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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 716 in total
Sat, 31 Oct 2015 #61
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 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 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 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 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 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 ..?


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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Nov 2015 #62
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 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 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..


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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Nov 2015 #63
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 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 #64
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 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 you know yourself.To be wild it is about,well sort of...

when you say reward I guess you mean effects 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 #65
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 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 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 starts now having some impact on dreams 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 #66
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 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 #67
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 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 #68
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 222 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


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 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 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 #69
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 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 #70
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

paul daniel wrote:
Well the psy books, I prefer not to comment here on that....coaching,money making yes 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 #71
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 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 #72
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 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 #73
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 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 #74
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 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 #75
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 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
Thu, 19 Nov 2015 #76
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

More New Delhi Meditations

A little boy in red trousers and in a red coat was playing by himself under a large, spreading tree; there was no one near him, he was by himself, lost in his own world; he must have been five or six, with a happy round face; his eyes were almost closed and he was going round and round the tree in a widening circle, talking to himself, with an occasional gesture. He stopped all of a sudden, looked up the tree, came back to the large, rough trunk and touched it softly, almost caressing it and started running back to his house; he stopped, looked back at the tree, waved his hand and disappeared behind a gate. The tree and the little boy must have been great friends; he was completely at home with it, completely happy. The tree heavy with dark, bright leaves and the red suit were beautiful in the morning light. It was an enchanting morning and they were both part of the morning, like that flower and the sky; the sky was very blue, rain-washed, clear, without a cloud. ( The living memory of ?) that tree, that boy and the flower remained, past time and thought, and every blade of grass and leaf were of that timeless space. Only the mind that is completely empty in that freedom from the known could contain not the word but the fact and ( the truth ?) beyond the fact; the fact then is of no significance.

Meditation is the emptying the mind of the known, of knowledge and the 'fact' . It is the (direct seeing of the ?) fact, of the 'what is', that frees thought (from self-centredness ?) ; thought cannot free itself; thought is the word ( processing ?) of the known. Thought cannot (un)cover the fact but the ( insightful perception of the ?) fact does put an end to thought. Knowledge is the ( verbalised ?) experiencing of the ( psychological ?) 'facts', but the fact is not knowledge nor is it the word. Thought is ( the response of ?) of knowledge and knowledge cannot free the mind of the fact. Meditation is the choiceless (inner) awareness of this ( 'psychological ?) complex', which empties the mind of the known.

The thought (the self-centred thinking ?) that is 'disciplined' with resistance, fear and with the cunning ways of ambition is always a slave to the known. ( The self-imposed 'psychological' ?) discipline is conformity, a ( mental ?) substitution which prevents the ( direct ?) understanding of fear; it is suppression and so sustains ( an inner ?) conflict which ( eventually ?) makes the brain dull; a 'disciplined' thought is ( basically ?) subservient and ready to obey. Where there is ( an insightful ?) understanding, the destructive ( impact of self-?) discipline ceases. Meditation is the emptying the mind of the known, of knowledge and (of the psychological ?) fact. It is the (direct perception of the ?) "fact", of the "what is", that frees thought; thought cannot free itself; thought is the word ( the verbal processing ?) of the known. Thought cannot cover the fact but ( seeing the truth of ?) the fact does put an end to thought. Knowledge is the experiencing of the ( self-identification with the ?) 'fact', but the ( living actuality of the ?) 'fact' is not knowledge nor is it the word. Thought is ( the verbalised response of ?) of knowledge and (such ?) knowledge cannot free the mind of the fact (of the 'what is' ?) . Meditation is the choiceless awareness of this ( psychological) "complex", which empties the mind of the known.

( Recap:) The thought (process) that is disciplined with resistance, fear and with the cunning ways of ambition is always a slave to the known. ( The self-imposed ?) 'discipline' is conformity, a ( mental process of ?) substitution which prevents the understanding of fear; it is 'suppression' and so sustains ( a state of inner ?) conflict which ( eventually ?) makes the brain dull; a 'disciplined' thought is subservient and ready to obey. Where there is ( an insightful ?) understanding, this destructive (process of self-?) discipline ceases.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 02 Dec 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Nov 2015 #77
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

K back to work in sunny Italy ( from the Only Revolution (1969)

Innocency and ( inward ?) 'spaciousness' are the flowering of meditation. There is no innocency without ( this free inner) space. You may be mature physically, but the vast ( inner) space that comes with ( innocence and ?) love is not possible if the mind is not free from the many marks of experience. It is these 'scars' of ( our daily ?) experience that prevent innocency. Freeing the mind from the constant pressures ( created by the desire to ?) experience is meditation.

Just as the sun is setting there comes a strange quietness and a feeling that everything about you has come to an end, though the bus, the taxi and the noise go on. This sense of aloofness seems to penetrate the whole universe. You must have felt this too (sometimes ?) . Often it comes most unexpectedly; a strange stillness and peace seem to pour down from the heavens and cover the earth. It is a benediction, and the beauty of the evening is made boundless by it. The shiny road after the rain, the waiting cars, the empty park, seem to be part of it; and the laughter of the couple who pass by does not in any way disturb the peace of the evening.
The naked trees, black against the sky, with their delicate branches, were waiting for the spring, and it was just round the corner, hastening to meet them. There was already new grass, and the fruit trees were in bloom. The country was slowly becoming alive again, and from this hilltop you could see the city with many, many domes, and one more haughty and higher than the others. You could see the flat tops of the pine trees, and the evening light was upon the clouds. The whole horizon seemed to be filled with these clouds, range after range, piling up against the hills in the most fantastic shapes, castles such as man had never built. There were deep chasms and towering peaks. All these clouds were alight with a dark red glow and a few of them seemed to be afire, not by the sun, but within themselves.
These clouds seemed to stretch infinitely, from eternity to eternity. A blackbird was singing in a bush close by, and that was the everlasting blessing.


There were three or four who had brought their wives and we all sat on the floor. From this position the windows were too high for one to see the garden or the wall opposite. They were all professionals. One said he was a scientist, another a mathematician, another, an engineer; they were 'specialists', not overflowing beyond their boundaries - as the river does after heavy rain. It is the overflowing that enriches the soil.

Q: You have often talked about ( the inner) 'space' and we are all interested to know what you mean by it. There is space between us and the expanding universe. There is space between you and me. Is this what you mean?

K: There is the 'space' that divides and encloses, and the space that is unlimited. The ( self-separating ?) 'space' between man and man, in which grows mischief is the limited (inner ) space of division; there is a division (a cliveage ?) between what as you ( actually) are and the 'image' you have about yourself; there is division between 'you' and your 'wife'; and there is the beauty of ( an inner ?) space that is without the boundary of time and line.
Is there ( some free inner ?) space between one thought and another? Between two remembrances? Between two actions? Or is there no ( free ?) space at all between them ? If there were a 'break' between one thought and the next thought, then our thinking would be always new, but because there is no such ( silent ?) break, no ( free inner ?) space, all our thinking is old. You may not be conscious ( fully aware ?) of the ( subliminal ?) continuity of a ( certain line of ?) thought; you may pick it up a week later after dropping it, but ( in the meanwhile) it has been ( still active ?) within the old boundaries (of the 'known' ?) .

So the whole of our 'consciousness', both the 'conscious' and the 'unconscious' parts is ( engaged in a 'stream' of activities ?) within the limited, narrow space of our cultural tradition, ( personal anf collective habits ?) and remembrances. Modern science and technology may take you to the moon, or help bringing some 'order' within the limited space of society, but this again will breed ( other forms of ?) disorder.
( Physical) space exists not only beyond the four walls of this room, there is also the "space" which the room makes (occupies ?). (And inwardly ) there is also the ( self-) enclosing ( psychological) space which the 'observer' creates around himself and through which he sees the 'things observed'. When this "observer" ( self-conscious entity ?) looks at the stars of an evening, his space is limited (inwardly) . He may be able to see many thousands of light years away, but ( inwardly) he is the maker of ( its own self-limiting inner ) space and therefore it is finite. The measurement ( of the chasm ?) between the 'observer' and the 'observed' is ( creating its own ?) 'space' and also the 'time' (necessary ?) to cover that ( physical ?) space (and/or psychological 'distance ?) .
(Recap:) there is not only the 'physical' space but the (inner ?) 'psychological' ( time and ) space in which ( the self-centred process of ?) thought 'covers' (protects ?) itself (as a continuity of ?) 'yesterday', 'today' and 'tomorrow'. So, as long as there is a (self-centred ?) 'observer', the (inner) space (of our consciousness ?) is the narrow yard of the prison in which there is no freedom at all.

Q: Are you trying to convey the notion of a 'space' without the 'observer'? That might be a fancy of your own...

K: Freedom, sir, is not within the 'prison', however comfortable and ( artistically ?) decorated it may be. If one has a dialogue with ( the space of inner ?) freedom it cannot possibly exist within the boundaries of memory, of our (past ?) knownledge and experience. ( Inner ?) freedom demands that you break these (psychological ) prison walls, though you may ( temporarily ?) enjoy the ( benefits of that ?) disorder within this boundary.
( The inward ?) freedom is not 'relative'; either there is such freedom or there is not. If there is not (and this is an accepted condition ?) , then one must accept the narrow, limited life with its conflicts, sorrows and aches - merely bringing about a little change here and there. Freedom is ( having ?) infinite (inner?) space. When there is a lack of ( this free inward ?) 'space' there is violence - as the bird who claims its territory, for which it will fight. This violence may be 'relative' ( kept under control ?) under the law and the policeman just as the limited space the predators and the birds demand, for which they will fight, but because of this (self-) limited space, aggression (an aggressive attitude ?) must exist between man and man .

Q: Are you trying to tell us, sir, that man will always be in conflict within himself and with the world as long as he lives within the sphere of his own making?

K: Yes, sir. So we come to the central issue of ( the necessity of this inner space of ?) freedom. Within the narrow ( 'standardised' ?) culture of society there is no (such ?) freedom, and threfore there is (inner and outer ?) disorder. ( Getting accustomed to ?) living within this ( generalised ?) disorder man seeks 'freedom' (out there ?) in ideologies or in what he calls God. This escape is not ( leading to inner ?) freedom. It is the ( living within this inner ?) 'yard of the prison' which separates man from man. Can thought, which has brought this conditioning upon itself, break down this ( self-protecting ?) structure, and go beyond and above it? Obviously it cannot, and that is the first factor to see (namely ?) that the intellect cannot possibly build a bridge between itself and freedom. Thought, which is the response of ( all our past ?) memory, experience and knowledge, is always old, and the 'old' ( experience) cannot build a bridge to the New. Thought is essentially (self- identified as ?) the 'observer' with his prejudices, fears and anxieties, and this 'thinking-image' (thinking-illusion ?) - obviously makes a ( self-protecting ?) sphere around himself. Thus there is a ( separating ?) distance between the 'observer' and the 'thing observed'. The 'observer' tries to establish a relationship with the 'observed' (while subliminally ?) preserving this distance - and so there is conflict and violence.

(Re-recap:) Freedom is beyond thought (as a response of the 'known' ?) ; freedom means ( having a sense of ?) infinite space,( which is ?) not created by the 'observer'. Coming upon this freedom is ( the very purpose of ?) meditation. There is no (free inner ?) space without silence, and this 'silence' is not put together by (the process of ?) 'time- thought'. Time will never give ( the inward space of ?) freedom; ( the sense of inner ?) order is possible only when the ( openness of ?) heart is not covered over with 'words'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Nov 2015 #78
Thumb_3135 Jo D United Kingdom 12 posts in this forum Offline

Beautiful writing as usual, a couple of my favourite lines:

"everything about you was new, you had never seen them before. Your eyes were washed clean"

"No Saviour, no Teacher could bring you to It; you have to abandon them and ( inwardly ?) 'get lost' where your thought couldn’t find you."

I particularly like the idea of getting lost where your thoughts can't find you. Even just imagining that, empties the head for a moment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 29 Nov 2015 #79
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

Love and the 'reality' of psychological fragmentation

Meditation is a movement in attention; (but this holistic quality of ?) attention is not 'personal'. The 'personal' element comes in only when there is the ( identification with the?) "observer" which ( is trying to control ?) concentrate, or dominate; but all ( such meditative ?) achievement is ( bound to be ?) fragmentary and limited. ( The non-personal quality of ?) attention has no borders, no frontiers to cross; this attention is clarity, as is 'clear' of all thought. Thought can never make for clarity for it has its roots in the dead ( memories of the ?) past; such 'thinking' is an action in the dark. Awareness of this ("psychological" danger ?) is to be ( fully ?) attentive. The ( self-centred ?) attention ( working?) within the field of 'thought' (of the 'known' ?) can be controlled or modified; but being aware of this ( as being ?) 'inattention' is attention. Meditation is not an intellectual process - which is still within the area of thought. Meditation is the freedom from thought (as the conditioned response of the "known" ?) , and a movement in the ecstasy of truth.

It was snowing that morning. A bitter wind was blowing; and the movement upon the trees was a cry for spring. In that light, the trunks of the large beech and the elm had that peculiar quality of grey-green that one finds in old woods where the earth is soft and covered with autumn leaves. Walking among them you had the feeling of the wood - not of the separate individual trees with their particular shapes and forms - but rather of the entire quality of all the trees. Suddenly the sun came out, and there was a vast blue sky towards the east, and in that moment of bright sunlight, spring began. In the quiet stillness of the spring day you felt the beauty of the earth and the sense of unity of the earth and all things upon it. There was no separation between you and the tree and the astonishing colours of the sparkling light on the holly. You, the 'observer', had ceased, and so the ( sense of ?) division, as (my own?) 'space' and "time', had come to an end.


He said he was a religious man - not belonging to any particular organization or belief - but he just felt ( inwardly) 'religious'. Of course he had been through the drill of talking with all the 'religious leaders', yet he had not found the Bliss he sought. He had been a professor at a university, but had given it up to lead a life of meditation and enquiry.

Q: You know, I am always aware of the fragmentation of my ( inner) life, but endlessly struggling to become the whole, an integral part of this universe. I have tried to find my own (true spiritual ?) identity, for modern society is destroying all ( such) identity. So, I wonder if there is a way out of all this division into something that cannot be divided, separated?

K: We have divided (our existence ?) as the 'family life' and the community life, the 'political' and the 'religious' life, peace and war, the endless division of the opposites. Walking along this corridor (of 'opposites') we are trying to bring about a harmony between mind and heart, trying to keep a balance between 'love' and 'envy', trying to create some kind of ( inner) harmony. But what makes this division ( this divisive mentality ?) ? What is the source, the essence, of this fragmentation? What do you think is the root cause of this duality?

Q: Intellectually I can expose the reasons for this division, but it leads nowhere (inwardly ?) . I have played this ( mind) game often, with myself and with others. I have also tried, through meditation to feel the unity of things, to 'be one with everything' - but it was a barren attempt.

K: Of course the (intellectual ?) discovery of the causes of the separation does not necessarily dissolve it. One may know the ( immediate ?) cause of fear, but (deeper down ?) one is still afraid. The intellectual exploration loses its ( quality of ?) 'immediacy' (directness ?) of action when the ( pragmatical ?) 'sharpness' of thought is all that matters. The ( inner) fragmentation of the 'I' ( as the 'observer' or 'thinker' ?) and the 'not-I' (the things 'observed' or 'thought about' ?) is surely the basic cause of this division, though this 'I' tries to identify (to integrate ?) itself with the 'not-I' (such as ) the wife, the family, the community, or a concept of 'God' which thought has made. The 'I' is also striving to find (its true ?) identity, but what it identifies itself with is still a ( mental) concept, a (previously known ?) structure of thought .

But is there (inwardly ?) such a duality at all? Objectively (in the outer world) there is the duality of 'light' and 'darkness' man and woman, etc, but 'psychologically' is there? We accept the (inner reality of this ?) 'psychological' duality as we accept the objective (outer) duality; ( but this acceptance ?) it is part of our ( cultural ?) conditioning. We never question this (embedded cultural ?) conditioning. But is there, psychologically, an actual division? ( Inwardly) there is only 'what is', not 'what should be'. The ( wishful projection of ?) what 'should be' has been put together by thought in order to avoid or the overcome the ( brutal ?) reality of 'what is'. Hence the ( self-imposed ?) struggle between the 'actual' and the ( idealised) 'abstraction'.

( Now, inwardly speaking ? ) the 'actual' (fact) is the 'what is', and everything else is non-real (a non-fact ?) . It is the ( intellectual cultivation of the ?) 'non-real' that brings about the fragmentation (inward splitting ?) , not the actual.
( Eg:) Pain is actual; 'non-pain' is a ( wishful projection ?) of our thought, which brings about the ( inner ?) division between the pain and the state of non-pain. Thought (the automatic response of the 'known' ?) is always separative; it is creating the division between the 'observer' and the 'thing observed'. But actually there is only the 'what is' ( our human heritage ?) , and to see (the truth about ?) 'what is', without thought (splitting itself ?) as the 'observer', is ( leading to ?) the ending of ( our inner) fragmentation.

Thought is not (able to generate ?) 'love'; but thought, as (the obsessive pursuit of sensate ?) pleasure, 'encloses' (blocks out ?) love and ( eventually ?) brings pain within that enclosure. In the negation of what is not (love), what ( love truly ?) 'is' remains. In the negation of what is not love, (the universal significance of ?) 'love' emerges, in which the ( duality/conflict between ?) the 'I' and the 'non-I' ceases.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Nov 2015 #80
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

K Lesson du Jour: All about Sorrow

A meditative mind is silent, but this is not the silence which (the known activity of ?) thought can conceive of; it is not the silence of a still evening; it is that (inward quality of ?) silence when ( the self-centred process of ?) thought - with all its 'images', and (verbal) perceptions - has entirely ceased. This silence of the meditative mind is the explosion of love. It is this love that knows no separation. To it, far is near. It is not the ( love for ?) one or the many, but rather that state of love in which all division ceases. Like beauty, it is not to be measured by words. From this ( loving ?) silence the meditative mind acts.
It had rained the day before and in the evening the sky had been full of clouds. In the distance the hills were covered with clouds of delight, full of light, and as you watched them they were taking different shapes. The setting sun, with its golden light, was touching only one or two mountains of clouds, and they seemed as solid as the dark cypress. As you looked at them you naturally became silent. The vast space and the solitary tree on the hill, the distant dome, and the talking going on around one - were all part of this silence. You knew that the next morning it would be lovely, for the sunset was red. And it was indeed lovely; there wasn't a cloud in the sky and it was very blue. The yellow flowers and the white flowering tree against the dark hedge of cypress, and the smell of spring, filled the land. The dew was on the grass, and slowly spring was coming out of darkness.


He said he had just lost his son who had had a very good job and who would soon have become one of the directors of a large company. He was still under the shock of it, but he had great control over himself. He had been schooled all his life by hard work in some technical work and the complex, subtle, 'psychological' problems of life had hardly touched him. The recent death of his son was an unacknowledged blow.

Q: It is a terrible thing for his wife and children. But how can I explain to them the ending of sorrow, of which you have often talked? I myself have studied and perhaps can understand it, but what of the others who are involved in it?

K: ( The subliminal presence of ?) sorrow is in every house, round every corner. Every human being has this engulfing grief, caused by so many incidents and accidents. Sorrow seems like an endless tide that comes upon man, almost drowning him; and the ( self-) pity ( brought by this ?) sorrow breeds bitterness and cynicism. But is it the sorrow for ( what happened to ?) your son, or for yourself, or for the break in the ( illusory hope of ?) continuing yourself through your son? If it is the sorrow of self-pity, then this self-concern, this isolating factor in life - though (hidden by ?) the outward resemblance of your 'family relationship' - must inevitably cause misery. This ( self-) isolating process, this activity of self-concern in everyday life, this pursuit of one's own self-importance, this separative way of living, whether one is aware of it or not, must bring about a ( subliminal sense of ?) loneliness from which we try to escape in so many different ways. Self-pity is the ache of this loneliness, and this pain is ( generically ?) called 'sorrow'. Then (still deeper ?) there is also the sorrow of 'ignorance' - the 'ignorance' of having accepted ( inwardly the mentality of ?) 'time'- the evolution from 'what is' to 'what should be', the ignorance which makes us accept the ( psychological ) authority (of our cultural tradition ?) with all its violence, the ignorance of not knowing the whole ( inner) structure of oneself.

This is the ( implicit sense of ?) sorrow that man has spread wherever he has been. So you must be clear about which is it that you are caught in? Unless this is clear there is no ending to sorrow. You must be (inwardly) aware of what your sorrow is as clearly as you become aware, sensually, when you touch that flower. Without understanding this whole way of sorrow, how can you end it? You have to lay down the whole 'map of sorrow' and trace every path and road. If you take time to cover this map, then ( thinking about it in terms of ?) time will only strengthen the brutality of sorrow. You have to see this whole Map (of Sorrow) at a glance - seeing first the whole of it and then the details, not the details first and then the whole. In ending sorrow ( the mentality based on ?) 'time' must come to an end. When (thinking about your sorrow in terms of ?) time stops, ( the self-centred ?) process of thought as the 'way' of sorrow, ceases. It is this ( process of self-centred ?) 'thought' and ( a mentality based on ?) 'time' that divide and separate, and love is not thought or time.

(Recap:) To see the whole 'map of sorrow' ( but) not with the eyes of memory. Listen to the whole murmur of it; be of it, for you are both the 'observer' and the ( sorrow that is ?) 'observed'. Then only can sorrow end. There is no other way.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Nov 2015 #81
Thumb_open-uri20151130-31475-1glr6q4-0 Victor Williams United States 1 post in this forum Offline

Very useful work, thanks for sharing the wisdom!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Nov 2015 #82
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

Victor Williams wrote:
Very useful work, thanks for sharing the wisdom!

Thanks, Victor, it feels good to know that these 'reader friendly' edited texts are also useful for some of our fine readers. In fact, they are for myself in the first place, an excellent opportunity to learn everyday something new about the subtleties of the human mind in the timeless light of these profound teachings

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Dec 2015 #83
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

The dark side of self-separation ( From 'The Only Revolution', 1969)

Meditation is never prayer. You pray when you are in difficulty, when there is sorrow; but when there is happiness, joy, there is no supplication. The (self-concern ?) so deeply embedded in man, is the root of ( our inner and outer sense of ?) separation. That ( self- 'image' ?) which thinks itself separate, ever seeking identification with (or joining ?) something (greater ?) which is not separate, brings only more pain of division . Out of this confusion one cries to heaven, or to one's husband, or to some deity of the mind. This 'cry' may find an answer, but the answer is the echo of self-pity, in its separation. The isolation of ( our self-centred ?) thought is always ( created ?) within the field of the known, and the ( eventual ?) answer to prayer is the response of the known. Meditation is far from this. In that ( time-free ?) field, ( the self-centred activity of ?) thought cannot enter; there is no separation, and so no 'identity' (no need to identify with anything ?) . Meditation is 'in the open'; secrecy has no place in it. Everything is exposed, clear; then the beauty of love 'is'.


It was an early spring morning with a few flaky clouds moving gently across the blue sky from the west. A cock began to crow, and it was strange to hear it in a crowded town. It began early, and for nearly two hours it kept announcing the "arrival of the day". The trees were still empty, but there were thin, delicate leaves against the clear morning sky. If you were very quiet, without any thought flashing across the mind, you could just hear the deep bell of some cathedral. It must have been far away, and in the short silences between the cock's crowing you could hear the waves of this sound coming towards you and going beyond you - you almost rode on them, going far away, disappearing into the immensities. You didn't hear it with your (sensory ?) ears, you 'heard' it with your heart, not with ( the verbal interference of ?) thought that knows (recognises ?) "the bell" and "the cock", and it was pure sound. It came out of silence and your heart picked it up and went with it from everlasting to everlasting. When you 'hear with your heart', the ( inner ?) world is filled with it and your eyes 'see clearly'.


She was quite a young lady, well turned out, her hair cut short, highly efficient and capable, with a certain a certain quality of seriousness. She talked simply, without any hesitation.

Q: I think I (have inwardly ?) 'committed suicide' a long time ago, when a certain event took place in my life; with that event my life ended. Of course I have carried on outwardly, with the children and all the rest of it, but I have stopped 'living'.

K: Don't you think that most people, knowingly or unknowingly, are always ( inwardly ?) committing (such acts of ?) 'suicide'? It begins, probably, when we build a ( self-protective ?) 'wall' around ourselves behind which we lead our own separate lives - though we may have husbands, wives and children. This ( self-) separative life is a life of ( spiritual ?) 'suicide', and that is (also embedded in ?) the accepted morality of religion and society. Such acts of ( self-) separation are ( part ?) of a ( shared collective ?) chain and ( eventually may ?) lead to war and to self-destruction. Separation is (a form of spiritual ?) 'suicide', whether of the individual or of the community or of the nation. Each one wants to ( 'play safe' by ?) living a life of 'self' identity, of self-centred activity, of the self-enclosing sorrow of conformity. It is 'suicide' when beliefs and dogmas hold you by the hand.

Before that (fateful ?) event, you invested your life and the whole movement of it in the (personal choice of ?) one against the many, and when the ( chosen ?) 'one' dies, 'your' life goes with it and you have nothing left to live for. You, madam - and this is not said in cruelty - ceased to 'exist' ( to stay alive inwardly ?) because you could not get what you wanted; or it was taken away from you; or because you wanted to go through a special 'door' (to happiness ?) which was tightly shut. ( In the same way ) as (personal) sorrow and pleasure are self-enclosing, so 'acceptance' and 'insistence' bring their own darkness of separation. We do not live (inwardly free ?) , we are always committing ( 'psychological' acts of ?) 'suicide'. Living begins when such ( psychological ?) 'acts of suicide' end.

Q: I understand what you mean. I see what I have done. But now what am I to do? How am I to 'come back to life' from these long years of (inner) 'death'?

K: You can't 'come back'; if you 'came back' you would ( probably ?) follow the old pattern, and sorrow would pursue you as a cloud is driven by the wind. The only ( wise ?) thing you can do is to see ( the truth ?) that to lead one's own life, separately, constantly demanding the continuity of pleasure, is to invite the separation of ( the spiritual counterpart of ?) death. In ( such self-centred ?) separation there is no Love. Love has no 'identity'.
( Recap:) The (instinctive drive to ?) seek pleasure (and/or inner safety is naturally leading to leads to ?) building the enclosing 'walls' of ( self-)separation. But there is no ( such inner ?) 'death' when all commitment ceases. Knowing oneself is the Open Door.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Dec 2015 #84
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

K Lesson du Jour: On Fragmentation

Meditation is the ending of the 'word' ( of 'verbalising' ?) . Silence is not induced by any word, the 'word' being ( the product of ?) thought. The action out of silence is entirely different from the 'action' born of the ( cultural background of ?) words; meditation is the freeing of the mind from all (psychological ? ) images and remembrances.

It was a spring morning and the hills were covered with flowering almonds, cherries and apples. The whole earth was tremendously alive. The cypresses were (looking ?) stately and aloof, but the flowering trees were touching branch to branch, and the rows of poplars were casting swaying shadows. There was scent in the air, and every hill was different from the others. On some of them stood houses surrounded by olives and rows of cypresses leading to the house. The road wound through all these soft hills. It was a sparkling morning, full of intense beauty, and there seemed to be an extraordinary order, but the whole chain of ( man's inner disorder and/or ?) misery was stretching unseen from house to house. Spring, summer, autumn and winter never broke this chain. But that morning ( in Nature ) there was a rebirth. Those tender leaves never knew the winter nor the coming autumn; they were vulnerable and therefore innocent.

He was an artist, a painter. He said he had a talent for it as another might have a talent for the building of bridges. He had long hair, delicate hands and was ( comfortably ?) enclosed within the (day dreaming ?) of his own gifts. He would come out of it - talk, explain - and then go back into his own 'den'. He said his paintings were selling and he had had several one-man exhibitions. He was rather proud of this, and his voice told of it.

K: There is the 'artist' and the 'museum-keeper', the 'orchestra conductor' (etc... ?), each ( safely ?) living within a fragment of life, each fragment becoming extraordinarily 'important', having its own honours, its own social dignity, its own 'prophets'. The 'religious' fragment is unrelated to the 'factory' (one) , and the 'factory' (fragment is unrelated ) to the 'artist'; society is made up of these 'fragments', with the 'reformer' trying to patch up the broken pieces. But through(out) these 'specialized' parts, the human being carries on with his ( personal) anxieties, guilt and apprehensions.

(However ?) in the ( 'psychological' area?) we are all 'related' in our common greed, (competitivity ?) and aggression, and this ( shared heritage of ?) violence builds the culture and the society in which we live. It is our ( dualistic mentality ?) that divides the 'mind' from the 'heart' , and in this ( self-induced ?) duality the whole culture of man expands and/or contracts. The unity of mankind is not (to be found ?) in any of the (fragmentary ) structures which the (human ?) 'mind' has invented. Between 'love' and 'hate' there can be no unity, and yet this is what the ( fragmentary?) mind is trying to find and establish. ( An authentic sense of ?) unity lies ( in stepping ?) outside this field (of dualistical experience ?) , but ( the self-centred ?) thought (process) cannot reach it. ( The fragmentary process of human ?) thought has constructed this culture of aggression , competition and war, and yet this same 'thought' is groping after order and peace. But thought will never find order and peace, do what it will. Thought ( the mechanical response of the 'known' ?) must be 'silent' for love to be.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Dec 2015 #85
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: On Silence ( From the Only Rev, 1969)

Meditation is always new. It has not the touch of the past for it has no "continuity". It is like the light of a candle which has been put out and relit. The new light is not the old, though the candle is the same. Meditation has a 'continuity' only when thought shapes it and gives it a 'purpose'. The 'purpose' and 'meaning' of meditation given by ( our self-centred thinking or ?) 'thought' becomes a 'time-binding' bondage ( or a lucrative endeavour ?) . But the ( authentic ?) meditation that is not touched by thought has its own ( vertical ?) 'movement', which is not of time. Time implies a ( "horizontal" ?) movement flowing from the roots of 'yesterday' to 'tomorrow'. But ( the time-free action of ?) meditation is a different flowering altogether. It is not the outcome of the experience of yesterday, and therefore it has no roots at all in time. It has a 'continuity' (a consistency ?) which is not that of time. The 'meditation of today' is a new awakening, a new flowering of the beauty of goodness.


It was a spring morning, and there were great patches of bluebells in the wood, and beside the wood was the yellow mustard field, stretching almost to the horizon; and then the green wheatfield that stretched as far as the eye could see. The road passed villages and towns, and a side road led to a lovely wood with new fresh spring leaves and the smell of damp earth; and there was that peculiar feeling of spring, and the newness of life. You were very close to nature then as you watched the trees, the new delicate leaf, and the stream that went by. It was not a romantic feeling or an imaginative sensation, but actually you 'were' (one with ?) all this - the blue sky and the expanding earth.

He was a big man with very large hands, and he filled that enormous chair. He had a kindly face and he was interested in that peculiar philosophy of the origin and acceptance of Silence - which probably he had never come upon.

K: You can't buy silence as you would buy a good cheese. The (sense of inner ?) silence that music produces as you listen to it is the (by-) product of that music, induced by it. Silence isn't a (personal ?) 'experience'; you know it only when it is over.
Do sit, sometime, on the bank of a river and look into the water. Don't get 'hypnotized' by the movement of the water, by the light, the clarity and the depth of the stream. Look at it without any ( interfering ?) movement of thought. The silence is all round you, in you, in the river, and in those trees that are utterly still. You can't 'hold it' in your mind and think you have achieved some extraordinary state. If you have, then it is not ( a living ?) silence; then it is merely a romantic escape from the daily noise of (your) life.

Because of ( the inner space of ?) Silence everything exists. The music you heard this morning came to you out of silence, and you heard it because you were silent, and it went beyond you in silence.
Only that we don't listen to this ( inward ?) 'silence' because our ears are full of the chatter of our mind. When you love, and there is no ( free inner space of ?) silence, thought makes of it a plaything of a society whose culture is (based on greed and/or ?) envy and whose 'gods' are put together by the mind and the hand. Silence is where you are, in yourself and beside yourself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Dec 2015 #86
Thumb_3135 Jo D United Kingdom 12 posts in this forum Offline

" It was not a romantic feeling or an imaginative sensation, but actually you 'were' (one with ?) all this - the blue sky and the expanding earth."

I like the way he makes the distinction here, although I would say that sometimes the romantic or imaginative can be a precursor to a visit to the real, but there is the possibility of getting stuck just in the romantic or the imaginative too.

"Don't get 'hypnotized' by the movement of the water, by the light, the clarity and the depth of the stream. Look at it without any ( interfering ?) movement of thought."

One of the things I am starting to learn from K and from reading the forum (thank you), is seeing the moment of an automatic internal sprinting away from something. It happens a lot and those are just the ones I notice. Also, the idea of the movement of mind, until recently I had never thought of it as a movement before.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Dec 2015 #87
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

Two K Lessons du Jour (from The Only Revolution, 1969) Intelligence and Relationship

Meditation is the summation of all (one's inner ressources of ?) energy. It is not to be gathered little by little, denying this and denying that, capturing this and holding on to that; but rather, it is the total denial, without any choice, of all wasteful (loops of ?) energy. ( Inwardly speaking ?) 'choice' is the outcome of confusion; and the essence of this wasteful energy is confusion and conflict. To see clearly what 'is' at any time needs the ( integrated ?) attention of all energy; and in this there is no contradiction or duality. This ( integration of our ?) 'total energy' does not come about through the action of 'will' because ( our self-centred ?) thought is involved in it, and ( such ?) thought is wasted energy: perception never is. There is no "I will see", but only 'seeing'. ( Direct ?) observation puts aside (by-passes ?) the 'observer', and in this there is no waste of energy. The ( all-controlling ?) 'thinker' who attempts to observe, spoils this energy. Love is not wasted energy, but when thought makes it into pleasure, then pain dissipates energy. The summation of energy in meditation is ever expanding, and one's action in everyday life becomes part of it.


The poplar this morning was being stirred by the breeze that came from the west. Every leaf was telling something to the breeze; every leaf was dancing, restless in its joy of the spring morning. The blackbird on the roof was singing. It was there every morning and evening, sometimes sitting quietly looking all around and at other times calling and waiting for a reply. It would be there for several minutes and then fly off. Now its yellow beak was bright in the early light. As it flew away the clouds were coming over the roof, the horizon was filled with them, one on top of another, as though someone had very carefully arranged them in neat order. They were moving, and it seemed as if the whole earth was being carried by them - the chimneys, the television antennae and the very tall building across the way. They presently passed, and there was the blue, spring sky, clear, with the light freshness that only spring can bring. It was extraordinarily blue and, at that time of the morning, the street outside was almost silent. You could hear the noise of feet on the pavement and in the distance a lorry went by. The day would soon begin. As you looked out of the window at the poplar you saw the ( living ?) universe, the beauty of it.


Q: What is to you 'intelligence'? You talk a great deal about it and I would like to know your opinion of it.

K: However good and reasonable, opinion is not the truth. Opinion is always biased, coloured by the culture, the education, the knowledge which one has. Why should the mind be burdened (loaded ?) with opinions at all, why shouldn't the mind be empty? Only when it is empty can it see clearly.

Q: My opinion of the present political leader has been formed by what he has said and done, and without that opinion I would not be able to vote for him. Opinions are necessary for action, aren't they?

K: Our opinions can be cultivated, sharpened and hardened, and most actions (resulting from these ?) are based on the principle of 'like and dislike' ( freedom of choice ?) . The 'hardening' ( crystalisation ?) of our experience and knowledge expresses itself in action, but such action (based on past experience ?) divides , separates and prevents the observation of what actually is. The seeing of 'what (actually) is' is part of that ( quality of ?) 'intelligence' which you are asking about. There is no ( holistic ?) Intelligence if there is no sensitivity of the body and of the mind - the sensitivity of feeling and the clarity of ( direct) observation. Being sensitive in one area and dull in another leads to ( an internal) contradiction and ( to an inner state of ?) conflict - which deny intelligence. The ( effort to ?) integrate the many broken parts ( of our psyche ?) into a whole does not bring about intelligence. (The total) sensitivity (of one's being ?) is attention, which is intelligence. This 'intelligence' has nothing to do with ( the amount of accumulated ?) knowledge or information. Knowledge is always the (result of the ?) past (human experience ?) ; it can be 'called upon' to act in the present but it also limits the present. ( The perceptive action of ?) intelligence is always in the present, and not of time.


Meditation is (an unique opportunity for ?) freeing of the mind from all dishonesty. ( The 'self'-centred process of ?) thought breeds dishonesty. Thought, in its attempts to be 'honest' , is comparative and therefore (is subliminally ?) dishonest. All ( outward ?) comparison is a process of ( self-?) evasion and hence breeds dishonesty. Honesty is not the ( intellectual ?) opposite of dishonesty, but rather it is the total perception of 'what is'. And meditation is the movement (the inward activity ?) of this ( perceptive ?) 'honesty' in silence.


The day began rather cloudy and dull, and the naked trees were silent in the wood. Through the wood you could see crocuses, daffodils and bright yellow forsythia. You looked at it all from a distance and it was a patch of yellow against a green lawn. As you came close to it you were blinded by the brightness of that yellow - which was 'God' (the expression of Divinity ?) . It was not that you identified yourself with the colour, or that you became the expanse that filled the universe with yellow - but there was no 'you' to look at it. Only 'it' (the colour ?) existed, and nothing else - not the voices around you, not the blackbird singing its melody of the morning, not the voices of the passers-by, not the noisy car that scraped by you on the road. 'It' existed, nothing else. And beauty and love were (included ?) in that 'existence'. You walked back into the wood. The ground was soft with winter's leaves, and here the earth seemed very old. There were few birds. The blackbird was calling, and the sky was clearing.
When you went back in the evening the sky was very clear and the light on these huge trees was strange and full of silent movement. Light is an extraordinary thing; the more you watch it the deeper and vaster it becomes; and in its 'movement' the trees were caught. It was startling; no canvas could have caught the beauty of that Light. It was more than the light of the setting sun; it was as though Love was on the land. You saw again that yellow patch of forsythia, and the earth rejoiced.


She came with her two daughters but left them to play outside. She was a young woman, rather nice-looking and quite well dressed; she seemed rather impatient and capable. She said her husband worked in some kind of office, and life went by. She had a peculiar sadness which was covered up with a swift smile.

Q: What is ( the truth about the human ?) 'relationship'? I have been married to my husband for some years now. I suppose we love each other - but there is something terribly lacking in it.

K: You really want to go into this deeply?

Q: Yes, I have come a long way to talk to you about it.

K: Your husband works in his office, and you work in your house, both of you with your ( personal) ambitions, frustrations, agonies and fears. He wants to be a big executive, enclosed in his search for ( professional) fulfilment, and you in yours. He comes home tired, irritable, with ( a sense of incertitude and ?) fear in his heart, and brings home that tension. You also are tired after your long day, with the children, and all the rest of it. You and he take a drink to ease your nerves, and fall into uneasy conversation. After some talk - food, and then the inevitable 'bed'. This is what is ( generally ?) called 'relationship' - each one having in his own self-centred activity and ( eventually ?) meeting in bed; this (whole ' family package' ?) is called 'love'. Of course, there is a little tenderness, a little consideration, a pat or two on the head for the children. Then there will follow old age and death. This is what is ( generally ) called 'living'. And you ( subliminally ?) accept this way of life.

Q: But what else can one do? We are brought up in it, educated for it. We want security, some of the good things of life. I don't see what else one can do.

K: Is it (our deeply embedded?) 'desire for security' that binds us? Or is it the ( implicit ?) acceptance of the pattern of society - the idea of 'having a family'? Surely in all this there is very little happiness?

Q: There is some happiness, but there is too much to do, too many things to see to. There is so much to read if one is to be well-informed. There isn't much time to think (it all over ?) . Obviously one is not really happy, but one just carries on.

K: So, all this is called 'living in relationship' - but obviously there is no ( true ?) relationship at a deeper and wider level. It is the fault of society, isn't it, of the ( superficial ?) culture in which we have been brought up and in which we so easily get caught? It is a corrupt and immoral society which human beings have created and it cannot be changed unless the human being who has built it changes himself.

Q: I may perhaps understand what you say, and maybe change, but what of him? It gives him great pleasure to strive, to achieve, to become somebody. He is not going to change, and so we are back again where we were - l, feebly attempting to break through my enclosure, and he more and more strengthening his narrow cell of life. What is the point of it all?

K: There is no point in this kind of existence at all. We have made this life, the everyday brutality and ugliness of it, with occasional flashes of delight; so we must (psychologically ?) 'die' to it all. You know, madam, ( inwardly speaking ?) there is no 'tomorrow'. 'Tomorrow' is the 'invention' (projection ?) of ( our self-centred ?) thought in order to achieve its shoddy (materialistic ?) ambitions and fulfilment. Thought builds the (collective illusion ?) of many ( possibly better ?) 'tomorrows', but actually there is no ( such ?) 'tomorrow'. To ( inwardly ?) 'die' to ( your personal expectations for a better ?) 'tomorrow' is to live completely 'today'. When you do this, the whole (significance ?) of our existence changes. For Love is not ( to be found ?) 'tomorrow', love has no 'past' or 'future'. When you live completely today there is a great intensity in it, and in its beauty - which is untouched by ambition, by jealousy or by time - there is relationship not only with man but with nature, with the flowers, the earth and the heavens. In that ( sense of unity with All that Is ?) there is the intensity of innocence; living, then, has a wholly different meaning.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Dec 2015 #88
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 675 posts in this forum Offline

A new K Lesson du Jour: Meditating from the Unknown ( From The Only Revolution - 1969)

You can never ( purposefully ?) 'set about' to meditate: it must 'happen' without your seeking it out. If you ask 'how' to meditate, then the ( adopted ?) 'method' will not only condition you further but also ( may ?) strengthen your own present conditioning. ( The essential action of an 'insight'- based ?) meditation is the denial of the whole structure of ( the 'self'-centred ?) thought. This process of thought can be reasonable or unreasonable, but when it tries to 'meditate', it will take its own ( ego-centric ?) structure as a 'serious' (given ?) reality. It is like a believer meditating upon his own belief; he strengthens and sanctifies that which he has created. The sound (induced by words ?) makes its own cage, and then the noise of thought is of the cage, and it is this (verbal process ?) and its 'sound' which divides the 'observer' and the 'observed'. ( Inwardly ?) the 'word' is not only a ( conventional ?) unit of language, but also a ( powerful ?) symbol, an (emotionally charged ?) recollection of any event which unleashes the movement of thought. Meditation is the complete absence of this 'word' ( of the 'psycho-verbal' process ?) . The root of fear is ( embedded within ?) this 'machinery of words'.

It was early spring and in the Bois (de Boulogne ) it was strangely gentle. There were few new leaves, and the sky was not yet that intense blue that comes with the delight of spring. The ( flowers of the ?) chestnuts were not yet out, but the early smell of spring was in the air. In that part of the Bois there was hardly anybody, and you could hear the cars going by in the distance. We were walking in the early morning and there was that gentle sharpness of the early spring. He had been discussing, questioning, and asking what he should do (inwardly ?) .

Q: It seems so endless, this constant self-analysis, introspective examination, this ( inner ?) 'vigilance'. I have tried several systems of meditation and it leaves one rather dry-mouthed and hollow.

K: Why don't you begin ( to meditate ?) from the 'other shore' which you cannot probably see from 'this shore' ? Begin with the 'unknown' (from 'not-knowing' ?) rather than with the 'known', for this constant self-examination, ( 'psycho'-) analysis, only strengthens and further conditions the ( anchoring in the ?) known. If the ( meditating ?) mind lives (inwardly) from the 'other end', then all these ( psychological ?) problems will not exist.

Q: But how am I to 'begin from the other end'? I don't know it, I can't see it.

K: When you ask: "How am I to begin from the other end?" you are still asking the question from this ( 'known' shore ?). So don't ( bother to ?) ask , but ( just ?) start from the other shore (of 'Not-knowing' ?), from that (inward ?) dimension which the cunning ( 'self'-centred?) thought cannot capture.

Q: I just can't see how I am going to 'begin from that end'. I don't really understand your vague (metaphorical ?) statement which to me is quite meaningless. I can 'go' only towards something that I know (or intuit ?) .

K: But ( inwardly ?) what do you ( actually ?) know? You 'know' only about something which is already finished, which is over. You know only the (things you experienced ?) 'yesterday', and we are saying: Begin from that (state of mind in ?) which you 'don't know', and live from there. If you say: "How am I to live from there?" then you are inviting the patterns of yesterday. But if you 'live with the unknown' you are ( inwardly ?) living in freedom, acting from freedom, and, after all, that is ( the holistic action of ?) love. Surely love is not a ( personal ?) memory, a remembrance of pleasure. Since it isn't, then live with that ( inner actuality ?) which you don't 'know'.

Q: I really don't know what you are talking about. You are making the problem worse (sound impossible ?) .

K; l'm asking you a very simple thing. I'm saying that the more you 'dig' (analitically ?) , the more there is. This very 'digging' is the (central activity of self-centred ?) conditioning, and each 'shovelful' creates ( still deeper ?) steps which lead nowhere (in terms of direct inward perception ?) . You want new steps made for you which will lead to a totally different ( inner ?) dimension. But if you actually don't know what that dimension is then whatever 'steps' you tread can lead only to something which is already known. So 'drop all this' (self-analytical approach ?) and start from the 'other end'. Just be ( inwardly ?) 'silent', and ( eventually ?) you will find it out.

Q: But I don't know how to be 'silent'!

K: There you are, back again in the ('self'-motivated attempt to "know- ?) how", and there is no end to this "how".
( In a nutshell: ) All 'knowing' is on the wrong side ( of Spirituality ?) . If you 'know', you are ( inwardly ?) already in your 'grave'. The (spiritual essence of ?) 'being' is not ( to be found in ?) the 'knowing'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Dec 2015 #89
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 150 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
In a nutshell: ) All 'knowing' is on the wrong side ( of Spirituality ?) . If you 'know', you are ( inwardly ?) already in your 'grave'. The (spiritual essence of ?) 'being' is not ( to be found in ?) the 'knowing'.

Quite a nutshell!

Thought seemed like an 'addiction' this morning, pulling one away from the sounds around: the birds, the kitchen sounds, the music, one's own breathing.... But when there was a 'silence', one felt oneself to be in the present and the "tomorrow" psychologically was not there that 'allows' us to disregard what is happening in the moment. Thought seemed to want to fill the 'vacuum' of that quietness. You posted yesterday your "take" on a talk by K, that it was as if he was speaking to another, dormant part of his listener's brains, I recall that he has said as much.'Meditation', I think, needs to also 'come' from this part of the brain, this unknown, unawakened, place.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Dec 2015 #90
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 4 posts in this forum Offline

"This process of thought can be reasonable or unreasonable, but when it tries to 'meditate', it will take its own ( ego-centric ?) structure as a 'serious' (given ?) reality. It is like a believer meditating upon his own belief; he strengthens and sanctifies that which he has created. " (K)

Wow...thanks for the excerpt from 'the Only Revolution, John. This is very relevant to what was being discussed today on Clive's forum..."dying to the known". I may copy the whole excerpt over there later because it speaks directly to Clive's topic of today.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 716 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.)