: Thou (you too?) art that. And (d) Ayam Atma Brahma: The individual(ised?) Self is the infinite.
Now, what do you really think of them? Are these Mahavakyas still valid now?

Krishnaji: Isn't there a 'danger' (a slippery assumption ?) sir, of repeating something not knowing what it means? "I am That." Why do we always ( like to) attach ourselves to something which we suppose to be the Highest?

Swamiji: 'That' probably means 'That ( part of our Consciousness?) which is unconditioned'.

Krishnaji: Unconditioned, yes...

Swamiji: So, since there is in us this urge to break all conditioning, ( it is only natural to?) look for the Unconditioned.

Krishnaji: Can a (self-interest?) conditioned mind, a mind that is petty, narrow & (thriving ?) on superficial entertainments, can it ( insightfully?) understand, feel, or observe the Unconditioned?

Swamiji: No. But it certainly can ( endeavour to?) uncondition itself.

Krishnaji: That is all it can do. But my ( educational?) point is, why is it that we always associate ourselves with what we think is the Highest ?

Swamiji: Perhaps because in ( reaching?) Brahman there is no more division between the highest and the lowest ?

Krishnaji: But when you (assume that?) "I am that", or "Thou are that", it may not be an actual fact at all.

Swamiji: Perhaps I should explain here again that the Sage who uttered the Mahavakyas was believed to have had a direct experience of It.

Krishnaji: Now, if he had the experience of it, could he convey it to another? And also, sir, the ( deeper ) question also arises, can one actually experience something which is not (personally?) experienceable ? The 'Infinite', can one experience the Infinite? We can ( recognise or ?) experience something which we have already known. ( EG:) I experience 'meeting you'. That's a ( personal recorded ?) experience, and when I meet you next time I 'recognize' you, "Yes, I met him in Gstaad." So there is in ( any sensory?) experience the ( personal ) factor of recognition.

Swamiji: Yes. But that is 'objective' (material) experience.

Krishnaji: There is in all (personal) 'experiencing' a factor of recognition. Supposing I meet you for the first time. What takes place in that first meeting of two people?

Swamiji: A (global) first impression - of like (or ...of dislike?) .

Krishnaji: An impression of like or dislike and ( this 'first sight' experience?) is (subliminally ) based on my ( cultural) background, on my prejudices, likes and dislikes, on my bias, on my ( personal) conditioning, ( constantly lurking in ?) the background. That background meets you and judges you. The 'labelling' judgment, the evaluation, is ( recorded as my personal ) 'experience'. But if ( all the personal background?) didn't react at all (psychologically, that is ?) without any sense of like, dislike, prejudice, what would take place?

Swamiji: (A holistic sense of Love &?) Peace ?

Krishnaji: ( Even then?) I must recognize that (quality of inner ) Peace in you, otherwise I just pass you by. So when we say, "Experience the Highest", can a mind which is ( subliminally?) conditioned, prejudiced or frightened (of the Unknown?) , experience the Highest?

Swamiji: Obviously not.

Krishnaji: Obviously not. And the ( 'personal' identification with ) this fear, prejudice, excitement, and/or stupidity is the entity that says, "I am going to experience the Highest." Now, when (and 'if' ) the 'entity', which is the ( creator and impersonator of?) fear, anxiety, guilt and all the rest of it, if that entity has 'dissolved itself' (detached itself?) from fear and so on, what is there to be ( personally ) experience?

Swamiji: That question was actually put by another sage. He asked the very same question: « Vijnataram Are Kena Vijaniyat » If you are ( identifying yourself with?) the knower, how can you know the knower?"
But there is one ( important experiential clue or ?) suggestion that Vedanta gives and that is: we have so far been talking about an objective (sensate) experience, but Isn't there another (kind of inner?) experience? Not my outward experience of meeting X Y Z, but the feeling of 'I am'. I don't need to go and ask a (psy ? ) doctor or any body else to certify that 'I am'. There is this ( intimate?) feeling, this (experiential) knowledge that 'I am'. This ( existential?) experience seems to be totally different from the objective (sensory ) experience.

Krishnaji: Sir, what is the purpose of ( this 'existential'?) experience?

Swamiji: To get rid of the fears, attachments – in short, to get rid of all my ( psychological) conditioning. To see what I am, in truth, when I am not conditioned.

Krishnaji: I mean: ( supposing one is inwardly unperceptive or ?) 'dull'.

Swamiji: But am I really dull?

Krishnaji: Through comparing myself with you, I find that I am very dull (in terms of inward perception) . And I say, "Yes, I am dull, what am I to do?", but (sooner or later?) life comes along, a (nasty?) incident takes place, which shakes me up. I wake up for a moment and struggle to be a little more intelligent, and so on. So ( the average human ) experience generally has the ( spiritual?) significance of waking you up, by giving you a ( tough?) challenge to which you have to respond. Either you respond to it adequately, or inadequately. If it is inadequate, your mind then becomes an ( inner 'war zone'?) of pain, efforts, fights, quarrels. But if you respond to it adequately (non-dualistically?) , that is fully, you 'are' (not separating yourself from?) the challenge. You 'are' the challenge, ( or, in ancient terms...) 'You are that'. Therefore you need no challenge at all ( to keep you awake inwardly ?) , if you are adequately responding ( non-dualistically?) all the time to everything.

Swamiji: That is very beautiful, but … (laughing).... how does one get there?

Krishnaji: Let us see the need for ( having a spiritual?) experience at all. Why do human beings demand not only (more & more ) 'objective' experience - in going to the moon they have collected a lot of information, a lot of data, a lot of...

Swamiji:... rocks ?

Krishnaji: That kind of experience is necessary, because it furthers our practical knowledge of factual, objective things. But apart from that kind of ( objective) 'experience', is there any necessity for experience at all? We have said that any (human) experience is the (result of our) response to a challenge. ( However?) the moment there is any kind of ( subjective interference or ? ) 'resistance' you are already responding inadequately. And therefore there is a conflict (of interest?) between the challenge and the response. So, that's one thing. But there is an (ages old human?) desire to experience God, or the highest happiness, the highest ecstasy, bliss, a sense of ( universal love & ) peace, whatever you like. Can the ( personal?) mind experience it at all?

Swamiji: No...

Krishnaji: So, that is my point ; why does the 'I', 'me' or 'you' demand (the inner) experience – the experience of the highest, which promises happiness, or ecstasy, bliss or peace?

Swamiji: Obviously because in the present state we feel inadequate...

Krishnaji: That's all. Being in an (inner) state in which there is no ( Love and/or ?) Peace, we want to experience a state which is absolute, permanent, eternal peace.

Swamiji: I'd really want to know this : am I ( forever ?) dull, or is this (inner) 'dullness' only a condition which I can shake off?

Krishnaji: Now who is the entity that shakes it off?

Swamiji: The ( Higher?) 'I' who wakes up ?

Krishnaji: No, sir. That's the difficulty. But let's finish this first. I am feeling unhappy, miserable, laden with (mine and all the world's ?) sorrow. And ( in order to get out of my sad condition?) I want to experience something (a state of holistic consciousness?) which has no sorrow. That is my craving : to experience That and ( eventually redeem myself by) holding on to that ( transcendental?) experience. That is what human beings want - apart from all their clever ( verbal) 'cover-up' .

Swamiji: Yes, yes; and that is perhaps the reason why another very great South Indian sage said: "Cut down all these cravings. Even the craving to be one with God, cut it down".

Krishnaji: Yes, I understand. Now if the mind can free itself from this agony, then what is the need of asking for an experience of the Supreme? There won't be, because it is already living in a different dimension. Therefore the desire to 'experience the Highest' is essentially wrong.

Swamiji: If it is a ( self-projected ) 'desire'.

Krishnaji: Whatever it is! How do I know the Highest? Because the (ancient) sages have talked of it? I don't accept the ( spiritual authority of these?) sages. They might be talking nonsense or sense. I don't know.
I find that as long as the mind is in a state of ( sorrow &) fear, and wants to escape (ASAP?) from it, it projects an ideal of the Supreme, and wants to experience that. But if it ( endeavours to ) free itself from its own agony, then it is altogether in a different state. It doesn't even ask for the ( Supreme?) experience because it is (living) at a different level ( an integrated consciousness?) .

Swamiji: Quite, quite.

Krishnaji: Now, why did these sages, say, "You must experience That, you must be That, you must realize That"?

Swamiji: They didn't say, "You must".

Krishnaji: Would it not be better to say, "Look here, my friends, get rid of your ( selfishness & ) fear. Get rid of your beastly antagonism, get rid of your childishness, and when you have done that..."

Swamiji:... nothing more remains.

Krishnaji: Nothing more. You'll find out the beauty of it. You don't have to ask, then.

Swamiji: Fantastic (insight ) !

Krishnaji: You see, sir, the other way is (potentially) leading to hypocrisy. I am seeking God, but I am all the time kicking people around . (Laughs)

Swamiji: Yes, that could be called hypocrisy. Which leads me on to the last three, perhaps more (personal) questions :
Question number one : Do you think that one can communicate this kind of message to others? If so, how?

Krishnaji: Is this person who is speaking conveying a message ?

Swamiji: I guess we feel so, the listeners.

Krishnaji: What is he saying? He says (in thousands different ways?) , "Look, look at yourself."

Swamiji: Exactly. ( At the first look?) Nothing more (seems) necessary.

Krishnaji: Nothing more is necessary. ( Other than taking the quality time for learning to non-dualistically ?) observe yourself, go into yourself, because in the ( sad psychological condition) we are (now) , we are creating a monstrous world. You may go to the Moon, you may go further, to Venus, Mars and all the rest of it, but you will always carry yourself over there. ( So, the speaker's message is: ) Change yourself first! Change yourself - not first - change yourself (ASAP?) . Therefore to change, ( take the necessary time & leisure to?) look at yourself, go into yourself, observe, listen, learn. That's not (really) a 'message'. You can do it for yourself if... you want to.

Q: Yes, but someone has to tell it !

Krishnaji: By my asking you to look at ( yourself or just at ?) that flower, do you look at that flower?

Swamiji: I have the opportunity to look at it, yes.

Krishnaji: But do you really 'see' ( the living truth of?) that flower because somebody asks you to look at it?

Swamiji: No...But I am not really (motivated?) to look at the flower.

Krishnaji: Why not?

Swamiji: I am satisfied with ( searching for?) something else...

Krishnaji: We say, "Well, I can see the tree any time I want to." That's one thing. Also, we are so concentrated upon ( how to find how to resolve ?) our own ( material & emotional ?) worries, our own hopes, our own desires and ( totally satifying?) 'experiences', that we shut ourselves in the ( full-proof ?) cage of our own (ego-centric?) thinking; and we don't ( bother to) look beyond it. He (K) says, "Don't do that. Look at everything and through looking (non-dualisically?) at everything you'll ( eventually also ) discover your own (inner) cage." That's all.

Swamiji: Isn't that a ( pretty strong?) 'message'?

Krishnaji: It doesn't matter what you call it - call it a message. All right. So, I tell you that. You play with it, or take it very seriously (or... both?) . But if it is very serious for you, you naturally tell it to somebody else. You don't have to make propaganda about it. You will say, "Look at ( yourself as you would look at?) the beauty of those flowers."

Swamiji: Yes...

Krishnaji: You say that. And the ( average 'man of the world'?) person doesn't ( really) listen to you. He says, "What are you talking about (doesn't seem very practical?) I want (something else) ". So is propaganda necessary?

Swamiji: Propagation, may be a better word.

Krishnaji: Yes, propagation, that is what, propagate. To bring out, to cultivate. All these questions are rather (imature?) What do you say, sir?

Swamiji: I don't know...You are talking about these things for more than forty years. And many other people have been talking for centuries...

Krishnaji: For forty five years we have been talking, yes. We have been 'propagating'...

Swamiji: ...something which I'm sure you consider is extremely important.

Krishnaji: Otherwise I wouldn't talk.

Swamiji: Exactly. Now, I have read some of the books you have published, but this experience of sitting and talking to you...

Krishnaji:... is different from reading a book.

Swamiji: Completely, completely, different!

Krishnaji: I agree.

Swamiji: Last night I read one and there was a little more meaning. How does one bring that about?

Krishnaji: There is a 'coming together' (a communion?) in seriousness. Surely, sir, with any kind of relationship that has ( some deeper spiritual?) meaning there must be a meeting at the same level, at the same time, with the same intensity, otherwise there is no (authentic) communication, there is no ( two-way creative?) relationship. And perhaps that's what takes place when we are sitting together here. Because one feels the urgency of something and the intensity of it, there is a relationship established which is quite different from reading a book.

Swamiji: A book has no life.

Krishnaji: Printed words have no life, but you can give life to the printed word if you are serious.

Swamiji: So how does it go on from there?

Krishnaji: From there, is it possible to convey to others this quality of urgency, this quality of intensity, and action which is always taking place now?

Swamiji: Really 'now'...

Krishnaji: Yes, not tomorrow or yesterday.

Swamiji: ( A perceptive ) action, which means observation at the same level.

Krishnaji: And is always functioning - 'seeing and acting', 'seeing, acting', 'seeing, acting'. How is this ( integrated seeing & acting?) to take place? First of all, sir, there are very, very few really serious people. You talk to them, and you also talk to the ( vast majority of those ) who want to be ( stimulated & ) entertained. But you don't ( have to) care whether they have listened to you or did not listen.
I don't say, to the people who need crutches, offer crutches, or to those who want ( inner) comfort, give an avenue of escape - 'Go away somewhere else.'

Swamiji: To the Palace Hotel (in Gstaad, Sw) ?

Krishnaji: I think, sir, that is perhaps what has taken place in all these (organised) religions, all the so-called teachers. They have said, "I must help this man, that man, that other man. The ignorant, the semi-ignorant, and the very intelligent. Each must have his particular form of (spiritual) food. They never said, " I just offer the flower, let them smell it or tear it to pieces. I have nothing to do with it."

Swamiji: Well, they glorify that other attitude, the Bodhisattva ( the Saviour?) ideal.

Krishnaji: The Maitreya Bodhisattva, the ideal that He has relinquished (attained?) the Ultimate Enlightenment in his life, but is waiting for all humanity, or for a part of humanity...

Swamiji: Thank you.

( Intermission...)

Krishnaji: What is actually ( the meaning of the word ?) Vedanta?

Swamiji: The word itself means, 'The end of the Vedas' (what is left to do after reading all the Vedas ?) .

Krishnaji: Sir, that's just it! The ending of all knowledge.

Swamiji: Yes,( what is there to be experientially discovered ?) when knowledge matters no more. A ( apprentice?) sage is reported to have gone to another greater one. And he says, "Look my mind is restless; please tell me what must I do." And the older man says, "Give me a list of what you know already, so that I can proceed from there." He replies, "Oh, it will take a long time, because I have all the formulas, all the shastras, all of that." The sage answers, "But that's only a set of words. All those words are contained in the dictionary, it means nothing. Now what do you (really) know?" He says, "That is what I know. I don't know anything else."

Krishnaji: Vedanta, as the word itself says, means the end of knowledge.

Swamiji: Yes, I never thought of it before: the end of knowledge.

Krishnaji: The freedom from knowledge (from the 'known'?) .

Swamiji: Yes indeed...

Krishnaji: Then why have they not kept to that?

Swamiji: Their contention is that you have to pass through it in order to come out of it. "After examining all these (philosophical ?) things and finding that they are of no use to you, then you must step out of it."

Krishnaji: Why should I acquire it?

Swamiji: Well, (because you are starting by being inwardly anchored in the known?)

Krishnaji: Why should not I, from the very beginning, see what ( the inner value of?) knowledge is and discard it?
Vedanta means to end accumulating ( psychological?) knowledge. Then why should I accumulate it ? So each day I free myself from ( the psychological residues of?) what I have learnt, every minute. So every minute there is an ending of ( one's attachment to the psychological burden of the known?)

Swamiji: Yes, it ( sounds) right...

Krishnaji: So, why don't they tell me, "Look my friend, as you live from day to day acquiring knowledge, end ( your psychological attachments to?) it each day"?

Swamiji: Yes. But supposing that I'm too dull (or just inwardly asleep?) , I can't get there right away ; so I'd rather acquire all this ( spiritual knowledge ) .

Krishnaji: Yes, and then... discard it  ?

Swamiji: In the spiritual history of India, there have been sages who were born sages: the Ramana Maharishi, the Shuka Maharishi, etc., etc. They were somehow allowed to discard ( all the traditional) knowledge even before acquiring it. And the usual argument was that they had done it all...

Krishnaji: In their past lives ?

Swamiji: Yes, in their past lives.

Krishnaji: Now, sir, apart from the acquiring of knowledge and the ending of knowledge, what does ( the philosophy of ) Vedanta say?

Swamiji: Vedanta describes the relationship between the individual and the Cosmic.

Krishnaji: The Eternal.

Swamiji: The Cosmic, or the Infinite, or whatever it is. It starts well: "Till the whole universe is pervaded by that one thing...'' And then it's mostly a dialogue between a master and his disciple.

Krishnaji: Sir, isn't it extraordinary, there has always been in India this (knowledge based division between the ?) teacher and the disciple ? They never said, "You are the teacher as well as the pupil."

Swamiji: Occasionally they did...

Krishnaji: The ( truth of the?) fact is, you are the teacher and you are the pupil. Otherwise you depend on anybody else. That's one factor. And also I would like to ask why, in songs, in Hindu literature, they have praised the beauty of nature, the trees, the flowers, the rivers, the birds. Why is it most people in India have no feeling for all that?

Swamiji: Because they are (inwardly inert or...?) 'dead'?

Krishnaji: And yet they talk about beauty, all the literature, and Sanskrit itself is the most beautiful language. And they have no feeling for the poor man.

Swamiji: Yes, that is the worst tragedy of all. And heaven knows from where they got this idea because it is not found in any of the scriptures. That means we are repeating the scriptures without realizing their meaning.

Krishnaji: That's it.

Swamiji: Even Krishna says: "I am seated in the hearts of all beings." Nobody bothers about the' hearts of all beings'. Obviously great meaning was put into those words by the original authors. We are even asked to repeat them every day in order that we might keep... When and how did we kill the 'spirit' (of those ancient Teachings?) ? How was it possible?

Krishnaji: Why do you think it happened? Is it due to over population?

Swamiji: No, overpopulation is a result, not the cause.

Krishnaji: Is it that they have accepted this tradition, this authority?

Swamiji: But the tradition says something good.

Krishnaji: But they have ( just ) accepted it, they never (enquired or ) questioned it. Isn't that one of the causes?

Swamiji: Perhaps. Mere memorizing, without thinking (responsibly) . Why does man refuse to think?

Krishnaji: Oh, indolence, fear, wanting always to tread the traditional path so that he doesn't go wrong.

Swamiji: But we have also discarded the tradition which they say didn't suit us.

Krishnaji: Of course. That's why I'm asking, whether it's not important to make man realize that he's solely responsible  for what he does, what he thinks, how he acts. Otherwise we end up in complete blindness.

Swamiji: So, that is your 'message'. And how to nail it?

Krishnaji: By 'driving it in' every day (laughs). And driving it into oneself. And strangely they insist on Karma.

Swamiji: We played with that ( philosophical concept) of Karma and said: it's your Karma, you must suffer. My Karma is good and so...I'm the landlord. And now they have turned the tables. Someone who is a fanatical vegetarian asked me , "Isn't pure vegetarianism absolutely necessary for yoga practice?" I said, "Not so important. Let's talk about something else." And she was horrified : "How can you say that vegetarianism is of secondary value ? You must say it's of primary value." I then asked her, "Do you believe in war, defence forces, defending your country and so on?" "Yes," she said, "otherwise how can we live - we have to." I replied, "If I call you a cannibal, how do you react to that? She didn't like that - but I think she saw the point later. It's so fantastic. People don't want to think (responsibly) . And I suppose with you, Krishnaji, if you say the truth, you will become very unpopular . As an ancient priest said: "( Ordinary) people love to hear pleasant things; pleasant to say and pleasant to hear." But if you say something which is not so pleasant, even if it is the truth, one doesn't want to see it and one doesn't want to hear it.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 06 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #752
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

What was the K teaching on other teachings? It was that they become useless because the human mind has no way to deal with them other than to fashion a system out of them. My question is: If that is so for all the other teachings then doesn't consistency demand that it also be true for K's teaching? Answers on a postcard please, to Brockwood Park or Ojai.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil | 18 May 1935

Question: Have the teachings attributed to the great teachers - Christ, Buddha, Hermes and others - any value for the attainment of the direct path to truth?

Krishnamurti: If you will not misunderstand, I would say that their teachings become valueless because the human mind, being so subtle, so cunning in its desire for self-protection, twists the teachings to suit its own purposes and creates systems and ideals as a means of escape, out of which grow petrified churches and exploiting priests. Religions throughout the world, through their systems and the trickery of their organized exploitation, seek to teach man to love, to think, to live sanely, intelligently; but how can a system create love or teach you to think selflessly?

As you do not want to do this, as you are unwilling to live completely, integrally, with a vulnerable mind and heart, you have created a system which has become your master, a system that is contrary to and destructive of thought and love. So it is utterly useless to multiply systems. If the mind frees itself from the illusion of its own self-protective demands and cravings, then there will be love, intelligence; then there will not be this division created by religions and beliefs; man will not be against man.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Mon, 06 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #753
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
the perception of their 'living spirit' must necessarily be new

That may be so but it is also what every pulpit pounder tells his flock. The Christians also say that one must open one's heart 'now' to the Truth of the Word. And Buddhists explain it all out in the very same terms you have chosen to use.

K was asked not about the organised religions that flowed from the 'great teachers' but about their teachings themselves. The issue, as he explained it, was not that something called 'organised religion' has interceded between the word and the listener but that the listener seems incapable of listening, intercessions or no intercessions. The problem is not the interpreter without but the interpreter within - as the internal is what created the external in the first place.

If each 'Truth' may be represented as a solid brick, an unmovable fact, then what we all do with them is build a wall. Dialogue becomes nothing less than cement. Yes, you may be doing your best to follow the "threads of newness" in K's words but the very act of following is something questionable. You (the collective 'you' in terms of the forum as a whole) take those "threads of newness" and try to weave a tapestry from them. What is actually sewn however is a comfort blanket.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #754
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 705 posts in this forum Offline

( Here's another reader friendly edited text from 'The Only Revolution' )

How does one act in daily life if one 'lives the K teaching without 'conforming' to it?

He was rather a blunt man, full of interest and drive. He had read extensively, and spoke several languages. He had been to the East and knew a little about Indian philosophy, had read the 'sacred' books and had followed some guru or other. And here he was now, in this little room overlooking a verdant valley smiling in the morning sun.

Q : I have listened to you for some years, in different parts of the world, and I ( think that?) I have grasped the (gist of your ) teaching. I am not trying to put that teaching into action in my life for then it becomes another another form of imitation. I have to live my daily life but I'm always watchful to see that I'm not merely following some new pattern which I have made for myself. So I seem to lead a double (dualistic?) life; there is the ordinary activity, family, work, and so on, and on the other hand there is the teaching that you have been giving, in which I am deeply interested. If I 'follow' the teaching then I'm the same as any ( practising) Catholic who conforms to his dogmas. So, how does one act in daily life if one 'lives ( in the true spirit of?) the teaching without 'conforming' to it?

K : It is necessary to put aside (discard the concept of ?) the ( K) teaching and the ( K) teacher and also of the
( self-image of the earnest ?) follower who is trying to live a different kind of life. There is only ( the time-free act of?) 'learning': and this 'learning' is ( not divided from ) the 'doing'. If the learning is separate from the ( directly perceptive?) action, the learning is (resulting in ) a set of ( directing ) ideas according to which action takes place, whereas if the learning 'is' the doing, there is no ('observer' vs 'observed', or 'actor' vs 'action' ?) conflict.

When this ( major duality issue?) is understood, what is the question? The learning is not ( encapsulated into?) an abstraction, an idea, but is an actual learning (in real time) about anything. You cannot learn about yourself except in ( the direct perception of your everyday) action. It is not that you first learn about yourself and then act from that ( background of) knowledge for then your action becomes imitative, conforming to your accumulated knowledge.

Q : But, sir, every moment I am challenged by this or by that event, ( and if I want to play safe?) I respond as I have always have done - which often means there is (a residual) conflict. So, I'd like to understand the pertinence of what you have just said about ( this integrated?) 'learning' in these everyday situations.

K : ( Life's) 'challenges' must always be new (or unexpected?) , otherwise they are not ( real) 'challenges', but if our response is old, or inadequate, there is (a residual ?) conflict. You are asking what there is to learn about this (everyday fact of life) . There a learning about how these responses come into being, about their background ( of self-interest?) and cultural conditioning, so there is a (non-cummulative) learning about the whole structure and nature of the ( human) responses. This learning is a ( free?) movement, not anchored in (the known ?) . If it is anchored it is not a ( holistic learning ?) movement. The ( thinking) machinery of the computer, is 'anchored' (in its pre-programmed memory) . That is the basic ( qualitative) difference between man and the machine. If you see from ( the full proof safety of all your previously ?) accumulated knowledge then this ( fake?) 'seeing' is not only limited, but there is nothing new in it.

Q: When you're saying that one learns about the whole structure of (our conditioned) responses, this does seem to imply a accumulation ( and a processing) of whatever was learnt . On the other hand, the 'learning' you speak of, is supposed to be so fluid that it accumulates nothing at all. (Any comments?)

K : Our ( traditional ?) education is ( based on) the gathering ( and intelligent processing?) of a volume of knowledge, but the ( new generations of ?) computers will do this faster and more accurately. What need is there for such an education? The machines are going to take over most of the ( outward ) activities of man. So, when you insist that learning is ( consisting in ) gathering of volumes of knowledge then you are denying, aren't you, the ( inward ) movement of life, which is ( expressing itself in our ?) relationships and behaviour? If ( our everyday) relationships and behaviour are based on our previous (ego-centric ?) 'experience' and 'knowledge', then is there an authentic relationship? Is (our ages old personal & collective?) memory, with all its (mental ?) associations, the true basis of ( a holistic?) relationship? This ('psychologically' biased ?) memory is based on 'images' and 'words', and when you base your relationship on symbols, images and words, can it ever bring about true relationship? If our relationship is tethered to the past, to memory, its movement is ( self-limiting?) and ( eventually ) becomes agonizing.

Q : I understand very well what you say, but I ask again, 'from what' (basis?) do you act? Are you not contradicting yourself when you say that one learns in observing the whole structure of one's responses, and at the same time say that learning precludes accumulation?

K : The ( quality of ?) seeing of the ( conditioned) structure is alive, it is moving; but when the learning adds to the structure then the ( temporal continuity of the?) structure becomes far more important than the seeing, which is ( undissociated from) the living. In this there is no ( experiential) contradiction : We are saying that when you give ( the prioritary) importance to ( the cummulative) 'learning about the structure' and not to (an integrated quality of?) 'learning as seeing', then there is a 'contradiction' (a major conflict of interests?) ; then seeing is one thing and learning about the structure is another.

You ask, sir, what is the (inner) 'source' from which one acts? If there is a 'source' of action then it is (our personal & collective?) knowledge, which is the (active) memory of the past. We said that when « the seeing 'is' the acting »; the two things are not separate. And ( if ?) the 'seeing' is always new, the 'acting' is always new. Therefore the ( insightful action of ?) 'seeing' the ( truth or falseness of our ?) everyday responses, brings out an ( inner state of?) 'newness ', which is what you call 'spontaneity'.

( Here's an elementary experiential example:) At the very moment of ( a reaction of justified ) 'anger' there is no ( simultaneous verbal ) recognition of it as 'anger'. The ( self-conscious process of ) recognition takes place only a few seconds later as " I am getting really angry".
Is this ( verbalised ?) seeing of the 'anger' a choiceless awareness of that anger, or is it again a ( rational ?) choice based on the old ( safe patterns of self-control ?) If it is based on the old, then all the ( self-conscious?) responses to that 'anger' ( such as ) repression, rationalising, indulging and so on - are the 'traditional' activity. But when the seeing is 'choiceless' (not in the 'safe-mode' ) , there is only the 'new' ( 'what is')

From all this arises another interesting ( academical ?) problem: our (addictive ?) dependence on ( ego-stimulating 'twitter' ?) challenges to keep us ( our huuuuuge self-image?) 'awake', to ( feel fully alive and ?) pull us out of our ( rather boring life of ) routine, tradition (and/or) established order.

Q : Do you really think it is possible for the ( average human) mind not to depend on challenges at all?

K : It is possible (only?) when the mind is ( seeing the advantage of renewing itself by ?) undergoing a constant (inner) change and has no ( more need for 'crutches' or other ) safe anchorages, vested interests, and/or (personal) commitments. An awakened mind, a mind which is 'alight' (a light for itself ?) - what need has it of ( stimulating ?) challenges of any kind?

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 07 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #755
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 705 posts in this forum Offline

K IN CONVERSATION WITH J. UPADIAH & FRIENDS , MADRAS 13TH JANUARY 1985

INSIGHT AND INNER QUESTIONING

K: Sir, yesterday we talked about an ordinary man, fairly educated, but not necessarily in a specialised profession. He starts by looking ( meditatively ?) at the outside world. It is like a great river flowing. As it enters into the Sea ( of Now ?) it is creating a big turmoil because it has got great volume of water for the last million years. And this 'turmoil', the conflict, the various deltas, the whole vast river entering into the sea, that is the ( present state of the?) world. He follows up ( in his meditation?) that river, up the mountain, and he comes to a point where the river begins. And there, after a million years (of collective evolution?) he (finds himself) alone, self-centred up there. And he realizes that all that river (of human consciousness ) is ... himself, he 'is' the world , and all this (evolutionary consciousness of the ) world is based on self-interest.

From there he begins to discover slowly the immensity of that funnel on the other side. It is immensely wide, much wider than the river and he doesn't know quite how to move from there. He doesn't know anything about it, so he questioning, doubting, ( doubting even his own experiences, his own thinking, his own way of life, and he has never disciplined himself because he has just been (learning by?) following the ( movement of that ) river from that enormous delta up the river, he has followed it up. And he has reached that very small hole, which is self-interest. And he doesn't know how to go beyond that, he is stuck there. That's where we left him off yesterday - right?
As he climbed he hoped somebody would help him but he discovers that there is not a single person to guide him – no guru, or any philosophy, and he is stranded up there, aware of his loneliness, all the rest of it. He has come to that point.

JU : You have explained the whole thing very clearly but I would like to ask whether each individual who is in this river, in this stream, has to remain utterly helpless, or whether there is a possibility for him not to be completely dragged in that stream, but to create something, a 'raft', something by which he can be out of it. He is not entirely out of it and yet he can stand apart from it.

K: Sir, I said he is always moving up the river. And that very 'moving' ( in learning) gives him the strength. As I move up the river, because it is a movement, not a static state, as it is a movement up the river, that very (learning) movement creates its own discipline. The man who is (ego-) static needs discipline. I don't know if you are following? But the man who is constantly moving up and up and up, he is following the river and therefore there is no island because he is moving (as he's learning ?) .

Q2: What I understand, is that you have described the stream of life, where everyone is being dragged down.

K: Because he is not moving (& learning?) .

Q1: There is some seed within ( the total consciousness of?) man himself which takes him out of all that.
Within every man, there is the ( subliminal) urge to rise above these sordid sorrows and worries and everything that happen.

K: ( To recap:) he has spent all his youth at the mouth of the river, sex, power, you know all the business. And he sees it is all a habit, a conditioning , and he is bored with it. He is so exhausted and bored with the whole circus. And from ( this existential ) boredom he says, "By Jove, I must move somewhere (else) '' . He starts from there.

Q1: You mean his boredom takes him right up to the top?

K: No, he just moves out of that ( inner condition of being entangled in self-interest ?) He says to himself, "My God, that is enough." and then he begins to move '& learn?) from there.

Q2: Sir, you have described the stream which is dragging everybody along with it and then you say...

K: If he wants to remain at the mouth of the river, if he likes it there - the vast majority they like it there - they like sex, power, position, gathering knowledge & everything else - he is (free to stay) there. But if he is curious enough to find out the origins of this (inner) River ( of Man's Consciousness?) , he is following that.

Q1: But there must be some ( intelligent ?) energy which makes him follow the river to the...

K: He has been through all that awful ( sad?) business and says, "My God, I am bored with this stuff" - aren't you getting bored with sex when you have had enough of it?

Q5: There is another metaphor that the Punditji (JU) has brought up before - the metaphor of the suffering humanity, seeing the ( present ) state of the whole world and feeling compassionate about all these people being dragged down. Buddhism talks about the ( real ?) world as a 'sad place'. And wouldn't it be nice for these poor people being swept by, if there would be somebody to give them the way, somebody to give them some help and so on ?

K: I don't want all that. My river is the river of everybody. I have been through sorrow, that is sorrow, that is pain, that is anxiety, that is loneliness, despair, hope, all that.

Q5: So, wouldn't you describe your river as the "river of sorrow"?

K: Why reduce everything to sorrow?

Q5: Krishnaji, I like the idea of not talking about sorrow but of talking about things as they are.

K: As they are.

Q4: I am mankind. I have a lot of things in common with man, but I am an individual also.

K: I question that. I am not different from the rest of you, I am the whole of mankind. Right? And I have been through all that, sorrow, pleasure, pain, sex, drugs, - I haven't been through all that, but I am bored with it - I am using the word 'bored' specially - is my life just a meaningless boredom ? And I begin to move up the stream. This is very important that I am moving. The ( life of comfort & boredom?) is static.

Q2: This is static because it is just a ( cyclic ) repetition.

K: Repetition, mechanical, habitual and all the rest of it. The moment I move because I am bored with the whole thing, I realize movement has ( its own learning) discipline. I am walking up the hill because...

PJ: Sir, you used to say ( in your public talks that ) the river of humanity flows, and unless you step out of the stream, unless the mind - I will use the word mind now, is (steady as ) a rock...

JU : You have also pointed out how the 'self' comes into being as part of a process of activity of the brain cells, and this activity of the brain cells leads to thought, and then thought leads to these cells and the stabilizing of the cells. This process we have understood. And this is the process of all the people who are in that current.
Now I'd want to know how come that without getting out it, some person arises who is able to end thought and he has love and he has insight, and all this, how does this man, he is not different from this, he is also in it, but he is watching therefore he is different and he is part of this, how does this come?

K: I will come to that point. I have just began. I am bored with all that and I have become very sceptical, doubtful, questioning. None of this has any meaning to him so he moves upstream naturally. And in this movement he is becoming aware the difficulties of leaving this movement. So he begins to question why he is finding it difficult. So he says I understand now why it has become a habit, sex, drugs, high position, language, and knowledge, it is all here. I am a little part of it because I have also collected a lot of memories. So have I really understood all that? The biological part, the psychological part, the brain part, the physical reactions, biological necessity ? He says, am I really moving, or am I pretending I am moving? And in asking that question he becomes terribly honest. Really deeply honest. No pretence, then begins humility - right? And with ( humble attitude?) he is moving, learning, watching. He says I am not different from all mankind, I am all that, but I am (also learning & ) watching. And he is climbing, moving. And there is no need for ( self-imposed ) discipline : I won't accept any effort, any of that. So the movement is (pure) learning, not in accumulating knowledge.
And he comes to a point at the origin of the river and he says, by Jove all this, this tremendous effort I have made, has been utterly useless because I am (still) self-centred here, as I was self-centred here. That's all. I have come to that point.

Q6: Well, Punditji's 'stream' is one in which he finds misery and therefore he wants to transform it. Krishnaji says: I recognize I am the stream, I am in it, I have been it for sufficiently long, I am bored with it.

K: I don't want to 'transform' it . I don't even know what it means.

PJ: What I am questioning is your saying that I am bored with all this and there is nothing beyond. I do nothing but stay with it.

K: I am that. I am ( the total consciousness of?) humanity. That has to me tremendous meaning. And I thought that by going up to the source I would find the whole explanation , both down there as well as up here, it is self-interest - right? And I see self-interest has created terrible mess, obviously. This doesn't need a great deal of insight, you can see everybody is fighting each other, nations and so on. Then out of that observation I say is there any ( radical qualitative ?) change at all possible? What does this change mean? Is the change ( consisting in) ending this ( emphasis on self-interest?) ?

Q2: So you would say there is a possibility of ending it?

K: I have reached a ( critical?) point, where I see that if there is no (radical) change man will be destroyed as he goes on. So I question whether there is change at all? Or there is only an 'ending', which means 'dying'. Can I die today to everything I have known ? So I question if there is a ( change in the context of time & ) continuity at all, or simply a 'dying' (to the 'known'?) . And then I will see what happens. The man who has been there has come to that point. That's all.

JU : I go with you the whole way. And therefore there is no change but there is only ending. But in that stream itself ther is the seedling of a beginning because the stream is continuity.

K: The stream is ( generated in ?) in the human consciousness. As I am the humanity I am that consciousness. Right? So, if I die to that consciousness (my consciousness?) is out of it .

JU : There is a continuity to the ( big) stream of consciousness independent of my ending it.

K: Sir, ( the active content of?) that consciousness is sorrow, fear, greed, envy, etcetera, which is the essence of self-interest - right? Now after travelling all that way, I say : is it possible for a human being, - who is (a responsible representative of the?) entire humanity - to step out of it?
Humanity suffers, goes through hell and as long as (a critical number of?) human beings have not moved out of it that stream will go on.

JU : Then there is really a "stepping out"?

K: Even if that person who 'is' humanity steps out of the (collective) Stream (of self-interest?) , that stream will go on. But that ( integrated human consciousness?) is out of it, therefore he has (free access to an universal reservoir of ) Compassionate Intelligence, and therefore That acts.

Q3: Sir, at one moment you said there is no individual consciousness . Then... what 'steps out'?

K: Nothing (not-a-thing?) . Can I use the word 'insight' for seeing the whole thing a unitary movement that is going on. And after seeing it is a whole unitary movement, one suddenly realizes there is nothing beyond that. 'Nothing' in the sense of 'not-a-thing'. 'Thing' being the material process of thought. So, that is the end of thought.

Q1: And in that 'no-thingness' there is no duality between the self and...

K: (Recap :) ( The source of that collective ?) stream is self-interest. This (collective streaming of?) self-interest is perpetuating itself all the time, whether it is 'me' or 'you' or... the (collective consciousness of?) humanity is perpetually caught in this (temporal continuity?) . And that is ( manifesting itself as self-centred?) thought, ( greed, violence...?) etc. He ( the meditating mind has an insight and ?) says, '' By Jove, no ( more continuity of the time-thought?) movement'' and when there is no such movement there is ( a new birth of?) 'something' else.
Now K says he has never been (personally involved?) in all this ( ending the self-interest generated ?) jealousy, anxiety, pain, and all that. You understand Sirs? He never moved ( inwardly along the time-line of self-interest?)
Is it possible, except biologically, never to have the ( self-centred continuity of the ?) 'psyche' as the centre ? You understand my question? The moment you see that (time-trap?) you are out, ( all your psychological problems are?) finished.

JU : Can you explain it a little more ?

K: Sir, we have the idea of a ( time-becoming ) path, a goal, achievement. But somebody like K comes along and says : you don't have to go through all this stuff. ( Start anew from square one by :?) Becoming fully aware of ( the surrounding of ) nature, and by being ( non-verbally) aware of the senses, and of how the ( fragmentary activity of the?) senses create the self (-isolating consciousness) , etcetera, etcetera. See it as a tremendous movement ( of million years of evolutionary self-interest) and ( the insightful ?) flash that you are out of it. It is not a matter of self- sacrificing, giving up, discipline, practice - oh, that is wrong...

Q5: So, all you have described is ( the temporal ?) consciousness...

K :... which is part of self-interest.

Q5: Then last you said, if I understand...

K:... see the futility.

Q5: So, there is no place for time in all the ( insightful) understanding of all this. The moment that goes, it ends.

K: And I doubt it! You understand? I question it, whether this is ( actually taking place now?) in myself. Therefore I began by questioning everything and I end up by (an open ended?) questioning, and asking. Now I leave that ( thought & time?) question alive. I don't say, is there a (final) answer. ( Remaining with?) that ( open-ended?) question itself destroys everything.

Q5: No ( need to come to any final) conclusion ?

K: No Sir. I have got a quick bat! Punditji, suppose that you and I have a ( serious) dialogue. You put a question, I answer it. Then you answer that question. We keep this up. Asking, answering. And eventually we come to a ( no-movement?) point when the question itself is revealing the (right) answer. The question itself is so vital it bursts the...

Q5: I think it would be helpful if you clarify a few points. You had mentioned earlier that K has never experienced all this (self-interest generated stuff?) but he questions even that 'not experiencing'. Then you said that the question(ing) continues to remain and the question 'is' the answer. Could you say a little more ?

K: K comes along, or some strange man from the dark (caves of the?) Himalayas, and says : why do you go through all this stuff? The disciplines, the self-sacrifice, the renunciation, control, don't do all that there is something else. Which is, just 'see' ( or have an insight into?) the futility of it - right? And when you really see the depth of that futility and you ask why it has come and live with that ( open ended ?) question, then that question itself opens up and withers. Like a flower. If you leave the flower alone, watch it carefully, nurture it, the flower blossoms and withers, at the end of it there is no flower at all. Right? Which is ( the inner state of ) 'no-thing' (-ness)

Q3: This we all know, we have talked about it. But you said something else : that in seeing this whole stream and in questioning and in ending, the stream continues its flow. The question remains (alive) .

K: That's it, that's it.

Q3: And it is such a powerful, potent question that when it remains (open) it has an explosive energy independent of me - it is like letting loose...

K: It has nothing to do with 'me', it is like a fire that is burning. I am sure they do that in science. You come to a point and you put the question and wait, don't you? Look at it, wait, and you have a sudden flash. Right ?

Q5: Yes, somewhat like that. One talked about transformations, one talked about properties, about ending, beginning, and all kinds of things and suddenly the whole question ends. Saying there is nothing which is transformed except the question itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Nov 2017 #756
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 705 posts in this forum Offline

THE HOLISTIC APPROACH TO SORROW

A meditative mind is ( naturally ? ) silent. But this is not the (noise-free ) silence which thought can conceive of; it is the silence ( that comes?) when ( the process of one's 'self' centred?) thought - with all its images, its words and perceptions - has entirely ceased. This meditative mind is the religious mind. The religious mind is the explosion of Love. This Love knows no separation and in it, all (sense of inner ) division ceases. From this ( Loving ?) Silence alone the meditative mind acts.

Q : The recent death of my son was a very sad personal event and a terrible thing for my wife and other children. How can I explain to them the ( Noble Truth about the ?) 'ending of sorrow', of which you have often talked? I myself have studied and perhaps can understand it, but what of the others who are involved in it?

K : Sorrow is present in every house and round every corner. Every human being has ( carries the burden of) this engulfing grief, caused by ( the residual accumulation of?) so many hurts and accidents of life. Sorrow seems like an endless (tidal ?) wave that comes upon man, almost drowning him; and the ( self-)pity ( generated by the accumulation of this ?) sorrow, often breeds bitterness and cynicism.
So, (in your particular case) is it actually the sorrow for your son, because he was so promising in the worldly sense, or is it the sorrow of self-pity for yourself, for the break in the continuity of yourself through your son?

If it is the sorrow of self-pity, then your self-concern, this isolating factor in life - though there is the outward semblance of relationship - must inevitably cause misery. This self-isolating process, the self-concern in our everyday life, in this separative way of living, whether one is aware of it or not, must bring about the (aching sense of) loneliness from which we try to escape in so many different ways. Self-pity is ( the direct result of?) this ache of loneliness, and its ( existential?) pain is ( generally ) called 'sorrow'.

There is also the ( imponderable ? ) sorrow of ignorance - the ignorance of having accepted ( the psychological continuity of ? ) time, as ( personal growth or?) evolution, from 'what is' to 'what should be' , as well as ( other unconscious trends ?) which make us accept authority with all its violence, the ignorance of conformity with its dangers and pains.
(In a nutshell: ) the ignorance of not knowing the whole ( inward) structure of oneself. This is the sorrow that man has spread ( unconsciously?) wherever he has been.

So ( to start dealing with it ?) you must be clear about what is the (true nature of your) sorrow – is it the grief for the loss of what was the supposed good, or the sorrow of ( your personal ) insecurity ?. Which is it that you are caught in? Unless this is clear there is no ending to (the personal) sorrow. You must become ( fully) aware of what your sorrow is as clearly as you become aware, sensually, when you touch that flower.

Without (directly) understanding this whole way of sorrow, how can you end it? So we have to lay down the map of your sorrow and trace every 'path' and 'road' of it. But if you allow ( the thought created ) 'time' to cover this map, then (the additional sorrow of ) 'time' will ( only ?) strengthen the brutality ( painfulness?) of your sorrow. Try to see this whole (psychological) 'map' of human sorrow, at a glance - seeing the 'whole of it' first and then the details, not the details first and then the whole.
( Clue :) in this ( insightful ) 'ending of sorrow', the 'time' (continuity created by thought ?) must come to an end.

( To recap: ?) sorrow cannot be ended by ( the 'self' centred efforts of ?) thought. When the 'time' ( factor?) stops (interfering?) thought, as the way of sorrow, ceases. It is ( the 'self' isolating process of ?) thought and ( its 'self' projected continuity in ) time that create sorrow. (However, the redeeming action of Intelligence, Compassion & ) Love is not ( the product of) ( 'self' centred) thought or time.

( For homework : ) Try to look ( globally ) at this 'Map of Sorrow' , rather than with the ( time- binding ?) 'eyes of memory'. Listen to the whole murmur of it; 'be' of it, for you are both the ( suffering ?) 'observer' and the (sorrow which is being ) 'observed'. Then only can sorrow end. There is no other way.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Nov 2017 #757
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 705 posts in this forum Offline

 1ST CONVERSATION WITH TWO BUDDHIST SCHOLARS & friends on

'TRUTH'

R (Dr Rahula) : Sir, I want to ask you one thing today. We all talk of truth, absolute truth, ultimate truth; and about seeing it and realizing it. Buddha says there is only one truth, there is no second. But this ( ultimate Truth?) is never defined in positive terms, although sometimes this word 'truth' is used in place of 'Nirvana', for the absolute truth. But then again, 'Nirvana' is never defined either; except mostly in negative terms. If it is described in positive terms it is mostly metaphorically, in a symbolic way.
So, I'm asking you today: what is truth, what is absolute truth, what is ultimate truth and what is that non-duality as you see it? Tell us. It is the challenge.

K: Do you think, sir, that truth is measurable by words? But if we could distinguish between what is 'reality' and what is 'truth' then perhaps we could penetrate more deeply into this question.
So, what is 'reality'? The (latin) root of this word 'res', means 'thing'. Could we say that everything that (human) thinking has created is 'reality' (man made 'things') - all the things that thought has brought about in the world, the cathedrals, the temples, the mosques, including the illusions, the gods, the various rituals ? That is a 'reality' like this microphone - it's made by thought, it is there, actual. Nature is not created by thought. It exists ( independently of us) although we human beings have used nature to produce 'things', like houses, chairs, and so on and so on.
So could we say then that anything that human thought has created, brought about, put together, is 'reality'?
This (world of) 'reality' includes all the material things thought has created through its accumulated technological knowledge, as well as the illusions that thought has created, as well as and so on, so on, all that is 'reality'.

R: According to Buddhas's teaching, the truths of this 'reality' are all relative. And there is also a Truth which is absolute.

K: All the technological world of knowledge, all the things that thought has put together as literature, poem, painting, illusions, gods, symbols - all that is ( the man made ) reality. Would you accept that, sir?

F: But through the centuries people have tended to talk of Reality more in terms of one of its connotations of Ultimate Reality.

K: This is why I would like to separate these two (philosophical concepts?) - truth and reality. Otherwise we mix our terms all the time.

S: Are you also including nature in this 'reality'?

K: No. That tree is not created by man's thought. But out of that ( dead) tree man can produce chairs and so on.

R: That means, you don't consider the tree a 'reality' ?

K: Of course it's a reality, but it's not ( the man-made reality) created by man's thought.
Now let us (take a closer ) look at this 'reality' - the world is reality, these lamps are reality. You sitting there, and this other person sitting there, are realities. And also the illusions that one has are an actual reality (they are quite real for the one who's having them).

M: So the 'reality' of which you are speaking is man-made, in a sense.

K: Man-made. Like war is a 'reality'.

F: Could we regard all that is apprehended through the senses, and then interpreted by the brain as our 'reality'.

K: That's right, sir.

S: At one time you made a still more precise distinction between 'reality' and 'actuality' - which is, anything which existed in time and space.

K: You want to separate actuality, reality and truth. Could we say the 'actual' is what is happening now?

F: Yes, that's a good way of putting it. The point which arises there is that, are we incapable of apprehending the totality of what is happening now. We apprehend only a portion of it.

K: Whether a mind see the 'actual' (what is actually going on ) , incompletely or completely, that's not the point for the moment. But can the human mind, which is the 'network(ing) ' of all the senses, actualities and so on, can it apprehend, see, observe what is truth?

F: Yes, provided the human mind can be free of all its (cultural?) conditioning.

K: That's the whole problem : In order to find out what the absolute (?) 'truth' is, the whole movement and nature of thought must be understood - so that it can find its right place, and that the (totality of the ) mind becomes absolutely still and perhaps in that (free inner space of ?) stillness, the ( living dimension of ?) truth is perceived, which is not to be measured by words.

R: Yes, I agree with that.

K: Now, this are the two (issues) - isn't it ? The human mind is ( presently ) caught in the movement of thought. And this movement projects ( its own realistic image of?) what is truth.

F: This is the ( common, natural) mistake that man makes.

K: Of course. He projects what he ( sincerely?) thinks is truth. And this ( thought-projected ultimate ?) 'truth' can be put in different words – 'God', 'Brahman' or 'Nirvana', or 'Moksha', all that (man-made ?) business.
So our ( first experiential?) question is then : can our (thinking) mind cease to measure (and speculate ?) Measurement is our whole educational, environmental, social conditioning. Would you agree?

R: Yes.

K: Then what is actually this 'measurement'? Measurement means comparison (with what was previously known?) . And as long as thought is measuring (comparing, evaluating) there must be ( the observer-observed) duality.

R: Absolutely, that is a fact.

K: Now, how has this conditioning come about? The whole movement of measurement, why has man been caught in it?

R: The whole measurement is based on our self interest -

K: Yes, but how has it come about ? What is the source of this measurement?

P: It seems that thought needs a static point (of reference) to ( evaluate and ) measure, and since itself is in a state of continuous flux or movement, it creates a static (reference) point which is immovable, which is the centre of the 'self'. From there only you can ( afford to evaluate & ) measure.

K: Yes, sir. I mean, the very words 'better', 'greater', the (whole structure of our?) language is (based on) measurement.
Now, ( in a brief philosophical detour?) one has to find out what is the source of this measurement? One sees the high mountains & the low valleys, the tall man, short man, woman, man, child, old age - physically there are all these states of ( objective material) measurement. There is also a 'psychological' measurement, and that's what I'm talking about. Why has man used time as a means of ( measuring his 'psychological' ?) progress?

F: Could it be that our whole cultural tradition is, that starting with the physical facts of difference, in size, in quantity, and so forth and we apply that (same logic ?) to the 'psychological' (inner) process also.

K: Yes. Without ( developping accurate instruments of?) measurement there would have been no (modern) technology.
But why has man used psychological time as a means of self growth, self aggrandisement, he calls it 'getting better', getting more noble, achieving enlightenment? That's what we're discussing. Whether there is any (validity in this?) 'psychological' evolution at all. Why do we need ( to think inwardly in terms of?) time at all ?

SN: What is it that creates this 'time'?

K: Thought ; thought 'is' (projecting its own continuity in?) time. Time is ( intrinsically associated to any material ?) movement, isn't it ? So as thought is (a material ?) movement, a 'psychological' time is ( associated to its ) movement : one is now ( feeling ?) greedy & envious, and I ( assume that I would ) need time to ( change this inner condition and eventually to ?) be free of it. ( So, a time measurement is associated to covering any ?) physical distance as well as any 'psychological' distance . One is questioning whether that ( same mentality ?) is not an illusion ( when applied to ) the 'psychological distance'.
To put it very succinctly, psychologically speaking - is there a 'tomorrow'?

F: Only in terms of anticipation.

K: Ah, 'in terms of ', because thought says, "I hope to".

F: And in addition to ( the high hopes of?) thought, there is the fact of our physical experience, of day and night, and therefore the words 'tomorrow', 'today' (are implicitly associated )

K: We said that very clearly : there is ( the chronological time of ) 'yesterday', 'today' and 'tomorrow'; that is a reality. But we are asking, is there psychological time at all, or thought has invented a 'psychological' time, in order to feel that it can achieve ( an inner sense of temporal ?) security?

R: 'Time' is nothing but the unbroken continuity of (physical & psychological) causes and effects, this is its 'movement'.

K: Movement, we said that. Cause becoming effect, effect becomes the new cause, and so on, and so on.

R: That is 'time'. We assign a word called 'time' for that continuous movement of cause and effect.

K: Yes, that's one aspect of time. And also the aspect of time which is from here, physical distance. I have to go to London and it takes time to get there. We are looking at the various 'facets' (dimensions?) of time.

M: Sir, would you say that thought in itself implies time, because the mental action of going through the thinking process takes time , even if it's a very quick, short amount of time, it is still time.

K: Surely, because thought is response of memory, memory is ( the result of?) time. So, we have the chronological time (of yesterday, todat & tomorrow) . Time also as ( associated to covering a ) distance. And also the ( time associated to physical growth) the baby grows into a man and so on. So this time does really exists, it is an actuality. We are questioning ( the inner validity of time?) whether 'psychologically' (for the human psyche?) there is time at all. Or thought has invented time as a means of either achieving security, or, because it is (too) lazy to completely transform itself...

F: Immediately ?

K: Immediately. So it says, "Give me time". Give me time to become (mentally ) 'stronger' and I'll be free of it. So he's using time as a means of achieving something psychologically.

M: But then, how can you be without thinking ? Is the psychological realm in this discussion outside of thought, part of thought, or could be either one?

K: Isn't the whole 'psyche' (our self-consciousness?) put together by thought?

SS: Is that the 'psyche'?

K: Isn't the whole self-centred movement of the 'me' put together by thought ?

N: But isn't there is a spiritual aspiration in the human psyche ?

R: Of course in all the religious traditions, there is a spiritual aspiration, always. But I think we're discussing whether you can see truth without thinking or time, whether the seeing of the truth is now, in this moment, or whether you postpone it till you become ( inwardly) better.

K: Ah no. The moment you introduce the word better...
R: That is what I'm saying , that is, the other question arises. So the question is, if something is true, you see it now.

K: I don't want to enter the 'world of truth' yet. One wants to be clear that one's thinking, is either logical, sane, rational, or it comes to a conclusion which is illusory. And so one wants to examine this whole nature of time, psychologically. If there is 'no tomorrow' - psychologically speaking- our whole action now is different.

F: So would I be right in saying you are concerned with being free of the 'time factor' totally, in dealing with psychological facts ?

K: Yes, sir. Otherwise our mind is living always in a ( static, repetitive) circle.

F: Yes, that is true. We are tied to the past, to that which has become fossilised.

K: Yes, so the past modifying the present and going on into the future is 'time'. So if I quesion that, whether it's merely an invention of thought and therefore illusory, there is no 'tomorrow'.

F: In 'psychological' terms.

K: Of course. Suppose one is ( greedy or?) envious, -which is an (instinctive) sensory response ( cultivated?) by thought- generally we say, give me time to be free of that envy. But isn't it possible to be free of it instantly, and not allow time to intervene? That is the whole point.

F: Isn't this envy, the 'psychical' reaction to what is perceived through the senses?

K: Obviously. One sees you driving in a big lovely car. And I'm driving a small car, so there is comparison. That begins in childhood : you are not as smart as your brother, and the whole education system is based on this comparative evaluation of one's capacities. Now if we're moving away from this, one must realize the actuality of it. Not say ( glibly) "Yes, I've understood it", but do we see – see through rationalization, that thought has created this psychological time as a means of achieving something.

N: I think there's also some difficulty in apprehending what you're saying, because there is maturity and growth in nature, through time.

K: What do you mean by 'maturity'? A tree is mature at a certain age, a human being physically is mature at a certain age. But is there a psychological maturity at all? That's my whole point.

M: Within the inner world, psychologically , there is a certain maturity, but it's still founded on thought and time.

K: Yes, but I'm just saying , Maria, that we have used time as a psychological catalyst to bring about change. And I'm questioning ( the inner validity of?) that catalyst.

F: Sir, when you say, "Do we see that 'psychological' time is an illusion", what do you exactly mean by the word 'see'?

K: To observe ( to have a direct insight  ? ) without the interference of thought.

F: That means, to be completely aware of ( the psychological) time being an illusion as a fact ?

K: Yes, to 'see' this is like ( when I see the danger of a poisonous ) snake, and I don't mistake it for a rope.

F: So that involves a complete transformation of your mode of (one's inner) awareness. You are awake in terms of a unitary whole.

K: Just a minute, sir. These again are rather difficult words. First let's look at it as it is generally understood - to observe a tree, I immediately name it. Then I like it or don't like it. And so on, so on. But we mean by (an insightful) observation, or seeing; to listen first and not make an abstraction of it into idea. Just to listen to that statement and not make an idea of it, but just to listen. As one listen that way in the same ( non-verbal ?) way, to observe, see.

R: What are you trying to tell us?

K: I'm trying to say, sir, that truth cannot possibly be perceived, seen, through ( the screen of thought & ) time.
Through comparison ( analogy ?) with the outer world, man has created a psychological time as a means to get (whatever he wants). Do you see that as a 'fact' - fact in the sense 'it's so' ? Or you listen ( intellectually?) and you get an idea of it and the idea is not the actual observation. That's all I'm saying.
From (the time of the ancient) Greeks and the Hindus, all our whole ( psychological) structure is based on ( creating mental images and?) 'ideas'. And we are saying, ( the mental) 'idea' (about a fact?) is not the actual happening.

F: The 'idea' ( that one is listening) is just a 'picture' of the actual listening.

K: Yes. Which is an avoidance of an actual observation...

F: ...of the immediate fact.

K: Yes, a ( 'safe mode' of ?) looking or listening .

SS: Then there may be something which we are evading constantly, or there may be a driving factor which accounts for this (avoidance) , which may be sorrow.

K: Yes, sir, escape from pain through ( looking forward to a future ) reward.

SS: It seems to apply to the most sophisticated and the more primitive civilizations, all of them.

K: Obviously. Because all our ( self-centred?) thinking is based on these two ( complementary) principles, reward and punishment. Here our ( ultimate spiritual ?) reward is Enlightenment, God, Nirvana , ( a fine escape?) away from all the pain of this daily existence, from the misery of it all.

F: Is it not possible to be free from the idea of reward or punishment?

K: Not as long as our minds are ( isisting on?) thinking in terms of reward and punishment, that is time.

F: How is it that our minds think that way?

K: Because we're 'educated' (to think) that way from the time of the ancient Greeks, because otherwise you couldn't have got all this technological knowledge.

F: And would you say that this is due to the fact that we are ( culturally conditioned) to the idea of a separate 'me', a separate 'I'. Now, how does one see, or listens (holistically) , in terms of an awareness of wholeness ?

K: One can't be aware of the Wholeness (of Life?) , unless one has understood the movement of ( one's self-tethered ?) thought. Because this thought is in itself limited.

F: Yes, of course, which means the intrusion of one's 'self'-consciousness as a separate something.

K: Yes. And how did this 'self separative' consciousness come into being?

F: The conditioning of measurement (of mentally evaluating everything?). And by analogy this inevitably gets transferred to the realm of the psyche, the realm of the mind...

K: Of course. So we come to this point, (of realising?) that 'psychological time' has been used by man as a means of achieving his reward. It's so obvious. And that the (expectation of a future?) reward is ( an attempt for moving ?) away from the pain which he's had. So we are saying, this search for reward or the achievement of the reward, is the 'movement of time'.
But is there such a thing at all? We have invented it, but it may be an illuson. And from this illusion I can't go to Truth. So the mind must be totally, completely free of this movement of (psychological) measurement. Is that possible?

F: As a short answer, I would simply say 'yes' ; there is a sense of course it is so, but then there is...

K: Then I assume it is so, but I go on the rest of my life moving in the other direction.

F: If one really 'sees' ( the falseness of it?) then one doesn't go in the other direction.

K: So that's what we're saying, do we 'see it', or is it, we 'think we see it' ? ( An insightful?) observation implies silence and not forming any conclusion, just to observe silently, without any psychological or sensory response except either visual or inward, insight without the responses of memory.

R: Without any value judgement.

K: Yes.

F: Would you say, sir, that implies without any reaction from the brain or the senses or...

K: Yes, sir, it implies that ( the process of self- centred) thought is absolutely quiet (non-interfering ?) in observation.
F: Scientists, for example, who have really new remarkable inspirations - this happens when everything is quiet inside, which allows this 'new' (light of perception?) to emerge, the new, the truly new, the pulse of creation.

K: Yes, sir, but the scientist's insight or perception is 'partial', because ( a full) insight implies a whole transformation of his daily life. Insight implies ( seeing the truth about) the way the man lives as a whole.

R: That is perfectly so.

K: Sir, let us talk a little bit about 'insight', or ( holistic?) seeing. Insight implies a (purely non-verbal) observation in which there is no remembrance of things past, therefore the mind is alert, free from all the elements and so on, just to observe. Only then you have an insight. This insight of which we are talking about, implies, ( seeing the truth of?) his whole life, not as a (highly specialised?) scientist, as an artist. They have partial insight.

R: And here we talk of man's whole existence.

K: Of course, man's existence.

F: So in that state of observation which you're talking of, there is no reaction whatsoever.

K: Of course, obviously. It isn't cause-effect reaction - otherwise we are back in the old cause being a motive and so on.

R: And that seeing is beyond time. It is beyond time, that seeing is not limited or caught in time.

K: And that insight is not involved in time.

R: That's right. And naturally it is neither cause or effect.

K: Yes. But, wait a minute. Have you got this ( total) insight into this psychological invention of time by thought, as achieving some result? Do you actually see it, or it just (makes sense?) at the intellectual level?

R: That 'psychological' time is not necessary for seeing ?

K: (To Recap) Man has invented ( this thinking in terms of?) time to achieve a desired end, purpose, a reward. Does one see this as an idea, or it is so? It's so obvious it is so. Then how is man - this is the point - how is man, a human being, to totally move away from that, totally transform his whole (inner) concept of time? I say it's only possible when you have an insight into this whole thing, which doesn't involve effort, which doesn't involve concentration, all that. This is ( the role of ) real meditation.

F: In fact, it just 'happens' ?

K: It's real meditation. Insight means that the seeing ( of the truth or of the false of anything ?) is acting instantly, not have an insight and later act. That very insight implies action. And this ( integrated perception & ) action is always accurate, precise, without any ( personal) regrets, without any effort, without any reward or punishment .
If I have an insight into my attachment to ideas, to objects and persons, or attachment to my knowledge, experience. If I have an insight into that, the whole thing is abandoned.

R: And if I may I put it this way - to see 'what is' as it is, is to see the truth.

K: You say so, but ordinary persons say : Yes,  I see. Which is, 'I think I see' what you're saying. But I may not see actually 'what is'. I only ( like to) think that I see 'what is'.

S: Then what could bring about that correct 'seeing' or 'listening'?

K: It has been said that it comes through suffering. It is nonsense. It has been said, 'make an effort'. Which is nonsense. But you do listen when somebody says, "I love you." So can you, in the same way , listen to what you think is unpleasant.
So, sir, now come back to this question of Truth. We have a discussion this afternoon and can we then pursue truth?

R: No. I don't want to wait for truth. (laughter)

K: You want it all in five minutes, sir?

R: Not even in five minutes.

K: One minute?

R: One minute. If you can't see it in one minute, you can't see it even in five hours.

K: I quite agree. All right, sir, in one minute's  ( briefing) : Truth is not perceivable through time. Truth doesn't exist when the 'self' is there. ( The living spirit of?) Truth doesn't come into existence if thought in any direction is moving. Truth is something that cannot be measured by thought. And without love, without compassion, with its own intelligence, Truth cannot be.

R: Yes, again you have given it in negative terms, in the real, tradition of the Buddha.

K: See what you have just done, sir ? You have translated it into terms of tradition, therefore you've moved away from the actual listening of this.

R: I listened, I listened very well.

K: Then you've captured the perfume of it ?

R: Yes, and I captured the perfume of what you said. And that is why I wanted to have it in one minute.

K: So, then, what is the relationship of Truth to ( the world of man's) reality? Are these two everlastingly divided?

R: No. They are not divided.

K: How do you know?

R: I 'know' it.

K: So, they are not divided. Now what do you mean by that, sir?

R: To 'see' (insightfully) .

K: Just a minute, sir. Truth and reality are not divided. That means, thought ( our thinking?) and truth, are always together, a unitary movement ?

R: To see, that illusion, or whatever it may be, to see 'what is', is to see the truth. 'What is' is the truth. There is no truth apart from that.

K: No, sir. We said 'reality' is the movement of thought. Right, sir? And Truth is timeless. Truth is timeless, it's not your truth, my truth, his truth - it is something beyond time. Thought is of time, the two cannot run together...

R: That is again duality, again you are dividing.

K: I'm pointing out, sir, that thought has created such illusion, and so many deceptions it has brought about, and it may deceive itself by saying, "Yes, I've seen the truth." Therefore I must be very clear, there must be ( an inner) clarity that there is no deception whatsoever. And I'm saying that deception will inevitably exist if I don't understand the nature of 'reality'.

R: I think here we have come to Truth. I don't know whether you...

K: I haven't come to truth, I can't go to truth.

R: No, but you can see the truth.

K: 'I' ( my 'self-consciousness'?) don't see the truth. There's a tremendous difference: ( The insightful perception of?) Truth can only exist only when the 'self' is not (around?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #758
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 705 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K CONVERSATION WITH TWO BUDDHIST SCHOLARS & FRIENDS

IS THERE LIFE AFTER DEATH ?

K: Sir, your question was : is there a life after death  ?

R: You see, I want to put this question to you because all religions, as far as I know, agree and accept a (continuity of ) life after death. Of course Buddhism and Hinduism accept not just one life but many lives before this birth and after this death. But (orthodox?) Christianity accepts only one ( eternal) life after death, either (being spent ) in hell or heaven.
And of course, in all those ( organised ) religions ( perhaps ) except in Buddhism there is ( the concept of a ) 'soul', ( higher) Self, Atman, an unchanging, everlasting, permanent substance in man which transmigrates or is reincarnated. Buddhism does not accept (the concept of ) an eternal, everlasting soul or ego which is permanent, But Buddhism (is postulating that ) man is composed of several 'aggregates' : like the 'physical name and form' - 'name' ( refering to ) the mental qualities (of the individual) and 'form' to his physical body. But these are all (life) forces or energies according to Buddhism. And according to Buddhism, what we commonly call 'death' is the non-functioning of the physical body.

K: Yes.

R: But the non-functioning (or collapsing?) of the (physical) body does not mean the non-functioning of all other qualities and forces, like 'desire', the 'will to become' more and more and all that. Now, ( this 'aggregation' applies only ) as long as man is imperfect, that means, if he had not seen the ( ultimate?) Truth. Once one sees the truth (of his inner 'no-thingness '?) , he is perfect and there is no desire for becoming, because there is nothing to become. But when man is imperfect he has always the desire, the will and ( all the time in the world?) to become more perfect and things like that.
So ( he has the opportunty of a spiritual ?) rebirth, because he is not perfect. But whatever ( is reborn) is not one unchanging substance that goes on, but it is (in a constant dynamic of ) cause and effect – as the Buddha says, ''every moment we are dead and reborn''. And so in Buddhism it is wrong to say 'reincarnation', because there is nothing ( completely identical to itself?) to incarnate.
In the ancient Buddhist term it is called 're-becoming', that is, a continuity of re-becoming, unbroken ( spiritual?) continuity. The question is very often asked, in many Buddhist texts : is it the same person or another one? And the ( politically correct?) answer is : ''neither he nor another''. There is (an ongoing) continuity process, ( eg : ) a child is grown up to be a man of fifty, is he the same child or another ? It is neither the same child nor another one. In the same way it (his life energy ?) is neither he nor another. That is the Buddhist attitude to rebirth.

And now I would like to know what is your ( personal) attitude ( on this ages old subject ) and what is your interpretation?

K: Sir, (for starters?) would you say that ( the collective consciousness of?) all humanity, whether a (particular) human being lives in America, Russia, India or Europe, is ( consciously or not ?) caught in ( or driven by a Stream of?) Sorrow, conflict, strife, guilt, great sense of misery, loneliness, unhappiness, confussion; that is the common lot of all men, throughout the world? That is, the ordinary consciousness of man is (has a background ?) content ( made ) of all this. Would you agree, sir?

R: Yes...

K: That inwardly all the human beings, right throughout the world, have the same psychological phenomenon. Outwardly they might differ ( some looking happier than others?) but (deeper down) 'psycho' logically, they are greatly similar. So one can say, ''you are the (consciousness of the?) world''. ''You are the world and the world is you''. Right, sir?

R: Yes... in a sense.

K: Not 'in a sense', it is not partially (true) , 'it is so'. You are born in Ceylon, he was born in India, another born in America or in Europe, or in this ( lonely?) island, England. Outwardly one's culture, tradition, climate, food, all that may vary. But inwardly we have the same feeling of guilt, feeling of anxiety. Right?

R: Yes, I would agree with anxiety ; the feeling of guilt is induced by (the ethical standards of any ?) society.

K: All right, I won't take guilt. So, (in a nutshell) anxiety loneliness, despair, various forms of depression, sorrow and fear, these are the common (inner karmic?) lot of man. That's obvious (for the objective observer?) .
So this (collectively shared ?) consciousness of human beings 'is' ( subliminally influenced by its active ?) content. Right? So human beings throughout the world are more or less very similar (at the deeper levels of their consciousness) , apart from their physical name and form. Would you agree?

R: Yes.

K: So one can say as a fact, that (inwardly ) 'you are me' and 'I am you'.

R: Yes, inwardly we are pretty similar.

K: Because each person goes ( sooner or later?) through various forms of hell, tragedies, misfortunes. And so the world, the (whole consciousness of?) humanity is one. Right? Then at ( the time of our physical death?) who is it that dies? The physical form & name, but our ( personal?) anxiety, the pain of our loneliness, the inner misery - does that also die? Psychologically we all go through extraordinary miseries, tragedies and uglinesses, hurts. So that is the ( active stream in the ?) common consciousness of man. Right, sir? That is the Stream in which man lives (and dies?) inwardly . Right?
If you (actually see the truth of?) that fact, then what is it that dies? The body? The physical form, the name? But this vast Stream (of our collective consciousness?) is going on all the time. It's a great River.

M: Sir, are you saying ( implying ?) that this whole notion of an 'individual' consciousness is a complete illusion?

K: I think so.

M: Then why does all the mankind have that (notion) inevitably ?

K: Because it's ( a root assumption which is ?) part of our culture, both religiously and worldly, that you are an (isolated?) 'individual', the whole idea of it. But also this word 'individual' is really misapplied, because it actually means 'one who is indivisible'. But ( inwardly speaking ) we're all 'broken up'. So... we can hardly call ourselves 'individuals'.

Now, if (and when?) we see ( the inner truth ?) that man's consciousness 'is' the ( shared-by- all) consciousness of the world, this vast River which has no beginning (and no ending ) , when (the physical body ) dies what happens to all my desires, what happens to all my anxieties, fears, longings, aspirations, the enormous burden of sorrow which I have carried ( consciously or not?) for years - what happens to all that?

F: It co-mingles with the world stream.

K: It 'is' (even now ? ) part of that Stream (of Collective consciousness?) which has manifested itself as 'K' with his physical name & form.

R: But now in that Stream there is 'K'.

K: There is no 'K'. There is only ( a 'personalised' expression ?) that Stream, made up of desires, anxieties, despairs, loneliness, ( plus violence & ) all the travail of mankind. That is the River.

F: As well as their ( rewarding?) opposites ?

K: My ( drive for?) pleasure, which lasts for a few days, and then I pursue it, and then I cry if I can't get it, and I'm flattered if I'm rewarded, so it's also part of that vast River.

F: Then, that which we call ' individuality' is a misnomer, because of our ( inward?) ignorance ?

K: It's not only a 'misnomer', I don't think it exists because your (self-) consciousness is like ( the self-consciousness of?) anybody else.

F: But sir, if we say that it doesn't exist at all, then we would have to say that ( the consciousness of?) humanity doesn't exist either ?

K: No, I'm going to go into it .

M: So, just to be sure so far, that it's clear – you're saying there is nothing apart from that in the human consciousness.

K: I'm coming to that. In that Stream, man has invented the 'gods', 'rituals', the 'saviours', the 'Krishnas', all that - they are all part of that stream. They've invented these.

M: But apart from the 'inventions', the illusions, isn't there any other 'something'?

K: Is there in the stream - you're asking, aren't you? - anything which is not man-made ?

M: I'm not sure. Is there 'something else' that is not of that stream in the human mind, consciousness, whatever you want to call it.

K: Man has invented ( the concept ) that there is something.

M: No, not 'invention'. Something real.

K: Not in that Stream. Not in that River (of Self-interest?) .

M: I'm not asking if there's a something else in the river, I'm asking if there's something else in man's ( consciousness?) except that River.

K: Nothing. ( Not-a-thing?) No 'Atman', no 'soul', no 'God' - nothing. Don't accept it, please.

M: There is enormous implication in that. Because if that were so there would be no end to the Stream...

K: The ( mind of the?) man who steps out...( But for educational purposes ?) I don't want to go further into that , I want to go slowly, step by step.
If that is so, that all human beings, their common consciousness is made up of this vast River. Right, sir? You may not accept this.

R: No, I'm not accepting or rejecting, I am thinking about it, meditating. But what Mary asked was a very important point.

K: Yes. We'll answer that presently.

R: Yes. Is there no way to escape from it …

K: I'm going to answer it presently. But we are considering death. So that Stream is common to all of us, our consciousness is of that stream. And when the body dies, the desires, the anxieties, the tragedies and the misery goes on - that River is going on.

R: I can fully agree that whole (consciousness of) humanity without exception...

K: ...is one.

R: All this (karmic tendency?) what you described as suffering and all that, is common to all humanity.
In that sense, we are 'all are equal', not 'all one'.

K: We are of that Stream. ( Consciousness-wise?) I am the representative of all mankind. Because I'm of that stream.

R: Well, that I don't know...

N: When you say, "I am of that stream", you mean that all the qualities of the stream are ( potentially existing ?) in me ?

K: Yes, that's right. All the qualities of that stream.

N: So I am ( qualitatively) the whole river – in the sense that the drop contains all the qualities of the river.

M: Would it be helpful to use the example of a wave: a wave is no ( qualitatively) different from the rest of the ocean. It just manifests as a wave , which then disappears.

K: If you like to put it that way... But this must be clear : Each one of us is the representative of the whole of that stream.

R: That's better.

K: That Stream manifests itself as X. With a ( particular) form, name, but that Stream also has this (shared) quality - there is everything in there.
Now, as one ( 'enlightened' ) manifestation of that stream leaves the Stream, he is completely free of that stream.

R: So if you leave the stream of whole humanity, then all humanity is away ?

K: Just a minute, sir, just a minute. That 'stream' ( of collective self-interest?) has manifested in X and in that manifestation, if X doesn't free himself completely from (his personal attachments to?) this stream, he's back in it.

M: But, sir, this is the moment that my earlier question referred to. What is there? You said there was nothing separate from the stream.

K: Wait, wait. I haven't explained it. There is no-thing (not-a- thing) . ( Recap:) There is that stream. It manifests itself as A. In that manifestation, with all the education and environmental influences and so on, if that A doesn't 'step out' of that stream, there is no salvation for mankind.

M: Sir, what is there to step out?

K: Finish with your anxieties, sorrow, all the rest of it.

M: But you said there was nothing ( else there) except the content of the stream.

K: As long as I remain in the stream.

M: Yes, but if ( the individual consciousness of?) A is composed of the water of the stream, how can the 'water of the stream' step out of the Stream?

K: Oh, yes (it can?)

P: Then there is some 'logical' error in your (holistic?) explanation...

K: ( Back to step one : ) Aren't you the representative of whole of mankind, psychologically?

R: I think that too general and too vague a statement.

K: No, have made it very clear (at least...intellectually?) . That stream is this content of our consciousness, which is agony, pain, desire, strife, all that.

R: That is common to all. In that sense, all humans are equal or...'all humanity is one' in other words. But I can't accept your position, that I 'am' humanity.

K: Of course, if ( I see the inner truth that?) I'm part of that stream, then... I 'am' like the rest of humanity.

R: 'Like' the rest.

K: I am therefore a representative of all of that stream.

R: That also I accept. But you can't say "I am that stream, the whole stream".

K: No, I 'am' (taking full responsability for?) that stream.

M: Sir, maybe we're being too literal, but there's possibly a wider human Consciousness – like a sort of a container- which contains the Stream (of human self- interest ?) .

K: No... don't bring in containers. ( The mainstream of part of our collective Consciousness ) is this 'egotistic' concept. That's all.

M: Her point is: 'what' is it that steps out of the river. That is the question.

K: I'll answer it presently : when you ask that question, ''What is it that steps out ?'', you're positing an 'otherness', something ( already existing in our consciousness?) which is not of the stream. Right?

R: Or rather you are positing this.

K: I'm not. I won't posit (assume) anything, I've said, as long as man does not 'step out' of that ( Main) Stream, there is no salvation to mankind. That's all.

F: Sir, I think the question which the lady (M) asked implies an identifiable permanent entity.

K: There is no ( such) permanent entity.

M: A (timeless?) 'something' ? I'm not making it more definite than that.

K: I know what you're trying to say.

M: There has to be (an X factor?) or I don't know what to call it.

N: Some aspect of ( the Universal) Intelligence.

M: Something (some intelligent energy?) that can 'step out' of the stream.

K: Yes, is there some aspect of ( Universal) Intelligence in the Stream?

N: Yes, which sees the sees the futility of the (Main) stream ?

M: Then you're saying it is part of the stream that quality, it's in with all the other human things, something which is able to separate (or individualise?) itself from all the rest of the stream.

K: Let's go ( into it experientially) step by step then we won't mislead each other : ( The 'particular' consciousness of?) A is part of that stream. That stream (main stream of collective self-interest?) has manifested itself as 'A'. So ( eventually?) 'A' perceives the suffering, the anxiety he is living and he says, "Why am I suffering? What is this?" And so he begins to begins to see (what is wrong?) . Why do you introduce some other ( extraneous Intelligence?) factor?

R: May I add a word, sir? According to Buddha's teaching, in that stream there is also a (deeper quality of?) wisdom which 'sees' - ( a timeless?) wisdom which 'sees' the whole of thing.

N: Which sees what?

R: Which sees the 'reality' as it is, as we discussed this morning. So then, that ( insightful) 'seeing' is the stepping out.

M: Are you saying that there is an action of stepping out without a (self-conscious) 'actor'?

K: Yes. I'll explain it (again), but you don't have to ( feel pushed to?) accept it.
A is of that stream, with a name and a form. And as he lives he realizes what he's going through. Right? In that realization he says, "I'm suffering (of loneliness, frustration, etc) ." Then he begins to enquire into the whole nature of this suffering - enquires, explores without any motive and so on into the nature of suffering, and has an insight into the whole structure of suffering, that very insight ends that suffering. And he is 'out of that stream'. That ( self- redeemed ?) entity is really unique, who is out of that stream.

R: That (intelligent energy required for such an ?) insight is also in the stream ...

K: You see, you're positing something and I'm not.

R: From where you are bringing 'insight'?

K: I brought in 'insight' very carefully. A realizes he's suffering. Suffering is part of that stream. So he looks into it both logically and also non-verbally.. And the ( intelligent energy gathered in the ?) very looking into it 'is' the insight. It's not of the stream, the looking into the suffering.

R: Then, from where does it come?

K: He realizes that this enquiry can only exist when there's complete freedom from all ( the known?) escapes, suppression and all the rest of it. So when he doesn't escape, when he doesn't suppress, when he doesn't rationalize or seek the cause of suffering, in that very moment of examining, is insight.

N: You're implying insight is not of the stream. Where does it come from, insight, then?

K: From the freedom (from the known?) to enquire.

N: Where does that freedom to enquire come from?

K: From his own examination. Just follow it step by step. A is part of that stream, A is the manifestation of that stream, a 'wave' of that stream, or whatever you like to call it. Now A is going through ( a crisis of existential?) agony. A examines it. And the (integrity of his ) examination is very important, because if he escapes it is not an (authentic ?) exploration. So he realizes that there are (some hidden?) blockages that prevents exploration, and therefore he ( wisely?) puts them aside, he's free to enquire. And in that freedom is insight.

P: ( This is too quick?) There is a missing link here.

K: There may be ten, sir.

P: At the beginning of (our inner ) enquiry, the capacity to explore without any ( interference ) of the things of the stream, is it not already existing in the stream?

K: No.

P: Then where does it come from?

K: That's very simple. Forgive me, Doctor (P), you're not listening. I said, A is the manifestation of that stream. Part of ( the active content of ) that stream is suffering. So, ( the earnest Mr/Mrs ? ) A says, "Why, why should I suffer?" And there are ( in the organised religions ?) a dozen ( of available ?) explanations - the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Christian and so on. The man who is ( getting responsible about his?) suffering says, I reject all that, because that doesn't leave me the (necessary inner ) freedom to enquire. I'm just accepting (other people's spiritual?) authority. I won't.

F: Sir, perhaps could we can put it this way. That the conditioned enquiry...

K: ...is part of the stream. That's the whole point.

F: But the enquiry (which is) free (from what was previously known?) …

K: ...is beginning of...

N: ...getting away from the stream.

K: And he realizes he can only explore if he's free to look. Free from fear, free from reward and punishment, free from any kind of motive, otherwise he can't enquire. The moment he's in that state of ( freedom from the known?) there is ( the opportunity of a total ?) insight. This is ( verbally?) very clear.

F: And of course very difficult to do ( experientially) …

K: I won't even accept the word 'difficult'.

F: At least at first, because otherwise we wouldn't be able of enquiring (properly) .

K: Because we have not given our ( total ? ) energy to this. We don't care, ( psychologically) we have put up with so many things.
Now, ( the care-free Mr?) B is also part of that Stream (of collective Self-Interest?) , and he also suffers, but he says, "Yes, that's human nature, there is no way out, no Jesus, nobody is going to save me, I'll put up with it." So he is contributing to the Stream.

SS: So the Stream becomes more intense.

K: Yes, has more ( psychic?) volume. Like the pressure of a tremendous flow water. So (after this educational detour?) we come to the initial point: what is death?

R: I want to go slowly. So, ( the earnest Mr ) A is out of the river. He had a (total) insight. So if the consciousness of humanity is all-one, if A is the ( representative of ) humanity then ( the total consciousness of?) humanity has seen it ?

K: The moment A is becoming aware of his conditioned state and begins to enquire into it, he has got the energy to put aside.

F: Now the Buddha himself said the same thing , "Put aside with the right wisdom all (your attachments to?) shape and form, all sensation, all perceptions, all discriminative consciousness itself." Put them aside with 'right wisdom'.

R: That is what I said (that some potential of intelligence & wisdom is already there) , and that he ( K) is making it ( look) so complicated...

K: We're all making it ( intellectually very) complicated, it is very simple. Say one doesn't belong to any religion. One doesn't accept anybody's ( spiritual) authority. That is (providing the free intelligent energy necessary ?) to enquire. Will you do that? Because otherwise he's ( a first hand scholar, but?) a secondhand human being, examining through secondhand eye-glasses.
R: So, you also can see independently as he ( the Buddha ) has seen.

K: Yes, Buddha also said, ( the ending of) sorrow is the beginning of ( becoming a light onto yourself?). All right, but 'what he said' is not by me.

R: Absolutely, but you also can see the same thing as he has seen.

K: Yes. But Sir, the printed words or the hearsay, to a hungry man has no meaning. Reading the menu doesn't feed me.

R: So, it is not about the menu but about the food.

K: And this this (spiritual?) food is not cooked by anybody, I have to 'cook it' and ...' eat it'. We are saying that, as long as I accept any ( anybody's spiritual) authority, it doesn't matter who he is, there is no ( total) 'insight'.
To me this ( basic) freedom (to enuire ) is the freedom from the 'known'. Otherwise I'm everlastingly ( drifting ?) in the stream. So, either we discuss this factually, and say, "Look, I will drop every authority of (the spiritual) knowledge and tradition, or if I am ( enjoying the comfort of being safely ?) tethered (anchored?) to a tradition, I'll go round in circles.
( In a nutshell) I must be free of the past and the rope that ties me to its ( very real yet invisible?) post.
So if B accepts ( his existential) suffering (as part of the 'real' life ?) he's all the time contributing to the ( volume of self-interest of the?) Stream.
Now, what would be the state of the mind of the ( 'A') man, who has had an insight into the whole nature of suffering, and therefore into (the nature of?) the whole stream? What is the quality of that mind (that 'stepped out?) ?

M: Sir, can one use the word 'insight' in the same sense as 'intelligence', is there a difference?

K: Now wait a minute. Let's go into that. The stream manifesting itself as B, and in his activities he becomes very cunning, 'clever'. Has not ( the insightful ?) intelligence no relationship with cunning, cleverness, chicanery, all that, but it is essentially part of love and compassion ? What do you say, sir? The 'love' in the Stream (of self-interest?) is not love. B says to his girl friend "I love you" - now is that love?

R: In which sense? Love has a hundred meanings.

K: So, that's what I'm enquiring. The love of a book, the love of poetry, the love of a beautiful thing, the love of an ideal, the love of your country, the love in which is included jealousy, envy, hurt. Is all that ( having anything to do with the Intelligence of Universal Compassion & ?) Love? And B who is the (worldly?) man says, "Yes, that is love. At least it's a part of Love."

R: Not only that, people have asked me, without the idea of 'self', how can there be love ?

K: You see, sir, are we ( indulging in?) discussing verbally all this? Or realizing, seeing ( the truth that?) this Stream (of Self-Interest is subliminally going on in ) you, and say, "Look, examine it and end it." But not being (ready, willing & ) able to end it (ASAP) , we invent ( a future ) time: 'One day I will ( wake up & just ) step out of that Stream'. So thought invents (projects a time-line of its own?) 'psychical' evolution.

F: Instead of what really belongs to the ( action in the ) psychological sphere, namely the immediacy.

K: That's right. The immediacy only takes place when there is 'insight'. In that there is no regret, no saying, "I wish I hadn't done it."

See, sir, what is Immortality? What is Eternity? What is the Immeasurable? All religions more or less touched on this, and we have related immortality as something beyond death. No?

F: That's the usual conception.

R: But...what happened to our first question?

K: Death – rebirth?

R: Yes, what happens there ?

K: I've told you. 'Rebirth' is ( within) this constant stream, manifesting itself into A, B, C, down the alphabet. I know this is ( sounding ) most disappointing & depressing....
You see, sir, to find out what (the deeper significance of?) 'death' is, one has to 'be with death'. That means, ending my ( personal) 'attachments' and 'beliefs', ending ( the continuity of one's psychological 'attachments' ) to everything that one has collected (in order to compensate for one's loneliness, frustration, etc) . ( Apparently?) nobody wants to do that.

M: But that action of dying (to one's personal attachments) would not be part of the stream.

K: No. You see, the ( mind of the?) man/woman who has really gone through this (psychological dying) is something ( of an) entirely different (inner quality) . But it's not a 'reward' ( to be pursued by) for the man in the stream.

M: But this is the action of the insight, is it not?

K: Yes, the action of insight. ( However?) you cannot have insight if there is no love, compassion, intelligence, that's part of all that. And only then there is a relationship to truth.

SS: You seem to be suggesting in some way that 'death' is a key ?

K: Yes, sir. Free investigation into this whole 'myself', myself 'is' that Stream. Enquire into that, so that there isn't a shadow of the Stream (of self-interest) left.
We don't do this because we are too 'learned' (rich in knowledge?) , or we have not enough (meditating?) time because we are too occupied with our own pleasures, our own worries.

So have we answered the original question? Is there a reincarnation, a continuation of the 'me' in different forms? I say, no!

R: Of course not, of course not. First of all there is no (truly individualised?) 'me' to be reborn.

K: As long as B lives (and struggles?) in that stream, his consciousness is part of that stream, he's only contributing more and more to the volume of that water. Obviously, sir, if you see that. So there is no 'me' to continue (individually) . Sir, nobody will accept this, but it's the truth.

F: Then, that what is really necessary is to see in this profound way …

K: Yes, ( the insightful) seeing is that.

F: And that 'truly seeing' is the really creative action.

K: Is (the instant) action, the moment I see I'm petty-minded, it's finished.

F: It is a complete transformation of the ordinary psychical process.

K: Yes.

M: Isn't it really the crux in all this and the place where people 'go wrong', that they do not 'see' in the sense you're talking about; they see verbally, intellectually, on various levels, but they don't really see.

K: No, I think mostly they don't mind being 'sorrowful' ( temporarily in a 'bad mood' ?), they say well why not? They don't see ( what is wrong with ) one's own petty reactions.

M: Or they ''don't see that they don't see'', to put it perhaps childishly.

K: But Maria, not speaking personally – has one dropped any opinion that one holds? One's ( cultural) prejudices; completely? Or one's ( life) experience? Never - they won't even listen to you. Do you mean to say a politician, or a priest or anybody who is absolutely caught in (the safety of?) his own conclusions. Because there he's feeling completely secure, and if you come and disturb him, either he 'worships' you or 'kills' (destroys?) you, which is the same.

M: Or he sees that that (his/her ) security is a complete fabrication ?

K: Then he 'drops' these prejudices, his conclusions, even his knowledge.

S: Sir, for the man who has ( succesfully?) 'stepped out' of the stream, there is something else which is operating. Could we say something about the nature of that thing?

K: Which is Intelligence. Intelligence is love. Intelligence is compassion. If A's consciousness is no longer of the stream, his consciousness is entirely different. It is in a different dimension altogether.
Let's put it round the other way: wars have created a great deal of ( psychological sorrow ) misery. Right? And that misery remains 'in the air'. It must. Goodness has been also part of man - ( many decent people) trying to be good. There is also that enormous reservoir of both.
So presently one doesn't contribute to that Goodness but one is always contributing to the other.

M: Are you saying the ( 'badness' trend?) exists only in the human psyche, but Goodness exists apart from humanity?

K: Let's put it this way: there is not only A's personal suffering, there is this whole ( reservoir of the?) suffering of mankind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 751 - 758 of 758 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.)