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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 543 in total
Tue, 27 Oct 2015 #61
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
I can only know myself as I am by observing my (everyday) living, watching myself (and the outer world?) in the (2-way?) mirror of my relationship with another. To watch myself in that mirror is not to be merely 'introspective', or 'objective', but to be constantly alert, watchful of what is taking place in the mind, in myself. To understand a thing as it is, any (prejudiced?) evaluation, must go - and this is only the beginning of it ( a very shallow beginning) but one must go through that, one must understand the whole process of the mind, not merely intellectually, but by watching oneself in this 'mirror of relationship', to actually experience what is taking place in the mind - examine it, be aware of the whole content of it, without denying suppressing, or putting it away.

Well John, my view about that is that it seems to invite logic, analyses, introspection, in order to "do" so..Well to be honest I don't get k's point at all... I mean the way it is expressed here does not speak to me...

I have to bring that back one more time but the drowning into suffering, suffering as a natural process and not as a curse of course, the proper drowning meaning that suffering wins and I am defeated so expecting nothing , then there is not me on one hand and suffering on the other hand, this seems, more than seems ,this brings some other capacities to rune themselves on and this out of many side effects has brought an intensive revealing of the software of thought itself, I never was searching for that ...it just happens..

Then now i know about why are there desires for example and much more...why arrogance, fear, killing, suicide idea and much more...it is something on the move, well again I have no control over it....

what if there is a guide for us behind all that....? then beyond suffering, when you learn to catch it from scratch or quite so, you know you are wrong again and again have to find one way to leave it alone...up to "you know that you have to find a way to leave it alone" thought so analysis is still concerned and it gets the message that it must cease its interfering, but to leave it alone for a fact is each time another piece of cake, another discovery because it seems that a method here does not work, simply because the only point is that me absolutely must shut up...
it is juts my experience so far...nothing more but nothing less, I mean this is not a guess...

This is in k words not necessarily here, but it is, it seems very difficult to put such momentum in words, even for oneself..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Oct 2015 #62
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

More Meditations du Jour from the K Notebook

( Inwardly speaking?) there are only facts and the (insight into the truth about these ?) facts teaches ; but to follow this teachings, the listening, the (inward ) observation must be acute (accurate?) ; such total attention is denied if there is ( a personal ?) motive for listening ; the (psychological?) action with a motive is leading to confusion and sorrow. Sorrow has been put ( gathered?) together by ( our self-centred ?) thought and this ( very process of?) thought, by feeding upon itself forms the 'I' and the 'me'. As an ( artificial intelligence?) 'machine'( appears to ?) have (its own ?) life, so has the 'I', the 'me' ( and/or the 'us'?)- a 'life' which is fed by thought and feeling. ( Seeing the truth about this inner ?) 'fact' destroys this machinery. The ending of sorrow is the ( insightful ?) understanding of the ( ongoing inner ) 'facts' from moment to moment. There is no system or method which will give this understanding but only the choiceless awareness of the fact. The 'meditation' according to a system is the avoidance of ( seeing the?) the ( actual ) fact of 'what you are'; it is far more important to understand 'yourself', the constant changing (re-shuffling?) of the facts about yourself, than to meditate in order to find God, have 'visions', ( hightened?) sensations and other forms of (spiritual?) entertainment.

The trees are beautiful in life and in death; they are always renewing themselves. ( However,) how easy it is ( for the human mind?) to degenerate, in every way, to let the body waste, become sluggish, fat; to allow ( the naturally generous ?) feelings to wither away; the mind allowing itself to become shallow, petty and dull. A 'clever' ( materialistic?) mind is a shallow mind- it cannot renew itself and so (it eventually?) withers away, decays by the exercise of its own ( self-centred?) thought. Every ( such?) thought shapes (entangles?) the mind in the mould of the 'known'; every feeling, every emotion, however refined becomes empty and the (physical) body fed on ( self-centred?) 'thought and feeling' loses its sensibility. ( To reverse this entropic trend?) it is not physical ( energy?) that breaks through the wearying dullness; it is not enthusiasm or sentimentalism either ( the element) which bring about sensitivity of one's whole being. It is ( the insight that ?) this ( self-centred process of?) thought is the disintegrating factor; for thought has its roots in the 'known'. A life based on thought and its (well known self-centred?) activities, becomes ( repetitive and predictible, therefore?) 'mechanical'; however smoothly it may run, it is still a 'mechanical' action- it dissipates ( our total?) energy and so disintegration sets in. All ( our psychological?) 'motives', conscious or unconscious, originate from the 'known' ; such a life of the 'known', though projected into the future is ( a slow form of inner ?) decay, since in such a life there is no renewal. ( The self-locked process of the 'thinker' and its ?) 'thought' can never bring about innocency and humility and yet it is innocency and 'humility' ( the humbleness of not-knowing?) that keep the mind young, sensitive, incorruptible.
( Recap :) Freedom from the known is ( coming through?) the ending of ( self-centred ) thought; to 'die' to thought (to an existence based exclusively on the previously 'known'?) , from moment to moment, it is this ( psychological ) 'death' that puts an end to (the mind's ?) decay.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Oct 2015 #63
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
So, the pre-requisite ( 'pre-K' requirement ?) in all this would be an insight into the perceptive validity of our existing self-locked (survivalist ?) perceptive and relational mode. Otherwise...we're just playing mind games with ourselves and...with others

Well John ,yes and up to a point I see myself doing that,as long as this weird energy is not there, there is still a sort of mind game yes, some could be necessary to broom the room and "god" knows what else....

since I wrote the last post I had this better definition of suffering, the absence of the weird energy is a suffering,the dictatorship of thought IS suffering leading to various levels and forms of it....now this is quite out of the way, well for now :-)

since I got such totally incidental "revelations" of the software functioning of thought, here now there seem to have different possibilities ....

self knowledge is vital says k, well indeed it is then...

John Raica wrote:
I have noticed too, Dan, that there might be a potential educational flaw into this 'learning by observing oneself in the mirror of relationship'; For one thing it certainly worked for K...but again, his mind was cleansed of the 'observer-observing- 'the observed' duality.

I may be wrong, so a question ,k could have some ability to have both "worlds" somehow at the same time ,sometimes, and from time to time ,the weird energy was totally putting thought where it belongs to so let's say in the kitchen getting the lunch ready, or ..nothing for once!..it is my impression...but with some ???? of course.
....(John:So, technically speaking you can't honestly do both at the same time: to be inwardly in a safe-mode and also have a total perceptive contact with a reality)

John Raica wrote:
Now, for most of us here, this perceptive duality is a given- in the sense of a fail-safe perceptive mode which has worked for so many generations...and producing the 'mixed bag' reality of the present world. So, in practical terms, we are meeting daily a lot of potentially destabilising facts in the world 'out there'- to quote the French philosopher JP Sartre: 'L'enfer c'est les autres'...

Again I question like is it really about safety, It could be only about the known, field of thought ,incapable to go anywhere else then... I agree that it looks like to be about safety..this came to me within some revealing of the thought software,as a program..
The present world being as mad as centuries ago , we are just living it and not reading it....still hoping, hope being another escape of thought ....still playing games in fact.

John Raica wrote:
So, Mr K's injunction to directly see ourselves in 2-way the mirror of relationship sounds pretty unrealistic...in the 'real' world. It may be working (???) in a self-selected (BP kind of) community and alternative school, but the main impediment is the wide spread inner attitude of a self-locked ( 'fail-safe') perceptive ego/observer/thinker/experiencer.

May be there is something very true and vital behind : directly see ourselves in 2-way the mirror of relationship

if so it has not crossed my own road yet...as such, as said.

Thought is turning round in circles in its self locked cage then....this is suffering...again because of the absence of the weird energy as well as the inability to solve problems..mainly what thought does is running away, well attempting to run away from what it does not know to stay in the known...

this is machines and mass murders....such life is a joke, talking for myself of course....which is only more bitterness and mind games from thought ,so such sentence is not just useless in fact but only strengthened it ...the perception of that is the destruction of it....ad libitum...

cheers

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Oct 2015 #64
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

More Meditations du Jour from the K Notebook (1961)

Questioning (authority ?) has become merely a reaction to 'what is' and all reactions have little meaning (since) in the very breaking of the old patterns a new one is formed and so destroying ( the expected freedom ?). This endless revolt within the prison is the reaction of the immediate, and redecorating the prison walls seems to give us such satisfaction that we never (envisage to ?) break through the walls. The discontent of questioning is within the walls (of the known?) , which doesn't get us very far; it would take you to the Moon and to the neutron bombs but all this is still within the call of sorrow. Questioning the (inner infrastructure ?) of our sorrow and going beyond it is far more urgent than going to the moon or to the temple; it is this questioning that (eventually may?) tear down this structure. This ( inward) questioning destroys the machinery of ( self-centred?) thought, it shatters the authority of ( past?) experience, word (verbal knowledge ?) and power. This (inward) questioning, which is not born of ( personal?) choice and motive, 'explodes' the self-centred activity. ( Unfortunately?) we are ( sub-consciously?) afraid of this total destruction of ( our psychological?) 'known', the ground of the 'me' and the 'mine'; the ( inner safety of the?) known is better than the 'unknown' ; freedom from this known may destroy what we call 'love', 'relationship', 'joy' and so on. Freedom from the known, the explosive ( inward) questioning, ends sorrow, and then 'love' is something that thought and feeling cannot measure.

(Recap:) Our ( inner) life is so shallow and empty, petty thoughts and activities, woven in conflict and misery and always journeying from the known to the known, psychologically demanding security. There is no (authentic ) security in the 'known' however much one may want it. Security is ( related to a "psychological' continuity in?) time, but there is no ( such) 'psychological' time; it is an illusion, breeding fear. There is nothing 'permanent' now or in the future, (or even in?) the hereafter. By right questioning and listening, the (time-binding?) pattern moulded by ( self-centred?) thought and feeling, the pattern of the 'known', is shattered. Listening ( inwardly?) to every movement of ( our self-centred?) thought and feeling, ends the ( psychological infrastructure of the?) 'known'. ( An inner living based on ?) the known ( sooner or later?) breeds ( frustration and?) sorrow, love is (to be found in ?) the freedom from the known.

Every thought and feeling must ( be allowed to?) 'flower' , (this inward?) 'flowering' of everything in you, the ambition, the greed, the hate, the joy, the passion; in their very 'flowering' there is their 'death' (ending?). (However?) it is only in (a climate of inner ) freedom that anything can flourish, not in control and discipline; these ( may seem to work but inwardly they?) only corrupt. ( This inner?) flowering in freedom is ( the essence of?) all virtue. To allow our 'envy' to flower is not easy, since it is usually condemned or cherished but never given (allowed this?) freedom (to reveal itself?) . It is only in ( a climate of inner?) freedom that the fact of 'envy' reveals its depth, its peculiarities; if suppressed it will not reveal itself fully and freely. When it has 'shown itself' completely, there is an 'ending' of it, only to reveal another ( still deeper ?) 'fact' : 'emptiness', 'loneliness', 'fear' (of the unknown?) , and as each fact is (wisely?) allowed to 'flower in freedom', the ( dualistic?) conflict between the 'observer' and the 'observed' ceases; then there is no longer any 'censor' but only observation, only 'seeing'.

( Recap:) ( Inner?) freedom can only be (found?) in ( inward self-exposure and?) completion; there is 'completion' only in flowering and dying; there is no 'flowering' if there is no ending. The flowering of ( self-centred?) thought is (also ) the 'ending' of thought; for only in 'death' is there the ( birth of the?) new. The New cannot be if there is no freedom from the known. ( The continuity of a self-centred?) thought, of the 'old', cannot bring into being the New; it must 'die' for the New to be. What ( is inwardly allowed to?) flower must (naturally?) come to an end.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Oct 2015 #65
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
the average human brain seems to give a much higher priority to its 'psychological safety ' feature, as for the rest...c'est la vie

As has been said,'desire' seems to be at the root of all our problems. Whether it be for material comforts or 'spiritual' accomplishment, it ultimately leads us to conflict. It has to be seen again and again to discover its ubiquitousness. It, desire, seems to be 'regulated' in our fellow creatures but with us it's 'anything goes'. 'More' is better, "greed is good" etc. Desire is even there when we attempt to 'see' ourselves, with the motive of 'gain' lurking in the shadows. Letting 'what is' "flower" seems to be what is called for and that calls for a certain 'freedom' that understands that there is no other 'way'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Oct 2015 #66
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
if the 'self-protecting' interface is active we can see only the practical utility of people, nature, etc. It is a very very old survival based conditioning and our modern world still 'thrives' economically on it (with a few downfalls of course )

Hello John,

well , for me, it is not a conditioning as such, yet yes some conditioned learning of all kind whether false or right had been added to the main features ,years after years centuries after centuries; but it seems to me to just be about the thought program normal working order ,working in its field of competencies , If I may say so ,that is how I see all that..it fields of competencies include to eliminate, give value and hierarchies etc etc but not to people, to concepts and techniques ONLY....

in the absence of an other capacities, I mean lost capacities that we necessarily had turned on, again for me, turned on in some unknown past, as otherwise we would not bee here, in such absence we treat others as we valued calculation and concepts...we lead a life of a calculator only...this life is pain, naturally meant to be painful in order to prevent man to go that way..but we did ....pain is the subject....we try to skip it all life......and life says next..

so simple.

John Raica wrote:
the image we get of the "others" is that of a very distorting mirror. So...we 'learn' something like 'It's cold out there', while 'in-here it's warm and safe'. Now, as you are mentioning quite often, this fail-safe mode is indeed synonymous to sorrow, but the average human brain seems to give a much higher priority to its 'psychological safety ' feature, as for the rest...c'est la vie..

again, is it about safety or about the known , the unknown ?? known = safe ? unknown = unsafe, or is it that thought is entirely useless about what is unknown ??

I think that I am dealing with safety , indeed it looks that way yes, but this is just some very superficial analytical analyses, yet vital for sure too, deep down for me it is about the known and the unknown and one desire is enough to do so...but even the desire for comfort and safety could be superficial and not a root problem, again the root problem could well be the inability of thought in so many fields of what life is....

any pain of such syndrome is an immediate warning = fault !!!

And it could be where we are wrong but not sensing that the warning is yes a symptom but a catalyst to leave absolutely free like I do with the wind or the sun..even if I protect myself from the sun or the wind, the sun is still there so is the wind...

So here now I am not concerned right now I mean with how others deal with that...I am concerned with my own way to deal or "mis-deal" with all that first.
Not to forget the experiences of the weird energy and more...because this gives a sense to be around something terribly RIGHT..often, but not always with kids, for me security has come after something I regarded as "good",of course I am not mentioning any kind of business,success, or such b.....t here .

when security comes after, it is not anymore about security then...it is about whatever but that..

thanks.

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Oct 2015 #67
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
As has been said,'desire' seems to be at the root of all our problems. Whether it be for material comforts or 'spiritual' accomplishment, it ultimately leads us to conflict. It has to be seen again and again to discover its ubiquitousness. It, desire, seems to be 'regulated' in our fellow creatures but with us it's 'anything goes'. 'More' is better, "greed is good" etc. Desire is even there when we attempt to 'see' ourselves, with the motive of 'gain' lurking in the shadows. Letting 'what is' "flower" seems to be what is called for and that calls for a certain 'freedom' that understands that there is no other 'way'.

Hello the other Dan, unless I myself am the other Dan :-))

I agree that desire is a serious problem...What I have seen revealed for me about the thought program ,revealed is really the right word here, is that desire is vital, without desires thought would not function, thought as a program , a machine needs an incentive self induced to analyse, and desires are providing such incentives, like self reward does, self satisfaction does, self pride etc etc etc ..

desires contains a dark side named frustrations, greed, fear, hatred, and so many more dark aspects.....that was revealed again, not thought..I never searched to understand thought..going through the suffering door have done that is what I understand....

From very young surrounded by globally intelligent adults so in touch with what they are which is probably never the case on earth since ages , that would be a subject for the young to eventually go into...but

Anyway this dark side loaded in desires is for me in us with a motive as a function, it has a function..we do not suffer because the Universe, the Ground, the Origin, or whatever name suits her, is nuts.

exactly like physical pain it guides, don't do this.....

so even the letting "what is flower" can, as you know, be just another trick made up by thought...this is why what we call pain and that we immediately are trying to reject is so strong, as to by pass the powerful inertia of thought such strong incentive more powerful than thought is necessary..by itself it is very possible that thought cannot by pass itself at all...this is my actual view so far..

etc

cheers

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Oct 2015 #68
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

Meditation du Jour (from the K Notebook, 1961)

The car was going fairly fast and it was a good place to (drive and?)
meditate. To be free of the ( 'psychological' load of ?) words , to see that ( inwardly) the word is not the thing, not to get caught in the ( cultural) overtones of the word and yet use words with care and understanding; to be sensitive to words and not to be 'weighed down' by them; to (perceptively ) 'break through' the verbal barriers and to consider the actual facts; to avoid the 'poison' of ( vain and glamorous?) words and still feel the beauty of them; to put away all ( personal) identification with words and to ( objectively) examine them (is a meditation 'must'?) , for words are a trap and a snare. They are the symbols and not the real. The ( self-protective?) screen of words acts as a shelter for the 'lazy' and (self-) deceiving mind.

( The intellectual?) 'slavery' (dependency on ?) words is the beginning of an (inner state of?) inaction which may appear to be action (very active?) but a mind caught in ( words and?) symbols cannot go far. Every ( verbalising?) thought shapes the mind and without understanding ( the self-centred core of?) thought, the mind becomes a 'slave' to words and sorrow begins. Conclusions and explanations do not (can not ?) end ( this) sorrow.

Meditation is a movement in time and out of time ; the beginning of meditation is a 'choiceless' (non-personal?) awareness of every thought and feeling, understanding their motives, their mechanism, allowing them to blossom . And when this 'thought and feeling' ( eventually ?) flourish and die, meditation is the ( inward ?) movement beyond time. In this movement there is ecstasy; in its complete 'emptiness' (inner transparency?) there is love, and with this love there is ( psychological?) 'destruction' and Creation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Oct 2015 #69
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
the inherited instincts for seeking/finding/and optimising the safety of our daily existence has led to a residual accumulation of "personal and collective" experience and psycho-knowledge.

Hi John, yes there is accumulation in one's lifetime , but is it now integrated to the core of all our concerned cells or whatever part of the body is concerned, well this i do not know.....so is the accumulation which is not from "instinct" ( with my words instinct is the programmed analytical process) passed on to the next generation ?? I do not know...I would be tempted to say no....but that is just a wild guess..

yet as i have seen in a strong vision some 5 years ago that the machine namely the analytical process starts to be rotten, at this level of the hardware and even software then , something "bad" is happening clearly..if behind the vision there is truth in it of course...when watching the state of this planet, well it could be so...

we may be living the end of thought domination in fact, one way or the other....well, may be this is just nonsense ??

John Raica wrote:
However, the karmic downfall of this attitude is that we do not see anything directly, we just automatically process every new perception in terms of our personal or group safety, commercial value, etc . To use a scientific term once used by David Bohm, this is creating a standing ( cultural) wave, an intrinsically limited mentality shared by practically everyone. It all comes with the verbalising process of thought: once it starts you are automatically drawn into the field of the known.

If so, as it seems to be so yes, what is wrong with that (just an open question)? To say that it is wrong by watching ones life and all what thought is producing on earth from machines to mass killing and tortures etc etc , this is already beyond the thought process is not it ? something says: this is totally wrong !!! and right away comes the thought: I must change this, the world according to my feelings..thought immediately has discarded itself from any responsibility into the mess....it is sliding on this false duality, me and the world....until death then...

John Raica wrote:
Which, as K and yourself very wisely pointed out...also involves sorrow. And most of us have become insensitive or even 'immune' to it. A very safe but... dull and boring existence- the "psychological" dead-end of our culture.

Yes, it looks that way, a dead end, and I would be tempted to add: AT LAST !

here we have a two ways option for me....mental and-or physical suicide as usual but worse (war etc etc) or ????

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Oct 2015 #70
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

Highlights from a K Talk on thinking in Athens (1956)

We are trying to find out what lies behind the superficial activities of our daily existence ; so please examine your own thought process as I am talking, and ask yourself what thinking is. Thinking is a process or ( memory's?) reaction, is it not? It is a (verbalised?) reaction according to our ( cultural?) background and without understanding this 'background', we shall never find out whether it is possible for the mind to go beyond the process of its own activities.

What happens when we  think ? Without realizing it, the ( thinking?) mind divides itself, and then one section of the mind ( controls and/or ?) investigates the other, giving an answer out of its own ( memory bank of?) accumulated experience, or according to the accepted experiences of others. This effort makes up what we call thinking, and the resulting answer is ( more often than not?) the ( predictible?) projection of a conditioned mind.

Surely ( the gravity of?) our present problems demand quite a different approach, they demand a new 'psychological' outlook; but we must understand the (limitations ?) of our own thinking before we can go beyond it. That is why it is important to inquire for ourselves into how the thinking (process) begins, and where it stops; because if we do not ( care to?) understand the activity of our own thought, we shall only create more problems, and perhaps bring about our own destruction.
When we think, we do so within the ( 'known') framework which society has imposed on us and so long as we think within a (given) framework, our problems, whether social or individual, will remain unsolved. I feel it is very important that you and I as two ( responsible?) individuals should investigate for ourselves the process of our own thinking.

Is there freedom in thinking, or is all thought limited? If you ( sincerely?) look into yourself, you will see that all thinking is is the result of time, the residue of various cultures, of centuries of knowledge and experience. The totality of our (self-?) consciousness derives from this residue of the past, both individual and collective. So our 'consciousness' is the outcome of many influences: climate, diet, various forms of authority the « do's and dont's » of society, and of the religion in which we have been brought up, the books we have read, the reactions we have felt, and so on. All these influences do condition and shape the mind, and from this ( cultural) background comes our thought. Furthermore, ( the 'personal' component of?) our thinking is based on the desire to become something (and the associated fear of not being able to?) , which is encouraged and stimulated by the competitive ( mentality of the?) society in which we have been brought up.
So the question is, can such 'thinking' solve our many problems?

There is no 'unlimited' thinking, thinking is always limited; and to find out what lies beyond ( the self-centred process of?) thought, it must first 'come to an end' (or...take a break?) . N can thought inquire into something which is ( non-material and?) measureless? ( Eg :) If I want to find out what 'love' (truly?) is I must first see whether my mind is conditioned (or not?) by the ( accepted?) ideas which society or the organized religion calls 'love'. Only when my mind is free from all conditioning that I shall be able to find out what love is. In the same way, to find out if there is truth, if there is God, my mind must be free from all the beliefs and prejudices in which it has been brought up.

So, to discover something true, not conditioned, not contaminated, you must cease (in a psychological sense?) to 'think'- and the mind can free itself (of the its conditioning influences?) only when it is (standing?) completely alone and through (an integrated ?) awareness it can begin to understand its own functioning; then an extraordinary ( quality of ?) silence comes about, a stillness in which there is no movement of thought. Then the mind is 'free' (that is?) no longer anchored to an ideology or aiming at a purpose. Unless you undergo this actual experience life remains very superficial and ( predictibly?) sorrowful. So what is important is to understand the process of your own thinking. In that direct understanding of one's own thinking, a radical (qualitative?) change in one's living will take place and only then will it be possible for the external ( cultural infra-?) structure of society to change also.

A number of questions have been sent to me, and I shall try to go into some of them.

Question: Psychoanalysts offer (for a reasonable fee?) the 'panacea' of analysis, asserting that by just knowing what it is all about, one is cured; but this does not always hold true. What is one to do when in spite of knowing the cause of one's trouble, one is still unable to get rid of it?

Krishnamurti: You see, in this problem there is involved the 'analyser' and the 'analysed'. You may not go to a psychoanalyst, you may analyse yourself, but in either case there is always the (inner splitting into the?) analyser and the analysed. When ( the self-conscious?) 'you' tries to examine the unconscious, or interpret a dream, there is the ( subliminal mental splitting as?) examiner and the examined, with the analyser trying to reshape ( improve and/or?) or control that which he has analysed. The ( kernel of the?) question is not only whether the analyser is capable of ( a totally objective?) analysing, but more deeply whether there is actually such a division between the analyser and the analysed. We have assumed that there is such a division; but is there in actuality? The 'analyser' (part) surely, is also the result of our thinking. So if we realize the fact that the 'thinker' is not separate from his thought, that there is only ( a global process of?) thinking and no 'thinker' (to control it?) then our whole approach to the problem of inner conflict changes. After all, if you do not think, where is the 'thinker'? The qualities of thinking, the memory of various experiences together with the ( identification created by the ?) desire to be secure, to be permanent, have created the 'thinker' (as a separate entity?) apart from (the rest of our?) thinking. We say that 'thinking' is passing, but that the 'thinker' is permanent. In reality there is no 'thinker', but only the process of thinking. And if there is only thinking, and not a ( controlling?) 'thinker' who thinks, once we fully understand (the truth of the fact?) that there is only 'thinking' there is a tremendous (qualitative?) revolution in your whole approach to life; because you have 'at one stroke' removed the very source of ( the duality?) conflict. It is the division between the thinker and the thought that creates conflict; and if one is capable of removing that division, there is no 'problem'.

Question: What would happen to the world if all men and women were to arrive at a state so far removed from attachment that 'marriage' and 'love affairs' became unnecessary?

Krishnamurti: Should we not rather ask ourselves whether there is ( authentic?) love when there is attachment? Our 'attachments' are based on (the shared desire for?) mutual satisfaction, mutual support, are they not? Each one 'needs' the companionship of another. So is there is ( any true?) 'love' at all when there is attachment ? Is there love when we are attached, when we (think that?) possess somebody? And why are we attached? To really go into it, to inquire why one is attached demands a great deal of hard inner work, since if you were not attached, what would happen? You would be at a loss, would you not? We are attached because ( with)in ourselves we are ( feelin ?) insufficient, psychologically dependent, and therein lies our misery.

Question: How is one to deal with a very small child if one is to avoid influencing him in any way?

Krishnamurti: What is important is to understand the whole problem of influence, and then perhaps we shall approach differently the education of the child. We know that we are being ( constantly?) influenced in some degree by everything around us; and to be free of such ( conditioning) influences, we must be(come) aware of the many factors which create them.

Take, for instance, the influence of the word 'patriotism'. We accept that influence all over the world, for every school, every government is sedulously conditioning us to accept it; and that is one of the basic (implicit?) causes of wars, because it separates man from man. So can we, the 'grown-up' people, free ourselves from this influence? This demands a great deal of insight, ( of a responsible?) understanding, for there is the possibility that you may be ostracized, you may lose your job (or not find any?) , and you will be a 'nobody' in that society.

Let us take another example. The worship of ( money and?) 'success' is also an influence throughout the world, is it not? And can one free oneself from this influence? Can you as an individual do it? If you really see the truth that ambition is ( inwardly?) destructive and deeply understand the whole process of 'influencing', you will be a different person; and then perhaps you will be able to help the child to understand and be free of all influence.

Question: Is it possible to live without any attachment?

Krishnamurti: Why don't you find out of 'what' you are attached and 'why'. You are attached to your family, to your property, to your name, to your beliefs and ideas, to your business - to a dozen things. To be free from this (multi-leve3?) 'attachment', you must first become aware that you are attached, experience the "fac" that you are attached, and understand 'why'. ( Eg:) You are attached, for instance, to some ( person?), belief or ideal, because without that concept and the feeling it evokes, your life would be empty, miserable; you would have nothing to rely on. That is why it is very important to study the process of one's whole being, and not merely try to ( ideologically) clarify what to believe and what not to believe, which is all so superficial. The key to freedom is within 'ourselves', but we are always expecting someone else to come and open the door and let the light in.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Oct 2015 #71
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 38 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

salut à tous et désolé pour le français..! ;-)

paul daniel wrote #96:
the drowning into suffering, suffering as a natural process and not as a curse of course

et oui! un processus naturel, je dirais même intelligent et à l'inverse de la "malédiction"!

qu'est ce qui, au quotidien, peut permettre l'émergence de l'éveil? qu'est ce qui est sous nos yeux le plus régulièrement, à portée de main avec le plus de constance et qui donc, constitue la plus grande oportunité? oui oportunité...

le conflit, le mal être, la gène, la honte, la peur, l'angoisse, le stress, la jalousie, la colère etc... au quotidien ils sont là (processus d'une d'une grande beauté en soi).

là, sous nos yeux, tous les jours... il suffit de s'arrêter et d'observer tout ça, il suffit juste de s'arrêter de générer des espaces (illusoires) entre ça et l'absence de ça...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Oct 2015 #72
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

I am translating Richard's post in English.

richard villlar wrote:

paul daniel wrote #96:

the drowning into suffering, suffering as a natural process and not as a curse of course

Richard: Indeed, this is a natural process, I would even say that it is intelligence and the opposite of malediction
"!
What can allow,bring, human "awakening" in daily life? What is just regularly and constantly under our nose and which constitute THE main opportunity to do so , yes am talking about opportunity ?

I am talking about conflicts, discontentment, awkwardness, shame, fear, anxiety, stress, jealousy, anger and so on, there are present daily ( processes which I find of a great beauty in themselves)

under our very nose, everyday...we just have to stop and to observe all that, we must just stop to give us some illusory space between all this ,suffering etc, and the absence of it.

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sat, 31 Oct 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Oct 2015 #73
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 38 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

paul daniel wrote:
I am translating Richard's post in English.

Merci dan.

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Oct 2015 #74
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

Meditation du Jour: On Choice

All ( dualistic?) existence is (involving?) choice; only in aloneness (all-oneness ?) there is no choice. Choice, in every form, is (breeding its own?) conflict. This ( perceptive?) contradiction ( between the 'inner' ( the'observer'?) and the the 'outer' (the 'observed'?) breeds confusion and misery, despair and sorrow. Choice, selection, must always exist as long as there is the 'chooser' , the (self-identified bundle of ?) accumulated memories of pain and pleasure, and every 'experience' (born of ?) 'choice' only strengthens ( the identification with that ?) memory whose response becomes 'thought and feeling'. This memory has only a partial significance, to respond mechanically ( to life threatening situations?); ( otherwise?) this response is ( manifesting itself as ?) 'choice'. There is no ( true?) freedom in ( the psychologically motivated?) choices. You 'choose' according to the cultural background you have been brought up in, according to your social, economic, religious conditioning. Choice invariably strengthens this ( background?) conditioning; there is no 'escape' from this conditioning, it only breeds more suffering.

It was a beautiful evening and there on that road so
close to town, there was deep silence and not a sound disturbed it,
not even the moon and the passing lorry. It was a ( visitation of ?) 'silence' that no thought could touch, a 'silence' that went with the frogs and the cycles, a silence that followed you; you walked in it, you breathed it, you 'saw' it. It was not shy, it was there insisting and welcoming. It went beyond you into vast immensities and you could ( eventually?) follow it if your thoughts & feelings were utterly quiet, losing themselves as the frogs in the water; they had no
importance and could so easily 'lose' themselves. It was an enchanting evening, full of clarity and fast-fading smile.

(Back to the main topic: ) ( The 'self'-sustained process of ?) choice is always breeding misery. Watch it and you will see it lurking, demanding, expecting, and before you know it, you are caught in its net of inescapable 'duties', 'responsibilities', ( plus the associated  frustrations ?) and despairs. Watch it and you will be aware of the fact. Be aware of this 'fact'; it is there. If 'you' will let it alone, not interfering with it with your calculated and cunning ( value) judgements, it will 'flower' and show all its intricacies, its subtle ways, its seeming 'importance' and 'ethics', its hidden motives and fancies. If 'you' (the 'observer' ?) will leave the 'fact' alone, it will (eventually reveal?) all these and more. But you must be 'choicelessly' aware of it Then you will see that (the process of personal?) 'choice', having flowered, dies and there is freedom, not 'you' are free, since 'you' are the maker of choices! . ( In that newly found freedom?) there is nothing to choose. Out of this choiceless state there flowers a (consciousness of?) 'all-oneness' which is always flowering and it is always new.
All ( personal or collective ) 'choice' is in the field of the known; action in this field always breeds ( personal or collective?) sorrow. There is the ending of ( this) sorrow in 'aloneness' (all-oneness?) .

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 31 Oct 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Oct 2015 #75
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
This memory has only a partial significance, to respond mechanically;this response is choice. There is no freedom in choices. You choose according to the cultural background you have been brought up in, according to your social, economic, religious conditioning Choice invariably strengthens this conditioning; there is no escape from this conditioning, it only breeds more suffering.

Right. thought is a self enclose program,limited to itself,whatever this itself is. It is suffering. I now see that as such for me too. Thought is suffering, in that word can be put anything.

Is it incidental? Is it a necessity?
if it is incidental, well good luck to anyone with it. If so that would be bad luck for us, as the only other option I see so far would have been the absence of suffering.... god dammed !!

If there is an unknown necessity behind it, well what sort of necessity could that be ?
I leave that for now.

John Raica wrote:
choice is always breeding misery. Watch it and you will see it lurking, demanding, expecting, and before you know it, you are caught in its net of inescapable duties, responsibilities and despairs. Watch it and you will be aware of the fact. Be aware of this fact; it is there. If you will let it alone, not interfering with it with your calculated and cunning judgements, it will flower and show all its intricacies, its subtle ways, its seeming importance and ethics, its hidden motives and fancies.

What is the program of thought? It is a program, we all have it plus superficial differences as named by thought itself;thought by set up insists to make differences, to catalogue, to give value, to create hierarchies, up to war and mass killing,tortures and destructions,suicide and eradication etc ..all this is desires based....no desire = no thought functioning...that is the by default program we all have from scratch ..a child already suffers in his-her own ways...yet normally there is still more + than - to his-her counter counting of reached desires....the world is waiting for me to be conquer ....ah ah ah...says the clown !!

let it alone says k, I agree experiences wise, but is it as simple as those few words for thought?

I think this is the core, one core , one huge step out of ???? ...thought is invading the outer somehow, by doing so what are its deep motives to do so ?

let it alone....

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Oct 2015 #76
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
But you must be choicelessly aware of it Then you will see that choice, having flowered, dies and there is freedom, not you are free, since you are the maker of choices! . there is nothing to choose. Out of this choiceless state there flowers a all-oneness which is always flowering and it is always new.
All choice is in the field of the known; action in this field always breeds sorrow. There is the ending of sorrow in 'aloneness' (all-oneness?) .

Well John, that would be one of those quotes is not it ...

there is choice in survival, this tool not great we may try that one...or even in the forest like shall I turn right,left or go back ?? ad libitum..no end to that going round in circles.

Can I choose the climate, the sun, my earth, my society, my nose, no death, happiness, etc ? try it then..this is what only we basically do...from choosing left or right turn in the forest I apply the same principle for all what I meet...meaning that each time at all levels I am eliminating....by the way for me this is where what we call competition and which does not exist at all as such takes its root, in this choice which always eliminate something....by doing so we shrink life to machines,using logic and all the incentives which as present to make thought function....

desire is then the main happening in such life...

desire can work on its own by default, as if not no child would even have the craving to survive...

At some stage all what is there is some sort of heavy syndrome that life "pisses me off", meaning that my winning balance of choices starts to be more heavy on the - side; it is so if I do not have what I want and even though when I get it, it is never as my dream so I decide without knowing why and how, that I must keep on searching the absolute happiness and so on, on the road to dementia now ..then one day death says: come here... and ..next please !!! poor thinking process, what a ...then money becomes a new goal as it gives me the capacity to do all what I want to do..the inevitable winners caught in such final hope are leading the world....and so what ??

As Richard says, there are plenty opportunities with what is "wrong" so does not work or-and is painful to find out somehow...but as long as I am just running away, escaping, there is not one chance to let all that be..

I don't understand that: There is the ending of sorrow in 'aloneness' ...

could you share your perception of it ..?

thanks

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Nov 2015 #77
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
So, unless a new perceptive instrument is not 'awakened' the casual reader can either 'trust K'- and become a student of his works or... a follower, or can reject the whole thing as non-sense.

Well, when I bring into this what I know, so of course my own experiences in those fields, and if I add some chronological timing to what took place, whether before the k-thing so 40 years ago or recently some 6 years ago, suffering, and living it properly was there before anything happened,yet there was present a more than deep interest in all that as many...we can find correlations with suffering,sorrow of course in Mr B or Mr k with no doubt..

Now it is more obvious about why my apparent amplified focusing on sorrow, but there was and is a clear reason behind...

So yes , it is then about another perceptive instrument, for me it is not new, it is there but is out of order...but this is not vital whether new or not knew but turned off.

John Raica wrote:
. In a nutshell, as long as our 'unconscious' priority is to play safe any attempt to transcend our 'given' psy-condition is only putting us on a loop. And if and when we realise that this 'psychological safety' is in fact a gilded cage, some changes ( un re-parametrage ?) will have to be operated

again it looks like playing safe, perhaps it is so as well,
yet I see more to it behind that because of the lack of other capacities or instrument as you put it, I see the inability to analyse what is not known, of course!!!, meaning that anything in order to be analysed and used by thought has to be superficially processed so recorded first,then thought looks at its own recording..

in the absence of recording,thought cannot provide any answer...

So for now I stick to what I see so far( it may change ?) , there may be no playing safe as such, yet it obviously looks like that so say thought, instead there is thought competent only to analyse its own recording so any past ,of a millisecond past included , and when meeting what is unknown to itself it generates this shaking feeling call playing safe, when it is about thought being incapable to deal with such problems yet trying to, in the absence of our other capacities and there is too the fact that thought does not know that when meeting the unknown for itself it absolutely must not try to do something ...........etc

when meeting sorrow is the same process, thought has no clue about it but is most stupidly trying to do something..

agreed for the gilded cage yes and the need for radical changes..

John Raica wrote:
And then only ...you realise that you are actually 'alone'- since nobody around you seems to care or realise the timeless urgency of this 'meta-physical' challenge

OK now I get it..thanks for the input about all that..

cheers..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Nov 2015 #78
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

Last K Talk in Athens (Sept 1956)

It seems to me that one of the most difficult (psychological) problems is how is the mind to bring about a change in itself. If we want to create a world that is without hatred, a world in which there is ( a spirit of selfless cooperation and ?) love, I think it is essential that you and I as individuals should contribute to the realization of such a 'revolution' by a fundamental transformation in ourselves. This is the subject on which I am going to talk this evening, and I hope you will be patient enough to listen with attention.

To find out if it is possible to bring about such an inner revolution, one has to begin by experimenting with oneself. If we look into ourselves, we can see that the mind is capable of improving the (outwardly directed ?) part of itself, but even if that one part manages to dominate all the rest, the mind will be in a state of continuous (hidden /subliminal?) conflict.Such conflict is inevitable so long as one part of ourselves is trying to improve or to control the other part and it arises, surely, from this ( safety based?) division in the mind.

Now, to change fundamentally, completely, without one part of the mind seeking to dominate another parts and thereby creating further conflict, we must give our total attention to it ; and there can be such ( inward ?) attention only when there is not the conflict of wanting a result, or pursuing an ideal. there is any sense of achieving an ideal, of bringing about a change through compulsion, there cannot be complete attention. To bring about a fundamental ( qualitative inner ?) change one must understand the necessity of a total ( undivided?) attention which is, after all, a state of love. Love is (involved in?) total attention in which the contradictory impulses, with all their accumulative memories, completely cease.

To put it differently, what most of us are trying to do is to change (improve ourselves?) through time. Being ( inwardly frustrated and?) envious we (like to?) think that through time we shall (go beyond it?) - which to me is an escape, a distraction from the actual fact. So, can one give one's total attention to the problem of 'envy', without any distraction? That is, can one approach the problem of envy completely anew? It is true, is it not?, that we generally move from the known to the known; our ideals are still within the field of the known, and does not bring about a fundamental transformation. So the problem is : can this ( controlling and greedy mentality of the ?) mind come to an end without compulsion, without any form of discipline, which means that it has understood itself completely?

Truth (or Love ?) is something totally Unknown and the mind must come to it completely free of all the things it has known; and (inwardly) this 'knowledge', is the accumulated memories and problems of everyday existence. So if there is really to be a radical change, a fundamental transformation, the mind must move away from the known. For Love is not something which 'you' have experienced yesterday and are able to recapture at will tomorrow; it is (an inner dimension which is?) totally New, Unknown.

Many questions have been sent in, and I cannot go into all of them so if your particular question is not answered, you will know why. Also, I am not 'answering' these questions, but we are together trying to investigate the problem. The problem is yours, and you have to find the answer within the problem itself, not away from it.

Question: In what way can self-knowledge help to solve the many pressing problems of the world - for instance, starvation?

Krishnamurti: Is not the world, with all its lies, its corruption, hatred and starvation, brought about by human beings (very much like us?) ? You (too may ?) want to be 'somebody', and therefore you identify yourself with the country (and/or with the property?) which gives you a sense of ( self-) importance; so, through ( shared mentality of greed and?) envy you have created a society based on ( competition and?) acquisition. Unfortunately most of us think that politics, or various forms of legislation will solve our problems. But what the individual ( mentality?) is , the ( mentality of the?) world is, and to bring about a fundamental change you must understand yourself.
Self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom; and to know yourself is not something to be learned from books. You can see yourself exactly as you are in the ( inwardly transparent?) 'mirror' of relationship, once you realize (the truth?) that to understand something, you must not ( label, compare or?) condemn it. Through this self-knowledge which comes when there is observation without condemnation, the whole mind, the 'unconscious' (the forgotten layers?) as well as the 'conscious' (ones) , can be understood. Only then is the mind completely quiet, and therefore able to inquire further.

Question: If a man has no ( personal) ambition, how is he to live in this world of competition?

Krishnamurti: I wonder why are we envious, ambitious? Is it because there are a hundred ( outward?) motives encouraging us to be ambitious? Or is it that without ambition, without trying to 'get somewhere' or to 'be something', we feel that (inwardly we?) are nothing? If we were not ambitious, what would happen? We would be 'nobody', we would be 'unrecognized' ( within our community?) , and we would merely 'live'; but just to live in that way does not seem (to the self-centred mind?) very gratifying. So we create (and/or 'accept' the collective mentality of?) a society in which ambition is encouraged (higly prised?). I am not talking of ambition only in the worldly sense. The man who strives to have some so-called ( mystical or ?) 'religious' experience is also anxious to become or to have ( or to get ?) something.

Now, seeing the havoc that ( competition and?) 'ambition' is causing in the world today, and realizing that a man who is ambitious can have no love, the question naturally arises ( for a spiritually inclined mind?) : is it possible to be completely free from ( this mentality of?) ambition? I cannot answer for you; you will have to find out for yourself. But you see, the fact is that most of us want security, safety and ( 'psychological' insurance policies or ?) 'guarantees'; therefore we live with ambition. Such people are not serious, though they may ask 'serious' questions.

Question: What is the real meaning of brotherhood?

Krishnamurti: It is fairly obvious, is it not? This is our world, it is yours and mine - not to live in it as 'Greeks', or 'Americans', or Russians, but as 'human(e?) beings'. But unfortunately we have ( accepted these?) national, economic and religious barriers (divisions?) , and living behind these barriers we talk about brotherhood, we talk about love, peace, God. To really know what Love is we must abolish all these barriers, and each one of us must begin with himself.

Question: Should one give any importance to one's dreams or not?

Krishnamurti: To investigate this question directly we must understand the process of ( fragmentation of ?) our own consciousness, the 'totality of one's being'; most of us are concerned with cultivating our ( self-?) 'conscious' mind, and every school is ( keeping itself?) 'busy' with the same thing. Society gives great importance to the education of this ( self-?) conscious ( part of the?) mind, and it tries to make us ( 'programmable' and/or ?) efficient, citizens by giving us ( the opportunity of ? ) a job.

Now, while the (self-?) conscious mind is concerned with our daily activities, there is at the same time a 'hidden inner activity' going on of which 'you' are largely unconscious ; this 'unconscious' being not only the hidden personal motives, but also the racial influences and the ( pressures of the accumulated ?) collective experience of centuries. So, when the 'conscious' mind goes to sleep (is on 'stand-by'?) and relatively quiet, the 'unconscious' urges then become dreams. This is because during the day our ( self-) conscious minds are so taken up with our superficial motives and pursuits that there is no ( leisurely?) time to receive the promptings of the (personal and/or collective?) unconscious. So we 'dream', but the ( revolutionary?) problem is not how to interpret dreams, but whether it is possible not to dream at all. Please do not reject this (distant possibility?) since a mind that is (split between?) perpetually active (outwardly?) during the day, and unconsciously ( inwardly?) active when it is asleep, can never be creative. It is only when the mind is completely ( integrated and?) still, without movement, without (jumping into?) 'action', that there is a possibility for a new state ( of awareness?) to come into being.

So, can the ( self-?) 'conscious' mind be in such close relationship with the 'unconscious' (counter- part?) during the day as well as during the night, that there is never this state of 'confusion' which necessitates the projection of dreams? Surely, when the 'conscious' mind (becomes aware of?) the (subliminal?) 'movements' of the unconscious, it is possible not to dream at all. That is, if you are ( becoming?) aware of your motives, of your prejudices, of your conditioning, of your fears, of your likes and dislikes - if you are aware of all these ( 'psychological' interferences?) during the day, then when you go to sleep the mind is not everlastingly disturbed by 'dreams'. That is why it is important to be aware of (the 'psycholgical' components of?) one's thinking, of one's ambition, of one's motives, urges, jealousies - not to 'push them aside', but to understand them completely. Then the mind is very quiet, silent, and (by meditating?) in that silence it can be free from all its conditioning. Such a mind is a 'religious' (holistic?) mind, and only such a mind is capable of receiving « that which is true ». When the mind is completely still, without any movement, without any ( push of?) desire, then it is possible for the Immeasurable to come into ( one's?) being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Nov 2015 #79
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
So if this is the case, Dan, all you have to do is to 'tune it up' and put it to good work. In fact for myself too , this very selective work of ( cohesively ?) processing some of the K talks and dialogues is also bringing a fine inner tuning. So it is an out-of-time ( extra-temporal) work which is bringing its own rewards illico...same case as with meditation.

tune it up somehow yes...I see that the common formatting of society as well as my own one due to the nature of thought when working alone, must not produce its full formatting results on someone, must not have well worked so, this is a prerequisite ..then possibilities are there,somehow, unexpected etc ..as you know yourself.To be wild it is about,well sort of...

when you say reward I guess you mean effects ...in the sense of liberating effect and more like the presence of some weird goodness etc for example ..

....

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Nov 2015 #80
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
If we were not ambitious, what would happen? We would be 'nobody', we would be 'unrecognised', and we would merely 'live'; but just to live in that way does not seem very gratifying.

Well actually this speaks quite clearly and profoundly .

John Raica wrote:
Now, seeing the havoc that ( competition and?) 'ambition' is causing in the world today, and realizing that a man who is ambitious can have no love, the question naturally arises : is it possible to be completely free from ambition? I cannot answer for you; you will have to find out for yourself. But you see, the fact is that most of us want security, safety and 'guarantees'; therefore we live with ambition. Such people are not serious, though they may ask 'serious' questions.

this as well.

John Raica wrote:
each one of us must begin with himself.

John Raica wrote:
Now, while the (self-?) conscious mind is concerned with our daily activities, there is at the same time a 'hidden inner activity' going on of which 'you' are largely unconscious ; this 'unconscious' being not only the hidden personal motives, but also the racial influences and the collective experience of centuries.

this had been a topic of mine for a few month here on kinfonet...the unconscious,dreams etc .Actually it was a monologue unfortunately.
whether one knows, first hand experience, about those unconscious zones, or not...if not there is nothing to say. It is just one more wild intellectual guess.

As far as I know anything here, it seems to me that the personal hidden motives have much more weight than alleged racial influences and collectives experiences....this is what I know so far...what I mean here is that I am not sure at all that at birth we would have all those racial and collective experiences in us..they come with the formatting.This does not contradict k words on that I think ; as bottom line it all comes down to personal motives,whether personal personal,whether influences by the environment..the last one being made by the personal blindly accepting all those influences..so for me the personal IS the main problem...

In my own drowning in to all that, I have noticed in times of great troubles to be solved that not one single time, and there are now more than many behind now, analysing so thought has found any root of any problem so has never solved one deep problem, not once !!!!

All what carefully hidden in some unconscious zones, created by my utter superficiality ..

living sorrow as it must be affects and reveals by itself those areas too....it starts now having some impact on dreams too...as some are now coming in some sort of "no dream zone, yet it is dream...but I am awake...

it is really a kind of totally involuntary stripping oneself..and a possibility is seen like: well.. what will be left ??? weird............

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sun, 01 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Nov 2015 #81
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Surely, when the 'conscious' mind (becomes aware of?) the (subliminal?) 'movements' of the unconscious, it is possible not to dream at all. That is, if you are ( becoming?) aware of your motives, of your prejudices, of your conditioning, of your fears, of your likes and dislikes - if you are aware of all these ( 'psychological' interferences?) during the day, then when you go to sleep the mind is not everlastingly disturbed by 'dreams'. That is why it is important to be aware of one's thinking, of one's ambition, of one's motives, urges, jealousies - not to 'push them aside', but to understand them completely. Then the mind is very quiet, silent, and in that silence it can be free from all its conditioning. Such a mind is a 'religious' mind, and only such a mind is capable of receiving « that which is true ». When the mind is completely still, without any movement, without any ( push of?) desire, then it is possible for the Immeasurable to come into ( one's?) being.

John, I understand religious here in the primal Latin sense as put by k of "religere" meaning "to be linked".

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Nov 2015 #82
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

Selected (themes for) Meditation from the K Notebook (I961)

The bullock carts and the worn-out villagers were there beside you but you were (delving inwardly ?) so deep that no thought could follow; every feeling stayed far away. You were aware of everything that was happening around you, the darkening of the moon by masses of clouds, the warning of the cycle bell, but this ( meditation into the ?) depth went on more profoundly past the limits of ( time and ) space. It was ( a state of?) total (inner) freedom and ( from those ?) deepths there was a was bursting of energy, an 'ecstasy' which thought could never capture or pursue. Thought is a barren thing and could never communicate with 'that' which is timeless.

The essence of ( self-?) control is suppression. The pure ( inner?) 'seeing' ( the in(ner)sight?) is infinitely more subtle than the mere ( thought?) control which is doesn't need much ( self) understanding. The pure act of 'seeing the fact', whatever the 'fact' ( happens to ?) be, brings its own understanding and from this, ( a qualitative inner?) mutation takes place.

It was none of the common sights that made the evening enchanting, but a deep widening intensity, an imminent clarity of that 'otherness', with its impenetrable strength and purity. What ( before) was 'beautiful' , was now glorified in splendour; there was ecstasy and laughter not only deeply within but among the palms and the rice fields. ( Such visitations of?) Love is not a common thing but it was (present) there in the hut with an oil lamp, with that old woman, carrying something heavy on her head; with that naked boy, swinging on a piece of string a piece of wood which gave out many sparks- his 'fireworks'. It was everywhere, so 'common' that you could (almost ?) pick it up under a dead leaf or in that jasmine by the old crumbling house. It was there filling your heart, your mind and the sky; it remained and would never leave you. Only that 'you' would have to 'die' to ( your psycho-attachments to?) everything, without roots, without a tear. Then 'It' would ( possibly?) come to (visit?) you, ( if you were lucky?) and ceased to run after it, being 'indifferent' to it, but without sorrow, and thought left far behind. The (inward) flowering of meditation is ( the flowering of?) Goodness. It is the beauty of meditation that gives perfume to its flowering. However, how can there be joy in your 'meditation' with the (constant?) coaxing of desire and pain; how can it blossom in the corrupting ambition and smell of success; how can it bloom in the shadow of 'hope' (psycho- expectations ?) and/or despair? You will have to leave all these far behind (and without regrets), since meditation blossoms only in freedom and ( comes with?) the 'withering' (karmic quenching?) of that which is (or...was?) . Without freedom there is no self-knowing and without self-knowing there is no meditation.

( Recap:) ( Self-centred?) thought is always petty and shallow however far it may wander in search of knowledge . Meditation flowers only in the freedom from the known, and it withers away in the ( barren field of the?) known.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 02 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Nov 2015 #83
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
So obviously when we're trying to work it backwards, to intellectually analyse or 'under-stand' the workings of our own psyche, we often fail miserably because that preset safety- mapping has become...'unconscious or 'automatic'. In the functioning of the computer we have the same thing- a basic pre-installed operating system upon which run the practical applications. The efficiency advantage is quite obvious- we don't have to know in details how the computer is actually working and use it for more meaningful and practical activities. However, in our brain's case unless our awareness or attention does not throw light upon its intimate, non-verbal workings, there will always be an element of limitation in our everyday living...and from here the K Teachings are doing a marvellous job in exposing or bringing to our attention the contradictions, frictions and problems created by millennia of such 'mechanistic' (thoughtless ?) evolution....

Well John,

"I" does not know that it is the sort of computerised brain, it sees itself as a person having full control over everything...this is why we mention free will,as such computer thinks that by saying words, all it says is true....mysteriously when it comes to war, stealing, destruction,starvation, tortures and all human horrors, free will is gone....funny ha-ha and peculiar of course.

For most sheep,TV and all media as well as politician and so on say the truth, because it is pronounced...and because we have been suggested that we do not know
we need a master , a guru, someone to tell us , that is fine for any technique of course but this is not what I talk about here etc etc ..and the worse is that we blindly believe that out of mental laziness. Somehow I mentally am still in the womb....Am i really born ? physically yes, but mentally ??

well living in illusion of the concepts created by thought(vital for physical and practical survival,food,shelter,tools etc , useless and dangerous everywhere else) or our personal computer ,all having the same basic operating system, after all creating the biggest illusion makes sense, living in illusion that I am not a computer , so not a program but a human being,separated from everything,better than all others etc who has to achieve something, to become something, someone etc etc

etc..

So actually , we have to know how we work in fact..if not we are blind and only sort of randomly surviving with no understanding..or far too little.....and this comes into being by itself mysteriously for the analyser as it is not at all its business; in what I know,it came into being by having lived the pain of life,meaning that the pain wins, well roughly put of course....this turns on "something" in the brain ,apparently acting according on its own "will" , own programming , or whatever .....but "I" has no control over that in what I know...as of course I do not know all of it, what more is there to it, well I do not know..this is where exchanges is brilliant.

self knowledge is vital says k, well it seems so one more time ,that he is right.

Well not surprising as k says that he speaks from experiment, experience, often suggesting that one should only do that..and when not knowing just seeing the fact..

So for me, still so far,mental pain as a symptom and a catalyst remains a remarkable guide and catalyst to turn on some other capacities if left alone, which is of course the difficult part of it..

Then what is unconscious may show itself ,in my case, as it wishes, it can be root problems, revealing of the software of thought etc and sometimes, not there for me since a long time, it was about some connection with the "big whatever"....where, there is no fear, no pain, no sorrow , and so on.....we can logically deduct from such moment that whatever is happening makes the brain works right...one vital point in what I know it does not solve thoughts problems and illusions, but it only freezes them...

this explains why k at the end of his life said: sorrow I thought I'd lost you, which you brought to my attention not so long ago......and of course strongly suggests that his connection with the "big whatever" was rather on a quite constant basis....

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Mon, 02 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Nov 2015 #84
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

To "be" or "not to be" ? That is the psychological Question (from the K Notebook)

It is strange, the desire to 'show off' or to 'be somebody'. Envy is ( a derivative of?) hate and (its) vanity corrupts. It seems difficult to be ( inwardly?) simple, to be what you 'are' and not pretend. You can always put on a mask but to be what you are is an extremely complex affair; because 'you' are also changing; you are never the ( exactly the?) same, each moment reveals a new facet, a new depth, a new surface. You can't be all these at one single moment for each moment brings its own ( modified?) change. So if you are at all intelligent, you give up ( the effort to inwardly become or be?) anything. You may ( like to) think you are clever, well-read, artistic, moral, but turn round the corner, you ( may ) find that ( deeper down?) you are ambitious, envious, insufficient, brutal and anxious. You 'are' all these things turn by turn, but you want (prefer?) to be permanent only that ( self-image?) which is profitable, pleasurable. So you run after that and all the many other 'you' 's are clamouring to have their fulfilment. So 'you' ( your consciousness?) becomes a battlefield and generally ambition, with all its pleasures and pains, is gaining. So to « be what you are » (to be true to yourself?) is an extremely arduous (tricky?) affair; if you are at all awake (inwardly?), you know all these things and the sorrow (sadness?) of it all. So you 'drown' yourself in your work, in your beliefs, ideals and meditations and become already (almost?) 'dead' inwardly.

To put away all these ( illusory?) things, with their contradictions and increasing sorrow, and « be as nothing » seems the most intelligent thing to do. But before you can be (inwardly as ?) 'nothing', you must have unearthed all the (already existing) hidden ( identifications with ?) 'things', exposing them and so understanding them. To understand these hidden urges and compulsions (surfacing from the streaming of collective consciousness?) , you will have to be aware of them without choice and in the pure act of seeing, they will ( perhaps ?) wither away and you will be without ( any personal?) sorrow and so « be as nothing ». The very denial (letting go ?) of everything you have been (attached to?) is the most 'positive' action. This positive action gives (releases a latent intelligent ?) energy, while ( intellectually dealing with concepts and ?) ideas dissipate that energy. Ideation is ( a material process of?) time and living in time is (an entropic form of spiritual?) disintegration and sorrow.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 03 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Nov 2015 #85
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

paul daniel wrote:
Well the psy books, I prefer not to comment here on that....coaching,money making yes indeed..as well as much more!
As to the rest,yes why not?

Then, join us on the newly started thread. Perhaps the concept is more of a 'work-book' rather than a 'real' book or textbook - the difference would be its interactive character- we learn and share our learning and this goes both ways. So it is about creating a synergy of learning and the end-result may not be as valuable as the actual interaction in writing it. As for who will read it, I have noticed in these last 6 years that whenever you write something that sounds and feels right someone will eventually read it

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Nov 2015 #86
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

Sorrow and love cannot live together ( from the K notebook)

Everywhere there was sorrow and pain, decay and corruption, but that light ( of the green parrots) among the leaves, moving, restless beauty knew no pain; they would die, killed or put in a cage but there was no 'time' for them; they just lived, the green delight of heaven. Death is time; every thought intensifies (our sense of continuity in?) time and the ( memory of the ?) many yesterdays had shaped our thought, moulded it to fashion tomorrow. But love had no tomorrow nor had it a yesterday. It was the only thing that had no time and it was there, green among the wintry leaves. Sorrow and love cannot live together. Sorrow has a ( personal?) motive, self-pity and memory; every tear is of time and sorrow grows in the soil of time. You cannot be free of sorrow if you are not free of time; they are inseparable as the shadow of that electric pole. Sorrow is in ( living with?) the shadow not in the 'fact', in the what 'is'. Fact has no time but thought about the fact has. As you were aware of those parrots, the traffic, the pain, in that expanding attention, only ( the truth of the ?) fact remained and 'time' was not and even the fact was gone, ceased to have meaning, and [there was] only this 'attention' in which everything was, for it was beyond time and measure.

But 'you' (the self-conscious entity?) could not get to it through any door; there is no way to it. Neither tears nor time will open the door to the Eternal. 'You' must die (inwardly?) without effort, without a cry and then perhaps as you turn along the road it will be there.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Nov 2015 #87
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

K speaking of the thinker-thought duality ( in Madras 1947)

The 'thinker' (the 'self'-identication?) plays an insidious and clever trick on himself and separates himself from the thought and then does something about thought. To discuss (or go deeper into?) this, you must find out what desire is and how desire or craving arises. Desire comes through perception, contact, sensation and identification. The 'me', the 'thinker', is born our of desire, and he does not exist previous to desire.
But in your everyday experience, the thinker is separate from the thought, i.e. the thought is outside 'you' as it were, and you can do something about it, you can modify it and recondition it. Is the thinker really separate from the thought?
How does the ( identification with the ?) 'thinker' come into being? You are the ( bio-genetic ) result of your father and mother. How did you begin to think and feel as a child? You wanted milk, there was a sensation of hunger; then the ( sensory) contact with the bottle or the breast, and the struggle to feed, to grow, and then the toy, the ( cultural) impingement of society on the mind, and gradually, the 'I' comes out. Therefore, it is perception, sensation, contact and desire, from which 'my' mother, 'my' toy, which grows to 'my' bank account, 'my' house, and so on. So the thinker, the 'me' comes through perception, contact, sensation and ( the choices and attachments of?) desire from which arises ( self-) consciousness; the 'thinker' who then separates himself, for his own further security, as the high and the low, the high becoming the Paramatman and the low becoming this existence. When this ( physical) existence is threatened, the thinker can always retire into the more permanent.

(Recap:)You are the sum total of all the human existence. As you are a Hindu, you are the result of all Hindus; you are the result of your father, not only biologically, but in thought, in your beliefs, and so on. The 'I'( the 'self'-identification ?) comes into being through desire; then, once the 'I' feels established it creates the desire which is ( directed ?) outward, the desire and 'I' thus becoming two separate entities, which means that the 'thinker' and the ( desire propelled process of ?) 'thought' are separate. Craving continuity, the thinker ( the self- identified thinking activity?) separates himself from the thought, and thinks that ( its own ?) thoughts are changeable, modifiable, can be destroyed and replaced.

However, if the thinker is (just the 'core' of a self-centred process of?) thought, then he has to admit his impermanency - which he does not like. All our actions in society are based on the idea that the 'I' is the permanent and the thought is the impermanent. We know very well the impermanency of matter (of the structures of the material world?) so, thought is seeking ( a higher level of ?) permanency, it says "I will go to a higher level of consciousness or a deeper level which is my belief, which is my God". When this ( mental ?) trick is understood, it is gone, and the thinker and the thought are one, there will be a ( qualitative psycho-?) revolution in our daily life.

Now, here you admit ( the idea ?) that « the thinker and the thought are one » and yet there is no change in your way of living. Why? Either you are 'asleep' (safely in the self-locked mode?) which means you don't want to be disturbed, or there is an inward resistance. Now, how can we dissolve the resistance? The moment you understand it, it drops away. ( But why this inner ?) 'resistance'? You accept the idea on the superficial layers of your consciousness and the rest of your consciousness is resisting it. You are resisting the acceptance of ( not seeing the truth of?) 'what is'; namely that the thinker and the thought are one. You superficially say "Yes", but the rest of your consciousness is resisting it, because the unconscious sees the tremendous ( disturbing?) implications in the ( seeing the truth?) of 'what is'. You are afraid to lose 'yourself' - ( the attachment to?) your property, your social status , your belief and your son. So you are resisting in order not to lose what you are ( psychologically ?) protecting, in order to guard it. This means you are resisting the dissolution of the 'identification' with things, with name, with property, and so on. ( The inner attachment to ?) the house, the property, is the value which the mind gives.

You (subliminally?) are afraid that, by not identifying with the valuations of the mind, there will be an ending ; and so, you are resisting the destruction of valuations which have come into being through ( the process of sel-centred?) thought, the thought being the result of the desire - i.e. the desire creates the thinker, the thinker evaluates and then offers resistance to the destruction of those things which he has built up. So the thinker is resisting 'what is' and the impingement of new desires. The ( psychological) 'values' are created by the mind whether of things or of ideas. So, it is afraid to lose the valuation which it has created and to which it is attached. You bring a new idea and the mind does not want to have it because it is disturbing the things which it has already built.

The thinker is resisting, not with things but with ideas which are transitory in themselves. So, your resistance is transitory. You are resisting the dissolution of valuations which are thoughts and thought is transitory. Things have no significance except what the mind gives; in their very nature they are transitory; and yet the mind clings to them and to the significance it gives them. In other words, the thinker creates evaluations and then, in examining them, finds that these evaluations are transitory, and that he is resisting the destruction of the transitory because he is seeking permanency in them. In other words, you recognise that they are all impermanent and yet you are seeking permanency in them because, by your valuation, you have given them permanency. When you recognise the absurdity of giving permanency to things which have no permanency, it drops away - just as when you know that all the banks are bad, you don't go to any bank. All things made by the hand or by the mind are in their very nature transitory because the mind alone gives values to them, transitory for the simple reason that thought is transitory and thought is the thinker. Now, you, the thinker, are asking,"Is there permanency?" because it is what you want. 'You' are the result of 'desire & thought' which is impermanent. The impermanent is asking to find out the truth of permanency. The mind which has been seeking permanency has vested permanency in things made by the hand or by the mind, and it finds that they are impermanent; and yet it says it must have permanency.

Can the impermanent find the permanent? If I am ( inwardly ?) 'blind' can I see the light? If I am ignorant can I know enlightenment? There can only be 'enlightenment' when ignorance ceases. The transitory cannot find the permanent; it must cease for the permanent to be. The 'entity' who is seeking permanency is obviously impermanent; you cannot say he is permanent. He is the outcome of transitory desire and therefore, in himself, he is transitory - which he does not like to acknowledge. Property is impermanent. Relationship is impermanent. Belief is impermanent.

Seeing everything around as impermanent and as transitory, the mind says that there must be something permanent, though there is no inherent permanency. Your ( desire for ?) 'permanency' is born out of impermanency and is therefore the opposite of impermanency; therefore it has the seed of its opposite which is transitory. When you treat impermanency as impermanent then there is nothing; but you are resisting the acknowledgment of the fact that whatever you do, think and feel is impermanent, though you know very well that they are impermanent. Being transitory yourself, you can never find permanency, because you will evaluate "permanency" and all your valuations are transitory. the impermanent can never find the permanent.

When you realise this, you do not seek ( 'self'-?) permanency through things, through relationship and through ideas. Therefore, there is no valuation (no value judgements ?) and you accept them at their level. Therefore you have no conflict with them. There is a great relief if the mind is not giving values of permanency to things which have no permanency. If you say property, family and things are necessary but not as a means for ( self-) permanency, then there is no conflict. It does not matter who owns the house; you use it merely as a means of physical protection, not as a means of self-expansion. Therefore the the 'thinker', the 'evaluator', is non-existent. When the thinker ceases to create (its own psychological) values, perhaps something else will come into being. But, as long as the thinker exists there must be the evaluation. His values are impermanent. Therefore, if the thinker is seeking permanency, he must cease, because he is the mischief-maker and is reducing to chaos the relationship with society and with property. So your problem then is how the thinker can come to an end, how can the ( self-centred) thinking process end?

As the (identification with the ?) 'thinker' is the result of desire, this means that desire must come to an end. What do we mean by 'desire'? Perception, contact, sensation and desire. I must have food, clothes and shelter. Those are imperative 'musts'; though there are certain desires involved in them, they are necessary. But the desire or the 'craving' for things, for name, for beliefs must cease. If it ceases, what will happen to my relationship? ( Thought sustained ?) desire is the very expression of attachment. When I use 'my' wife as a means of psychological necessity, then there is attachment; she helps me to cover up my loneliness and then I am attached. So desire can come to an end only when there is no attachment. And can one live in the world without attachment? Obviously one can. The moment I am attached it is an indication of desire - desire which is impermanent and which creates the 'thinker' who evaluates. It is only when it ends, that you can find out if there is ( a timeless ?) 'permanency' or not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Nov 2015 #88
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

On the true signficance of Meditaton (from the K Notebook 1961)

The road went on, past the palm trees, the casuarinas, rice fields, huts and on and on and suddenly as ever unexpectedly, that 'Otherness' came with that purity and strength which no thought could possibly ever formulate and it was there and your heart seemed to explode into the empty heavens, with ecstasy. The brain was utterly still, motionless, but sensitive, watching. It could not follow into that emptiness; it was of time but time had stopped and it could not 'experience'; experience is ( based on?) recognition and what it recognized would be time. So it was motionless, merely quiescent, without asking, seeking. And this totality of Love entered into everything and was 'lost'; do what you will you will not find it. It is not on the market nor in any temple; everything has to be destroyed, not a stone left unturned, no foundation to stand on, but even then this emptiness must be without a tear, then perhaps the Unknowable might pass by. It was there and Beauty.

All deliberate pattern of (inward) change is like changing clothes on a doll but it still remains, mechanical, lifeless, brittle, to be broken and thrown away. Economic, social revolution is not a 'revolution' at all, it is a modified continuity of what has been. Mutation, a total (inner?) 'revolution', takes place only when ( the idea of a ?) change, (within?) the pattern of time, is seen as false and in its total abandonment mutation takes place.

The cruel sea was close by, thundering away and the luscious green rice fields were beyond the village, peaceful, full of promise in the evening light. Clouds were coming across the sea, unhurriedly, with the sun upon them ; everywhere there was activity and no one looked up at the sky. Walking on that road in the dark with the light of the city in the clouds, that inviolable Strength comes with such abundance and with such clarity that it took literally your breath away. All life was that Strength. It had no 'quality', no description could contain it and yet it was there ( a Presence ?) as those dark distant hills and those trees beside the road. It was too immense for thought to speculate upon. It was a Strength that had no cause and so nothing could be added to or taken away from it. It cannot be 'known'; "knowing" is recognition but It is always new, something that cannot be measured in time. It had been there all day, like a whisper but now it was ( present ?) with an urgency and with such abundance that there was nothing but That. The word 'love' had a totally different meaning, walking on that empty road. It came with that impenetrable Strength; the two were inseparable, like the colour of a petal. The brain, the heart and the mind were totally consumed by it and there was nothing left but That. It continued, walking alone or walking with others, and it went on during the night until the morning came among the palm trees. But it is ( still in-?) there like a whisper among the leaves.

What an extraordinary thing meditation is, but the 'silence' which is desired ceases to be illuminating. Only in the 'flowering' and in the 'ending' of thought does meditation have significance; thought can only ( be exposed and ?) 'flower' in the freedom (from the known?) not in the ever widening patterns of (past) knowledge. Knowledge may give you newer experiences of greater sensation but a mind that is seeking ( new?) experiences of any kind is immature. Maturity is the freedom from all ( need to?) experience; it is no longer under any influence to be and not to be. Maturity in ( the context of ?) meditation is the freeing of the mind from knowledge, for it shapes and controls all ( inner) experience. A mind which is a 'light to itself' needs no experience.

(Recap:) Meditation is the wandering through the world of knowledge and being free of it to enter into the unknown.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Nov 2015 #89
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

Meditating by the shores of the Ganges ( from the K Notebook, 1961)

It had been a cool day and the sky had been open and there was the light of a thousand ( Indian ?) winters; it was short, penetrating and expansive; like perfume, it was in the most unexpected places; it seemed to have entered into the most secret corners of one's being. It was as though you looked through everything, through the trees on the other side of the wall, through your own self. Your self was as (transparent ?) as the sky and as open. The light was intense and to be with it was to be passionate, not the passion of feeling or desire, but a passion that would never wither or die. It was a strange light, it exposed everything and made vulnerable, and what had no protection was (open to ?) love. You couldn't be what you were (before) , you were 'burnt out', without leaving any ashes and unexpectedly there was not-a-thing (nothing ?) but that light.

There was a little girl of ten or twelve leaning against a post in the garden; she had a long rag around her neck and she was looking at some ( wealthy ?) people who were having tea on the verandah; she looked with complete indifference, without any feeling, without any thought of what was going on; her eyes were on the group downstairs and every parrot that screeched by made no impression on her nor those soft earth-coloured doves that were so close to her. She was probably a daughter of one of the servants for she seemed familiar with the place and fairly well-fed. She held herself as though she was a grown-up young lady, full of ( self-) assurance and there was about her a strange aloofness. As you watched her against the river and the trees, you suddenly felt ( that) you were watching the tea party, without any emotion, without any thought, totally indifferent to everything and to whatever might happen. And when she walked away to that tree overlooking the river, it was you that was walking away, it was you that sat on the ground, dusty and rough; it was you who picked up the piece of stick and threw it over the bank, alone, unsmiling and never cared for. Presently you got up and wandered off around the house. And strangely, you were (one with ?) the doves, the squirrel that raced up the tree and that unwashed chauffeur and the river that went by, so quietly. Love is not sorrow but it is ( psychologically ?) 'dangerous' for it destroys everything that man has built ( inwardly) around himself. Love cannot build temples nor reform the rotting society; it can do nothing, but without it nothing can be done, do what you will. Computer and automation can alter the shape of things and give man 'leisure' which will (soon ?) become another 'problem'.

Love has no problem and that is why it is so 'dangerous' (psychologically) . Man lives by problems, those continuous 'things' (to be thought about ?) ; without them, he wouldn't know what to do; he would be lost and in the losing gain nothing. So our 'problems' multiply endlessly; in the resolving of the one there is another. Old age, disease and death are problems which no computer can solve. ( However, inwardly ? ) love, death and creation are inseparable; you cannot have one and deny the others; you cannot buy them on the market or in any church; these are the last places where you would find it. But if you don't ( purposely?) look ( for it) and if you have no (inner ?) 'problems', not one, then perhaps it might come when you are looking the other way. It is the Unknown, and everything you ( inwardly think that you ?) 'know' must burn itself away, without leaving ashes; the ( memory of the ?) past, rich or sordid, must be left ( behind) as casually as that girl throwing a stick over the river bank. This 'burning of the known' is the ( subliminal ?) action of the Unknown.
It was a beautiful morning and its 'beauty' would remain, ( but) not in (your) memory; memory can never hold beauty or love. ( The perception of ?) beauty is always (something) new and this new(ness) has no relationship with the old, which is of time.

The moon was quite young yet it gave enough light for shadows and long that narrow path, every shadow seemed to be alive, whispering amongst themselves, every shadowy leaf chattering to its neighbour. The shape of the leaf and the heavy trunk were clear on the ground and the river down below was of silver; it was wide, silent and there was a deep current which left no mark on the surface. Higher up in the sky, there was a solitary rose-coloured whisper of a cloud that remained motionless till it disappeared into the night. Every tamarind and mango tree was withdrawing for the night and all the birds were silent, taking shelter, deep among the leaves. A little owl was sitting on the telegraph wire and just when you were below it, it flew off on those extraordinary silent wings. After delivering milk, the cycles were coming back, the empty tins rattling; there were so many of them, single or in groups, but for all their chatter and noise that peculiar silence of the open country and immense sky remained. That evening nothing could disturb it, not even a goods train crossing the steel bridge. There is a little path to the right wandering among the green fields and as you walk on it, far away from everything, suddenly you are aware that something is taking place (inwardly) with insistency and immensity; that ( sense of ?) 'otherness' is there filling the sky and the earth and every little thing in it. You and that little villager who without a word, passes you by, are of it. At that timeless ( moment in ?) time there is only that immensity and the brain is utterly quiet. All 'meditative sensitivity' is over, only that incredible purity is there. It is the purity of a Strength, impenetrable and unapproachable but it was there. Everything 'stood still', there was no movement, no stir and even the sound of the whistle of the train was ( contained ?) in the stillness. It accompanied you as you walked back to your room and it was there, too, for it had never left you.

It was a dusty path, fine dry clay and the camel couldn't be coaxed to walk along any faster than it wanted to; it was carrying sacks of grain and it seemed so utterly indifferent to everything; it went past the ancient well and ruined temples and its driver his best to make it walk faster, slapping it with his bare hands. There was another path that turns off to the right, past the flowering yellow mustard, flowering peas and rich green wheat fields; this path is not used much and it is pleasant to walk along there. The mustard (flowers) had a slight smell but the pea was a little stronger, and the wheat, which was beginning to form its ear, had its own smell too and the combination of the three filled the evening air with a fragrance that was not too strong, pleasant but unobtrusive.

It was a beautiful evening, with the setting sun behind the trees; on that path you were 'far away' from anywhere and nothing could come near you. It was not in (terms of ?) space, time or distance; you were (inwardly ?) 'far away', a depth that had no height, and no circumference. You were 'far away', in some unknown world that had no dimension; even if you wanted to know, you couldn't know it. It was too far away from the known; it had no relationship with the 'known'. It wasn't a thing you (can) 'experience'; there was nothing to be experienced - all experiencing is always in the field of the known, recognized by that which has been (experienced before ?) . You were far away, immeasurably far, but the trees, the yellow flowers and the ear of the wheat were astonishingly close, closer than your thought and marvellously alive, with an intensity and beauty that could never wither. Death, Creation and Love were there and you didn't know which was which and you were part of it; they were inseparable, closely interrelated, not ( like ?) the relationship of word and expression. Thought or feeling cover not it, these are too mechanical, too slow, having their roots in the known. Love, death, creation was a fact, an actual reality, as the body they were burning on the river-bank under the tree. The tree, the fire and the tears were real, but they were the 'actualities' of the known; in that freedom from the known those three are inseparable. ( To get there ?) you have to go very far and yet be very near. And around the bend of the path was the river; it seemed to be lighted from within, with a thousand candles; the light was soft with silver and pale gold and utterly still, bewitched by the moon. Pleiades was overhead and Orion was well up in the sky and a train was puffing up the grade to cross the bridge. Time had stopped and beauty was there with love and death

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Nov 2015 #90
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

New Delhi winter meditations ( from the K Notebook 1962)

Attention is seeing. Seeing is an art, as listening. But one hardly ever 'listens' or 'sees'; everyone is so occupied with one’s joys, problems and tears. One has no time to ( look and ?) see. But 'time'- (the 'spatio-temporal' process of sensory ?) experiencing does not give you (in)sight; 'time' hinders seeing, listening. Time and experience only dulls the mind and heart. The ( inner space of the ?) mind is filled and the heart has turned away and so there is no ( direct) 'seeing'. To 'see' ( to have an insightful mind ?) knowledge must be kept in the books and not in the mind; ( your) knowledge only interprets, chooses, giving colour, opinion, weighing, criticising, choosing and then there is no seeing. When the mind is so crowded and the heart ( made ?) dull with( by ?) sorrow, what you see is ( distorted by ?) your own projections, your own desires, your own fears, but you don’t see the 'what is'. It goes by and you are lost with your own toys. But when you do 'see', do 'listen', then that ( pure perceptive ?) act is the miracle that transforms, that has emptied the mind and the heart of the ( psychological burden of the ?) past. 'You' don’t have to do anything, ( your) thought is incapable of this miracle; then that 'seeing' is ( an act of ?) love, as listening is. You cannot come by these through the dullness of discipline, through any 'bargaining' nor through the shock of unanswerable ( Zen ?) questions. There must be ( an inner ?) emptiness to see, to listen there must be a 'quietness'.

They were rather magnificent, strange shapes, moving across the sky with determined purpose; they were all going north-west; for a moment you had the impression that the earth was moving, for these clouds were the mountains, streams and rivers and the cities that man had built; they looked like towers, peaks and the blue waters. The sun came out through a mile-long blue patch and there was glory. Every leaf was washed clean, every leaf shone, with drops of sparkling water, every bird was out, chattering, singing, flying, a whole group of crows were settling down on the wires, thirty-seven of them, and parrots were screeching across the sky. It was a marvellous moment of light, clear and incredibly rich. There is no ( time and ?) 'space' in Light, no journey to be taken, nothing to be fulfilled and no pain of frustration; it was a marvellous moment and it is 'always there', not (some)thing to be remembered, to be pursued. It 'is' there but beyond ( the identification with ?) your property, your family, your work and responsibility. You have to be alone (all-one ?) without ( the self-isolating ?) loneliness.

Meditation is not a means to (reach) an 'end'; there is no 'end' to be gained; meditation is a constant ( inner ?) flowering, not away from life but in life and that morning, in that deep silence, there was a 'movement' which the meditative mind alone could understand. It was not a movement in ( terms of space and ?) 'time', thought could not follow it; thought can only trace its own patterns moulded in the past.
To dissolve the (inner momentum of the ?) past is the 'far away' beginning of meditation ( if 'you' begin to dissolve the past there is no 'ending' to the past). The 'fire' that burns away the 'past' -the structure of 'time'- is the act of seeing. Seeing is (the action of ?) complete attention.

A lovely morning it was after the rain, clear, crisp and in the air there was slight fragrance of woodsmoke, of grass and of that peculiar odour that freshly washed leaves have. There were sharp shadows of depth and lightness and the sky, so early in the morning was already intensely blue. There was peace in the air, a morning that took you into the 'heart of things' where beauty was untouched, where affection ('love' ?) was always young. It was a morning in which meditation expanded beyond the borders of time, in which goodness flowered and thought was silent. Every little thing was (looking ?) so intensely alive with that strange beauty the common things have. Your eyes were sharpened and you saw the skinny dark leaf of the rose and it was the leaf of every tree and bush; you listened to the birds and it was the voice of the earth. Meditation is not a fanciful flight into some illusory vision but the seeing of the fact and going beyond it into ( the inward ?) regions of 'death' and 'love'; for these two are inseparable. Death is destruction and so is Love. Love isn’t the 'domesticated' thing made respectable by thought and seasoned in tradition. It is new and 'dangerous', a flame that leaves no ashes of memory or self-pity. As you cannot argue with 'death', you cannot entice 'love' into the dark corners of the mind. They are always together, waiting, watching, welcoming. You will know them when meditation opens the door (the mental trap ?) of 'time'; with the burden of time you cannot come to it; the past must be wiped away. And it is 'wiped away' when you see without the screen of tradition, without knowledge. The eyes must be young, and far away (non attached ?) to see and then these two 'inseparable' are there. And something ( sacred ?) beyond and above them that includes them both. On a ( clear) morning like this, the yellow bamboo leaves and the dark leaves of a tall tree intimate the 'beauty' that is besides them.

( Recap:) The brain is made highly sensitive when it is utterly still. And it is only in freedom (from the 'thought controlling' entity ?) that it can be still to flower. Resistance (or choice ?) and desire can only breed a conflict which wears the brain away, giving it age and weight. But when the brain is utterly still, then ( a quality of total ?) attention, in which alone goodness can flower, is ( generating ?) that explosive energy that carries the mind to that which is beyond all measure

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 19 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 543 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.)