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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?


Displaying posts 751 - 753 of 753 in total
Thu, 18 Jan 2018 #751
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 687 posts in this forum Offline

Here are a few selected excerpts from Pupul Jayakar's remarkable book 'Krishnamurti; a biography'

Krishnaji returned in India in the autumn of 1960, having sensed the volcanic energies being released in the new scientific and technological mind. With the eye of prophesy, Krishnaji looked into the years that lay ahead. He perceived the accelerated pace of change that was to come about with the unlocking of the mysteries of nature, and the invention of ( new, computerised) tools and systems that would transform society and environment and generate enormous pressures on ( the total consciousness of ?) humankind. He also appeared aware of a rapidly (increasing) trend toward chaos and violence.

One evening he began to speak of the role of negation as the (inward) source of creation: "Creation can only be ( come into being ?) when the mind is completely empty (of what it knew before) ; whatever is born of this emptiness is 'negative thinking'. It has no root, no source. Most of us have never wandered freely into ourselves since we never look without calculations.” “The probing is with 'nothing' into endless being.

“To understand time, not put it aside, not create a theory about it, you have to investigate your own mind, grow aware of the extraordinary impact of influence. Time is the influence of a thousand yesterdays. There is not only chronological time, but there is time as memory, stretching backwards and forwards. This memory is unconscious, buried, hidden deep in the vast recesses of one’s mind.

.

On another evening he explored the nature of the 'observer' and the 'observed'. The ( mental) distance between the observer and what is observed creates duality. “It is only when the mind observes itself as being conditioned that there is no observer. Can the mind observe itself without the observer? It is not a rare thing. When you are angry, passionate—in that state there is no observer, nor the 'observed' as thought.”

Speaking of the unknown, the void, from which alone the new mind could emerge, he said, “The ( all- knowing ?) mind cannot come to it; the mind that measures itself in time must wipe itself away and enter into that, without knowing That. You cannot know it. It has no color, no space, no shape. You cannot make a statement about it. All you can do is to jump out of the old, then you are part of that extraordinary state.”

He was to discuss the question again and again. “What is needed is a new mind that functions wholly. The scientific mind is directive; the religious ( holistic ?) mind explodes without direction. Self-knowing is essential; because in understanding itself (the old mind) withers away, (creating a free inner space ?) for the 'new mind' to be.
What is demanded is a fertile mind. Fertile in the sense of rich, in which a seed can grow, be nurtured, carefully watched over, a mind that is deeply enquiring, searching, looking, watching. Only that mind, exquisitely pliant, not tethered to anything, is ( totally) sensitive. The fertile mind is empty, like the womb before it conceives.

“The (Universal ?) Mind is a vast thing. It is not a spot in the universe. It 'is' the ( total consciousness of the ?) universe. To investigate into the (Mind of the ?) universe demands an astonishing energy. It is energy greater than all rockets, because it is self-perpetuating, because it has no center. This is only possible when there is an enquiry into the inner and outer movement of (our everyday ) mind. The inner, the racial unconscious, in which are the urges, compulsions, the hidden dark fears, is the Story of Man. And if the observation, the listening, is direct, then you are observing 'negatively' (non-personally ?) . Then the mind has no conclusions, no opposites, no directives. In that looking it can see what is near and what is far away. In that (non-personal observation) there is an ending. Such a mind is the new mind. It has exploded without direction. Such a mind is the religious mind.”

“ You cannot watch (yourself) from morning till night. You cannot be vigilant, never blinking for the whole day. So play with it lightly. To ask ‘how am I to be aware’ is to create (another inner) conflict. But as you are playing, you learn (without accumulating ?) .

This 'new mind' is not (to be found) within the field of knowledge. It is that state of creation which is exploding. For that, all knowledge has to come to an end. “What releases energy is direct perception. The greater part of the brain is the residuary animal and the remaining part is 'undefined'.
To watch, to observe everything, is to be ( compassionately ?) aware and let everything flower. A mind that is completely quiet, without any reaction, is only an instrument of observation. It is alive, sensitive.
An ( inner ?) mutation is only possible when you have brought this about through awareness, without effort.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 #752
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 687 posts in this forum Offline

I will 'recycle' here a few of K's dialogues edited by Alain Naudé and published in The Urgency of Change. Most of these dialogues are only between K & Alain Naudé and may give to the casual reader a general impression of 'inaccessibility'. I will try in these reader-friendly re-edits to remove some of the apparent barriers language

Holistic perception

Questioner: When I listen to you, I seem to really understand what you are talking about, not only verbally, but at a much deeper level. My hearing is sharpened, and the very seeing of the flowers, the trees, and those mountains with snow, makes me feel I am part of them. In this (holistic ) awareness it is as though whatever I did would be true, would not bring either conflict or pain. But unfortunately that state (of Grace?) doesn't last. When I leave the talks it all seems to evaporate and I'm back exactly where I was. ( To recapture it?) I try to be more aware of myself and this becomes a struggle. You have said, " Listen to your (inner) conflict, see the causes of your conflict, your conflict is yourself", but this ( self-imposed) awareness in no way resolves these things. On the contrary, trying to become aware of them seems to give them vitality and duration.

Krishnamurti: So, we have to understand what we are talking about when we use ths (holistic) word awareness : to be aware of that particular thing as part of the totality. The particular by itself has very little meaning, but when you see the totality, then that particular (thing observed has ) a relationship to the whole. Only in this relationship the particular doesn't become all-important, it is not exaggerated. So the real question is: does one see the total process of one's life or is one concentrated on a particular aspect , thus missing ( the perception of) the whole field of life? ( Here's an example) If you are getting angry and are only concerned with ending ( the discomfort produced buy ) that (outburst of) anger, then the whole (picture) escapes you and the anger is strengthened. But ( that particular reaction of) anger is interrelated to the whole (of your) existence . So when we separate the particular from the whole, the particular breeds its own problems (QED ?)

Questioner: But then...what do you mean by 'seeing the whole'? What is this (perception of the ) totality you talk about, this extensive awareness in which the particular is a detail? Is it some mystical experience? And what do you mean by the 'whole' ? Are you talking about the whole of the mind, or the whole of existence, or the whole of myself, or the whole of life?

Krishnamurti: ( A global perception of ) the whole field of life: the mind, love, everything which is (happening in) in life.

Questioner: And how can one see all that ?

Krishnamurti: Let's put it this way: do you perceive with your (thinking) mind and with your (feeling) heart separately, or do you see, feel, think, all together, not fragmentarily?

Questioner: I don't know what you mean.

Krishnamurti: You hear a word, your mind tells you it is an insult, your feelings tell you you don't like it, your mind again intervenes to control or justify, and then again ( your overall) feeling takes over where the mind has concluded. In this way a (personally challenging) event unleashes a chain-reaction at different (levels ) of your being. What you heard have been (analysed &?) broken up and if you concentrate ( on solving sequentially ) one (or more) of those ( disturbed) fragments, you miss the hearing of (the personal insult or praise) with all your being, totally. So, by a 'perception of the whole' we mean ( a harmoniously integrated?) perception - with your eyes, your ears, your heart, your mind; ( in a nutshell :) giving your complete attention. In (the light of ) this ( non-personal) attention, the particular reaction, such as anger, has a different meaning (is seen in a different light) as being interrelated to many other (personal?) issues.

Questioner: So when you ( metaphorically) say 'seeing the whole', you (actually) mean 'seeing with the whole of your being' – right ?

Krishnamurti: Yes, precisely. But do you 'see totally' in this way or are you merely verbalizing ( the intellectual concept of) it ? Do you see anger ( by full immersion?) with your heart, mind, ears and eyes? Or do you see anger as something unrelated to the rest of you, and therefore of no great importance? When you give importance to the whole you do not (need to) forget the particular.

Questioner: But what happens to ( that personal reaction of) anger?

Krishnamurti: If you are aware with your whole being of ( the arising of) that particular reaction of) anger, is there still anger? Inattention is (generating that) anger, not attention. So 'attending with your entire being' is seeing the whole, and inattention is ( limiting the perception to ) seeing only the particular. (Recap:) To be aware of the whole, and of the particular, and of the relationship between the two, is the whole problem (left for homework) .

Questioner: So, when you speak of seeing only the 'particular' reaction -such as anger - you mean looking at it with only one part of your being?

Krishnamurti: When you look at the particular with a fragment of your being, the (dualistic) division between that particular response and the (central ) fragment -which is looking at it- grows, and so conflict increases. When there is no (dualistic) division there is no ( such 'psychological') conflict.

Questioner: Are you saying that there is no division between that (violent reaction of) 'anger' and 'me' when I look at it ( or 'attend' it?) with all my being?

Krishnamurti: Exactly. But is this what you actually are doing now or are you merely following the ( flawless holistic logic of K's ?) words?

Questioner: I am simply trying to understand (what you are trying to communicate saying?)

Krishnamurti: Are you trying to understand me or are you seeing ( within yourself) the truth of what we are talking about ? If you actually see the truth of what we are talking about, then you are your own 'Master' and your own Disciple, which is to (be a light for) yourself. This cannot be (acquired?) from another.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
2 days ago #753
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 687 posts in this forum Offline

More 'recycled' dialogues from The Urgency of Change:

What Is

Questioner: I have read a great deal of philosophy & psychology, and I have also read your books which all deal with thought and ideas, and somehow I'm fed up with it all. I have swum in an ocean of words, and of course one has to set all these aside - you yourself have really done so; but for most of those who have read or heard you, what you say is just words.
I'd like to go beyond the words and ideas, and live in total relationship to all things. Can I live in the greatest simplicity, without principles, beliefs, and ideals?

Krishnamurti: Do you really want to live with benediction, with love? And if you really do, then where is the problem?

Questioner: I've wanted to live that way for years, but I can't.

Krishnamurti: Could there be a (hidden ) conflict between the "what is" and the "what should be" ?

Questioner: Even without a "what should be", I see that the "what is" is hideous. To deceive myself into not seeing it would be much worse still.

Krishnamurti: If you see "what is" ( holistically) then you see the universe, while denying (one's responsibility for) "what is" is the origin of your ( state of inner) conflict. The beauty of the universe is in the "what is; and to live with "what is" without effort is ( the highest form of ?) virtue.

Questioner: But my "what is" also includes confusion, violence and every form of human aberration. To live with that is what you call 'virtue' ? Life itself demands that I live it beautifully, like the eagle in the sky: to live the miracle of life with anything less than total beauty is unacceptable.

Krishnamurti: Then live it!

Questioner: I can't, and I don't.

Krishnamurti: Knowing the whole misery of your ( time-bound) life, live with it: that is ( doing one's homework regarding) "what is". And to live with it without ( creating another existential) conflict frees us from it.

Questioner: Are you saying that my only fault is to be exceedingly self-critical?

Krishnamurti: Not at all. But you go only so far in your self-criticism. The very 'entity that criticizes' must be examined. And if your mind is not constantly ( evaluating) comparing and measuring - you can observe (non-personally ) the "what is", which then is no longer the same.

Questioner: Even if I observe myself without a yardstick, and I'm still ( inwardly frustrated & ) 'ugly'.

Krishnamurti: Isn't it possible to observe so that there is only observation, seeing, and nothing else - a direct perception without the ( all controlling) 'perceiver'?

Questioner: What do you mean?

Krishnamurti: There is 'looking'. The mental assessment of your looking is a (distorting) interference, and that is not looking, but an evaluation of ( the thing you are ) looking at. So, is there an absolute perception of yourself as you are?

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: In that (insightful) perception is there any ugliness?

Questioner: There is no ugliness in the perception itself , only in what is perceived.

Krishnamurti: The way you perceive is ( tainted by) what you are. The (insightful) perception is ( brought by) attention without the distortion of measure and idea. That clarity of perception will act all the time in living. That is living like the eagle in the sky; that is living beauty and living love.

The Hapless Seeker

Questioner: What is it I'm seeking? I really don't know, but there is something at the unfathomable depths ( of my consciousness) that is crying to be released, trying to tell me something. I've had this feeling for many years but when I try to examine it I don't seem to be able to touch it. Yet it is always there, this longing to go beyond the mountains and the skies to find something. How am I to cross to the other shore without taking a boat and rowing across the waters? I feel that's the only way.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that's the only ( holistic) way - to find oneself strangely and unaccountably on the 'other shore' (of the Stream of Thought & Time?) , and from there to live, act and do everything that one does in the life.

Questioner: But...is it only for the few? Is it (also available?) for me? I've sat silent; I've studied, examined, and of course I have since long ago discarded the temples, the shrines and the priests. So you see, I have come here in complete simplicity.

Krishnamurti: I wonder if you really are so simple as you ( may like to ) think! From what depth are you asking this question, and with what love and beauty? Can your 'mind and heart' receive this? Are they sensitive to the whisper of 'something' that comes unexpectedly?

Questioner: If it is as subtle as all that, then how 'real' is it ? Intimations of such subtlety are usually fleeting and ( on long term) unimportant.

Krishnamurti: Are they? Must everything be (scholastically) written out on the blackboard? Please, sir, let us find out whether our minds and hearts are really capable of (listening & receiving that whisper of?) Immensity.

Questioner: I really don't know, and that's my ( experiential) problem. I have put aside all the obvious stupidities of nationalism, organized religions & beliefs and I think that my mind can grasp the subtleties of life, but that surely this doesn't seem to be enough. What else is needed? What have I 'to do' or 'not to do'?

Krishnamurti: (In the context of an insight based meditation?) 'doing nothing' is far more important than 'doing something'. Can the ( thinking) mind be completely inactive, and thereby be supremely active? Love is not ( the result of) the activity of thought; and as you cannot cultivate it (mentally) , you can do nothing about ( Selfless) Love.

Questioner: I understand what you mean by "inaction is the highest form of action" , but somehow I cannot feel ( the living truth of) it in my heart...

Krishnamurti: Does this mean that you are no longer ( engaged in your self-centred) seeking, no longer saying to yourself secretly: "I must reach that 'something' beyond the furthest hills?"

Questioner: You mean I must give up even this strong ( intuitive) feeling I have had for so long that 'there is something' beyond all the hills?

Krishnamurti: As we said just now, there are only these two ( required) things: (a quality of selfless) Love, and a mind that is empty of (the self-centred activities of ) thought. If you really have finished with all the stupidities which man in his search for something ( else) has put together, then, are these things - Love and the 'empty mind' - just two more words?

Questioner: My deep feeling is that they are not, but again what I am to do ?

Krishnamurti: Do you know what it means to (really listen or?) commune with what we have just said about ( selfless) love and the ( empty) mind?

Questioner: Yes, I think so.

Krishnamurti: If there is ( an authentic listening & ) communion with these two things, then there is nothing more to be said - all action will be from there.

Questioner: The trouble is that I still think there really is something (more) to be discovered which will put everything else in its right place, in its right order.

Krishnamurti: Without ( meditating on?) these two ( basic requirements) there is no possibility of going further. And there may be no ( question of 'you' ) getting anywhere at all!

Questioner: I can see that when we are together I can be somewhat in 'communion' with ( the deeper truth of ) it. But can I maintain it?

Krishnamurti: To desire to 'maintain it' (store it for further use?) is ( creating its own mental ?) noise, and therefore... the losing of it.

A few experiential clues to end 'personal' suffering

Questioner: I seem to have suffered a great deal all my life, not physically, but through death and loneliness and seeing the utter futility of our (self-centred) existence. I had a son whom I greatly loved. He died in an accident. My wife left me, and that caused a great deal of pain. I'm not complaining of my circumstances but I want to understand what all this sorrow actually means, why it comes at all. One has been told that (wordly ) wisdom comes through sorrow, but I have found quite the contrary.

Krishnamurti: I wonder what you have learnt from your suffering? Have you learnt anything at all? What has sorrow taught you?

Questioner: It has certainly taught me to never get too strongly attached to people and not to allow my feelings to run away with me. It has also taught me to be very careful and not get hurt again.
Krishnamurti: Does sorrow teach anything at all except the obvious self-protective responses?

Questioner: I have always accepted ( this background ) suffering as part of human life, but now I feel the need to be free of it, free of all the tawdry bitterness and indifference. ( An additional difficulty is the feeling that) my life ( is wasted in) mediocrity, and perhaps this is the greatest sorrow of all.
Krishnamurti: ( As a simple rule of thumb ?) there is the 'sorrow of ignorance' ( resulting from the lack of knowing oneself) and the 'sorrow of time' ( resulting from the wide spread illusion that time does cure our past hurts & frustrations ). Most people are getting caught in this (deceptive mentality ?) and either worship sorrow ( as an opportunity for karmic redemption) or ( more commonly just ) 'explain it away'. But in either case ( the deep causation of human) sorrow continues, and one never asks oneself if it can come to an end.

Questioner: I was asking you if it can come to an end, and how is it to be done? What am I to do to end the grief which I have carried for so long?

Krishnamurti: Self-pity ( getting entangled in our self-interest?) is one of the elements of ( personal) sorrow. Another element is getting attached to someone and encouraging his or her attachment to you. Sorrow is (resulting ) not only there when ( that cultivated ) attachment fails you, but its seed is in the very beginning of that attachment. In all this, the ( experiential) trouble is the utter lack of knowing oneself (aka : ignorance) . Knowing oneself is the ending of sorrow. However, we are (unable ?) to know ourselves (as we actually are) because we divide (whatever we perceive ) into the 'good' and the 'bad', the 'pure' and the 'impure'. The 'good' ( the self-righteous part ?) is always judging the 'bad' (attitudes) , and these fragments are 'at war' with each other. This (inner living in contradictions & conflict ?) is ( generating its own) sorrow. To end sorrow is to see the ( actual inner ) 'facts' and not ( spend our time in) inventing their opposites, for walking in this 'corridor of opposites' is ( creating the additional ) sorrow (of time) . ( Mentally) fragmenting our (inner) life into the 'high' and the 'low', 'noble' and 'ignoble', breeds conflict and pain. When there is sorrow, there is no love. Love and sorrow cannot live together.

Questioner: But I may love someone and yet bring him/her sorrow.

Krishnamurti: Do you bring it, if you love him ( selflessly?). If someone is getting attached to you, with or without your encouragement, and you turn away from him and he suffers, is it you or he who has brought about his own suffering?

Questioner: You mean I am not responsible for someone else's sorrow, even if it is on my account? How does sorrow ever end then?

Krishnamurti: As we have said, it is only in knowing oneself completely that sorrow ends. ( For starters) you can 'know yourself' by becoming (non-personally aware of ?) your everyday relationships, from moment to moment. It means to see oneself 'as one is', without the ( dead ?) knowledge of 'what one has been'. The shedding of your ( 'psychological' knowledge of the ) past when you 'see yourself' is the freedom from the past.

( In a nutshell :) (Personal) sorrow ends only when there is the ( inner) light of ( self-) understanding, and this ( holistic) understanding is lighting itself all the time. Nobody can give it to you - no Book, no Teacher or Saviour, but this ( insightful) understanding of yourself 'is' ending ( the inner darkness ?) of sorrow.

This post was last updated by John Raica 16 hours ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 751 - 753 of 753 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)